Pyreaux

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi everyone. In the spirit of uplifting this season, I wanted to start a thread examining a trend we’re seeing with the Mormon Stories podcast and what it may mean for faithful Latter-day Saints everywhere. What Mormon Stories (Really) Is First for context (never assuming everyone on the forum knows), Mormon Stories Podcast was started in 2005 by John Dehlin and has been one of the most prominent independent podcast platforms discussing LDS topics with a claim to focus on interviews with a wide variety of perspectives, including critics of the Church. Their official mission statement (from their own website) frames their work as facilitating informed consent, supporting those in faith crisis, and building community, reflecting their self-identified purpose rather than the claims of critics or promoters. This is all deception. Not only is Mormon Stories not an LDS platform., its an Ex-LDS platform. It is run entirely by former members, many of whom are openly hostile to the Church. The name and icons strongly implies it is a faithful LDS or objective organization, which misleads both members and non-members searching for legitimate LDS information. They are the top search result for the term "Mormon". This branding strategy allows the platform to intercept people at moments of vulnerability, like LDS investigators, questioning LDS members, and those in faith crisis. The result is not informed consent, but directional persuasion. Who the Main Audience (Really) Is While Mormon Stories claims to serve people navigating faith transitions (in one direction only), its core audience increasingly appears to be Never-LDS who enjoy exaggerated narratives of "cult escape", abuse amplification, large institutional villainization, shock-value storytelling about LDS culture. This mirrors trends seen in other anti-religious media spaces, where outrage and trauma-p0rn outperform nuance. Faithful discussion, context, and spiritual outcomes are not the product being sold, the conflict is. Supported by a viewership of never-LDS and donation from ex-LDS and anti-LDS. Mormon Stories functions less like a support group and more like a deconstruction factory. Guests are guided, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly, toward predetermined conclusions. The same accusations are recycled with new faces. For this they get donations. This is pure commercialized deconversion, not pastoral care. Hypocrisy A recurring theme on Mormon Stories is criticism of how the Church handles money. Yet Mormon Stories itself operates under a structure where the brand is inseparable from its founder. All revenue and donations overwhelmingly benefit their central figure. Compensation transparency is minimal compared to the moral scrutiny applied to the Church. At minimum, this represents a double standard. At worst, it suggests projection. I’m not saying Mormon Stories is a cult the way others overbroadly use it, but it’s worth asking why it increasingly resembles the very systems it claims to oppose. There is a central charismatic authority, he has narrative control, people are emotional dependent on him. He uses moral absolutism, he is financial reliant on followers. His followers do identity reconstruction ("before" vs "after" self). If we applied criteria for identifying ‘cult behavior’ to Mormon Stories itself, would it pass? If those patterns are troubling inside churches, they should be troubling in non-churches. The platform only survives if people keep leaving and keep paying. Guests rarely leave more independent. Any later reconciliation to the church is bad for business. Any peace or resolution ends engagement. Therefore, only continued anger sustains it. There will never be a solution. Declining Influence Growth momentum appears to have slowed. Engagement fatigue is visible even among its former supporters. Long-time listeners describe content as repetitive and ideologically rigid. These two consecutive years of reduced growth is not a fluke, it is a trend. Over a two-year span, both viewership growth and audience momentum slowed noticeably. This matters because Mormon Stories’ model depends on sustained emotional engagement. Specifically anger, grievance, and disillusionment. That kind of content performs well in bursts, but it does not age well. Anger is exhausting, repetition dulls outrage, and audiences eventually move on when every story resolves the same way. Platforms built on permanent resentment face an unavoidable problem. Once the emotional payoff diminishes, so does the audience. The decline was already underway because grievance is not a renewable resource. The actual growth rates over recent years are not publicly broken down month-by-month on Social Blade without paid access, so I can't verify claims like 2023 had 117,000 new subscribers vs 57,000 in 2024 and 28,000 in 2025. If anyone has access to month-by-month analytics, that would be great to share. When Weak, a Forced Rebrand is a Direct Hit to their Deception Model The Church’s request that Mormon Stories stop using branding that implies official or representative LDS status strikes at the heart of the platform’s growth strategy. The name itself functions as a search engine funnel. Capturing members, investigators, and outsiders searching for authentic LDS perspectives, then redirecting them into adversarial content. Removing that ambiguity disrupts discoverability, weakens first impressions, and forces the platform to operate honestly as what it is: an ex-LDS commentary channel. The Church has every legal and ethical right to protect its identity and its members from confusion. Coming amid an existing decline, rebranding is not a inconvenience, it is a compounding blow. When growth is already slowing, losing a misleading point of entry can accelerate irrelevance. Organizations like Mormon Stories are far more fragile than they appear. They are not a lean volunteer group; they are bulky operations with fixed costs, salaries, production expenses, contractors, studio infrastructure, and brand maintenance. All funded almost entirely by ongoing donations and attention. Even a modest, sustained decline in views, engagement, or donor enthusiasm can have outsized effects. When revenue dips below operating expectations, there is little cushion, and pressure compounds quickly. Happy Holidays Unlike the LDS Church, which is diversified, geared for the long-term, and not dependent on outrage, Mormon Stories must constantly replace disengaging donors with newly disaffected members. As that pool shrinks and fatigue sets in, the math turns unforgiving. For faithful Latter-day Saints this represents a quiet but meaningful shift. Fewer resources fueling anger, fewer incentives to sensationalize faith crises, and fewer members being monetized at moments of vulnerability. If trends continue, from a faithful LDS perspective, this season truly may be a Merry Christmas for those who care that truth and faith outlasted a grievance-driven enterprise. May we look toward to the new year and hope for fewer fires. Fires of contention and outrage, and fewer literal fires as well. Attacks on churches, vandalism, and arson against houses of worship are never acceptable, no matter the ideology. When rhetoric cools and grievance-driven platforms lose influence, the real-world temperature often lowers too. A calmer media environment makes room for safer congregations, healthier dialogue, and faith practiced without fear. That is a hope worth carrying into the new year. Discussions Have you noticed fewer people recommending Mormon Stories lately? Do you think the name is intentionally misleading? What platforms do you see filling the gap? What trends have you noticed in Mormon Stories’ influence, for yourself or others? Have you noticed increased engagement with faithful LDS channels since 2023? Do you think metrics like subscriber counts has told us anything meaningful? Again, Mormon Stories is produced by the Open Stories Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Reliable revenue data needs the IRS Form 990. If you can access the latest filings, please post them!

