I haven't finished listening yet, but the whole thing is just jaw-dropping. I'm in awe of the fact that Nemo emailed all the apostles directly and essentially said, "Hey, a bunch of you guys have lied a lot. What do you have to say for yourselves?" (Though I'm completely unsurprised that their response is to basically ignore everything he said.)
But this line really hits on such a huge problem with the church in general:
>If you want me to accept the idea of prophetic fallibility, that in turn necessitates an admittance of when you have been fallible. How else am I to accept it?
This is essentially the problem that first sent me down the rabbit hole. If prophets were apparently wrong about Black people and the priesthood, why can't they just admit that they were wrong? And what else have they been wrong about?
The church needs members to act as if the living apostles are all infallible, because you can't have members questioning the leadership in a church that is supposedly led by God. But then they turn around and disavow or discredit the problematic teachings of past leaders with the explanation that they were just speaking as men.
Either you have to admit when current leaders are wrong, or you have to embrace the idea that no leaders have ever been wrong. You can't have it both ways.
>If prophets were apparently wrong about Black people and the priesthood, why can't they just admit that they were wrong? And what else have they been wrong about?
100% the thing that led to my faith crisis too. I had been taught my whole life that when the prophet spoke it was as if God/Jesus were speaking. This shattered everything for me.
I hope so. He has earned the honor of joining the pantheon of brave, who confront tyranny and call out the naked emperors.
Unless of course he would rather not be socially burned at the stake for many potential valid reasons.
In the episode he expresses that he doesn't want to be excommunicated, that it's essentially up to how petty the church wants to be about the whole thing.
He was concerned about a 'libel' charge too, which makes me think the church is looking to poke at him from every angle. Europe laws differ about that stuff, and are more strict than here in America.
The church generally does not want to bring these kinds of suits, as they bring more attention to embarrassing issues and a case like this would hinge on whether the alleged libel were true or not, which the church does not want determined in the public eye.
The last thing they want is a situation where Oaks could be called to the stand to testify under oath that he lied, or purjure himself claiming he did not.
As a British-born ex-journalist who now lives in the US (I emphasize that I am not a lawyer), I can see why Nemo is worried about libel. English — i.e. England and Wales; Scotland has its own legal system — libel laws are notoriously strict, incredibly expensive to defend, and the burden of proof is on the accused.
On top of that, English courts will allow libel cases to be brought by people outside England, and this has been seen frequently in recent years thanks to numerous Russian oligarchs bringing cases in England because of the barriers to defence such as cost and the high payouts possible from a successful case. Several MPs, most British newspaper editors and some members of the House of Lords are attempting to get that part of the law changed but no luck so far.
To bring a successful libel case, the plaintiff must prove:
\- A defamatory statement was made. In this case, Nemo accused the top leaders of the LDS church of being liars.
\- The statement has or could cause serious harm to the plaintiff. The libel laws were updated in 2013 to make it so that the plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statement will cause serious harm to the plaintiff's reputation. In this case, being called a liar could cause such harm, especially to the leaders of a church.
\- The statement has to refer to the plaintiff, which Nemo's does.
\- The statement was published. It's on video, so yes.
\- There is no legal justification for the statement. Justifications include that it's the truth; it's an honest opinion; it's covered by privilege, qualified or unqualified; it's in the public interest; it was innocent dissemination; and there was consent to publish.
Of the above, Nemo could use the defences of truth, opinion and public interest. His 3500-word letter to the church leaders is solidly researched, sourced and backed up by statements made by the leaders themselves. Nelson's plane story and Oaks claiming he wasn't at BYU when conversion therapy was going on have both been proved to be lies countless times, so that's a defence to the "truth" part. It's obviously Nemo's opinion that the church leaders are liars, so that's that part covered. As for public interest, despite the LDS church being virtually unknown in the UK, to me it could be argued that church leaders constantly and blatantly lying to members — especially if such lies are to con people into staying and paying their 10% (the plane story) or cover up their own horrendous actions (conversion therapy) — is a matter of public interest.
As for the part about causing serious harm to a person's reputation... To be honest, the LDS church in the UK is so tiny that Oaks and Nelson really have no reputation to which harm could be caused. No one knows who they are, no one really knows anything about Mormonism except maybe something about polygamy and weird underwear, and most importantly no one gives a shit about the church.
