Pyreaux

So far, we know the suspect, Thomas Jacob Sanford, was a local resident. Who in the past lived in Utah, he faced a personal civil rent dispute in Utah. There is now an update he has past criminal convictions for Burglary and OWI (Operating While Intoxicated), here.

I'd rather have the killer an ex-mormon for a knowing hateful reason than a dumb unknowing mistake, like manipulated into doing this by a news article, youtuber or a sermon. I prefer a clear, internal motive over one that seems random or based on a misunderstanding. If the shooter was an ex-Mormon, the act is rooted in a known, painful, or pre-existing conflict. The violence, while abhorrent, is then coherent with a history of trauma or apostate rage. It would tell us that this is a confined issue if the killer is a "known" entity, one that could hypothetically be addressed. If the shooter was a non-Mormon manipulated by external influence, from years of demonization in media, the attack is random, external, and unpredictable. It means the community was attacked not for what it is, but because of its public perception. I hope the Michigan shooter knew what he was doing, rather than just a dummy affected by propaganda, because there could be other dummies out there. It's a desire to find meaning and logic in a senseless tragedy. Your preference reflects a desire for a motive that is internal to the community's experience rather than one that is external and random. A way to impose an understandable logic onto the event rather than having to admitting to a larger problem, like simply the US today is a divisive and emotionally charged environment, where politics and religion are seen as a reason for a violent conflict.

I fear that most, I just hope it's plain old anti-Mormon hate, not some misguided fool thinking he's avenging Kirk. There was a "Columbine Shooting"-Level planned attack. And I read about 8 were shot including children, 2 of the 8 are dead (I'm not sure if they are repeating the old number counting the shooter), there could be as many as 20-30 people under the burning rubble.

The current status of the victims' injuries is unknown at this time, so it is not clear from the available information if anyone was killed besides the shooter. Reports also mention that the church was on fire, and the suspected shooter may have started the fire. The identity and a clear motive are not yet public, as the investigation is in its early stages. My personal fear is, I hope it is not the case, it might be a reaction to Charlie Kirk assassination, as some voices, particularly from evangelical circles, like Mark Driscoll, claim "heretical 'Mormon doctrine' somehow fostered this violence" (Source)