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

I'm a kid of the 80s. My dad was young adult, electrical engineer in the 70s. It's around that time he forged his list, filled a tape, played it in his house on repeat. Any mix of 'classic' Christmas songs in the 80s on the radio or greatest hits would include all these. Yes, nothing actually from the 80s, I tried to look. Like Last Christmas by Wham! But its on the back burner for an updated list. I'm just trying to not forget anything essential before doing that. Feel free to suggest an 80s song.

Anyone able to offer opinions or contribute reconstructing my Dad's 70-80's Christmas music mix. 1 Perry Como "(There's No Place Like) Home for the Holidays" 1954 The quintessential Perry Como track, a necessary addition. 2 Bing Crosby & Ella Fitzgerald "Silver Bells" 1953 (Duet) I'm looking for a solo or a specific duet from Bing Crosby. 3 Bobby Helms "Jingle Bell Rock" 1957 The definitive, essential rockabilly holiday track. 4 José Feliciano "Feliz Navidad" 1984 (Live Version) The unique live track with the "crisp" sound. 5 Brenda Lee "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" 1958 An upbeat, massive classic rock-and-roll staple. 6 Darlene Love "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)" 1963 Gained new popularity in the 80s. 7 Bing Crosby "'Round and 'Round the Christmas Tree" 1971. A classic crooner favorite. 8 Ella Fitzgerald "Sleigh Ride" 1960. A fantastic, jazzy solo track. These other songs weren't on there, but I want to add them, if you have a good sense of the music of the era, have things to add, any must haves, please share. Any LDS artists I'm not thinking of, like Osmonds? Are there better versions of the songs chosen? Like I am considering these Frank Sinatra - Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas Bing Crosby - Mele Kalikimaka Picking 2 things from the John Denver Christmas Album Elmo & Patsy - Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer Some version of Santa Claus I Coming to Town. I just don't think it's the film version though. A version of the 12 Days of Christmas.

