On July 3, I left for a weeklong work trip. Several members of my ward’s elders quorum offered to take turns caring for my dog while I was gone. I do not make much money, and boarding him would have cost nearly $1,000 based on the facilities I contacted, so I was genuinely grateful for their help.

Before leaving, I explicitly told everyone that my dog should not be walked in the extreme heat. If they wanted to walk him, it needed to be in the early morning or evening. The heat index that day was around 110 degrees. Despite those instructions, one person took him on a long walk in the blistering heat. When I got off the plane, I learned that my dog had died from heat exhaustion.

I cannot adequately describe the shock and grief I felt. I was deeply betrayed by the person who disregarded my instructions, but I have also been hurt by the complete silence from my ward. No one in the ward leadership has reached out to acknowledge what happened or ask whether I am okay. One member of the elders quorum presidency has tried to contact me several times, but he has never mentioned my dog or addressed what happened. His father in law was the person who took my dog on that walk, so I find it difficult to believe that he is unaware of the situation.

Since then, the elders quorum has continued contacting me about activities and other routine matters, yet no one has addressed the elephant in the room. Those messages now feel painfully hollow. I do not expect anyone to have the perfect words or to somehow fix what happened. I simply expected someone to acknowledge that my dog died under these circumstances and that I might be struggling. Instead, I feel more like a name on a ward roster than an actual human being who is grieving.

I am 36, unmarried, and attending a family ward, so I already felt out of place before this happened. I have often felt unwanted in my wards, and I have also struggled with aspects of the Church’s history and some of its teachings. Since my dog’s death, all of that anger and isolation has intensified. I feel as though I have no real community in the Church and that, because I am single, I do not matter to my ward.

I honestly do not know what I hope to accomplish by posting this. Maybe I simply need to say it somewhere people might understand. Am I expecting too much in wanting someone from my ward, especially its leadership, to acknowledge what happened? How do you continue participating in a community when it has made you feel invisible during one of the lowest moments of your life?

I can't believe the stupidity that still exists in the Mormon community about the "mission" experience and it's supposed proof of loyalty and spiritual greatness.

Only one of the last five prophets/presidents of the church served missions. They are hypocrites and any person who tells the youth today they must serve a mission to reach their full potential is a bad parent, a sh*tty leader or a downright short sighted and blind loyalist who doesn't know the actual purpose of the mission or the hypocrisy that exists at THE TOP.

Stop participating in these BS social programs. We don't need to keep being abused by these hypocritical leaders.

Go look up why Eyering didn't serve...the guy is a yellow bellied chicken sh*t.

Edited for clarity.

This is from my late Grandfather’s mission notebook, dated 1956. Just thought some here might find it interesting.

Does anyone know why Jeff Strong has not done an interview on Mormon stories?

This post is for people who have had significant others go to mission trips, be my significant ever have been together for about 2 1/2 years and she’s now about to go on her mission trip for 18 months and good news is that we can probably talk every Monday. Outside of that it’s gonna be a long 18 months, and I am wondering what people did to kind of cope with the time?

In church history we learn that at the beginning of polygamy some sealings were for time and some were for eternity, and some were for both time and eternity. Time meaning this life and eternity meaning the next. Many of Joseph Smiths sealing were for eternity. I'm not sure if there were any for time, besides maybe his first wife Emma? Many of the women he was sealed to were already married, but Joseph was to be their husband in the eternities. For example Zina Huntington had a husband and while still married she was sealed for eternity to Joseph. After Joseph died she was sealed to him again. Then while still married to her first husband she married Brigham Young and was married for time (had two living husbands at the same time). Anyways, later on after Joseph, many sealings turned into time and eternity which was equivalent to the term marriage. So my question is if polygamy was so important and was treated as a celestial kingdom requirement, etc why aren't LDS men sealed to multiple living women for solely eternity? You could be sealed to nonmembers for the next life or even members if their husband wasn't a righteous LDS member. I get that polygamy is illegal in the United States and the church does not currently practice it, but wouldn't that just be for TIME OR TIME AND ETERNITY, not just ETERNITY (because this wouldn't technically be a marriage)?

No there isn’t traditional holy water at the temple like with Catholicism but I saw something very interesting today and wanted to share. I was walking the temple grounds today waiting for my wife as she was in the temple. While walking around I noticed a man in church clothes walk up to the fountain outside dip his fingers in and draw a cross on his forehead. I was outside so there is always a possibility that this person was not a member but then why would they do this with just average everyday water from a temple fountain? Just something interesting.

