Teancum

Where did I describe joy at getting under the skin of active members. You mean people here on this board? I guess we need to define what moving on means. I have moved on in some ways, and in other ways I have not. See my additional post. And I really will likely never move on entirely because as I noted in my other post, much of who and what I am is tied to Mormonism. I can't remove that from me anymore that I can change my sex, my last name, or my national citizenship even though I may be very disappointed with America currently. I am not sure what your point is here. Well I have not completely abandoned Mormonism so there is that. So in some ways I have not "left." An invested antagonist? Ok, maybe so but I am not sure what that means. But if posting on this board, giving financial support to two organizations critical of the church and following some social media groups for disaffected members then I guess you are correct. Ok I am game so long as we both keep it polite. I am not sure how this is relevant. Your leader pull in annually as much as Dehlin does with their salary and cushy perks, which I really do not nor ever have begrudged them and I think they should be paid more for what they do. To hire the equivalent would of GAs would likely cost much more. I applaud that but you and I both know that that amount is a pittance compared to the massive assets the church holds. They could and should do much much more IMO. Does MS claim to be The Church of Jesus Christ? Does John Dehlin demand I pay to listen to his podcasts? Does the MS mission statement include in its purpose humanitarian aid? Nope. As for counseling services I do not know that Dehlin does this anymore but it is irrelevant and this is really a big time false equivalency. But when John claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ and requires ten % for access to his best podcasts then you might have a point. Otherwise not so much. Nope. Your tithing does not go to welfare last I checked. Yes tithing does likely go for that. The church has soup kitchens? Where? Well now you really don't know where your money goes because the church does not tell you. And then there is that pesky read the fine print on your donation slip where your designation for say money for FO or humanitarian aid can be used wherever the church wants. And by the way I continued to give to fast offering and humanitarian aid fopr years after not participating till the church but that little qualifier. After that I decided to give to organization that I knew would put the money to work helping to save lives and such. I never said the church is greedy not did I. And I never said that the church does not sped $ on worthy causes at all now did I? That does not negate the fact that the church hoars its wealth in spite of the good it does. A few billion a year for an organization with hundreds of billions is a small amount of its resources to relieve suffering even though the $ amount is large. And I do not imagine my $75 per month for MS is a make ore break thing, I support a number of podcasters and independent media sources that I enjoy. I also give a ton to other organizations that do work to relieve human suffering, This is the case for some charities and for some not so much. But so what. The church still needs about $6 to $7 billion a year just to operate. That is pretty hefty overhead, so yea, you really don't know how much of your donation goes to all that you are thumping your chest about now do you? By the way I support a couple of charities where almost 100% of it goes to relieve human suffering. They are out there if you look for them. Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know because they keep it a secret from you. Ummm no. Some do and some don't. My guess is you don't donate much outside your tithe and other church contributions because that is a pretty hefty sum for most members and does not leave much for most to give to other groups. It didn't for me when I was a full tithe payer. Once again, I never said the church does not do good not did I? I have always said the the FO program is brilliant. I would still give to that if I could be sure that my $ would go to where I want it to. Same for humanitarian aid. But since the church won't be transparent and since it is still increasing its substantial wealth, I decided to give where I know it does the most good. That in a way makes me rather sad. But I have no plans to help make one of the most wealthy organizations in the world richer. Bill Gates plans to give all his $ away before he dies. He does far more than the church to relieve suffering than the church does. And I have not argued that the church should give every damn dime away. In fact I have said on this board many times over that the Church needs a reserve fund and have suggested that maybe three times its annual revenue needs is similar to what other organizations like it does. So this argument is really a straw man. It is a combinations of cash, securities and property. And I support the church having its own endowment fund. Just not to the extent of about 20 to 25 times its annual operating needs. This is a common excuse. One would think the The Church of Jesus Christ would have relieving human suffering to be a larger part of its mission. The Jesus I read about seemed pretty concerned about reliving human suffering and it was not just a small part of hi directives. And the EPA fund is not being used to do any of that and I think you know that. It just grows and grows and grows. Yes and so what? This is really rather facetious of you to try to compare MS to a church. And as I have noted, you don't get to tell people what the feel and what they don't about things LDS so we can simply just chalk this up to your opinion and a rather poor one at that. Maybe. Maybe not, There is no doubt the church excels at amassing wealth and that on the back of its members while providing no transparency and that on the backs of many who likely really can't afford that 10%. And they do it based on claims that are clearly false and call it a commandment. I find that far more unethical than anything you want the heap on Dehlin's head. If his salary bothers my me I can quit my $75 per month any time I please with no repercussion. If you stop tithing you lose your ticket the the temple and also have the threat of disobeying a non god that does not exist. But like you said, you do you.

