Pyreaux

It is true. You simply don't comprehend the reason. Tithing is not merely economic input but a spiritual law that triggers certain changes. Primarily, what is being said is tithing "unlocks" divine assistance. Not that the Church needs the money, but rather the member needs the blessing of sacrifice. I don't expect you'll understand, being as you are. There are also practical effects of tithing on the poor. An African Bishop can help whoever he wants but is far more likely to grant that help to someone who is at least "striving" to keep the law of tithing. Church assistance isn't without strings-attached, he will almost always ask you to attend church, tithe, maybe volunteer to clean the chapel, volunteer at a storehouse, or help another member move, meet with a "Self-Reliance" specialist to create a budget and a plan to get off Church assistance. They frequently tell members they should pay tithing before paying for food or rent, and in return, the Church will pay 100% of your rent and grocery bill. Mathematically, the member comes out ahead. They give $300 in tithing but receive $2,000 in rent assistance. You could indeed say they will "magically" have enough money.

The Church isn't preparing for the Apocalypse where everyone dies. Its preparing for Tribulation where there is economic volatility. If the dollar loses 20% of its value, they can continue to feed members even if the price of bread triples. During the COVID-19 pandemic many food banks were empty, the Bishop's Storehouses were overflowing because they owned the farms. They didn't have to wait for a supplier; they were the supplier. Are you channeling Marxist critiques of "Rent-Seeking?" If the Church collects rent from luxury apartments, its from the elite, the "Renters by Choice". We used Capitalist tools (luxury real estate, stock markets) to harvest money from the world's wealthy. We spend that money on our global membership (to build churches or temple in Africa). Isn't that wealth redistribution? Raising the standard of living is the focus of programs like BYU-Pathway Worldwide. Low-cost, high-quality university degrees online to members in Africa, the Philippines, and South America to create a middle class of Latter-day Saints who can eventually pay for their own local infrastructure. The reality is even with education, the wealth gap is so massive that it will likely take centuries for Africa's "tithing" to equal the cost of its "temples." They just hope that regardless of whatever happens, specifically after all economic volatility, hyperinflation, or social upheaval, the work of the Gospel will not stop. But I've changed it to "among the organizations still standing".

Right. No modern entity, even one as wealthy as the LDS Church, can be truly self-sufficient because the global supply chain is too integrated. However, the Church's strategy is risk mitigation and institutional resilience. A "true" autarky is impossible. However, the LDS Church is practicing Vertical Integration. An autarky will not trade with the outside. A Vertical Integration will own the stages of production so we aren't at the mercy of the outside. They don't do this to "cut off" the world, but to ensure that if the global supply chain fails, their internal welfare system remains stocked. Ezra Taft Benson’s obsession might be dead for the individual, the Church has replaced it with Industrial Agribusiness. Now the Church is one of the largest beef producers in the United States. The Church cannot produce its own diesel or microchips (yet). If the power grid or the oil market collapses entirely, the Church's "means of production" would grind to a halt just like everyone else's. However, the Church isn't necessarily trying to be North Korea; they are trying to be a "State within a State." They want to be 'among the organizations' standing if the fuel, electricity, food become scarce for the general population. If you look at the Church's strategy through the lens of Investment Diversification, it does. You know, this "Rainy Day" the Church is preparing for isn't a recession; they are preparing for an actual future where their membership might actually become rather massive, but their tithing revenue might decline. Instead of having to relying on members, the Church is building a portfolio that can self-fund the entire operation of the Church (temples, missions, buildings) indefinitely using only the interest and rent. An apartment is producing... rent. Rent is a "passive" input that is more resilient than just farming. That day I described is called by economists as the "Great Transition" of the LDS Church. Areas where the Church is growing the fastest, the Global South, are the areas with the lowest per-capita tithing potential. The cost to build a meetinghouse, maintain a temple, and supporting them will be higher than the tithing revenue generated. Currently, you see a rush to build temples in Africa right now. They can "afford" to convert millions of people in Africa who may never be able to pay for their own buildings, because the interest from stocks and real estate will cover the bill. If the current trends continue, the "median" Latter-day Saint will soon no longer be white Westerners but a person of the Global South. How else will we manage a massive membership that contributes almost nothing to the treasury but will require 90% of the administrative effort?

I wish I could have watched more, but at some point, I wasn't very impressed in his chosen topics or guests. I used to be proud at how aware of the things going on with all the LDS Youtubers I once was, but it's getting to be too much content to keep up with. Rest in Peace.

