All Activity

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/

I’ve “proven” that several times already. See my post on 08/30/2025 for example where I’ve “proven” that the Greek word génos refers to the “kind” of being. The word génos is the same Greek word from which we get our English word “genes”. Look up the word yourself if you don’t believe me. The Greek word translated as “offspring” in Acts 17:28-29 is génos, which Thayer’s Lexicon defines as follows: The word génos would be understood by Paul and his Greek audience in the same way the word is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), where it is translated from the Hebrew word miyn which means species or kind, in verses like the following (referring to the Septuagint): Gen 1:21 (LXX): “And God made great whales, and every living reptile, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds [génos], and every creature that flies with wings according to its kind [génos], and God saw that they were good.” Gen 1:24 (LXX): “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature [Greek: psychen - soul] according to its kind [génos], quadrupeds and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth according to their kind [génos], and it was so.” Gen 1:25 (LXX): “And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind [génos], and cattle according to their kind [génos], and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind [génos], and God saw that they were good.” For all references above, see also the interlinear LXX here. Or where the word génos is used in the Septuagint for a family relationship, like in this verse (this reads a little differently in the Hebrew text so I don’t know the Hebrew word it was translated from here): Gen 19:38 (LXX) “And the younger also bore a son, and called his name Amman, saying, The son of my family [génos]. This is the father of the Ammanites to this present day.” And this is how Acts 17:28-29 is translated in the Latin Vulgate, translating the Greek word génos as “genus”, a word that refers to a taxonomical ranking as to the “kind” of being: “28 In ipso enim vivimus, et movemur, et sumus: sicut et quidam vestrorum poëtarum dixerunt: Ipsius enim et genus sumus. 29 Genus ergo cum simus Dei, non debemus æstimare auro, aut argento, aut lapidi, sculpturæ artis, et cogitationis hominis, divinum esse simile.” So when Paul says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring [génos] of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device”, he’s referring to the “kind” of being that God is, which is why it makes no sense to think of divinity like unto gold, or silver, or stone, because WE are not like gold, or silver or stone. His argument absolutely does require that. See above. You are completely ignoring the meaning of the Greek word génos in making that claim and not considering how Paul’s audience would have understood the word given the meaning of the word as I explained above. You are making your theology determine what the Bible must say instead of letting the Bible speak for itself. His point is that since we are the same kind of being as God (his génos), we should not think of divinity as gold or silver or stone because WE are not gold or silver or stone. He doesn't say, “Therefore, we are gods” because there is more to being “gods” than simply being the same kind of being as God. He doesn't say, “Therefore, we possess God's divine nature”, because there is more to possessing the divine nature than being the same kind of being as God. The divine nature is something we partake of as we grow to become like our Heavenly Father (like virtue, diligence, knowledge, temperance, patience, and godliness – see 2 Peter 1:3-8). He doesn't say, “Therefore, humans can become gods” in these verses, but it is certainly part of their potential since he says we are the same “kind” of being as God. He DOES say, “Therefore, humans are the same kind of being as God.” That’s what the Greek word génos means! Wrong, you are the one reading your theology into the passage instead of letting the words (as they were used anciently) speak for themselves. Look up the Greek word génos and its Latin translation, genus. There is no way that Paul was saying that God merely created us in those verses, and the fact that we are the same kind of being as God is essential to his argument that it is illogical to worship gods of gold or silver or stone, because WE are not gold or silver or stone (we are his "offspring", his génos).

