All Activity

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/

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/