I was watching the live stream of Thoughtful Faith when there was a spamming anti-LDS person in chat, who wouldn't confess his denomination, but his defense hints that he was a never-LDS Catholic. My impression is Catholic trolls have started haunting Thoughtful Faith ever since the Trent Horne debate. Its very interesting as I've never seen aggressive Catholic critics before. It almost seems like maybe they didn't exist until now, they seem to be amateurs, in that they are unfamiliar or not equipped to address LDS criticisms of Catholicism and only possess a googled set of LDS criticisms. But while touting how small and insignificant we are, he used the "inactivity" and "leaving in droves" bash. There was also a topic here that touched the issue, though in a tangential manner. It seems the "inactivity" bash is a common theme in online discussions, particularly on ex-Mormon forums (like r/exmormon) and among other Christian and Atheist critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It centers on the vast disparity between the official ∼17.2 million reported members and the estimated 5-6 million active, weekly attendees worldwide. Critics seize on this to argue that the Church's official growth and membership numbers are inflated, which they view as either a clever burn or evidence of the Church is in decline. An Example Online: There is this gloating reaction to any data undermining the Church's growth numbers: Representative Link: Reddit r/exmormon: Turns out church membership isn't falling because people are losing faith... (Snippet from comment section: "My parents had 4 children. We are all out or inactive. My parents had 13 grandchildren. All but one is out or inactive. We are 6th generation membership. The mormon church is dying.") Its an effort to invalidate the Church, to validate the decision to leave, or for never-LDS, justify dismissing it outright. Fallacies and Falsehoods As for the claim that LDS activity is low or even the lowest: This is factually false. Studies consistently show that the LDS Church is among the highest, reporting weekly attendance rate (typically ∼67%) among its members compared to Catholicism (∼33%) and general Protestantism (∼44%) in the United States. While the gap between reported and active members is large for the LDS Church, a gap exists for virtually all religions. They try to compare it to a business which is a false equivalence: For most churches, including the Catholic Church, baptisms are permanent and many Protestant denominations do not purge membership rolls simply for non-attendance. Fallacy: No True Scotsman The Argument (from the critics' perspective): "The only people who count are active members, so those inactives aren't 'true' members, and the Church should stop counting them." The Flaw: This attempts to narrow the definition of "member" to suit the critic's desired outcome (a smaller number). By the Church's definition, membership is conferred through baptism and requires a formal action (resignation) to remove. The criticism is not against the Church's data, but against its policy of record-keeping. Fallacy: Hasty Generalization The Argument: "My ward is a ghost town; therefore, the whole Church is declining rapidly worldwide." The Flaw: This is a generalization from a non-representative sample. While secularization may cause decline in many Western wards, global growth is driven by the Global South (Africa, Philippines, Latin America), and activity rates are often significantly higher than in the U.S. or Europe. The activity bash functions as a way for critics to use the Church's own data policy against it, translating a legitimate statistical observation (high inactivity) into a rhetorical tool for declaring the institution's spiritual failure. However, a comparative analysis shows that the high activity rate among its members (compared to others) remains a distinguishing feature of the LDS Church. The "Mass Exodus" or "Leaving in Droves" Cradle retention is a the key metric for long-term survival. The Church has historically performed better than most other major Christian bodies in the U.S. Critics correctly point out that convert retention is terrible (25−35%). The true test of whether LDS are going extinct is not just new members going inactive but the BiC (Born in the Covenant) who fully leave or switch. Independent studies like the Pew Research Center's Religious Landscape Study show that the LDS Church's percentage of those raised in the faith who still identify as members as adults is often higher than that of Catholicism and mainline Protestantism, even if the rate is declining. Virtually all Christian denominations in the West are experiencing net losses or stagnation. The Catholic Church has a massive net loss due to switching, and nearly half of those raised Protestant no longer identify as such. The LDS Church has a somewhat uniquely binary nature of membership: either you're "all in" or you're out, creating the "ex-Mormon" community to magnify inactivity as the perception of a crisis. Fallacy: Confirmation Bias and Availability Heuristic The Argument: "I see hundreds of people resigning on Reddit every day, and my local ward is shrinking, therefore the Church is failing globally." The Flaw: This relies on the Availability Heuristic—the tendency to judge the frequency of an event by how easily examples come to mind. Online forums like r/exmormon or r/atheism are self-selecting echo chambers, making the "exiting" experience highly visible and giving a distorted view of the global membership trend. The Confirmation Bias ensures that only stories supporting the decline narrative are celebrated. Fallacy: Focus on "Moral Failure" The Argument: People are leaving due to failure of "the truth claims" (polygamy, historic evidence, church finances, etc) which is a unique moral failure of this church, unlike others. The Flaw: While those issues are a powerful catalysts for LDS members, people leave all religions for doctrinal, moral, and social reasons. The "Leaving in Droves" narrative tends to ignore that there is also a vast secularization trend affecting all Western religions. Any exodus thought to be a sign of the LDS Church's singular fraudulence, is simply not true. Is Mormonism Failing? U.S. retention struggles, the Church does report record global growth in converts and activity in its youth education programs (Seminary and Institute). The reason for the loss in retention is the High-Demand challenge; time, tithing, mission, lifestyle. Millennials and Gen Z are struggling to reconcile the Church's conservative stances on social issues (like LGBTQ+ inclusion and gender roles) with their generation's more inclusive and pluralistic values. However, sociologists of religion often point to the stability of high-demand religious groups those that require significant time, financial, and behavioral commitments (like tithing, missions, and a strict health code) as a strength. While the LDS Church struggles with convert retention, the members it does retain demonstrate exceptionally high commitment. Surveys show Latter-day Saints are far more likely than mainline Protestants and Catholics in the US to say religion is "very important," pray daily, and attend services weekly. The high demands create a highly cohesive, supportive, and insular community. This strong social fabric is a powerful defense against the general trend of secularization and the "rise of the nones" that is eroding mainline denominations. For an active, core member, the financial (tithing) and time (callings, temple attendance) investments are so high that leaving becomes a much more costly proposition, strengthening loyalty and reducing "casual" disaffiliation. Outpacing the Competition in Core Activity In a comparison that matters more than total population, the LDS Church is outperforming the declining Christian sectors in terms of activity and institutional stability in the US. The LDS Church's high activity rate means that despite having smaller membership totals than Catholics or Evangelicals, its actual, participating membership is a much larger proportion of its total. If the future of Christianity in the US is one of decline, the LDS Church is sociologically structured to be one of the last religious institutions standing, due to its high demands creating high commitment and its distinctive theology creating ideological clarity. The "win" would be measured in sustained commitment and organizational integrity, not necessarily in outgrowing the world population. Strong Familial Cohesion The emphasis on family life is perhaps the most critical driver of long-term membership retention, especially in developed nations where religious affiliation is declining. The core doctrine of eternal families and the practice of temple sealings provides an ultimate, transcendental purpose for marriage and child-rearing, incentivizing larger-than-average families. LDS families, particularly active ones, tend to have higher fertility rates than the surrounding populations in many countries. This factor is crucial for organic growth and offseting attrition from switching, a major challenge for many other denominations. Financial Security Estimates place the Church's investment fund is so large that its investment returns alone are reportedly sufficient to perpetually cover the Church's annual operating costs, effectively making the organization self-sustaining and financially secure for the long term, regardless of future fluctuations in membership. Catholic Church's financial structure is complex and often faces fiscal challenges, especially at the Vatican level, primarily due to its decentralized structure and heavy historical and operational burdens. Unlike the LDS Church, the vast majority of financial assets and income within the Catholic Church are managed at the level of individual dioceses (local jurisdictions), rather than flowing to a single central authority like the Vatican. The Vatican runs an operating deficit. Its income sources (real estate, museum tickets, and donations like Peter's Pence) often fail to keep pace with expenses. Unique Defense Against Secularism In the end, while seen as weakness to our Brethren, the Open Canon and Continuing Revelation means that truth is not seen as being constrained by the limits of ancient scripture alone. This allows the Church to offer new revelation to address contemporary issues, offering a mechanism for the Church to adapt or issue new guidance without betraying a "closed" scriptural record. By rejecting the traditional Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) and instead teaching that matter is eternal and was organized by God, LDS theology bypasses the classic philosophical dilemma of theodicy (why evil exists in a world created by an omnipotent, benevolent God). This cosmology places a strong emphasis on radical free agency and the independent, eternal nature of human intelligence.

