SeekingUnderstanding

😬😁 Yep. Latter-day Saints as a tradition (from my perpective) very much focuses on good works in this life. I was taught that no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God and the only way to be clean was to follow God's commandments and repent when you fall short. As with everything there is a spectrum of belief here among members. Some in the tradition say we misunderstand "after all we can do" and that in Joseph Smith's day the phrase would have been understood better as "despite all we can do". How much an individual in the tradition focuses on works varies, but it does differ than protestants who teach that accepting Christ's atonement is sufficient. I'd like to point out a couple things though. Accepting Christ's atonement seems very much like an "action" just like paying a full tithe. I've never understood the difference. Every latter-day saint will tell you that it's Christ's grace that saves them from sins - not works. They just differ on what qualifies one for grace. For you perhaps, accepting Jesus in your heart is sufficient. For Latter-day Saints it is different. But neither of believe for instance Christ's grace is going to save an unrepentant unbelieving sinner like me. Here you lose the plot. Do you really purport to speak for all of Christianity? What of Catholics whose view on the matter is closer to Latter-day Saints? Latter-day Saints would say that Christ carries all the responsibility. You believe that there is only one requirement to access salvaiton - belief (sorry if I am misrepresenting you with my assumption). Latter-day Saints (and most Christians - i.e. Catholics and Orthodox) believe there is more than one.

And just to be clear, I don't think your personal preferences in that regard indicates mental illness. Only that perhaps you should be a bit more kind towards other peoples preferences.

Lol, rereading I'm almost sure you are right.

Welcome to the board EthanSmithJim. Too few members these days.

This seems to say much more about you than anyone else. And I'll just cavalierly state without any evidence whatsoever that this indicates you need mental health treatment and therapy for your "disorder". And if you find that offensive, then maybe you should hold up a mirror and look in it.

Dude, when you cut the question in half and claim it didn't have a question mark - like most people put their question marks at the end, not in the middle. And she even followed up with "serious question". And the reason for the "so" is because based on her understanding of your reasoning, one follows the other. She is asking for you to clarify your reasoning as to why you believe one is ok but not the other. She is inviting further discussion not putting words in your mouth.

Hi Jay. Exmormon atheist here. Mormons (Latter-day Saints as they prefer) consider themselves Christians because they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. He is a being solely responsible for their redemption. Mainstream evangelical Christians reject them as Christians because they want to gate-keep the word. Latter-day Saints do not believe in the Nicene creeds and explicitly reject core post biblical doctrines like the Trinity. I personally think that anyone leveraging a definition to discriminate and look down on a minority is stupid. I think it's fine to say that Latter-day Saints are not "mainline" Christians. Or that they reject many doctrines that most "Christians" accept as fact. But to say they are not Christian is just asinine.

I went to an meet up three times (not associated with Mormon Stories). Not a consistent group outside the leaders. Definitely hard to keep a group coming. It's a bit cathartic and then not really necessary.

Sometimes I wonder if you even bother to read the thread? My first statement above was about Mexico which is not "white". Unfortunately, based on the choices of your church's leadership, good data on church activity is difficult to find. If you have any objective data to share that shows "increased retention rates" anywhere in the world, I'd love to see it! Please to share. As for the amount of converts, that seems wholely unrelated to the thread. As far as I can see, there are more people who have left your church (i.e. those who were baptized, but no longer identify as members) than those that currently identify as latter-day saints. If you have data from any country that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it.

This is what I'd like to see. I think its fine to distinguish between those who identify as "ex" whatever and those that are merely ex-members. If you want to use the label of "ex" to only apply to those that have taken it on as an identity that's an okay choice, but its on you to specifically state it and it is entirely unfair to expect others to play along. No where in your quote above or quote below is there an article or book (I'd love to see it if there is) that distingishes between ex and former. If I identify as a former mormon, I see no difference (based on your sources) than identifying as an ex-mormon. The key part of their narrative is what it takes for someone to identify as something they are not (not what words they choose to do it). If you assumed that people talking about ex mormons are using the phrase differently than you, that's 100 percent on you

CFR please.

Is it just the phrase ex-Mormon you object to? What’s the difference between saying, “I’m an exmormon” and “I’m a former Mormon”. Or “I’m an ex-Catholic” vs “I’m a former Catholic”. Or “I’m her ex-husband” vs “I’m her former husband”. To me they are synonymous. If someone asks me for my religious affiliation (like at a hospital) I simple state I don’t have one. Does that mean I’m not a former Latter Day Saint?

Except I was not replying to opening post, but rather this. I'm sorry, but if people don't identify as a member of your group, they aren't a member of your group.. They aren't "inactive" members. They are former members - ex-mormon - if you will. As for those that join Reddit or listen to John Dehlin, those are the ex-mormons that had particularly strong community ties that most former Latter-day Saints lack.

You are making this too complicated. Baptized members at one point considered themselves as Latter-day Saints. These surveys show a significant number of them no longer do. This makes them ex-Mormons.

