"Nemo the Mormon" Speaking Out (Again)

[smac97]

I've never been comfortable with Latter-day Saints acting in that capacity going out and seek all sorts of public attention for themselves.  To be sure, I am fine with Latter-day Saints gaining prominence through public speaking in relation to the Church.  Daniel Peterson has done that for years.  These days, Jacob Hansen and Jasmin Rappleye seem to be putting out a lot of good content in terms of defense of, and useful new information about, the Church.  In doing so, they are gaining some notoriety in their own right, but they seem to focus rather heavily on advocating for the Church more than themselves.  That's my perception, anyway.

There are also some who, though nominally members of the Church, use their membership as a platform to publicly speak against the Church.  "Nemo the Mormon" is one such fellow, though he has recently lost him membership in the Church.  That hasn't stopped him from continuing as he has been in the past.  This morning, I saw this:

Mormon YouTuber put on trial and excommunicated explains why he still follows rules on coffee and alcohol

Quote

A Mormon YouTuber says he was 'put on trial' after speaking out about allegations of child safeguarding issues and secret stockpiles of money.

He says this while knowing that his characterization will almost certainly not be disputed by the Church because membership council proceedings are kept in confidence.

Quote

Despite being excommunicated in 2024, he still follows the church’s rules prohibiting coffee and alcohol.

Glad to hear it.  I hope he comes back to us.

Quote

Douglas Stilgoe - known as Nemo the Mormon online - was summoned before church leaders one month after speaking about his faith on LADbible’s Honesty Box.

He was accused of apostasy (abandoning his religion) and kicked out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This means he's now banned from giving a eulogy at his parents’ funeral and speaking at family weddings.

Not sure what to make of this.  Have his parents died?  If so, if they wanted to have a funeral administered by the Church, then the meeting is a church meeting, on church property.  I have seen plenty of funerals where non-Latter-day Saint family members and friends eulogize the decedent.  Not participating in the Church's meetings, then, is fairly unique to people who have their membership in the Church removed for cause - particularly for apostasy.  

If his parents have not died, then why is he bringing this up now?

And what's with this "speaking at family weddings" stuff?  Does anyone have any insights?

Quote

According to some interpretations of scripture, his excommunication condemns him to the Mormon version of hell, called outer darkness.

Utter bilge.  If Nemo is selling or endorsing this sort of nonsense, shame on him.

Quote

LADbible’s new documentary Nemo vs the Mormon Church: The Cost of Speaking Out follows Stilgoe as he fights to defend himself against what he calls the LDS church’s ‘Stasi-esque level of control’.

"Stasi."  The secret police and intelligence agency of communist East Germany (GDR) from 1950 until 1990.

This is overwrought nonsense.

Quote

Yet, despite his brutally honest critiques of church leaders, he continues to follow Mormon rules prohibiting tea, coffee and alcohol.

Good for him.  Hopefully he circles back to more fundamental reasons to join the Church through baptism and pursue the covenant path.

Quote

Speaking to LADbible, he said: “I'm still really Mormon in just so many ways. You could describe me as Mormon still, even though they've taken my membership away, in just so many parts of my life. I am still the same as I always was.”

I've never seen a faithful Latter-day Saint publicly accuse the Church of exercising "‘Stasi-esque level of control."  This is just unserious nonsense.

Quote

In the doc, Stilgoe explains he was ‘very proud, very in your face’ about his faith as a child, but as he grew older, he became aware of what he alleges are troubling hypocrisies from church leaders.

It started with claims from a whistleblower in 2019 that the LDS church had secretly stockpiled $100 billion of its members’ money.

Mormons are expected to give 10 percent of their income to the church. According to the church’s website, the money is meant to be spent on church operations, alongside educational and missionary work and ‘welfare and humanitarian efforts’.

Stilgoe said: “I grew up in a household with a single mother who paid tithing very fastidiously. And so I saw the sacrifices she'd made to pay tithing. I looked at the sacrifice I'd made in my own life to pay tithing.

“And then to see that the church had been amassing that money instead of using it for charitable purposes or anything like that really bothered me," he claimed. “I feel like it was my first understanding that the church could be dishonest and could not be fully transparent with its members.

Funny how different perspectives can look at the same set of facts and come away with such divergent conclusions and assessments.

Quote

“They distrust us so much to think that if we found out how wealthy they were, we would just stop obeying a commandment. That's kind of how I saw it at the time.”

"They distrust us so much to think that if we found out how wealthy they were..."

"They" and "us."  He is referencing the leaders of the Church hear, and publicly characterizing them as enriching themselves via tithing funds.

Patent falsehoods like this are troubling to me.

Quote

It ultimately prompted Stilgoe to start his Nemo the Mormon YouTube channel in 2020, which now has almost 47,000 subscribers.

He says he learned more and more: from the age of founder Joseph Smith’s wives (the youngest was 14), to chilling claims about ‘worthiness interviews’ in which some bishops would allegedly ask children as young as 12 about masturbation and pornography.

While Stilgoe felt he had to speak out about these issues on his channel, he was also keen not to be forced out of the community he’d grown up in, describing excommunication as a ‘looming threat’.

“I'd done my best to make sure that everything I said was factual and defensible and so if they did try and excommunicate me, I would always be able to say ‘Well, all I've done is tell the truth'."

Some truth, yes.  But also a lot of unsubstantiated stuff.  And quite a bit of critical gloss and slant.  He looks for the worst possible light as to any particular issue, then casts the Church in that light.  This is, for him, "the truth."

Such are the pernicious fruits of faultfinding.  Faultfinding plus self-aggrandizement is a toxic mix.

Quote

Part of the reason for the tightrope walk of challenging the church, yet not going so far as to be excommunicated, was because, while he found his trust in church leaders challenged, he did not have doubts about his own personal Mormon faith.

“Many people describe what I went through as a faith crisis, and I don't know whether I would actually describe it that way.

“I would talk about it as a trust crisis. I lost my trust in the institution. I realised I couldn't trust this institution that I trusted implicitly because they couldn't keep the standards of honesty they had required of me as a member of the institution.

