All Activity

It wouldn't surprise me if taking a picture in front of a temple was part of them trying to do missionary work on whatever social media they are in.

While not my style, I see nothing wrong with a disaffected or former member speaking out or criticizing the church on whatever platform they choose. I fully support their right to do this, I just think it's a bad idea. I have similar sentiments about people who go online and publicly badmouth their spouse or child or parent. They certainly have the legal and societal right to say such things, but in the main "airing the family's dirty laundry" - family members publicizing what ought to be resolved privately and personally, and doing so for purposes such as social media clout, clicks, notoriety, self-aggrandizement, etc. - is a bad idea. So I see this as "morally" wrong, not legally wrong. And family members who go online to badmouth spouse, parent, child, etc. are likewise putting their familial relationships at risk, or at least are doing things which have a reasonably foreseeable possibility of injuring those relationships. Perhaps you could clarify the oddity. If I go online to publicly express admiration and respect and high regard for my wife, do you find that morally equivalent to me going online and publicly expressing contempt and disgust and doubt about her decency as a human being? If you go online and post something on Facebook about how much you enjoy working for your employer, do you think your employer would react the same way to that as it would if you were to post something on Facebook about how despicable and morally depraved your employer is? That is the church's problem really. Here is my perspective: If I were to go online and publicly slander my wife's reputation and decency as a human being, and if I were to publicly accuse her of profound dishonesty and hypocrisy, and if I were to publicly compare her to the East German Secret Police, known for mass surveillance, psychological destruction of dissidents, illegal imprisonment, torture (including sexual torture: "Women and girls from the age of 12 were rounded up by the East German criminal police on suspicion of having sexually transmitted infections ... The women and girls were taken to secure sexual health clinics ... where they were detained for weeks at a time and systematically abused. The testimonies of women held in the clinics include accounts of rape and torture."), and killings at the Berlin Wall, and if I were to publicly juxtapose her supposed deplorable character with my own self-declared virtues (using phrases like "Well, all I've done is tell the truth"), and if I were to publicly declare all these terrible things about her while knowing that she has scruples and moral ethics against engaging in such publicly problematic behavior, then I feel I would be putting my wife in a genuine dilemma. I am effectively coercing her into A) adhering to her own scruples and moral ethics and remaining silent in the face of such serious allegations (and thus possibly give the impression that she is not disputing them), or B) abandoning her scruples and moral ethics and engaging in behaviors she finds both morally problematic but necessary to rebut published accusations against her moral character and decency as a human being. Now, if I were to do this, do you think you would say "That's your wife's problem, really"? Legally, you are entirely correct. Similarly, I am under no legal obligation to not publicly speak to tear down my wife's reputation and character and decency as a human being. But if I value my relationship with her, I would probably think that the relationship does impose some sort of "obligation to not" publicly disparage her (not a legal obligation, mind you). I don't think Nemo can have it both ways (I mean, he can't have it both ways and still remain credible). If he valued his relationship with and membership in the Church, he would not behave in the ways he has been behaving for many years. We're not talking about a one-off heat-of-the-moment intemperate remark here, but rather the years-long public campaign against his own religious community. Seems to me that he is referring to restriction on speaking at church events. I agree, but he did not say that. Those not familiar with our faith may not realize that his comments only pertain to a funeral conducted by the Church as one of its own meetings, and typically using its own facilities. Same goes for weddings. Keep in mind he said all this stuff to the author of the piece in the same space in which he publicly accused the Church of exercising a "Stasi-esque level of control" over the lives of its members. He is working very hard to make the Church look as terrible as possible, and himself as sympathetic and grand as possible: “I'm still really Mormon in just so many ways. You could describe me as Mormon still, even though they've taken my membership away, in just so many parts of my life. I am still the same as I always was.” “I'd done my best to make sure that everything I said was factual and defensible and so if they did try and excommunicate me, I would always be able to say ‘Well, all I've done is tell the truth'." "I think the values the church instilled in me are still there, particularly values around honesty and looking for the truth. It's just a shame [church leaders] weren't willing to live up to those values, I suppose.” Civil weddings held in a church building are, I think, also church meetings. Moreover, during the ceremony itself