The "Throne of God" The most frequently cited parallel relates to the concept of a grand, physical center of the universe. Thomas D!ck's The Philosophy of a Future State (1829) "It is now considered by astronomers, as highly probable, if not certain… that all the systems of the universe revolve round one common centre… If this is in reality the case, it may, with the most emphatic propriety, be termed, the throne of God… This grand central body may be considered as the capital of the universe." (pp. 244-246) "And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; And the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I, Abraham, saw it; it is the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God." (Abraham 3:2-3) Key Parallels: The Throne of God: Both D!ck's speculation and Joseph Smith's revelation use the precise phrase "the throne of God" to describe this cosmic central location. Governing Power: D!ck suggests this center is where "embassies may be occasionally dispatched to all surrounding worlds," aligning with the Book of Abraham's description of Kolob as a great "governing power." Now ancient Egyptians did have a view of the cosmos that, in some ways, parallels the concepts in the Book of Abraham and Thomas D!ck's writings. It was geocentric, with the celestial North Pole was seen as a pivot or central point of rotation. The stars around the celestial North Pole were considered "imperishable" because they never sank below the horizon. They were a powerful symbol of immortality and were often associated with the afterlife of the pharaoh, who wished to become one of these stars. Visualized as the "mount of heaven," a divine location from which certain stellar races were said to have originated. This concept aligns with a central, revered location in the cosmos. "Intelligences" Thomas D!ck's The Philosophy of a Future State (1829) D!ck speculates that many of these stars are peopled by "various orders of intelligences" and that these intelligences are "progressive beings" in various stages of evolution toward perfection. (p. 230) "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones... and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born." (Abraham 3:22-23) Key Parallels: Intelligences: Both texts use the specific, non-biblical term "intelligences" to refer to spiritual or uncreated beings who inhabit the cosmos. Various Orders: Both texts establish a hierarchy, with D!ck mentioning "various orders" and Abraham describing a system where some are "noble and great ones" and others are lesser. Progression: D!ck's mention of "progressive beings" echoes the LDS concept of eternal progression, though the theological details of perfection differ between the two authors. Egyptian "Ka" (Life Force), the essence of the "double-form" created at birth, was thought to have "always existed" and was "passed across the successive generations, carrying the spiritual force of the first creation." This mirrors the idea of a primordial, uncreated substance of intelligence. It is important to note that while the language and concepts are strikingly similar, many Latter-day Saint scholars emphasize the differences in the overall theological framework (e.g., D!ck viewing God as omnipresent and ethereal versus Joseph Smith's corporeal God) to argue against direct plagiarism, suggesting instead that the book may have served as a cultural vocabulary for Smith's gift to work with.

I agree that even contemporary non-LDS discoveries are themselves parallel evidence of restoration rather than a fabrication. Dan Vogel's argument, however, is that Joseph Smith’s specific, unique theological concepts in the Book of Abraham were derived from contemporaneous, published American sources. Cosmology: The Plurality of Worlds and Governing Stars The Book of Abraham's cosmology, particularly the concept of Kolob, is widely believed by critics to have been inspired by the popular astronomical writings of the 19th century, particularly those of the Scottish minister, writer, and astronomer, Thomas D!ck (1774–1857). D!ck's work, which was popular and circulated widely in the US, attempted to reconcile Newtonian astronomy with Christian theology. Source: Thomas D!ck, The Philosophy of a Future State (1829). The Plurality of Worlds: D!ck heavily promoted the idea that the universe was filled with innumerable stars and that these stars were likely peopled by various orders of intelligences (similar to Abraham's "intelligences"). He suggested that these intelligences were progressive beings evolving toward perfection. The Center of the Universe: D!ck speculated that the systems of the universe revolve around a common centre...the throne of God. The Kolob Parallel: Critics see this as the direct source for the idea of Kolob which is described as the star "nearest unto the throne of God" and the "great governing one" of the celestial bodies. The Book of Abraham then applies a system of decreasing greatness and increasing time measurement as one moves farther from this center, mirroring the hierarchical nature of D!ck’s infinite and orderly universe. An excerpt from D!ck’s work was published by Oliver Cowdery in the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate in December 1836, confirming that his associates had access to it during the time of the Book of Abraham translation. Joseph Smith is recorded as donating a copy to the Nauvoo Library and Literary Institute in 1844. Sources like that forms the core of the naturalistic argument: Joseph Smith's unique doctrinal elements are claimed to be a creative synthesis of known theological and scientific/philosophical ideas popular among American religious seekers in his era. I don't think Vogel shows Joseph took from those sources without presupposing a naturalistic view first to say he must have, but he effectively counters the apologist claims that Joseph must be a prophet, as he could not have had access to these ideas before later discoveries, like the Apocalypse of Abraham, were found.

Yes, have nothing suggesting Jesus will leave.

I was hoping to have summoned "CA Steve" so he could take the issue on himself. It seems this is the common position of critical scholars of Mormonism who argue for a naturalistic origin of the Book of Abraham, namely Dan Vogel. I'll try to steelman Vogel. Vogel's 2020 book, Book of Abraham Apologetics: A Review and Critique, there he claims that the purported "unique" elements found in the Book of Abraham; such as Terah's idolatry, Abraham's attempted sacrifice, and his astronomical knowledge, were known to Joseph Smith's contemporaries and available in popular religious literature of the time. This mirrors "CA Steve's" claim. He uses of sources like Clarke's Bible Commentary and Brown's Bible Dictionary to show Terah's idolatry was a known theme was a common scholarly tactic in this field, and Vogel cites numerous contemporary sources to establish this cultural and literary context. The argument that themes like the pre-existence were commonly debated in 19th-century American religious thought by figures like Noah Worcester and Hosea Ballou is also a standard feature of naturalistic explanations for the content of early Mormon scripture. The ex-Mormon's point rests on the idea that Joseph Smith did not need access to non-canonical texts to produce similar ideas, because those traditions had already filtered into the popular American Protestant culture of the time through works like: Terah's Idolatry: The Old Testament verse Joshua 24:2 says that Abraham's ancestors "served other gods." This hint was widely elaborated upon in Jewish and later Christian tradition (Midrash), which was then accessible through commentaries and Bible dictionaries (like those mentioned) that Joseph Smith owned or could access. This explains the depiction of Abraham's father, Terah, as an idolater in the Book of Abraham (Abraham 1:5-7). Pre-existence and Cosmology: Themes like the pre-existence of spirits and a complex, hierarchical cosmology governed by a larger star, Kolob, in the Book of Abraham, were also actively discussed in the 19th-century religious environment, often driven by new scientific discoveries in astronomy. This argument reframes alleged "unique" parallels as simply evidence of Joseph Smith synthesizing ideas available in his own cultural and religious milieu. Stephen O. Smoot and other writing in the Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship (a response to Vogel's book), counter the "contemporary parallels" argument by pointing to evidence that suggests Joseph Smith's text better aligns with ancient, extra-biblical traditions that were demonstrably not widely available in 19th-century America, as the cumulative pattern of these unique traditions strongly suggests an ancient origin. They contend that while Terah's idolatry was common, the specific combination of elements, such as a priest of Pharaoh attempting to sacrifice Abraham on an altar near an image of an idol (Abraham 1:7-12) is so complex that its appearance in the Book of Abraham is more likely a restoration of ancient knowledge than a fabrication based on common commentary.

