All Activity

Thanks to you and @SeekingUnderstandingfor clarifying.

I wasn't taught that all covenants were being renewed, but I was definitely taught that baptism covenants were--to the point that I thought if I died sometime between sinning & repenting and being able to take the sacrament again that I might be screwed.

How will the physical cities merge?

Odd, isn't it? On the one hand, the church isn't true, and maybe God isn't even real, but on the other hand it's terrible that now somehow they won't be with their spouse, qua spouse, in the afterlife? Which is either nonexistent (according to an atheist), or there is no marriage there anyway (according to mainstream Christianity)? "How dare they kick me out of a church I don't even believe in! How dare they declare I won't be with my wife in an afterlife I have stopped believing in!"

I do spend a bit of time on Quora, which is a Q&A website. I answer a lot of questions pertaining to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are "Spaces" for particular topics, among with are a "Latter-day Saints" and an "Ex-Mormon" space. I get pinged for questions by both, though oddly enough, more Ex-Mormon than the other. And I learn some things even from the Exes. A case in point was this question: Did anyone else notice the LDS church quietly shifting the doctrine about ‘renewing covenants’? For decades they taught the sacrament renews all covenants, baptismal, temple, marriage, everything. Now leaders seem to be implying you have to go to the temple to ‘renew’ those. If doctrine is supposed to be eternal, what do you make of this change? Is it just another example of the church retrofitting theology to match current priorities, or am I missing something? Does anyone here recall this being taught before, that the Sacrament renews all other covenants? The question certainly surprised me; in my 60 years of membershipI had never heard such a thing. But while answering I picked up on something I had never thought of before. So, I'll present it, and invite comments upon it. My answer: Ah, you are definitely missing something! I don’t know where you heard that the Sacrament renews “all covenants,” because in my 60 years of membership I never heard it taught even once that the sacrament renews temple covenants. But the question does teach me something that had never entered my mind, and I thank you for it! The temple covenants are not saving ordinances, they are exalting ordinances, and they have no need of renewal, per se. On the other hand, the sacrament is a reflection of the saving ordinance called baptism, which by Christ’s atonement saves us from the consequences of our sins. For it to be continuously valid, it must be renewed because we will still sin after baptism, and must repent. This is why the Apostle Paul made it clear that if we are guilty of sin, we must not partake of it until we have repented: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. [1 Cor 11:27–29] This principle was re-emphasized to the Prophet Joseph Smith: Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation. [D&C 46:4] Now, all that being said, it is nevertheless true that without repentance, one’s baptism is invalid, and if one’s baptism is invalid, then one’s endowment is likewise invalid, because exaltation stands on the foundation of salvation, and you can’t have the building without the foundation. So, in a sense, partaking worthily of the sacrament would seem to validate our endowment in a certain sense. But as for renewing it, no. It does not do so.

Sweet! I did 8 years from 1975 to 1983, but got out as the family had expanded and we wanted a bit more stability. There were times when I wished I had stayed in. I would have retired five years or so before 9/11. My brother did 10 years in the Chair Force, but retired medically due to a service-connected disability.

I imagine you're all aware of wingsuit flying. I love watching the videos of such flights, and thought I would share. This one's from a very daring flight done in the South Tyrol. He comes insanely close to trees, the ground, and stone castles. Amazing! I hope he continues to survive these adventures!

MS has occasionally had faithful members on. As I recall, Dan Peterson was once the guest, long ago. I think the main problem is that the appearance of being official may attract someone who is investigating the church, like being taught by the missionaries, and then goes to the internet to find more information. And then gets handed information that causes confusion. There's a verse in D&C 76 that describes this... These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. (D&C 76:75) I can attest to this personally, in fact. I often assist the missionaries by participating in online lessons, where they invite me to contribute my own thoughts about what they are teaching, and to bear testimony. In one instance a couple of months ago the investigator in question said that he was going to check out a video about the church he had found but not yet watched. He named the channel, which I immediately recognized (sorry, can't remember which one it was), and cautioned him that the person behind the channel was opposed to the church and he wouldn't learn anything good. He immediately noped out of visiting that channel. The missionaries had no clue about the channel, but fortunately I did. But the point is, he thought that someone who was claiming to provide information about the church was doing so honestly. There are a number of channels on YouTube whose channel names suggest they are faithful, but they are most decidedly are not. For example, "Mormon News Roundup."