I have a few additional thoughts. Why is it that active members, and especially apologist, want to gripe and complain when disaffected or Ex Mos still are interested in as well as critical of, things LDS. Why the hell is it an issue if I, even after 20 years, an still periodically interested in MS or Mormonism Live with Bill Reel and RFM? My heritage is tied to the Church. I have ancestors on all sides that either converted in Europe or joined in New England and moved west with the church. I gave my whole life to the church for my first 52 years or so. I have family and friends that are still strongly involved in the church. The fact that I support MS and Mormonism live is not some odd tick that I am looking to satisfied. I think they are worth supporting for a variety of reasons but the main two are I do think they assist people that are where I was at years ago and I find some of their content interesting. I also think they are far more honest about things LDS than the church is as well as its defenders. It is not some flaw nor something that is emotionally broken that keeps me on an endless rage loop or anything like that. My heritage, my friends, and some family are the main reasons I have not removed my name from the church records. My wife, a convert, has talked about name removal and my response was that is up to her if she wants, but I have no desire to do so. So much of what I am for good or ill is because of Mormonism. It is still somewhat my tribe. And I have even considered maybe attending here and there. I do at times miss my ward community. Any way, I just find it peculiar that you and others just expect someone to simply move on. How I or others interact with Mormonism is after our departure and there is not a clock on when we decide not to interact with it anymore. My interaction now is very limited but it is still there and there is nothing wrong with me for that fact.

I know he was ill for a while. But I will miss him. And I think he took more flack than deserved over the Musket speech. He once responded to an email I sent about something that was I was really wrestling with and his response calmed my troubled heart.

Still following a myth and fantasy? You do you as well. Your attempt to psychoanalyze me is hilarious and you could not be more wrong. As I noted I rarely even listen to MS anymore. I recently listened to an exit story because I personally knew the person on the podcast. Before that I do not recall when I listened and when I have it is more like the series where Matt Harris was interviewed about his excellent book Second Class Saints. But I think MS helps people that are where I was at 20 years ago and I am happy to support that. I am aware of the salary John draws and I could not care less. But yea I have mostly moved on from Mormonism. I show up here once in a while and try to keep tabs on some things like the death of Elder Holland and other such things. Your topic intrigued me so I responded. It brings me joy that he still get under all your skins a bit. And more power to you if you want to keep paying your mandated temple tax. You keep helping the Church that claims to be Jesus's amass its enormous wealth rather than relieve human suffering. It is really a Corporation masquerading as a church. And that while it refuses to be transparent with you about its finances. What a waste of $. But sure, you do you as you said.

