I'm heartbroken and ashamed by what I've learned from the LDS churches investment portfolio. I struggle to understand why our church of peace would invest in and profit from weapons of war. Especially when these weapons have slaughtered 20,000 + children so far, and have injured 45,000 + so far with little to no medical care.

I've been reprimanded and shamed for outwardly questioning my church leaders. How can I go to church and stay silent while children are suffering? How can I not speak up for families whose entire lives have been shattered?

I haven't stopped following Jesus. I can't ignore what He wants of us. We should stand with the suffering, the vulnerable, and the forgotten. I speak for those who can no longer speak. It has cost me many great relationships. However, I must stand for the children.

You can stand up for them too. Tell the Presidency how you feel. Put pressure on them to stop being part of the brutality. Please, for the sake of children who were sent here by God almighty to live, learn, and grow.

...are there so many anachronistic things in it? I think most people critical of the BoM figure he didn't come up with the book all on his own, and that Oliver Cowdrey among others helped him produce it.

But assuming the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, which is what most of the facts seem to support, why would you put so many anachronistic old world animals in it, like horses, sheep, chickens, pigs etc? Was it not widely known in the early 1800's these things were introduced by Europeans?

Hi! I'm doing research on the history of Trek. Does anyone have any source materials to its history or how it started?

[Not in a manner of 'I want this to be true', but a 'wait, what the heck?' manner:]

If Brigham Young's teaching of blood atonement is not a 'correct'/'true' teaching, doesn't that basically void a lot of the verses about Jesus?

If a later prophet 'cancelled' that application, what does that even mean then?

(Edit: I literally don't understand any of this anymore, maybe I never did to begin with)

I’ve been thinking about Chesterton’s Fence lately, and I wonder how well it applies to discussions about Mormonism.

For those who aren’t familiar with it, Chesterton’s Fence is the idea that before you remove a fence, you should first understand why it was put there. If you don’t know its purpose, you’re probably not in a good position to judge whether it should be removed.

The principle isn’t really about preserving tradition for tradition’s sake. It’s about intellectual humility. Institutions, beliefs, and practices often exist because they solved a problem that may not be obvious to us anymore.

Sometimes the original reason no longer exists, and removing the fence is the right decision. But we should understand what problem it was trying to solve before deciding that it’s unnecessary.

I think this principle creates an interesting challenge for almost everyone in the Mormon space.

If you’re a believing member, are there doctrines, policies, or cultural traditions that you defend simply because they’re familiar? Have you taken the time to understand what problem they were originally trying to solve, and whether they still solve that problem today? Do you think that the age of the Church’s top leadership sometimes leads them to keep things out of respect for history/tradition instead of asking the difficult question of if the problem still exists that their policies were meant to solve? Or, put another way, have times changed and we haven’t built the fences we need for today because we’re building fences for yesterday’s problems?

If you’ve left the Church or are advocating for significant change, do you understand why a particular belief, practice, or institution developed in the first place? Is it possible that eliminating it could also eliminate benefits that aren’t immediately obvious? Do you think that there are teachings, standards, or practices that Mormonism have developed over decades of experience that exmormons reject too quickly to their own detriment?

The more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve realized that Chesterton’s Fence isn’t really an argument for keeping fences. It’s an argument against confidently tearing them down before we’ve understood them.

At the same time, understanding the purpose of a fence doesn’t obligate us to keep it forever. Some fences outlive their usefulness. Others continue solving problems we underestimate. The challenge is figuring out which is which.

So here’s my question:

What are some “fences” in Mormonism, whether doctrinal, cultural, organizational, or personal, that people frequently argue should be removed or restored? More importantly, what do you think those fences were originally built to accomplish, and have we accurately understood that purpose before arguing for or against them?

I am hoping to strengthen the support I have found regarding Biblical evidence for Eternal Marriage and I am looking for feedback. I decided to do some deep research on what the Bible says about Eternal Marriage. Most Christians turn to the passage between the Sadducees and Jesus showing that there is no marriage in Heaven. This post should be helpful in addressing those passages and counter arguments against the idea of eternal marriage. Here is a run down of what I found (video format included):

Does God Want Marriage to End at Death? You might have heard the familiar phrase "till death do us part." But was this ever God's intent?