I've never been comfortable with Latter-day Saints acting in that capacity going out and seek all sorts of public attention for themselves. To be sure, I am fine with Latter-day Saints gaining prominence through public speaking in relation to the Church. Daniel Peterson has done that for years. These days, Jacob Hansen and Jasmin Rappleye seem to be putting out a lot of good content in terms of defense of, and useful new information about, the Church. In doing so, they are gaining some notoriety in their own right, but they seem to focus rather heavily on advocating for the Church more than themselves. That's my perception, anyway. There are also some who, though nominally members of the Church, use their membership as a platform to publicly speak against the Church. "Nemo the Mormon" is one such fellow, though he has recently lost him membership in the Church. That hasn't stopped him from continuing as he has been in the past. This morning, I saw this: Mormon YouTuber put on trial and excommunicated explains why he still follows rules on coffee and alcohol He says this while knowing that his characterization will almost certainly not be disputed by the Church because membership council proceedings are kept in confidence. Glad to hear it. I hope he comes back to us. Not sure what to make of this. Have his parents died? If so, if they wanted to have a funeral administered by the Church, then the meeting is a church meeting, on church property. I have seen plenty of funerals where non-Latter-day Saint family members and friends eulogize the decedent. Not participating in the Church's meetings, then, is fairly unique to people who have their membership in the Church removed for cause - particularly for apostasy. If his parents have not died, then why is he bringing this up now? And what's with this "speaking at family weddings" stuff? Does anyone have any insights? Utter bilge. If Nemo is selling or endorsing this sort of nonsense, shame on him. "Stasi." The secret police and intelligence agency of communist East Germany (GDR) from 1950 until 1990. This is overwrought nonsense. Good for him. Hopefully he circles back to more fundamental reasons to join the Church through baptism and pursue the covenant path. I've never seen a faithful Latter-day Saint publicly accuse the Church of exercising "‘Stasi-esque level of control." This is just unserious nonsense. Funny how different perspectives can look at the same set of facts and come away with such divergent conclusions and assessments. "They distrust us so much to think that if we found out how wealthy they were..." "They" and "us." He is referencing the leaders of the Church hear, and publicly characterizing them as enriching themselves via tithing funds. Patent falsehoods like this are troubling to me. 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." Such are the pernicious fruits of faultfinding. Faultfinding plus self-aggrandizement is a toxic mix. That's an understandable position. Many of us encounter challenges about the inner workings of the Church. Hashing out criticisms publicly, though, is not the way to go IMO. I am glad of that. I have had a number of friends and family members who, having left the Church, have gained an increased or renewed appreciation for the beaty of nature. Hopefully loving and valuing nature may eventually play a part in returning to loving and valuing nature's God (1 Nephi 19:12). I am sorry to hear about this. I hope he recovers. I think the leaders of the Church, though certainly not perfect, are overwhelmingly good and honest men and women. Thanks, -Smac

It seems like you are importing. Genos does literally mean offspring, stock, family, or race. For you to insist that genos cannot mean literal family lineage and must only mean "creation" or "dependence" requires bringing outside rules to the text, such as creedal demands of an infinite, impassable gulf between God and man. LDS scholars argue that Paul’s argument relies on a much stronger principle of ontological family resemblance ("like produces like"). In nature, offspring inherit the traits of the parent. An eagle produces eagles; a human produces humans. If humans are literally God's genos there must be a fundamental, essential continuity of nature between the Parent and the offspring. If humans were completely different in nature from God (radically distinct ontological categories), Paul’s logical bridge breaks down. It follows that if we (the offspring) are personal, conscious, spiritual beings, then God (the Parent) must also be a personal, conscious, spiritual being, not an inanimate, unfeeling block of stone. The premise that humans share God's fundamental "kind" is necessary to make his refutation of idols coherent. We also use the acorn analogy. An acorn is not currently an oak tree, but it is ontologically of the exact same species, holding the inherent blueprint to become one. When you say we cannot be the same kind because we lack a divine nature, in 2 Peter 1:4 believers are promised to become "partakers of the divine nature." The assertion that God and humanity are two infinitely distinct, incompatible categories of "being" is an assumption brought to the Bible from your tradition or your personal apprehensiveness, rather than derived naturally from Paul’s declaration.

My understanding is that all of the subterranean work is complete, and they are ready to start going vertical.

