All Activity

Sometimes I am just amazed at how blind some members are at the things the Church encourages its members to do, while criticizing similar behavior of others. Well, let's see what you have in mind. Sure. The Great Commission, the final instruction of Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread the Christian gospel to all nation, is one of the most important tenets of the Restored Gospel. Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging people to "leave their current church?" Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction? What "exact same thing" are you referencing here? If I were your family member, and if I went out of my way to use that status and its associated proximity to your minor children in order to secretly subvert your efforts to raise your minor children as to some important social or religious or other type of issue, I think you would find that problematic. "That" being what? I am not sure what you are referencing here. I have no interest in misappropriating family relationships in order to subvert parents' efforts to raise their own children. I find that a very troubling concept. See, e.g., here: AFPI Urges Supreme Court to Protect Parents’ Right to Challenge Government Interference in Their Child’s Care The brief brings Lee’s experience to the court’s attention. According to her lawsuit, her 12-year-old daughter attended what the family understood to be an after-school art club, where a guest speaker encouraged students to adopt transgender identities and keep the discussions hidden from their parents. Lee alleges that the episode caused lasting distress for her daughter and family. Her case was ultimately dismissed on standing grounds, leaving her underlying parental rights claim unresolved. AFPI’s brief argues that inconsistent decisions on parental standing have prevented courts from addressing an increasingly consequential constitutional question. It urges the Supreme Court to allow the Washington parents’ challenge to proceed so their claims receive a hearing on the merits. This is troubling, heading into "pretty darn creepy" territory. Broadly speaking, I have strong concerns and reservations about people making incursions into the lives of minor children with the intention of subverting the child's parental authority and decision-making. That is very much a "Do Unto Others" thing, not a "It's not bad when I do it" sort of thing. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, muting that person would be much more sane. And I agree with you that the historicity question isn’t THAT complicated. Daniel Peterson would argue that the reason non-Mormon experts aren’t convinced by Mormon apologetics is that they don’t seriously engage with it and thus don’t know how persuasive it is. And he’d also argue that the evidence isn’t strong enough either way, “by design.” I imagine God carefully arranging the evidence so that there is enough to make it plausible, but not so much that belief is unavoidable. And I wonder what “evidence” even means in such a universe with divine beings putting their fingers on the scale. For my part, it’s clear to me that he and other intelligent apologists are suffering from pretty extreme motivated reasoning on this. Yes, this is ultimately AI vs. AI, with a third AI keeping score. But I’m genuinely curious about how AI will do. Historically AIs have been pretty biased towards telling humans what they want to hear. I’m curious if this one will do that and split the difference, and allow these small alleged evidences to compound into something big. I’ve argued with AIs about this and its landed on both sides, both thinking Dale, Dale, & Rasmussen were jokes, and other times thinking that they were really persuasive. For me, what this is really about is getting some insight into how the current releases of AI think, and how humans think. That’s the real issue.

My point is that, in Mormonism, baptism and other sacramental rites have shifted away from their basic utility (covenant initiation into a community) and into magical rites by ignoring the basic utility and instead focusing on precise ritual acts and incantations--such that many Mormons believe that God (or some weird cosmic reality) will not accept a baptism if a toe, some clothes, or hair floated to the top of the water or the priest skipped or misspoke part of the incantation.

Sometimes I am just amazed at how blind some members are at the things the Church encourages its members to do, while criticizing similar behavior of others. Trying to interest your friends and family into joining the church has been a core teaching for at least a half of century, probablylonger.. As a missionary, I remember being instructed to talk to newly baptized members to introduce their family members to the missionaries and encourage them to help convert their relatives to leave their current church and join the LDS church. Yet when a child does the exact same thing to those he loves, somehow it is subversive and interfering with the parents efforts to raise their own minor children. Does that also amount to a (mis)appropriation and use of family relationships?

I'm a wingsuiter

Well, now I'm jealous! That is an awesome piece of machinery! I'm more into cinematic stuff, so it's a bit more than I need, but it would definitely be fun. If you do, make sure to post them here. Thanks!

The guy who called it "magical sacramentalism" was all "who cares, it doesn't matter" about the act of baptism itself. This is called taking Ephesians 2:8,9 and using it to throw out the baby of John 3:3-5 along with the bath water of Matthew 3:15. If you Google the phrase "christians who say baptism isn't necessary" you will find all kinds of claims that say baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Along with a few that say otherwise. This is why the term "magical sacramentalism" came into play. In the view of these folks, when Peter proclaimed in response to "Men and brethren what should we do?" that they should "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," he was being descriptive and not prescriptive. And you can get into the kingdom of God with or without it. It's just a useless symbol to some Christians and it is highly suspect. Ask a Quaker. Is it magic that baptism saves you? No, it isn't. All baptism achieves is getting wet. What saves you is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Does He give you His grace if you refuse to keep His commandments? No. Did He not say you can't enter into the kingdom of God without being baptized. Indeed He did say you can't. But who cares what He said? We know better.

This commercial was a good one

I was given the DJI Avata 360 Fly More Combo. It's a lot of fun. I've taken some really fun videos, but I haven't prepared any for uploading to YouTube. I may do that at some point (probably after I retire, which may be in a few months). Awesome videos, by the way!

Oh, dang it. It was @the narrator who said that. Not you. I must have been hitting that pipe myself or something.

When did I say this? Doesnt sound like anything I would have said… mebbe I was hitting the crack pipe rhst day.

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?" Nemo says he has not had a "faith crisis," but rather a "trust crisis." I can appreciate that. The part where I struggle is reconciling his putative residuary and ongoing faith in and acceptance of the Restored Gospel with years-long adversarial and vitriolic effort to generate social media content specifically calculated to tear down the institution that houses the Restored Gospel. If he values his membership in the Church and all that it entails, and if he were a rational human being, I don't think he would have behaved in the way he has for years on end. His actions to not seem to conform to his statements and vice versa. 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.