When a Latter-day Saint says, "our definitions are internal," they are referring to the vocabulary and taxonomy. For example here, LDS use the word "Salvation", may contextually mean "Resurrection" (universal) and "Exaltation" to mean "Living with God" (conditional). To suggest because these definitions describe a fate that applies to everyone (universal scope), the definitions themselves are no longer "internal" is incoherent. A physicist's internal definition of gravity in "general relativity" applies to all humans regardless of their belief in physics, but the definition itself still remains a specialized, internal tool used by the scientific community to describe reality. The assertion that LDS categories are "not Christian categories" is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy. By setting up "Christian categories" as a fixed, external standard that excludes LDS thought, is doing exactly what you accuse the LDS of doing: using a specific, internal definition (likely Creedal-Nicene) and insisting it must be the "global" standard for what counts as truly "Christian". "You cannot say 'your definitions are internal' and insist that everyone everywhere ultimately must conform to those definitions." This is a False Dilemma. One can absolutely have a unique internal framework for understanding a universal reality. Every truth claim ever made (scientific, legal, or religious) is formulated using 'internal definitions' but are intended to describe a 'universal reality.' By your logic, no one could ever claim to have found a universal truth unless they used someone else's vocabulary to describe it. Edit: Excuse my ASD bottom-up logic. It just occurred to me I may have got lost in the smaller details to realize this all could have been a big Whataboutism (Tu Quoque) defending the right of "Mainstream Christians" to exclude LDS people from the "Christian" label. "If LDS have the right to define 'Salvation' internally even though it affects me, then Mainstream Christians have the right to define 'Christian' internally even though it affects you." The classic, "If you can do the first, I can do the second." It equates two different types of definitions. The LDS definitions are ontological. We are describing what we believe the afterlife looks like. It is a claim about the nature of reality. The Anti-LDS definitions are taxonomical. They are describing who gets to use a social/historical label. It is a claim about the ownership of a word. Believing that a Muslim may eventually need the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ (technically it could be the regular Gospel in a Spirit World devoid of denominations) to reach the highest heaven is a religious revelation. Saying "Mormons aren't Christians" is a non-revelatory sociolinguistic gatekeeping tactic. This relies on making the LDS position sound more aggressive than it is. In reality the LDS theology uses "internal definitions" to be pluralistic (under the Three Degrees of Glory, virtually everyone will ultimately receive a type of "salvation" they themselves desire). Using phrases like "must conform" and "fate of all humanity," the Jay frames LDS theology as a form of linguistic imperialism, perhaps in order to justify linguistic exclusion.

Latter-day Saints believe in the divinity of the Bible's Jesus Christ. Muslims are not considered Christian, they venerate Jesus of the Bible but don't believe he is divine nor a literal "son" of God. Muslims don't claim to be Christians. Latter-day Saints always claimed to be Christians. The academic rule is to take people as Christian if that is how they describe themselves. As a general academic term, it is polite to include heretics (even extinct Gnostic groups as Gnostic Christians as opposed to Gnostic Jews) and exclude those who accept the Christ is real and inspired yet do not identify as Christian (Muslims). But many Christians won’t allow such a loose definition, denominations have outright invented new criteria for deciding who is a genuine Christian, though they often disagree on the criteria. According to many of its proponents, a denomination only counts as Christian if those certain conditions are met. Firstly, no matter how ill-informed, inconsistent or intentionally incomprehensible your personal beliefs about God are, always, always, always... Insist on your commitment to "monotheism", even though there are three fully divine Personages, and you can't fully explain it. Ask any Jew or Muslim, they'll say Trinitarian Christians are not monotheists at all. Trinitarians think Monotheism is secured by a Triunity, the three having a certain relation (e.g. familial relations, dependence relations, or compositional relations) creating an ‘indivisible unity’ such that it is impossible for anyone Trinitarian person to function as a God without the other two (e.g. Jesus must mediate between us and God). For the Creedal Trinity, God is undivided by "substance" or "essence", or "being" to justify believing in plural distinctions. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers itself monotheistic, because God the Father is The God of the Universe and is worshipped by Jesus Christ as well. Latter-Day Saints believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are each individual divine beings, each with roles in administering God's plan. Together, they are our (single) "Godhead" that works and acts together, a oneness in purpose, an alignment of will. No creeds are needed. Creedal Trinitarian Christians generally insist we are not Christian. Usually, what they mean is we don't adhere to the Creeds, or reject the necessary vocabulary. Christians are all so wildly different, but in theory, they just have to claim they believe in the "Trinity" and they are Christians. A second reason is for believing extra-biblical (or pseudepigraphal) narratives about the biblical Jesus in the Book of Mormon. It somehow voids our belief in the Biblical Jesus. These things get rhetorically dangerous because it confuses misunderstanding God, something all humans do to some degree, with worshipping a different being. i.e. equating it to actual "idolatry", a sin worthy of hate and death. Those who think we are serving a different entity all together by not knowing the true characteristics of God (a figure fundamentally different from the Nicene God of historical orthodoxy) or believing extra-biblical details about God, and we are literally, not figuratively, are worshipping a "false god" and they exclude members of the LDS Church from the category of Christian. While knowing the true characteristics of God is important, it doesn't change the object of worship, rather the quality of that worship. We would never say your faith in a Greek Triune Jesus invalidates your faith. Paul’s warning about those preaching "another Jesus" (2 Cor 11:4) wasn’t about an imperfect understanding of the same Jesus, it was about imposters among them, a deliberate replacement of the true Christ with a false one.