Urged by siblings I took an adult neurodivergence assessment test, I just today got the results and a diagnosis. My intelligence test results showed an overall score FSIQ is high at 111, but it's not the recommended score, it hides the huge differences in my abilities. The most accurate measure of my raw intellect is on the General Ability Index, my GAI is 128. My Verbal and Perceptual Reasoning scores were both in the Superior range (125). This means I'm excellent at understanding language, concepts, and solving complex visual and logical problems. My Working Memory Index is (80), which is in the low average-borderline range. Its how much information I can hold and manipulate in my mind right now (like calculating in my head or following multi-step directions). My capacity for this is significantly low. My Processing Speed (94) is more average but also significantly lower than my reasoning skills. This measures how quickly I can perform simple, repetitive tasks, like copying symbols or scanning for information. GAI 128 is a Superior IQ but with Gifted potential, 120 is the Superior Range, 130 is Gifted. I have a "Spiky Profile" meaning there is the large gap (48 points) between my GAI score and my WMI score. So despite my GAI, this gap is the source of a functional impairment. I'm not Gifted, I have "Twice-Exceptionality", which means I'm gifted (125 VCI/PRI) but I also have a significant learning difference or neurodevelopmental challenge (like ADHD, a WMI 80, and suspected ASD). The clinician gave me the diagnosis of ADHD (F90.0) and Adjustment Disorder (F43.23) and "Rule Out ASD" because the DSM-5-TR has a strict, non-negotiable requirement for ASD that my assessment likely failed to meet. It is still entirely possible I have Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), but they just couldn't officially diagnose me. This is very common outcome for many high-masking, high-IQ adults seeking a late diagnosis. The ADHD diagnosis is still a powerful disability, I have low Working Memory and Processing Speed which can be causing burnout if I'm using my processing power to "mask". My High RAADS-R (166) and my Spiky Cognitive Profile (GAI 128 vs. WMI 80) is the clinical evidence that makes me an autistic person but the diagnostic system is rigid. The DSM-5-TR requires that ASD symptoms be present and causing impairment in early development, early childhood. The Problem. Highly intelligent children (like I was) become masters of masking (camouflaging) early. If I or anyone can't recall a specific, verifiable examples of my restricted interests, rigid routines, or social difficulties from before the age of 8, the clinician cannot, by definition, give the diagnosis. My Superior scores in Verbal and Perceptual Reasoning (VCI/PRI 125) allows me to perform highly complex social scripting and intellectualize social rules, which might have convinced my clinician that my current social struggles (few friends, no love life) are due to Anxiety/Depression (what he thinks is an Adjustment Disorder, which the siblings disagree, because I was like this long before my life altering changes) rather than a ASD deficit. The "Rule Out ASD" is a professional way of saying: "Future experts, check for ASD. All the current symptoms and self-report data strongly suggest ASD, but I lack the required historical, collateral evidence to satisfy the DSM-5's criteria for a formal diagnosis." How High IQ could mask ASD: ASD core deficit is the lack of intuitive social understanding (reading non-verbal cues, tone, intent). But with Superior Verbal and Perceptual Reasoning (VCI/PRI 125) can allow me to intellectualize and script social interactions. I don't intuitively understand why people behave in a certain way; I logically deduce the expected social rules and then memorize and apply them. An example of me masking during the tests: I'm supposedly a diagnosed inattentive ADHD yet in a high-stake, short-duration environments (like the CPT-3 test), my superior intellect allowed me to "force" a "perfect" performance through intense, exhausting hyper-focus. This makes me look attentive and regulated during the test. This is a classic demonstration of superior intellect compensating for an underlying deficit, which is the definition of masking in an assessment setting. Next, if I want to get an ASD diagnosis now, I need to prepare a detailed written narrative of my specific sensory issues (e.g., sound/light/texture aversion), restricted interests (e.g., savant knowledge), and examples of social scripting/masking from early life if possible. If possible, try to arrange for a very close family member who knew me in childhood talk to the new clinician. Their testimony is often what validates the "early onset" requirement. My opinion about a Lore Fixation: As a child I'd memorized every scripture story I heard. But rarely knew the chronology. I prioritized the individual data points (the story as a self-contained unit) over the sequence or relational context (the flow of history). I memorize the substance (what the scripture says) but disregarded the arbitrary index (the chapter/verse number). Depth of interest today (Deuteronomists, Enoch, Qumran) a shift from merely what the Bible says, to who wrote it, how it was compiled, and its apocryphal/historical context, a deep dive into the meta-rules and authorship of the system. Mastery of Lore, grouped with my other interests (game lore, film lore) is a systemizing cognitive style that has been present since childhood. My need for intellectual mastery of closed systems, or lore, was prominent in my childhood interest in the Bible. I possessed an intense, encyclopedic knowledge and what the scriptures said. Critically, I still struggle with the arbitrary indices, rarely recalling verse numbers or the historical chronology. I have to take extensive notes with verses or go searching for sources of information I can recite of the top of my head.

