Merry Christmas and Cheers to the Fall of Mormon Stories

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 Baptized members at one point considered themselves as Latter-day Saints. These surveys show a significant number of them no longer do. This makes them ex-Mormons. 

This is the definition that seems most applicable to the claim Sunstoned made.  He can tell us if this is what he was thinking.

Otoh, I do see “exmormon” now often expressed as an identity in many cases rather than simply a record keeping note (as in at one time attended Forest View Elementary and now I don’t…no identity attached to that as I was there less than a year, only thing I remember is my teacher and a girl stapled her finger in class, wouldn’t rate more than a line in my biography) and that does seem to entail more than just cutting a mental connection.  But I would never use it this way without mentioning the definition I was giving it.

I have seen a lot of people online mention their family as attending, but say they were never really into the Church, the basic implication (sometimes actually expressed) is they were never Mormon in their minds and therefore aren’t now exmormon.

Edited December 24, 2025 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a ridiculously narrow way to define exmormon. Better to look at self identified members versus church records. In Mexico for instance only 20 percent of people on the church roles identify as Latter-day Saint (80 percent exmormon) see here (https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2022/07/self-affiliated-latter-day-saints-in.html?m=1). 
 

Surveys show Utah as 50 percent Latter-day Saint vs 2/3 via church records. So 25 percent exmormon in a place where identifying as Latter-day Saint faces the most favorable conditions. For the United States as a whole the 60000 person CCES survey discussed here shows 1.14 percent self identify as Latter-day Saint. This if true would give 45 percent exmormon.  See discussion here: 

 

This is a common statistical trap critics fall into. To conflate a public affiliation with "Ex-Mormonism" is a sociological error that relies on a 'False Binary' that doesn't exist in the real world. You want to call everyone who is merely indifferent to the Church an ex-Mormon.

The "1.14%" CCES Math

If the Church has 7 million records in the US and 3.8 million "actively identify" in a survey, that is a 54% identity rate. Your 1.14% figure confirms what I said 54% of people on the records still explicitly identify as members in a secular survey. That is a higher retention rate than almost any other denomination in the US. Who are also losing affiliation numbers.

In contrast, what percentage of Americans identify as 'Ex-Mormons' on a survey? Zero. It’s not even a category. If it were, you think a guy who hasn't stepped in a chapel since 1994 considers himself an 'Ex-Mormon'?

Counting every person who doesn't check the "Mormon" box ignores how often many are marking "Christian", like I do at the doctors. It isn't just a personal anecdote, it's a documented statistical trend. Most secular surveys (like the CCES) still use "Mormon" as the category. Thousands of active members are clicking "Christian" or "Other Christian" because they find the "Mormon" inaccurate or just want to avoid any "weird" stigma.

The Mexico "Ghost Baptism" Factor

In the 2020 Mexican Census, the vast majority of those "missing" 1 million people identified as Catholic. Those people aren't 'Ex-Mormons'; they were former Catholics re-identifying as Catholics. They likely attended the Church for two weeks in and then went back to their family’s traditional faith. If a Mexican man was baptized at 8, hasn't been to church in 30 years, and checks the 'Catholic' box on the census, he isn't an 'Ex-Mormon.' They didn't have a 'faith crisis' because they just never truly joined. Calling these Mexican Catholics 'Ex-Mormon' is a desperate attempt to pad your group's stats with people who don't even know you exist.

The Utah "In-Migration" Error

The percentage of LDS members in Utah is dropping because non-members are moving in, not just because members are moving out. Your '25% Ex-Mormon' figure ignores basic population migration data. 

Edited December 24, 2025 by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

they were former Catholics re-identifying as Catholics.

Is it just the phrase ex-Mormon you object to? What’s the difference between saying, “I’m an exmormon” and “I’m a former Mormon”. Or “I’m an ex-Catholic” vs “I’m a former Catholic”. Or “I’m her ex-husband” vs “I’m her former husband”. To me they are synonymous. 
 

If someone asks me for my religious affiliation (like at a hospital) I simple state I don’t have one. Does that mean I’m not a former Latter Day Saint? 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I would like to see the logic demonstrating this is the most reasonable definition in this context as I find it hard to believe anyone here actually defines “exmormon” as “hangs out with other exmormons online and off socially” or some such thing anymore than one would define believing LDS as only those who hang out online with other believing LDS.

