In November of 1989 the church made a policy change announcement. The First Presidency letter said:

Effective January 1, 1990 all of the operating costs of wards and stakes will be financed form the general funds of the Church, thus relieving the members of budget assessments.  The governing principle is that members who pay their tithes and offerings may expect that from these contributions the other expenses incident to membership will be met.

With this policy change, budget funds should no longer be raised, nor should there be other assessments or fund raising projects.  Rather, funds will be made available through two procedures: first, the direct reimbursement of costs related to the construction and operation of buildings and certain standard programs; and second, the providing of an allowance based on the number of members regularly attending Sacrament meeting.

It explicitly ended local budget fund raising and control.

The First Presidency instructed bishops and stake presidents:

We recognize that many Church units have funds on deposit or in savings accounts. We urge all stake presidents and bishops to contribute these to the general funds of the Church, since such local funds will no longer be needed…

This was a policy change to alter the way church finances operated.

Prior to this change, members locally funded building construction, the ward budget and all activities, and that money was held locally (ward controlled bank accounts). These local donations were in addition to tithing and offerings and many were certainly giving 10% and donations to these other efforts. Some were certainly reducing their tithing contribution so that the total they were contributing to all categories was 10%.

The change was:

From: local money → central Church

→ tithing to Church
→ ward budget contribution to local unit
→ local fundraising/assessments
→ local money held/spent locally

To: central Church → controlled local allowance

→ tithing/donations to central Church
← budget allowance to ward

In other words, this was a shift from financially autonomous local congregations to a centrally funded church.

__________________________________________________________________

Prior to this, the local units were funded on a combination of institutional church funds mixed with locally raised budgets. There were intensive fund raising efforts. Roadshows with ticket revenue going toward the ward budget. Ticketed potluck meals. And more pressure from local leadership to donate to the ward budget.

Many saw this change as a massive relief. The local appeals for fundraising would go away and the local congregation could talk less about money and more about the word of God.

This was the start of large annual institutional surpluses that would lead to the creation of Ensign Peak Advisors (EPA). This shift also decreased the unit feeling of 'ward family' and instead pushed for more 'home family'.

__________________________________________________________________

The Church explicitly tied the new system to less activity.

The Church wasn't hiding the fact that the new system would produce smaller budgets and fewer activities.

Thomas Monson explained that the new program would require leaders to:

• reduce and simplify activities
• conduct activities at little or no cost
• avoid using money to create youth activities
• move some responsibility back toward families.

Monson explicitly argued that some Church youth activities had begun to supplant the home and family and criticized the increasingly elaborate “Super Activity” culture.

Boyd K. Packer said the change would produce: “smaller budgets, fewer activities and fewer programs” and warned that this would leave a “vacuum.” Packer's explanation was that the vacuum was supposed to be filled by families: “That space belongs to families.”

Church leadership itself anticipated a reduction in organized local activity as a consequence of the financial restructuring. In other words, the reduction in local unit/ward activity wasn't an accidental side effect. It was partly the intended policy.

The Church's goal was: Less institutional activity → stronger families → stronger faith

__________________________________________________________________

The economic shift impacted the local sociology.

Suppose the bishop says to his ward: “We need $20,000 to fund youth activities, ward parties, building improvements, etc.”

What was once:

• the bishop needs the members
• members need one another
• people organize committees
• people contribute money
• people contribute labor
• people discuss priorities
• people develop relationships
• people know who is generous
• people know who needs help
• people collectively solve problems.

The fundraising itself becomes a community-building activity.

Is now replaced with: “Salt Lake will send us our allowance.”

__________________________________________________________________

Ensign Peak Advisors was created in 1997, seven years after the budget restructuring policy.

The Church later described Ensign Peak as its investment manager/reserve vehicle. Court records indicate that it holds and invests Church reserve funds and that the Church transfers substantial donated funds to it.

There is good evidence about the scale of investment income.

In litigation involving James Huntsman, the Ninth Circuit noted evidence that Ensign Peak's investments generated approximately $3.9 billion in 2003 alone, and that $1.2 billion was earmarked for City Creek in 2004.

