Pyreaux

I care, just not out of fear or a rigid taboo, but I do agree it's overused and prefer to avoid using Mormon too repetitively, or at other times to avoid confusion over the denomination, I may use it interchangeably, which seems like a fairly normal thing. I'm critical when others say that I must call them Ex-Mormons if I'm a decent person. If I dare to use an alternative term and they pretend they don't even understand English ('Ex-LDS') to force me to comply. The power dynamics of compelled speech. I use both terms casually. And it doesn't bother me when others use 'Mormon' either. I’m not the one policing their vocabulary, I'm resisting their attempt to police mine. Or that it's somehow a matter of courtesy. Choosing a completely neutral, vanilla descriptor like 'ex-LDS' inside a faithful forum isn't an attempt to make anyone unhappy. They are just unhappy contrarians trying to find any reason to be mad. We all might not be naturally rigid people in real life, but the internet forum sandbox often demands that we play a defensive role.

No, because I clearly used both terms interchangeably in this very topic, which means I'm not afraid of the terms, you are. My issue is the cultural enforcement you are trying to pull on me. Feigning ignorance of a term like "ex-LDS" even exists exposes that you are the one with the rigid ideology. When I talk about capitulation, I’m not describing a moral crisis or a blind refusal to use a term. Allowing an outside counter-culture to dictate the terminology allowed inside a faithful forum is, by definition, capitulation. You continue to confuse popularity with neutrality. Just because adversarial online subcultures may overwhelmingly chose highly politically charged labels doesn't make that label neutral. If tomorrow the community enters this forum and insists that they now collectively identify as the 'Enlightened Ones' or as 'Free-Thinkers,' am I uncivil if I refuse to refer to them how they identify? By your logic, I would be guilty of a 'rules for thee' double standard and failing a test of basic human decency. Yet, everyone here would know how ridiculous that would be.

Nope, you don't get to unilaterally define the conversation as a test of basic human decency and declare that I somehow failed it without objection. You haven't defined courtesy as me being able to absolutely hold my standards while being civil, without capitulation, surrendering my standards just because an opposing side demands it, which is exactly what you seem to be suggesting I do, assuming if I were a decent fellow. When Christians choose to call Latter-day Saints "Christians," they are indeed extending a courtesy by respecting how that group defines their own relationship with Jesus Christ. But "Ex-Mormon" is doing the exact opposite. Once a Christian enters an LDS space and insists on saying, "You aren't Christians, you are Mormons," they are intentionally ignoring the group's self-identity to score a theological point. Everyone recognizes that as a provocation. Nobody recognizes 'Ex-LDS' as a provocation. It's a massive false equivalency. Nobody is walking around getting triggered, offended, or baited by a literal descriptor like "Ex-LDS."

Here is the difference, "Ex-LDS" is a literal, technical description of a change in organizational status. If you used to be a Latter-day Saint member and now you are not a member, you are an ex-Latter-day Saint. It contains zero emotional commentary, zero theological judgment, and zero slang. It is completely vanilla English. "Mormon," on the other hand, is slang, a historically complex nickname that current Church leadership has explicitly asked members to phase out. I'm not the one marching onto r/exmormon and correcting their posts to say "Ex-LDS," then I would be weaponizing language to annoy them in their own home. But that isn't what is happening. I am participating in a faithful, academic, FAIR-aligned space, using vocabulary acceptable by the Church's style guide. I am choosing "Ex-LDS" to maintain consistency and institutional respect within a faithful environment. Expecting a faithful forum to adopt internet branding inside its own digital walls is upside down. I'm not saying "Ex-LDS" to make them angry, to mock them, or to get a defensive rise out of them. I'm using it because it is the most factually precise way to describe former members who are now in an adversarial relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without engaging with the word "Mormon." The comparison doesn't hold up under scrutiny, because 'Ex-LDS' and 'Mormon' aren't doing the same linguistic work. From a certain perspective, it diminishes a political effect and replacing it with a rather quiet, neutral, institutional description. Why focus on the minority? If you haven't noticed the minority is the group actively driving this conversation.