“So I lost my ability to trust them, and yeah, that's separate to personal faith.”

That's an understandable position.  Many of us encounter challenges about the inner workings of the Church.  Hashing out criticisms publicly, though, is not the way to go IMO.

Quote

Since his excommunication, he’s ‘spent a lot of time outdoors, up mountains, just gaining a new perspective on things’.

I am glad of that.  I have had a number of friends and family members who, having left the Church, have gained an increased or renewed appreciation for the beaty of nature.  Hopefully loving and valuing nature may eventually play a part in returning to loving and valuing nature's God (1 Nephi 19:12).

Quote

He also suffered from a stroke in 2025, which meant he temporarily lost the ability to walk.

I am sorry to hear about this.  I hope he recovers.

Quote

“I think between the excommunication and the stroke, my life has changed a lot and in many ways for the better.

"I think the values the church instilled in me are still there, particularly values around honesty and looking for the truth.

“It's just a shame [church leaders] weren't willing to live up to those values, I suppose.”

I think the leaders of the Church, though certainly not perfect, are overwhelmingly good and honest men and women.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Wednesday at 06:13 PM by smac97

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I've never been comfortable with Latter-day Saints acting in that capacity going out and seek all sorts of public attention for themselves.  To be sure, I am fine with Latter-day Saints gaining prominence through public speaking in relation to the Church.  Daniel Peterson has done that for years.  These days, Jacob Hansen and Jasmin Rappleye seem to be putting out a lot of good content in terms of defense of, and useful new information about, the Church.  In doing so, they are gaining some notoriety in their own right, but they seem to focus rather heavily on advocating for the Church more than themselves.  That's my perception, anyway.

There are also some who, though nominally members of the Church, use their membership as a platform to publicly speak against the Church.  "Nemo the Mormon" is one such fellow, though he has recently lost him membership in the Church.  That hasn't stopped him from continuing as he has been in the past.  This morning, I saw this:

Mormon YouTuber put on trial and excommunicated explains why he still follows rules on coffee and alcohol

He says this while knowing that his characterization will almost certainly not be disputed by the Church because membership council proceedings are kept in confidence.

Glad to hear it.  I hope he comes back to us.

Not sure what to make of this.  Have his parents died?  If so, if they wanted to have a funeral administered by the Church, then the meeting is a church meeting, on church property.  I have seen plenty of funerals where non-Latter-day Saint family members and friends eulogize the decedent.  Not participating in the Church's meetings, then, is fairly unique to people who have their membership in the Church removed for cause - particularly for apostasy.  

If his parents have not died, then why is he bringing this up now?

And what's with this "speaking at family weddings" stuff?  Does anyone have any insights?

Utter bilge.  If Nemo is selling or endorsing this sort of nonsense, shame on him.

"Stasi."  The secret police and intelligence agency of communist East Germany (GDR) from 1950 until 1990.

This is overwrought nonsense.

Good for him.  Hopefully he circles back to more fundamental reasons to join the Church through baptism and pursue the covenant path.

I've never seen a faithful Latter-day Saint publicly accuse the Church of exercising "‘Stasi-esque level of control."  This is just unserious nonsense.

Funny how different perspectives can look at the same set of facts and come away with such divergent conclusions and assessments.

"They distrust us so much to think that if we found out how wealthy they were..."

"They" and "us."  He is referencing the leaders of the Church hear, and publicly characterizing them as enriching themselves via tithing funds.

Patent falsehoods like this are troubling to me.

Some truth, yes.  But also a lot of unsubstantiated stuff.  And quite a bit of critical gloss and slant.  He looks for the worst possible light as to any particular issue, then casts the Church in that light.  This is, for him, "the truth."

Such are the pernicious fruits of faultfinding.  Faultfinding plus self-aggrandizement is a toxic mix.

That's an understandable position.  Many of us encounter challenges about the inner workings of the Church.  Hashing out criticisms publicly, though, is not the way to go IMO.

I am glad of that.  I have had a number of friends and family members who, having left the Church, have gained an increased or renewed appreciation for the beaty of nature.  Hopefully loving and valuing nature may eventually play a part in returning to loving and valuing nature's God (1 Nephi 19:12).

I am sorry to hear about this.  I hope he recovers.

I think the leaders of the Church, though certainly not perfect, are overwhelmingly good and honest men and women.

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe it’s likely that when he referrers to being barred from speaking at family weddings and funerals he’s not pointing to any official church policy. Rather, it’s probable that his own family members have made it clear to him that they don’t want to an excommunicated “lose cannon,” such as himself, to insert apostate ideas into what are supposed to be solemn, faith affirming family gatherings.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I believe it’s likely that when he referrers to being barred from speaking at family weddings and funerals he’s not pointing to any official church policy.  Rather, it’s probable that his own family members have made it clear to him that they don’t want to an excommunicated “lose cannon,” such as himself, to insert apostate ideas into what are supposed to be solemn, faith affirming family gatherings.

Section 29 of the Church's handbook is indeed silent as to who may participate in a funeral conducted as a Church meeting (see here).

However, there is Section 32.11.4 ("Withdrawal of Membership") :

Quote

Those whose Church membership has been withdrawn may not enjoy any privileges of membership.

• They may not enter a temple or wear the temple garment. If the person has a temple recommend, the leader cancels it in LCR.
• They may not exercise the priesthood.
• They may not partake of the sacrament or participate in the sustaining of Church officers.
• They may not give a talk, lesson, or prayer in Church settings or lead an activity in church. Nor may they serve in a Church calling.
• They may not pay tithes and offerings.

They are encouraged to attend Church meetings and activities if their conduct is orderly.

I think that's the operative bit.

Still don't know what he means by weddings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Has anyone seen a Saint with a photo, real or AI generated, of them in a white suit in front of a temple holding a Book of Mormon to their chest?

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:56 PM by Calm

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what to make of this.  Have his parents died?  If so, if they wanted to have a funeral administered by the Church, then the meeting is a church meeting, on church property.  I have seen plenty of funerals where non-Latter-day Saint family members and friends eulogize the decedent.  Not participating in the Church's meetings, then, is fairly unique to people who have their membership in the Church removed for cause - particularly for apostasy.  

