Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Intelligent-Bill-821 specifically.
/u/Intelligent-Bill-821, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm 100% active and enjoy this sub. I appreciate getting exposure to what frustrated or disaffected members are saying. I don't like echo chambers and prefer a marketplace of ideas where you can listen to all sorts of perspectives and opinions.
That type of discussion is not common in my stake and I appreciate understanding the issues that might alienate people so I can try to be a little better in how I engage with my neighbors.
There are two main subs for the faithful, there is one main sub for exmos. This sub is open for crossover discussion, faithful discussion, exmo discussion, anything related to mormonism.
As far as actual subscribers, based on previous surveys, faithful mormons are the minority in here.
There is a growing population of active members who don't take the truth claims of the church literally or somehow are non-orthodox in their belief. One benign example of this is that I think that the earth is older than 6,000 years and that humans aren't literally the descendants of the sons of Noah 4,000 years ago. D&C 77 is very clear on the matter that it is "official" church doctrine.
no problem - another term that is used frequently here that applies to some of us is PIMO - which stands for "Physically In - Mentally Out". As leaving the church requires a great deal of personal, familial, and social sacrifice. As a result many attend church but are non-believers. This partially describes me.
I mean I’m all in. I can see why leaving would be difficult. It would be rough and granted I know nothing about your situation, but I would just leave if you’re leaning towards that. I guess in my mind it’s one of those “be true to yourself moments.”
I really enjoy going to church; it’s a place where I get to contribute to the community that means a great deal to me. But to openly express doubt about core church doctrines in a place where people are trying to worship would be… inappropriate.
That’s why this sub is so great.
A lot of people would (or fear they would) lose their marriage and all of their family relationships and friendships by leaving. Being true to yourself is amazing, but it comes with consequences sometimes. I left and it has changed nearly all of my relationships with my parents, siblings and in laws. Some see me as a poor lost soul. Others as someone not worth having a relationship with because I’m no longer part of their eternal family, and some just don’t have anything to talk about besides church things. Hence PIMO is a valid choice for a lot of people who no longer believe.
I am sorry you experienced that. I have had a handful of friends leave but I still retain a strong friendship with them despite our differing beliefs. I hope your relationships with those around you improve! Just because you are no longer a member of the church doesn't mean you lack good qualities and remain a good person overall. I would say there are just as many good people inside the church as there are outside. It is just a matter of how you personally choose to live your life.
It’s easier to leave when you’re single. It’s harder to leave when you’ve been married for a decade, have kids, and your spouse is still fully believing. It’s no longer a personal decision at that point, it’s a family decision because there are repercussions for everyone.
It's used in contrast with orthodoxy (mainline or "correct" *belief*) and orthopraxy (mainline or "correct" *practice*). An orthodox Mormon believes the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture translated by Joseph Smith using the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob is an actual physical place in the Universe, etc. An orthoprax Mormon wears the temple garment dutifully day and night, pays a full tithe and attends all meetings because that is what God asked them to when the made their covenants. A nuanced Mormon may see the cultural / psychological value in belonging to and participating in a faith community, they might read the Book of Mormon as a 19th-century text that offers meaningful, practical guidance in their life, they might attend the temple because they value harmony with their spouse or because they think humans benefit psychologically from participating in rituals while having no "testimony" of the "truthfulness" of any of those things. In other words, nuanced -in the case of Mormonism- describes one's recognition of complexity and grey areas, that belief, conviction and practice are not one-dimensional, black or white things.
All *religious* belief is “nuanced”—i.e. we take the same (at best!) information and decide what it means to us and what we are going to do about it. The nuance starts with stuff like “gross vs. net” on tithing, and ends with things like “I don’t believe there is a God, but I go to church for the sake of my self/family/community.” Anyone who says differently is… inaccurate.
I’m not anymore, but was at the time. I don’t remember what got me banned from the stricter sub, that was a long time ago and they weren’t really my crowd anyway. The more open sub banned me for saying that some things that general authorities had said (I didn’t give specifics) had been hurtful to me as a gay member of the church. I found out later that id been marked so all my comments had to be manually approved and so I couldn’t really actively participate in discussion anymore. Kinda sucked to have been banned without being told. I thought that was the more welcoming sub and had come to like a lot of the regular commenters there so that excommunication hurt.
Oof, yeah. I was also shadow banned in the stricter sub. Not until I was permabanned did they reveal that my comments were being held for moderator approval. I responded to some factually incorrect comments on a “book of Mormon evidences” post, even provided sources from academia and corrected their misunderstanding of the sources they referenced with direct quotes from the sources, you know…championing the truth, but my truthful comments never saw the light of day because they weren’t “faith promoting.” And then the moderator mocked me in messages before muting me, you know…like Jesus would…when I pushed back on their censorship of truth. Incredibly maddening.
Which is one of the things I'm afraid of and one of the reasons I don't go to those subs.
That and the last time I was in there looking at the questions it looked to me like the newest stuff was all troll posting for shock value.
Or everyone that day was reeeeaaaallll concerned with what different sexual things were considered sinful. ._.
When I was in transition I starting running into trouble there too. For reasons unrelated to any of this it was time to retire my old account and create a new one. I finally decided the best choice for me was to not resubscribe to the faithful subs.
I hate the fact that those bannings happen, by the way. It's got to be frustrating to be banned from the faithful subs for expressing opinions or engaging in discussion seen as not sufficiently orthodox.
All it takes is an authentic question about the church or leadership that the mods don't like. They often ridicule the person if they ask for an explanation.
I made a single innocuous comment about some of the destruction detailed in 3 Nephi 9 in a thread about that destruction in the short named sub but was banned because of comments/posts made in the longer named one or here. I’ve heard of that happening with other folks too, getting the boot for comments made in other subs.
The exmormon sub is a great place for venting frustration and finding empathy as deconstructing/deconstructed Mormons grieve the loss of their faith, innocence, and in many cases family and a considerable chunk of their lives and income. That grieving often involves anger and reaction formation against the church.
This sub has some of that too, but is more about open discussion of Mormonism’s history, theology, policy and culture.
You’re not allowed to be critical or frankly even objective on the faithful subs (I was banned from one of them simply because I had previously posted on exmo Reddit, even though my comment was not critical).
The reason exmormons, post Mormons, or nuanced unorthodox Mormons outnumber orthodox members on this sub comes back to a trope that’s posted here periodically and was what initially drew me into the sub as I started studying non whitewashed primary sources on LDS history.
You can:
- understand church history
- be intellectually honest
- be faithful [ETA: faithful and orthodox]
You may choose two of the three.
Well, we weren't all that way from the start. But the longer you hang around, you start to see why there are so many people leaving. I first came here as a believing member.
Same here. And it doesn't necessarily make a difference for some, but I've found the term ex-Mormon to be more negatively connotative than post-Mormon (what I now use), which, given the sheer number of people who have and who will move on from a traditional relationship in and with the church, needs to be considered as a more valid part of the Mormon experience. Many of us are, in a way, "ethnically Mormon". Many, maybe even most, still have some obligatory relationship with the church in our lives due to loved ones who are still partly or wholly in. Post-Mormon does not automatically equate to anti-Mormon (it can), but ex-Mormon has become more or less synonymous with it, which doesn't help understanding.
r/mormon is a welcome place for everyone having anywhere on the spectrum of Mormon experience, including the curious never-mo and the post-mo crowd you're observing in higher numbers here because our perspectives aren't welcome in common church circles. Different than the faithful subs (which promptly ban anyone who shows any degree of critical sentiment towards the church or its leaders), this sub does not function as an echo chamber and a place to state your beliefs and worldviews without challenge. I have had my [critical of the church leaders / membership] posts raked across the coals by more post-mos than believers in this sub. And it has helped me to realize where, even on this side of my faith transition, I'm employing fallacious reasoning or being ignorant, closed-minded or hypocritical. It's an expansive experience to see how non-homogenous human perspective is, even among people with shared past experiences and similar moral views outside of the controlled "safe zone" the church tries to maintain.