I'm sure there are live venues as well. I wouldn't describe someone else's (whether and individual or a larger group) experience leaving the Church as "becoming "exmormons". 

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Sunstoned made a claim and the discussion that followed is in part about proving or disproving that claim, correct?

If so, it’s best to start by asking what definition Sunstoned was using to see if the definition makes verifiable or not first and if so, verify it.  Then argue if there is a more precise term for “exmormon” than what Sunstoned used…

Scripturally speaking, it shouldn’t be shocking even if depressing for believers if there are more exmormons than believing LDS in the world.  The Church of the Lamb of God numbers are supposed to be few (though if in comparison to the world’s population, millions are few).

I didn't see Posted Sunday at 05:55 PM but they seem to be exaggerating and misapplying the numbers while emphasizing the online venues for community.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except I was not replying to opening post, but rather this.

I'm sorry, but if people don't identify as a member of your group, they aren't a member of your group.. They aren't "inactive" members. They are former members - ex-mormon - if you will. As for those that join Reddit or listen to John Dehlin, those are the ex-mormons that had particularly strong community ties that most former Latter-day Saints lack.

 

Yes, you prefer "if you will" to see a much larger cohort of people as "ex-mormons" than I do, but we both narrow this down even further by those that join Reddit or listen to John Dehlin (and by "ex-tension") Mormon Stories.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

what percentage of Americans identify as 'Ex-Mormons' on a survey? Zero. It’s not even a category. If it were, you think a guy who hasn't stepped in a chapel since 1994 considers himself an 'Ex-Mormon'?

This. 👆🏻

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it just the phrase ex-Mormon you object to? What’s the difference between saying, “I’m an exmormon” and “I’m a former Mormon”. Or “I’m an ex-Catholic” vs “I’m a former Catholic”. Or “I’m her ex-husband” vs “I’m her former husband”. To me they are synonymous. 
 

If someone asks me for my religious affiliation (like at a hospital) I simple state I don’t have one. Does that mean I’m not a former Latter Day Saint? 

It means they are not calling you one.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

They didn't have a 'faith crisis' because they just never truly joined. Calling these Mexican Catholics 'Ex-Mormon' is a desperate attempt to pad your group's stats with people who don't even know you exist.

But are they on the Church records as members?

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it just the phrase ex-Mormon you object to? What’s the difference between saying, “I’m an exmormon” and “I’m a former Mormon”. Or “I’m an ex-Catholic” vs “I’m a former Catholic”. Or “I’m her ex-husband” vs “I’m her former husband”. To me they are synonymous. 

If someone asks me for my religious affiliation (like at a hospital) I simple state I don’t have one. Does that mean I’m not a former Latter Day Saint? 

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

[Pyreaux]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

But are they on the Church records as members?

Of course. Because disaffiliation doesn't tell us much without a resignation. When you don't we have every reason to believe that a person still values their connection to the Church. Like maybe they still value their ancestral ties too much to do that. Many people who join another church or identify as "None" will explicitly refuse to resign because they still value or believe in their family sealings.

Or they might prefer the community, music or the shorter sermons at a local Baptist church, but in the back of their minds, they think, "I still want to be tied to my parents". While, generally, someone who truly 'hates' the Church or felt it was a 'fraud,' would want their name removed. The fact that millions of 'inactive' members choose to stay on the records suggests they still harbor a 'just in case' belief. They haven't actually 'left'.

An Analogy

You can be a "Secular Jew", who never goes to a Synagogue and eats pork. But if someone calls you an "Ex-Jew," would be offended. 

Well, he'd want to call an inactive 'Heritage Mormon' an 'Ex-Mormon.' But these people still love the culture, the pioneers, and the values. They might mark 'None' because they aren't 'active,' but they would be the first to defend the Church if a stranger attacked it.

My mom converted as a teen and brought in her little brother. My uncle as a man never goes to church, never talks about the church with his wife, but as she notices, he gets really angry when he hears something on TV about the church that is not true.

People who switch to other denominations who don't resign often speak fondly of their LDS upbringing. Joining another church isn't always an act of war. They'll say they're grateful for the foundation the Church gave me, I just felt called elsewhere. 

Edited December 25, 2025 by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Yes. In social identity theory, they carry vastly different weights.

CFR please. 

[Pyreaux]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

CFR please. 

It is a central theme in "Social Identity Theory" (SIT) and "Role Exit Theory".