If his parents have not died, then why is he bringing this up now?

And what's with this "speaking at family weddings" stuff?  Does anyone have any insights?

In the article that appears directly below the one you link to, it has the following:

Quote

Speaking to LADbible, Stilgoe explained that because of his excommunication, he’s been shut out of pivotal moments in family life.

He said: “I can attend church. I can't contribute. I can't speak up.

“Were my parents to have a funeral in an LDS meeting house, I wouldn't be able to give a eulogy.”

Heartbreakingly, he also won’t be able to take part in key milestones in his nieces’ and nephews’ lives as they grow up.

“Say one of my nieces or nephews goes on a mission trip for the church, I couldn't necessarily speak at their farewell meeting.

“I probably couldn't speak at a wedding either in an LDS chapel.”

So, I think this is just sort of him explaining the impact of having had his membership withdrawn - not that there is a current, live situation where he is not able to participate in something - though he does mention that some family members have been avoiding him.

“Certain family members won't talk to me anymore because of what I do, equating it to having a paedophile in the family, ‘we don't want our children around you’. [...] Other members of my family have been very supportive of what I do, others merely tolerant.”

I'm not sure what to make about the whole pedophile comment. There are, admittedly, lots of people I don't want my children around, but if someone in his family really made that kind of comment (which I grant as being plausible), that strikes me as being a really mean and spiteful thing to say - even if you strongly disagree with what he's been doing. 

Oh, and as far as I can tell, all of the comments about him ending up in outer darkness appear to come from the author of the articles (Simon Fearn), not from Nemo himself - though I'm not sure how far he went out of his way to disabuse the author of the notion. 

Here's the author's take on LDS theology: 

Quote

While their website describes the church as Christian, many of their beliefs differ from the teachings of mainstream Christian churches.

Mormons believe in a concept called sealing. It means spouses aren’t just married on Earth, but stay married in heaven.

Because the church has branded Stilgoe an apostate, in Mormon theology he will not be able to join his wife in heaven, heading instead to the Mormon version of hell, called outer darkness.

In his excommunication hearing, his wife stood up to ask church leaders if they knew the gravity of what they were about to do.

Stilgoe said she asked them: “Do you understand what you're doing right now? Do you understand the pronouncement you're making on my husband?

“They claimed to understand, so that's on their conscience then, I suppose. That's for them to come to terms with.”

Excommunication is a serious matter, but it's not a pronouncement that you are destined for outer darkness. 

If Nemo is as informed about LDS goings on as he claims to be, he certainly ought to know that.

And maybe he does, and the author is just writing something provocative to generate clicks for their YouTube documentary. 

Not sure. Don't care.

 

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Has anyone seen a Saint with a photo, real or AI generated, of them in a white suit in front of a temple holding a Book of Mormon to their chest?

 

Apparently it’s a thing to do baptism pics in front of the temple. Kids in white clothing clutching a bom. this is just one of a dozen or so I found with one google search:

 

https://gilmorestudios.com/gilbert-arizona-temple-lds-baptism-photographer/

Edited Wednesday at 11:15 PM by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

I don’t  think Nemo would have a problem speaking at his parent’s funeral (s) when the time comes.

Precedence has already been set in Utah where a gang member of the Tongan crip gang spoke at a funeral of another Tongan crip gang member at an lds church. The speaker was wearing gang -specific identifying colors, a balaclava and was drinking a beer while he gave the talk. Nemo has nothing to worry about. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Has anyone seen a Saint with a photo, real or AI generated, of them in a white suit in front of a temple holding a Book of Mormon to their chest?

 

I have.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, webbles said:

I have.

Okay, that’s painful. (I don’t ‘do’ portraits much or temple pictures to begin with)

My apologies to anyone who loves these.  This is purely my own personal preference which is not a judgment on others’ preferences.

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Okay, that’s painful. (I don’t ‘do’ portraits much or temple pictures to begin with)

My apologies to anyone who loves these.  This is purely my own personal preference which is not a judgment on others’ preferences.

I never have but I rarely see many temple selfies and photos, maybe a few couples and very few family photos. I'd imagine there might be more trends out west... Like planking.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Amulek said:

Mormons believe in a concept called sealing. It means spouses aren’t just married on Earth, but stay married in heaven.

Because the church has branded Stilgoe an apostate, in Mormon theology he will not be able to join his wife in heaven, heading instead to the Mormon version of hell, called outer darkness.

In his excommunication hearing, his wife stood up to ask church leaders if they knew the gravity of what they were about to do.

Odd, isn't it? On the one hand, the church isn't true, and maybe God isn't even real, but on the other hand it's terrible that now somehow they won't be with their spouse, qua spouse, in the afterlife? Which is either nonexistent (according to an atheist), or there is no marriage there anyway (according to mainstream Christianity)? 

"How dare they kick me out of a church I don't even believe in! How dare they declare I won't be with my wife in an afterlife I have stopped believing in!" 

[MustardSeed]

16 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Apparently it’s a thing to do baptism pics in front of the temple. Kids in white clothing clutching a bom. this is just one of a dozen or so I found with one google search:

 

https://gilmorestudios.com/gilbert-arizona-temple-lds-baptism-photographer/

Apparently photo ops in general are a very big deal in Utah according to my photographer friend.  She says Utah is rampant with influencers and photographers- maybe it’s similar to the reasons there are so many MLMs in Utah - lots of stay at home parents who have time to be online and work from home so these types of things become trends quickly. 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Odd, isn't it? On the one hand, the church isn't true, and maybe God isn't even real, but on the other hand it's terrible that now somehow they won't be with their spouse, qua spouse, in the afterlife? Which is either nonexistent (according to an atheist), or there is no marriage there anyway (according to mainstream Christianity)? 

"How dare they kick me out of a church I don't even believe in! How dare they declare I won't be with my wife in an afterlife I have stopped believing in!" 

I don't see it quite as binary. I'm not sure where Nemo ultimately lands on every theological question, but he has explicitly described what happened as a “trust crisis” rather than a “faith crisis,” and has said he still considers himself Mormon in many ways.