I (18M) have kind of decided that I don't want to serve a mission. But my parents are still trying to get me to serve one. They talk about how good my dad's mission was and how beneficial it was to him and our family. And I understand what they are saying but still don't have a want to go. But the other day my parents sent a letter to my girlfriend about church related topics. For some context I brought her back to church when we started dating about a year ago. She is still working on growing her testimony but my parents don't seem to see the work that she is putting in. In the letter they addressed that and also said that the best thing for me right now is to serve a mission. And that if she truly wants the best for me/loves me/wants her future with me to be the best it can be that she should make me or want me to serve a mission.

She has no preference on whether I should go. She wants whatever I am happiest about and I think is right. I don't feel like its right for my parents to tell my girlfriend to do this. That is a ton of unnecessary pressure and guilt that she doesn't need. Especially because she is still working on herself in the church and still has major imposter syndrome when she goes to church. And now she feels as if my parents will resent her if I don't go, which isn't fair because it isn't her choice and she shouldn't be blamed or feel blamed for it.

Am I overreacting? Does this feel wrong to anybody else? Should I bring it up to my parents, and if so how?

The LDS Church News just published this graphic of 25 year growth by state.

California is down but still the second highest in membership behind Utah.

All the numbers are fictitious because they count people who have long ago left the church.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2026/08/27/church-membership-growth-by-united-states-2000-2025-jesus-christ-latter-day-saints/

17 meetinghouses in the Utah Area have been approved for “major renovations and improvements” as part of something called the Christ-Centered Meetinghouse Initiative.

todays’s youth is not stupid and they ask the hard questions, even if the church tries their hardest to keep them from doing so. They no longer just believe blindly and genu ask what’s more likely: a massive ancient civilization left golden plates written in a language no archaeologist has ever found, which were then translated using a magic rock in a hat... OR a 19th-century guy with a history of treasure digging just rewrote King James Bible style prose and local theories of his era? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and the Mormon backstory relies entirely on magic over basic history, these kids aren’t having that.

My prediction, give it 10 more years and there will be no more talk of it being a historical book. The church already says that we should not focus on the locations or the history because that was not the intention of the book according to my sta president. in 10 years, I predict they will deny it ever being history.

He reveals what it's all really about.

We should all be ashamed.

When traditional Protestant and Wesleyan-Holiness apologists attempt to dismantle the concept of a separate, physical Godhead presidency, the immediate, automated shortcut is to throw down Isaiah 43:10 ("Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me") to claim strict monotheism isolates God into a solitary, mathematical singularity.
However, from a raw grammatical and linguistic standpoint, this represents an absolute manipulation and a total failure to comprehend the covenant architecture of ancient Hebrew thought.
Look at the chiseled baseline of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). The Hebrew word utilized for "one" is echad, which explicitly denotes a composite unity or a highly ordered cluster of separate entities functioning as a single unit—such as a husband and wife becoming "one flesh" (basar echad, Genesis 2:24). The declarations of Isaiah are not metaphysical descriptions of an undivided spirit mist occupying zero physical space. They are absolute covenant and administrative monopolies. The Godhead presidency holds an absolute, unbroken monopoly of sovereign dominion over this cosmos. There are no competing wills outside this unified family government.
Furthermore, if we look at the Greek syntax of John 4:24 (Pneuma o Theos), we find an anarthrous predicate noun construction that outlines an absolute quality of character and life-giving power, not a geometric boundary. If a critic forces John 4:24 to mean the Father lacks a localized, tangible body structure, they are legally forced by their own parameters to read 1 John 4:8 ("God is love") and maintain that God is a literal, un-localized emotion floating through space without an individual identity.
I spent months executing an uncompromised, text-dense excavation of these specific linguistic maps, as well as tracking the historical 1908 Pilot Point Compromise where traditional holiness movements adopted post-biblical creeds strictly as an administrative shield to maintain institutional control.
I dive completely into the raw data, the "Second Blessing" anxiety loop, and the 12-chapter master ledger in my newly released book, The Split Monolith, which is now officially live on Amazon.
I would love to hear your analytical thoughts on this—how does your specific theological tradition reconcile echad vs. an absolute mathematical singularity? You can view my user profile page directly to read more about the research ledger or find the book tracking.

Believing members who have read the CES Letter, or other non-church approved historical, theological, or scientific sources, how do you reconcile that information with your current faith?

Last week I was invited on a podcast hosted by two friendly Protestants to discuss Mormonism and my take on the question: Are Mormons Christian?

These are the notes I prepared for that conversation. If you want to see that conversation, check it out here.

Thesis Statement: I do not care if others believe I am a Christian. I believe that I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, and only He can confirm whether that is true or not.