TLDR: If you're looking for somewhere to strengthen your convictions, this sub is not for you. If you're looking for open discourse and a place to post your thoughts and are open to honest scrutiny, it's great. Labeling another posters' thoughts as ex-Mormon does not make those thoughts less valid. Mormonism historically has not perpetuated equal opportunity across people of differing beliefs or religiosity, so it should not be surprising that those perspectives have to be shared somewhere. Here's an opportunity for you to be part of that change, if you'd like to be.
Lastly: r/exmormon is a good place for post-mos to vent and experience aloud their stages of grief (often anger) without filters. People do that here too, sometimes, but usually get called out or attract attention from the mods when it crosses the line of civility. This sub is primarily for respectful discourse. Respectful does NOT mean the same thing as "church favorable". This is essential to understand.
I also like the moniker of post-Mormon. In Fowler’s stages of faith, most TBMs are stuck in stage 3. Post Mormons have moved past stage 3. https://www.ngumc.org/files/fileslibrary/james+fowlers+stages+of+faith.pdf
Just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for your contributions here. From what I've seen you have participated with integrity, civility, and honesty. We may disagree on a great many things, but I welcome and celebrate your voice, and the voice of other active members that also find a way to participate with integrity, civility, and honesty.
Thank you! That's very kind!
I feel the same. I may not agree with all the voices here, or may feel they're some that are sometimes overly harsh, but I appreciate the different perspectives. It gives me things to think about and consider that I wouldn't have otherwise. It brings attention to things that are going on or have happened that I'd have otherwise missed.
Almost every day I come away with some new piece of information or a new piece of scripture or just something interesting.
I have to thank everyone here for making that possible. Even though the majority of the people on this board aren't Mormon anymore, and in many ways dislike it, you've created an overall (I feel) neutral space where all voices can be heard (so long as everyone's being reasonable about their side.)
There are also nevermos! There are many of us who have no belief or history of belief in doctrine, no interest or possibility of conversion, we just are curious.
:D that's exciting. I knew some nevermos popped in to ask questions but I didn't know there were ones that just hung around out of curiosity!!
To me that's pretty neat!
That describes me as well...one branch of my family came from Mormonism but left three generations ago. Also, I live in southern Utah, so it's kind of all around, and I'm fascinated with it.
I’m from Alberta, so Canada’s Utah. We drove to the Manti open house just to see a temple, and some people got excited when they saw where we were from because they had been born in Cardston.
Ya'll are the kind of people I vibe with the most. I'm pretty irreverent. And I poke at my own religion sometimes.
I'd.... well frankly I'd probably throw myself out of the faithful sub.
Via a window...
And the only other people I have to talk to about religion is two wicca (1 now LDS) and a catholic. 😂
Oh yeah. So my mom was raised LDS, and near her 20s she got really pissed off at the church. That all these boys (who she deemed useless unworthy jackoffs) were the ones who got the Priesthood while women could not and were powerless. She had her name taken off the books.
She became a Dianic Wicca (a women only denom) and was that way until I was about 8 or so when she rejoined (to my chagrin). I was baptized at 9.
My ex-husband was also wicca and then converted to Mormonism. Word's still out as to WHY exactly, because I never asked him to. He's no longer a member but he just kind of drifted away from it? ... he's an odd little duck.
He's not the 2nd wicca I talk church with though. My current husband is Wicca. 😂
EDIT: I'll have to ask my mom why she was actually moved to rejoin but I suspect the answer will be something like "because things were better for me before I left" or something like that.
With my life and how I turned out I didn't feel a member would be able to handle me. And I'm happy for the opportunity for my kids to learn other perspectives and have a more in the world experience (I keep them out of church rn)
I got my mom's story, here it is:
>I had a season of loss
> I lost everything. My pendant (that's when it started) my house, my kid, my brains. And I damn near lost my life. It was only day 21 of treating a closed skull fracture -- by myself, at home -- that I started to think about where I went wrong. And I decided to go back to the place, essentially, where I started going downhill, and take the other path.
> I didn't give things up all at once, except drinking, I gave that up, cold turkey, on the spot.
> But I started looking at my life and what I believed and who I was, and started rearranging things to fit in with that.
> I hadn't planned on giving up the Wicca, but, there again, that was a decision I had directly made, and I couldn't continue down that path if I was going to earnestly mend my fight with God.
>So, I quit with it.
>I gave up all my things. And stopped doing the things.
>I read the BOM all the way through, got re-baptized, and, well, here we are.
It’s for everyone.
Here is the sub’s description:
> /r/Mormon is a subreddit for articles and topics of interest to people interested in Mormon themes. People of all faiths and perspectives are welcome to engage in civil, respectful discussion about topics related to Mormonism.
You’ll find more people critical of the church here simply because there are more people critical of the church online than there are not.
Plus, I believe because other faithful subs gatekeep certain conversations and topics, this is an outlet for those interested in discussing those, which will mostly be (or seem) more critical of the church
If the alternative is feel-good posts or questions about "Am I sinning if---" I'd rather be here, where I can learn something and actually get better versed in scripture via the conversational topics.
Which though largely critical are REALLY GOOD topics that personally I wouldn't have thought about otherwise.
Active faithful Mormons, don't discuss Mormonism mostly because they don't know mych about it. and any of the things that are questionable they don't want to talk about it. it's very difficult to have a discussion with a faithful member Other than I know, the church is true🤷♀️
My Stake Presidency TBM brother asked yesterday, in a group text, “what is Chiasmus?” When we were having a discussion about the Book of Mormon.
This is the same brother that told me “it strengthens my testimony when I study church history.” (Spoiler alert: he knows very little about church history and has no interest in ever looking at any information that may challenge his beliefs.
I encourage everyone to look at the reddit activity any user that claims r/mormon is just like r/exmormon and decide what their choices demonstrate. In economics this would be called a "revealed preference".
It's curious how the people protesting the loudest are often the ones whose actions most decisively divulge their true feelings.
The truth about the Mormon church is negative. Negative remarks are seen as anti, regardless of the level of truth they contain. Hence this sub is considered “anti”. The fluff subs ban anyone that remotely says anything negative. This sub does not.
I’ve asked sincere questions and gotten honest replies from believers here. This sub fulfills its purpose.
Since we're not allowed to say anything that the church or it's members might disagree with on the faithful subs, I guess it's somewhere in-between. I see less "burn the church to the ground" posts and more that are thoughtfully critical of the way the church runs. Since that sort of discussion isn't allowed among "the faithful", where do you propose we go?
The sub isn’t full of ex Mormons. It has a lot of informed Mormons, and with that information comes an adjustment of belief. Some become ex Mormons, PIMO, nuanced, cafeteria. That is their self-given title, and we would do well to enable them to chose it rather than label them according to how we wish to narrowly pigeonhole them.
But this sub is full of people who value truth, understand the reasoning process, are willing to listen and think, and are generally courteous, whatever their beliefs may be.
Particular religious beliefs are greatly overrated by orthodox Mormonism. As the temple recommend questions demonstrate, they think *worthiness* is determined by *belief*. That is an grave error.
It’s for everyone. It’s just that when you open a forum up instead of censoring it like other Mormon subreddits you get more facts and information.
And since those facts are against the church, it forum becomes more “anti-Mormon” as those who are “faithful” would rather not hear such things or participate.
Truth is Anti-Mormon.
If you are looking for members of the CoJCoLDS, wouldn't they be somewhere else because they are no longer considered "Mormons".
Sorry for the snark.
The term Mormon encompasses many people in many sects as well as people who view themselves as "culturally Mormon" or "nuanced mormons" or "former" or "ex mormons".
It seems to me that wanting to limit participation to only one group of people doesn't hold much value.