Maybe he's going through something of an Oliver Cowdery phase and will eventually return to the fold. At least, that is my hope. In the meantime, however, I don't think it would be contradictory for someone in that situation to grieve the possible loss of an eternal marriage while simultaneously having serious doubts about, or losing trust in, the institution administering that doctrine. 

 

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

In the article that appears directly below the one you link to, it has the following:

So, I think this is just sort of him explaining the impact of having had his membership withdrawn - not that there is a current, live situation where he is not able to participate in something - though he does mention that some family members have been avoiding him.

That is unfortunate.  My extended family has had a lot of folks leave the Church, but we are generally doing well at maintaining relationships built on enduring love and connection.

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

“Certain family members won't talk to me anymore because of what I do, equating it to having a paedophile in the family, ‘we don't want our children around you’. [...] Other members of my family have been very supportive of what I do, others merely tolerant.”

I think it's understandable that Latter-day Saints would not like a family member - while a member of the Church - actively and regularly speaking against the Church as Nemo has been doing for years.

That said, the "equating it to having a paedophile in the family" thing is unfortunate, but I wonder how much of that is him rather than what has actually been said.  "{W}e don't want our children around you" is a very far cry from "Having you in the family is equivalent to having a paedophile in the family."  I have a friend who strongly surmises (but has not yet definitively confirmed) that his then-young adult son, while living at home with his siblings, went out of his way, secretly, to persuade his siblings (most of which were minors) to leave the Church.  My friend has struggled with this, as he feels his son misused his family relationships to interfere with his (my friend's) efforts to raise his other children.  In circumstances such as those, I could understand why Latter-day Saint parents would be reluctant to have an anti-Mormon relative who has spent years building an anti-Mormon social media platform interact with their minor children.  Perhaps their lack of trust in his ability to "stay in his lane" and let them raise their children as they see fit is not entirely without foundation.

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm not sure what to make about the whole pedophile comment. There are, admittedly, lots of people I don't want my children around, but if someone in his family really made that kind of comment (which I grant as being plausible), that strikes me as being a really mean and spiteful thing to say - even if you strongly disagree with what he's been doing. 

I'd like to better understand whether a family member actually did compare him to a pedophile, or if that is what he took away from "we don't want our children around you."

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

Oh, and as far as I can tell, all of the comments about him ending up in outer darkness appear to come from the author of the articles (Simon Fearn), not from Nemo himself - though I'm not sure how far he went out of his way to disabuse the author of the notion. 

Perhaps.  I think it can be read either way.

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

Here's the author's take on LDS theology: 

Quote

While their website describes the church as Christian, many of their beliefs differ from the teachings of mainstream Christian churches.

Mormons believe in a concept called sealing. It means spouses aren’t just married on Earth, but stay married in heaven.

Because the church has branded Stilgoe an apostate, in Mormon theology he will not be able to join his wife in heaven, heading instead to the Mormon version of hell, called outer darkness.

Yeah, that's nowhere close to accurate.  And Nemo - who pretty clearly participated and cooperated with the article - has apparently not done anything to correct this substantial falsehood.  A falsehood that also casts the Church in a terrible light.

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

Quote

In his excommunication hearing, his wife stood up to ask church leaders if they knew the gravity of what they were about to do.

Stilgoe said she asked them: “Do you understand what you're doing right now? Do you understand the pronouncement you're making on my husband?

“They claimed to understand, so that's on their conscience then, I suppose. That's for them to come to terms with.”

The "pronouncement" is that he was losing his membership in the Church, but also that he can return to the Church after a year if he desires to do so, and if he sets aside the behaviors that caused membership removal in the first places.

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

Excommunication is a serious matter, but it's not a pronouncement that you are destined for outer darkness. 

I suspect Nemo, being the subject of the story, has read it.  No indication so far that he has done anything to correct or dispute or disagree with the falsehoods in the article.  “Qui tacet consentire videtur” and all that.

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

If Nemo is as informed about LDS goings on as he claims to be, he certainly ought to know that.

And maybe he does, and the author is just writing something provocative to generate clicks for their YouTube documentary. 

Not sure. Don't care.

Also not sure.  I care a little.  For Nemo's sake if nothing else.  He is only estranging himself further from us by doing these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Odd, isn't it? On the one hand, the church isn't true, and maybe God isn't even real, but on the other hand it's terrible that now somehow they won't be with their spouse, qua spouse, in the afterlife? Which is either nonexistent (according to an atheist), or there is no marriage there anyway (according to mainstream Christianity)? 

"How dare they kick me out of a church I don't even believe in! How dare they declare I won't be with my wife in an afterlife I have stopped believing in!" 

It is odd. If one no longer believes then it is sorta like "who cares."  But maybe there is a but of "but what if...?" I still get this at times though it is less and less.

[Jay 4 Christ]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it's understandable that Latter-day Saints would not like a family member - while a member of the Church - actively and regularly speaking against the Church as Nemo has been doing for years.

There's an irony here you're overlooking. You say it's understandable that Mormons wouldn't like a family member actively and regularly speaking against the church. I guess that's fair. But then surely you can understand why Christians don't appreciate Mormons actively telling them that their church lacks priesthood authority Christ intended his church to have.

Mormon missionaries literally knock on Christian's doors with a message that says Christianity is missing everything that is essential for a Christian church.

Should you apply your reasoning in both directions?

[Teancum]

On 9/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

I've never been comfortable with Latter-day Saints acting in that capacity going out and seek all sorts of public attention for themselves.  To be sure, I am fine with Latter-day Saints gaining prominence through public speaking in relation to the Church.  Daniel Peterson has done that for years.  These days, Jacob Hansen and Jasmin Rappleye seem to be putting out a lot of good content in terms of defense of, and useful new information about, the Church.  In doing so, they are gaining some notoriety in their own right, but they seem to focus rather heavily on advocating for the Church more than themselves.  That's my perception, anyway.