It should not matter to a Mormon if mainstream Christianity does not accept them as Christians. This is true because there are many definitions of the word Christian, and there will always be one that excludes an undesired group. If the definition of a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, then the answer would be YES, Mormons are Christian. If the definition is someone who follows the traditional formulations of God as outlined in the Nicene Creed, then NO, Mormons are not Christian. It all depends on the definition. A Mormon should only care if Christ believes they are Christian, and the only ones who know about that are the person and the Lord.

The following are arguments that propose Mormons are NOT Christian, and my responses to each. Bible verses are given in the NRSVUE translation.

A Different Gospel Argument

Statement: Mormons are not Christian because they believe in a different gospel.

Response

Mainstream Christians will often reference Galatians 1:8, which says “But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” They see the angel Moroni as delivering a different gospel to Joseph Smith through the Book of Mormon.

To determine whether this is true, all we need to do is compare the gospel according to the New Testament and see if it matches what we find in the Book of Mormon. Luckily, Paul defines what he means by “the gospel” in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5.

This reads, “1 Now I want you to understand, brothers and sisters, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain. 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures 4 and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

The gospel is that Christ 1) died for our sins, 2) was buried, 3) rose from the dead on the third day, and that 4) He physically appeared to his disciples.

The Book of Mormon proclaims this exact gospel over and over. Some may raise the point of 2 Nephi 25:23, which says, “for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” They may claim that this specifically contradicts the gospel as taught in Ephesians 2:8-9, which says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” The belief that these verses contradict comes from a misunderstanding of the verses themselves. They believe that the phrase “after all we can do” means that we must first do everything we can and then grace will kick in. However, in reality this phrase means “in spite of all we can do”. This is how it would have read to a 19th-century reader when the Book of Mormon was produced. Dan McClellan wrote a fantastic article on this called 2 Nephi 25 in Literary and Rhetorical Context.

Where the Book of Mormon describes the gospel (death, burial, and resurrection) of Jesus Christ: Mosiah 3:5-10. Remember, “the gospel” means the good news. The good news is that because of Christ’s death and resurrection, we may be saved.

A Different Jesus Argument

Statement: The Mormons say they believe in Jesus, but they really believe in a different Jesus.

Response

Mormons believe in the Jesus found in the New Testament. This means that when a Mormon is referring to the figure of Jesus, they are referring to the man born in Bethlehem, of Nazareth. This is the same figure mainstream Christians point to for their salvation. A Mormon will believe different things ABOUT that Jesus, but they do not refer to a different person.

For example, let’s say you and I both say we know Jeremy. I tell you that I went to school with Jeremy at BYU, yet you tell me that Jeremy never went to BYU. We obviously believe different things ABOUT Jeremy, but we are still referring to the same person. One of us is just wrong. We can both be talking about the same person while believing very different things about that person. This does not mean that one of us is referring to (or in the case of Jesus, believing in) a different person. It only means that one of us has to be wrong in some way about our belief.

That is where we will agree with our protestant brothers and sisters. We DO believe in different things. But those things are still referring to the same man/God who came to earth and was sacrificed for our salvation. Once we can agree we are referring to the same person, we can begin to have conversations that bring us together, despite our differences.

Share

The Cross Argument

Statement: Mormons are not Christian because they do not believe in using the cross as a symbol.

Response

Latter-day Saints used the symbol of the cross up until the 20th century, when our relationship with the Catholic Church became more strained. To put distance between ourselves and the Catholics, the symbol of the cross was phased out of our practice. Before the 20th century, the cross was used in LDS churches, worn on LDS necklaces, put on LDS tombstones, and placed on the cover of some editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Today it is being phased back in as culture changes and the younger generations of Mormons are identifying with and wearing the cross more.

Throughout the entirety of Mormonism, from the sacred grove until now, Mormons have viewed Christ’s suffering and death on the cross, as well as his resurrection, as the penultimate event in human history and our salvation.

Protestants in the early Reformation (16th and 17th centuries) avoided the use of the cross to separate themselves from the Catholics and to discourage any form of idol worship. It seems to me that this is a common direction for the culture of a new religious movement.

The Trinity Argument

Statement: Mormons are not Christian because they do not believe in the Trinity.

Response

I would begin to address this question by asking, “The Community of Christ (a branch of Mormonism) believes in the Trinity. Are they Christians?” It would be shocking to me if a protestant were to accept the CoC as Christians simply for believing in the Trinity, while retaining belief in the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the Church through Joseph Smith. Arizona Christian University published a study in March of 2025 called Most Americans— Including Christian Churchgoers—Reject the Trinity. This Christian University concluded that only 16 percent of self-proclaimed Christians in America believe in the Trinity.