A very honest, nuanced response. Nothing particularly wrong about not moving on, its just sometimes it seems there are those who seem conflicted on whether they moved on, and when they don't, it just makes one wonder how exactly MS 'helps' to 'transition' exactly, or perhaps I don't know what transition means. You don't have to give personal details, but having not talked to John personally like you have, how does he go about helping somebody? Like, was 'letting go' or 'moving on' never suggested? Either a goal or an option? "The church has soup kitchens? Where?" Not their own, they supply local existing ones. I know a bit firsthand when the LDS Bishop’s Storehouse distributes the weekly fresh groceries, there is always extra, and all goes to places like food banks, they can't send it back, volunteers can't take any home. I know there is a record in 2024, the Church donated tens of millions of pounds of food to local community food banks. It is the largest private food-relief network in the Western US. The "fine print" on donation slips is a standard legal requirement for 501(c)(3) organizations to ensure they aren't sued if a specific fund is over-funded (e.g., if a disaster relief fund gets more than it can spend). While the Church doesn't publish a line-item budget, it publishes a "Caring for Those in Need" summary every year. Yes, Bill Gates is a billionaire spending his own profits and will likely end a generation after he dies whether or not he wishes it. The Church's 'reserves' are to ensure that 100 years from now the Bishop’s Storehouse will still be open for the poor in the Philippines and Brazil. If tithing were a "ticket," the Church could be selling it for the highest price possible. Instead, it’s capped at 10% as anciently decreed of gains, whether you are a billionaire or a janitor. A flat tax is the fairest tax, by my Libertarian reckoning. If you don't consider yourself blessed with any profits that very specifically came from God from which you feel obligated to give Him tribute, 10% of 0 = $0 = full tithe payer. You say you can quit your $75/month to MS anytime with no repercussion. Because nothing really is at stake. When a member stops tithing, they are choosing to step away from their covenant sacrifice, which has a purpose that is independent of the by-products that it supports, like a $1.45 billion aid engine that will be here in 200 years, still feeding every member and other people, because it manages its reserves. I'm only supposing MS could implode the moment the internet finds a more entertaining critic, and I'll find that a bit ironic if he didn't have his own reserves when that time comes. Can't you see what the Church is doing? Sovereignty. We’d rather own the entire means of production, so we never have to depend on anyone. Never at the mercy of inflation and supply chain breaks. We are the supply chain. When food prices spiked in 2024–2025, the Church didn't have to raise more money to buy food; they just kept farming and kept on rocking it. If the Church didn't own the farms, we'd be spending twice as much to do half as much good. If we are hoarding money, we either have big plans for it or trying to micromanage every dime.

It says interest is "understood to mean income," but it doesn't define what "income" is. The phrase "interest is understood to mean income" was codified by the First Presidency in a formal letter dated March 19, 1970. They deliberately did not provide a detailed definition of "income." There is no secret glossary that then defines income as "gross salary before taxes." Your Bishop is expressly forbidden to define it. The 1970 letter actually concludes with: "We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly." Because the Church refuses to define "income," members generally fall into three schools of thought, and all are considered full-tithe payers: Gross Payers: 10% of every dollar earned before taxes or bills. Net Payers: 10% of take-home pay (after taxes/social security). Surplus Payers: 10% of what is left after "indispensable" expenses (rent, food, cost of gas and seeds for the next crops in the "farmer's model" The Handbook distinguishes between types of income. A business owner who earns $1,000,000 in revenue but has $950,000 in expenses does not pay $100,000 in tithing. They pay 10% of the profit ($5,000). Why should a business owner be allowed to deduct "costs of doing business" while a family is not allowed to deduct the "costs of staying alive"? They can. Their Bishop isn't allowed tell anyone your 'increase' is wrong. If you are a farmer or business owner, "income" is synonymous with Net Profit. If it costs you $100 to make $110, your "increase" is $10. Tithing $1 is a full tithe. If you apply that same logic to your own life, your 'profit' is what's left after what you spent to earn it, and the Church allows you that agency.