There are also some who, though nominally members of the Church, use their membership as a platform to publicly speak against the Church.  "Nemo the Mormon" is one such fellow, though he has recently lost him membership in the Church.  That hasn't stopped him from continuing as he has been in the past.  This morning, I saw this:

While not my style, I see nothing wrong with a disaffected or former member speaking out or criticizing the church on whatever platform they choose. And that if they are a member still, they have to know they put their membership at risk. And they should not feign surprise when  the church acts against then as far as membership is concerned. Odd that you seem quite happy with he apologists that make a name for themselves but seem to frown at a critic doing the same.

 

Why is that?

 

On 9/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

Mormon YouTuber put on trial and excommunicated explains why he still follows rules on coffee and alcohol

He says this while knowing that his characterization will almost certainly not be disputed by the Church because membership council proceedings are kept in confidence.

That is the church's problem really. He is under no obligation to not speak about his church council.

 

On 9/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

 

Not sure what to make of this.  Have his parents died?  If so, if they wanted to have a funeral administered by the Church, then the meeting is a church meeting, on church property.  I have seen plenty of funerals where non-Latter-day Saint family members and friends eulogize the decedent.  Not participating in the Church's meetings, then, is fairly unique to people who have their membership in the Church removed for cause - particularly for apostasy.  

If his parents have not died, then why is he bringing this up now?

And what's with this "speaking at family weddings" stuff?  Does anyone have any insights?

Seems to me that he is referring to restriction on speaking at church events. I don't imagine if a wedding is held at an LDS church he would be allowed to speak. Of premises, there would be no restiction.

On 9/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

Utter bilge.  If Nemo is selling or endorsing this sort of nonsense, shame on him.

I think this is in reference to the outer darkness question. While I think that misconstrues LDS doctrine, I have run into many that think LDS apostates who had a solid "testimony" and leave are headed for outer darkness. And for priesthood holders, there is that Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood where it says if one turns away from said oath, there is no forgiveness in this world or the next.

On 9/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

"Stasi."  The secret police and intelligence agency of communist East Germany (GDR) from 1950 until 1990.

This is overwrought nonsense.

I agree this is a silly comparison.

On 9/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

 

Funny how different perspectives can look at the same set of facts and come away with such divergent conclusions and assessments.

Indeed.

 

On 9/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

"They distrust us so much to think that if we found out how wealthy they were..."

"They" and "us."  He is referencing the leaders of the Church hear, and publicly characterizing them as enriching themselves via tithing funds.

Patent falsehoods like this are troubling to me.

I think the "how weatlthy they were" refers to the Church and not church leaders. At least I read it that way.

On 9/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

Some truth, yes.  But also a lot of unsubstantiated stuff.  And quite a bit of critical gloss and slant.  He looks for the worst possible light as to any particular issue, then casts the Church in that light.  This is, for him, "the truth."

I have listened to Nemo in the past. I think this a gross mischaracterization of the critical material he presents. He is thorough and accurate.

On 9/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

Such are the pernicious fruits of faultfinding.  Faultfinding plus self-aggrandizement is a toxic mix.

Or rather the fruits of actually understanding that the claims of the Church in regards to it founding are false.

 

On 9/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

 

 

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Quote

I think it's understandable that Latter-day Saints would not like a family member - while a member of the Church - actively and regularly speaking against the Church as Nemo has been doing for years.

There's an irony here you're overlooking.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on this.

34 minutes ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

You say it's understandable that Mormons wouldn't like a family member actively and regularly speaking against the church.

If the effort amounts to a (mis)appropriation and use of familial relationships and access, and if the effort is subversive (that is, contravening and interfering with the parents' efforts to raise their own minor children), then yes, I think Latter-day Saints would not like that.  And I think that concern/objection is or can be justified.

34 minutes ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

I guess that's fair. But then surely you can understand why Christians don't appreciate Mormons actively telling them that their church lacks priesthood authority Christ intended his church to have.

I am generally supportive of the Marketplace of Ideas.  People can and do disagree with each other in that marketplace.  

For example, you say "Christians don't appreciate Mormons actively telling them..."  I disagree with your juxtaposition of "Christians" as being a group separate from "Mormons."  To me, that's like differentiating "dogs" from "mammals."  The latter is a broad category, and includes the former.  Nevertheless, I fully support your right to say this.  Free speech is great.  The Marketplace of Ideas is great.

I think the calculus changes a bit when family members are attempting to subvert parental efforts to raise children.

34 minutes ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Mormon missionaries literally knock on Christian's doors with a message that says Christianity is missing everything that is essential for a Christian church.

Should you apply your reasoning in both directions?

Perhaps you could clarify what you think my reasoning is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is odd. If one no longer believes then it is sorta like "who cares."  But maybe there is a but of "but what if...?" I still get this at times though it is less and less.

And I fear it will continue to get less and less. Unfortunately.

I still remember the days when Teancum was a defender of the faith. Sigh.

But you can always come back, brother. I'm sure you know that, but I wanted to say it anyway. We'd be happy to have you back. As Joseph Smith once wrote to W.W. Phelps:

"Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, for friends at first are friends again at last.”

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I've never been comfortable with Latter-day Saints acting in that capacity going out and seek all sorts of public attention for themselves.  To be sure, I am fine with Latter-day Saints gaining prominence through public speaking in relation to the Church.  Daniel Peterson has done that for years.  These days, Jacob Hansen and Jasmin Rappleye seem to be putting out a lot of good content in terms of defense of, and useful new information about, the Church.  In doing so, they are gaining some notoriety in their own right, but they seem to focus rather heavily on advocating for the Church more than themselves.  That's my perception, anyway.

There are also some who, though nominally members of the Church, use their membership as a platform to publicly speak against the Church.  "Nemo the Mormon" is one such fellow, though he has recently lost him membership in the Church.  That hasn't stopped him from continuing as he has been in the past.  This morning, I saw this:

While not my style, I see nothing wrong with a disaffected or former member speaking out or criticizing the church on whatever platform they choose.

I fully support their right to do this, I just think it's a bad idea.  I have similar sentiments about people who go online and publicly badmouth their spouse or child or parent.  They certainly have the legal and societal right to say such things, but in the main "airing the family's dirty laundry" - family members publicizing what ought to be resolved privately and personally, and doing so for purposes such as social media clout, clicks, notoriety, self-aggrandizement, etc. - is a bad idea.