It was in this thread we were talking: I made similar arguments as you about the parallels in the then undiscovered Apocalypse of Abraham, and he replied to me that Joseph had access to those same parallels in other contemporary works. I'm not an expert in Joseph's private book collection to refute him. I thought it was an interesting claim. I wanted your opinion.

Awesome a new member. Maybe the mods finally fixed... You joined in 2014??!! Darn, it's probably not fixed then. The idolatry of Terah, the premortal existence of spirits and other items are seen in the Apocalypse of Abraham, which the first English translation was released in August 1898. But poster @CA Steve told me:

Regarding the Timing of the City of Enoch's Return According to the Church, the events described in Moses 7 will happen at the time of or just after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The City of Enoch will return to the earth. Moses 7:63 states that Enoch and his city "shall meet them there," referring to the righteous inhabitants of the earth who have built the New Jerusalem in the latter days. The sequence of events are that in the latter days, the righteous will build a city called Zion. Then, at the time of the Second Coming, the City of Enoch, which was taken up into heaven, will return and join with it. This fulfills prophecy and unites the two "Zions." The Old Testament seems to expect Zion to be built, while New Testament has a "New Jerusalem" coming out of heaven. Revelation 21: The Apostle John describes a vision of a "new heaven and a new earth." He then sees "the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God" (Revelation 21:2). The Heart of the Matter - A Place and a People I'm going to guess that the reason you might have come up with this question, is that Latter-day Prophets expand Zion as not currently one place, but anywhere the people are gathered. "Zion" can be anywhere. As the Church has grown worldwide, the emphasis has shifted from a single gathering place to building up "stakes of Zion" in every nation. As President Russell M. Nelson has taught, "The place of gathering for Brazilian Saints is in Brazil; the place of gathering for Nigerian Saints is in Nigeria; the place of gathering for Korean Saints is in Korea. Zion is 'the pure in heart.' It is wherever righteous Saints are." While Zion is a state of being, it is also a specific, physical place. The City of Enoch: Is a literal city, a physical Zion. The New Jerusalem: This is a future city prophesied to be built in Independence, Missouri. The multiple meanings of "Zion" will ultimately converge. The different, smaller "Zions" around the world (the stakes) are preparing people to be worthy to live in the one, great Zion. A single, unified city, composed of the returning City of Enoch and the New Jerusalem, will be the "real Zion." It will be both a place and a people. Regarding Other Worlds and Cities of Enoch The second question delves into a speculative area of LDS theology. While the scriptures clearly state that God has created "worlds without number" (Moses 1:33), the doctrine does not provide specific details about whether each of these worlds has its own version of a "City of Enoch." We don't assume every world will have the same parallel histories or experiences of the Earth, with each one having its own Prophet Enoch, its own translated city, and its own New Jerusalem. The focus of the scriptures is on the plan of salvation as it pertains to this Earth. Therefore, while the existence of other inhabited worlds is a belief, the idea of them having their own specific versions of the City of Enoch is a matter of great speculation and is not explicitly stated in the standard works of the Church. The focus of the doctrine is on this Earth and its inhabitants, and the fulfillment of God's plan on this planet.

Would a Neo-Nazi, a KJB agent, a Hezabollah terrorist, a Chinese spy, or an Ex-Mormon arsonist, not your "enemy"? If not, they are certainly those who may consider you to be their enemy, therefore perhaps, they are your enemy even without your say in the matter. If they were in trouble, perhaps it's even their own comeuppance, would you help them? If neighborly-love is defined as helping them with your time and resources without them even asking, via the Good Samaritan.

I thought it was a pun.

The Congressional Equality Caucus's press release states that Representatives Nancy Mace and Ronny Jackson are "calling for transgender people to be locked up against their will and institutionalized." The phrase "locked up against their will" is the caucus's own interpretation to define "institutionalize", if that word was used. There is a common tactic in political rhetoric, to rephrase an opponent's words in the most unflattering light possible to highlight what one believes is the true, underlying intent. My search for the exact, unedited quotes from Mace and Jackson using the term "institutionalize" does not immediately yield them. One could argue that they were using "institutionalize" in a hyperbolic way, similar to someone who may say, "these people are crazy, they should be institutionalized," without literally calling for legal action. In this view, it's a way to express disapproval and to align with a political base that believes being transgender is a mental illness, even if they know involuntary commitment is not a viable option. Institutionalization can be voluntary, where an individual seeks help and agrees to be admitted, or involuntary, where a person is committed against their will. In most jurisdictions, involuntary commitment is a high legal bar, typically reserved for individuals who are deemed a danger to themselves or others due to a severe mental health condition. Simply being transgender, even if considered a mental illness, does not meet this criterion. Some transgender individuals may experience mental health challenges such as depression or anxiety, or gender dysphoria (the discomfort a person may feel about their born gender identity). However, the standard of care for these issues is therapy or support groups. The Right to Self-Determination People have a right to self-determination. This includes the right to define one's own identity, including gender identity. Our Western society tends to learn our LGBT lessons from Christmas films. In the film Miracle on 34th Street, the court must determine if the man is a danger to himself or others, or if he is simply a person with a different belief. The film's conclusion, that he is not a danger, and therefore should not be institutionalized, mirrors the legal standard for involuntary commitment. Involuntary Institutionalization for a person simply because they are transgender would be a violation of their human rights and is not a medically or ethically sound practice. Though if they were saying there is a need for mental health care for transgender individuals to address any co-occurring issues of depression or anxiety, or gender dysphoria, then maybe voluntary institutionalize them, and involuntarily if they meant to stop self-harm or violence, or if they are underage, maybe. Because, I think I believe in parent's rights, even dumb parents.

