"Why They Leave" Inquiries

[MiserereNobis]

Again, I miss mfbukowki. He would have some interesting things to add here about humanism, since he views LDS beliefs as the highest form of humanism.

[Navidad]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Jan Komensky is rolling in his grave that you said Bohemia  

I lived in the Czech Republic for a couple of years and my favorite town was Uherske Hradiste and the villages nearby, including Uherske Brod, the birth place of Komensky. This is on the Morava river and the center of Moravian Slovakia. The Moravians are a proud people and very much distinguish themselves from Bohemia.

It is an absolutely wonderful area, full of traditions, folklore, songs (oh, the folksongs are so good, with dulcimers and fiddles), wine, on and on. I fell in love with it immediately and still love it dearly to this day.

Please tell me if I am wrong. Wasn't Bohemia the kingdom and Moravia a region within the Kingdom? In that sense the Moravians were Bohemians, but not all Bohemians were Moravian? Is that correct? The whole nomenclature of the area is confusing. I want to get it right! Thanks.

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yeah, no, missionaries should not be saying that. Or maybe they don't have an understanding of the Blessed Virgin, her role in Catholicism and Mexican culture, and the devotion to Her.

You are correct! The reason they say that is because they get language training, but as far as I can figure out, no missiological training as in understanding the specific cultures of the people to whom they are specifically witnessing. I served on the international council of one of the largest Evangelical non-denominational mission organizations. We were "fanatic" about getting our missionaries training in missiology as a discipline, even the short-timers. 

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Please tell me if I am wrong. Wasn't Bohemia the kingdom and Moravia a region within the Kingdom? In that sense the Moravians were Bohemians, but not all Bohemians were Moravian? Is that correct? The whole nomenclature of the area is confusing. I want to get it right! Thanks.

Moravia was on and off directly a part of the Kingdom of Bohemia or part of the Lands of the Bohemia Crown. It is confusing nomenclature when we go back to the Middle Ages. If you go back even farther, you have Great Moravia, which encompassed Bohemia. I haven't studied that part of their history in depth. My post was more tongue-in-cheek, though the Moravians have long considered themselves distinct, regardless of the political situation of who is ruling them. Today it is very distinct: Bohemia refers to the eastern part of the Czech Republic, and Moravia the western part (with Silesia up north). There is even a small Moravian separatist movement, that would like to see them become their own country.

 

[Navidad]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Moravia was on and off directly a part of the Kingdom of Bohemia or part of the Lands of the Bohemia Crown. It is confusing nomenclature when we go back to the Middle Ages. If you go back even farther, you have Great Moravia, which encompassed Bohemia. I haven't studied that part of their history in depth. My post was more tongue-in-cheek, though the Moravians have long considered themselves distinct, regardless of the political situation of who is ruling them. Today it is very distinct: Bohemia refers to the eastern part of the Czech Republic, and Moravia the western part (with Silesia up north). There is even a small Moravian separatist movement, that would like to see them become their own country.

 

Thanks. If you can recommend a good history of the area that takes it from Middle Ages to Modern Times, I would really appreciate it. The Moravian Church runs tours to that area. Maybe some day I will hitch a ride and go on their tour. You know me by now! I need to know and understand! Best!

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks. If you can recommend a good history of the area that takes it from Middle Ages to Modern Times, I would really appreciate it. The Moravian Church runs tours to that area. Maybe some day I will hitch a ride and go on their tour. You know me by now! I need to know and understand! Best!

Unfortunately I don't have a good book of the history to recommend. It was just things I picked up when I lived there.

And yes, you should go!

[california boy]

When the Book of Abraham was first published in 1842, it carried the heading written by Joseph Smith:

“A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”

For me, this statement is kind of a litmus test for how you handle the claims of the church.  If you have figured out a way around the divine claim by Joseph Smith, then you will probably continue in your beliefs of the other divine claims of Joseph Smith.