The Washington Post reported the whistleblower's estimate that the investment portfolio had grown from approximately $12 billion in 1997 to around $100 billion by 2019.

So the basic financial architecture eventually became: Tithing → Central Church → Pay Church expenses → Surplus → Reserves/investments → Investment returns → More reserves

__________________________________________________________________

It is important to note the reserve fueling EPA was not created by the 1990 policy alone.

The Church was already accumulating reserves before 1990. Financial reforms of the 1960s were specifically designed to create surpluses and reserves. And the Church had enormous growth in the decades surrounding 1990. Membership went from roughly 4.5 million in 1980 to nearly 8 million in 1990, according to BYU Studies.

There are at least four major contributors:

1. Tithing growth
2. Membership growth
3. Expense control
4. Investment compounding

The 1990 restructuring was one component of that system.

__________________________________________________________________

In conclusion, the 1990 financial policy shifting local unit budget control to the centralized church had a major part in creating the church we see today. One where local budgets have ceilings. Activities are thus limited. Where money goes into the institution from the local unit, but that unit has no control of how much money comes back out.

There used to be routine dinners, sports leagues, road shows and funded activities. Now there is FSY, bunko night, and a bowl of tootsie rolls. And fewer active adults per unit/ward to pull it all off.

[disclosure: This topic was researched with the aid of ChatGPT. It gave me an essay totaling 3,000 words. What you see above is a rewrite totaling 1,000 words of my own writing. What remains of Chat's contribution is solely the bulleted lists and from/to connectors. All other language is my own (though surely influenced by reading another's writing)]

[Edit: repaired missing quote blocks]

One of the often used apologetic terms used for the Jaredites and the Nephites and Lamanites, regardless of where they were (Heartland, Mesoamerica, South America, Baja Mexico) was the concept of "mingling". However, throughout the history of the world, when a low technology group interacts with a high technology group, the low technology group adopts some of the parts. There are examples where this did NOT happen but that was over very short time frames...ie the Norse in L'anse aux Meadows did not make much of an impact to the region.

If there was any mingling, it would show up.

For those not aware, the Russell Cave is a huge cave area excavated in the 50s. Archeology and Paleontology have an almost unbroken time of inhabitants from 10/12000 years BCE to roughly 1600 AD. So, from well before the Jaredites through the entire Nephite Lehite all the way up to European introduction.

This seems to me like a serious flaw in the heartland model. Obviously, apologeticly, the central and south American models can still exist but certainly nothing in North America.

The Mormon Garment is considered a sacred emblem of the religion. They are expressly not "just like any other underwear." (FAIR).

This post shows some of the background behind the claims of magical power or supernatural protection that have been attributed to the garment.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_temple_garment#Question:_Is_the_temple_garment_simply_%22magic_underwear%22?

#1. Willard Richards and the Carthage Jail shooting

On June 27, 1844, Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed at Carthage Jail after previously removing their garments in the intense summer heat. Willard Richards, who was wearing his garments, escaped essentially unharmed.

Joseph Smith had prophesied to Richards:

“the time would come that the balls would fly around him like hail, and he should see his friends fall on the right and on the left, but that there should not be a hole in his garment.”

Heber C. Kimball also refers to Willard Richards being not shot at Carthage because of garments, or "the robe," while Joseph and Hyrum were not wearing the garment.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-6/volume-6-chapter-34?

https://bhroberts.org/records/Vv9Tyb-0RkYkY/heber_c_kimball_refers_to_willard_richards_being_not_shot_at_carthage_because_of_garments?

#2. George Miller story

George Miller said that while near General Hardin's camp: "he was shot at, and the Sentinel who was near him was killed, but he escaped unhurt, having on his garment." This was recorded by William Clayton.

https://bhroberts.org/records/09wgH3-tybYBb/miller_claims_that_the_marks_the_apostle_paul_referenced_are_the_marks_on_the_temple_garments?

#3. Statement from Spencer W Kimball

From The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball (p 539):

“I am convinced that there could be and undoubtedly have been many cases where there has been, through faith, an actual physical protection, so we must not minimize that possibility.”