In the Gospel according to me, the New Testament "Elders" refers to Elderhood which is the Christian Priesthood, Temple going Women are Priestesses or else they couldn't (safely in ancient thought) be in the Temple. The keys needed to get through the gates of death are priesthood keys. Through the oneness/unity of the priesthood/gospel there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, though what that unity may look like, minimally, is there are post-mortem priestesses as promised, if not the sealed companion of every priest (as opposed to being genderless or even like a Kabbalah siamese-twin or hermaphrodite). The "elders" in the New Testament are not just older men, but members of the Royal Melchizedek Priesthood, called the Presbytery or Elderhood held by Jesus's apostles and early Church leaders, and was restored in the latter days through the Prophet Joseph Smith. "Royal Cult" of Israel had ancient non-Levite priestesses, like others of the ancient Near East, whose participation was essential to the temple's function. In Israel, they did things such as weave all the white priestly garments in the Temple. The queen wore them in the Temple at the Temple wedding in the upper chamber and anointed with the priests' oil, making her holy. In the LDS temple endowment, both men and women receive sacred ordinances and covenants that prepare them to become "kings and priests" and "queens and priestesses" unto God. While today in mortality, men are ordained to priesthood office, both men and women are endowed with priesthood power in the temple. Women in this, receive a form of authority and power that is essential for their eternal progression and for the work of salvation. The title of "priestess" is a promise of their eternal destiny. While in mortality, priesthood keys are held by male leaders to govern the Church and its ordinances on Earth, the concept of "oneness" in the gospel ("no Jew or Gentile, male or female") is the higher, eternal principle. In the temple, a man and a woman are sealed together, and this sealing is said to unite them in "one flesh," creating a single, exalted unit. It's in this eternal, married state that the man and the woman, as "king and priest" and "queen and priestess," exercise their joint divine authority in the afterlife President Joseph F. Smith, and others, have taught that women, particularly those who have been sealed in the temple, will have a full share in the eternal blessings and authority of the priesthood. This is the fulfillment of the promise made to them in the temple. The work in the spirit world, therefore, is not limited to ordained men but is a cooperative effort of both men and women who have been prepared in the temple. Doctrine and Covenants 138:57, by mentioning "elders," is not an exclusion of women but rather a specific reference to those who hold the priesthood office that directs the work in this mortal dispensation. However, the broader theological framework, rooted in ancient temple worship and the Latter-day eternal principles of the gospel, confirms that the work of salvation is a joint effort of men and women. LDS women who have died, especially those who have been endowed and sealed in the temple, have been promised the destiny of being "priestesses." This means they are fully authorized and empowered to participate in the work of saving the dead, which is the ultimate purpose of the gospel. The vision of Eve and her faithful daughters in D&C 138:39 is a perfect example of this truth.

I've also been wondering if perhaps this absurd idea is just a personal fantasy that has become common in ex-mormonism to believe the Church should take on the burden of their own departure by "purging" them from its rolls. A fantasy stemming from the difficult emotional, social, and familial consequences of leaving the faith. The Fantasy of a "Guilt-Free" Exit For many who leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a formal resignation is not just a simple administrative act; it's a painful process that can lead to rifts with family and friends. By fantasizing about a Church-initiated purge, these individuals wish to avoid the personal responsibility and emotional fallout of resigning. They want the Church to be the "bad guy" who severed the tie, thereby absolving them of the guilt and grief associated with their departure. The Fantasy of Validation Or the desire for a public purge could also be a fantasy of validation. It represents a longing for the Church to publicly acknowledge, "we agree, your issues are valid, you should no longer be a member." This would, in the mind of the individual, confirm their narrative and remove the personal responsibility of having to justify their choices to family and friends. From this perspective, the aggressive and passive-aggressive behavior is perhaps not for moral superiority, but a mask for their own lack of courage to fully break away and face the consequences on their own.

Correct, you avoided mentioning any churches. By using the phrase "every organization I've been a part of," you were clearly attempting to establish a universal, common-sense rule based on your personal experience, by extension, to all other "sensible" organizations you haven't been a part of. The unstated, but obvious, conclusion of this inductive reasoning is that this rule should also apply to the LDS Church because all churches are also organizations. The entire point of the statement is to use this "universal rule" to criticize the Church's policies as an exception to the norm. Because, if you didn't believe your rule applied to all sensible organizations, including ones you've not been a part of and churches, your argument would be baseless, a hasty generalization to make a case. My request stands. Semantic Evasion The specific tactic of hiding behind a literal interpretation of one's words to avoid an obvious implication is called semantic evasion. The individual knows what they implied, but they are trying to force a debate about the words themselves, rather than the substance of the argument. This behavior is a hallmark of a bad-faith argument. A good-faith arguer seeks truth and understanding; they would admit that their analogy was flawed or that they cannot provide a factual example. The poster, however, is not interested in a genuine exchange. Their goal is to "win" by any means necessary, which is why they resort to deflection when cornered. When he says, "You don't get to make up stuff I did not say," he is also using a form of gaslighting. He is trying to make me doubt my own understanding of the conversation and put me on the defensive. This is a common tactic when a person has no logical defense for their position.

You said, "Why not purge the rolls of those who are habitual criminals for example?" and "every org I have ever been a part of will purge you from the roles if you dont pay dues... why the church holds on to those who don’t tithe or otherwise participate at all is senseless" You implied it by questioning why the Church doesn't do what you say 'every org' you've been a part of does. You imply all organizations do this. The question still stands: what other church organization purges members for not tithing or for being a criminal? It's a simple question. Its a direct challenge to the premise of your entire argument, the premise being that other sensible organizations do what you suggested. Name me a church. Your inability to name another church, combined with your claim that 'every org' you've been a part of does this, suggests your premise is flawed. There is an easy out. Since you've been unable to name another church that operates this way, are you willing to admit your original argument was based on a flawed analogy to secular organizations, not on how other religions function?