Source? The word used in the scriptures is "Increase" or "Interest." If you are a farmer, you did not tithe every seed you harvested. You must set aside seeds for next year (capital), feed for the oxen (operational costs), and the cost of the tools. Only the portion that is "profit" is the part that actually increased your net worth after the costs of production is considered, your "gains." So even with a modern 9-to-5 job, the Church doesn't 'mandate' a specific calculation. If a member feels that their 'increase' is what they have left after taxes and the costs of living, they can declare themselves a Full Tithe Payer, and no Bishop is allowed to tell them otherwise.

Hmm, proving the point while trying to deny it. You claim to have moved on, you just described "joy" in seeing someone "get under the skin" of active members. That is the definition of a reactive identity, not a neutral one. People who have truly moved on from a relationship don't get 'joy' from their ex-spouse’s frustrations. Your donation and subscription keeps you tethered to the very thing you claim to have left. You aren't indifferent; you are an invested antagonist. To let you know, I do enjoy a bit of lively back and forth, how you might see the same data as good or bad, your participation and perspective. Corporation Sole are a standard legal entity used by the Catholic Church, the Church of England, and many other denominations to ensure that property and assets stay with the office of the leader, not a person. This actually prevents individuals from pocketing the money. Unlike your 'transparent' podcaster, who literally pockets 30–50% of his foundation’s revenue. Church in 2024 alone, it spent $1.36 billion on humanitarian aid. Can you show me the humanitarian projects Mormon Stories funded last year? Are his counseling services free or even cheap? No. When I pay my 'temple tax,' I’m funding a global welfare system, four affordable (75% of tuition) universities, and thousands of soup kitchens. That 'waste of money' is real meals, real medicine, and real clean water. If you're happy paying for a six-figure lifestyle while claiming the Church is the 'greedy' one, then 'you do you.' But the math says my tithing is doing a lot more. Even the best secular charities, like charity: water, pay their CEOs six-figure salaries, along with hundreds of employees. They spend 20–30% of your donation on fundraising and marketing. They still have to pay a third party to ship, store, and distribute the aid. When I give to the Church, my money goes into a system that owns the farms, storage and the trucks. My dollar goes further because the Church doesn't just fund the aid; it is the aid network. Secular charities often fly into a disaster zone and leave. The LDS Church is already there. Every neighborhood has a Bishop who lives there, knows the people, and provides counseling and food for free. We are a real global safety net. It’s the ultimate sustainable model. I’m paying for a world-class infrastructure that feeds, educates, and councils millions for free. Harvard ($50B), the Gates Foundation ($75B), and the Mayo Clinic don't spend their money all at once because that would be "wasting" it, it would be dumb. Smart organizations like Harvard spend the interest so the university can provide scholarships and research in perpetuity. Now the Church is the only organization that plans 100 years into the future. It’s not a pile of cash; it’s a guarantee that the global safety net will never collapse, no matter what happens to the U.S. dollar. The church is not even primarily a humanitarian NGO, the church is an eschatological institution meant to endure until the end of time. Reserves aren’t ‘sitting’, they’re invested into the economy, and is what will keep aid, missions, and welfare running during crises instead of stopping. If John Dehlin actually helped someone resolve their "faith crisis," they would stop being "Ex-Mormons" and just become "People." They would not feel joy to make members feel dismay. Mormon Stories has high executive salaries and media production costs, no tangible assets. Once the donor base drops by 20%, or when the "Ex-Mo" trend reached its saturation point, his high overhead with no reserves of will become unsustainable, a $250k-a-year podcast will collapse under its own weight. In 50 years, the Church will still be here, using its billions to build hospitals and entire cities for a global membership. Mormon Stories will be a footnote, deleted for lack of funding, remembered for lecturing others about how they should use money. Now, that will be funny.