Um, do I gather you feel bad for believing an inspiring, deeply ingrained traditional belief of getting your own planet with the official, modern Church disavowing the idea as "speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine"? It is not false just because it not been deemed true, in fact I still think it's very probably true. The church is just not overselling the idea as doctrine. It may be wise to have a healthy limit to our expectations, but do not put Eternal Progression in a box either. Odds are the conservative or metaphysical ideas of the Father's uniqueness we're trying to tolerate in the church here is likely bogus. And why stop at a planet? Why not our own pocket universe? Our universe is just a mini universe in a giant black hole. Exaltation, becoming like God in character, power, and knowledge, is still doctrine. Eternal Increase, having spirit children is still doctrine. Dominion, the power and authority to preside over one's spirit family is still doctrine. The specific location or physical structure of that dominion is not doctrine. But more than likely a planet will be involved at some point, we just don't know whose exactly it will be. It's natural to assume it would be yours. The highest promise of the Celestial Kingdom is that the exalted receive all that the Father hath (D&C 76:94; 84:38). Since the Father is a Creator, all that potential is still inherently included, until we are told we won't, which is not what the Church said. The official Church statement doesn't deny the power to create or govern worlds; it simply denies that the specific expectation of "getting your own planet", is precisely what it is. In fact, the ultimate outcome is likely far grander than simply ruling a single planet. I'd think it's about being a Creator in the fullest sense. The ultimate expression of godhood is the ability to organize matter and intelligence. Whether that organization is a planet, a star system, a galaxy, or an entire universe is a question of scale, not principle. If the Book of Moses states that God has created "worlds without number" (Moses 1:33) and that His work is eternal. This suggests creation is ongoing and infinite, we may need a more expansive view of what a "dominion" might entail. The Church is simply correcting for the record this is technically a folk doctrine, it doesn't diminish the incredible scope of the promise, it may actually have simply removed the cap of it merely being a planet.

Very good, I've edited it. I don't mean to forget to consistently reiterate that I mean a chosen style of many, few among the whole, and not the whole group. I am well aware LDS have also been engaged in it, equally been losing, it is a difficult thing to be expert in two faiths. It has a cost.

Here are the points and how they prove the cost of the polemical method: First an Argument from Ignorance It's the claim that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false, or is false because it has not been proven true. In the context of polemical apologetics, you see a lack of perfect evidence as evidence of fraud. But you do not apply the same skeptical rigor to the origins of your own faith. With no evidence, you assume the premise that there is continuous, unbroken authority in your own tradition to dismiss the LDS claim as unnecessary because you don't accept the evidence for it. You gave no positive argument, so it's a personal preference. Then Appeal to Continuous Authority in the face of an Ecclesiological deficit "My authority is Jesus saying he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail," is maybe your strongest affirmative statement, but it is deeply insufficient in an interfaith debate. The Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS traditions all agree with the promise of Matthew 16:18. They just fundamentally disagree on how that promise was fulfilled. When the Catholic poster pointed out the need for a "one true visible church," you needed to point to a specific, unified, visible body that exists today. If its a spiritual, invisible community of believers that is everywhere and yet nowhere, you cannot point to a single, positive, visible institution as "the Church" in Matthew. You must point to an invisible concept defined by a spiritual checklist, one which is easily satisfied by thousands of fragmented denominations. You authority is, therefore, an abstraction, which will force you back into negative polemics to defend your invisible boundaries. Then Relativism I'm not saying it wrong to exclude, just the portion of Protestants engaged in the polemic method of exclusion is by nature negative, often ill-informed, and consumed by attacking the opponent, which carries a high cost (a lot of false witnessing or rampant ignorance). It doesn't offer a positive, internal reason to reject the LDS claim, you offered a negative, external observation designed to neutralize a claim of uniqueness. Crucially, this line was used to rebut the Catholic's point about the Protestant lack of a single, visible church. A Protestant 'positive' defense should have been why a fragmented and invisible authority is superior to visible unity. Instead, you deflected. If the statement truly a justification for rejection, you could follow it up with, "And here is the superior, singular, non-fragmented, authoritative body that Christ promised would never be defeated". Since you cannot do this, you can only claim that all visible authority claims are equally suspect. This reinforces the idea that your identity is defined by whom you reject. It confirms the original thesis, the Protestant apologetics is often not engaged in affirmation, but a methodology of negation.

I do cobble together sources. Like the first is all me, I think I gleaned the definition of "dominion" from somewhere. Third one I recall is based on Jeff Lindsay and maybe a bit of Light Planet, but not verbatim.