This is a ridiculously narrow way to define exmormon. Better to look at self identified members versus church records. In Mexico for instance only 20 percent of people on the church roles identify as Latter-day Saint (80 percent exmormon) see here (https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2022/07/self-affiliated-latter-day-saints-in.html?m=1). Surveys show Utah as 50 percent Latter-day Saint vs 2/3 via church records. So 25 percent exmormon in a place where identifying as Latter-day Saint faces the most favorable conditions. For the United States as a whole the 60000 person CCES survey discussed here shows 1.14 percent self identify as Latter-day Saint. This if true would give 45 percent exmormon. See discussion here:

Huh. I wasn’t aware that any biblical translations used the word “apostle” in any of these verses. It’s been a while since I’ve conversed with someone so over confident in their own abilities. The idea that a dictionary, google, and chat gpt gives puts one’s knowledge above people that have dedicated their lives to a subject field is beyond me. Good luck with that and good night!

I don't mean anything by it. I'm quoting Paul. Look. No one in this thread is unaware of the etymological root of the word apostle. Sent one. Emissary. That is indeed what it means and meant. What you refuse to acknowledge, is that it was coopted by the early church leaders as a title. That is why every single bible translation renders it as such. You know by the people that actually know first century greek and don't have to go ask Chat GPT. Dude, I'm saying Paul called her prominent. Because he did. He said "Junia is prominent among the apostles". Not that I am aware My source is every single bible translation. Here is your King James version: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." So what makes her Apostleship different than Paul for example here in Corinthians: ""And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one untimely born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" Is Paul an Apostle? Yes? Then Junia is as well. Your problem is that you assign special meaning to the term Apostle. That it means the same to call Dallin Oaks an apostle as it does when Paul calls himself an apostle. I think such ideas are nonsense. You have no background in Greek or biblical translation. You contradict those that do (such as the translators of the KJV the NIV the NRSV etc). You cite no sources except etymology. Take it up with them You'll have to point me to where I denied it. I am merely pointing out that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you point to the New Testament to determine that Paul was an Apostle, then you also have to accept the New Testament when it says Junia is an Apostle. Paul says Junia is an Apostle. Paul says Paul was an Apostle. You are the one that wants to assign one meaning in one place and another in the other place.

This is just me being a poor editor. Paul referred to Junia and Andronicus as Apostles (called them apostles) in the same sense of the word as when he called himself an apostle. This is the wrong question. You should be asking what made them prominent (of note, important), to Paul. https://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/16-7-compare.html#google_vignette Um, I’m saying Paul calling them “of note” or “prominent” makes them prominent. Are we talking about the same verse here? https://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/16-7-compare.html#google_vignette Can you find a translation of the Bible that distinguishes the kind of apostle Paul was and the kind of Apostle Junia was? So you have no training in the understanding of 1st century CE Greek. Who could have guessed? Maybe spend sometime pondering why not a single biblical translation renders the term ‘sent’ in this specific verse? Then spend some time looking up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy. Then ask yourself if you would be disputing any of this if it was Junias instead of Junia.

I wasn’t aware that you were fluent in 1st century CE Greek. Where did you get your degree. Have you published in the field? On what credential do you claim to speak with authority on this subject? Can you point to an analysis done by someone who actually has broad experience in Greek that agrees with you when it comes to Junia? The only misogynistic apologetics I’ve seen either see to claim Junia must have been male, or they claim that Junia was simply known to the apostles (based on possible Greek usage dating five centuries prior). Please educate me!

I mean Paul called Junia as a prominent “Apostle” in the same sense that Paul calls himself an “Apostle.”

Nah. The history and consensus among biblical scholars all confirm Junia as female and prominent among the apostles (as a calling not one who is sent). The only people arguing otherwise are people with an ideological ax to grind.

Especially since the interviewee was relating his experience as a sexually abused child. Teachings like Elder Scott's and those say found in miracle of forgiveness (better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle) aren't erased by talks like Hollands. Not directed at @webbles, but at those who find Hansen worth defending: And Hansen's apologetics are laughably weak. Saying others teach a gospel of shame and guilt too is a pretty weak defence. And the false dichotomies! What's the alternative to teaching shame and guilt about children masturbating? Hansen says the only alternative is "We don't need to bridle our impulses in any way. @8:19" This is what you find convincing? Really? You seriously need to get out more.

"Celestial Glory" not Celestial Kingdom though? We have standardized language now, but not so much back at church founding. Celestial as described by webster in 1831: https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Celestial "Heavenly; belonging or relating to heaven; dwelling in heaven;" So in Heaven there are three heavens or degrees. Seems like it could apply to three kingdoms rather than three subdivisions of the highest kingdom. Or maybe not.

Yes. Not outright saying it but using dog whistles instead. Kirk didn’t “advocate” for the stoning of gays. He merely pointed out “Gods perfect word” did. Such a huge difference 🙄

I like this option just for the phrase. “Interregnum”. Makes me feel educated.