Pop-culture representations have made certain Mormon-associated cultural aesthetics and lifestyles more visible. I think people know intellectually that The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City and The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives are not documentaries, they’re reality TV with spectacle and stylized personalities, so they don’t necessarily reflect the religion faithfully. People are however being exposed to Utah trends and brands with LDS roots beyond regional Mormon communities makes Mormon-linked culture visible to people who otherwise might never have encountered it. They are now associating certain fun or quirky trends with "Mormon culture", however loosely. For a younger audience experiencing loneliness, anxiety, and a desire for community may find Mormon family dinners, close friendships, community gatherings very appealing, even if they know next to nothing about the actual religion. It makes us seem relatable or desirable to some segments of the public. I do think any shift in the conversation away from our politics and stereotypes to everyday culture will be easy for outsiders to engage with. Even flawed exposure can reduce fear and dehumanization. Whether that counts as "improving perception" depends on what you mean, many folks might now associate Mormon culture with fun trends and stronger communities, their understanding of the actual religion will remain shallow. If people stop thinking of "Mormons" as a faceless, monolithic cult and start seeing ordinary people with jobs, families, flaws, humor, Mormonism becomes less "scary" or exotic. That alone improves day-to-day interactions for members. People feel permission to ask questions, visit Utah, talk to members, or read something thoughtful later. The downside is what they are seeing are the least faithful versions of Mormon identity being celebrated. The wrong traits getting rewarded. Loud, boundary-pushing, rule-breaking "Mormon-adjacent" figures become the public face. The faith becomes purely aesthetic, not moral. A community gets reduced to a fashion trend. It helps members exist more easily in public life, but it may make serious religious commitments in Mormonism seem unnecessary. Exposure lowers hostility but also lowers gravity.

Excuse my AuDHD mind to be so preoccupied by cold details of the possible futures at this time. Perhaps it's how I process loss and change by trying to create stable expectations. Jeffrey R. Holland passed away at the age of 85. He died from complications related to a long-standing kidney condition. Dieter F. Uchtdorf has now become the Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as the next in line for seniority who is not currently in the First Presidency. Leaving another vacancy in the Twelve, I've noticed the most striking trend in recent replacements is the internationalization of the Twelve. Which was bound to happen eventually. I'm looking to the Presidency of the Seventy for the possible next Apostle: Carl B. Cook: Currently the Senior President of the Seventy and considered the "favorite". Edward Dube: Originally from Zimbabwe, Elder Dube is frequently mentioned as a candidate who would represent the church's massive growth in Africa and become the first Black apostle. S. Mark Palmer: A New Zealander who has served in the Presidency of the Seventy and would fit the pattern of international calls.

It is a central theme in "Social Identity Theory" (SIT) and "Role Exit Theory". Former =/= Ex "The process of disengagement from a role that is central to one's self-identity and the reestablishment of an identity in a new role that takes into account one's ex-role constitutes the process I call role exit" (Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit (1988) Pg 1 by sociologist Helen Rose Ebaugh) She was a former nun and she explains that "Ex" is a unique social category. An "Ex" is someone who has not simply left a role but has created a new identity based on the one they left. An "Ex" is defined by their past. They often remain anchored to the previous institution because their new social status relies on the contrast. Indifference =/= Ex Psychologists Kimberly Elsbach and C.B. Bhattacharya in their 2001 paper, “Defining Who You Are By What You're Not,” and their subsequent work on the Expanded Model of Organizational Identification categorize the relationships into four distinct quadrants. Identification "I am the organization." Active support, defense, and time investment. Disidentification "I am the opposite of the organization." Active criticism, monitoring, and "Ex-" identity. Ambivalence "I love parts and hate parts." Internal conflict, toggling between support and critique. Indifference "I don't think about it" Passively disengaged. A guy checking "None" on a census is only showing Indifference. The guy who resigned is showing Disidentification. Two past customers chose not to eat at McDonalds today as they passed by, but one did it because he wasn't hungry and simply never thought about it, the other because he is now a vegan and so opposes everything McDonald's stands for. Those are two vastly different people.

Of course. Because disaffiliation doesn't tell us much without a resignation. When you don't we have every reason to believe that a person still values their connection to the Church. Like maybe they still value their ancestral ties too much to do that. Many people who join another church or identify as "None" will explicitly refuse to resign because they still value or believe in their family sealings. Or they might prefer the community, music or the shorter sermons at a local Baptist church, but in the back of their minds, they think, "I still want to be tied to my parents". While, generally, someone who truly 'hates' the Church or felt it was a 'fraud,' would want their name removed. The fact that millions of 'inactive' members choose to stay on the records suggests they still harbor a 'just in case' belief. They haven't actually 'left'. An Analogy You can be a "Secular Jew", who never goes to a Synagogue and eats pork. But if someone calls you an "Ex-Jew," would be offended. Well, he'd want to call an inactive 'Heritage Mormon' an 'Ex-Mormon.' But these people still love the culture, the pioneers, and the values. They might mark 'None' because they aren't 'active,' but they would be the first to defend the Church if a stranger attacked it. My mom converted as a teen and brought in her little brother. My uncle as a man never goes to church, never talks about the church with his wife, but as she notices, he gets really angry when he hears something on TV about the church that is not true. People who switch to other denominations who don't resign often speak fondly of their LDS upbringing. Joining another church isn't always an act of war. They'll say they're grateful for the foundation the Church gave me, I just felt called elsewhere.