Find every Ex-LDS thread that refences the "major victory for Satan". Every title of an episode of Mormon Stories. The forums openly discuss that they intentionally lean into the word "Mormon" precisely because the current leadership was trying to move away from it. It's also a calculated business decision in a Search Engine Optimization standpoint, "Mormon" generates massively higher search volume than "LDS." Whenever an Ex-LDS enters faithful spaces and insists on using "Mormon" to provoke active members is weaponizing it. Using language not to communicate, but to score a tactical point. You can't seriously be denying online spaces explicitly double down on 'Ex-Mormon' and 'Mormon' as deliberate acts of reclamation and institutional resistance since 2018.

Academic literature, peer-reviewed journals, and university dissertations use "ex-LDS" as a standard analytical category because researchers require strict classifications rather than internet subculture shorthand. "Mormon" can refer to over a dozen distinct breakaway denominations, academic protocols default to referencing the specific institution being exited. I have several published examples demonstrate how standard and widely accepted this vocabulary is. I think it's a manipulation game. They only want to be called Ex-Mormons precisely because the Church doesn't want its members called Mormons. Even if you are calling current members "Latter-day Saints" to respect their wishes, you are still following a naming convention that the community is actively using as a point of defiance. Since, the vocabulary itself is a political battlefield, is exactly why a neutral, clinical descriptor is sometimes necessary. You speak of courtesy while they intentionally weaponize the word "Mormon". If they reserve the right to ignore the naming preferences of Latter-day Saints, they have very little standing to demand that a faithful LDS bend standard English grammar to match the online brand. By choosing to say "ex-LDS" I strip away the politics and return the conversation to a calm, clinical reality. As someone participating in a faithful, academic space aligned with FAIR, my baseline for language follows the Church's style guide, which asks us to phase out the cultural nickname 'Mormon.' While you are completely free to brand your own spaces however you like, calling someone who left the denomination 'ex-LDS' is factually accurate and aligns with the vocabulary standards of my faith. Courtesy goes both ways, if the online community can ignore the naming preferences of the Church, they shouldn't be surprised when faithful forum's member default to standard, literal descriptors instead of subculture branding.

Yet, sociology, psychology, and religious studies researchers almost exclusively use "ex-LDS." Should we really let an online forum's branding dictate what term to use? I am identifying them by the exact organization they left. If someone leaves the Jehovah's Witnesses, they are an ex-JW. Calling someone who left the LDS Church ex-LDS is standard English use. The "ex" is certainly an identity they already claim. I'm not forcing some new status on them. Perhaps you are trying to invalidate a term you personally don't like?

When news is slow, I look at ex-LDS forums to see what they talk about. A wave of discussion following the formal excommunication of podcaster and content creator Landon Brophy in mid-May for public apostasy. The event sparked debate among Redditers and Mormon Stories regarding how the Church handles online critics. Even though every organization, whether a corporation, a sports league, or a religious body, has standards of conduct, membership requirements, and boundaries. Church discipline is not an act of malice, it is a necessary mechanism for maintaining the integrity of the faith and the community. What Did Landon Brophy Do Wrong? On his show, he openly questioned and criticized the translation and authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Historical, DNA, and archaeological challenges regarding the Book of Mormon. The divine authority of Church leadership and modern revelation. All designed to undermine the faith of others. The podcast regularly engaged in direct, public criticism of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Church guidelines explicitly state that repeatedly and publicly attacking or campaigning against Church leadership constitutes clear grounds for a disciplinary council. Landon Brophy’s actions directly met the definition of public apostasy. While the Ex-LDS community often frames church discipline as a punishment for simply having doubts, the Church's guidelines distinguish between private struggles with faith and public opposition. As a co-host on the Mormonish Podcast, Brophy moved far beyond private disbelief. He used a public platform to consistently question, deconstruct, and criticize Church doctrines, history, and leadership. Brophy had a long history of high-level leadership, and his public actions created a fundamental breach of church integrity. When local leaders reached out to him after General Conference to discuss his status, Brophy admittedly ignored the correspondence, missed the certified mail, and chose not to participate in the local council. Church discipline is intended to be an invitation to repentance and a local, pastoral process. When a member completely withdraws from that process while continuing to publicly attack the Church, leaders are left with no choice but to formally update the records to reflect reality. Other Strange Ex-LDS Outcries The vocal uproar from the Ex-LDS community following Brophy's excommunication highlights several logical inconsistencies and double standards within that space. A common refrain in ex-Mormon forums is that the Church "has no power" and an excommunication letter is meaningless. Yet, the massive influx of angry posts, dedicated Mormon Stories episodes, and coordinated outcries completely contradicts this claim. If the decree truly carries no weight, the intense emotional and reactive preoccupation with it reveals that the community still attributes an immense amount of significance to it. Ex-LDS commentators frequently criticize the Church for maintaining inactive members on its membership rolls, claiming it is inflated with people who no longer believe. However, when the Church takes formal steps to clean up its records by removing a vocal, long-inactive critic like Brophy, the same community decries the move as an aggressive purge or attack. Every community establishes boundaries to define who is part of the group and who is not. If a member of a political party, a secular nonprofit, or a tight-knit club spent years publicly campaigning against the group's core mission, no one would question that organization's right to revoke their membership. The hypocrisy lies in demanding that the Church remain a free-for-all, forcing it to carry the name of a public antagonist on its records under the guise of tolerance. A membership council is not a hostile courtroom. It is a formal acknowledgment of a choice the individual has already made when someone spends years publicly acting outside the boundaries of Latter-day Saint fellowship.

