Pyreaux

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?

Cabot Phillips Really Stepped In It Cabot Phillips, a conservative political activist and media personality, currently serving as a writer and editor at The Daily Wire. Recently posted an anti-Mormon tweet because he believes a common conservative notion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is harmful to society, aligning with his conservative views and political activism. A recent tweet while dunking on a normal LDS girl who claimed all churches have a shady past, the LDS church has the least shady past. She now has 1 million views on her tweet on X because of Cabot Phillips' reply to her: "Before founding Mormonism, Joseph Smith ran a scam business using a magical ‘seer stone’ which he said directed him to buried treasure on people's property." In 1826 he was put on trial for ripping so many people off. In 1827 he just happened to dig up the "golden plates" that became the Book of Mormon. Totally not shady!!!!" (@cabot-philllips, X [formerly Twitter]) Mormon Stories I asked AI to search into this, it couldn't find the tweet, however the AI largely agreed with it. When I asked where the source for its information came from, it was all links from Mormon Stories webpages, with a blend of other primary sources that said no such thing. What I see as happening is, there seems to be a resurgence inspired by The Joseph Smith Papers and Gospel Essays in which critics say the church changed its official tone from a denial that Joseph engaged in any Treasure Hunting, to supposedly admitting Joseph Smith operated a scam business, implying intentional deception and fraud. He used a seer stone (a folk-magic object) to locate buried treasure on other people’s land. The discovery of the “golden plates” in 1827 is insinuated to be just another 'treasure' story. Because that is more or less what Ex-LDS say about every Gospel Topic. As for AI, I'm sure like many non-LDS do, just thinks Mormon Stories is a source for information. Was there a Shift? In the 2010s with the Joseph Smith Papers and Gospel Topics Essays, the Church supposedly shifted to acknowledge Joseph’s treasure-digging and seer stone use in a more open, contextualized way. But I don't see any past denials of treasure hunting nor mining, just not "money-digging", always distinguishing "treasure seeking" from "money digging." B.H. Roberts (early 1900s, LDS General Authority) in Comprehensive History of the Church (1902–1932), Roberts described "money-digging" stories but framed them as hostile exaggerations of his manual labor. Joseph "hired out to Mr. Stowell … to dig for the silver mine … for something like a month … they vainly sought to find the 'hidden treasure.'" Joseph Fielding Smith (Apostle, 1950s–60s) in Doctrines of Salvation acknowledged Joseph's participation in treasure-seeking, Joseph F. Smith emphasized that it was a cultural phenomenon and not indicative of fraud. “Joseph Smith never was a money-digger. The whole story is a fabrication.” “Informed people do not dispute the fact that Joseph Smith searched for buried treasure. The disagreement is about what it means.” The only "shift" as I read it, is the church officially calling out most arguments against all treasure hunting, as the Presentist Fallacy it is: Judging 1820s folk practices by 2020s standards of scams or devilry, instead of understanding them in their own cultural and religious context. In the early 1800s, many respectable American people (not just Joseph) engaged in treasure-seeking. To dismiss it as “scamming” ignores the wider cultural acceptance and reduces it to a modern insult. Critics proceed to exaggerate the evidence (Hasty Generalization) and misrepresent the church's admissions (Strawman). They also twist ambiguous facts into hostile certainty. There isn't hard evidence he scammed folk. Joseph in 1822 finds a Seer Stone as a Youth Historical sources (both friendly and hostile) agree Joseph found a brown seer stone while digging a well around 1822. It’s clear he experimented with it; looking for things, trying to find objects underground, and sometimes telling neighbors what he "saw." And before the Book of Mormon, he developed a positive reputation of success. The important note: this was as a teen - long before he organized the Church. Early American folk practices weren’t unusual in rural New York. Joseph Knight Sr. (an early, faithful believer) wrote in his reminiscences: “Young Joseph … looked in the stone and told them there was a treasure.” (Dean Jessee, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 4, p. 15) Joseph’s Mother, Lucy Mack Smith's memoir, she acknowledged Joseph’s reputation for looking into a stone and that the neighbors sought him for it. She framed it positively: he was known for “having the gift of seeing” - not as a fraud, but as someone with a spiritual gift. (Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (1853)). Joseph’s 1826 Court Hearing as a Glass-Looker Surviving bills and notes from