ever assuming everyone on the forum knows), Mormon Stories Podcast was started in 2005 by John Dehlin and has been one of the most prominent independent podcast platforms discussing LDS topics with a claim to focus on interviews with a wide variety of perspectives, including critics of the Church. Their official mission statement (from their own website) frames their work as facilitating informed consent, supporting those in faith crisis, and building community, reflecting their self-identified purpose rather than the claims of critics or promoters. This is all deception. Not only is Mormon Stories not an LDS platform., its an Ex-LDS platform. It is run entirely by former members, many of whom are openly hostile to the Church. The name and icons strongly implies it is a faithful LDS or objective organization, which misleads both members and non-members searching for legitimate LDS information. They are the top search result for the term "Mormon". This branding strategy allows the platform to intercept people at moments of vulnerability, like LDS investigators, questioning LDS members, and those in faith crisis. The result is not informed consent, but directional persuasion. Who the Main Audience (Really) Is While Mormon Stories claims to serve people navigating faith transitions (in one direction only), its core audience increasingly appears to be Never-LDS who enjoy exaggerated narratives of "cult escape", abuse amplification, large institutional villainization, shock-value storytelling about LDS culture. This mirrors trends seen in other anti-religious media spaces, where outrage and trauma-p0rn outperform nuance. Faithful discussion, context, and spiritual outcomes are not the product being sold, the conflict is. Supported by a viewership of never-LDS and donation from ex-LDS and anti-LDS. Mormon Stories functions less like a support group and more like a deconstruction factory. Guests are guided, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly, toward predetermined conclusions. The same accusations are recycled with new faces. For this they get donations. This is pure commercialized deconversion, not pastoral care. Hypocrisy A recurring theme on Mormon Stories is criticism of how the Church handles money. Yet Mormon Stories itself operates under a structure where the brand is inseparable from its founder. All revenue and donations overwhelmingly benefit their central figure. Compensation transparency is minimal compared to the moral scrutiny applied to the Church. At minimum, this represents a double standard. At worst, it suggests projection. I’m not saying Mormon Stories is a cult the way others overbroadly use it, but it’s worth asking why it increasingly resembles the very systems it claims to oppose. There is a central charismatic authority, he has narrative control, people are emotional dependent on him. He uses moral absolutism, he is financial reliant on followers. His followers do identity reconstruction ("before" vs "after" self). If we applied criteria for identifying ‘cult behavior’ to Mormon Stories itself, would it pass? If those patterns are troubling inside churches, they should be troubling in non-churches. The platform only survives if people keep leaving and keep paying. Guests rarely leave more independent. Any later reconciliation to the church is bad for business. Any peace or resolution ends engagement. Therefore, only continued anger sustains it. There will never be a solution. Declining Influence Growth momentum appears to have slowed. Engagement fatigue is visible even among its former supporters. Long-time listeners describe content as repetitive and ideologically rigid. These two consecutive years of reduced growth is not a fluke, it is a trend. Over a two-year span, both viewership growth and audience momentum slowed noticeably. This matters because Mormon Stories’ model depends on sustained emotional engagement. Specifically anger, grievance, and disillusionment. That kind of content performs well in bursts, but it does not age well. Anger is exhausting, repetition dulls outrage, and audiences eventually move on when every story resolves the same way. Platforms built on permanent resentment face an unavoidable problem. Once the emotional payoff diminishes, so does the audience. The decline was already underway because grievance is not a renewable resource. The actual growth rates over recent years are not publicly broken down month-by-month on Social Blade without paid access, so I can't verify claims like 2023 had 117,000 new subscribers vs 57,000 in 2024 and 28,000 in 2025. If anyone has access to month-by-month analytics, that would be great to share. When Weak, a Forced Rebrand is a Direct Hit to their Deception Model The Church’s request that Mormon Stories stop using branding that implies official or representative LDS status strikes at the heart of the platform’s growth strategy. The name itself functions as a search engine funnel. Capturing members, investigators, and outsiders searching for authentic LDS perspectives, then redirecting them into adversarial content. Removing that ambiguity disrupts discoverability, weakens first impressions, and forces the platform to operate honestly as what it is: an ex-LDS commentary channel. The Church has every legal and ethical right to protect its identity and its members from confusion. Coming amid an existing decline, rebranding is not a inconvenience, it is a compounding blow. When growth is already slowing, losing a misleading point of entry can accelerate irrelevance. Organizations like Mormon Stories are far more fragile than they appear. They are not a lean volunteer group; they are bulky operations with fixed costs, salaries, production expenses, contractors, studio infrastructure, and brand maintenance. All funded almost entirely by ongoing donations and attention. Even a modest, sustained decline in views, engagement, or donor enthusiasm can have outsized effects. When revenue dips below operating expectations, there is little cushion, and pressure compounds quickly. Happy Holidays Unlike the LDS Church, which is diversified, geared for the long-term, and not dependent on outrage, Mormon Stories must constantly replace disengaging donors with newly disaffected members. As that pool shrinks and fatigue sets in, the math turns unforgiving. For faithful Latter-day Saints this represents a quiet but meaningful shift. Fewer resources fueling anger, fewer incentives to sensationalize faith crises, and fewer members being monetized at moments of vulnerability. If trends continue, from a faithful LDS perspective, this season truly may be a Merry Christmas for those who care that truth and faith outlasted a grievance-driven enterprise. May we look toward to the new year and hope for fewer fires. Fires of contention and outrage, and fewer literal fires as well. Attacks on churches, vandalism, and arson against houses of worship are never acceptable, no matter the ideology. When rhetoric cools and grievance-driven platforms lose influence, the real-world temperature often lowers too. A calmer media environment makes room for safer congregations, healthier dialogue, and faith practiced without fear. That is a hope worth carrying into the new year. Discussions Have you noticed fewer people recommending Mormon Stories lately? Do you think the name is intentionally misleading? What platforms do you see filling the gap? What trends have you noticed in Mormon Stories’ influence, for yourself or others? Have you noticed increased engagement with faithful LDS channels since 2023? Do you think metrics like subscriber counts has told us anything meaningful? Again, Mormon Stories is produced by the Open Stories Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Reliable revenue data needs the IRS Form 990. If you can access the latest filings, please post them! This is absolutely hilarious. Poor LDS Church and bog old bogy man John Dehlin. Your post is simply laughable especially this: Comparing the LDS Church and it's wealth and its total lack of transparency to Dehlin's NFP and the fact that he makes a reasonable salary is totally absurd. But guess what. As a MS donor I can see his financial statements and Form 990 any time. If it bugs me that he is making too much money I can opt out. He does not hide his financial activity from his supporters unlike the church which demands 10% of it adherents to participate in the highest ordinances of the faith. While I do not listen much to MS podcasts or other Mormon them podcasts anymore things Mormon seem to interest my less and less and I have mostly moved on, I do appreciate the benefit and support I received from the podcasts, and from John directly. When my faith crisis happened in the early 2000s there was really not much support and I stumbled on MS and Dehlin. And John reached out to me personally at that time. Your post really reeks of desperation and fear so apparently MS strikes quite the negative chord in you.