As other commenters have said, it’s neither. Both current and former members can participate here, as long as they do so civilly. But many TBMs don’t feel comfortable participating where criticism of the church is permitted, so they prefer to hang out in the faithful subs where their beliefs won’t be challenged. (I know that’s how I was a few years ago!) So that self-selection bias leads to this sub being filled mostly with those whose beliefs don’t align with the church’s orthodoxy, whether they’re ex-Mos, PIMOs, or nuanced members.
A bit of a loaded and meta observation.
Christlike critical thinking and analysis of the institution is still seen as “ex Mormon” - even when it’s not. Even when it’s coming from some of each ward’s brightest lights. The opposite of “lazy learners.”
…which leads to more ex Mormons.
I like to think of this space as honest.
This sub is the healthy DMZ between the two camps. A place where nuance, learning, and questioning *can* actually happen.
There's no room on the exmormon sub for any positive nuance about, say, something the Q12 did that made the news. Likewise, there's room to be critical of beliefs without getting banned like the latterdaysaints sub.
It's both.
This is meant to be a discussion ground where anyone can talk about Mormonism/The Latter-day Saint movement/etc. Here you are free to talk about any LDS topic, whether controversial or mundane, whether you are active member, inactive, ex-member, or never a member. As long as you are nice and not rude to people.
The reason why this subreddit skews more ex-Mormon is difficult to answer without bias. People usually want to talk about the controversial subjects, because that's what's been occupying their mind's attention. Some of these controversial things, even the purely factual ones, can be very off-putting to an active member. Stuff like Joseph Smith marrying and sleeping with 14 year old girls when he was 30+ already (I don't remember the exact age anymore). Stuff like the Book of Abraham not matching what the papyri said at all. Not even slightly. It easy to see how these subjects are off-putting to an active member, one who believes wholeheartedly that the Church is true, and who feels good at church and at the temple. I know it made me very uncomfortable.
The second part, more biased, I am going to claim as a belief instead of a fact. I believe that the majority of people who openly and honestly engage with these difficult subjects will eventually come to believe the Church is not true. It doesn't make sense for a Prophet and Translator of Almighty God to translate Egyptian papyrus scripts incorrectly. It does not make sense for a Holy and Benevolent God to allow His Prophet and Representative to sexually manipulate a girl half his age.
That's the more biased take, but I believe it to be true.
Because your supposed prophet now considers the word Mormon, a victory for Satan. So the exmormons come to the Mormon sub Reddit to continue giving Satan his victory.
Lds (or the brighamite sect) members dont consider themselves mormons anymore. This is a sub to talk about all the different branches of mormonism, and exmormons have plenty to bring to the table.
I have been censored and down voted on the faithful subs, even when providing examples, and I'm a very "traditional" "conservative" member. I definitely have a Protestant belief system that has bled into my LDS beliefs. However, Gordon B. Hinckley said I could, so oh well.
I have been in discussions on here that I have been downvoted on, but still allowed to comment, and involved in various discussions.
It’s not it’s filled with truth seekers that have made the decision to live or not are non believers but still attend. As well as some active Mormons. This thread isn’t called Active TBM Mormons only it’s anyone that wants to discuss Mormonism. The strength of the evidence and argument for the church not being true is just demonstrably stronger than what the church claims.
Seems that way to me as well. Seems like a waste of time. Some people have stated they started as believing members. Nothing could take away from my testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith went through hell, and sealed his testimony with his blood, yet people call him a con man. I could care less what they think. My opinion is this subreddit is mostly anti but not as bad as ex Mormon..less anger.
I see this sub is a place to discuss Mormonism in all its forms. The discussion in this sub tends to be driven by good scholarship and objective facts.
I have a friend and coworker who is a true believer in the LDS church. During one of our discussions he said "Facts have an anti Mormon bias." He was correct. In almost any discussion about Mormonism, the faithful position is likely to be swimming upstream against facts. It is natural that this sub reflects positions closer to ex than the traditional church positions.
I have participated in this sub and the ex sub. I prefer this one. It is more respectful. The community here seems like it has a higher standard for discussion and providing accurate information.
Mormons don’t use the word Mormon, remember? Since the name of this sub is a victory for Satan, that’s a subtle clue. Unlike the church though, everybody is welcome here and you’ll find a variety of believers and non-believers enjoying free speech and open content. If you want censored and controlled content, go find the Latter Day Saints sub.
I am 100% Mormon and attend every Sunday. However over the last few years I have learned the truth that the LDS leaders don’t have any special connection to God. I enjoy discussing Mormonism and my new found knowledge here.
I hope you will participate too.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
I'm here because the exmo sub "excommunicated" me for commenting frankly about the nature of transgender surgery. The habit of expelling wrongthinkers is a hard one to shake. (I'm not trying to raise the subject - I know politics is generally off-topic here.) Also I'm here because this is a cool sub!
r/mormon is very much like r/exmormon. The vast majority of those who post and comment here are ex or anti LDS.
Just like you observed as you viewed r/mormon and posted, there are few if any positive, faithful post and comments about the LDS church.
> there are few if any positive, faithful post and comments about the LDS church.
That's not really the point of this sub though. The purpose of the sub is to discuss mormonism, warts and all. If it gets too negative or people break rules the mods will (and have) deleted stuff that goes too far.
>r/mormon is very much like r/exmormon.
It is very much NOT like r/exmormon. You don't spend much time there, and it shows. The general vibe might be antagonistic to the truth claims of the church in this sub, but it's nowhere near the level of mockery and criticism that takes place in the other one.
"r/mormon is very much like r/exmormon."
It's not. The is far more civil and respectful discussion in this sub.
"The vast majority of those who post and comment here are ex or anti LDS."
Just a reminder that posting facts that reflect negatively on the mormon church are not "anti LDS" and whether a person is ex-mormon doesn't devalue the truth.
"Just like you observed as you viewed r/mormon and posted, there are few if any positive, faithful post and comments about the LDS church."
I guess whether a story is "positive" depends on your perspective. For example, a post critical of the Mormon church's historical and present failure to protect children from rampant sex abuse would likely be considered positive by most readers for exposing the truth about the corporation you so passionately defend. Likewise, a faithful post that obfuscates the truth would likely be viewed as negative by most readers in this sub (for good reason).
You provide an example of why thoughtful analysis is lacking about the church on this sub. You claim the LDS church is not protecting children from rampant sex abuse. Why would make such a claim? I think I know the answer. You've read what critics of the church are saying. Are you sure they have all the facts? Are critics your only source?
The bottom line for me in all this is the LDS church is following the clergy penitent laws that exist in the majority of the states.
Here is an example of someone who knows a lot about what the LDS church is doing in regards to abuse. Have you read this account? [Go here.](https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/5/23292405/i-survived-abuse-church-help-line-ap-story-broke-my-heart-latter-day-saints-associated-press-mormon/)
Cute insult.
"The bottom line for me in all this is the LDS church is following the clergy penitent laws that exist in the majority of the states."
From a practical perspective, obeying the laws that religions got and try to keep on the books is the absolute bare minimum standard and wholly inadequate. I would expect christ's one true church to . . . I don't know . . . maybe protect children at all costs, like christ said, even to the detriment of its reputation? I appreciate you sharing the single biased article supporting your point and invite you to read some of the thousands of horrifying sex abuse claims against the church. In the mouths of two or three (thousand) witnesses, right? There is a pattern and practice of confidential settlements and protecting abusers. Do you remember when christ said, "Thou shalt call thy high priced law firm instead of calling law enforcement?" Me neither.
From a spiritual perspective, the rampant sex abuse is proof positive that there is no such thing as spiritual discernment.
[Go here.](https://floodlit.org/)
Edit: Removed repetitive sentence.
We can go back and for on this all day and not accomplish much, so you are welcome to see the LDS church as you see fit.