the bishop speaks (he is officiating), but that's typically about it (I am open to correction here). And I agree that the Church would not attempt to impose restrictions "off premises." But Nemo does not point any of this out. Instead, he is characterizing the Church as exercising a "Stasi-esque level of control" over the lives of its members, and then pairing that characterization with "I can't speak at my parents' funeral!" and "I can't speak at a family member's funeral!", leaving readers not familiar with our beliefs and practices to draw pretty much the worst possible inferences about us. Utter bilge. If Nemo is selling or endorsing this sort of nonsense, shame on him. I think this is in reference to the outer darkness question. While I think that misconstrues LDS doctrine, I have run into many that think LDS apostates who had a solid "testimony" and leave are headed for outer darkness. That's interesting. I have never met a single Latter-day Saint who has expressed such an idea. The Church teaches a tripartite conceptualization of heaven, with even the worst of us eventually receiving a kingdom of glory "which surpasses all understanding" (D&C 76:89). We frankly don't often speak of the Sons of Perdition, and again, I have never heard a conversant Latter-day Saint equate leaving the Church with that category of persons. Nemo, I suspect, knows all this. "{I}f one turns away from said oath" is not reflective of the language of D&C 84:41, in which "{A}ltogether turneth therefrom" is markedly different from "it says if one turns away from said oath" because the latter is forgivable and the former is not. And note that the loss of forgiveness comes only if the individual has "turn{ed} away completely from their covenants and do{es} not repent." I think D&C 84:41 is one of the reasons some have surmised that only priesthood holders - men - can be cast into Outer Darkness (which is why "Sons of Perdition" is a notably and specifically a gendered phrase). This is overwrought nonsense. I agree this is a silly comparison. The comparison casts the Church as morally equivalent to the Secret Police in East Germany, known for mass surveillance, psychological destruction of dissidents, illegal imprisonment, torture (including sexual torture), and killings at the Berlin Wall. In my view, "silly" doesn't come close to capturing the seriousness of this mischaracterization. A while back I had a friend give me a candid assessment of his perspective on the Latter-day Saints (he used to be a member). His remarks were wide-ranging. At one point he said that all Latter-day Saints who disagree with same-sex marriage are bigots. I asked him if he thought there is room for people to have reasoned and principled disagreement with SSM, and he said no, and that bigotry is the only possible explanation, and that to disagree with SSM is per se bigotry. I asked him to confirm what he was saying (that "disagreement" with X amounts to "bigotry" against X), and he said yes. I told him that this use (equating disagreement with bigotry) is not an accurate or fair statement, to which he shrugged and said that this is how his "generation" defines "bigot." I then said something like this: "I don't think you can say that. You are basically putting disagreement with same-sex marriage on the same moral plane as being a wife-beater or child molester." He responded by leaning forward, looking at me square in the eye, and saying "Yeah." It was a sobering and discouraging experience. I think the "how weatlthy they were" refers to the Church and not church leaders. At least I read it that way. Perhaps. Odd, though, that he says "They distrust us" rather that "It {the Church} distrusts us." If he meant to refer to a singular entity/institution, why did he say "they" and juxtapose that group (the Church) with the members of the Church (also the Church)? Below you say Nemo's content is "thorough and accurate." Do you think his remarks here reflect that scrupulosity? I don't. And nor do I think it was just inadvertent, as it reflects the pattern of his content as always slanted, always intended to cast the Church in the worst possible light, always calculated to encourage readers to draw the worst possible conclusions and inferences about the Church and its leaders and members. Some truth, yes. But also a lot of unsubstantiated stuff. And quite a bit of critical gloss and slant. He looks for the worst possible light as to any particular issue, then casts the Church in that light. This is, for him, "the truth." I have listened to Nemo in the past. I think this a gross mischaracterization of the critical material he presents. He is thorough and accurate. Again: Funny how different perspectives can look at the same set of facts and come away with such divergent conclusions and assessments. I have watched a number of his videos. They are reliably and heavily slanted against the Church, to the point of mischaracterization (not unlike what he has done in participating in the article in the OP). If I have time I'll go back and look for the instances where I have found him to be a less-than-reliable narrator about the Church. Or rather the fruits of actually understanding that the claims of the Church in regards to it founding are false. From the article: This characterization of where Nemo stands seems to be at odds with yours ("the fruits of actually understanding that the claims of the Church in regards to it founding are false"). Are you saying he has arrived at this "understanding?" Thanks, -Smac