Meteor (2009) A low-budget 2-episode TV miniseries. A relentless race against time to stop an asteroid three times the size of Mt. Everest from slamming into Earth. It starred Billy Campbell (best known for The Rocketeer). It co-starred Ernie Hudson, Michael Rooker, and Christopher Lloyd. Watch for free on The Roku Channel, Tubi TV, Pluto TV, and Plex.

I believe in the need for "priestly" authority because to induct people into the priesthood you need to receive it from someone with the priesthood to give it. Baptism is actually a part of the priestly born-again ritual. Baptism is needed to enter God's presence because the priesthood is what allows mortals to endure God's glory, just like it was needed in the ancient temple, incase God appeared in there. I also believe God will accept even a 'Gentile's" covenant or vow. Say, like it's an outward symbol of your inward commitment to Christ. Even an unauthorized baptism is acceptable to God on their own terms. A step up, on the steppingstones of the gospel. Though it's not what we call a baptism, but that's semantics. Like how "speaking in tongues" I don't believe is technically the same as getting struck "dumb" and babbling, yet that is not to say it's no less a miracle or sign from the Holy Ghost to them. The Holy Spirit can work in people, without "the gift" of the Holy Ghost, per se. You’re not wrong. The LDS Church has a lot of fences. Between worthiness interviews, dietary codes, and structured organizational boundaries, it absolutely operates with lines. But a well in an open wilderness can easily get polluted without a structure around it built to protect the purity of the well so that whenever someone does come to drink, the water is always clear and constant. It completely makes sense why a pure fence group wouldn't work for you. And maybe the LDS path is trying and failing to be both. Maybe it's not being a well very well. The well itself is often marketed around eternal family and priesthood. Sometimes we get so hyper-focused on that aspect when not everyone who comes to drink wants it, and we neglect ministering to the others, like the happily single person, or a perpetually just visiting person, or a pilgrim, or the excommunicated one who keeps coming anyway. There is something for you. We want to share the secrets with everyone, its meant to be shared, but at the right moment. The ancient idea behind temple privacy isn't about hoarding, it’s an act of pastoral care. It’s meant to ensure that people aren't exposed to a deep, demanding covenant too early, before they have the spiritual context to understand them, and ideally are already worthy before they attempt it too early and fail to keep the covenant. "Unto you it is given to know the secret of the kingdom... but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables" (Mark 4:11). "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 3:2). Some truths you are not ready to receive. “For the unbelieving the truth is harmful... it may rather do harm than good, if it be not presented in the proper time and manner.” (Clementine Recognitions (Book II, ch. 5) When a dedicated Christian comes into the LDS community, they aren't converting from paganism or godlessness. The Book of Mormon explicitly defines the 'Church of the Lamb' not as an organization, but a divide of what is in the hearts of men. You always have had faith, love, and repentance, you have been a vibrant, active member of the Church of the Lamb for years. You aren't on the outside looking in. The LDS view differentiates between the power of the Holy Ghost which can rest upon anyone at any time and the covenant right to its constant companionship. When we talk about the 'Gift' of the Holy Ghost, we don't mean Latter-day Saints have a monopoly on God's Spirit and who it wants to be with. It's simply about a formal, covenantal anchor. I don't think a human can see the difference between the Spirit when in LDS people and Spirit in other people. I agree, the LDS teachings are very clear that a non-LDS man is saved if he would have joined the church had he known he needed to do so, they will absolutely inherit the Celestial Kingdom, the place where the Father and the Son dwell. The Church is often accused of being an exclusive club, its actual canonized doctrine regarding the afterlife is arguably the most radical, universalist, and inclusive vision in all of Christendom.