I think you're assuming the very point that needs to be proven: that “God's offspring” means “the same kind of being as God.” Paul's argument in Acts 17 doesn't require that. He says God created the world, gives humanity life, and sustains us (vv. 24–26). Then he says, “we are indeed his offspring.” In context, that can naturally describe our derivation from and dependence upon God without making us divine by nature. Notice what Paul doesn't say: He doesn't say, “Therefore, we are gods.” He doesn't say, “Therefore, we possess God's divine nature.” He doesn't say, “Therefore, humans can become gods.” He doesn't say, “Therefore, humans are the same kind of being as God.” Instead, he concludes: “Therefore we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone” (v.29). His point is that the Creator shouldn't be reduced to an idol made by human hands. And “offspring” clearly doesn't necessarily mean “same divine nature.” Adam is called “the son of God” in Luke 3:38, yet that obviously doesn't mean Adam was God or possessed God's divine nature. Likewise, being God's “offspring” in Acts 17 establishes a relationship to God; it doesn't establish that humans are gods. So the key question remains: Where does Paul make the additional move from “we are God's offspring” to “we are the same kind of being as God”? He doesn't. Your conclusion has to be imported into the passage.

Kewl!

Foundation prep works are nicely underway https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/fairview-texas-temple/photographs/

Did they add explanations for why they changed it? If not, in your opinion was it primarily an attempt to harmonize the scriptures or an attempt to use symbolical number or their understanding based on some scholarship or speculation they had studied or heard somewhere? Or something else? I am assuming here if it was revelation, they would have mentioned it, not saying it’s impossible for it to be revelation (though I think with what little I know about this in particular, it’s more likely symbolic language rather than actual dates).

Yeah, this chart is a combination of the OT1, which Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith mostly worked on together + Doctrine and Covenants 107. Alternatives are the classic Genesis/D&C 107, and OT2/D&C 107. OT2 is mostly a copy of OT1, but is missing some edits that Cowdery and Smith addd later on. It forms the basis for the Book of Moses we publish today. Out of all these, OT1 tends to add the most years in the earlier patriarchal timelines. Enoch gains an extra 65 years, for example (he only gets 365 in the original Genesis account). The cumulative result is that the Flood date gets pushed a little bit later. As I said, I’m not saying one account is better or more correct than another; just different. I mostly did this out of curiosity when digging in the Joseph Smith papers. I’ll see if I can post the original xlsx file sometime, so people can pick it apart. I’m migrating from Windows to Linux (Fedora) at the moment, and I’m finding Office 365 formats to be the least friendly to transitioning. So this, plus a few others, are a bit messy atm.

It makes it simple to think of it in one dimensional terms.

Yes… he knows who butters his bread. It would be the end of him if he admitted it. He said the dominant narrative is not true… who is the one teaching the dominant narrative??? The church and by extension the q15 besides in the quote you provided look at what he said: “Similarly, we now have assimilated seer stones into the translation story. A picture of a seer stone now appears in the Church History Museum display. That would not have happened even five years ago. The list goes on and on.” why would that bot have happened five years ago??? The church had the seer stone the whole time and they knew it. It is because the part of the dominant narrative they were teaching our kids (and me) didn’t include that even though they knew it. They lied.

Perhaps to you and me the detachment would be reasonable… can you think of any general authority back then (1980s) allowing thst as an excuse to distance oneself from the church? I can’t and I knew most the q12 back then personally. the pov they were exposed to is literally the apostles. At the time my family entertained many of them at the house… on numerous occasions. In fact Packer was a regular and he and my father got along famously. Here’s a quote of what the guys mindset is in testimonies and missionaries: “It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?” Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. “The spirit of man,” as the scripture says, indeed “is the candle of the Lord.”” Boyd k Packer https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng in context this can be explained away, but Mormonism is a religion of one-liners and this one is still around. Remember this is my parents buddy and his pov. how bout the one about coming home with honor or in a pine box? Yep that one got used on me as well. I don’t recall who said it, but that one still is being tossed around as well. my point is the church and its leaders created this culture. I agree that was the theory. Oddly enough when I presented this lack of testimony and called the behavior lying, my bishop told me… he was talking about the consequences with lds girls after not going on a mission. Oh man I still can’t believe this. “ you think you have integrity by not bearing your testimony thinking it’s a lie, but I can tell tell you that by not going you will never be considered by any good lds girl to have any integrity at all. In fact you will just be looked at as another faithless apostate who isn’t worth the time and you will get the wife you deserve.” Im guessing he was saying I’d marry a non Mormon hooker or something. He was right about one thing though.. I am an apostate as it relates to the Mormon church but I can sleep well knowing I didn’t trick anyone into joining the church. the wife on the other hand… boy did I marry up. I have to add. Looks like we still have church leaders putting the verbal beat down on kids https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8KCnpq8/

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/feature/sunday-meeting-schedule

So if you think he is lying? That he really believes saying the Church lies is true even though he never said that in the first comment? Something may be not true for reasons other than lying.