Former =/= Ex

"The process of disengagement from a role that is central to one's self-identity and the reestablishment of an identity in a new role that takes into account one's ex-role constitutes the process I call role exit" (Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit (1988) Pg 1 by sociologist Helen Rose Ebaugh)

She was a former nun and she explains that "Ex" is a unique social category. An "Ex" is someone who has not simply left a role but has created a new identity based on the one they left. An "Ex" is defined by their past. They often remain anchored to the previous institution because their new social status relies on the contrast.

Indifference =/= Ex

Psychologists Kimberly Elsbach and C.B. Bhattacharya in their 2001 paper, “Defining Who You Are By What You're Not,” and their subsequent work on the Expanded Model of Organizational Identification categorize the relationships into four distinct quadrants.

Identification "I am the organization." Active support, defense, and time investment.

Disidentification "I am the opposite of the organization." Active criticism, monitoring, and "Ex-" identity.

Ambivalence "I love parts and hate parts." Internal conflict, toggling between support and critique.

Indifference "I don't think about it" Passively disengaged.

A guy checking "None" on a census is only showing Indifference. The guy who resigned is showing Disidentification.

Two past customers chose not to eat at McDonalds today as they passed by, but one did it because he wasn't hungry and simply never thought about it, the other because he is now a vegan and so opposes everything McDonald's stands for. Those are two vastly different people.

Edited December 25, 2025 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

I know people who say they are “ex mormon” or “were raised Mormon” and are pretty indifferent in terms of the institution’s impact on their life. Some have semi-fond feelings, some don’t care much, and some think the Church is bad or harmful but they have also moved on.

[Teancum]

On 12/23/2025 at 9:05 PM, Pyreaux said:

Good to see you still around. Still kicking the pricks? You do you, man

Still following a myth and fantasy?  You do you as well.

On 12/23/2025 at 9:05 PM, Pyreaux said:

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.

Your attempt to psychoanalyze me is hilarious and you could not be more wrong.  As I noted I rarely even listen to MS anymore. I recently listened to an exit story because I personally knew the person on the podcast. Before that I do not recall when I listened and when I have it is more like the series where Matt Harris was interviewed about his excellent book Second Class Saints.  But I think MS helps people that are where I was at 20 years ago and I am happy to support that.  I am aware of the salary John draws and I could not care less. But yea I have mostly moved on from Mormonism. I show up here once in a while and try to keep tabs on some things like the death of Elder Holland and other such things.  Your topic intrigued me so I responded. It brings me joy that he still get under all your skins a bit. 

And more power to you if you want to keep paying your mandated temple tax. You keep helping the Church that claims to be Jesus's amass its enormous wealth rather than relieve human suffering. It is really a Corporation masquerading as a church. And that while it refuses to be transparent with you about its finances. What a waste of $. But sure, you do you as you said.

 

On 12/23/2025 at 9:05 PM, Pyreaux said:

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.

Edited December 29, 2025 by Teancum

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Still following a myth and fantasy?  You do you as well.

Your attempt to psychoanalyze me is hilarious and you could not be more wrong.  As I noted I rarely even listen to MS anymore. I recently listened to an exit story because I personally knew the person on the podcast. Before that I do not recall when I listened and when I have it is more like the series where Matt Harris was interviewed about his excellent book Second Class Saints.  But I think MS helps people that are where I was at 20 years ago and I am happy to support that.  I am aware of the salary John draws and I could not care less. But yea I have mostly moved on from Mormonism. I show up here once in a while and try to keep tabs on some things like the death of Elder Holland and other such things.  Your topic intrigued me so I responded. It brings me joy that he still get under all your skins a bit. 

And more power to you if you want to keep paying your mandated temple tax. You keep helping the Church that claims to be Jesus's amass its enormous wealth rather than relieve human suffering. It is really a Corporation masquerading as a church. And that while it refuses to be transparent with you about its finances. What a waste of $. But sure, you do you as you said.

Hmm, proving the point while trying to deny it. You claim to have moved on, you just described "joy" in seeing someone "get under the skin" of active members. That is the definition of a reactive identity, not a neutral one. People who have truly moved on from a relationship don't get 'joy' from their ex-spouse’s frustrations. Your donation and subscription keeps you tethered to the very thing you claim to have left. You aren't indifferent; you are an invested antagonist. To let you know, I do enjoy a bit of lively back and forth, how you might see the same data as good or bad, your participation and perspective. 