Justice Albert Neely’s 1826 Bainbridge, NY examination calls Joseph Smith a "glass-looker" under his name, thought not his crime but rather to distinguish between all other Joseph Smiths. “Glass-looking” itself wasn’t a chargeable crime under New York law in the 1820s. What could be a chargeable offense was the much broader “disorderly person” statute in New York’s Laws of 1813, which allowed local justices to prosecute anyone who: pretended to tell fortunes or otherwise made money by deception. He was never sent to trial, as we see there were no credible witnesses against him, but the documents show Joseph was at least publicly known as a glass-looker. Glass-looking: A clairvoyant looking into a stone or glass, or other medium to try to see hidden things - often underground objects, lost items, or distant events. (Wesley Walters, “Joseph Smith’s Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trial” (1971), reproduces the actual bills and notes.) Joseph was Not a "Money Digger" Lucy Mack Smith (Joseph’s mother, in Biographical Sketches) said "Joseph … endeavored to divert [Stowell] from his vain pursuit … laboring for about a month. It was from this … that the very prevalent story arose of Joseph’s being a money-digger." In Joseph Smith History, Joseph said that him being a "money digger" was a "rumor" started he was hired to dig for a Silver Mine. He was accused of being a "money digger" as a “charge brought against him” by critics, but he denied being what that implied: a fraudulent swindler. There’s a big difference between occasionally participating in digging for a mine (a normal cultural activity) and being a professional “money digger” or scam artist. In early 19th-century New England, a "money digger" was generally understood as someone who: Claimed to locate buried treasure (often Spanish gold or pirate loot). Using any modernly non-conventional or supernatural means (peep stone, divining rods, astrology, etc.) to do so. They usually accepted payment or promised a share of the treasure if found, in exchange for their services. This practice was widely mocked and stigmatized. By the 1820s, a “money digger” was as a derogatory label, similar to calling a psychic a fortune teller. How it applied to Joseph Smith Joseph had a Seer Stone he found in a well as a child, and by his 20s had a positive reputation for occasionally helping people find things with his gift. An Ensign article states Stowell arrived in the Susquehanna area “carrying a purported treasure map” with a digging crew. A Church History Department interview transcript (Legacy radio) says Stowell “had a map of some kind” pointing to a Spanish silver mine. The silver-mine idea and location was already on Stowell’s radar, via a map, before Joseph got involved. He hoped Joseph would join. Promising nothing, Joseph just wanted to be paid as a digger, while Josiah may have hoped by just having him around would give him an edge. The title of “money digger” was applied by critics to paint him as a fraud or charlatan, triggered by the events surrounding the 1826 Court Hearing. Semantics Matter - Key Nuance There is no source I've seen, that Joseph regularly took money just 'find' treasure, how do we know he wasn't just helping out of curiosity or folk faith, without payment, then he wasn’t technically a "money digger" in the economic sense - he’d just been part of a folk religious/mining activity that was common in his community. Mining isn't money digging. Joseph could truthfully say he wasn’t a “money digger” if by that, he meant “I wasn’t a fraud who lived off of deceiving people,” even if he once helped a man search for a silver mine. He became absolved of any wrongdoing by both the law and even Josiah himself, against accusations of Josiah's nephews. 1830 Palmyra Reflector (Newspaper) It seems the neighbors only started sharing the 'negative' rumors in 1829 after Joseph found the golden plates. In 1830, the Reflector began publishing mocking reports about Joseph as a “money digger”. Abner Cole (using the pen name Obadiah Dogberry) disliked Joseph and in the newspaper parodied the Book of Mormon before it had officially released. Example: “This work [Book of Mormon]… is said to be a history of the first settlers of America, written by one of their prophets… translated from the golden plates by Joseph Smith, Jr., who has been known as a money-digger." 