A very good attempt to call out a Double Standard (the application of different sets of principles or standards to similar situations, often resulting in unfair treatment of one group compared to another). However, in reality that is a perfect demonstration of the defensive cycle in polemical apologetics. When the method is exposed (the constant critique, the negative identity), there is a immediately pivot back to attacking the opponent's faith to justify the negativity. A Protestant apologist attempts to establish the counter-argument: "The hostility originates with you. You accuse us of negative apologetics, but your founding (JSH 1:19) is a source of negative apologetics. It declares our ordinances invalid and our creeds an 'abomination.' Our negative critiques are simply a defensive reaction to your aggressive, negative, and exclusionary claim." Notice, the lack of a positive identity in fragmented Protestantism. It also misses a distinction between two fundamentally different types of exclusion. Exclusion by Affirmation (LDS/Catholic/JW) Positive Claim: "We have the true, visible, and enduring priesthood/authority/Church." Exclusion is a necessary consequence of the positive claim. The exclusion is doctrinal, not methodological. Exclusion by Rejection (Polemical Protestantism) Negative Identity: "We are the one true faith despite a lack of visible authority, and so we must define ourselves by what we are not." The apologetics must use a methodological, constant, active campaign of critique against all who claim a positive, visible authority (Catholic, LDS, JW, etc.). The Catholic was criticizing one Protestant METHODOLOGY (the need to constantly critique others to establish identity). The Protestant replied by criticizing the LDS DOCTRINE (the content of the exclusivist claim). The very act of answering a critique of methodology with a critique of doctrine proves the original point: you are unable to defend your own tradition positively and must attack. The Irony This rebuttal is ironic because the accusation of a "double standard" is itself a communication breakdown. All major Christian traditions are exclusionary. When the Protestant claims that Sola Scriptura is the only standard; this automatically excludes the Catholic appeal to Tradition and the LDS appeal to continuing Revelation. The Protestant, by claiming the Bible alone is sufficient, is effectively saying, "All non-biblical sources or claims of authority are corrupt." Yes, it is a symmetrical critique of the state of the institutional church, which is the same critique that Martin Luther leveled against the Pope and the same critique that the Church Councils leveled against the Arians. The difference is that when the LDS faith makes this statement, it's to then pivot to the positive work of Restoration. The polemical Protestant makes this statement to then pivot to the negative work of tearing down others, the claim the LDS faith is "hostile" for its foundational exclusionary statements. You are criticizing authority while refusing to positively defend your own authority structure. Ironic.

JFS does give essential Doctrines typically found throughout the Standard Works (LDS scriptures). The Godhead's Nature, and correct knowledge of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is essential for eternal life (John 17:3). Important in the temple context because it is the basis for understanding its teachings of our divine potential. Faith in Jesus Christ is required for all acts of repentance. Repentance is a necessary, ongoing process to be forgiven of sins and qualify for God's presence. Essential Ordinances - Baptism, Receiving the Holy Ghost, Priesthood, Temple Ordinances (Endowment, Sealing). These are the covenants required to enter Exaltation. Baptism, a Saving Ordinance. Priesthood, What it is, how it Works Marriage Resurrection/Judgment, knowing the reality of the Resurrection (universal) and the Judgment (conditional) provides the motivation and framework for obedience. The Gathering of Israel, because it is the mission of the Church and its members to prepare the world for the Second Coming. In short, anything relating to the Articles of Faith, the ordinances of the temple, and the necessary commandments (like obedience, the Sabbath, tithing, etc.) is considered required for the full blessings of exaltation. Subjects Not Required for Exaltation (Speculation/Interpretation) These are points of interest, historical theories, or interpretations that, while often believed by previous leaders (like Joseph Fielding Smith), are not currently sustained as unified, binding doctrine and do not affect one's standing for exaltation. The key non-essential subjects like; Specific Creation Timeline: The fact of the Creation by God is essential; the exact duration, mechanics, and correlation with scientific theories are not revealed and are matters of interpretation. Joseph Fielding Smith was a strong advocate for a literal, six-day creation (in the sense of six time periods but often short ones). He strongly argued against evolutionary theory. Current Church leaders maintain a position of neutrality on the process of creation, emphasizing that God directed it. Overly Detailed Millennial Conditions: The fact of the Millennial reign is essential; the exact status and role of non-members, the details of mortality vs. immortality on earth, and the precise nature of temple work during that time are not fully settled. Smith speculated on who exactly will remain on the earth (celestial and terrestrial people), the nature of death (change in the twinkling of an eye), and the level of mortality that remains. While based on scripture, the fine details are unnecessary for personal salvation today. Pre-Mortal Organization/Roles: The fact of the Pre-mortal Life is essential, specific hierarchy, nature of pre-mortal knowledge, or the details of how spirits were created are non-essential. Smith and others explored things like the specific progression of God and the concept of intelligence (a term often used broadly in early LDS thought). These are considered speculative philosophical points today. The doctrines required for salvation (or, more accurately, Exaltation) are what we call the Covenant Path starting with salvation and ideally ending in exaltation: Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and making and keeping the Temple Covenants (Endowment and Sealing). The subjects that are not required for salvation are the overly detailed interpretations or opinions of past leaders. These discussions are interesting, and have their own logic, maybe even true, but it is not the information we are judged by.