Corporation Sole are a standard legal entity used by the Catholic Church, the Church of England, and many other denominations to ensure that property and assets stay with the office of the leader, not a person. This actually prevents individuals from pocketing the money. Unlike your 'transparent' podcaster, who literally pockets 30–50% of his foundation’s revenue.

Church in 2024 alone, it spent $1.36 billion on humanitarian aid. Can you show me the humanitarian projects Mormon Stories funded last year? Are his counseling services free or even cheap? No. When I pay my 'temple tax,' I’m funding a global welfare system, four affordable (75% of tuition) universities, and thousands of soup kitchens. That 'waste of money' is real meals, real medicine, and real clean water. If you're happy paying for a six-figure lifestyle while claiming the Church is the 'greedy' one, then 'you do you.' But the math says my tithing is doing a lot more.

Even the best secular charities, like charity: water, pay their CEOs six-figure salaries, along with hundreds of employees. They spend 20–30% of your donation on fundraising and marketing. They still have to pay a third party to ship, store, and distribute the aid. When I give to the Church, my money goes into a system that owns the farms, storage and the trucks. My dollar goes further because the Church doesn't just fund the aid; it is the aid network.

Secular charities often fly into a disaster zone and leave. The LDS Church is already there. Every neighborhood has a Bishop who lives there, knows the people, and provides counseling and food for free. We are a real global safety net. It’s the ultimate sustainable model. I’m paying for a world-class infrastructure that feeds, educates, and councils millions for free.

Harvard ($50B), the Gates Foundation ($75B), and the Mayo Clinic don't spend their money all at once because that would be "wasting" it, it would be dumb. Smart organizations like Harvard spend the interest so the university can provide scholarships and research in perpetuity. Now the Church is the only organization that plans 100 years into the future. It’s not a pile of cash; it’s a guarantee that the global safety net will never collapse, no matter what happens to the U.S. dollar. The church is not even primarily a humanitarian NGO, the church is an eschatological institution meant to endure until the end of time. Reserves aren’t ‘sitting’, they’re invested into the economy, and is what will keep aid, missions, and welfare running during crises instead of stopping.

If John Dehlin actually helped someone resolve their "faith crisis," they would stop being "Ex-Mormons" and just become "People." They would not feel joy to make members feel dismay. Mormon Stories has high executive salaries and media production costs, no tangible assets. Once the donor base drops by 20%, or when the "Ex-Mo" trend reached its saturation point, his high overhead with no reserves of will become unsustainable, a $250k-a-year podcast will collapse under its own weight.

In 50 years, the Church will still be here, using its billions to build hospitals and entire cities for a global membership. Mormon Stories will be a footnote, deleted for lack of funding, remembered for lecturing others about how they should use money. Now, that will be funny. 

Edited December 29, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Teancum]

On 12/23/2025 at 9:05 PM, Pyreaux said:

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.

I have a few additional thoughts. Why is it that active members, and especially apologist, want to gripe and complain when disaffected or Ex Mos still are interested in as well as critical of, things LDS. Why the hell is it an issue if I, even after 20 years, an still periodically interested in MS or Mormonism Live with Bill Reel and RFM?  My heritage is tied to the Church. I have ancestors on all sides that either converted in Europe or joined in New England and moved west with the church.  I gave my whole life to the church for my first 52 years or so. I have family and friends that are still strongly involved in the church.  The fact that I support MS and Mormonism live is not some odd tick that I am looking to satisfied. I think they are worth supporting for a variety of reasons but the main two are I do think they assist people that are where I was at years ago and I find some of their content interesting. I also think they are far more honest about things LDS than the church is as well as its defenders.  It is not some flaw nor something that is emotionally broken that keeps me on an endless rage loop or anything like that.  

My heritage, my friends, and some family are the main reasons I have not removed my name from the church records. My wife, a convert, has talked about name removal and my response was that is up to her if she wants, but I have no desire to do so. So much of what I am for good or ill is because of Mormonism. It is still somewhat my tribe. And I have even considered maybe attending here and there. I do at times miss my ward community. Any way, I just find it peculiar that you and others just expect someone to simply move on. How I or others interact with Mormonism is after our departure and there is not a clock on when we decide not to interact with it anymore. My interaction now is very limited but it is still there and there is nothing wrong with me for that fact.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Hmm, proving the point while trying to deny it. You claim to have moved on, you just described "joy" in seeing someone "get under the skin" of active members.