When I first began studying whether the Bible teaches eternal marriage, I expected to find overwhelming evidence against it. As mainstream Christianity holds to this ideal. In fact, I almost stopped researching because Jesus' words to the Sadducees seemed so clear.

But the more I studied Scripture as a whole, the more I realized something surprising.

The Bible never says that marriage ends for all individuals at death.

What I Mean by Eternal Marriage

By eternal marriage I simply mean:

The continuation of marriage after this life or the idea that marriage is meant to be forever.

-- Outlining The Counter Argument Against Eternal Marriage --

The strongest objection comes from Jesus' conversation with the Sadducees in Luke 20 (also recorded in Matthew 22 and Mark 12)

7 brothers each died childless after marrying the same wife successively after one another. The Sadduccees ask Jesus which brother remained married to the wife in the resurrection?

Lets see His response

Read Luke 20:34-36

There are some contextual limitations in what Jesus is saying here.

In this passage "they" specifically denotes those worthy to obtain that world AND the resurrection of the dead.

The phrase "neither marry nor are given in marriage" says nothing about the continuity of marriage that begins in this life and extends to that life, the phrasing is specific to the next life. However, I do concede that it only makes sense that the implication of what Jesus is saying in this passage is that the marriage for these brothers and the wife does not continue in the next life.

So I agree with what is being said here with the exception that Jesus is not saying that this applies to all resurrected beings.

Matthew 22 and Mark 12 differ in that both do not specify that "they" denotes those accounted worthy of attaining that world.

Mark 12 shows that "they" specifies when the brothers and wife rise from the dead, Matthew 22 appears to be worded in a way where "they" could specify the brothers and wife or resurrected beings.

All three say these individuals are as or equal to the angels in heaven. Now if you didn't know, the only passages that say individuals are as the angels in Heaven are the verses that we just covered.

These next 6 points are what I see as Biblical evidence for eternal marriage.

---

1.

In Genesis 2:18 It is in the Garden where God first says "it is not good for man to be alone" and God proceeds to make Eve for man and woman to be together. Shortly after we read in verse 24, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

So, God created Adam with Eve in mind from the beginning to not be alone and to be unified together as one flesh.

This marriage happened by God, before sin, the fall or mortality was introduced. Within the Garden of Eden and without the introduction of death this marriage would have lasted forever and so it would therefore be an eternal marriage.

Questions for the Counter Argument

Why does God establish marriage in His presence in a setting that would have allowed it to be eternal?

Why would God say "they shall be one flesh" if He intends on permanently separating them from one another?

In mortality or in the after life is it all of a sudden good for man to be alone?

And if in the after life it is good for man to be alone then why was that not the case in the garden of Eden when God was also with him?

Now you may not believe Adam and Eve were in a state of immortality before falling, so lets take a look at the additional evidence.

---

2.

Throughout scripture, marriage is consistently described as a covenant. With blessings and curses that are dependent on our fidelity.

God condemns adultery and infidelity

Jesus teaches that divorce exists only because of mankind's hardness of heart and that from the beginning divorce was not permitted.

Matthew 19:3-6, 8-9

Covenants are regularly considered to be eternal within the context of the Bible. Marriage is a covenant (reference text Malachi 2:14-16) and should have the same continuity after this life that other covenants have.

This shows how God views faithfulness and the permanence of covenants.

So, Why is there great emphasis on being faithful within the context of marriage and why is divorce strongly discouraged in this life if marriage is meant to end at death?

If God hates divorce then why would death cause it to happen? Especially when death has been overcome by Jesus?

---

3.

The central message of Christianity is that Christ defeated death and sin.

If death no longer has ultimate power over God's people, then it is reasonable to ask:

Why should death permanently dissolve the covenant God established before death ever existed?

If death is not permanent why would death cause a permanent separation of marriage when God intended for them to be permanently united?

---

4.

The Abrahamic Covenant is an everlasting covenant. Abraham was promised an eternal posterity.

The Bible consistently portrays God as preserving covenant relationships rather than abolishing them.

Marriage is a covenant which makes eternal marriage consistent with God's pattern.

Why would Abraham's children forever be considered his son's and daughters but his wife no longer be considered his wife?

Is she not eternally their mother?

and if she is eternally their mother then why is the only family relationship that is not preserved the one between the husband and wife?

---

1. Question of authority

In the example of the Sadducees, we do not know with what authority they are married. If it is of God or man.