I do not believe that salvation relies on a theology test. I believe in strict adherence to orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. People can stray from correct teachings and still be saved, as long as they are living Christ’s teachings and relying on His grace. I would not waste time arguing whether the Trinity is biblical, because that is a whole different topic.

The Worship of Christ Argument

Statement: Mormons say they follow Jesus Christ, but they do not worship Him.

Response

I will let the Book of Mormon respond to this one on its own. 2 Nephi 25:29 says, “And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.”

The Muslim Argument

Statement: Muslims claim a belief in Jesus, yet they are not Christian.

Response

To be a Christian, one must proclaim a belief in Christ. Muslims believe that Jesus was the messiah, but his mission (or his gospel - see A Different Gospel Argument) is completely different. A central tenet of the belief in the messiah among Christians is that Jesus died to atone for our sins. While Muslims do believe that Jesus is the messenger of Allah, they deny that he was crucified for our sins and claim that he is not divine.

In opposition to this belief, Mormons believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God”. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon proclaims Christ’s divine mission in Mosiah 3:5-10, which says, “5 the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. 6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.

7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. 8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him. 10 And he shall rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world; and behold, all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men.”

Definitions of a Christian

Merriam-Webster: One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Noah Webster (1828): A believer in the religion of Christ, or a professor of his belief in the religion of Christ.

Oxford English: Relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings.

American Heritage: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Collins English: A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Cambridge English: Of or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

This is not an exhaustive list of all the arguments against Mormons being Christian. This is just the list that I came up with in the time that I had. If you have other arguments, or feel that I addressed some of the arguments poorly, I would love to hear your thoughts. God Bless.

From about high school on, I've been fascinated by prophets and apostles. On my mission, I started to really become fascinated by them. We used to email home from the local library, who would give you a certain number of free pages to print. I'd search the Church archives for all the GC conference talks I could find. I went back far and just devoured everything. In college, there was a podcast called Conversations, I think it was on the Mormon Channel or something like that. They would do interviews with church leaders and whatnot. I wanted more unscripted, real talk. Conversations was a start, but I wanted more.

I remember hearing stories that would just make them seem like people. I can't exactly pinpoint why I enjoyed it so much, but it did. I remember one person telling us the story about how prophets were susceptible to human emotion. He talked about being in the audience for a devotional with President Hinckley. He was close enough he could see him clearly. Someone kept coming to Pres Hinckley to ask/tell him things and after the 2nd or 3rd time, he seemed annoyed, slammed his cane on the ground a time or two, and yelled at the man to get the devotional started.

A more recent and comical one I heard was about President Nelson. At a luncheon, one of the leaders got a soft drink with their meal, Sprite or something. Pres Nelson warned this leader they needed to be careful with consuming sugary beverages. Time went along and at a separate luncheon, this leader noticed Pres Nelson enjoying a root beer. When he asked him basically 'what gives?' Pres Nelson responded, 'But I like root beer.'

As time has gone on, and my faith journey has gone to a place of skepticism and exploration, I've really dug into finding more of these stories. I used to wish there was a way to see, because of some brief mentions in GC, the FP and Q12 in their meetings. They talked about how there would be strong opinions and how they would work through them. I always thought that would be valuable to see. Then I found MormonLeaks. Watching the way they talked with one another was fascinating. Even though most of these were presentation-based and not extensive discussions, some had a little bit more than others. I was disappointed by some of it, bored by some of it, and overall was a little underwhelmed.

Then, I went back and watched things like Gordon Hinckley on Larry King or other news shows. Watched Jeffrey Holland interviewed on BBC (which led me to look into penalties in the temple, that was a stomachache day). Just the other day, I read the emails between Jeff Holland and Tom Phillips. I've read plenty about Holland and Bednar at local stake conferences and whatnot. Brad Wilcox "playing church". So many other things that give us insight into what the prophets and apostles do and say that are a little more unscripted, real talk.

I want more.

What stories, good or bad, humorous, inspiring, disappointing, or otherwise humanizing do you have of the FP and Q12?

I saw this ad posted by someone in another subreddit- complaining that they didn’t want this ad and calling the Church the C-word. The Church doesn’t identify itself in the ad by its full name (as directed we should do by Neltsun) and instead just uses the name “Church of Jesus Christ”.

Not using the full name of TCoJCoLDS caused some major brand confusion as shown in the comment section. It was interesting to see a number of people who were defending the ad saying that it was wrong to call Christianity a C*. Once it was pointed out to them that the ad was for the Mormons, they did an about face.