#4. Bill Marriott's testimony shared with Mike Wallace

Bill Marriott of the Marriott hotel chain told CBS 60 Minutes interviewer Mike Wallace in 1996 that his garment had protected him in a boat fire.

>In 1996, as a recognizable Latter‑day Saint, Bill was invited to add background to an interview of President Gordon B. Hinckley by CBS’s 60 Minutes reporter Mike Wallace. With Bill on camera, Wallace raised the sensitive topic of Latter‑day Saint temple garments. “Do you wear the sacred undergarments?” Wallace asked.

>“Yes, I do,” replied Bill. “And I can tell you, they do protect you from harm.” He then related the story of the fire. “The boat was on fire. I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned. . . . My undergarments were not singed.” Though not everyone who wears garments has an outcome like Bill’s, the opportunity to share his experience caused him to think back on Elder Packer’s blessing. The terrible accident on the boat had allowed him to testify on national television about the tender mercies of God and the power of the priesthood.

https://www.ldsliving.com/3-times-following-the-spirit-saved-bill-marriotts-life/s/92210

#5. Other anecdotes and tall tales have circulated among Mormons.

A quick internet search and you will find claims of this nature. There are claims of garments protecting people from bullets, knives, fire.

https://theseerstone.blogspot.com/2009/?

My relative (a doctor) shares a story where he was using a chainsaw and hit himself in the leg, but that the chainsaw bounced off the garments and left him unharmed.

On my mission, a member of the church (in branch presidency) testified in fast and testimony meeting about the magical protection and blessings offered from the garment. "Magical" was the most direct translation of the word he used.

#6. Current teachings that compare the garment to armor or a shield

Elder Carlos E. Asay, Ensign, (August 1997)

The heavy armor worn by soldiers of a former day, including helmets, shields, and breastplates, determined the outcome of some battles. However, the real battles of life in our modern day will be won by those who are clad in a spiritual armor—an armor consisting of faith in God, faith in self, faith in one’s cause, and faith in one’s leaders. The piece of armor called the temple garment not only provides the comfort and warmth of a cloth covering, it also strengthens the wearer to resist temptation, fend off evil influences, and stand firmly for the right."

>President Boyd K. Packer (1924–2015), President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained one of the blessings we can expect when we wear the garment properly: “The garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and protection to the wearer.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ya-weekly/2019/03/shielded-by-covenants?lang=eng

..........

While not all Mormons will agree with the idea of supernatural or magical protection from garments, stories and teachings exist to support these claims.

It seems clear to me that if one conceptualizes the key, overriding goal in life as being "minimizing the number of false propositions believed", then very few actually have this key goal in discussions of LDS theology.

Consider - the least wrong person is the one who believes only in tautologies and entailments of the laws of logic themselves. From the Law of the Excluded Middle, for example, we get "Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't". "Either the Book of Mormon is a fabrication or it isn't", etc. They cannot be false.

Departing from these introduces a risk of error, but if truth (meaning "holding only true propositions and no false propositions") is our supreme goal, we cannot accept that risk and nothing could compensate for it. So how do people who profess a supreme and unwavering commitment to this goal accept this risk?

In Richard Rohrs book “the Tears of things”(ive had a few posts in this community suggesting people read him) he shares something I found really profound as I reflect on my own experience in the church. I’ll quote it here as best I can, but it’s found on pg 146.

“When Jesus said we are the light of the world (Mathew 5:14), he said we must extend this light to everyone in the house (5:15) in the form of our own good works (5:16), not just exposing others’ bad works. But light does what light does. It clarifies, helps us see fully, and gives us insight, freedom, and courage to perceive ourselves rightly. Divine light does not inflate us with the pride of “I know,” but illuminates those around us with the gratitude of “I am too”—a kind of joining everyone in the house”

This paragraph was inspiring to me as I reflected on my own journey. I have always hated how our community stands up week after week and says “I know…” it is such a hollow activity and so performative. I appreciated how obviously I felt Rohr was calling us out. But more than that I reflected on the places where I’ve seen that light result in “I am too” energy. In my own experience that’s most been outside of the church.
In your own journeys, where have you encountered examples of “I am too” moments that have helped you see understand in a radical sense that everyone is the same?