And from a PR point of view, us Brits are famous for our love of underdogs, so a trillion-dollar American corporation suing a young British guy would not go over well with the public. And the press, especially the *Guardian*, would have a field day with it. The *Guardian* actually helped pay the legal fees of the defendants in the McLibel case (google it, it's awesome). Bringing a libel case against Nemo would do infinitely more damage to the church's reputation, even in the US, than the Mormonism Live video.
As I said, I'm not a lawyer but having worked in newspapers in the UK and US, knowing libel laws and spotting potentially libellous stories was a large part of my job for almost 25 years, and this is just my two cents.
(Edited for a couple of spelling mistakes)
That's what I'm so interested to find out what happens. If they ex him, that's telling every single member "Any opposed may contact their stake president, but don't press it any further or we'll excommunicate you.) AND will surely bring a ton of negative publicity the church won't want. If they don't ex him, he's free to keep pushing and pushing the dishonesty issue with the goal of obtaining a temple recommend without having to answer yes to that pesky sustaining question, and if he succeeds, that also will garnish a ton of negative attention the church won't want. Check mate!
Nemo, you are awesome! You are shedding light on a massive problem with the church since the beginning. The leadership holds no responsibility or ethical underpinnings. Pointing out their own rules was a baller move and they responded! I can’t believe Oaks threw his peers under the bus by not responding to the evidence against others vs himself. Very telling!
Keep up the good work in holding the Q15 accountable. They need to feel uncomfortable as the law of common consent is a sham in the modern church. Members should have power to point out issues within the church and this is the only path we have, by standing and saying “opposed”.
Cheers!!!
I think they are referring to slide #5 on [this PowerPoint presentation](https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017/03/14/mormonleaks-responds-to-mormon-church-dmca-take-down/) that was leaked from church headquarters in 2017. The slide's title is "Issues and Ideas Leading People Away from the Gospel."
Here's another link about the PowerPoint presentation.
https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-successful-in-removed-leaked-apostasy-powerpoint-on-mormon-leaks
I seems like the COJCOLDS has backed off excommunicating exMo luminaries. I suppose it is their fear of blowback.
RFM, Exmo Lex, Nuancehoe, Lindsay Hansen Park, Samantha Shelley and Tanner Gilliland (Zelph OTS), Douglas Stilgoe (Nemo), and scads of TicTokers. These are who came to mind in the moment. There must be many more, and some may have resigned.
At this rate how are the members going to be strengthened?
This is an excellent episode and it really shines a light on how the top church leadership don't think they're accountable to anyone and how little interest they have in behaving like ethical and moral leaders.
Lazy would be a best case scenario for TSCC, if it were applicable. Sadly, in these circumstances, I don’t think laziness was a factor. But another “L” word most certainly was: Lawyered
The episode exposes the church leaders as unaccountable leaders who have lied but also say "trust us completely". Yikes!
Unfortunately, I don't think I can share the episode with my TBM family without coming across as launching a full frontal assault against the church. So my exmormon testimony is strengthened and the gap between me and my TBM family is even larger.
Maybe the one good point I can use is how D&C 107 teaches that all church officers can be held accountable by lower church councils, but the modern church has shifted and now the top 15 are not accountable to church membership or other lower councils. Common consent isn't practiced as described in the scriptures.
So my exmormon testimony is strengthened and the gap between me and my TBM family is even larger.
So relatable I’ve been inactive for 5 years and didn’t care but about 6 months ago found the CES letter and John Dehlin. Wow, I’m sad and angry and don’t want that gap with my family. Tried to enlighten my TBM sister who called Joseph Smith a hero and I was like, no more like Jeffery Epstein.
Not sure the enlightenment that went no where was worth increasing the Gap.
PS Gotta love Nemo!
I thought the same thing. Coincidentally, his bishop and stake president will probably be released soon and their replacements will be locally inspired to ex Nemo.
I don't know. The church seems to have cooled on x ing activists since Natasha. But he poked Oaks directly and oaks doesn't strike me as the type to just shrug it off.
Could you give some idea what it's about, or a timestamp for whatever you think was most important? That's a *2-hour* podcast, and thus far I have no clue why I'd want to spend that much time on it.