If it is so apparent to you that the Book of Abraham could not have possibly been written by Abraham's own hand (age of papyrus not even close to his time period) and what Joseph Smith claims is written on those paprius has nothing to do what what he said he translated (common book of the dead content) then you may also start to doubt all the other claims Joseph Smith made which leads many out of the church.  As the study states very clearly, secularization has little (6%) to do with why people leave the church.  It might be another issue, but the point is the same

For me personally, it was reason number 2, social issues is why I left. Doctrine not matching up with truth keeps me from coming back.  (Social issues / doctrines (e.g., sexual identity, gender equality, financial transparency — 33%) convinced me that how the church feels about me being gay was irrelevant.  

Christianity as a whole has similar litmus tests.  

Was Adam created by God and the first man on earth despite fossil evidence of humans living for hundreds of centuries before and Eve didn't actually bring in death into the world?  A claim that was held for centuries and only recently been labeled an allegory.

The story of Noah. when there is zero evidence of a flood covering the whole earth. (No evidence of that kind of everything getting wiped out except an ark with a few people and animals)

The increased secularization is not caused by people wanting to indulge in their own sins, but by no long believing in the divine claims of Christianity.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Where I see it a bit differently is on the question of secularism as cause or symptom. To me, secularism (especially the modern emphasis on the autonomous self as the ultimate authority) isn't just a neutral outcome of pluralism — it's become the dominant default worldview in the West.

I disagree with you on what is the "default" worldview of the West, but I suspect that goes beyond the scope of this thread (at least the time I have for it). More to the point for me, when the god you grew up with no longer makes any sense, where does ultimate authority rest? In keeping with a Latter-day Saint tradition, the holy witness of the spirit is the pinnacle evidence of truth is it not? And that spiritual experience happens wholly within the self. 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

It shapes the very lens through which people evaluate religious claims in the first place. What counts as "making the most sense" or "withstanding scrutiny" often depends on assumptions that prioritize material explanations, personal authenticity, and self-expression above transcendent ones.

I'm curious why you think that? I can't speak for everyone, only myself, but I certainly didn't evaluate religious claims via a secular lens (and based on the many conversations I've had with others that have left Mormonism, their experiences are similar to mine). I graduated from high school in rural Texas. I went off the college at BYU. I served a mission under a mission president that was a "No Death Before the Fall" kind of guy. I married at the Y, have 6 kids. Secularism in no way shaped the lens that I evaluated religious claims through. I first evaluated the religious claims that I was raised on based on their own criteria. They didn't work for me. The fruit they produced in my life was bad. I tried to reconstruct my faith, and that sort of worked for a while, but at the end of a long journey I had to admit to myself that I just didn't believe. When evaluating my lived life experiences (trying to lead a life of virtue and faith), the secular lens explained everything, and a religious lens just didn't fit my lived life experience. 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

That doesn't mean every person who steps away is consciously choosing secular humanism, or that there are not valid intellectual and personal struggles. Many are just trying to make sense of a complicated world. But I do think this broader cultural current makes it harder for religious belief — any religious belief that demands submission, sacrifice, or trust in things "not seen" — to compete on its own terms.

Again this is a bit backwards. I agree that people who are raised in a secular lens would find "submission, sacrifice, or trust" in unseen things to be extremely difficult. But since you are talking about people that leave - well people that leave don't start with that mindset. They start from a position of faith. Then something in their life prompts a reevaluation.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

maybe they don't have an understanding of the Blessed Virgin, her role in Catholicism and Mexican culture, and the devotion to Her.

I can almost guarantee this unless things have changed significantly since the internet has been available.  I would hope it has.

In the past, my experience is LDS hear “Mother of God” and it sounds like a similar role to “Heavenly Mother”.  They have often assumed Mary is worshipped much like the Father and Christ as well.