Yes. In social identity theory, they carry vastly different weights. "Former" is a status. It describes a past event (e.g., "Former President," "Former Employee"). It is neutral and focused on the timeline. "Ex-" is often an identity. In a religious context, "Ex-Mormon" has become a specific subculture. An Ex-Mormon switched from 'Fan' to 'Antifan.' You average "None" is characterized by indifference, they are not in opposition to the church. They have achieved the sort of apathy Ex-Mormons only pretend to have.

Nice. And to a Happy New Year!

This is a common statistical trap critics fall into. To conflate a public affiliation with "Ex-Mormonism" is a sociological error that relies on a 'False Binary' that doesn't exist in the real world. You want to call everyone who is merely indifferent to the Church an ex-Mormon. The "1.14%" CCES Math If the Church has 7 million records in the US and 3.8 million "actively identify" in a survey, that is a 54% identity rate. Your 1.14% figure confirms what I said 54% of people on the records still explicitly identify as members in a secular survey. That is a higher retention rate than almost any other denomination in the US. Who are also losing affiliation numbers. In contrast, what percentage of Americans identify as 'Ex-Mormons' on a survey? Zero. It’s not even a category. If it were, you think a guy who hasn't stepped in a chapel since 1994 considers himself an 'Ex-Mormon'? Counting every person who doesn't check the "Mormon" box ignores how often many are marking "Christian", like I do at the doctors. It isn't just a personal anecdote, it's a documented statistical trend. Most secular surveys (like the CCES) still use "Mormon" as the category. Thousands of active members are clicking "Christian" or "Other Christian" because they find the "Mormon" inaccurate or just want to avoid any "weird" stigma. The Mexico "Ghost Baptism" Factor In the 2020 Mexican Census, the vast majority of those "missing" 1 million people identified as Catholic. Those people aren't 'Ex-Mormons'; they were former Catholics re-identifying as Catholics. They likely attended the Church for two weeks in and then went back to their family’s traditional faith. If a Mexican man was baptized at 8, hasn't been to church in 30 years, and checks the 'Catholic' box on the census, he isn't an 'Ex-Mormon.' They didn't have a 'faith crisis' because they just never truly joined. Calling these Mexican Catholics 'Ex-Mormon' is a desperate attempt to pad your group's stats with people who don't even know you exist. The Utah "In-Migration" Error The percentage of LDS members in Utah is dropping because non-members are moving in, not just because members are moving out. Your '25% Ex-Mormon' figure ignores basic population migration data.

Good to see you still around. Still kicking the pricks? You do you, man. Anecdotal Shielding is using a one-time positive experience from 20 years ago to ignore the flaws. John Dehlin's 2022/2023 filings show a salary of roughly $230k–$260k, which is about 30–60% of his foundation’s total revenue. You paid John for an emotional service (deconstruction support), and yes, when you were done you can unsub. But to Tithe is a promise to build a permanent, multi-generational community that serves everyone, regardless of their 'crisis.' One is a business transaction for your feelings; the other is a collective investment in a people. You are still donating and patrolling forums to defend the man after 20 years? This is evidence the 'Ex-Mormon' identity is a reactive loop. You claim to be free, yet you’re still paying a monthly 'tax' to a podcast that talks about nothing but the Church you say you don't care about. Mormon Stories is a waiting room for people who can't quite let go. I appreciate that you found personal support, that’s valid. However, nearly half of every dollar donated to that foundation goes directly into one man's pocket. In contrast, 100% of tithing is allocated to Church operations and into no one's pocket, your local leaders provide thousands of hours of counseling and service for $0. John Dehlin’s "support" is his full-time, high-salaried job, but I'm sure he cares about you. You say you’ve 'moved on,' but you are still subscribing/donating to them and still defending a 'negative identity' built entirely on what you don't believe. Its a bit of a paradox.

New! New member! It's a Christmas miracle! I recall the Bishops just read the D&C to you and weren't allowed to interpret things such as net, or gross, or what exactly the "right amount" is. If your income was X, you pay Y, he may question if that is correct but won't go too deep. I know Retirement IRAs that came from money that was already tithed is off limits. Its not tithed twice.