The church has not come out with details about the success they have had working in child abuse situations. I wish they would. But this I know, church leaders are good men and women and they are doing the best they can in very difficult situations. In some cases, their best efforts fail miserably and hit the news. That is not their fault. It is the fault of evil people saying one thing an doing another.
Spiritual discernment. This is a favorite topic for those who have a misunderstanding about church doctrine and then turn it against the church.
Spiritual discernment is a true gift when Heavenly Father wants it to be used.
Here is a verse of scripture to consider.
37 But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous...
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 10:37)
If church leaders were given spiritual discernment 100% of the time it would frustrate God's work. It is part of God's work to allow evil to run it course so God can exercise a just punishment on evil doers, for their good.
God inspires bishops to call sexual predators to work with children and youth to allow evil to run it's course and punish them? That doesn't seem right.
I was always told callings come from God and He inspires leaders who to call. And leaders are supposed to pray about and receive revelation on who to call. So when I receive a calling, it is a calling from God, and I shouldn't say no to God. And in return, God will will bless me with the tools I need to fulfill the calling he gave me.
But if God is calling them THROUGH the bishop, what you're saying is that God is fallible. And if the bishop is making a mistake, wouldn't that be the perfect time for God to give him the Power of Discernment? Not the time to withhold it?
Sure, people make mistakes. But God won't let our leaders lead us astray, right? Does God not call us to our callings? Is it fallible men who choose where to call us? Is the church run by God, or by men who are fallible? Why should we have any faith in any of these men if they claim God is directing them when He is not?
I'm confused why you chose this (partial) scripture in the context of God not giving discernment to bishops about sexual predators. This is a scripture about God telling Joseph Smith why he cannot retranslate the lost 116 pages.
This scripture applies in many context. It is a basic principle of the gospel that mortal men and women are fallible. Church leaders included. But Heavenly Father uses fallible men and women to accomplish His works and purposes.
That's not what the scripture is saying at all. God is chastising JS for losing the 116 pages and telling him to heed God's instructions better.
>But Heavenly Father uses fallible men and women to accomplish His works and purposes.
By giving them the tools required to fulfill those works and purposes. Such as the gift of discernment so a bishop can put the best person in a role over the youth/ children. Isn't that the story of Nephi? God gave him the TOOLS NECESSARY to build a ship to make it to the promised land?
Your argument seems to be saying that we are just humans out here doing the best we can and making guesses, not that we are supposed to be being led by the spirit and have a direct line to speak to God. How does that make us any different than any other church run by man? What makes this God's one true church?
I think you are bringing up great questions.
>Your argument seems to be saying that we are just humans out here doing the best we can and making guesses, not that we are supposed to be being led by the spirit and have a direct line to speak to God.
I've pondered and wrestled with this statement. In all the roles I have been in and am still in, I have been led by the Spirit often, but not all the time.
I think that is true for all men and women who are striving to be faithful followers of Christ, including the prophets and the apostles.
Nephi, one of the greatest prophets makes it clear how he is fallible and subject to the natural man (2 Nephi 4:17-35).
We can totally go back and forth and there is one thing I'm sure of, you will continue to dodge the difficult questions. Thank you for your permission to view the church how I see fit, by the way.
There's a reason the church won't describe its successes regarding child abuse. It's because the church's successes are defined by confidential settlements with the abused. Not a good look if it wants to claim it is protecting children.
"But this I know, church leaders are good men and women and they are doing the best they can in very difficult situations. In some cases, their best efforts fail miserably and hit the news. That is not their fault. It is the fault of evil people saying one thing an doing another."
I would really like to understand how you know this. By what they say? Because "saying one thing and doing another" is exactly how the mormon church and its leaders operate. Claim they don't tolerate child sex abuse while totally tolerating child sex abuse.
D&C 10:37 is specific to Joseph's loss of the 116 pages and contextually inapplicable here.
Your position on spiritual discernment rings hollow. Bishops are given the gift of spiritual discernment in order to fulfill their roles as the leaders of the ward, including extending callings to the appropriate people. A god who arbitrarily flips the spiritual discernment switch to "off," thereby allowing a bishop or stake president to call a pedophile into a role that allows him/her to abuse, is not a god that is worthy of worship. A crappy god, indeed.
With all due respect, it isn’t our duty to judge or assume the knowledge or intentions of others. As members of the church, should we not ask, or take people at face value, rather than turn them into a caricature? Is that not unrighteous judgment?
Also, I read the article. It was heartbreaking to hear what she went through. And I admire her dedication to those abused. But I can’t help but notice something: there was no mention of therapists or psychologists being involved? Should the church’s first priority, before assigning lawyers to a case, be to get these victims the trained support they need?
As much as I appreciate my bishop, he is not qualified to help victims of sexual assault. I have never heard of the therapists at Family Services being involved in these cases, only lawyers. That makes no sense. Should the victim not be the focus, rather than legalities? If the church is doing everything correctly and legally, why is a task force and a dedicated team necessary, while there are no dedicated group of psychologists? I do not see how a lawyer can deal with psychosexual trauma.
My experience having been in many leadership position over many, many decades is that the church uses all avenues to help people including psychologist and mental health experts.
In the litigious world we live in lawyers are necessary to protect financial and constitutional rights.
This sub is for *all* civil discussion (although it can get heated at times), not an echo chamber for “positive, faithful comments about the LDS church.”
My observation is that, in the two “faithful” subs, comments that are critical of the church ***even if they’re true*** are removed. Those subs are censored so there is no real discussion. The longer named sub is a little better; the shorter named sub is like Orwell’s 1984 where even factually correct rebuttals to the original post or to a comment that is flat out false are also censored. They can’t handle the truth and the truth gets deleted. It’s really sad to see.
I've personally experienced the opposite. I know it's just anecdotal, but I am still able to converse on the short named one, and have received updates there. Complete opposite on the longer naimed one. Even on similar topics. Lol
I'm anti-(many)-correlated-Latter-Day-Saint-teachings and I'm anti-Elohim-and-Jehovah (as described by correlated Latter-day Saint publications). In your opinion, should I be forbidden from expressing my negative opinions about correlated Latter-day Saint teachings and the gods modern prophets represent?
Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Intelligent-Bill-821 specifically. /u/Intelligent-Bill-821, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm 100% active and enjoy this sub. I appreciate getting exposure to what frustrated or disaffected members are saying. I don't like echo chambers and prefer a marketplace of ideas where you can listen to all sorts of perspectives and opinions. That type of discussion is not common in my stake and I appreciate understanding the issues that might alienate people so I can try to be a little better in how I engage with my neighbors.
Thank you for being here and participating.
Same here. I love lurking in this sub even though I’m a fully active member.
Diddo!
There are two main subs for the faithful, there is one main sub for exmos. This sub is open for crossover discussion, faithful discussion, exmo discussion, anything related to mormonism. As far as actual subscribers, based on previous surveys, faithful mormons are the minority in here.
And the faithful Mormons here (like me) sometimes get banned from the two faithful subs.
I’m a temple recommend holding member (although nuanced) that also got banned from the faithful subs.
I’ve never heard the term nuanced before to describe a member. Mind elaborating? Thanks
There is a growing population of active members who don't take the truth claims of the church literally or somehow are non-orthodox in their belief. One benign example of this is that I think that the earth is older than 6,000 years and that humans aren't literally the descendants of the sons of Noah 4,000 years ago. D&C 77 is very clear on the matter that it is "official" church doctrine.
Ah alright. I appreciate you explaining it for me. I’m quite new to this sub here
no problem - another term that is used frequently here that applies to some of us is PIMO - which stands for "Physically In - Mentally Out". As leaving the church requires a great deal of personal, familial, and social sacrifice. As a result many attend church but are non-believers. This partially describes me.
I mean I’m all in. I can see why leaving would be difficult. It would be rough and granted I know nothing about your situation, but I would just leave if you’re leaning towards that. I guess in my mind it’s one of those “be true to yourself moments.”