I was afraid I was over generalizing. I made some edits. "Not all Protestants, or even most Protestants, but a loud visible minority of Protestants calling themselves "apologists" but technically not exactly, particularly those engaging with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that put themselves online". I'm connected to Our Savior's Church and its very popular here in Louisiana, I don't hear any Mormon bashing. They don't seem to know anything about the Book of Mormon. They love The Chosen. They like Christian music and media. They are open minded when I talk about the Book of Enoch. They are very generous. The only thing they don't like is new age witchcraft and they lump in Masonry in that boat. I assume because masonry is popular here, the catagory is things used as replacements for religion.

Yes, a claim is not the proof. It seems like you're attempting to neutralize @3DOP's strongest positive claim. 1. Groups A, B, C, D (JW, SDA, Iglesia ni Christo) all make the exclusive claim: "We are the one true church." 2. So, if LDS or The Catholic Church also makes the exclusive claim: "We are the one true church." Conclusion: The claim itself is worthless, since it is mutually exclusive? It doesn't mean the need of a visible unity and singularity isn't valid, even if our claims to be it may not be any more valid than that of a Jehovah’s Witness. It misses the deeper point about identity. If a tradition lacks a single, visible, authoritative Church, you often must define yourselves by what you are not. You are compelled to lash out because you cannot positively point to "The Church". Just like here you seem unable to engage with the affirmation. Someone here attempted to affirm the theological nature of the Church; your first reflex seems to immediately go to a list of other groups, that I assume are to be rejected, not to defend Protestantism.