I did agree somewhat at first but reading it again, I'm not sure how to hold to saying the system is run on warped venture capitalism and simultaneously not suspect the output of that system is going to be corrupt. I think 50% or even higher could be fraudulent, depending entirely on how you define a "fake" case within the pool of legally meritless and unverified claims, or some explicitly fraudulent claims which regularly reaches staggering majorities. They have built a machine that practically invites a portion of them to get paid. Algorithms map the emotions, specifically, anger and resentment. They see an Ex-LDS subredditer vent over trauma reframed as "abuse". That's about when an algorithm drops a highly targeted, "Have you been harmed by an LDS leader?" When offered money, they think "Well, the leader was a terrible person who ruined my teenage years, so yes, it was abuse, and yes, the Church should pay me for it." An intake form coaches them on how to turn that grudge into a payday. They click the ad, they are funneled through check-boxes. Was the perpetrator a leader? Did it happen on Church property? Did you report it to a leader? If they answer one incorrectly, the automated system rejects them. If they answer with the right combination of words, they put a financial value on the case. It is designed to shape, flatten, and sometimes manufacture a complex personal history into a pre-packaged legal product that fits a lucrative settlement window. Their stories are pre-built. Any liar is absolutely getting paid. The entire mass-tort and private mediation infrastructure is practically built to tolerate a percentage of unverified or embellished claims as a cost of doing business. If a liar has a story that merely hits the exact right legal checkboxes and matches the expected profile of a case, they can easily slide in under the radar. When settlements are finalized, the money is managed by a third-party claims administrator who scores the cases. Say, Tier 1 gets $50k, Tier 2 gets $150k. Often, all that is required to qualify for a lower-tier settlement is a signed affidavit, a verified identity, and a plausible narrative that names a specific church unit or a known leader from that era. With no evidence, because these lower amounts are considered nuisance values, the Church just pays the $40,000 to make it go away. Thus, fraudulent claims are routinely paid out to keep the settlements moving. To say this whole system "says nothing about the victims." That is wishful thinking. In mass torts, a law firm is highly incentivized to keep liars in the pool. The larger the inventory, the more financial leverage the firm has to force the Church into a massive settlement. Mostly my point is to respond to the highly theatrical narrative pushed by ex-LDS activists and media headlines. If this were truly just how all mass torts work, Ex-LDS activists and news outlets certainly do not pitch these events as a normal or routine. Instead, they paint a dark portrait of an explicitly evil church full of degenerate leaders and miserly money counters. These same Ex-LDS platforms function as a marketing arm for the mass-tort firms. Outlets like the Open Stories Foundation do all the pre-discovery heavy lifting and generate social media outrage. When the Church steps in to protect its tithing funds or its right to due process through standard legal maneuvers, they crybully.