All ordinances and covenants that are from God require a divine authority, they are not merely social contracts. Marriage in scripture consistently operates as a covenant not just a legal agreement.

Peter was given the power to bind on Earth and in Heaven.

If Peter can't bind marriage which God instituted from the beginning then how does this differ from binding other covenants and ordinances that God institutes?

---

1. Question of worthiness

If divorce is caused by man like Jesus says and if these specific people are not to be married in heaven, then it must be that this is ultimately a question of worthiness. These individuals are worthy of a specific world and are as the angels of God in terms of glory.

Yes, Angels are a category of glorified beings. So being angels refers to a particular glory or category of redeemed humanity but not the entirety of redeemed humanity.

The glory of the Lord and the glory of God --

* 1 John 3:1-2 to be like God is reserved for those who know the Father, for those that can see Him as He is.

* 2 Cor 3:18 we all (not all resurrected beings) changed to the same image or glory of the Lord

* John 17:22-23 at least some individuals are made one in the same glory with God

Circling back to the phrasing that Jesus used "those worthy to obtain that world" and "they are as the angels in heaven"

1 cor 15:38-44 resurrection consists of different glories and bodies.

Hence, Jesus in this passage is describing a category of resurrected beings and is not talking about all resurrected beings.

---

Scripture shows that marriage was instituted by God before the Fall, in His presence, and declared essential to human completeness. God consistently treats marriage as a sacred covenant, hates divorce, and permits separation only because of human hardness of heart. Christ conquered death itself, removing the ultimate cause of separation. If resurrection restores embodied identity and covenant faithfulness matters eternally, it is reasonable to conclude that righteous marital covenants need not be permanently dissolved by death.

Christ’s statements describe those who are “as the angels” and “accounted worthy of that world,” suggesting categories of resurrected glory rather than a universal condition for all humanity. Scripture also teaches differing glories in the resurrection and varying degrees of likeness to God. Therefore, eternal marriage is not contradicted by Christ’s words but fits coherently within the broader scriptural narrative of covenants, resurrection, and eternal life.

Additional References

* Hebrews 13:4

* Proverbs 6-7

* Proverbs 18:22

* Proverbs 19:14

* Levitucus 20:10

* Deutoronomy 22:22

* 1 Cor 6:9-10

* Gal 5:19-21

* Matt 19:8-9

* 1 Peter 3:7

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbFMF22Bytw/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Hello 👋 not a member of LDS, just casually studying the Book for my leisure.

In 1 Nephi 4, Nephi claims God told him to kill Laban. Now earlier, in 1 Nephi 3:7, he says 'I will go and do the things the Lord hath commanded.' God can guide you all He wants but shouldn't there be a red line with murder? I understand Laban was a tyrant who threatened Lehi's sons with murder himself, but one of the Ten Commandments in Exodus is 'Thou shalt not kill.' I just can't wrap my head around divine command theory like this.

When the LDS church reaches out to divorced spouses who have formally resigned, to approve their Ex's new temple sealing, that's the tell they don't actually honor membership resignations.

Mind you, they only cancel a sealing when the ex-wife is remarrying, because a living woman cannot be sealed to 2 men. But if a man is remarrying, they leave that sealing in place.

"Don't worry we've flipped the field in your membership record for [member thinks they've resigned] to TRUE. But we'll still keep all your data for when you change your mind."

Hi all! I’m back again! I’ve been watching the Mormon and exmo subs and saw a lot of talk about Jeff Strong’s statistical research on why people leave the church and read his book Torn. Thank you guys for sharing the book and research on here. I really loved the book. I was kinda blown away that when I decided to have my team reach out to Jeff Strong he agreed to do an interview with us. I’m really proud of our two part interview. I tried to not just give him softball questions like the other interviews on the more popular shows he had done. Jeff was an amazing guest and really had no problem leaning into our questions. He even told us a story he said he hadn’t shared with anyone else as of yet, which I thought was kinda cool. Who knows if he has shared that same story with another podcast since we recorded with him a week and a half ago, but it would be nice to think we got the first exclusive on it. I would love anyone to give it a listen and share with your friends. Part one is linked at the top, and here is the link to part two: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lds-loudmouth/id1855590942?i=1000777615869

I'm curious if there's anyone from Ammons or Josh's ward on what news in the church there is about these guys. Ammon is certifiable. Just curious if they are even attending right now with how shameful their behavior is.