Call for References: name me another church organization you know who purges their inactive members and who don't tithe [or one that doesn't have criminals as members.]

We absolutely called it. This quote is a textbook illustration of the very dynamic I described. The exact moment where the disingenuous pretext of "PR advice" crumbles entirely, revealing the underlying venomous motive. The final phrase, "oh there we go," that little fake epiphany shows the unguarded truth that confirms the entire thesis. It was always disingenuous to suggest anything you'd want was for the sake of the Church's "good name", this feigned desire to help the Church avoid a "PR problem" was a facade. The "advice" is merely a clever way to couch a hostile demand. The comparison of the Church to "every org" you've ever been a part of is a false equivalence. A church is not a club, using secular metric (dues and attendance) to undermine a spiritual institution, knowing full well the comparison is flawed. The true, venomous motive is revealed; the final sentence is a moment of pure, unfiltered glee. You have "found" the supposed secret. The only logical reason to keep inactive members is to "prove the truthfulness of the gospel by the growth of membership numbers." Yet, even the "inflated numbers" theory is also a fake motive, clearly, it's being taken for granted, so you can weaponize cherry-picked data; The most emotionally charged and extreme examples just to openly taint an entire group. This is not about a reasoned argument; it's about how many times you can associate the entire Church with the most heinous crimes imaginable. All of this is just a cry for personal vindication. Having rejected the faith, and for that decision to feel justified, the faith itself must be seen as a fraud or a failure. The old and tired "inflated numbers" theory provided a vehicle for this. Projection A psychological and moral defense mechanism where individuals unconsciously attribute their own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, or qualities to another person or group. In this case, the ex-Mormon poster is projecting their own qualities onto the Church. Lying: Notatbm's argument is disingenuous, as it is presented as helpful advice but is actually a hostile attack. He accuses the Church of being deceptive by inflating its numbers, yet he himself is being deceptive about his motives. He becomes the very thing claimed to hate or criticize, is a powerful and destructive psychological cycle. It often stems from deep-seated resentment and a need to externalize one's own perceived flaws. Intolerance Notatbm seems to be a typical secular ex-Mormon that was made by "deconstruction". To see flaws results in a new, impossible standard for any Church to live up to because it often involves the rejection of the core principles of mercy, forgiveness, and grace that are fundamental to any church. When a former member deconstructs their faith, they may replace this theological framework with a new, secular-based moral absolutism that has no room for human imperfection or redemption. The critic reduces every moral issue to a simple black-and-white binary. They cannot tolerate a system that offers mercy and a path to repentance, because it violates their new, rigid sense of justice they used to separate from their church. In a faith-based worldview, a church is a "hospital for sinners" where flawed people can find forgiveness and a path to repentance. This is inherently messy and imperfect. In the deconstructed secular worldview, there is no atonement to cover imperfections, there are only human actions and their fixed consequences. The person leaving the faith may develop a totalitarian intolerance toward anyone they deem a "sinner" or a "criminal". Their new standard becomes an authenticity test of absolute purity and moral consistency, a test that no church or community of flawed humans can ever pass. This new, unforgiving standard allows the individual to feel morally superior to the church they left. They see the church's merciful approach, keeping "sinners" on the rolls, offering second chances, not as a virtue, but as a sign of institutional weakness, hypocrisy, or even corruption. By being "intolerant" of these individuals, they can claim the moral high ground and say, "My moral code is tougher, more consistent, and therefore better than the church's." This is a core part of the deconstruction narrative: the hero of the old faith is recast as a flawed or evil character, thus justifying the individual's new moral superiority even in nihilism.