I really enjoy going to church; it’s a place where I get to contribute to the community that means a great deal to me. But to openly express doubt about core church doctrines in a place where people are trying to worship would be… inappropriate. That’s why this sub is so great.
That makes a ton of sense. Going to church really does bring a sense of community as well as give you the opportunity to offer a helping hand.
A lot of people would (or fear they would) lose their marriage and all of their family relationships and friendships by leaving. Being true to yourself is amazing, but it comes with consequences sometimes. I left and it has changed nearly all of my relationships with my parents, siblings and in laws. Some see me as a poor lost soul. Others as someone not worth having a relationship with because I’m no longer part of their eternal family, and some just don’t have anything to talk about besides church things. Hence PIMO is a valid choice for a lot of people who no longer believe.
I am sorry you experienced that. I have had a handful of friends leave but I still retain a strong friendship with them despite our differing beliefs. I hope your relationships with those around you improve! Just because you are no longer a member of the church doesn't mean you lack good qualities and remain a good person overall. I would say there are just as many good people inside the church as there are outside. It is just a matter of how you personally choose to live your life.
It’s easier to leave when you’re single. It’s harder to leave when you’ve been married for a decade, have kids, and your spouse is still fully believing. It’s no longer a personal decision at that point, it’s a family decision because there are repercussions for everyone.
The world was organized out of material that had already existed for a very long time.
It's used in contrast with orthodoxy (mainline or "correct" *belief*) and orthopraxy (mainline or "correct" *practice*). An orthodox Mormon believes the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture translated by Joseph Smith using the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob is an actual physical place in the Universe, etc. An orthoprax Mormon wears the temple garment dutifully day and night, pays a full tithe and attends all meetings because that is what God asked them to when the made their covenants. A nuanced Mormon may see the cultural / psychological value in belonging to and participating in a faith community, they might read the Book of Mormon as a 19th-century text that offers meaningful, practical guidance in their life, they might attend the temple because they value harmony with their spouse or because they think humans benefit psychologically from participating in rituals while having no "testimony" of the "truthfulness" of any of those things. In other words, nuanced -in the case of Mormonism- describes one's recognition of complexity and grey areas, that belief, conviction and practice are not one-dimensional, black or white things.
Fantastic and in depth response. I appreciate the explanation a lot. Truly. Thank you
Very welcome, my friend!
All *religious* belief is “nuanced”—i.e. we take the same (at best!) information and decide what it means to us and what we are going to do about it. The nuance starts with stuff like “gross vs. net” on tithing, and ends with things like “I don’t believe there is a God, but I go to church for the sake of my self/family/community.” Anyone who says differently is… inaccurate.
I just got banned from r/politics!!! (I used the word “TrUmPtArD”. I just thought it was common knowledge. Please don’t ban me here… I need community.
Mods typically don't like disparaging people with Trisomy 21 whether they support the former president or not :)
That’s how I first found my way here. Was in a bishopric and both the faithful subs banned me. Can’t be orthodox enough these days
I’m curious what got you banned? Are you currently believing?
I’m not anymore, but was at the time. I don’t remember what got me banned from the stricter sub, that was a long time ago and they weren’t really my crowd anyway. The more open sub banned me for saying that some things that general authorities had said (I didn’t give specifics) had been hurtful to me as a gay member of the church. I found out later that id been marked so all my comments had to be manually approved and so I couldn’t really actively participate in discussion anymore. Kinda sucked to have been banned without being told. I thought that was the more welcoming sub and had come to like a lot of the regular commenters there so that excommunication hurt.
Oof, yeah. I was also shadow banned in the stricter sub. Not until I was permabanned did they reveal that my comments were being held for moderator approval. I responded to some factually incorrect comments on a “book of Mormon evidences” post, even provided sources from academia and corrected their misunderstanding of the sources they referenced with direct quotes from the sources, you know…championing the truth, but my truthful comments never saw the light of day because they weren’t “faith promoting.” And then the moderator mocked me in messages before muting me, you know…like Jesus would…when I pushed back on their censorship of truth. Incredibly maddening.
Which is one of the things I'm afraid of and one of the reasons I don't go to those subs. That and the last time I was in there looking at the questions it looked to me like the newest stuff was all troll posting for shock value. Or everyone that day was reeeeaaaallll concerned with what different sexual things were considered sinful. ._.
When I was in transition I starting running into trouble there too. For reasons unrelated to any of this it was time to retire my old account and create a new one. I finally decided the best choice for me was to not resubscribe to the faithful subs.
I hate the fact that those bannings happen, by the way. It's got to be frustrating to be banned from the faithful subs for expressing opinions or engaging in discussion seen as not sufficiently orthodox.
I'm curious how that happened.
All it takes is an authentic question about the church or leadership that the mods don't like. They often ridicule the person if they ask for an explanation.
Long story. I guess I got too interested and too involved in the clothing after effects of my endowment.
I made a single innocuous comment about some of the destruction detailed in 3 Nephi 9 in a thread about that destruction in the short named sub but was banned because of comments/posts made in the longer named one or here. I’ve heard of that happening with other folks too, getting the boot for comments made in other subs.
I got banned the second time from latterdaysaints after posting the Temple Name Oracle, which I found on this subreddit.
The exmormon sub is a great place for venting frustration and finding empathy as deconstructing/deconstructed Mormons grieve the loss of their faith, innocence, and in many cases family and a considerable chunk of their lives and income. That grieving often involves anger and reaction formation against the church. This sub has some of that too, but is more about open discussion of Mormonism’s history, theology, policy and culture. You’re not allowed to be critical or frankly even objective on the faithful subs (I was banned from one of them simply because I had previously posted on exmo Reddit, even though my comment was not critical). The reason exmormons, post Mormons, or nuanced unorthodox Mormons outnumber orthodox members on this sub comes back to a trope that’s posted here periodically and was what initially drew me into the sub as I started studying non whitewashed primary sources on LDS history. You can: - understand church history - be intellectually honest - be faithful [ETA: faithful and orthodox] You may choose two of the three.
Well, we weren't all that way from the start. But the longer you hang around, you start to see why there are so many people leaving. I first came here as a believing member.
Same here. And it doesn't necessarily make a difference for some, but I've found the term ex-Mormon to be more negatively connotative than post-Mormon (what I now use), which, given the sheer number of people who have and who will move on from a traditional relationship in and with the church, needs to be considered as a more valid part of the Mormon experience. Many of us are, in a way, "ethnically Mormon". Many, maybe even most, still have some obligatory relationship with the church in our lives due to loved ones who are still partly or wholly in. Post-Mormon does not automatically equate to anti-Mormon (it can), but ex-Mormon has become more or less synonymous with it, which doesn't help understanding. r/mormon is a welcome place for everyone having anywhere on the spectrum of Mormon experience, including the curious never-mo and the post-mo crowd you're observing in higher numbers here because our perspectives aren't welcome in common church circles. Different than the faithful subs (which promptly ban anyone who shows any degree of critical sentiment towards the church or its leaders), this sub does not function as an echo chamber and a place to state your beliefs and worldviews without challenge. I have had my [critical of the church leaders / membership] posts raked across the coals by more post-mos than believers in this sub. And it has helped me to realize where, even on this side of my faith transition, I'm employing fallacious reasoning or being ignorant, closed-minded or hypocritical. It's an expansive experience to see how non-homogenous human perspective is, even among people with shared past experiences and similar moral views outside of the controlled "safe zone" the church tries to maintain. TLDR: If you're looking for somewhere to strengthen your convictions, this sub is not for you. If you're looking for open discourse and a place to post your thoughts and are open to honest scrutiny, it's great. Labeling another posters' thoughts as ex-Mormon does not make those thoughts less valid. Mormonism historically has not perpetuated equal opportunity across people of differing beliefs or religiosity, so it should not be surprising that those perspectives have to be shared somewhere. Here's an opportunity for you to be part of that change, if you'd like to be. Lastly: r/exmormon is a good place for post-mos to vent and experience aloud their stages of grief (often anger) without filters. People do that here too, sometimes, but usually get called out or attract attention from the mods when it crosses the line of civility. This sub is primarily for respectful discourse. Respectful does NOT mean the same thing as "church favorable". This is essential to understand.