While nothing is exactly news here, I am just organizing my thoughts about what I see in the LDS sphere of Apologetics. I guess I'm trying to break down why our interfaith communication tends to... break down. Without assuming disingenuousness, but what its like in their shoes. As Brigham Young said, "we vary more in language than we do in sentiment". So, I'm often focused on how to best explain things using the right vocabulary, which I fail often enough to know there is always a better way to say something. Apologetics To "apologize" or make excuses, often focuses on defending, proving why one's own faith is true by presenting evidence, doctrine, or spiritual fruits (e.g., "Here is why the Book of Mormon provides clear answers to questions about the gospel.") Religious apologetics is supposed to be the reasoned defense of one's faith. A discipline common to nearly every major religious tradition. At its best, it is a scholarly, charitable endeavor to articulate truth and answer difficult questions. Not all Protestants, or even most Protestants, but a loud visible minority of Protestants calling themselves "apologists" but technically not exactly, particularly those engaging with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that put themselves online, a peculiar pattern emerges. A focus is placed overwhelmingly on a critical, often polemical, attack on multiple external faiths. This posturing, rooted in critique rather than affirmation, constitutes an oddity that is frequently distasteful and often poorly informed. Polemics Polemics (or Negative Apologetics) focuses on proving why everyone else's faith is false by attacking historical claims, perceived inconsistencies, or doctrinal shortcomings (e.g., "All I know about you is there are errors in the Book of Mormon."). The recent observation that captures this phenomenon is this young Protestant's lament: "I can't [defend Protestantism] without getting into why everyone else is wrong." This statement, simple as it is, speaks to exactly my experience of some Protestant's overreliance on polemics over apologetics. True apologetics should primarily articulate the beauty, consistency, and divine evidence supporting one's own faith (e.g., arguments for sola scriptura or the nature of God or grace). When the only perceived defense is an offense against other faiths, it suggests that the faith's identity is defined not by its internal strength, but by its opposition to others. This posture can inadvertently communicate a sense of doctrinal instability or a lack of self-assured identity. When the default answer to "Why Protestantism?" is "Because Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Mormonism are wrong," the conversation instantly becomes toxic. A Jack of all Trades, but a Master of None There is a cost to this. When a fledgling Protestant Anti-Mormon addresses LDS topics, they often rely on simplified or outdated anti-Mormon tropes. They aren't held to the same academic standard as a scholar specializing in religious history. They are speaking from a place of ignorance simply because they haven't done the specific homework required for the field. It takes years of study to "master" Mormonism. A college course of LDS literature, history, and doctrine. Even smart people won't dedicate the time and attention the subject needs. This lack of specialization, coupled with the aggressive focus on polemics, creates an environment where these new "apologists", despite their impressive intelligence, are very susceptible to being outmatched. When they encounter an actual LDS apologist who has dedicated years to mastering the relevant primary sources, historiography, and theological nuances of the debate, their generalized arguments most often fail. The defender, having mastered their own domain, finds it relatively simple to expose the shallowness of the critique. Beholdest the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye The next stage is a well-studied Protestant apologist prepared with arguments specifically designed to target LDS claims. Their study is highly focused on LDS weak points. It often has a price. It's easier to criticize an external structure than it is to establish the internal foundation of your own, which is why an "attack-first" strategy becomes so tempting. I feel that often they are often better at attacking LDS people than actually defending their own. The modern Protestant self-described "apologist" demonstrates highly specialized, often obscure, knowledge of LDS sources (e.g., obscure quotes from Brigham Young, complex details of the Book of Mormon translation process, early polygamy footnotes). When the LDS apologist pivots the discussion back to the Protestant's core doctrines (e.g., the hypostatic union, or the concept of eternal generation), the Protestant often lacks the specialized vocabulary and historical context to defend their own centuries-old positions. They know more about the internal disagreements of the LDS Church than they know about the detailed theological history of their own faith, proving that their study was motivated by critique rather than affirmation. The Always Unexpected LDS Counter-Punch to their Faith Your average studied LDS apologist is naturally drawn to study the traditional Trinitarian view, often viewing it as the starting point of the doctrinal divergence. If the Protestant launches a very polished attack on the LDS view of God, the LDS apologist can pivot quickly and say, "can you explain the coherence of one substance/three persons, and where the biblical model for that specific formulation is found?" For many every day, or even well-meaning, Protestant apologists, the Trinity is treated as a sacred cow that simply must be accepted, not defended with rigor. They often haven't been forced to break down the highly complex philosophical terms like homoousios, "substance," or persona, "person". The doctrine is taught as the non-negotiable boundary of Christian orthodoxy, not a concept to be rationally explained. The Protestant apologist that is so focused on the LDS doctrine can treats their foundational doctrine of the Trinity as a self-evident "mystery" that doesn't need a detailed defense. The Protestant Polemicist's Strawman These apologists can even spend all their energy defeating a belief system that no one actually holds, entirely missing the actual theological position. Sometimes the anti-Mormon or anti-Catholic critique requires filling in the missing gaps with assumptions. Like assuming someone that has a "works" tradition are neglecting faith. That is a straw-man position the Protestant is attacking. It's often a false assumption, since everyone, across all denominations, agrees that "works alone won't save," it is then attacking a caricature. The problem is that because they have never studied the nuances of LDS or Catholic theology on works and grace, they make statements about our errors, they are operating under the fundamental, unexamined assumption that the LDS or Catholic believe, "I am earning my way to heaven through effort, bypassing the need for Christ's Atonement." The Protestant apologist’s pre-packaged argument only works if the LDS member genuinely believes, or gullibly gets convinced by them, they are earning salvation. When the LDS apologist explains that they are saved by grace, and that the works are just the proof of their discipleship (following the path with Christ, not instead of Christ), the Protestant apologist is often, not stumped exactly. They often question your sincerity, because it can't possibly be a non-issue. Being Repugnant This reliance on external critique is manifest in the proliferation of literature and ministries dedicated to analyzing what is "wrong" with other faiths, with Latter-day Saints often featuring prominently. While good-faith theological engagement is essential, the tone of these critiques frequently crosses the line from academic disagreement to personal offense. The focus often moves beyond just comparing the Creeds to the Book of Mormon, instead shift in focus is what renders the approach distasteful, offensive and often ignorant. The Latter-day Saint feels attacked, rather than having a discussion. The issue of "annoying and ignorant" is perhaps the most frustrating aspect. Again, even highly intelligent public figures may occasionally wade into the complexities of LDS history or doctrine. They are experts in their own fields (Catholicism, philosophy, comedy, or political commentary), but their knowledge of the LDS context often proves to be superficial. These "apologists" feels obligated to cover all major religious groups but lacks the scholarly depth necessary to avoid making significant factual errors or relying on outdated arguments when addressing the LDS perspective. In conclusion, the oddity of this strain of Protestant apologetics lies in its tactical choice: a reflexive retreat to offensive polemics instead of building a robust, positive defense. By defining themselves primarily in opposition to others, these ministries risk becoming purveyors of misinformation and hostility. Ultimately, this focus detracts from the true scholarly work of both defending one’s faith and engaging with others in understanding