So I see this as "morally" wrong, not legally wrong.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And that if they are a member still, they have to know they put their membership at risk.

And family members who go online to badmouth spouse, parent, child, etc. are likewise putting their familial relationships at risk, or at least are doing things which have a reasonably foreseeable possibility of injuring those relationships.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And they should not feign surprise when  the church acts against then as far as membership is concerned. Odd that you seem quite happy with he apologists that make a name for themselves but seem to frown at a critic doing the same.

Why is that?

Perhaps you could clarify the oddity.

If I go online to publicly express admiration and respect and high regard for my wife, do you find that morally equivalent to me going online and publicly expressing contempt and disgust and doubt about her decency as a human being?

If you go online and post something on Facebook about how much you enjoy working for your employer, do you think your employer would react the same way to that as it would if you were to post something on Facebook about how despicable and morally depraved your employer is?

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Mormon YouTuber put on trial and excommunicated explains why he still follows rules on coffee and alcohol

He says this while knowing that his characterization will almost certainly not be disputed by the Church because membership council proceedings are kept in confidence.

That is the church's problem really.

Here is my perspective:

If I were to go online and

• publicly slander my wife's reputation and decency as a human being, and if I were to
• publicly accuse her of profound dishonesty and hypocrisy, and if I were to
• publicly compare her to the East German Secret Police, known for mass surveillance, psychological destruction of dissidents, illegal imprisonment, torture (including sexual torture: "Women and girls from the age of 12 were rounded up by the East German criminal police on suspicion of having sexually transmitted infections ... The women and girls were taken to secure sexual health clinics ... where they were detained for weeks at a time and systematically abused. The testimonies of women held in the clinics include accounts of rape and torture."), and killings at the Berlin Wall, and if I were to
• publicly juxtapose her supposed deplorable character with my own self-declared virtues (using phrases like "Well, all I've done is tell the truth"), and if I were to 
• publicly declare all these terrible things about her while knowing that she has scruples and moral ethics against engaging in such publicly problematic behavior,

then I feel I would be putting my wife in a genuine dilemma.  I am effectively coercing her into 

• A) adhering to her own scruples and moral ethics and remaining silent in the face of such serious allegations (and thus possibly give the impression that she is not disputing them), or
• B) abandoning her scruples and moral ethics and engaging in behaviors she finds both morally problematic but necessary to rebut published accusations against her moral character and decency as a human being.

Now, if I were to do this, do you think you would say "That's your wife's problem, really"?

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

He is under no obligation to not speak about his church council.

Legally, you are entirely correct.

Similarly, I am under no legal obligation to not publicly speak to tear down my wife's reputation and character and decency as a human being.  But if I value my relationship with her, I would probably think that the relationship does impose some sort of "obligation to not" publicly disparage her (not a legal obligation, mind you).

I don't think Nemo can have it both ways (I mean, he can't have it both ways and still remain credible).  If he valued his relationship with and membership in the Church, he would not behave in the ways he has been behaving for many years.  We're not talking about a one-off heat-of-the-moment intemperate remark here, but rather the years-long public campaign against his own religious community.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Not sure what to make of this.  Have his parents died?  If so, if they wanted to have a funeral administered by the Church, then the meeting is a church meeting, on church property.  I have seen plenty of funerals where non-Latter-day Saint family members and friends eulogize the decedent.  Not participating in the Church's meetings, then, is fairly unique to people who have their membership in the Church removed for cause - particularly for apostasy.  

If his parents have not died, then why is he bringing this up now?

And what's with this "speaking at family weddings" stuff?  Does anyone have any insights?

Seems to me that he is referring to restriction on speaking at church events.

I agree, but he did not say that.  Those not familiar with our faith may not realize that his comments only pertain to a funeral conducted by the Church as one of its own meetings, and typically using its own facilities.  Same goes for weddings.

Keep in mind he said all this stuff to the author of the piece in the same space in which he publicly accused the Church of exercising a "Stasi-esque level of control" over the lives of its members.  He is working very hard to make the Church look as terrible as possible, and himself as sympathetic and grand as possible:

• “I'm still really Mormon in just so many ways. You could describe me as Mormon still, even though they've taken my membership away, in just so many parts of my life. I am still the same as I always was.”
• “I'd done my best to make sure that everything I said was factual and defensible and so if they did try and excommunicate me, I would always be able to say ‘Well, all I've done is tell the truth'."
• "I think the values the church instilled in me are still there, particularly values around honesty and looking for the truth.  It's just a shame [church leaders] weren't willing to live up to those values, I suppose.”

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't imagine if a wedding is held at an LDS church he would be allowed to speak. Of premises, there would be no restiction.

Civil weddings held in a church building are, I think, also church meetings. Moreover, during the ceremony itself the bishop speaks (he is officiating), but that's typically about it (I am open to correction here).

And I agree that the Church would not attempt to impose restrictions "off premises."  But Nemo does not point any of this out.  Instead, he is characterizing the Church as exercising a "Stasi-esque level of control" over the lives of its members, and then pairing that characterization with "I can't speak at my parents' funeral!" and "I can't speak at a family member's funeral!", leaving readers not familiar with our beliefs and practices to draw pretty much the worst possible inferences about us.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

According to some interpretations of scripture, his excommunication condemns him to the Mormon version of hell, called outer darkness.

Utter bilge.  If Nemo is selling or endorsing this sort of nonsense, shame on him.

I think this is in reference to the outer darkness question. While I think that misconstrues LDS doctrine, I have run into many that think LDS apostates who had a solid "testimony" and leave are headed for outer darkness.

That's interesting.  I have never met a single Latter-day Saint who has expressed such an idea.

The Church teaches a tripartite conceptualization of heaven, with even the worst of us eventually receiving a kingdom of glory "which surpasses all understanding" (D&C 76:89).  We frankly don't often speak of the Sons of Perdition, and again, I have never heard a conversant Latter-day Saint equate leaving the Church with that category of persons.