Hello fellow humans,

I wrote an open letter to church leadership requesting famine relief for 42+ million people across the globe using the interest off their $200+ billion slush fund. I’m perfectly happy to get excommunicated for it, but I’d like it to be persuasive and to bring attention to all the humanitarian good the church could be doing with its excessive funds, whichever way they slice the cake. I know that’s not a new concept, but I hope to put something out that gets non-member and member attention, to try and bring some good out of all this.

That said, I’m looking for honest feedback on this letter. Good things, bad things, points of improvement, opinions, missed details or persuasions, etc. Once it’s gone through a couple more drafts I’d like to send it to as many people as I possibly can, so I’d really appreciate anything you all can do to make it better for them.

Thanks!

(Note: this letter was originally posted in r/exmormon, but all thoughts are welcome)

I see this a lot in TBM/apologist commentary. "Joseph didn't have sex with the majority of his sealings!"

The same people make no claims that Brigham didn't have sex with most of his 50+ "wives". Nor that of any other LDS polygamist. But for some reason it is really important that if polygamy existed, for a least one prophet, it wasn't about sex.

Is this not evidence of dissonance about the doctrine of polygamy? Part of their brain is telling them it is not good, and they need the hero to have practiced it minimally. Does this not make them the same as the denier?

Why, for them, is the doctrine not measured in how Brigham and the others practiced it? Doesn't this also make them like the denier? With the belief that Brigham et al. screwed it up?

If I get proxy baptized after death even if I choose not to get baptized in life, why not just baptize everyone preemptively while living? Like it seems easier just to baptize someone in proxy and then let them later on decide if they want to accept it than spend months trying to convince them to get baptized themselves.

What other modified cuss words have you heard Mormons use?

Hello, first of all I apologies if my questions come off wrong or if they may be inappropriate; I do not have any ill intentions, my knowledge about mormonism is very limited and that is why I want to understand the religion more.
I was wondering what the core beliefs of the church are nowadays? I read somewhere that they may be different or evolve every few generations in accordance to the doctrine teachings changing. That brings up my next question: how can the doctrines, teachings and
/or core beliefs change so much over time? And still be the same religion?
My last question is what are the common day to day "rules" one has to follow?
Thank you for your time and once again sorry if my questions seem insensitive.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-gong-dedicates-new-nauvoo-temple-visitors-center

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/historic-nauvoo-in-pictures-2026

I wrote a whole tirade about why I’m leaving, but I decided not to post it.
Instead, I’d rather hear from people who have been through this. If you’ve left and have advice on the simplest way to write a respectful farewell—or to explain my decision without turning it into an argument—I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts.
If you don’t feel comfortable replying publicly, you’re welcome to DM me.

Edit:

No, I’m not writing an epistle. I know to have my name formally removed I need to write a letter to my Stake President. Confession time: I have done this before.

I do not need to worry about what my family will think, since they are scattered throughout the country. So, there will be no coming out tragedy.

Lastly, I’m thankful for all the support. I apologize in advance for not replying right away. I have so busy I feel like the walking dead—no pun intended.

Just need to vent a little. I've been PIMO a long time in supporting my active wife, and I've had a small music calling in the ward. I recently decided I no longer wanted to participate and asked to be released.

The bishop agreed to release, of course, but wanted to chat. Against my better judgment I opted to show up to his office yesterday. I'm kinda new to the ward and wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt as I've been fortunate to make friends by opening up a little here and there. Unfortunately leadership roulette got the best of me and I left feeling angry and judged.

The real low-light was the bishop insinuating I'd be an outcast for not accepting any calling. "I just really want to help people feel welcome here, and it might raise eyebrows if people hear you don't have a calling."

Bro, think about what you just said and see if you can piece together why I don't want to be a part of it. The amount of garbage packed into one sentence was incredibly impressive.

Since the last Come, Follow Me curricular rotation that started in 2022, the Church has included in the Come, Follow Me: Old Testament manual a "Thoughts to Keep in Mind" article titled "The Historical Books in the Old Testament" between Deuteronomy and Joshua, in which the Church talks about how the books of Joshua through Esther are traditionally known as the "historical books" of the Old Testament because their writers' main objective was "to show God's hand in the history of the people of Israel," and that the purpose of the historical books was to "tell stories."