Much of the dominating press surrounding the Church often focuses on new filings and settlements, but there have been several "wins" for the Church in the last few months. Insurance Coverage One of the most significant recent financial wins occurred on May 13, 2026, at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Church had previously lost a lower-court ruling where a judge sided with the insurance companies, ACE Property & Casualty, refusing to cover a $32 million settlement involving Michael Jensen. The lower court had ruled the Church’s failure to prevent abuse constituted "multiple occurrences," exhausting coverage limits. In the recent appellate hearing, judges signaled they were likely to reverse that decision. The 10th Circuit panel suggested that the failure of church officials to stop the abuse should be treated as a single occurrence, which would force insurers to pay out millions that the Church otherwise would have had to cover out of pocket. While a final written opinion typically takes several weeks or months to be released. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. ACE Property & Casualty Company et al. (10th Cir. Case No. 25-4122). Courthouse News - Mormon church battles insurers over sex abuse settlement coverage First Amendment and Church Autonomy Defense The Church often joins amicus briefs or uses similar legal strategies to other religious groups to secure broad protections for religious institutions. In cases like Union Gospel Mission v. Brown, the 9th Circuit reinforced the "church autonomy doctrine." While not the defendant, the LDS Church has heavily lobbied for this standard, which recently upheld the right of religious organizations to hire only those who share their "mission" and "values" for non-ministerial roles, like IT or operations. If I recall, there was some uproar about BYU employees. ADF Media - 9th Circuit affirms religious ministries can hire like-minded individuals Donor Privacy April 29, 2026, The Supreme Court ruled in First Choice v. Davenport that religious-affiliated nonprofits cannot be forced to hand over donor lists to state governments. This was a major strategic win for the Church's legal arm, which prioritizes the privacy of its financial supporters and tithe-payers. JD Supra - Unanimous SCOTUS Expands Ability to Challenge Subpoenas Dismissals Statute of Limitations Successes In several states without "look-back" windows, the Church has successfully had older abuse claims dismissed. While California and Oregon are currently seeing a flood of cases due to new laws, the Church has successfully defended against similar suits in states where the statute of limitations has not been reopened, arguing that the claims are "time-barred." Lawsuit Information Center - May 2026 Update Privilege Protections Despite challenges in Arizona and Washington, the Church has successfully maintained its clergy-penitent privilege in several lower-court motions in 2026. This allows bishops to avoid testifying about confessions made during private interviews, a core legal shield for the Church. Arizona Supreme Court - Amicus Filing on Clergy-Penitent Privilege Procedural & Settlement Victories The "Stay" Strategy In several pending 2026 cases, the Church’s legal team has successfully filed for stays, temporary pauses. This is considered a strategic win because it prevents the discovery process, where internal Church documents and disciplinary files would be turned over to plaintiffs, while they negotiate for smaller and confidential settlements. Motley Rice - LDS Sexual Abuse Lawsuit & Helpline Claims Negotiated Reductions In March 2026, the Church successfully negotiated a series of smaller, private settlements in the Midwest that were significantly lower than the record-breaking $2.28 billion verdict from 2023, effectively capping their financial exposure in those regions. Sokolove Law - $2.28 Billion Verdict vs. $1 Million Settlement Some Commentary From an LDS defensive perspective, the surge in lawsuits can be viewed as not just as a search for justice, but as a coordinated attempt to use "lawfare" to harm the Church. There are many ex-LDS activists and specific law firms being motivated by financial gain or ideological hostility rather than specific legal merits. How do I know this? The mass-tort machine is something you can see in real-time through the public marketing and internal strategies of major law firms. These cases are part of what they call "inventories" rather than organic filings. The cases are being filed decades after the fact in states where the law does not even allow it, forcing the Church to spend millions on defense against "time-barred" claims. Some are tragic and legitimate, but many others appear to be part of case inventories gathered by mass-tort firms via aggressive social media advertising. The record-breaking $2.28 billion verdict in 2023 is often cited as an example of jury passion rather than objective law. The Church’s success in reducing these amounts through appeals and mediation is a necessary correction to keep the legal system fair and grounded in evidence rather than emotion. After 30+ years, witnesses are dead, and memories are unreliable. It is morally wrong to force an institution to defend itself against decades-old allegations where "due process" is impossible because the evidence no longer exists. Law firms and "lead generators" use highly sophisticated social media algorithms to find potential claimants. Agencies like the Mass Tort Ad Agency specifically market "LDS MTC Abuse Lawsuit" packages to law firms. In May 2026, data showed these agencies were achieving Cost-Per-Leads (CPL) as low as $18–$35. The term "inventory" is how these firms actually describe their clients in legal filings. These firms don't just blast ads; they use "LDS affinity data" to target people who have "liked" certain Church-related pages, graduated from BYU, or live in high-LDS density areas. At $20 a lead, a firm can spend $20,000 to get 1,000 "leads," then filter those down into a "case inventory" of 100 clients. If they settle those 100 cases for just $50,000 each, the firm takes a 40% cut, turning a $20,000 ad spend into a $2 million profit. Ex-LDS influencers often share "call to action" posts from law firms like Dolman Law Group or Sokolove Law. By sharing their personal "trauma stories," they prime their audience to see themselves as victims in a potential lawsuit. The states that recently opened look-back windows allowing people to sue for abuse that happened decades ago saw an immediate, unnatural spike in filings that coincided perfectly with the social media ad campaigns. In early 2025, over 100 lawsuits were filed in California alone in a single month. It is statistically impossible for 100 unrelated individuals to suddenly decide to sue in the same 30-day window without the coordination of mass-tort advertising. To the Church in many of the cases, a $50,000 settlement is often considered a "nuisance settlement", paid simply to make a case go away because defending it in court would cost more, even if the case is likely fraudulent or lacks evidence. In 2026 began Litigation Funding. Wall Street hedge funds actually invest in these law firms to pay for the social media ads. These investors don't care about the victims, they care about the Return on Investment. This creates a massive incentive for firms to sign up as many people as possible, regardless of the strength of their case, to ensure they can pay back their investors with a bulk settlement. Everyone can know this is happening because you can see the ads, you can read the agencies' own case-acquisition strategies online, and you can track the bulk filing patterns that only occur when a law firm has spent months harvesting leads through social media. Listen to all victims. Believing someone’s pain and validating their experience is a moral act, but a courtroom is a place of evidence. A presumption of guilt against the church, simply because it's wealthy or because it's the Latter-day Saints, is a violation of due process. If we skip the evidence because of an anti-LDS sentiment, we destroy the legal system for everyone.