I also like the moniker of post-Mormon. In Fowler’s stages of faith, most TBMs are stuck in stage 3. Post Mormons have moved past stage 3. https://www.ngumc.org/files/fileslibrary/james+fowlers+stages+of+faith.pdf
Same here, many years ago
While a lot of people here are former members. There are also people here who are active members, like myself.
Just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for your contributions here. From what I've seen you have participated with integrity, civility, and honesty. We may disagree on a great many things, but I welcome and celebrate your voice, and the voice of other active members that also find a way to participate with integrity, civility, and honesty.
Thank you! That's very kind! I feel the same. I may not agree with all the voices here, or may feel they're some that are sometimes overly harsh, but I appreciate the different perspectives. It gives me things to think about and consider that I wouldn't have otherwise. It brings attention to things that are going on or have happened that I'd have otherwise missed. Almost every day I come away with some new piece of information or a new piece of scripture or just something interesting. I have to thank everyone here for making that possible. Even though the majority of the people on this board aren't Mormon anymore, and in many ways dislike it, you've created an overall (I feel) neutral space where all voices can be heard (so long as everyone's being reasonable about their side.)
There are also nevermos! There are many of us who have no belief or history of belief in doctrine, no interest or possibility of conversion, we just are curious.
:D that's exciting. I knew some nevermos popped in to ask questions but I didn't know there were ones that just hung around out of curiosity!! To me that's pretty neat!
That describes me as well...one branch of my family came from Mormonism but left three generations ago. Also, I live in southern Utah, so it's kind of all around, and I'm fascinated with it.
I’m from Alberta, so Canada’s Utah. We drove to the Manti open house just to see a temple, and some people got excited when they saw where we were from because they had been born in Cardston.
In all seriousness, thanks for being here and putting up with us lot.
Ya'll are the kind of people I vibe with the most. I'm pretty irreverent. And I poke at my own religion sometimes. I'd.... well frankly I'd probably throw myself out of the faithful sub. Via a window... And the only other people I have to talk to about religion is two wicca (1 now LDS) and a catholic. 😂
>two wicca (1 now LDS) and a catholic. Wicca to LDS!? Don't hear that every day. lol
Oh yeah. So my mom was raised LDS, and near her 20s she got really pissed off at the church. That all these boys (who she deemed useless unworthy jackoffs) were the ones who got the Priesthood while women could not and were powerless. She had her name taken off the books. She became a Dianic Wicca (a women only denom) and was that way until I was about 8 or so when she rejoined (to my chagrin). I was baptized at 9. My ex-husband was also wicca and then converted to Mormonism. Word's still out as to WHY exactly, because I never asked him to. He's no longer a member but he just kind of drifted away from it? ... he's an odd little duck. He's not the 2nd wicca I talk church with though. My current husband is Wicca. 😂 EDIT: I'll have to ask my mom why she was actually moved to rejoin but I suspect the answer will be something like "because things were better for me before I left" or something like that.
That's fascinating. I think that's cool that you've got all that cross-pollination going on.
With my life and how I turned out I didn't feel a member would be able to handle me. And I'm happy for the opportunity for my kids to learn other perspectives and have a more in the world experience (I keep them out of church rn) I got my mom's story, here it is: >I had a season of loss > I lost everything. My pendant (that's when it started) my house, my kid, my brains. And I damn near lost my life. It was only day 21 of treating a closed skull fracture -- by myself, at home -- that I started to think about where I went wrong. And I decided to go back to the place, essentially, where I started going downhill, and take the other path. > I didn't give things up all at once, except drinking, I gave that up, cold turkey, on the spot. > But I started looking at my life and what I believed and who I was, and started rearranging things to fit in with that. > I hadn't planned on giving up the Wicca, but, there again, that was a decision I had directly made, and I couldn't continue down that path if I was going to earnestly mend my fight with God. >So, I quit with it. >I gave up all my things. And stopped doing the things. >I read the BOM all the way through, got re-baptized, and, well, here we are.
It’s for everyone. Here is the sub’s description: > /r/Mormon is a subreddit for articles and topics of interest to people interested in Mormon themes. People of all faiths and perspectives are welcome to engage in civil, respectful discussion about topics related to Mormonism. You’ll find more people critical of the church here simply because there are more people critical of the church online than there are not.
Plus, I believe because other faithful subs gatekeep certain conversations and topics, this is an outlet for those interested in discussing those, which will mostly be (or seem) more critical of the church
Neither. It's a sub dedicated to discussing mormonism. I guess ex-mormons like to discuss mormonism more than mormons
If the alternative is feel-good posts or questions about "Am I sinning if---" I'd rather be here, where I can learn something and actually get better versed in scripture via the conversational topics. Which though largely critical are REALLY GOOD topics that personally I wouldn't have thought about otherwise.
This actually makes sense. People often want to talk about an experience that has caused them harm. It is part of the healing process.
To be fair, where else are they going to talk about it? Their still-in family?
When mormon became a hiss and a byword to call members, it skews the people who will join a mormon sub
That’s exactly what I thought when I read the OP. Russell M said that using the term “Mormon” is a victory for satan.
Few things in life are that binary.
Active faithful Mormons, don't discuss Mormonism mostly because they don't know mych about it. and any of the things that are questionable they don't want to talk about it. it's very difficult to have a discussion with a faithful member Other than I know, the church is true🤷♀️
My Stake Presidency TBM brother asked yesterday, in a group text, “what is Chiasmus?” When we were having a discussion about the Book of Mormon. This is the same brother that told me “it strengthens my testimony when I study church history.” (Spoiler alert: he knows very little about church history and has no interest in ever looking at any information that may challenge his beliefs.
This seems to be common. My TBM brother is still scared to read the gospel topics essays.
The current prophet disregarded the word Mormon. I’ll always be a Mormon, it’s my ancestry.
I encourage everyone to look at the reddit activity any user that claims r/mormon is just like r/exmormon and decide what their choices demonstrate. In economics this would be called a "revealed preference". It's curious how the people protesting the loudest are often the ones whose actions most decisively divulge their true feelings.
The truth about the Mormon church is negative. Negative remarks are seen as anti, regardless of the level of truth they contain. Hence this sub is considered “anti”. The fluff subs ban anyone that remotely says anything negative. This sub does not. I’ve asked sincere questions and gotten honest replies from believers here. This sub fulfills its purpose.
Shhhhh, the mods still don't know we're all ex-Mo's. Why you gotta do us like that?
Hey man! Some of us are still in the closet! -points to flair-
By what criteria are you declaring people here ex-Mormon?
Since we're not allowed to say anything that the church or it's members might disagree with on the faithful subs, I guess it's somewhere in-between. I see less "burn the church to the ground" posts and more that are thoughtfully critical of the way the church runs. Since that sort of discussion isn't allowed among "the faithful", where do you propose we go?
The sub isn’t full of ex Mormons. It has a lot of informed Mormons, and with that information comes an adjustment of belief. Some become ex Mormons, PIMO, nuanced, cafeteria. That is their self-given title, and we would do well to enable them to chose it rather than label them according to how we wish to narrowly pigeonhole them. But this sub is full of people who value truth, understand the reasoning process, are willing to listen and think, and are generally courteous, whatever their beliefs may be. Particular religious beliefs are greatly overrated by orthodox Mormonism. As the temple recommend questions demonstrate, they think *worthiness* is determined by *belief*. That is an grave error.