PS:  it’s been 10 years since I interacted in any significant way with missionaries in person and even online, I haven’t encountered return missionaries sharing in detail mission experiences either, so no opportunity to ask questions of ‘what was it like’ like I used to, so my info is out of date.  No one should assume what I say in this topic as the current status.  I sincerely hope it isn’t as our lack of interests in other faiths has been one of the most frustrating things about our culture for me (because I saw change in other areas, but not in this). Probably one of the top two frustrations.

Edited Saturday at 08:22 PM by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

no missiological training as in understanding the specific cultures of the people to whom they are specifically witnessing.

I thought they had added this, but my grandson hasn’t gone on a mission yet (and might not though he is a believer, I think it’s more of the required lifestyle he is concerned about) and everyone else I talk to these days went decades ago.  Maybe someone more up to date can let us know if that is still the case.  Of course, culture lessons still may not have much religious content.

I have never understood the typical LDS lack of interest in other faiths given the typical desire to make friends, work with other organizations in humanitarian efforts.  Even given the antagonism, wouldn’t it make better sense to find out what the differences actually are?  But the default presumption in the past in my experience was assuming they were fearful of us stealing their sheep, often because pastors were afraid of losing money. (Which attitude made me feel it was understandable when I saw criticism about wanting converts for their tithing as often we criticize others based on our own fixations and weaknesses.)  Some Saints saw antimormon attacks as based on fear of the damning of souls who converted, which is more likely in my opinion for the most vocal religious opposition and what I heard most from personal experiences, but I would think in that case LDS would be eager to learn what religious reasons were behind it instead of just leaving it at that “they think we aren’t Christian because they aren’t educated about our actual beliefs”.  

Edited Saturday at 08:12 PM by Calm

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can almost guarantee this unless things have changed significantly since the internet has been available.  I would hope it has.

In the past, my experience is LDS hear “Mother of God” and it sounds like a similar role to “Heavenly Mother”.  They have often assumed Mary is worshipped much like the Father and Christ as well.

Is the teaching about Heavenly Mother something that is actually taught today in the church?  If so, is it only one Heavenly Mothers or does the church teach multiple Heavenly Mothers since polygamy is still taught as a principle in the next life.  (men being sealed to multiple wives when the first one has died and will claim all of them upon death).

[Navidad]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I thought they had added this, but my grandson hasn’t gone on a mission yet (and might not though he is a believer, I think it’s more of the required lifestyle he is concerned about) and everyone else I talk to these days went decades ago.  Maybe someone more up to date can let us know if that is still the case.  Of course, culture lessons still may not have much religious content.

I have never understood the typical LDS lack of interest in other faiths given the typical desire to make friends, work with other organizations in humanitarian efforts.  Even given the antagonism, wouldn’t it make better sense to find out what the differences actually are?  But the default presumption in the past in my experience was assuming they were fearful of us stealing their sheep, often because pastors were afraid of losing money. (Which attitude made me feel it was understandable when I saw criticism about wanting converts for their tithing as often we criticize others based on our own fixations and weaknesses.)  Some Saints saw antimormon attacks as based on fear of the damning of souls who converted, which is more likely in my opinion for the most vocal religious opposition and what I heard most from personal experiences, but I would think in that case LDS would be eager to learn what religious reasons were behind it instead of just leaving it at that “they think we aren’t Christian because they aren’t educated about our actual beliefs”.  

Missiology is a fascinating field of study. Today, you can get your PhD in missiology. It involves the study of anthropology, sociology, linguistics, religion, theology, and ethnology. Each of those interests me. I had a good friend who held a D.Miss degree from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, a rather prestigious Evangelical seminary. He taught Missiology at Liberty when I was there. 

[Tony uk]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

I thought they had added this, but my grandson hasn’t gone on a mission yet (and might not though he is a believer, I think it’s more of the required lifestyle he is concerned about) and everyone else I talk to these days went decades ago.  Maybe someone more up to date can let us know if that is still the case.  Of course, culture lessons still may not have much religious content.