The Ethics of Counting Inactive Members Ah, the oft' repeated ex-mo suggestion that the LDS Church's membership numbers are artificially inflated because they include a large number of inactive members who haven't attended in years. It is a valid observation, but it lacks understanding how large religious organizations count members. Firstly, Baptism as the basis for LDS membership, as with many Christian denominations. Once a person is baptized and their name is entered on the membership rolls, they remain a member until they formally resign, are excommunicated, or pass away. This is a common practice in many faith traditions. It's a vital ordinance, and cruel to arbitrarily take away. The logic of "purging" the rolls of inactive members is an overly drastic measure. While it might lead to a more "accurate" representation of active participants, it would also go against the fundamental theological principle of many churches that baptism is a binding covenant that cannot be easily undone. For the LDS Church, membership is not just a club membership that can be revoked for non-attendance. Many members who are currently inactive still consider themselves to be faithful, many hope to return to activity one day, and many who leave do ultimately come back later in life. The Church, by keeping them on the rolls, maintains a connection to them. Secondly, the ex-mos seem to just assume other religions have so much higher rates of active participation. Catholicism: A Pew Research Center study found that about 29% of U.S. Catholics say they attend Mass weekly or more often. This means a significant majority of people who identify as Catholic do not attend services every week. The Catholic Church, however, still counts all baptized individuals as members. Protestantism: Similarly, a Gallup poll found that only about 32% of U.S. adults reported attending religious services in the past seven days, a number that has been in decline for years. The definition of "Protestant" is also broad, encompassing many denominations, some do have very high attendance. Criminals and Membership This is a classic example of confusing the actions of individuals with the character of an institution. While members of the Church have committed crimes, becoming a source of embarrassment and criticism for the institution; Every major religion and organization in the world has members who are criminals. The actions of one or a few individuals do not define the entire group. The LDS Church does, like many religious organizations, have a formal process for dealing with serious transgressions, including criminal behavior. This process is called church discipline or a church court. Depending on the nature of the crime, the individual may be disfellowshipped or excommunicated. Excommunication is usually a private and confidential matter, and the church would not publicly announce the excommunication of every member who commits a crime. The purpose of these disciplinary actions is not to "look good" to the public, but to help the individual repent, to protect the integrity of the Church, and to protect others from harm. The process is also a way for the Church to maintain accountability within its own community. The Ex-Mo Logical Fallacies Cherry-Picking Do you even know whether LDS members are more or less criminally inclined than the general population? General sociological data suggests that having a religious affiliation is often correlated with lower crime rates, but it's not a direct cause and effect. It would be a huge overstatement to say that all religious groups have no criminals or that any one group, like the LDS church, somehow has a disproportionate number of them. The argument that if we had only ex-ed them, we'd have saved face is a prime example of this fallacy. This line of reasoning assumes that the Church's primary motivation for its disciplinary process is public relations. It's a spiritual process, not a PR strategy. The idea of "saving face" by preemptively excommunicating anyone who might commit a crime is not only impractical but also deeply un-Christian. The Church's role, from a theological perspective, is to minister to all, even those who have committed serious errors. The Kirk Shooter Example: If the shooter was actually a rebellious LGBT activist or even an apostate-Mormon, where his actions thus far were motivated by his animosity toward the Church, not his membership in it. Should this isolated incident be twisted to start purging 'apostates' who are LGBT or who support LGBT policies? Motivation and Bias The OP claims to be acting out of concern for the Church's reputation, but everything they've ever said reveals a different motive: a desire to see the Church discredited and diminished. This is a classic example of a false front or pretext. Feigning concern to make an argument seem more credible, when the true goal is to harm the institution they once belonged to. The "Membership Numbers are Inflated" Trope: This is a common talking point in ex-Mormon circles. It's not just a debate about numbers; it's an attack on the Church's integrity and its public image. The idea that the Church is "lying" about its numbers is a core belief for many critics. The "purge" of inactive members is presented as the solution to this supposed lie, its only suggested because it would, in turn, reduce the Church's influence and make it appear less successful. The "All-in" Argument The idea that a smaller, "all-in" membership is better for us is a common trope and is perhaps the most insidious because it takes a grain of truth and blows it up into a misguided demand. A highly committed core of members is, indeed, essential for any religious organization. It's what keeps the lights on, the programs running, and the missionary work going. The flaw is it also ignores the pastoral role of a church to minister to all, including those who are struggling, inactive, or fallen away. The call for a "purge" is based on a biased premise. It's a delusion that the only reason not to do as suggested is to inflate numbers. The practice of counting all baptized individuals as members (which is not unique to the LDS Church) and the reasons for it are rooted in theological and pastoral principles rather than a desire to inflate numbers. A church is a body of believers, not an exclusive club. The Church, by its nature, is not meant to minister to those "all-in." The vast majority of inactive members are not criminals or public relations liabilities; they are simply people who have drifted away for a variety of reasons, some temporary, some permanent. To sever that tie would be a betrayal of the Church's core mission. The Church maintains these records because it views these individuals as part of the "family" of God. It's not a scheme to look good, critics only say and think that because they are biased against the church. The True Heart of the Matter For many who actively oppose the Church, the "church growth" is not a positive outcome, it's a problem. Their logic goes like this: The Church is a lie or a harmful institution. The Church is growing, or at least claims to be, and its global influence is significant. This growth must be an illusion or based on deception, because a "false" church such as this should be in decline. Therefore, the practice of keeping inactive members on the rolls is interpreted as a deliberate scheme to manufacture a narrative of success. It's the only logical explanation that fits their pre-existing premise. This is a classic case of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. The critics have already decided that the Church is "bad" and should be failing. When the publicly reported numbers don't align with that expectation, they don't question their premise; instead, they attack the numbers themselves. For a bitter ex-Mormon, see a large decline in membership would validate their decision to leave and confirms their belief that the institution is a fraud. The Church's continued public growth, at least the very perception of it, is a constant source of frustration for them because it contradicts their preferred narrative. They want to believe that the Church is losing its influence, and a massive "purge" of the rolls would provide the empirical evidence they so desperately desire.