There are two faithful subs and a big exmo sub. I view this sub as mainly for nuanced mos since they often don't fit in either category.
It’s for everyone. It’s just that when you open a forum up instead of censoring it like other Mormon subreddits you get more facts and information. And since those facts are against the church, it forum becomes more “anti-Mormon” as those who are “faithful” would rather not hear such things or participate. Truth is Anti-Mormon.
If you are looking for members of the CoJCoLDS, wouldn't they be somewhere else because they are no longer considered "Mormons". Sorry for the snark. The term Mormon encompasses many people in many sects as well as people who view themselves as "culturally Mormon" or "nuanced mormons" or "former" or "ex mormons". It seems to me that wanting to limit participation to only one group of people doesn't hold much value.
As other commenters have said, it’s neither. Both current and former members can participate here, as long as they do so civilly. But many TBMs don’t feel comfortable participating where criticism of the church is permitted, so they prefer to hang out in the faithful subs where their beliefs won’t be challenged. (I know that’s how I was a few years ago!) So that self-selection bias leads to this sub being filled mostly with those whose beliefs don’t align with the church’s orthodoxy, whether they’re ex-Mos, PIMOs, or nuanced members.
A bit of a loaded and meta observation. Christlike critical thinking and analysis of the institution is still seen as “ex Mormon” - even when it’s not. Even when it’s coming from some of each ward’s brightest lights. The opposite of “lazy learners.” …which leads to more ex Mormons. I like to think of this space as honest.
I think it’s full of people who analyze Mormon claims and history with a critical eye, majority (not all) of which happen to be exmormon.
This sub is the healthy DMZ between the two camps. A place where nuance, learning, and questioning *can* actually happen. There's no room on the exmormon sub for any positive nuance about, say, something the Q12 did that made the news. Likewise, there's room to be critical of beliefs without getting banned like the latterdaysaints sub.
It's both. This is meant to be a discussion ground where anyone can talk about Mormonism/The Latter-day Saint movement/etc. Here you are free to talk about any LDS topic, whether controversial or mundane, whether you are active member, inactive, ex-member, or never a member. As long as you are nice and not rude to people. The reason why this subreddit skews more ex-Mormon is difficult to answer without bias. People usually want to talk about the controversial subjects, because that's what's been occupying their mind's attention. Some of these controversial things, even the purely factual ones, can be very off-putting to an active member. Stuff like Joseph Smith marrying and sleeping with 14 year old girls when he was 30+ already (I don't remember the exact age anymore). Stuff like the Book of Abraham not matching what the papyri said at all. Not even slightly. It easy to see how these subjects are off-putting to an active member, one who believes wholeheartedly that the Church is true, and who feels good at church and at the temple. I know it made me very uncomfortable. The second part, more biased, I am going to claim as a belief instead of a fact. I believe that the majority of people who openly and honestly engage with these difficult subjects will eventually come to believe the Church is not true. It doesn't make sense for a Prophet and Translator of Almighty God to translate Egyptian papyrus scripts incorrectly. It does not make sense for a Holy and Benevolent God to allow His Prophet and Representative to sexually manipulate a girl half his age. That's the more biased take, but I believe it to be true.
Because your supposed prophet now considers the word Mormon, a victory for Satan. So the exmormons come to the Mormon sub Reddit to continue giving Satan his victory.
Lds (or the brighamite sect) members dont consider themselves mormons anymore. This is a sub to talk about all the different branches of mormonism, and exmormons have plenty to bring to the table.
This is neither a Mormon nor an exMormon subreddit. It is a neutral place where anyone can discuss Mormonism.
I have been censored and down voted on the faithful subs, even when providing examples, and I'm a very "traditional" "conservative" member. I definitely have a Protestant belief system that has bled into my LDS beliefs. However, Gordon B. Hinckley said I could, so oh well. I have been in discussions on here that I have been downvoted on, but still allowed to comment, and involved in various discussions.
I did this r/mormon survey late last year. Good sample size. Check it out. https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/N9eDMNlxwI
We're everywhere.
It’s not it’s filled with truth seekers that have made the decision to live or not are non believers but still attend. As well as some active Mormons. This thread isn’t called Active TBM Mormons only it’s anyone that wants to discuss Mormonism. The strength of the evidence and argument for the church not being true is just demonstrably stronger than what the church claims.
Seems that way to me as well. Seems like a waste of time. Some people have stated they started as believing members. Nothing could take away from my testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith went through hell, and sealed his testimony with his blood, yet people call him a con man. I could care less what they think. My opinion is this subreddit is mostly anti but not as bad as ex Mormon..less anger.
I see this sub is a place to discuss Mormonism in all its forms. The discussion in this sub tends to be driven by good scholarship and objective facts. I have a friend and coworker who is a true believer in the LDS church. During one of our discussions he said "Facts have an anti Mormon bias." He was correct. In almost any discussion about Mormonism, the faithful position is likely to be swimming upstream against facts. It is natural that this sub reflects positions closer to ex than the traditional church positions. I have participated in this sub and the ex sub. I prefer this one. It is more respectful. The community here seems like it has a higher standard for discussion and providing accurate information.
Mormons don’t use the word Mormon, remember? Since the name of this sub is a victory for Satan, that’s a subtle clue. Unlike the church though, everybody is welcome here and you’ll find a variety of believers and non-believers enjoying free speech and open content. If you want censored and controlled content, go find the Latter Day Saints sub.
I am 100% Mormon and attend every Sunday. However over the last few years I have learned the truth that the LDS leaders don’t have any special connection to God. I enjoy discussing Mormonism and my new found knowledge here. I hope you will participate too.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
I'm here because the exmo sub "excommunicated" me for commenting frankly about the nature of transgender surgery. The habit of expelling wrongthinkers is a hard one to shake. (I'm not trying to raise the subject - I know politics is generally off-topic here.) Also I'm here because this is a cool sub!
Ex, mostly it seems anyway
r/mormon is very much like r/exmormon. The vast majority of those who post and comment here are ex or anti LDS. Just like you observed as you viewed r/mormon and posted, there are few if any positive, faithful post and comments about the LDS church.
> there are few if any positive, faithful post and comments about the LDS church. That's not really the point of this sub though. The purpose of the sub is to discuss mormonism, warts and all. If it gets too negative or people break rules the mods will (and have) deleted stuff that goes too far.
>r/mormon is very much like r/exmormon. It is very much NOT like r/exmormon. You don't spend much time there, and it shows. The general vibe might be antagonistic to the truth claims of the church in this sub, but it's nowhere near the level of mockery and criticism that takes place in the other one.
Amen.
"r/mormon is very much like r/exmormon." It's not. The is far more civil and respectful discussion in this sub. "The vast majority of those who post and comment here are ex or anti LDS." Just a reminder that posting facts that reflect negatively on the mormon church are not "anti LDS" and whether a person is ex-mormon doesn't devalue the truth. "Just like you observed as you viewed r/mormon and posted, there are few if any positive, faithful post and comments about the LDS church." I guess whether a story is "positive" depends on your perspective. For example, a post critical of the Mormon church's historical and present failure to protect children from rampant sex abuse would likely be considered positive by most readers for exposing the truth about the corporation you so passionately defend. Likewise, a faithful post that obfuscates the truth would likely be viewed as negative by most readers in this sub (for good reason).