Where did I describe joy at getting under the skin of active members. You mean people here on this board?  I guess we need to define what moving on means. I have moved on in some ways, and in other ways I have not. See my additional post. And I really will likely never move on entirely because as I noted in my other post, much of who and what I am is tied to Mormonism. I can't remove that from me anymore that I can change my sex, my last name, or my national citizenship even though I may be very disappointed with America currently. 

 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

 

That is the definition of a reactive identity, not a neutral one. People who have truly moved on from a relationship don't get 'joy' from their ex-spouse’s frustrations.

I am not sure what your point is here.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

Your donation and subscription keeps you tethered to the very thing you claim to have left.

Well I have not completely abandoned Mormonism so there is that. So in some ways I have not "left."

 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

You aren't indifferent; you are an invested antagonist.

An invested antagonist?  Ok, maybe so but I am not sure what that means. But if posting on this board, giving financial support to two organizations critical of the church and following some social media groups for disaffected members then I guess you are correct. 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

To let you know, I do enjoy a bit of lively back and forth, how you might see the same data as good or bad, your participation and perspective. 

Ok I am game so long as we both keep it polite.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Corporation Sole are a standard legal entity used by the Catholic Church, the Church of England, and many other denominations to ensure that property and assets stay with the office of the leader, not a person. This actually prevents individuals from pocketing the money. Unlike your 'transparent' podcaster, who literally pockets 30–50% of his foundation’s revenue.

I am not sure how this is relevant.  Your leader pull in annually as much as Dehlin does with their salary and cushy perks, which I really do not nor ever have begrudged them and I think they should be paid more for what they do. To hire the equivalent would of GAs would likely cost much more.

 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Church in 2024 alone, it spent $1.36 billion on humanitarian aid.

I applaud that but you and I both know that that amount is a pittance compared to the massive assets the church holds.  They could and should do much much more IMO.

 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Can you show me the humanitarian projects Mormon Stories funded last year? Are his counseling services free or even cheap? No.

Does MS claim to be The Church of Jesus Christ?  Does John Dehlin  demand I pay to listen to his podcasts?  Does the MS mission statement include in its purpose humanitarian aid?  Nope. As for counseling services I do not know that Dehlin does this anymore but it is irrelevant  and this is really a big time false equivalency. But when John claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ and requires ten % for access to his best podcasts then you might have a point. Otherwise not so much.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

When I pay my 'temple tax,' I’m funding a global welfare system

Nope. Your tithing does not go to welfare last I checked.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

four affordable (75% of tuition) universities,

Yes tithing does likely go for that. 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

and thousands of soup kitchens.

The church has soup kitchens?  Where?

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

That 'waste of money' is real meals, real medicine, and real clean water.

Well now you really don't know where your money goes because the church does not tell you. And then there is that pesky read the fine print on your donation slip where your designation for say money for FO or humanitarian aid can be used wherever the church wants. And by the way I continued to give to fast offering and humanitarian aid fopr years after not participating till the church but that little qualifier. After that I decided to give to organization that I knew would put the money to work helping to save lives and such.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

If you're happy paying for a six-figure lifestyle while claiming the Church is the 'greedy' one, then 'you do you.' But the math says my tithing is doing a lot more.

I never said the church is greedy not did I. And I never said that the church does not sped $ on worthy causes at all now did I? That does not negate the fact that the church hoars its wealth in spite of the good it does. A few billion a year for an organization with hundreds of billions is a small amount of its resources to relieve suffering even though the $ amount is large. And I do not imagine my $75 per month for MS is a make ore break thing, I support a number of podcasters and independent media sources that I enjoy. I also give a ton to other organizations that do work to relieve human suffering,

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Even the best secular charities, like charity: water, pay their CEOs six-figure salaries, along with hundreds of employees. They spend 20–30% of your donation on fundraising and marketing. They still have to pay a third party to ship, store, and distribute the aid.

This is the case for some charities and for some not so much. But so what. The church still needs about $6 to $7 billion a year just to operate. That is pretty hefty overhead, so yea, you really don't know how much of your donation  goes to all that you are thumping your chest about now do you?  By the way I support a couple of charities where almost 100% of it goes to relieve human suffering. They are out there if you look for them. 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

When I give to the Church, my money goes into a system that owns the farms, storage and the trucks. My dollar goes further because the Church doesn't just fund the aid; it is the aid network.

Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know because they keep it a secret from you.

 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Secular charities often fly into a disaster zone and leave.