My most sincere condolences. The loss of loved ones is certainly among the most bitter parts of our lives. I think if someone asks to do a proxy baptism for your son, and you prefer not to, just politely decline. No other explanation is needed.

If he had children would his children not have the power of a god?

Well if you go by the book The DaVinci Code that plot has Jesus producing and, spoiler alert, one of the main characters is a descendent.

My how special you are and must feel. I am happy for you. And I do not call believers deluded fools so don't pin that on me. Though some believers are certainly self righteous. arrogant, smug and overly pious.

Yes it is interesting and really wrong that it is always the women the get the short end of the stick on this one.

Modesty is really a cultural construct don't you think?

Wow! Why the scarcity? And why so sad?

Well Teddy, I was as much of a believer as you are for most my life. So I understand what you describe quite well actually, despite your attempt to smear us awful apostates and cast us in the worst light possible. Your approach is really a defense mechanism for your own cognitive dissonance I think.

I appreciate your summary and explanation, I do not think you are arrogant at all.

No that is not my intent. I am simply trying to illustrate that most people who are religious will often say they and nobody really knows the mind of God. But then they make arguments that can only be made by asserting to know the mind of God to at least some extent. Now I understand that you and other believers are simply saying things that you have a knowledge about from written Canon you believe is from God as well as from things you learn from religious leaders, scholars, authors, church manuals, seminary, institute and so on. So when you say God this or God that your language is couched in what you have learned from a variety of sources. These sources actually to claim to know the mind of God. But humans from all walks of various religious beliefs have their texts and teachers that expound about God, or gods or spiritual things that are unseen and they all conflict to varying degrees. But all claim to know something about what some god being or higher power thinks. And for theistic religions that believe this god being reveals itself to some extent to humans, there are those self professed or proclaimed prophets that actually tell us what they teach is the mind of God and that the God they represent speaks directly to them. I wonder if there is a God being why that being just doesn't make it mind and will known to all of us directly. But of course the counter and convenient argument is then we do not have to have faith and so on, which I think is an excuse, a crutch and a convenient cop out. I know that sounds harsh but look it from a skeptic's view. Take Joseph Smith. One has to trust the Joseph it telling us the truth, that he really did see God, have angelic visions and so on. Of course we have his life and what he produced to judge whether we can trust him and take it on faith. And yes I know there is asking God ourselves and the witness of the spirit but that is fraught with problems as well. But this theistic God that you talk about seems to be well hidden. And in addition to that this God sure didn't shy away from big miracles that allegedly were witnessed by many thousands of years ago but today similar miracles are painfully absent, Why is this God hiding so well? Hope this makes sense to you, whether you agree or not.

It is accurate IMO.

Ok fair enough. I will consider your well explained remarks and modify my simplistic conclusions about apologetics.

Why is it LDS persons have to say "I know." What is wrong with saying one has a very strong and heartfelt faith. Because you really do not know in the way most people understand someone when they say "I know." I don't hate God if there is a God. I am skeptical that such a being that you believe in exists and the fact that we live with such awful evil and suffering is strong evince that an theistic God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, that reveals himself to humans, exists. If there is such a being I think the awful God of Calvinism matches the biblical description of God. My take, if there is a higher power, it is likley a god like the Deists imagine.

No. You keep saying you do not know the mind of God and then you tell us things that you could only know by knowing the mind of God.

Well how do you know this since you say you do not know the mind of god but now you are telling us about the mind of god.

Well that is the entire point. The argument to defend man caused evil and inflicted suffering by saying God won't interfere in the agency man fails miserably because it ignores the agency of the victim. It also is one leads one to say there is one less bad theodicy argument. And that leads to less reason to have to try to justify evil and suffering with the God of the theistic religions because the problem of evil and suffering speaks out against such a being existing. So what exactly is the crutch?

The lack of decent answers to the why's ought not to be one to lead you to take it on faith. Rather it should lead you to question whether you should have faith when you cannot answer reasonable questions that deserve answers. After all, a religion that requires much of the adherent that has to lean on faith for most the most important questions is not worthy of devotion IMO.

In other words you have no good answer so just have faith. The biggest crutch and scam of religion from the dawn of human intelligence.

Sure is was a generalization. But when you have a key defender of the BoA for example, stating that he starts with the premise that the BoA is true and then seeks to find support for that, well that is a pretty flawed methodology. And do you dispute that BoM apologists don't do the exact same thing?

Surely a being as powerful as God allegedly is could come up with a way that spirit child that had progressed so far they only needed a body to get that body is some other less atrocious way.