1834 Eber D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed Eber D. Howe was a newspaper editor in Painesville, Ohio. In 1831–32, right after the Church’s move to Kirtland, Ohio, apostates and outsiders in Ohio and New York were compiling negative accounts from New York neighbors about Joseph Smith. Howe collected these reports and in 1834 published Mormonism Unvailed, the first major anti-Mormon book. Mormonism Unvailed leaned heavily on affidavits gathered by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, a disaffected Mormon. These affidavits came from Joseph’s Palmyra and Manchester neighbors; Chase, Stafford, and Stowell families (of course not Josiah Stowell). They claimed Joseph was a “money digger” and “lazy", alleged that Joseph deceived people into believing he could find buried riches. I've seen nothing yet about being paid for just looking for treasure. Howe was also the origin point of the debunked "Spaulding Manuscript theory" that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from a lost unpublished romance by Solomon Spaulding. The dominate anti-Mormon argument for decades, though it has since collapsed (once the actual Spaulding manuscript resurfaced and bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon). It was Mormonism Unvailed that cemented the "money-digger" narrative in public discourse. Joseph himself pushed back: in his 1838 history he called such stories "folly and lies" used to discredit him. The critic kept the “money digger” stigma alive for decades. 2007 John Foxe and Wikipedia Editing Wars As early as July 2007, John Foxe was a pseudonymous editor on Wikipedia was actively editing multiple LDS-related pages, including the First Vision article, pushing for sections on "treasure-seeking" to be included as the lead paragraph, even when other editors argued it was undue detail. Foxe created secondary accounts, like Hi540, later exposed as sock puppet accounts used in the editing wars. The masquerade led to a two-week Wikipedia suspension. In the 2000s, Wikipedia became the first stop for casual research. Because Wikipedia ranks so high on Google, their framing disproportionately influenced journalists, students, and even lazy "scholars". The "money digger" gets "locked in" as neutral fact. 2010-2020 Ex-Mo Media Era Platforms like Mormon Stories, CES Letter, and ex-Mo Reddit all take the “money digger” framework and lean hard into ridicule - and strangely they become a source, creating another loop: Where mainstream journalists and editors like Cabot Phillips are Googling Joseph Smith, find ex-Mo takes, then amplify it in their own articles and X feeds. What make Cabot Phillips tweet striking is that even someone outside from Mormonism parrots this Ex-Mormon ridicule narrative as if it’s settled fact. That shows how effective the ex-Mo content machine has been. Cabot probably didn’t dig into the early sources, he likely picked it up secondhand through the ex-Mo ecosystem that dominates search and social media. Ex-Mo echo chambers, each retelling added more certainty. What began as “Smith was accused of glass-looking” slowly became “Smith was convicted of the fraud of glass-looking” (though no conviction exists). Each loop hardened the language and erased nuance. First it was Anti-Mormon books making exaggerated claims and quoting from and sourcing other Anti-Mormon books. Ex-Mormon forums, and YouTube amplified these recycled claims. Since digital platforms reward volume and repetition, these old, exaggerated claims got repeated thousands of times - giving the impression of being overwhelming facts. Oh, The Irony Ex-Mormon Critics often accuse the Church of lying to control the narrative but in reality the anti-LDS narrative has thrived through uncritical repetition rather than fresh evidence. Only when scholars, including the Joseph Smith Papers team, emphasize the need to go back to original documents because so much of the narrative was built on secondhand and thirdhand claims. The critics uses the documents the church published to claim the Church was hiding documents about Joseph Smith’s past because they’re too embarrassing or proves Joseph was a fraud. The Church funded, compiled, edited, and published the Joseph Smith Papers Project, making documents like the 1826 hearing record publicly available. That’s the opposite of a cover-up: If the Church wanted to bury them, they easily could have. Yet the documents still don’t support the critics’ most pointed claims. The hearing transcript doesn’t prove fraud or scam. It shows a subset of neighbors arguing, a second-hand testimony, and a justice letting Joseph walk without a conviction. Critics contently misstate it as a trial (it wasn’t), saying Joseph was convicted (he wasn’t), and claiming he profited by scamming (no evidence). The documents failed to condemn Joseph, yet ex-Mormon influencers accuse Joseph of fraud with no proof anyway and blame the Church for "lying" if they do not agree with their interpretation, and the Church "controls the narrative" through censorship. When it's them who clearly controls the wider non-LDS public narrative that dominates public perception. They rely on lying exaggerations that the actual documents don’t support. If anyone is controlling a narrative by omission and distortion, it’s the critics, not the Church. The only reason we even know about these documents is because the LDS Church made them public. That undermines the very conspiracy claim that the Church lies and hides evidence. And the documents themselves don’t prove the fraud claim, so the critics are left propping up their narrative with recycled accusations.