I have never understood the typical LDS lack of interest in other faiths given the typical desire to make friends, work with other organizations in humanitarian efforts.  Even given the antagonism, wouldn’t it make better sense to find out what the differences actually are?  But the default presumption in the past in my experience was assuming they were fearful of us stealing their sheep, often because pastors were afraid of losing money. (Which attitude made me feel it was understandable when I saw criticism about wanting converts for their tithing as often we criticize others based on our own fixations and weaknesses.)  Some Saints saw antimormon attacks as based on fear of the damning of souls who converted, which is more likely in my opinion for the most vocal religious opposition and what I heard most from personal experiences, but I would think in that case LDS would be eager to learn what religious reasons were behind it instead of just leaving it at that “they think we aren’t Christian because they aren’t educated about our actual beliefs”.  

I think, and I am open to correction. Within all faiths, there is a certain amount of fear or at least uncertainty, of understanding another faith, and in some respects culture. From my own experience, I have been able to remain true to myself and remain in my own comfort zone. While at the same getting to know people of a different faith and/or culture, and gaining a better understanding.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is the teaching about Heavenly Mother something that is actually taught today in the church?  If so, is it only one Heavenly Mothers or does the church teach multiple Heavenly Mothers since polygamy is still taught as a principle in the next life.  (men being sealed to multiple wives when the first one has died and will claim all of them upon death).

Is this a serious question and not a gotcha?  Because in all my years as a member there have been quite a few mentions of Heavenly Mother at church, from the pulpit and in lessons, but the only time I heard the idea of multiple heavenly mothers was members outside of church using the idea to explain different races (ugh) or repeating speculation.  I have lived in a handful of states and three countries and it’s all been the same.  No doubt some have shared speculation at church or even referred to past comments by leaders, but nothing that was directed by lessons or otherwise by actual current leadership.  Quite the opposite in fact I am guessing since polygamy was discouraged in teachers’ manuals to be a focus of any lesson during the decades I was teaching in Primary and Sunday School.   Questions were to be answered briefly at most and iirc, there was a suggestion to address individual concerns after class.

Pretty sure any official teachings that God had multiple wives, so there were multiple Heavenly Mothers weren’t shared from the pulpit or in publications for at least 125 years, probably more (Orson Pratt seems to have been fond of the idea and I believed it was implied from Brigham’s comments, there are probably others from that time period.)

What the Church teaches now you can read for yourself:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng

 

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and women.The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.

While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven. The earliest published references to the doctrine appeared shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, in documents written by his close associates. The most notable expression of the idea is found in a poem by Eliza R. Snow, entitled “My Father in Heaven” and now known as the hymn “O My Father.” This text declares: “In the heav’ns are parents single? / No, the thought makes reason stare; / Truth is reason—truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there.”

Subsequent Church leaders have affirmed the existence of a Mother in Heaven. In 1909, the First Presidency taught that “all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.” Susa Young Gates, a prominent leader in the Church, wrote in 1920 that Joseph Smith’s visions and teachings revealed the truth that “the divine Mother, [is] side by side with the divine Father.” And in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” issued in 1995, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles declared, “Each [person] is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.”

Prophets have taught that our heavenly parents work together for the salvation of the human family. “We are part of a divine plan designed by Heavenly Parents who love us,” taught Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. President Harold B. Lee stated, “We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than our earthly father and mother, and that influences from beyond are constantly working to try to help us when we do all we can.”

Latter-day Saints direct their worship to Heavenly Father, in the name of Christ, and do not pray to Heavenly Mother. In this, they follow the pattern set by Jesus Christ, who taught His disciples to “always pray unto the Father in my name.”Latter-day Saints are taught to pray to Heavenly Father, but as President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.” Indeed, as Elder Rudger Clawson wrote, “We honor woman when we acknowledge Godhood in her eternal Prototype.”

As with many other truths of the gospel, our present knowledge about a Mother in Heaven is limited. Nevertheless, we have been given sufficient knowledge to appreciate the sacredness of this doctrine and to comprehend the divine pattern established for us as children of heavenly parents. Latter-day Saints believe that this pattern is reflected in Paul’s statement that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Men and women cannot be exalted without each other. Just as we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said, “Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.”