Nemo, I suspect, knows all this.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And for priesthood holders, there is that Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood where it says if one turns away from said oath, there is no forgiveness in this world or the next.

"{I}f one turns away from said oath" is not reflective of the language of D&C 84:41, in which 

Quote

{t}he Lord warned that those who break the oath and covenant of the priesthood and “altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come” (D&C 84:41). Those individuals who turn away completely from their covenants and do not repent will forfeit the blessings of exaltation promised to those who are faithful, although they may not necessarily become sons of perdition (see Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:141–42).

"{A}ltogether turneth therefrom" is markedly different from "it says if one turns away from said oath" because the latter is forgivable and the former is not.  

And note that the loss of forgiveness comes only if the individual has "turn{ed} away completely from their covenants and do{es} not repent."  I think D&C 84:41 is one of the reasons some have surmised that only priesthood holders - men - can be cast into Outer Darkness (which is why "Sons of Perdition" is a notably and specifically a gendered phrase).

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

"Stasi."  The secret police and intelligence agency of communist East Germany (GDR) from 1950 until 1990.

This is overwrought nonsense.

 

I agree this is a silly comparison.

The comparison casts the Church as morally equivalent to the Secret Police in East Germany, known for mass surveillance, psychological destruction of dissidents, illegal imprisonment, torture (including sexual torture), and killings at the Berlin Wall.

In my view, "silly" doesn't come close to capturing the seriousness of this mischaracterization.

A while back I had a friend give me a candid assessment of his perspective on the Latter-day Saints (he used to be a member).  His remarks were wide-ranging.  At one point he said that all Latter-day Saints who disagree with same-sex marriage are bigots.  I asked him if he thought there is room for people to have reasoned and principled disagreement with SSM, and he said no, and that bigotry is the only possible explanation, and that to disagree with SSM is per se bigotry.  I asked him to confirm what he was saying (that "disagreement" with X amounts to "bigotry" against X), and he said yes.  I told him that this use (equating disagreement with bigotry) is not an accurate or fair statement, to which he shrugged and said that this is how his "generation" defines "bigot."  I then said something like this: "I don't think you can say that.  You are basically putting disagreement with same-sex marriage on the same moral plane as being a wife-beater or child molester."  He responded by leaning forward, looking at me square in the eye, and saying "Yeah."

It was a sobering and discouraging experience.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

"They distrust us so much to think that if we found out how wealthy they were..."

"They" and "us."  He is referencing the leaders of the Church hear, and publicly characterizing them as enriching themselves via tithing funds.

Patent falsehoods like this are troubling to me.

I think the "how weatlthy they were" refers to the Church and not church leaders.  At least I read it that way.

Perhaps.  Odd, though, that he says "They distrust us" rather that "It {the Church} distrusts us."  If he meant to refer to a singular entity/institution, why did he say "they" and juxtapose that group (the Church) with the members of the Church (also the Church)?  Below you say Nemo's content is "thorough and accurate."  Do you think his remarks here reflect that scrupulosity?  I don't.  And nor do I think it was just inadvertent, as it reflects the pattern of his content as always slanted, always intended to cast the Church in the worst possible light, always calculated to encourage readers to draw the worst possible conclusions and inferences about the Church and its leaders and members.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

“I'd done my best to make sure that everything I said was factual and defensible and so if they did try and excommunicate me, I would always be able to say ‘Well, all I've done is tell the truth'."

Some truth, yes.  But also a lot of unsubstantiated stuff.  And quite a bit of critical gloss and slant.  He looks for the worst possible light as to any particular issue, then casts the Church in that light.  This is, for him, "the truth."

I have listened to Nemo in the past. I think this a gross mischaracterization of the critical material he presents. He is thorough and accurate.

Again: Funny how different perspectives can look at the same set of facts and come away with such divergent conclusions and assessments.

I have watched a number of his videos.  They are reliably and heavily slanted against the Church, to the point of mischaracterization (not unlike what he has done in participating in the article in the OP).  If I have time I'll go back and look for the instances where I have found him to be a less-than-reliable narrator about the Church.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Such are the pernicious fruits of faultfinding.  Faultfinding plus self-aggrandizement is a toxic mix.

Or rather the fruits of actually understanding that the claims of the Church in regards to it founding are false.

From the article:

Quote

Part of the reason for the tightrope walk of challenging the church, yet not going so far as to be excommunicated, was because, while he found his trust in church leaders challenged, he did not have doubts about his own personal Mormon faith.

“Many people describe what I went through as a faith crisis, and I don't know whether I would actually describe it that way.

“I would talk about it as a trust crisis. I lost my trust in the institution. I realised I couldn't trust this institution that I trusted implicitly because they couldn't keep the standards of honesty they had required of me as a member of the institution.

“So I lost my ability to trust them, and yeah, that's separate to personal faith.”

This characterization of where Nemo stands seems to be at odds with yours ("the fruits of actually understanding that the claims of the Church in regards to it founding are false").  Are you saying he has arrived at this "understanding?"

Nemo says he has not had a "faith crisis," but rather a "trust crisis."  I can appreciate that.  The part where I struggle is reconciling his putative residuary and ongoing faith in and acceptance of the Restored Gospel with years-long adversarial and vitriolic effort to generate social media content specifically calculated to tear down the institution that houses the Restored Gospel.  If he values his membership in the Church and all that it entails, and if he were a rational human being, I don't think he would have behaved in the way he has for years on end.  His actions to not seem to conform to his statements and vice versa.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited yesterday at 09:25 PM by smac97

[Rain]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Apparently photo ops in general are a very big deal in Utah according to my photographer friend.  She says Utah is rampant with influencers and photographers- maybe it’s similar to the reasons there are so many MLMs in Utah - lots of stay at home parents who have time to be online and work from home so these types of things become trends quickly. 

It wouldn't surprise me if taking a picture in front of a temple was part of them trying to do missionary work on whatever social media they are in.  

Edited yesterday at 08:51 PM by Rain

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

If the effort amounts to a (mis)appropriation and use of familial relationships and access, and if the effort is subversive (that is, contravening and interfering with the parents' efforts to raise their own minor children), then yes, I think Latter-day Saints would not like that.  And I think that concern/objection is or can be justified.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sometimes I am just amazed at how blind some members are at the things the Church encourages its members to do, while criticizing similar behavior of others.