I thought I read somewhere years ago that both Adam and Methuselah both had the same lifespan: 999 years and 6 months? According to Lecture of Faith 2:41 "Methuselah in the 1656th, it being the same year in which the flood came." Your chart shows him living from 800 to 1800.

Ur right I should have put quotes around the part he did say… I added the lies part in keeping with the ending of some of my other bullet points. Here’s the quote from his fireside: "I think that for the Church to remain strong, it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can't be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change." [1] I know he walked back the comment, but I’m inclined to believe something a guy like him says when they say something the first time. It’s more likely what they really think. this dominant narrative being not true thing reminds me of the mitt Romney talk at byu… “It is an honor to be here today and to address you. It seems like only a few years ago that I sat where you are sitting—actually, it was in the Wilkinson Center. Things were different then: the Beatles were the only boy band, Bell Telephone was the only telephone company in the country, BYU cafeteria food was all they served in the Cougareat, and Emma was Joseph Smith’s only wife.” https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/mitt-romney/life-lessons-front/

Is there a link where this can be read. My googlefu failed today…or maybe I just have no patience

Except that’s not what he said. He never used lies or even untruths, implying intention. He clarified a month later saying it’s “not a fair judgment” in his opinion that the Church was lying. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/07/richard-bushman-and-the-fundamental-claims-of-mormonism.html

This is abusive. This would not be okay in any healthy family, in or out of any faith, no matter how ultimately true or false for any reason. Abuse being done for a good cause never ever justifies it. With this getting attached to the Church and faith, it makes any emotional detachment of the child as they grow from both very understandable. Given that context of likely emotional distance, the warts, inconsistencies, hypocrisies, mistakes, etc. are reasonably sufficient reason not to believe, imo. That is not a child’s personal failure, but the adults who refused to examine their own behaviour themselves, imo. While I get that the adult themselves in this may have come from abusive backgrounds themselves and this what they learned was ‘proper’ behaviour, in this day and age I find it hard to believe that they weren’t exposed enough to other POVs that caused them to consider they might be wrong. Maybe I am just too optimistic about changing family dynamics. I think that’s one reason having two parents it’s important, more likely to get a reality check. ‘Fake it till you make it’ was a very popular method of self improvement gurus not that long ago. I remember those talks. My interpretation from hearing to many of them and other such pep talks on other subjects was there was a sincere belief it would become true and most seemed to think it would happen quickly as soon as being immersed in an environment where one cares about and serves God and others 24/7. They portrayed the mission field as practically an irresistible force of self conversion. There was even accepted by many iirc that the desire was enough for it to be seen as true, desire to believe made it true that you believed in your heart of hearts or you wouldn’t have that belief. It wasn’t lying, it was anticipation. Pretty dysfunctional anyway, imo. Not something to justify basing behaviour on, committing an entire life’s track to just because there might be good intentions (btw, turning one’s kids into puppets for self gratification is not good intentions in my book, wanting them to become something because you sincerely believe they will be happier themselves is, again imo). The way to hell and alll….. It was misguided, imo, based on an oversimplification of how our brains work. It also ignores the other person, treating them as a thing that thinks and acts by one’s own rules and not their own, assuming our desires for them are the same desires they have for themselves. Fake it till you make it is still promoted as an effective behavioural change method, though it’s better framed. I still have doubts on how well it works. Human behaviour is complex and it could be other variables that often go along with this idea that may be what is effective. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/202301/when-is-it-ok-to-fake-it-till-you-make-it After this, it goes into what can make it a disaster. Bottomline is if it’s manipulative for personal gain, where often the person pushing faking it is pretending to manipulate others into belief in them. This can certainly happen in a church or family setting unfortunately, not just business or political. This guy’s “your head and heart will follow your feet” feels very much in line with how missionaries and others were told they would find their testimony by bearing it.