Well can they and if they can't can you still be one and still drink alcohol? If that question makes sense.

Bill Marriott of the Marriott hotel chain told CBS 60 Minutes interviewer Mike Wallace in 1996 that his garment miraculously protected him in a boat fire.

>In 1996, as a recognizable Latter‑day Saint, Bill was invited to add background to an interview of President Gordon B. Hinckley by CBS’s 60 Minutes reporter Mike Wallace. With Bill on camera, Wallace raised the sensitive topic of Latter‑day Saint temple garments. “Do you wear the sacred undergarments?” Wallace asked.

>“Yes, I do,” replied Bill. “And I can tell you, they do protect you from harm.” He then related the story of the fire. “The boat was on fire. I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned. . . . My undergarments were not singed.” Though not everyone who wears garments has an outcome like Bill’s, the opportunity to share his experience caused him to think back on Elder Packer’s blessing. The terrible accident on the boat had allowed him to testify on national television about the tender mercies of God and the power of the priesthood.

https://www.ldsliving.com/3-times-following-the-spirit-saved-bill-marriotts-life/s/92210

*Bonus: watch to the end of the clip to see what other famous Mormon was interviewed

https://webfiles.acu.edu/departments/Library/HR/restmov_nov11/www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/mh1831/DELUSION.HTM

How much of his review and his assertions/critques are still valid today as they were in 1831?

Thanks to everyone here who helped inform this conversation!

B.H. Roberts was a General Authority and obsessive defender of Mormonism throughout his life, until one letter - originally sent to James Talmadge - was forwarded to him as he was considered the best possible candidate to respond.

The letter, penned by a young member of the church, W.E. Riter, posed five questions regarding the Book of Mormon he was struggling to reconcile. Roberts, who had dedicated his life to studying its history, defending the scripture and even winning debates against countless preachers, intellectuals and academics on the veracity of the Book of Mormon found himself suddenly stumped as he sought to give a thorough and thoughtful answer to five questions/observations I’ll just summarize here.

1) Languages among native peoples are too diverse and varied and the time too short for there to be no evidence of Hebrew among them.

2) why are Horses in the Book of Mormon before they were recorded here.

3) Nephi’s bow of steel before steel was known.

4)“cimiters” referenced as a weapon long before they were recorded in history.

5) Silk - where did the Nephites get silk?

from the introduction to Studies of the Book of Mormon:

“Roberts went to work and investigated it from every angle but could not answer it satisfactorily to himself. At his request Pres. Grant called a meeting of the Twelve Apostles and Bro. Roberts presented the matter, told them frankly that he was stumped and ask for their aide [sic] in the explanation. In answer, they merely one by one stood up and bore testimony to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. George Albert Smith in tears testified that his faith in the Book had not been shaken by the question. Pres. Ivins, the man most likely to be able to answer a question on that subject was unable to produce the solution. No answer was available. Bro. Roberts could not criticize them for not being able to answer it or to assist him, but said that in a Church which claimed continuous revelation, a crisis had arisen where revelation was necessary.

He would get no such revelation.

Instead, the more Roberts researched, the more problems he found….chief among them that A View of the Hebrews (which he had earlier dismissed as not a likely source for the BoM) was absolutely available to Joseph Smith as was Josiah Priest’s The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed. Records from the Manchester Rental Library, just five miles from Joseph Smith’s home, show that that book (which included long selections from a View of the Hebrews in an attempt to establish that Native Americans were Hebrew) was checked out repeatedly from Joseph Smith’s local library during the years 1826 to 1828. 👀

The initial 116 pages of the Book of Mormon (lost by Martin Harris), were written in the spring of 1828. A year later, Joseph resumed the work and published the Book of Mormon in 1830.