What I've observed is that it is robots arguing with robots. I kind of get it because one of the people you discuss with is fond of endless gish gallops and sophistry. Someone would need to quit their job to respond to that endless sophistry. But the question is that worth anyone's time? Is it even worth an AI's time? Wouldn't muting that person be more sane? Honestly the historicity question of the BOM isn't THAT complicated. It's completely ruled out by mainstream Biblical scholarship, for instance. The only people who treat it as a serious question are those with a theological axe to grind.

Heard about that. Sad. Risky sport. He's not the first one, of course. And the video above had the wingsuiter passing between the tops of trees, close enough to almost pick a twig or two. Could just as well slammed into it. You wouldn't catch me doing these things! But people die on the roads every day. People die while parachuting. And while snow skiing. Car racing. Spelunking. One of my sons was severely injured while working as a roofer. What drone is it? I have a DJI Mini 2 that I have enjoyed immensely. Used it last week to check my roof for a possible missing tile. Here's a drone footage video that I put together from various flights in England.

I agree with your sentiment in general. What I'm doing on this particular thread is a little different than that, though. In 2019, Bruce Dale and Brian Dale did a paper attempting to use Bayesian Analysis to determine if the Book of Mormon was historical, and then in 2021, Kyler Rasmussen tried to do the same thing. I think both of these analyses were incredibly flawed regarding what they considered to be evidence, how the weighted it, what they ignored, and catastrophically, how they assumed all of the data points they evaluated were independent. The result is double/triple/quadruple/etc. counting evidence that is all driven by the same underlying factors, and counting as evidence two things that indicate it is "true", but in contradictory ways, and ignoring things that didn't support the conclusions they were trying to reach. Meanwhile, I've been accused of not looking at the alleged evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon carefully enough, and being too overconfident in my belief that it just isn't plausible. I'm interested in challenging myself and evaluating this in a way that is more serious than what Dale, Dale, and Rasmussen did. Part of the problem here is that evaluating the totality of the evidence in a logically coherent way and keeping track of the covariances gets extremely complicated. Furthermore, I acknowledge the existence of my own biases, and want a mechanism to help me evaluate these things objectively. One possible solution to all of this would be to hire several research assistants and engage in a major research project that dives into it. But because of financial constraints, that just isn't possible. This project is something similar--what if I had AI agents act as my research assistants? They would evaluate the evidence, look at both sides, carefully look at constraints and covariances, and then compile the whole thing in a way that wouldn't cause Thomas Bayes to roll in his grave. So this isn't about having my AI debate somebody else's. Rather, it is using AI in a pretty sophisticated way to do my own research on the alleged evidence supporting the BoM.

I think they intend the "remnant" to refer to the remnant Lamanites/Nephites.

And I fear it will continue to get less and less. Unfortunately. I still remember the days when Teancum was a defender of the faith. Sigh. But you can always come back, brother. I'm sure you know that, but I wanted to say it anyway. We'd be happy to have you back. As Joseph Smith once wrote to W.W. Phelps: "Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, for friends at first are friends again at last.”