Yes, it is terrible

Exactly. Like the author said, of course it's not all men. But it would not be the incredibly number of men that it is if all the 'good' men actually stopped enabling, celebrating, deflecting, and excusing the bad ones. We need more guys like this author who recognize that when someone responds to these crimes with 'it's not all men', it's a sign that person has lost the plot.

I have not read the book, but I just ordered it from Amazon... that said, I'll share why I left for anyone who cares: BIC and raised in household of father who was in bishopric and stake presidency and ultimately THE stake pres by the time i graduated HS. I never wanted to go on a mission. It just never appealed to me. May have been because one of my siblings was very free about sharing how much he hated his mission. He went in the late '70s and I recently (within 90 days) have found out he has now left the church along with the rest of his family Parents, bishop, seminary teacher, priesthood leaders made full court press on me to compel me to serve a mission. This started the week after I joined the military while a senior in high school. This whole thing devolved into public call outs in both seminary, priesthood and MIA. Also my bishop engaged in name calling over the whole episode. Family put serious pressure on me,,, yelling, screaming, throwing things etc. Six months of pure hell before I went to bootcamp. I was openly called the worst thing that ever happened to our family and what a disappointment I was and always would be for not going on a mission we have an extended family member who is extremely popular and was by all accounts a stellar missionary in his youth. He was much older than me. His reputation was used against me and how i definitely didnt want to disappoint him. He was our family version of Paul H Dunn ...more later on this guy I even said I didnt have a testimony and didnt want to lie to investigators. Family and bishop didnt care and said well just go lie anyway. We know its the truth and it doesnt matter what you think.... go on your mission or else. We will pay for your college, a car etc if you go... bla bla bla I didn't go on a mission and made a career out of the military. I stayed active, married in the temple and all that good stuff. Stayed active until my early fifties. This early experience at 18 taught me.... 1- my church leaders advocated lying in order to convert people. Sure they believed it all to be true, but they wanted me so testify on a mission as to the truthfulness of the gospel...even if I didnt believe it. I was actually suprised by this push to go anyway and just regurgitate a fake testimony and 2- question everything because if my leaders will openly tell me to lie about a testimony, what else do they approve of lying about? or what will they lie about in order to keep people in-line? And moving on: I also learned all these years later that the stud missionary guy the whole family adored actually had sex with a couple of women on his mission. He got caught, but they didnt send him home and he got no discipline. It helps to have GA friends apparently.... I mean I guess thats the favor that got pulled. My family knows tons of them. This happened before I was born and the whole family knew, but kept it a secret. They used his stellar "example" to try and leverage me into going on a mission because I wouldn't want to disappoint him. He ended up being excommunicated near the end of his life lol... I learned that the Sealer who sealed my wife and I had previously been involved in a sexual tryst close in proximity to our marriage. So.... he wasn't worthy to be there in the temple doing that... more lies... No discernment on the part of the temple presidency. I understand the first presidency approves sealers??? If true, no discernment there either.... lies lies lies I was active in the scouting program and frankly I was stunned by the award fraud that went on there in multiple wards and stakes. It pretrty much seemed to be the thing to do. Much easier than enforcing standards. Lies Lies Lies Gospel Topics Essays come out. Doing a dive there it is obvious the church lied about its history. That pretty much got me. Much of what I was taught growing up and what I was teaching out of manuals at church turned out to be shades of truth...., but not really true. Richard Bushman said it perfectly. The dominant narrative of church history wasnt true. Lots of lies about church history SEC scandal pops up... Reading the SEC decision was the final straw.... more lies and deception. Bottom line for me. The church leaders have lied, will lie, and they encouraged me to lie to convert investigators and the discerment they say they have is fake. End of story. Now My wife, me and nearly all our kids are out. The end.