The article then goes on to say, "Naturally, these stories are told from a certain point of view. … it's inevitable that a historical account will reflect the perspective of the person or group of people writing it. This perspective includes the writers' national or ethical ties and their cultural norms and beliefs. … the writers and compilers of the historical books focused on certain details while leaving out others."

At the end of this line comes footnote 1, as shown in the screenshot. Notably, while this article focuses on the historical books of the Old Testament, this footnote subtly shifts to talking about the "historical narratives of the Bible," which means it is referring to both the Old and New Testaments' historical narratives, including those that could be found in the Pentateuch.

The admission then continues in the article as followed: "[The writers and compilers of the historical books] made assumptions that others would not have made. And they came to conclusions based on these details and assumptions. We can even see different perspectives across the books of the Bible (and sometimes within the same book)." Again, the article makes this observation across the books of the Bible rather than just the Old Testament historical books alone.

An example is provided in footnote 2, where it says that "although 1–2 Chronicles covers roughtly the same period as 1 Samuel 31 through the end of 2 Kings, the account in 1–2 Chronicles emphasizes different details and presents a different perspective, focusing almost solely on the Southern Kingdom of Judah and often omitting negative stories about David and Solomon." It then explains that "the record that became 1–2 Chronicles, … was compiled after the Jews returned to Jerusalem from their exile."

As an explanation, the article then echos its own opening by pointing out that "one perspective common to all the Old Testament historical books is the perspective of the children of Isreal, God's covenant people. Their faith in the Lord helped them see His hand in their lives and in the affairs of their nation."

It follows this with another admission that "secular history books don't tend to see things this way," but it stops short of discussing how said books actually tend to see things in comparison to the "spiritual perspective" of the Old Testament historical books.

Note: Other than a 2023 BYU RSC article titled "How Do I Teach the Fall? Distinction and Harmonization" quoting this footnote in its Notes section, I have yet to see this footnote being brought up anywhere else online.

If people have the free will to choose whether or not they want to be baptized, why is the goal to posthumously baptize everyone who wasn’t baptized?

Not sure if this is the right flair. I'm going to recap a convo I had recently with a ward member in a higher leadership calling then share the epiphany I had as a result.

I don't remember how the convo started but somehow we got on the topic of tattoos and the for the strength of youth. I joked that since it wasn't in the manual anymore that I wanted a sleeve. He scoffed and asked if I was one of those people (insinuating that if a rule isnt explicitly called out then I would break it...). I laughed and said no. I'd do it either way. This led to him calling it a sin and how all our temptations are different. I asked what made it a sin and he referred to Leviticus 19:28. I called out that leviticus was part of the mosaic law which was fulfilled. He was adamant it still applied and just because it was old testiment didnt mean it still didnt apply. He compared the old testiment to D&C and The handbook of instruction..... I left the convo at that.

Now I went back and read Levitucs 19 for kicks. Here's the thing. If no tattoos needs to be adhered to per chapter 19, then all garments would be considered a sin because they blend fabric... there are a few others in there too.

This got me thinking. The church restored the levitical and mosaic law. The restored the old testiment. So when they say they follow jesus, not really. If mosaic law applies then Jesus died on the cross for absolutely nothing in Mormonism. Jesus fulfilled the law, Joseph brought it back.

EDIT: If Leviticus doesnt apply to the modern day church then why is Leviticus 19 used as a marker for saying tattoos are sin? Is getting a tattoo a sin?

Did you ever come out to your friends and family about no longer believing, or being a true TBM?

If not, what is your reason? If yes, what lead you to that decision and how did it go for you?

I ask this in good faith, as my experience here and reading many sources online has lead me to believe many people regret coming out to their family and friends as they quickly lost a dear community they enjoyed being a part of. Even if the small details made them feel ick, just keeping to themselves may have made things simpler and easier and keep some relationships they cared about going.

On the other hand, sometimes we go through things that are so significant and severe the only thing we can do is cut off the cancer in whole, cold turkey and live with the outcome.

For some, coming out is a much bigger and harder thing for others. This is why I think there are WAY more PIMOs than alot realize.

A simple Facebook post with a nuanced question recently showed me how many member friends are more likely pimos than tbms.

Anyhow, as a self proclaimed PIMO that has yet to come out about his beliefs to anyone other than online strangers, let me know what your reasons and experiences are.

Look forward to hearing from you friends.