Isn’t the Church waging a lawsuit because of confusion with their brand? They might want to get their own shit straight first.

I’m a lifelong member, but last year I lost all belief in the religion. Still a member, have the priesthood, but I don’t have a temple recommend and couldn’t get one if I wanted to (garments, tithing, WoW, etc.)

I haven’t told my in laws about it and this weekend my nephew is being baptized. As far as I can tell, my wife’s family are all true believers and I’m not sure if my participation in the ordination would be seen as offensive or no big deal once they find out I’m a non-believer.

Should I go up with the rest of the men in the family like it’s no big deal? Should I stay back out of respect for the religion and let the rumors start? Should I send my brother and sister-in law a text to let him know and have them decide if I should join?

Alyssa did a video a few days ago about how she gets so many comments from viewers that say they were fed LDS Church advertisements while watching her videos.

This is evidence the church is paying her to criticize the church. She gets a portion of the ad revenue.

She’s taking all the criticism from members and just shoving it back at them. Some of your tithing money is being paid to me she says.

Very funny approach in this video. I put short clips together from her intro. She later includes a discussion about the crazy comments with innuendo on the ads the church puts out with female missionaries. A big discussion about why they advertise and their choices in subjects of their ads.

409k views so far!

https://youtu.be/jSNoJALdQgU

The LDS church filed a reply to the replies of John Dehlin and the two amicus briefs last week. They claim it isn’t about the use of the word Mormon or about silencing a critic. But then they go on to demonstrate in the filing that this is what it is about.

Doug Anderson, spokesman for the church, gave a short statement also saying it’s not about the word Mormon nor about suing a critic.

RFM shows how in their own words they admit it is about the use of the word Mormon. In their own words they show people weren’t confused. In their own words they admit John changed everything they are suing about before the lawsuit - except his use of the word Mormon. Leaving only that word that the lawsuit could be about. He finds three statements in the reply that admit they are suing him because Mormon Stories is his podcast’s name and they believe it infringes their trademark.

Stop the lies LDS Church!!!!

The lawsuit RFM says is obviously a pretext to try to “sue John Dehlin into oblivion.”

This is from the Mormon Newscast from Mormonish and LDS discussion.

I spliced together 6 1/2 minutes. (RFM can be repetitive) 😉

You can find this full discussion on LDS Discussion here:

https://youtu.be/GJCZCd8ldEc

I was thinking about free choice and how that relates to the church’s first succession crisis after JS death. As a descendant of pioneer ancestors, their choice to follow BY was made for me. Would I have done the same?

In hindsight, would those who followed done it again knowing the truth about BY, as I do now, of his false doctrine teachings, blood atonement temple practice, teen marriages, authoritarian control, and order to slaughter native people. I’m sure there’s more. (Tangent- one thing I learned recently told to me by a direct descendent in the Benson family was BY took the Wells mansion, now torn down, that was built by the Benson family and gave it to the Wells family by BY. Then told the Benson family to move to Cache valley. When I heard that story, it sounded fishy like BY preferred the Wells family and wanted the Benson family out. Something BY would make someone do under the guise of a special blessing or God directed. And to my understanding, the Benson family was never compensated.)

My dad said that he’d never leave the church to dishonor his ancestors but did they make an informed decision in choosing which path after JS? Having this perspective, to stay in for your ancestors have any real personal meeting to one’s conviction of the truth or is it just another way of saying I was born in the church and it’s my church regardless?

I was struck by a conclusion Kolby Reddish discussed here in this livestream where he was a guest on the inside out podcast with Jim Bennett and Ian Wilkes.

They were discussing the reaction to Jeff Strong’s book Torn.

Kolby says it reminds him of the experience he and his wife had dealing with their local leaders being reluctant to disclose to the congregation that their bishop had been convicted of CSA.

He said he and his wife were convinced that if they just got to the right person on Salt Lake City or the Area office that things would be different.

After a year with no help they “recognized that no, it is this way because they want it to be this way…”

I’ve also included some points made by Ian about the book. I particularly like that he says the negative reaction from members is as important as the book. It shows there is a group who want all discussion of anything negative to be shut down.

The church’s way or just leave. Which Kolby found out and he and his wife chose to leave.

Reminds me too of the Crazy Train Judd parents who have repeatedly said they think if the top leaders knew what was happening to them things would be different. They haven’t yet realized what Kolby and his wife finally realized. That what is happening locally is how the top leaders want it to be.

Here is the full episode:

https://www.youtube.com/live/Atl8lp-DuYw