Many threads on r/exmormon focus on Historical Skepticism. Usually, the atheists usually focus on the Book of Abraham as a core turning point. Key arguments include: Egyptian papyri clearly do not match Joseph Smith’s claims. They are standard funerary texts, none written by Abraham or from his time. LDS explanations (e.g. "missing papyri" or "catalyst theory") are often rejected as weak, contradictory, or ad hoc. Evangelical Christian Historical Skepticism of Mormonism Many of the sharpest historical critiques by Christian skeptics of Mormonism hinge on standards they seldom apply to Christianity itself. Whether it's textual transmission, prophetic integrity, or archaeological backup, the same challenges exist but are often dismissed or reframed when Christianity is concerned. But the Ex‑Mormon atheists (and agnostics) explicitly take the same historical, textual, and doctrinal criticisms they used to deconstruct Mormonism and direct them at Christianity as well. Here’s how that plays out across Reddit and related discussions: Here are five top Christian historical skepticism themes directed at Mormonism - all drawn from recent Reddit discussions on r/exmormon - with quotes from actual posts. Each theme reflects core criticism often made by Christian skeptics of Mormonism, yet many of these themes ironically apply to Christianity itself. 1. The Book of Abraham's Transmission Problems “Joseph Smith said [papyri] were writings of Abraham... Critics... point to this as evidence that Joseph was a fraud and the Book of Abraham was a fake.” Why it’s ironic: Christianity also has books and texts whose authenticity and transmission have been questioned (e.g. early manuscripts, Dead Sea Scrolls). Yet most Christian critics do not apply the same standard to their own scriptures. 2. Joseph Smith obtained a Conviction “For me, learning Joseph Smith was a convicted conman broke any illusion I had about the church.” Why it’s ironic: Christian tradition venerates many flawed figures - like Moses or Paul - who did questionable or violent acts, yet critics rarely question their divine calling in the same way. Jesus and his followers were also convicted, accused of assorted things as being drunk or winebibbers. 3. Book of Mormon Anachronisms & Archaeology Gap Frequent atheist/Christian-aligned critique: “There is zero archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.” Why it matters: Christian critics demand a high level of external validation for Mormon origin stories, yet similar archaeological or fossil evidence remains elusive for biblical events like the Exodus, the Flood or Eden. 4. Inconsistent First Vision Accounts Though primarily raised by atheist critics, Christian skeptics also reference contradictions: “Different Accounts Do Not Tell a Consistent Story…” regarding Joseph’s First Vision. Similar irony: Christianity relies on multiple Gospel accounts, each with similar variations to the same event. Yet critics of Mormonism rarely acknowledge similar discrepancies in the four Gospels themselves. 5. Changing Doctrines or Practices Changes such as polygamy, priesthood restrictions, or evolving doctrine are used to discredit LDS leadership. Ironic Parallel: Christianity has undergone centuries of doctrinal changes - from the Trinity to justification to papal infallibility, the Reformation, and hundreds of conflicting denominations, and somehow the Church was never in apostasy. The Tools That Broke Mormonism Broke Christianity Too A common refrain on r/exmormon is that if you apply critical thinking to Mormonism, you soon realize the same issues exist in Christianity. Real quotes: “For some reason the same critical thinking skills that deconstruct Mormonism also deconstruct Christianity.” “After deconstructing Mormonism I remained Christian … then I deconstructed the Bible … and soon lost belief in Christianity as well.” “There’s less evidence for Jesus than Joseph Smith … once you realize that faith is not a valid reason to believe in one, it’s not valid for the other either.” “Firstly, there are no first-, second-, or third-hand accounts of anything Jesus said or did. The Gospels weren’t written by eyewitnesses…” Comparative Deconstruction: Atheism as an Endpoint Within broader circles, ex-Mos often say Biblical criticism is what then finishes the job: “Once you deconstruct a religion enough to leave it … the tools … work quite well on mainstream Christian sects as well.” Some go further (channeling a little Hugh Grant in Heretic it seems): “Religion is a construct … used to control the population … If a being is powerful enough to create the universe then they do not need rituals or worship. They definitely don’t need 10% of my income.” Why It Matters The reason a Christian Anti-Mormon framing a topic around skepticism of historical claims, relying on historical or archaeological evidence to validate or invalidate faith, is a misplaced foundation: We are never told our Faith was meant to be built on bones and bricks Jesus said, “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29) “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) Faith is not baseless. But it also isn't always based on what is seen. Some truths are locked until the Spirit opens them. Many biblical events lack external validation. Someone leaves Mormonism because of Nephite horses, yet do they still believe in the elusive Moabite talking donkeys? Has anyone you know ever said they were baptized because chariot wheels were found in the Red Sea? They join after they feel something unmistakable - a divine witness. The Spirit confirms truths that no human person can give you, and no human can take it away. "...for they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14), Paul taught that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.” “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost…” - D&C 8:2 Worldly Evidence Shifts Like Sand Archaeological theories change every decade. What was “debunked” yesterday may be “confirmed” tomorrow. Today’s discovered tar pit someone calls “Sodom” proves nothing spiritual. Tomorrow, it may be reclassified. God doesn’t play hide-and-seek with our salvation inside dusty ruins. He sends His Spirit directly. This Rabbit Hole Is All Consuming Skepticism is not evil - but when it becomes the only lens through which all truth is filtered, it devours everything. Skepticism often begins as curiosity but ends in cynicism. People don’t stop at Joseph Smith - they keep going until Jesus, and even God are gone. Discussion Questions: Why do they expect Mormonism to be provable by secular tools when Christianity itself isn't? If God wanted us to believe because of proof, wouldn’t He have left a very different set of scriptures? How do you respond when someone says they no longer believe because of historical problems? Have you ever felt the Spirit confirm something that your mind didn’t fully understand? Why do you think God designed faith to require the Spirit instead of allowing clear, universal proof?