The "latest data" I mentioned is the 2024 Statistical Report (released in April 2025) and an LDS Church Growth Blog 2024 Statistical Report Analysis is the resource that Matt Martinich used to calculate the 145,912 record removals and analyze retention. Total Membership: 17,509,781 (up from 17,255,394 in 2023) Convert Baptisms: 308,682 (A 27-year high) Children of Record: 91,617 The Church did not explicitly report "resignations," so we calculate it by looking at the gap between the new members added and the net growth. Expected Growth: 400,299 (New members) Actual Net Growth: 254,387 The Gap is the total records removed: 145,912 To find the resignation rate, you take that total, subtract the global mortality rate from 145,912. The Global Death Rate is roughly 7.6 deaths per 1,000 people. For a population of 17.5 million, that is roughly 133,000 expected deaths. If the Church recorded 90,000–100,000 of those deaths (accounting for those it "loses track of"), the remaining is 46,000 to 56,000 records that represent resignations and excommunications. The percentage: 55,000 / 17,509,781 = 0.31% So, in 2024, for every 1 person who resigned to join the "Ex-Mormon community," the Church added 5 or 6 new members who stay based on even a conservative 20% retention of 308k converts. Those sociological studies include BYU’s Religious Studies Center that have tracked the "activity life cycle" of members. Roughly 44% of all active members have gone through a period of prolonged inactivity (months or years) and then resume regular church involvement. If there are 11 million "inactive" members, roughly 4.8 million of them are not "Ex-Mormons" but will statistically return for their child’s baptism or their parent’s funeral or randomly after about 18 months. There was a 2024 "Re-Engagement" Spike In the latest 2024/2025 growth reports, Elder Quentin L. Cook talked about efforts to "re-engage" people who were previously taught or involved led to nearly 40,000 baptisms in 2024 alone. 40,000 'prodigals' were re-baptized or re-engaged. For every 1 person who sent a resignation letter to a podcast, 5 people quietly walked back into a chapel to pick up where they left off. That isn't a 'movement'; it's a phase to be grown out of, typically when they are in their 30s and have children. Data from online communities shows that "Ex-Mo" hubs have massive churn rates. People join when they are in the "angry phase," but once they heal, they realize that "not being Mormon" is a boring hobby. They either move on to total secularism (forgetting the podcasts) or return to the Church. The "Ex-Mormon" community has almost zero multi-generational retention. People don't raise "third-generation Ex-Mormons", that identity usually disappears within one generation because a "negative identity" isn't sustainable.

Reality Check: Inactive =/= ExMormon The Church reports roughly 17.2 million members. Independent sociological estimates think there are about 5–7 million active members and 10–12 million "inactive" members. Most people who stop attending never become "Ex-Mormon", or join Reddit or listen to John Dehlin. Many are even still identifying as LDS on a census, believe the core tenets but struggle with attendance or the lifestyle, or have simply drifted away without any animosity or will even comeback later. Based on the latest data we lose 0.5% of members a year. Like in 2024, there was roughly 146,000 people removed from records, that is including deaths, excommunications, and resignations. Since the global crude death rate accounts for roughly 80,000–100,000 of that number, formal resignations likely fall between 40,000 and 60,000 per year. So maybe 0.3% Ex-Mormons are made from the membership pool per year. If we look at the record-breaking 308,682 convert baptisms from 2024, if Convert Retention at its worst is 20%, guessing 240,000 of those new converts will likely be inactive by this time next year. Now these people are not "Ex-Mormons"; what most of them will in fact be people in Africa, the Philippines, or Brazil who really liked the missionaries but didn't make the lifestyle change. They aren't listening to podcasts or "deconstructing" their past heroes or upbrings, they just went back to their old lives. So, for every one person who Resigns, twice as many Converts are Retained every year. That is without including the Birthright Retention which is 54% (according to Pew 2024/2025). More than half of those raised LDS stay LDS. According to sociological data on religious "switching", there is thought to be a "Return Ratio" of roughly 37%, people who disaffiliate or stop identifying as members eventually return to active participation later in life. They call it The "Prodigal" Effect, often happens during a major life milestones. Like marriage, having children, or the death of a parent. This "Ex-Mormon" community is so high churn because people "graduate" from being angry and realize they miss a real community. Your identity is a reactive identity. People eventually move on once they’ve processed their anger. Without a shared theology or positive goal, that community will turn on itself.