Exactly. I think that baptism, communion, endowment, sealings, etc should be understood as initiation rites into a community. In the Book of Mormon, particularly at the waters of Mormon, baptism is quite clearly portrayed as such, communion literally means "participation in something; that which is common to all; union in religious worship, doctrine, or discipline" (I have no idea how it came to be called "the sacrament" in Mormonism), and the temple endowment was literally modeled after initiation rites for the preeminent social club of the early 19th century. Somewhere along the way, though, these sacraments lost their role as communal initiation and became magical means to secure a spot in heaven.

There's an irony here you're overlooking. Thank you for sharing your perspective on this. If the effort amounts to a (mis)appropriation and use of familial relationships and access, and if the effort is subversive (that is, contravening and interfering with the parents' efforts to raise their own minor children), then yes, I think Latter-day Saints would not like that. And I think that concern/objection is or can be justified. I am generally supportive of the Marketplace of Ideas. People can and do disagree with each other in that marketplace. For example, you say "Christians don't appreciate Mormons actively telling them..." I disagree with your juxtaposition of "Christians" as being a group separate from "Mormons." To me, that's like differentiating "dogs" from "mammals." The latter is a broad category, and includes the former. Nevertheless, I fully support your right to say this. Free speech is great. The Marketplace of Ideas is great. I think the calculus changes a bit when family members are attempting to subvert parental efforts to raise children. Perhaps you could clarify what you think my reasoning is. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, much ado, but there are those with questions, and sometimes serious questions. Some questions should be answered. You could characterize it that way. It isn't, but so what, a reminder of the covenants and my commitment to keeping them is definitely in order and very appropriate. I was in the London temple yesterday, and felt a strong desire to just stay there. A refuge from the world is of great value, and that is what it is. It wasn't being viewed as new or controversial that there was a renewal of covenants. The original Quora questioner was viewing a supposed giving up of the supposed principle of temple covenant renewal as new or controversial. Again, this was on the Ex-Mormon Quora Space, so the complaint was more an attack on the church than anything else. One that I felt needed a response. I just wanted to see what others thought of the question, and possibly my response to it.

The same thought once occurred to me, as well, but I stopped worrying about it after taking on board a sentiment a Protestant once expressed to me about baptism (or, any ordinance whatsoever) as being just "magical sacramentalism." Earlier this year (2026) I flew to the US to spend some time in my house there, but managed to come down sick with something my wife and stepson had caught but I thought I had escaped. I was housebound for three weeks (lost 20 pounds!) until I flew back to the UK, and wasn't able to attend church (I didn't want to infect anyone with it). On the airplane heading back I was still not doing very well, but was not worried about the airplane going down without having been able to partake of the sacrament for three whole weeks -- actually four, because I was still sick as a dog the next Sunday as well.

There are plenty of things that are harmless in that way, I think. Including the false notion that the Book of Mormon lands are in the Heartland. Yuck, yuck, don't anyone derail the thread, please, I just couldn't help myself. 🤪 The original question was that the church was no longer teaching it, and wondering why (implying the church was changing its teachings again, dang them!). When the Apostle Paul strongly suggests that the sacrament should not be partaken of by the unworthy, and the Lord says that the unworthy need to repent before partaking, I take it that the sacrament has something to do with repentance and forgiveness, just as baptism does. When @Notatbm said that he used to worry about dying between sinning and partaking of the sacrament, it reminded me that I have thought similarly in the past. But it ought to be clear that partaking of the sacrament is not a saving ordinance, in itself. The dead who are baptized by proxy have no opportunity to partake of the sacrament after that ordinance is performed, but the baptism alone suffices for their repentance, whenever it occurred in the spirit world. I feel that the sacrament is more of an opportunity to express our continuing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and our willingness to strive to keep His commandments, rather than a touchpoint for forgiveness. Forgiveness comes from His grace, not an outward ordinance. He still desires us to partake it as opportunity occurs (D&C 20:75), and so we should strive to do so as often as possible. The sacrament prayers themselves promise only "that they may have his Spirit to be with them," not that last week's sins be forgiven.