Yeah, that is a thing. There is confusion as there are categories of salvation, in the very same source materials we all use. We get lost by binary thinking (of saved and not saved, heaven or hell) to things that are a spectrum, or "degrees", if you will. Saved from Hades The Resurrection of Christ saved all of us from death, that is unconditional. Christ taught "all that are in the graves shall hear [the Father's] voice and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of of damnation" (John 5:29). Thus, resurrection saves our spirits from an eternal separation from our bodies after physical death. Save by Justification Justification, having the punishment of sins waived, on the condition of faith alone. Not any works can undo sin, Jesus paid it on our behalf. Paul says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8) and "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ...for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16). Saved by Sanctification Individual purification makes men holy by repenting. Paul says, "God hath chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thes 2:13). The conditions are works of repentance, "faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). Those who are "called to be saints" are "them that are sanctified" (1 Cor 1:2). Repentance and the baptism of the Holy Ghost (John 1:33), the baptism of fire (Matt. 3:11) and being born again (John 3:3-5). Saved by Exaltation Fulness of Salvation. Exaltation is Eternal Life, to live with God in the Celestial Kingdom and become like Him, living the kind of life God lives, with the opportunity for eternal increase. A conditional gift, "ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (Matt. 10:22). "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3:21). The Required Knowledge for Salvation Required knowledge is a bit more complex. Joseph Smith taught that "it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" (D&C 131:6), and that we are saved "no faster than he gets knowledge". This knowledge would include the fundamental principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and receiving all temple ordinances and covenants (like the endowment and sealing), and enduring to the end in faithfulness. For those who do not hear the gospel in this life (like infants, or those without access to teaching), they are saved/resurrected by God's grace and are judged according to the knowledge and law they had (Light of Christ). For those who do hear the gospel during their mortal lives, the requirement is to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, which includes repentance. There is other important knowledge, the Plan of Salvation, the nature of God, the role of Jesus Christ, and the finer principles behind Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Knowledge and understandings of the saving ordinances and covenants of the Gospel. "Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age.... Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (Hebrews 5:12-6:2). The key takeaway is that it is the revealed nature of God (God has a body, He is a Personage) that is considered essential doctrine, but the specific, unrevealed details of His past progression or origin are non-essential and often fall into the category of speculation.

Rick K and the Allnighters with the Mad Drummer stealing the show.

It will provide an opportunity for more young women to serve who might otherwise have begun college, careers, or felt the pressure to marry. While some may not be, many young women today are emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually ready to serve earlier. The age change will dramatically increase the number of sister missionaries. They now align completely in terms of age with their male counterparts. This creates an appearance of greater equity. That said, stand clear and watch this chauvinistic swan dive. I do worry for the Sisters and think there could be an increased risk. I think though Elders are just as immature, if not more so, but the earlier age for young men was tolerated because their gender offered a form of situational safety buffer that young women inherently lack. While there was a prevalent cultural expectation within the Church for young women (and to some extent still is) to marry young and begin a family. I suggest the policy of an older age allowed for a greater wealth of street smarts before facing the rigors of a mission away from home, often in challenging environments. I have concerns about the safety, maturity, and naivety of 18-year-olds in real-world challenges. Missionaries, regardless of gender, are frequently exposed to high-crime areas, traffic accidents, aggressive individuals, and difficult living conditions. Being targets for theft, harassment, or other forms of exploitation due to their distinctive appearance and often limited local experience. While the Church emphasizes pre-mission preparation and safety guidelines, and though Missionaries will mostly only need worry about car accidents and illnesses, I just hope the absurd fiction that was Heretic 2024 doesn't become a documentary.

That is one way to look at it. The failure to fully establish Zion in Missouri in the 1830s was indeed attributed, in part, to the transgression and "apostasy" (lack of faithfulness/obedience) of the early Saints, "And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive them. My people must needs be chastened until they learn obedience, if it must needs be, by the things which they suffer." (D&C 101:6-8). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still affirms a future fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the central land of Zion, but it does not view the temporary pause on the physical gathering as a sign of permanent collective apostasy or a loss of their priesthood or divine authorities. The verses in D&C 133 are understood to be describing the ultimate, complete gathering that will occur just before and during the Second Coming. The "Land of Zion" is the promised physical location which will be prepared to meet the Lord. This ultimate, physical gathering is still an outstanding prophecy and will occur when the time is right. If your specific Mormon denomination believes the physical gathering to the New Jerusalem must occur before any spiritual preparation in other stakes, then that is a difference in prophetic interpretation I won't dispute. But within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the current instruction is to gather to the local stakes while holding the ultimate gathering in Missouri as a future promise.

Ah, the iBand, playing 15 years ago on Gen 4 iPhones. A very hauntingly spiritual song.