Trying to interest your friends and family into joining the church has been a core teaching for at least a half of century, probablylonger..  As a missionary, I remember being instructed to talk to newly baptized members to introduce their family members to the missionaries and encourage them to help convert their relatives to leave their current church and join the LDS church.   Yet when a child does the exact same thing to those he loves, somehow it is subversive and interfering with the parents efforts to raise their own minor children.

Does that also amount to a (mis)appropriation and use of family relationships?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

If the effort amounts to a (mis)appropriation and use of familial relationships and access, and if the effort is subversive (that is, contravening and interfering with the parents' efforts to raise their own minor children), then yes, I think Latter-day Saints would not like that.  And I think that concern/objection is or can be justified.

Sometimes I am just amazed at how blind some members are at the things the Church encourages its members to do, while criticizing similar behavior of others.

Well, let's see what you have in mind.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Trying to interest your friends and family into joining the church has been a core teaching for at least a half of century, probablylonger..  

Sure.  The Great Commission, the final instruction of Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread the Christian gospel to all nation, is one of the most important tenets of the Restored Gospel.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

As a missionary, I remember being instructed to talk to newly baptized members to introduce their family members to the missionaries and encourage them to help convert their relatives to leave their current church and join the LDS church.  

Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging people to "leave their current church?" 

Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet when a child does the exact same thing to those he loves,

What "exact same thing" are you referencing here?

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

somehow it is subversive and interfering with the parents efforts to raise their own minor children.

If I were your family member, and if I went out of my way to use that status and its associated proximity to your minor children in order to secretly subvert your efforts to raise your minor children as to some important social or religious or other type of issue, I think you would find that problematic.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does that also amount to a (mis)appropriation and use of family relationships?

"That" being what?  I am not sure what you are referencing here.

I have no interest in misappropriating family relationships in order to subvert parents' efforts to raise their own children.  I find that a very troubling concept.  See, e.g., here:

AFPI Urges Supreme Court to Protect Parents’ Right to Challenge Government Interference in Their Child’s Care

Quote

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow parents to challenge Washington state laws they contend undermine their authority over their children’s care.

Filed on behalf of Colorado mother and parental rights advocate Erin Lee, the brief in International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson asks the court to recognize parents’ standing to bring their claims. The lower courts dismissed the lawsuit without deciding whether the challenged laws violate parents’ constitutional rights.

At issue are Washington laws that govern minors’ access to shelter and mental health services. One provision allows licensed shelters to notify a state agency instead of directly contacting parents when a runaway child seeks or receives services that include sex-rejecting medical treatment. The parents challenging these laws argue that the state is interfering with their ability to protect and raise their children.

“Parents facing a credible threat to their rights should have a meaningful opportunity to defend those rights in court,” said Gina D’Andrea, AFPI’s general counsel and counsel of record for the brief. “Families should not have to wait for a preventable crisis before they can challenge government policies that threaten their role in their children’s lives. We are asking the Supreme Court to ensure these parents can be heard.”

The brief brings Lee’s experience to the court’s attention. According to her lawsuit, her 12-year-old daughter attended what the family understood to be an after-school art club, where a guest speaker encouraged students to adopt transgender identities and keep the discussions hidden from their parents. Lee alleges that the episode caused lasting distress for her daughter and family. Her case was ultimately dismissed on standing grounds, leaving her underlying parental rights claim unresolved.

“Children belong to their parents, not the state. This case is critically important because for too long state actors have evaded the judicial system through procedural loopholes, leading to the erosion of parental rights,” said Erin Lee, the amica curiae in AFPI’s brief.

AFPI’s brief argues that inconsistent decisions on parental standing have prevented courts from addressing an increasingly consequential constitutional question. It urges the Supreme Court to allow the Washington parents’ challenge to proceed so their claims receive a hearing on the merits.

This is troubling, heading into "pretty darn creepy" territory.

Broadly speaking, I have strong concerns and reservations about people making incursions into the lives of minor children with the intention of subverting the child's parental authority and decision-making.  That is very much a "Do Unto Others" thing, not a "It's not bad when I do it" sort of thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

But then surely you can understand why Christians don't appreciate Mormons actively telling them that their church lacks priesthood authority Christ intended his church to have.

Mormon missionaries literally knock on Christian's doors with a message that says Christianity is missing everything that is essential for a Christian church.

Should you apply your reasoning in both directions?

I think it’s very inappropriate for LDS family members to make conversion of other nonLDS family members a project.  Let it be known they are happy to share info if it’s wanted and then leave it up to the individual to seek them out.  Family members pushing religious agendas during family stuff is very different than knocking on a door and accepting a ‘come in and let’s talk about your Church’ and ‘no, not interested’.  And yes, some missionaries use too much pressure, not accepting a moderate ‘no’ even.  That is wrong, imo.

A continual pressure to accept being proselyted towards family is inappropriate.

And no, it’s not everything essential for a Christian Church.  Faith and charity are essential.  A desire to follow Christ and to help others do so are essential.  Those can be very present in churches that lack the essential authority and specific ordinances.

Edited 23 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's interesting.  I have never met a single Latter-day Saint who has expressed such an idea.

I have run into two or three posters on this board and another one who said their testimony was so strong, that if they left, they would be going to outer darkness.  My experience based on many conversations were that they were immature emotionally in a few ways (all adult males, 20 and 30s if they were truthful). They were very much into the attack form of apologetics, seemed to love the fight.  Went looking for it on former member or aggressive nonLDS Christian sites and then bragged about it.  It came off as more arrogant than realistic.  One also thought he might end up as a prophet/apostle.

I have heard some LDS worried about it when a youth and young adult.  A few former members more recently, hard to know if influenced by nonmembers’ interpretations once they left or that is how they originally understood it.  Hopefully the doctrine is clear enough now it doesn’t happen so easily from simple misunderstanding if it wasn’t before.  Can’t control intentional misunderstanding though.

Edited 22 hours ago by Calm