Ummm no. Some do and some don't.  My guess is you don't donate much outside your tithe and other church contributions because that is a pretty hefty sum for most members and does not leave much for most to give to other groups. It didn't for me when I was a full tithe payer.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

The LDS Church is already there. Every neighborhood has a Bishop who lives there, knows the people, and provides counseling and food for free. We are a real global safety net. It’s the ultimate sustainable model. I’m paying for a world-class infrastructure that feeds, educates, and councils millions for free.

Once again, I never said the church does not do good not did I? I have always said the the FO program is brilliant. I would still give to that if I could be sure that my $ would go to where I want it to. Same for humanitarian aid. But since the church won't be transparent and since it is still increasing its substantial wealth, I decided to give where I know it does the most good. That in a way makes me rather sad. But I have no plans to help make one of the most wealthy organizations in the world richer. 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Harvard ($50B), the Gates Foundation ($75B), and the Mayo Clinic don't spend their money all at once because that would be "wasting" it, it would be dumb.

Bill Gates plans to give all his $ away before he dies. He does far more than the church  to relieve suffering than the church does. And I have not argued that the church should give every damn dime away. In fact I have said on this board many times over that the Church needs a reserve fund and have suggested that maybe three times its annual revenue needs is similar to what other organizations like it does. So this argument is really a straw man.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

Smart organizations like Harvard spend the interest so the university can provide scholarships and research in perpetuity. Now the Church is the only organization that plans 100 years into the future. It’s not a pile of cash; it’s a guarantee that the global safety net will never collapse, no matter what happens to the U.S. dollar.

It is a combinations of cash, securities and property. And I support the church having its own endowment fund. Just not to the extent of about 20 to 25 times its annual operating needs.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

The church is not even primarily a humanitarian NGO, the church is an eschatological institution meant to endure until the end of time. Reserves aren’t ‘sitting’, they’re invested into the economy, and is what will keep aid, missions, and welfare running during crises instead of stopping.

This is a common excuse. One would think the The Church of Jesus Christ would have relieving human suffering to be a larger part of its mission. The Jesus I read about seemed pretty concerned about reliving human suffering and it was not just a small part of hi directives. And the EPA fund is not being used to do any of that and I think you know that. It just grows and grows and grows.

 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

If John Dehlin actually helped someone resolve their "faith crisis," they would stop being "Ex-Mormons" and just become "People." They would not feel joy to make members feel dismay. Mormon Stories has high executive salaries and media production costs, no tangible assets. Once the donor base drops by 20%, or when the "Ex-Mo" trend reached its saturation point, his high overhead with no reserves of will become unsustainable, a $250k-a-year podcast will collapse under its own weight.

Yes and so what? This is really rather facetious of you to try to compare MS to a church.  And as I have noted, you don't get to tell people what the feel and what they don't about things LDS so we can simply just chalk this up to your opinion and a rather poor one at that. 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

In 50 years, the Church will still be here, using its billions to build hospitals and entire cities for a global membership. Mormon Stories will be a footnote, deleted for lack of funding, remembered for lecturing others about how they should use money. Now, that will be funny. 

Maybe. Maybe not, There is no doubt the church excels at amassing wealth and that on the back of its members while providing no transparency and that on the backs of many who likely really can't afford that 10%. And they do it based on claims that are clearly false and call it a commandment. I find that far more unethical than anything you want the heap on Dehlin's head. If his salary bothers my me I can quit my $75 per month any time I please with no repercussion. If you stop tithing you lose your ticket the the temple and also have the threat of disobeying a non god that does not exist. 

But like you said, you do you.

 

[JVW]

On 12/25/2025 at 12:47 AM, Pyreaux said:

It is a central theme in "Social Identity Theory" (SIT) and "Role Exit Theory".

Former =/= Ex

"The process of disengagement from a role that is central to one's self-identity and the reestablishment of an identity in a new role that takes into account one's ex-role constitutes the process I call role exit" (Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit (1988) Pg 1 by sociologist Helen Rose Ebaugh)

She was a former nun and she explains that "Ex" is a unique social category. An "Ex" is someone who has not simply left a role but has created a new identity based on the one they left. An "Ex" is defined by their past. They often remain anchored to the previous institution because their new social status relies on the contrast.

Indifference =/= Ex

Psychologists Kimberly Elsbach and C.B. Bhattacharya in their 2001 paper, “Defining Who You Are By What You're Not,” and their subsequent work on the Expanded Model of Organizational Identification categorize the relationships into four distinct quadrants.