Then your definition is a modern invention. The word "eternity" in the modern sense of having "always been" is often imported into the Bible from later pagan Greek philosophical traditions, not directly from the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word olam is the root of many Protestant interpretations. Olam (עוֹלָם) is better understood as "long duration," "age," or "indefinite time." Therefore, biblical phrases like "from olam to olam" (Psalm 90:2) signify an enduring, continuous existence that extends beyond human memory, but not necessarily a being without a beginning or prior state. You're reading a foreign Greek definition of God into the text. A Semitic understanding to Psalm 90:2 ("Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from olam to olam you are God"), is not a metaphysical statement about YHWH's atemporal existence outside of time, but a powerful declaration of his enduring reign. A king's power is demonstrated by his ability to maintain his reign. Psalm 90:2 is a majestic statement about YHWH's enduring kingship. Furthermore, the Bible itself contains concepts that can be interpreted as there being "gods" that have "become". Psalm 82:6: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." This verse, cited by Jesus in John 10:34, suggests that other beings, identified as "gods," were "born" as children of the Most High. This introduces the idea of a hierarchy of divine beings who are not the one God, but are still called "gods" who "became" the "sons of God". The Bible is explicit that the Christians are adopted as the new sons of God, fated to become everything Christ is. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions have a concept of theosis or deification, which is surprisingly close to the LDS idea of human potential. Theosis is the belief that humans can become like God or "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). This shows that the concept of divine progression is not a unique LDS invention but has historical roots in Christianity that predate Protestantism by millennia. This suggests that your argument against "becoming god" is an isolated Protestant interpretation, not a universal Christian one. If Jesus is God, he experienced real change and "becoming." His was explicitly transformed and exalted. Then promised us the same, to sit on the throne of God. This challenges the notion that gods are inherently static, never changes, or "always been". Therefore, the assertion that "God has always been God" is not a universally accepted biblical truth but a specific theological interpretation. It relies on a specific reading of biblical words and a selective focus on certain verses while overlooking others that suggest divine progression and a plurality of "gods." Secondly, LDS theology agrees that God the Father has always been God in the sense that he is an eternal, divine being who presided over all things. The King Follett sermon's teaching that "God himself was once as we are now" is not interpreted to mean that God the Father was ever a mortal human of a fallen world. Instead, it refers to a stage of his eternal progression, not that that he wasn't God, only He became the embodied being He that has come to define what God is to Joseph. As Joseph is portrayed as saying, it was similar to the process that Jesus Christ experienced. If that is the cases, then He was always God, but not always in his current state of being, that is what Joseph defines as a god, via an exalted body. Thirdly, in LDS theology, the worship of future exalted beings is not a tenet. The central point of worship is always God the Eternal Father, in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and through the power of the Holy Ghost. Future exalted individuals, or "gods," will not be worshipped by their spirit children or any others. We were never told otherwise. They will become like God in attributes, power, and glory, but they will not supplant God the Father as the object of worship. This is analogous to how Jesus Christ, who is also a God, directs all worship back to the Father. The interpretation of Joseph Smith's discourse is still a subject of ongoing discussion. The quote you provided does challenge the traditional idea of the Greek static God who existed unchanged, but not the Christian God that did change into a man. However not every word the prophet speaks is considered a revelation or a formal statement of doctrine. The King Follett sermon was given at a specific time and place (the funeral of King Follett) and recorded second hand in by four people in four parts. It was not a formal, written proclamation or canonized scripture. It was a sermon not submitted to the general membership of the Church, nor was it published as an official declaration signed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which prevents a single leader from unilaterally changing core beliefs. The sermon, no matter how powerful, or revolutionary, did not undergo this process. Hence, Gordon B. Hinckley's Statement in 1997, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it." LDS members "jump through hoops" to reinterpret Joseph Smith can also be called the act of discerning the inspired from the personal. Joseph gave impromptu sermons, but he also instituted a process of canonization and the principle of unanimous consent are designed to ensure that the core, saving doctrines are clear and consistent, while allowing for personal and historical contexts of individual teachings.

I'm sure they can, but their target is misleading. When one uses the word 'corruption,' they're not speaking in a legal or even a consistent ethical sense. They're using it as a catch-all term for any institutional behavior they dislike. The fact that you feel personally wronged by the Church's financial management even though you were not legally or financially harmed suggests that your perception is driven by something other than the objective facts of the case. The outrage over a financial fine is disproportionate to the actual harm done, but it is a perfect outlet for the bottled-up pain and passive aggression stemming from more profound, personal wounds. Displacement is a defense mechanism where a person redirects a strong emotion, like anger, from the source of the emotion to a less threatening person or object. For many who leave the Church, particularly those who have experienced family or spousal estrangement, the pain is deeply personal and multifaceted. They may have been "pushed out" of their community, shunned by their parents, or left by a spouse who chose the Church over them. Confronting the Church or their family directly about these issues can be incredibly difficult and emotionally fraught. The Ensign Peak story provides a convenient and emotionally "safe" outlet for this anger. It's an impersonal, institutional issue that allows for public moral outrage without requiring a painful personal confrontation. The anger over a financial report, a topic that has little direct impact on their daily lives, is an easier emotion to express than the raw pain of a broken family. Passive Aggression is another relevant concept. It's the indirect expression of negative feelings. Instead of saying, "I'm angry that my parents won't talk to me," the former member might use the Ensign Peak issue as a vehicle to indirectly communicate their hostility. It allows them to express their anger in a way that can be easily denied ("I'm not angry at my parents, I'm just 100% concerned about financial ethics!") while still protecting their feelings of resentment. It isn't that they don't feel upset, it's the source of that upset is complex and, in specific contexts, appears to be an overhyped, and in some cases, a disingenuous moral outcry. The continued outrage and re-litigation of the issue, long after the legal and financial matter is settled, suggests the outrage isn't about the problem itself. It's about a need to maintain a narrative of being wronged. This outrage can be a form of cognitive dissonance reduction. The belief that the church is fundamentally flawed creates a conflict with the fact that many of its practices, even the Ensign Peak fund, are actually not illegal or fraudulent. In the context of government or corporate *corruption", the term implies specific, illegal activities which the church hasn't actually participated in. By inflating a transparency issue into "corruption", the ex-LDS person resolves this conflict, making their decision to leave seem more justified.

I, like some people, objectively believe some problems are not really their nor your problems, or they have been resolved or have a resolution. While, "other" people are not being objective, overhyping or are a little disingenuous, because it will always be a perpetual problem no matter what. Members of the Church, have considered the Ensign Peak events and found that the problems are either already resolved, were never as significant as portrayed, or don't affect them at all. The SEC's action was not for embezzlement or fraud, thus is not "corruption". The fine was a settlement, not a criminal conviction, that concluded "no wrongdoing". For some, it's the Church's admission of a "mistake" and its change in reporting procedures is enough to close the book on the issue. They see a problem that was addressed and corrected. This is where "cognitive dissonance" cuts in the direction of critics. For many who leave the Church, a central part of their new narrative is that the Church is dishonest and "not what it seems." When a news story like Ensign Peak breaks, it serves as powerful confirmation bias for their existing beliefs. They've already concluded the Church is corrupt, so this story is simply more evidence of that, even if the legal and financial details don't support the most extreme claims. In contrast, active members who can honestly reconcile their faith with a history of institutional privacy may not experience the same dissonance. A genuine criticism: This is the person who looks at the facts and says, "The Church should have been more transparent. The SEC fine shows a lack of institutional foresight." This is a valid, objective critique. A disingenuous outcry: This is the person who takes the same set of facts and uses them to reinforce a personal narrative of victimhood and betrayal. They inflate the issue, using terms like "corruption" and "deception" to stoke moral outrage, even when they were not personally harmed. Their goal is not to solve a problem but to validate their own life choices and affirm their identity as a former member.