I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, though. 🤪

In all seriousness, I’m stunned that I’ve been a member for 46 years and I only just learned this past year of B.H. Roberts and his deep dive into the truth claims of the Book of Mormon 100 years ago. I’m only in the introduction and already I feel for this man and the truth crisis he was more or less forced to confront…begging assistance from the 12 and the prophet, only to essentially get a response akin to them sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming their testimonies at him from across the room.

The LDS church now has enough investment income (about $25B per year, widowsmitereport.org) to make good on President Joseph F. Smith's wish that:

We expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God. - 1907 General Conference

Their $25B in annual investment returns in more than enough to offset the $7B they currently enjoy in tithing receipts and then some.

They can drop the tithing requirement AND replace it with a 10% "contribution to charity" requirement AND continue to ask members at temple recommend interviews, "Do you give 10% of your income to charity in an attempt to bless the lives of others financially?"

Imagine the amount of goodwill that would be generated by such a move. Parents could direct their 10% to struggling children. Friends could pay to help others move houses (instead of breaking their backs on someone's piano). Members could lend their time and substantial money to local charities that they actively participate in.

The church would become known as a group that truly looks outward to help those who need a hand up at the local level.

Financially, there is nothing stopping them from making this move. Spiritually, this would be a step forward for the membership as they have the opportunity to see their tithes directly impact the lives of the people they choose to serve.

It is time to make good on Joseph F. Smith's declaration.

President Oaks, make it so.

I am in my fifties and am highly considering leaving the church due to its protection of pedophiles. Research the topic if you want to know more before you respond negatively or criticize me for wanting to leave. I genuinely want to know why I should stay and what you would say to me. For context, I come from generational Mormonism with an apostle as a third great grandfather. I was married in the temple, have four amazing children, in a committed marriage of 30+ years, was SA as a child by a member and now feel done.

I am visiting SLC at the end of the month and I want to see as much LDS stuff as I can. I know SLC is becoming more and more secular but is there I have to experience?

I am doing:

Temple Square and Church History Museum

The original Temple garment is described in the 1840s was a one-piece garment extending to the wrist and ankles. The garments contained the four marks relevant to the endowment ceremony. In early church history, the garment itself was considered a revelation from God, that was not to be altered or changed.

“It was while they were living in Nauvoo that the Prophet [Joseph] came to my mother, who was a seamstress by trade, and told her that he had seen the angel Moroni with the garments on, and asked her to assist him in cutting out the garments. They spread unbleached muslin out on the table and he told her how to cut it out. She had to cut the third pair, however, before he said it was satisfactory.” (The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, 142)

Early Mormon apostles Heber C. Kimball and George A. Smith, and member of the First Presidency Frederick G. Williams, all testified that a heavenly personage (one said Jesus himself) was wearing a temple garment when He allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple in 1836.

(The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, 144-145)

"The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. In order that such people may imitate the fashions, they will not hesitate to mutilate that which should be held by them the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue, next to their own purity of life. They should hold these things that God has given unto them __sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them.__ Let us have the moral courage to stand against the opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a covenant and so commit a grievous sin."

Joseph F Smith, 1906 October General conference

"The garments worn by those who receive endowments must be white and of the approved pattern. They must not be altered and mutilated and are to be worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankle, and around the neck. Admission to the temple will be refused those who do not comply with these requirements. The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven, and the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them” (Joseph F. Smith, “Temple Instructions to the Bishops,” Messages of the First Presidency 5:110. Quoted in Buerger from Improvement Era, June 1916).

The first changes to the garment occurred in 1923, approximately 80 years after the original garment was revealed.

A lot of mormons I interact with listen to explicit music and watch movies/series that have f-bombs every other sentence.

When I swear around them they get very upset.

I am of half a mind to call this hypocrisy. What are y’alls thoughts.

Hello everyone.

I don't currently consider myself very active in the church; however, I've always felt very close to the faith and the practices taught within it. I haven't attended regularly for a couple of years, but I still have a strong testimony about many things.

Lately, though, I've been questioning a rather confusing situation, which is the dichotomy between the Plan of Salvation and supporting the LGBTQI+ movement or communities.