My point isn't to insist on one specific pattern. The King Follett Sermon makes 'certainty' impossible whether God's "mortality" is mortality as we know it. When the King Follett Discourse supposes Jesus’ mortality mirrored the Father’s mortality in some way, Jesus was God before he obtained any bodily form, a Creator of His world before He walked on it, who had power over life and death and remained sinless. It does not suggest the Father's mortality was a standard human experience. It doesn't smoothly fit the simple "pattern" later thought of "as man is, God once was". Other than saying one day God the Father simply chooses, for reasons, to exist in a physical form, there nothing in particular dictating the Father isn't still a unique, self-existing, innately powered, non-striving, never 'progressing' in the sense from sin to glory, simply transitioning. If the 'cycle' is inconsistent, if some gods are like Jesus and others were like us, then there is no 'pattern' at all, some are apparently exceptions. What's most interesting, if we assume the Father was always God and just took a body like Jesus and glorified it, then the non-LDS charge of "blasphemy" of God being merely a "man" is weakened. He’s just a God with a body, no less Godly than Jesus is now or was.

Normally, a private group can rent a facility like a community center or park pavilion and limit who attends. However, when the facility is a major public utility like a city’s only water park, the lines blur. If a city allows a Christian-only or LDS-only day at a public pool, it faces the same legal hurdle. The government is essentially facilitating segregation by religion on public property. This is why most cities avoid "exclusive" religious rentals and instead opt for "sponsored events" where anyone can buy a ticket, even if the theme is religious. The Free Exercise Clause protects the right of the Muslim group to gather and celebrate. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appearing to favor or "establish" one religion. By allowing a religious group to take over a public asset and exclude others, the state could be seen as violating this clause. If a city-owned recreation center in Provo held an LDS-only night, it would almost certainly face immediate federal lawsuits from groups like the ACLU or the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The legal standard is content neutrality. The city can't treat a Muslim group differently than it would treat a Catholic group or a secular group. Muslims have my sympathy over the modesty factor. If perhaps this was about the preference for Burka swimwear, modest dress is generally legally protected under the Free Exercise Clause. A group can rent a facility and require a specific dress code (e.g., "modest swimwear only") as long as the requirement doesn't technically exclude people based on their identity or faith. The conflict in Texas arose specifically from it being "Muslims only".

Where are the human skulls Ed Decker promised?

Being like everyone else, being a common origin. By the Father [not] being considered non-divine in His mortality, I mean it is not clear at all whether his mortality was exactly like our current selves. The King Follet Sermon's comparison of the Father's mortality as being "like Jesus'" mortality throws out the idea he was "like us". While Jesus was a mortal, He was not like us, in power and authority, he was still a much greater being. One of several issues with an Infinite Regression. If not everyone has the same exaltation experience, how do we know what this supposed cycle truly looks like?