There are multiple local reports in Spanish, and an official church statement confirm that an incident took place at an LDS chapel in Bajos de Haina, Dominican Republic, during a Sunday meeting on December 14, 2025. https://noticias.laiglesiadejesucristo.org/articulo/declaraci-oacute-n-de-la-iglesia-de-jesucristo-de-los-santos-de-los--uacute-ltimos-d-iacute-as-tras-incidente-en-una-de-sus-capillas An individual entered a chapel of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Haina 1 neighborhood (Bajos de Haina) to threaten, intimidate or terrorize those present. According to church and local reports, the person was carrying a modified toy gun made to look like a real firearm and a homemade chemical/caustic substance that he attempted to use during the disruption. But Church leaders and attendees reacted quickly and intervened to restrain or neutralize the attacker before the situation escalated. Police then detained the individual. The Chemical Substance The attacker used a homemade device, a toy gun disguised as a real gun to disperse a chemical/caustic substance. For which one person was hospitalized out of caution/observation and is reported to be doing fine. Others experienced minor irritation or effects, with no lasting injuries reported. The specific chemical has NOT been publicly identified. Authorities and the Church have intentionally avoided naming the substance. There is no official confirmation that it was ammonia, bleach or fuel or any other specific agent. Because they are clearly fearing a copycat. This incident appears to be the first of its kind reported in that area and has prompted discussions within the local community about safety and vigilance in places of worship.

I appreciate your response, and I think you’re actually circling the same distinction I’m trying to make. Because persuasion itself isn’t inherently wrong. As you noted, many religious and non-religious groups openly persuade, including missionary movements. The difference I’m pointing to is the declared purpose. When an organization presents itself as neutral, arguing for "informed consent," while consistently guiding people toward a particular conclusion, that is not persuasion by consent, like consulting a missionary is, it is directional persuasion without disclosure. I’m not claiming they have a malicious intent. I don’t believe most people think they’re doing harm. I’m not suggesting guests are being coerced to leave the church. But responsibility for the outcomes is what they will disavow. My criticism isn’t about persuading people to leave; it’s about presenting as neutral and then denying any responsibility for the outcome.

Hi everyone. In the spirit of uplifting this season, I wanted to start a thread examining a trend we’re seeing with the Mormon Stories podcast and what it may mean for faithful Latter-day Saints everywhere. What Mormon Stories (Really) Is First for context (never 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!

It includes even the Republic of the United States. It represents the many separate nations that arose long after Jesus, long after the fall of Rome, from which the iron remnants of the Roman Empire still existed in the time leading up to and during the establishment of the Church in 1830. Elements of Rome, nations of a non-mixing diverse nature, and an inability to firmly unite, as the scripture says they "shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay" (Daniel 2:43). Only "in the days of these kings" (the kingdoms of iron and clay) that "shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed" (Daniel 2:44). The stone "cut out without hands" that strikes the image on its feet and eventually "becomes a great mountain, and fills the whole earth." In LDS interpretation, this stone represents the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was established by God, not men, in 1830 while the world was still divided as the "iron and clay" kingdoms, still iron oppressive but too clay weak to ultimately stop us. While official LDS commentary on the "iron and clay" feet of Daniel 2 generally focuses on the political division and lack of unity among the nations that grew out of the Roman Empire, as there were many constitutional monarchies and republics that existed by 1830. However, I and maybe you may agree there was weakness, corruption, and inability to stand firmly on the truth. The history of Europe and even the US was dominated by established state religions (Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, etc.) that used government power to enforce conformity and suppress dissent. This a system inherited from the Roman Empire's eventual adoption and enforcement of a Roman infused Christianity (the "iron" structure enforcing a mixed but non-mixing and corrupted "clay" religion). The environment in the early 19th-century United States which inherited its structure from Europe/Roman traditions was characterized by fragmentation. Fragmented churches all claiming to have truth but divided by impure ad conflicting doctrines inherited from Rome (like the Trinity). This US spiritual division is a perfect example of the "clay" that introduces weakness and prevents unity even today. These impurities caused all the competing claims of the various sects is what led the young Joseph Smith to seek divine guidance. The very moment the LDS Church was organized in 1830, it immediately faced persecution from the established yet fragmented religious groups and their oppressive but fragmented governments. The established churches and legal systems did not want to yield to a new religious authority or doctrine growing in their midst. The foundation of the LDS Church in 1830 is viewed as a divine break from this oppressive and fragmented system. Unlike these other churches, it does not claim to originate from the existing political or religious systems of the world; it is established by God and is destined to snowball and eventually displace all the corrupted elements represented by the statue. Eventually, maybe in a Millennial day. Essentially, the kingdoms of the earth of early 19th century contains all the defining characteristics of the statue of the oppressors of the Kingdom of God, Roman iron fragmented into clay trying to oppress the kingdom of God, from which the LDS Church claims to have been divinely delivered and against which it was established.