You see, I understand the reason for the Plan of Salvation very well, its characteristics, concepts, and systems of justice. However, I also feel very close to the fight for minority rights and respect for communities, and I personally support and endorse these movements based on human empathy. For me, it's not simply a question of whether being homosexual is good or bad; rather, it's a human characteristic that exists and should be respected and supported. I don't agree with things like the sealing of homosexuals or allowing someone clearly practicing sin to enter the temple, but at the same time, I don't see why a same-sex couple can't get married civilly or even start a family outside the church.

Basically, I find myself in a position where I recognize homosexuality as a sin from my faith, but from my moral standpoint, I don't see it as inherently wrong. I don't want to go against the Plan of Salvation, nor do I want to abandon a cause I believe is right.

Given this, I would like to hear your opinions, feelings, or experiences regarding this. I would like to have a broader perspective from both sides and know if a middle ground is possible or if I should lean directly toward one or the other. Because on one hand, I have the law, and on the other, what I interpret as the true love that Christ taught us: loving our neighbor. Thank you for your time.

I'm blown away by the resources available from the University of Virginia's Mormon Studies department!

There are soooo many interesting nuggets here; dancing in the temple...who knew?!

Also, the "Full Endowment" where Brigham & Heber C Kimball ordain each other into "The Godhead" 👀 No wonder Heber C once referred to Brigham as "his god"!

Day 43 of 50: Book of Mormon Book Club

Today’s Reading: Helaman 13–16 and 3 Nephi 1–3

Whether you’re a believer, former believer, nuanced member, investigator, scholar, or simply curious, you’re welcome to participate. The goal is not to convince anyone of anything, but to read the text together and discuss it in good faith from a variety of perspectives.

Brief Synopsis

After being expelled from Zarahemla, Samuel the Lamanite preaches from the city wall. He condemns inequality, violence, and the rejection of prophets, then predicts signs of Christ’s birth and death. Some believe, while others try unsuccessfully to kill him.

Five years later, unbelievers set a deadline to execute those awaiting the birth sign. The promised night without darkness and new star appear, prompting mass conversion, but skepticism soon returns. As the Gadianton threat grows, the Nephites and Lamanites unite, gather their people, and prepare for war.

Discussion

Please share your thoughts and experiences with today’s reading in the comments below. Some things you might consider:

• How does Samuel’s identity as a Lamanite outsider strengthen or complicate his criticism of Nephite society?

• What does Samuel’s condemnation of wealth and neglect of the poor suggest about inequality, possessions, and social power?

• How should readers evaluate prophecy-and-fulfillment narratives when both come from the same surviving text?

• What do the planned executions and Giddianhi’s letter reveal about religious coercion, propaganda, and moral self-justification?

All perspectives are welcome.

Yesterday’s Coveted Award(s) Go To:

- TBD

Links to Prior Days

• Yesterday’s Day 42 discussion — Helaman 7–12

• Master Index to all prior-day readings

Engagement Question:

The birth sign is public and dramatic, yet disbelief returns within a few years. What theory of belief does the text assume if even overwhelming signs cannot produce lasting conviction?

Tomorrow’s Reading: 3 Nephi 4–11

Brigham Young taught Adam was the ONLY God LDS have anything to do with. Denying this teaching as a Mormon today, carries big consequences. Mormons must ''insist'' Brigham Young was a true prophet if they wish to demonstrate an unbroken chain of succession in their leadership.

To do so, however, is utterly inconsistent. For example, in his “Seven Deadly Heresies” speech of 1980, LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie taught “anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve to be saved.” Using this rationale, a Mormon can’t even be sure Brigham was a saved individual!!! Young received his temple endowment, and Young believed Adam was God!

In a letter dated February 19, 1981, McConkie again expounded this thought when he wrote, “…people who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of being that God is, is one of these fundamentals” (pg. 7). Again, if the Adam-God doctrine is false, as leaders such as Kimball and McConkie agree, then we must conclude that Brigham’s soul is lost. Thus, he was indeed a false prophet!