While not my style, I see nothing wrong with a disaffected or former member speaking out or criticizing the church on whatever platform they choose. And that if they are a member still, they have to know they put their membership at risk. And they should not feign surprise when the church acts against then as far as membership is concerned. Odd that you seem quite happy with he apologists that make a name for themselves but seem to frown at a critic doing the same. Why is that? That is the church's problem really. He is under no obligation to not speak about his church council. Seems to me that he is referring to restriction on speaking at church events. I don't imagine if a wedding is held at an LDS church he would be allowed to speak. Of premises, there would be no restiction. I think this is in reference to the outer darkness question. While I think that misconstrues LDS doctrine, I have run into many that think LDS apostates who had a solid "testimony" and leave are headed for outer darkness. And for priesthood holders, there is that Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood where it says if one turns away from said oath, there is no forgiveness in this world or the next. I agree this is a silly comparison. Indeed. I think the "how weatlthy they were" refers to the Church and not church leaders. At least I read it that way. I have listened to Nemo in the past. I think this a gross mischaracterization of the critical material he presents. He is thorough and accurate. Or rather the fruits of actually understanding that the claims of the Church in regards to it founding are false.

I really don't get all the threads where people have their robot argue with someone else's robot. What's the point? IMO this forum would be better off if all AI was prohibited. AI removes all meaning from these discussions, even if it gets things right.

There's an irony here you're overlooking. You say it's understandable that Mormons wouldn't like a family member actively and regularly speaking against the church. I guess that's fair. But then surely you can understand why Christians don't appreciate Mormons actively telling them that their church lacks priesthood authority Christ intended his church to have. Mormon missionaries literally knock on Christian's doors with a message that says Christianity is missing everything that is essential for a Christian church. Should you apply your reasoning in both directions?

I can understand the thrill of doing something like this, but it's also insane. Especially considering this recent news item in Utah that happened last Sunday morning: BASE jumper dies after wingsuit failure in Cache County I was recently given a drone as a gift of appreciation from the company I work for. I had never considered buying a drone myself, but I have really enjoyed it. I definitely prefer taking videos of high places from the safety of my RC controller screen instead of dropping from the sky myself.

It is odd. If one no longer believes then it is sorta like "who cares." But maybe there is a but of "but what if...?" I still get this at times though it is less and less.

I am no respecter of chocolates. Almost anything will do in a pinch. As for Hershey's, in particular, it's fine for s'mores. And those nuggets they make - the ones with toffee / almonds - are a pretty good substitute when I can't find a Symphony bar for popcorn night (as I require chocolate with popcorn). They have some 'special dark' truffle-like candies that are pretty eatable as well.

Much ado…IMHO. One can renew one’s covenants at any time simply by recommitting in prayer or worship to those covenants. The verbiage of the sacrament prayer does that for us and our amen to that verbiage is thus understood as a renewal of baptismal covenants. While acting as a proxy in temple ordinances, I hear the words of the covenants and while accepting those covenants on behalf of another, I am certainly able to have in my mind and heart a desire to reaffirm my own commitment to those covenants. I think it’s fair to characterize that as a renewal of my commitment to keep temple covenants. Not sure why that concept would be viewed as new or controversial.