Well... Hershey's is evil chocolate. Wouldn't touch it, myself.

I wish I could be there to hear you!

Right on.

I never have but I rarely see many temple selfies and photos, maybe a few couples and very few family photos. I'd imagine there might be more trends out west... Like planking.

I saw something the other day about women being less active than their male counterparts. I'll try and find the article. Or actually leaving the church more than men. I found an article: https://religionnews.com/2026/08/13/put-on-a-pedestal-kept-out-of-power-how-the-lds-church-is-losing-women/

Okay, that’s painful. (I don’t ‘do’ portraits much or temple pictures to begin with) My apologies to anyone who loves these. This is purely my own personal preference which is not a judgment on others’ preferences.

I have.

I don’t think Nemo would have a problem speaking at his parent’s funeral (s) when the time comes. Precedence has already been set in Utah where a gang member of the Tongan crip gang spoke at a funeral of another Tongan crip gang member at an lds church. The speaker was wearing gang -specific identifying colors, a balaclava and was drinking a beer while he gave the talk. Nemo has nothing to worry about.

Apparently it’s a thing to do baptism pics in front of the temple. Kids in white clothing clutching a bom. this is just one of a dozen or so I found with one google search: https://gilmorestudios.com/gilbert-arizona-temple-lds-baptism-photographer/

In the article that appears directly below the one you link to, it has the following: So, I think this is just sort of him explaining the impact of having had his membership withdrawn - not that there is a current, live situation where he is not able to participate in something - though he does mention that some family members have been avoiding him. “Certain family members won't talk to me anymore because of what I do, equating it to having a paedophile in the family, ‘we don't want our children around you’. [...] Other members of my family have been very supportive of what I do, others merely tolerant.” I'm not sure what to make about the whole pedophile comment. There are, admittedly, lots of people I don't want my children around, but if someone in his family really made that kind of comment (which I grant as being plausible), that strikes me as being a really mean and spiteful thing to say - even if you strongly disagree with what he's been doing. Oh, and as far as I can tell, all of the comments about him ending up in outer darkness appear to come from the author of the articles (Simon Fearn), not from Nemo himself - though I'm not sure how far he went out of his way to disabuse the author of the notion. Here's the author's take on LDS theology: Excommunication is a serious matter, but it's not a pronouncement that you are destined for outer darkness. If Nemo is as informed about LDS goings on as he claims to be, he certainly ought to know that. And maybe he does, and the author is just writing something provocative to generate clicks for their YouTube documentary. Not sure. Don't care.

Has anyone seen a Saint with a photo, real or AI generated, of them in a white suit in front of a temple holding a Book of Mormon to their chest?

But you beat me to it, Doc! Chonk fingers are troublesome on a phone where you are hitting multiple keys at the same time.

Section 29 of the Church's handbook is indeed silent as to who may participate in a funeral conducted as a Church meeting (see here). However, there is Section 32.11.4 ("Withdrawal of Membership") : I think that's the operative bit. Still don't know what he means by weddings. Thanks, -Smac

I believe it’s likely that when he referrers to being barred from speaking at family weddings and funerals he’s not pointing to any official church policy. Rather, it’s probable that his own family members have made it clear to him that they don’t want to an excommunicated “lose cannon,” such as himself, to insert apostate ideas into what are supposed to be solemn, faith affirming family gatherings.

If I'm remembering correctly, the survey was self-reported affiliation. So, if you no longer practice/participate, but self-identify as LDS, you'd likely be counted as someone who has retained their LDS faith/identity. The primary indicator for retention would be self-reported religious affiliation identity, rather than LDS orthopraxy. ETA: That rapscallion SeekingUnderstanding has beaten my slow typing chonk fingers.

Well depends on if you identify as a Latter-day Saint. Pew uses self reported identity. "The church’s retention rate also has fallen over this time span. About half of Americans who say they were raised as Latter-day Saints still identify as members of the church in adulthood (54%), according to the 2023-24 RLS. That retention rate has steadily declined since 2007, when it stood at 70%."

Does retention include adults who no longer practice or participate but are still members on the rolls. People like me, really/