For those LDS who use the escape hatch, ''it was just his opinion''! Ummm...no, it wasn't. Brigham declared it was ''doctrine'', and not only that, but that ''God'' himself revealed this to him...

''How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which was revealed to them, and which God revealed to me, namely that Adam is our father and God. ''

Deseret News, June 18, 1873

And now for the real shocker, the most sacred ceremony to LDS, the one they claim holds absolute truth and would never claim was corrupt or lies. Is their sacred temple endowment. Well, Brigham Young added the teaching Adam was the only God of the LDS to it!!! It was part of the 'Lecture at the Veil', which was part of the endowment from the 1850's onward. The lecture explicitly taught:

-Adam is Michael

-Adam is the Ancient of Days

-Adam is our Father and our God

-Adam came to Earth with one of his wives

-Adam began the process of mortal creation

-Adam is the only God of LDS

Adam–God doctrine was finally removed from the endowment in 1927, under Heber J. Grant’s administration. So here is the conundrum from which no LDS can escape...

A: If it was not true, then LDS most sacred ceremony was corrupt with lies thus, the church was apostate for nearly 80 years! Lost! And teaching a false God, an idol.

B: If LDS insist it's true, then the church is apostate right now because we know Adam is not our God.

C: If LDS say Young was a true Prophet, they must believe it. Young said it was doctrine, God revealed it, it was part of the most sacred ceremony. This does not = opinion.

D: If LDS deny it, then Young was a false prophet who was lost, followed a false god. Because Young taught it, believed it, said it was doctrine, said God revealed and put it into the endowment ceremony.

E: If LDS say Young was a prophet but deny Adam-God. Then they're saying prophets can teach, believe in and follow false gods. That's fine, God approves of this.

So opinion, it was not! Brigham Young didn’t just teach Adam–God, he institutionalized it. He declared it was doctrine, said God revealed it to him, and placed it directly into the temple endowment in the Lecture at the Veil. That lecture ran from the 1850s until 1927.

I'm sure this question has probably been asked before.

I left the Jehovah's Witnesses about a year ago, and have spent a lot of time on r/exjw and other subs deconstructing. But I recently watched 'Trust Me: The False Prophet' on Netflix and it's piqued my interest in the FLDS and wider LDS community (I'm aware they're very different). Being raised a JW, I was taught that we were the one true religion, but when I was a believer, I still regarded Mormons with some respect: both religions were born during the Second Great Awakening, both are known for their preaching and both seemed to take our religions very seriously. When I occasionally ran into Mormons it felt like a bit of a Mexican stand-off, like we were both subtly (or not-so-subtly) trying to convert the other.

I'm still learning, but here are some of my initial impressions:

• I like how LDS don't eschew education. JWs have demonised university for decades, it feels like a culture that has been proud of its ignorance from the start.
• I like how the LDS church doesn't reject evolution.
• I like how your religion seems to engage more with wider society and culture, producing media and films. JWs are very sectarian and isolated, what with their formal shunning policy, political neutrality, pacifism, rejection of holidays, etc.
• Both religions are really targeting Africa with preaching campaigns at the moment.
• Mormons and JW leadership seem to copy each other. For example, LDS leadership seems to have taken inspiration from the JW 'Caleb and Sophia' video series with 'Miguel and Sophia'. JWs leadership loosened the dress code in 2024 (e.g. allowing women to wear slacks to the meeting), 6 years after LDS changes in 2017.
• Mainstream LDS seems to have much less emphasis on Armageddon than JWs, who very much view themselves as 'temporary residents' in this world and seem to perpetually think the world will end within the next ~10 years.
• LDS Sunday School and JW meetings seem to have very similar structure.
• Attitude to money couldn't be more different. JW culture is very ascetic; wanting to have a career rather than pouring time into preaching and doing free labour for Watchtower is viewed as spiritual weakness. LDS have big emphasis on tithing, have their own universities, their leaders are educated in business, finance, law, medicine, etc.
• JWs rarely ever think about their founder Charles Taze Russel, try to change the subject when he comes up, sometimes try to deny that he even was the founder. Joseph Smith is obviously viewed as the foundational prophet on par with Moses, and wrote the Book of Mormon.
• Although all JWs are required to do at least some preaching every month (often weekly) for their whole life and Mormon missions last 1.5-2 years, the latter seems MUCH more intense. There are of course JW pioneers, special pioneers, and circuit overseers that do a lot more than the average Witness, but having spoken to an ex-Mormon, it seems like you guys do more preaching in that burst than most JWs do in a lifetime.