 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

I think, and I am open to correction. Within all faiths, there is a certain amount of fear or at least uncertainty, of understanding another faith, and in some respects culture. From my own experience, I have been able to remain true to myself and remain in my own comfort zone. While at the same getting to know people of a different faith and/or culture, and gaining a better understanding.

My exploration of other faiths has greatly helped me understand my own faith much better as well as appreciating it more.  It doesn’t have to be a win/lose situation (appreciation of one thing means you lose respect of something else).

[california boy]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this a serious question and not a gotcha?  Because in all my years as a member there have been quite a few mentions of Heavenly Mother at church, from the pulpit and in lessons, but the only time I heard the idea of multiple heavenly mothers was members outside of church using the idea to explain different races (ugh) or repeating speculation.  I have lived in a handful of states and three countries and it’s all been the same.  No doubt some have shared speculation at church or even referred to past comments by leaders, but nothing that was directed by lessons or otherwise by actual current leadership.  Quite the opposite in fact I am guessing since polygamy was discouraged in teachers’ manuals to be a focus of any lesson during the decades I was teaching in Primary and Sunday School.   Questions were to be answered briefly at most and iirc, there was a suggestion to address individual concerns after class.

Pretty sure any official teachings that God had multiple wives, so there were multiple Heavenly Mothers weren’t shared from the pulpit or in publications for at least 125 years, probably more (Orson Pratt seems to have been fond of the idea and I believed it was implied from Brigham’s comments, there are probably others from that time period.)

What the Church teaches now you can read for yourself:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng

 

 

There has been a lot of shift in what is taught as doctrine since I left the church. I was just curious if Heavenly Mother has survived and how it fits in with the belief that a man can be sealed to multiple women upon the death of a previous wife and how that is handled.  

Now I am a bit confused.  Not a gotcha you question at all.  I did read the link you provided and there was no mention of how do those two concepts work?  Or are you saying something different.  Like a man can be married to multiple women in death, but they don't become Heavenly Mothers??  Does only the first wife become a Heavenly Mother?  Is there any doctrine on what happens to the other wives?

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

There has been a lot of shift in what is taught as doctrine since I left the church. I was just curious if Heavenly Mother has survived and how it fits in with the belief that a man can be sealed to multiple women upon the death of a previous wife and how that is handled.  

Now I am a bit confused.  Not a gotcha you question at all.  I did read the link you provided and there was no mention of how do those two concepts work?  Or are you saying something different.  Like a man can be married to multiple women in death, but they don't become Heavenly Mothers??  Does only the first wife become a Heavenly Mother?  Is there any doctrine on what happens to the other wives?

How was it handled in your experience before you left?  And if you don’t mind sharing, how old are you or what time periods did you hear this stuff?

I have explained that I have heard no references to multiple Mothers of Heaven in church and I highly doubt you will find anything about it in official publications since at least the 1940s since my parents never said anything and I bet my mom would have (both were born in 1930), if not late 1800s.  

As far as whether or not married and sealed exalted women who shared a husband would all be called Heavenly Mothers, I was never taught that exalted men and women were called “Heavenly Mother” and “Heavenly Father” by their spiritual offspring.  Those titles have only been used in my experience for our Heavenly Father and Mother as far as I remember (and I have a pretty good memory of my childhood according to family).  I took genealogy courses at BYU where we discussed the doctrines of sealing etc and they always just referred in teaching exaltation as allowing us to be with our family and receiving its promised blessings in terms of a nuclear one man, one woman family.  They made a point of not filling in the gaps and responded to questions on multiple sealings with “we leave that up to God to work out” both for men and women.  As far as I remember, anything official on multiple sealings for the last 60 years just referred to men being able to have both wives that they loved with them in the eternities (because the only time it came up at the pulpit was when a leader expressed their love for a deceased wife and their more recent one…none that I remember had more than two).