That is unfortunate. My extended family has had a lot of folks leave the Church, but we are generally doing well at maintaining relationships built on enduring love and connection. I think it's understandable that Latter-day Saints would not like a family member - while a member of the Church - actively and regularly speaking against the Church as Nemo has been doing for years. That said, the "equating it to having a paedophile in the family" thing is unfortunate, but I wonder how much of that is him rather than what has actually been said. "{W}e don't want our children around you" is a very far cry from "Having you in the family is equivalent to having a paedophile in the family." I have a friend who strongly surmises (but has not yet definitively confirmed) that his then-young adult son, while living at home with his siblings, went out of his way, secretly, to persuade his siblings (most of which were minors) to leave the Church. My friend has struggled with this, as he feels his son misused his family relationships to interfere with his (my friend's) efforts to raise his other children. In circumstances such as those, I could understand why Latter-day Saint parents would be reluctant to have an anti-Mormon relative who has spent years building an anti-Mormon social media platform interact with their minor children. Perhaps their lack of trust in his ability to "stay in his lane" and let them raise their children as they see fit is not entirely without foundation. I'd like to better understand whether a family member actually did compare him to a pedophile, or if that is what he took away from "we don't want our children around you." Perhaps. I think it can be read either way. Yeah, that's nowhere close to accurate. And Nemo - who pretty clearly participated and cooperated with the article - has apparently not done anything to correct this substantial falsehood. A falsehood that also casts the Church in a terrible light. The "pronouncement" is that he was losing his membership in the Church, but also that he can return to the Church after a year if he desires to do so, and if he sets aside the behaviors that caused membership removal in the first places. I suspect Nemo, being the subject of the story, has read it. No indication so far that he has done anything to correct or dispute or disagree with the falsehoods in the article. “Qui tacet consentire videtur” and all that. Also not sure. I care a little. For Nemo's sake if nothing else. He is only estranging himself further from us by doing these things. Thanks, -Smac

I don't see it quite as binary. I'm not sure where Nemo ultimately lands on every theological question, but he has explicitly described what happened as a “trust crisis” rather than a “faith crisis,” and has said he still considers himself Mormon in many ways. Maybe he's going through something of an Oliver Cowdery phase and will eventually return to the fold. At least, that is my hope. In the meantime, however, I don't think it would be contradictory for someone in that situation to grieve the possible loss of an eternal marriage while simultaneously having serious doubts about, or losing trust in, the institution administering that doctrine.

I always thought they should return to the temple yearly because a yearly personal re-endowment is very old school and I'm a fan of ancient practices. But it is modern times, and maybe with a focus on work for the dead, that counts as renewing them for yourself.

@webbles, @champatsch, @Ryan Dahle, @The Nehor, @Calm, @Zosimus, @3DOP, @Stormin' Mormon, et. al., This project became too time consuming and tedious for me to continue as I was going. It was taking about two hours a day to carefully read everything, create prompts, edit them, run them, re-run them, post everything, and I just couldn't do it. Over the last 6 months, AI has made a ton of progress. Based on my own experience and tasks I've given it at my day job, ChatGPT 6 is genuinely intelligent and has correctly solved unique, abstract problems that require real thought and couldn't be faked based on simple pattern extrapolation. With GPT "Work", it can create multiple independent agents that can independently review different prompts. GPT 6 Work can also have an agent log onto a forum like this one, read threads, and post. In principle it is capable of clicking the box that says "I'm human", and can identify bicycles, bridges, and busses better than just about any human. However, it's own ethics won't allow it do that--if it comes to a screen that says, "Are you human?" it won't click on that and will patiently wait for me to. Of course none of this is an evidence that it will approach these pretty abstract topics in a scientific and unbiased way, but it should help us to challenge our own thinking. Assuming there is any interest here and the owners/moderators of this forum will allow it, I'm going to put this on full automatic mode. This work will all be in ChatGPT Work set to the highest level available with the Pro subscription (currently GPT-6 Astra Ultra High). Once a day one agent will do its best to post the apologetic evidence, and another agent will do the critical response. Then it will give the forum participants 24 hours to post their comments and responses. After 24 hours, a third agent will review the first two AI-generated posts and all of the comments that have been made, and will make its own evaluation and tally the evidence. My roll will be limited to clicking on the box that asks to verify that I'm human whenever the site asks for that verification. Otherwise, those posts will happen automatically, and the AI will identify itself as the author as above. Beyond that, I might (or might not) offer my own thoughts which I'll post on the forum. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this automatic approach.

I’ve always understood that the sacraments purpose is to renew our covenant (meaning baptismal covenant)

Apparently photo ops in general are a very big deal in Utah according to my photographer friend. She says Utah is rampant with influencers and photographers- maybe it’s similar to the reasons there are so many MLMs in Utah - lots of stay at home parents who have time to be online and work from home so these types of things become trends quickly.