Identification "I am the organization." Active support, defense, and time investment.

Disidentification "I am the opposite of the organization." Active criticism, monitoring, and "Ex-" identity.

Ambivalence "I love parts and hate parts." Internal conflict, toggling between support and critique.

Indifference "I don't think about it" Passively disengaged.

A guy checking "None" on a census is only showing Indifference. The guy who resigned is showing Disidentification.

Two past customers chose not to eat at McDonalds today as they passed by, but one did it because he wasn't hungry and simply never thought about it, the other because he is now a vegan and so opposes everything McDonald's stands for. Those are two vastly different people.

Crap. I think I'm in the "ambivalence" category. I guess I'm not a TBM and I may be in "temple covenant breaking" territory! I like the church but I also don't like the church. It's just that what I like outweighs what I don't like so I stick around until (if it ever happens) I find something that I like more. Hmm... I wonder how I can move into the "identifcation" category.

[Teancum]

On 12/21/2025 at 12:22 AM, InCognitus said:

The article also discusses their merchandise sales, "including hats, mugs, and t-shirts—that mock our views on God and Jesus Christ, or denigrates the sacred temple ceremony, including the tokens of the Holy Priesthood".

I looked at the MS website and did not fine and merchandise. Mormon Discussions sales merchandise but non of it Mocks the church.

[Teancum]

On 12/21/2025 at 4:05 PM, Pyreaux said:

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.

I am carious. How many episodes of MS have you watched and listened to?

[Teancum]

On 12/21/2025 at 5:55 PM, sunstoned said:

Reality check: There are many more ex-Mormons than there are active Mormons in the world.  This is the reason that John Delin and others like RFM, who support a transparent view of Mormonism, are extremely popular.  People who come from an LDS background and identify as cultural Mormons need an online community. 

Well according to @Pyreauxand others who suffer great indignation over the activities of MS or Mormon Discussions it  must mean they and us are somehow broken if we support or listen to or interact with such a community because if we had moved on we would not be sucked into such a negative platform as MS or Mormon Discussion. We should just forget about Mormonism and be quiet. This is spite of the fact that most of us devoted our entire lives to the church and most still have a lot of ties to the church. Our friends and family can try to save our benighted souls and such but we apparently have a character flaw by seeking support, community, honest and open transparency about things LDS and so on. The idea is really ludicrous.

[Teancum]

On 12/21/2025 at 7:42 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

The dreaded Jacob Hansen.

Who refused to debate RFM.

[Teancum]

On 12/21/2025 at 10:11 PM, sunstoned said:

It has been several years since I listened to a Mormon stories or RFM podcast, so things might have changed a bit.  Folks tell me that RFM has become more cynical.  He used to post here, but again, that was a while ago.

He and Bill Reel can be somewhat strident at times. But I don't think it excessive. But is has been almost a year since I listened to an entire episode.

Edited January 1 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 12/22/2025 at 6:05 AM, Navidad said:

Fascinating. . . Is it a fact that there are "many more ex-Mormons than there are active Mormons in the world"? If so, then it is about time that the Saints back off on we non-Mormons and focus on their internal losses and divisions! Oh, and I would say the same thing to non-LDS Christianity in relation to its own splits and losses. Any data on how many ex-Mormons exist?

I am not sure there is exact data. But the Church has about 17.5 million members of record. Rough estimates put active members at about 30% to 40%.  If that is accurate, adding in former members to 60% to 70% inactivity then you have much more in the former inactive camp. I recall Elder Marlin Jensen giving a priesthood leadership training around 2010 to my stake.  He said there were 1 million members in the lost members file, meaning they are on the records but they cannot be found. When I was active we periodically would work on the lost member list in our ward to see if we could find address information for the church records. It was hard work with little success.

[Teancum]

On 12/22/2025 at 11:02 AM, JVW said:

CFR please

I am not sure there is exact data. But the Church has about 17.5 million members of record. Rough estimates put active members at about 30% to 40%.  If that is accurate, adding in former members to 60% to 70% inactivity then you have much more in the former inactive camp. I recall Elder Marlin Jensen giving a priesthood leadership training around 2010 to my stake.  He said there were 1 million members in the lost members file, meaning they are on the records but they cannot be found. When I was active we periodically would work on the lost member list in our ward to see if we could find address information for the church records. It was hard work with little success.