In LDS thought the view is not necessarily that God being a spirit is "incorrect," but rather that it is an incomplete description. The modern LDS perspective argues that having a body does not prevent God from being described as a spiritual being (like in John 4:24). The classic explanation for the "Great Spirit" is that its borrowed terminology, Alma 18 is interpreted as Ammon using the Lamanites' existing vocabulary to teach them higher concepts. Like what some say Paul might be doing on Mar's Hill declaring the "Unknown God". But my explanation is in Alma 18:32-35, Ammon explains that the Great Spirit created all things. This matches the Book of Ether and modern LDS belief of the Lord God, Jehovah, is Jesus and the Creator of all things under the Father’s direction. In that sense God was at that time indeed a Spirit. In 1830, when the Book of Mormon was published, there are specific moments where the text hints at a plurality or a distinct status for Jesus that aligns more with later LDS theology. 1 Nephi, 3 Nephi, Alma clearly show Jesus as a separate being who is subordinate to the Father. 1 Nephi 1 Lehi sees God sitting on his throne and then sees "One" descend. Here Jesus is clearly distinct from the one on the throne. Then there is Alma describing Jesus as "a" Son of God instead of "the" Son of God (Alma 36:17). Very Daniel-Esque. But Joseph's beliefs were probably more traditional. Even though Joseph saw the personage of the Father, that doesn't mean that he could tell He was embodied or not. In Ether 3, the Brother of Jared sees the Lord and is shocked because his finger appears to be "flesh and blood." He explains he possessed a spirit body. This body has a shape, a form, and limbs, that looks like "flesh". Why not? Whenever God the Father is seen in the Bible, he looks like he has a human body sitting on a throne but that doesn't stop Christians today from thinking He is a Spirit. Joseph did not write the standard First Vision found in the Pearl of Great Price until 1838, it seems after this that something shifted. By 1841 Joseph began teaching the distinctions and bodies of the Godhead more publicly in Nauvoo. In a sermon on January 5, 1841, he taught: "That which is without body, parts, and passions is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones." By 1843 it was canonized in D&C 130:22. During the Nauvoo period 1844, particularly in the King Follett discourse, it was taught that God the Father didn't always have a body, He had acquired his exalted body, maybe having a mortal probation, but not necessarily a non-divine period. At this time the term God became contextual. Joseph in one context refers to an exalted bodily state as godhood, yet Jesus always had an investiture of godly authority and power throughout known history prior to his exaltation.

The accounts of the Witch of Endor and 'Lazarus and the rich man' portray spirits as beings with appendages complete with sensation, interacting with spirit objects like cloths, and can see the earth, and know what's happening.

Right. They were "no kings" protesting, he's leaning in on it to troll them. A "King" was their portrayal, he is just reacting to it. Like they did "Fat JD", now JD plays into it. Now Fat JD is a Meme Lord. More people know and like Fat JD more than they know and like the real JD.

But if you double the number of temples, even if these new ones will have new classrooms, you still double the human cost of keeping them running and patroned. These still function as temples, just with an extra 5th room, doing ordinances alongside classes, they'll require a constant supply of active workers who are worthy full tithe-payers and can commit 4–6 hours a week, plus patrons. Though I guess, if strategically placed, more temples mean less travel, making it easier to serve.