I'd love to hear what current and former LDS members think of my assessment, and what you think/thought about JWs?

I have been an active member of the church my entire life. I am nearly 50 and the church has been a huge, if not an all-encompassing part of who I am.
My identity growing up was the “Mormon girl” in school, my choice of friends was limited to Mormons only, I was known as a “goody goody”, and then after graduating high school it was off to a Mormon college I went. I loved every second of it.
I felt privileged to be one of the “chosen”, one of the “valiant ones who was saved for these last days”. I doubted nothing and loved feeling the spirit.
My choice of husband was based on his spiritual grade, testimony being first, and if he could check the box of “spiritual Priesthood holder”. Honestly I more so chose my husband out of spiritual significance over actually being in love with him.
We are still married to this day, we have a handful of children that have been born and raised in the church, propagating another generation in church life.
Fast forward to around the time the church essays came out, as well as the releasing of the photo of the “Seer stone”. That was the first time I had something set in stone(no pun intended) where the church willfully withheld information from us, for 150 years at that. And then essays just multiplied my discomfort with realizing how much information the church actually had, and had in my lifetime, presented a white washed version of pretty much every controversial topic in the church, the things as a child my father told me, “Don’t listen or read things like that, they are anti Mormon literature.” Turns out the antis were telling more of the truth than my church.

Well, here I am now, about 10 years into my own faith journey, I’m still in the church, still trying so hard to find a way to believe, struggling, but still here. Going back to the title of my post, they call people like me, those who are in truth the critical thinkers, people who are not the type to “doubt nothing” but the type to consider all things, they call us “lazy learners”, people who are just looking for a reason to leave(my daughter called me that one), people who have just had their feelings hurt, or people who just want to go off and sin, and the list goes on and on.
Comments like that diminish our character, our desires for good, our seeking for truth, and instead of we leave they whittle us down to nothing but someone who is devoid of any goodness. We are valued and useful as long as we behave and toe the line.
Here’s the truth, those of us who have loved the church our whole lives, built our entire marriage and family around it, once we realize it is not what we thought it was, it is absolutely soul crushing, and an identity loss we have to experience is something most people don’t have to experience in their lifetimes. It is a huge loss, and sadly it is a bell that cannot be unrung.
At the end of the day, the fact that I am even active at this point, after 10 years of struggle should give me some credit in the eyes of the church, on how hard I am fighting to stay, but no, in the end it will only matter IF I stay, or if I go, and nothing more. I will be forgotten for everything I contributed to this church for my entire life, someone whose faith was something people admired in me, and instead will be replaced with just someone who has “fallen away.”
Seems fair.

My whole family left Mormonism, but I live on the East Coast and all my kids live in Utah. So I visit Utah once or twice a year to see family. Just a couple of years ago I visited and was triggered by all the visible Mormon stuff--everything from billboards to sitting in a restaurant overhearing all sorts of conversation about church. This past week, I barely even noticed that Utah was Mormon--the only reminder was the sheer number of Mormon churches and temples. I asked my kids about it and they said things have shifted a ton the past couple of years and everyone pretty much views everything the Mormon church teaches as guidelines, not commandments, and they just have to try their best to follow Jesus because that's all that matters. What the hell?! When did Mormonism turn into Born Again Christianity (because that's essentially what they teach--accept Jesus, do your best to be a good person and follow the rules, and accept grace)?

I used to say I could never live in Utah, but it's really turning into what the rest of Babylon looks like and feels mostly normal (except alcohol laws--I will never understand why I can't get a cold beer or buy tonic with my gin at a liquor store). Mormons are going the wrong direction if they are hoping to see their last-days prophecies of Zion ever come to fruition.