In other words, I have not seen any official attempt to reconcile the two or to extrapolate the one from the other (and I have read a lot of teacher manuals of classes I didn’t teach to pass time as a ward librarian manning my post).  It gets very close saying we can become like our heavenly parents, but I don’t recall anything explicitly saying we will become heavenly parents, etc.  Just comparisons that can easily be inferred to say that and I would go so far to say imply it, but stop short of explicitly giving exalted men and women those titles.

Edited Saturday at 10:43 PM by Calm

[Nofear]

On 6/6/2026 at 10:05 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Do you mean literally in the universe? That one could hypothetically travel to God?

While it is not a required belief in LDS theology, I personally believe that God exists in spacetime. So, yes.

[Stargazer]

On 6/6/2026 at 4:05 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Do you mean literally in the universe? That one could hypothetically travel to God?

Not my question, but I have an answer. For the fun of it! And for @Nofear

Nope, one cannot travel to God. This is because He is outside the Universe. Sort of. In his last book, Stephen Hawking wrote that 

"As we travel back in time towards the moment of the Big Bang, the universe gets smaller and smaller and smaller, until it finally comes to a point where the whole universe is a space so small that it is in effect a single infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole. And just as with modern-day black holes, floating around in space, the laws of nature dictate something quite extraordinary. They tell us that here too time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

My answer is

In order for a Creator to have created the Big Bang, He could not possibly have been in the universe He created, because it would have required that He create Himself. Which is an absurdity. So that which is the Cause of the universe had to have caused it from outside that universe -- and thus the argument that "there [was] no time for a creator to have existed in" fails.

Because He is outside the universe, and created it, He can see all of it from one end to the other, and from time 0 to its end time. 

That's how I conceive it, anyway.

On 6/6/2026 at 4:05 PM, MiserereNobis said:

The scientific materialism of some/most LDS has always intrigued me.

Doctrine and Covenants 131:7,8
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

One aspect of this, which perhaps some might argue with, is that God rules over the universe because of His virtue. When He commands, He is obeyed because of His virtue, which flows from His perfection. What obeys Him? Matter itself. And this includes spirit, as well, in accordance with D&C 131:7. He has set all the laws of the universe, from gravitation to any and all other laws of physics. And because He set those laws, matter obeys them. 

This should imply that God or his authorized agent can modify one or many of his laws in a local frame, and thus cause things to happen which appear to be supernatural. Or He may command matter/spirit to do something other than what it would otherwise do in a given situation. Walking on water. Creating loaves and fishes. 

How? By operating according to the principle of D&C 131:7,8 and His own virtue, by His command.

Note that this is my own idea, not anyone else's. 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 6/6/2026 at 4:40 PM, Navidad said:

Please tell me if I am wrong. Wasn't Bohemia the kingdom and Moravia a region within the Kingdom? In that sense the Moravians were Bohemians, but not all Bohemians were Moravian? Is that correct? The whole nomenclature of the area is confusing. I want to get it right! Thanks.

The confusion comes about because the entire region (including both Bohemia and Moravia) has been changing hands between polities for centuries and millennia. 

[Stargazer]

On 6/6/2026 at 9:07 PM, california boy said:

Is the teaching about Heavenly Mother something that is actually taught today in the church?  If so, is it only one Heavenly Mothers or does the church teach multiple Heavenly Mothers since polygamy is still taught as a principle in the next life.  (men being sealed to multiple wives when the first one has died and will claim all of them upon death).

I think they're cautious about teaching it because there's no specific revelation (or canonical revelation) regarding it.

The whole plural marriage thing is another third rail issue. But how can there not be multiple Heavenly Mothers given that President Nelson is sealed to two women, his wife who predeceased him, and Wendy, his widow? If there aren't multiple HMs, when Pres. Nelson is exalted, which one of his wives gets tossed out on her ear? 

So, things are complicated enough without delving into speculations over things we have no revelation for. Not that this stops anyone from commenting.

Edited 11 hours ago by Stargazer