Independent researchers argue that the official membership count includes many who are no longer active based on census data. Countries like Brazil and Australia, national census data for people who self-identify as "LDS" is often 30% to 60% lower than what the Church reports on its records. Yet, its disputable, there are 10 operating temples and 10 more under construction in Brazil. You cannot sustain 20 temples with only 250,000 people if those people aren't extremely active and committed. Physical buildings are the hard data that proves the census is under-reporting. The continued announcement and construction of temples suggests there is a strong base of full-tithe paying members capable of staffing those buildings. Data from the Spiritual Seismology Survey suggests that the naysayers are misinterpreting the inactive list. The survey found that nearly 40% of LDS members who haven't attended a meeting in over a year still identify as "LDS" when asked by a third party. And many adopt a hybrid faith. They might still pray, believe the Book of Mormon, and keep some version of the Word of Wisdom, but they find the social cost of attending a struggling, under-staffed local branch too high. Concerning the new convert influx problem. In the U.S., you might have one active Melchizedek Priesthood holder for every 3–5 total members on the books. In parts of the Global South, that ratio can balloon to 1 leader for every 50+ members. A Bishop simply does not have the hours in a week to minister to hundreds of new converts. Without that support, the members stop attending, not because they stopped believing in the Book of Mormon, but because they weren't culturally integrated. The number of new wards/branches in Latin America often lags behind the number of baptisms. There thousands are on the books that can become paper. They may go back to Catholicism, but many are also "Believing but Non-Attending" members. Record-breaking Seminary and Institute enrollment and expansion of the missionaries shows the youth are not having as many problems. Seminary and Institute added 200,000 students in just the last two years. Interestingly, about 75,000 of those students are not members of the Church. This suggests that the youth aren't just staying, they actively invite their peers. That enrollment is directly feeding a massive expansion of the missionary force, which has reached 85,000+ full-time missionaries in early 2026.

Well, as long as we don't debate the politics, and just comment on it with little cross talk. I assume he's trolling because protesters say he's a king?

I acknowledge the difference between Latria (the worship owed to God alone) and Dulia (the honor or "veneration" given to created beings) is a bedrock of how Catholics reconcile honoring the Saints or a King without it being guilty of "idolatry." A valid notion in modern Catholicism. However, I am suggesting that the "Royal Cult" proponents like Maragret Barker goes a step farther. Barker focuses heavily on 1 Chronicles 29:20, where the assembly "bowed their heads and worshipped the LORD and the king." Not prostrating to God as an act of worship and prostrating to the king as an act of political respect. But Barker argues that in the original Temple context, it's a conjunction of identity. It is a single act of prostration directed at a single presence, who is both the king and the LORD. The throne wasn't a piece of furniture owned by Solomon; it was a ritual seat that belonged to God. When the King sat there, he was merged into the divine identity. You aren't worshiping the man and the God; you are just worshiping God in the man. In Hebrew, the verb for "worship/prostrate" (shachah) is applied to both subjects simultaneously. Barker argues this is because, the King is the "Anointed One" (Messiah). The king's anointing oil was believed to literally transmit the Spirit of the Lord into the King's body. The King often took a "throne name" that identified him with the Lord. There was no separation during the rituals. On the day of coronation, the King was the Presence of the Lord. To honor the King was to honor the Lord, and to not worship the King was sacrilege against the Lord. If Jesus is a Royal Cultist of this tradition, we see he isn't asking for a lower degree of honor than God. The King was the focal point of worship intended for the Lord, they aren't worshipping Solomon, rather the Lord inside Solomon. I want to point out the reason I still prefer the traditional real Resurrection, I believe though it isn't a completely original idea, it's not 1:1 as there are many features that are very unique in Jesus, rendering Jesus supremely significant. Like the idea of being the last blood sacrifice, opening up the royal priesthood to anyone worthy from a non-Davidic line is a unique change, not a mere Restoration of the old ways of David, but more like "fulfillment". While not every concept is unprecedented, some are. It's not safe to deny a literal death and resurrection, just because the story could be read as a mere royal resurrection drama or liturgy, because it's not all a pure throwback.

The Chatbot is correct, the commonly called "First" Temple is Solomon's Temple, the time of Davidic kings, as opposed to all shrines like Bethel. The Second Temple being Herod. They split these eras up in by their different beliefs. The First Temple era believed in a 3 partitioned heaven like Solomon's Temple had 3 areas, Second Temple Jews from Babylon believed 7 heavens because Harod's Temple had 7 areas.

Thanks Brother Bradley, it's nice to see you around these parts still. I often find myself leaning on your opinions a lot these days. In fact, I was just talking about you today. Talking to the Ward Secretary while waiting for the Bishop "You know Don Bradley?", he's like "Yah!" he was familiar with your work and spiritual journey, and he is a young man (or a youthful 30ish man) and had been inactive for a period. I'm certain he has absorbed a few podcasts with you and so I'm sure you helped him on his way back to activity.