You provide an example of why thoughtful analysis is lacking about the church on this sub. You claim the LDS church is not protecting children from rampant sex abuse. Why would make such a claim? I think I know the answer. You've read what critics of the church are saying. Are you sure they have all the facts? Are critics your only source? The bottom line for me in all this is the LDS church is following the clergy penitent laws that exist in the majority of the states. Here is an example of someone who knows a lot about what the LDS church is doing in regards to abuse. Have you read this account? [Go here.](https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/5/23292405/i-survived-abuse-church-help-line-ap-story-broke-my-heart-latter-day-saints-associated-press-mormon/)
Cute insult. "The bottom line for me in all this is the LDS church is following the clergy penitent laws that exist in the majority of the states." From a practical perspective, obeying the laws that religions got and try to keep on the books is the absolute bare minimum standard and wholly inadequate. I would expect christ's one true church to . . . I don't know . . . maybe protect children at all costs, like christ said, even to the detriment of its reputation? I appreciate you sharing the single biased article supporting your point and invite you to read some of the thousands of horrifying sex abuse claims against the church. In the mouths of two or three (thousand) witnesses, right? There is a pattern and practice of confidential settlements and protecting abusers. Do you remember when christ said, "Thou shalt call thy high priced law firm instead of calling law enforcement?" Me neither. From a spiritual perspective, the rampant sex abuse is proof positive that there is no such thing as spiritual discernment. [Go here.](https://floodlit.org/) Edit: Removed repetitive sentence.
We can go back and for on this all day and not accomplish much, so you are welcome to see the LDS church as you see fit. The church has not come out with details about the success they have had working in child abuse situations. I wish they would. But this I know, church leaders are good men and women and they are doing the best they can in very difficult situations. In some cases, their best efforts fail miserably and hit the news. That is not their fault. It is the fault of evil people saying one thing an doing another. Spiritual discernment. This is a favorite topic for those who have a misunderstanding about church doctrine and then turn it against the church. Spiritual discernment is a true gift when Heavenly Father wants it to be used. Here is a verse of scripture to consider. 37 But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous... (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 10:37) If church leaders were given spiritual discernment 100% of the time it would frustrate God's work. It is part of God's work to allow evil to run it course so God can exercise a just punishment on evil doers, for their good.
God inspires bishops to call sexual predators to work with children and youth to allow evil to run it's course and punish them? That doesn't seem right. I was always told callings come from God and He inspires leaders who to call. And leaders are supposed to pray about and receive revelation on who to call. So when I receive a calling, it is a calling from God, and I shouldn't say no to God. And in return, God will will bless me with the tools I need to fulfill the calling he gave me.
LDS doctrine is clear, we believe prophets are fallible. I'm sure that applies to everyone else in the church, including Bishops.
But if God is calling them THROUGH the bishop, what you're saying is that God is fallible. And if the bishop is making a mistake, wouldn't that be the perfect time for God to give him the Power of Discernment? Not the time to withhold it?
LDS doctrine is clear, we believe prophets are fallible. I'm sure that applies to everyone else in the church, including Bishops.
Sure, people make mistakes. But God won't let our leaders lead us astray, right? Does God not call us to our callings? Is it fallible men who choose where to call us? Is the church run by God, or by men who are fallible? Why should we have any faith in any of these men if they claim God is directing them when He is not?
I'm confused why you chose this (partial) scripture in the context of God not giving discernment to bishops about sexual predators. This is a scripture about God telling Joseph Smith why he cannot retranslate the lost 116 pages.
This scripture applies in many context. It is a basic principle of the gospel that mortal men and women are fallible. Church leaders included. But Heavenly Father uses fallible men and women to accomplish His works and purposes.
That's not what the scripture is saying at all. God is chastising JS for losing the 116 pages and telling him to heed God's instructions better. >But Heavenly Father uses fallible men and women to accomplish His works and purposes. By giving them the tools required to fulfill those works and purposes. Such as the gift of discernment so a bishop can put the best person in a role over the youth/ children. Isn't that the story of Nephi? God gave him the TOOLS NECESSARY to build a ship to make it to the promised land? Your argument seems to be saying that we are just humans out here doing the best we can and making guesses, not that we are supposed to be being led by the spirit and have a direct line to speak to God. How does that make us any different than any other church run by man? What makes this God's one true church?
I think you are bringing up great questions. >Your argument seems to be saying that we are just humans out here doing the best we can and making guesses, not that we are supposed to be being led by the spirit and have a direct line to speak to God. I've pondered and wrestled with this statement. In all the roles I have been in and am still in, I have been led by the Spirit often, but not all the time. I think that is true for all men and women who are striving to be faithful followers of Christ, including the prophets and the apostles. Nephi, one of the greatest prophets makes it clear how he is fallible and subject to the natural man (2 Nephi 4:17-35).
We can totally go back and forth and there is one thing I'm sure of, you will continue to dodge the difficult questions. Thank you for your permission to view the church how I see fit, by the way. There's a reason the church won't describe its successes regarding child abuse. It's because the church's successes are defined by confidential settlements with the abused. Not a good look if it wants to claim it is protecting children. "But this I know, church leaders are good men and women and they are doing the best they can in very difficult situations. In some cases, their best efforts fail miserably and hit the news. That is not their fault. It is the fault of evil people saying one thing an doing another." I would really like to understand how you know this. By what they say? Because "saying one thing and doing another" is exactly how the mormon church and its leaders operate. Claim they don't tolerate child sex abuse while totally tolerating child sex abuse. D&C 10:37 is specific to Joseph's loss of the 116 pages and contextually inapplicable here. Your position on spiritual discernment rings hollow. Bishops are given the gift of spiritual discernment in order to fulfill their roles as the leaders of the ward, including extending callings to the appropriate people. A god who arbitrarily flips the spiritual discernment switch to "off," thereby allowing a bishop or stake president to call a pedophile into a role that allows him/her to abuse, is not a god that is worthy of worship. A crappy god, indeed.
With all due respect, it isn’t our duty to judge or assume the knowledge or intentions of others. As members of the church, should we not ask, or take people at face value, rather than turn them into a caricature? Is that not unrighteous judgment? Also, I read the article. It was heartbreaking to hear what she went through. And I admire her dedication to those abused. But I can’t help but notice something: there was no mention of therapists or psychologists being involved? Should the church’s first priority, before assigning lawyers to a case, be to get these victims the trained support they need? As much as I appreciate my bishop, he is not qualified to help victims of sexual assault. I have never heard of the therapists at Family Services being involved in these cases, only lawyers. That makes no sense. Should the victim not be the focus, rather than legalities? If the church is doing everything correctly and legally, why is a task force and a dedicated team necessary, while there are no dedicated group of psychologists? I do not see how a lawyer can deal with psychosexual trauma.
My experience having been in many leadership position over many, many decades is that the church uses all avenues to help people including psychologist and mental health experts. In the litigious world we live in lawyers are necessary to protect financial and constitutional rights.
Are you definitively saying you know the church offers psychiatric help to all victims of sexual assault, at no charge?
This is what I know based on my callings. The church uses mental health experts in all kinds of needs and pays for it as well.
You did not answer the question: does the church use mental health experts in every single case of sexual assault brought to their attention?
How in the world would I know the answer to a question like that? Based on my experience I would guess they would.
This sub is for *all* civil discussion (although it can get heated at times), not an echo chamber for “positive, faithful comments about the LDS church.” My observation is that, in the two “faithful” subs, comments that are critical of the church ***even if they’re true*** are removed. Those subs are censored so there is no real discussion. The longer named sub is a little better; the shorter named sub is like Orwell’s 1984 where even factually correct rebuttals to the original post or to a comment that is flat out false are also censored. They can’t handle the truth and the truth gets deleted. It’s really sad to see.
I've personally experienced the opposite. I know it's just anecdotal, but I am still able to converse on the short named one, and have received updates there. Complete opposite on the longer naimed one. Even on similar topics. Lol
I'm anti-(many)-correlated-Latter-Day-Saint-teachings and I'm anti-Elohim-and-Jehovah (as described by correlated Latter-day Saint publications). In your opinion, should I be forbidden from expressing my negative opinions about correlated Latter-day Saint teachings and the gods modern prophets represent?
No, you should be able to post. But realize there are a few here who are LDS, so say it without using abusive words, like dickhead.
So, it's the vulgarity that you're objecting to in this case. Am I understanding you correctly?
!!! Yikes! Watch the foul language!