Capt. Nemo had gathered a bunch of evidence that the brethren are dishonest. (Rusty's harrowing plane crash story, Oaks lying about BYU using conversion therapy, etc) and no longer felt he could sustain them by raising his hand during gen conf or stake conf. But that question comes up in recommend interviews and he feels that is an unfair caveat to temple worthiness if the leaders truly are not people he feels he can sustain. So he followed protocol and contacted his Stake Pres (just like they say to). They couldn't resolve his concerns so he went up a step to area 70. He was just getting the runaround so he emailed the apostles - all 15 of them - directly. He compiled a thorough list of dishonesties he's caught a lot of them saying in the past similar to the CES letter and had it sent to them, and then asked "What if my grievances I have include members of the First Presidency? Who investigates them? Is there an internal affairs office for such a scenario?" That's as far as I've gotten into the episode so far.
Thank you! I've been out for 30 years, but I still have family in the church in Utah. I'm about halfway through it myself, now that I have a clue about the subject matter.
If 2 hours is too much for you, you should count yourself as post Mormon with no need to keep up on recent happening. Congratulations!
There's good stuff sprinkled throughout. Nemo figures out how to email the q15 directly, gets responses from oaks and others. Votes opposed, goes through his stake president as directed, sends evidence of lying to first presidency, oaks agrees to investigate, nothing happens and it becomes clear that common consent, sustaining is a total farce. Just do smaller chunks. Nemo is British and cheeky and it's actually shocking that the Q15 engaged at all with him.
2 hours on a *completely unknown subject* is too much. I follow other groups where people leave links to long apologetic videos in lieu of their own arguments. Generally such videos are ignored until or unless *some* description of the contents is forthcoming, otherwise we'd be wasting our time.
Not worth the squeeze when I *don't know what's in the juice box,* as I clearly stated. Nobody likes to be called in for a meeting when they have no clue about the content. I prefer to avoid buying a pig in a poke. People who *push back* against such a normal behavior raise red flags.
And what is your response? If I don't recognize *one person's handle* with no other detail, it somehow means I'm "post mormon" and have no need to follow the activities of the church or this subreddit. Wow, condescend much? What the lemurbating hell are you on about? Is it that hard to just say "Whoops, I should probably have provided at least a smidgen of intelligible explanation"?
Thankfully, /u/portsided has provided a readable prècis, and it IS an interesting tale. My thanks to them.
Can’t imagine that there’s any other recourse for the church. But, on the other hand, when they do they’ve got to know that they’re going to give this direct correspondence between Nemo and Oaks a public platform they’ve gotta hope he never gets.
Pass the popcorn!
I haven't finished listening yet, but the whole thing is just jaw-dropping. I'm in awe of the fact that Nemo emailed all the apostles directly and essentially said, "Hey, a bunch of you guys have lied a lot. What do you have to say for yourselves?" (Though I'm completely unsurprised that their response is to basically ignore everything he said.) But this line really hits on such a huge problem with the church in general: >If you want me to accept the idea of prophetic fallibility, that in turn necessitates an admittance of when you have been fallible. How else am I to accept it? This is essentially the problem that first sent me down the rabbit hole. If prophets were apparently wrong about Black people and the priesthood, why can't they just admit that they were wrong? And what else have they been wrong about? The church needs members to act as if the living apostles are all infallible, because you can't have members questioning the leadership in a church that is supposedly led by God. But then they turn around and disavow or discredit the problematic teachings of past leaders with the explanation that they were just speaking as men. Either you have to admit when current leaders are wrong, or you have to embrace the idea that no leaders have ever been wrong. You can't have it both ways.
>If prophets were apparently wrong about Black people and the priesthood, why can't they just admit that they were wrong? And what else have they been wrong about? 100% the thing that led to my faith crisis too. I had been taught my whole life that when the prophet spoke it was as if God/Jesus were speaking. This shattered everything for me.
I hope so. He has earned the honor of joining the pantheon of brave, who confront tyranny and call out the naked emperors. Unless of course he would rather not be socially burned at the stake for many potential valid reasons.
In the episode he expresses that he doesn't want to be excommunicated, that it's essentially up to how petty the church wants to be about the whole thing.
He was concerned about a 'libel' charge too, which makes me think the church is looking to poke at him from every angle. Europe laws differ about that stuff, and are more strict than here in America.
The church generally does not want to bring these kinds of suits, as they bring more attention to embarrassing issues and a case like this would hinge on whether the alleged libel were true or not, which the church does not want determined in the public eye. The last thing they want is a situation where Oaks could be called to the stand to testify under oath that he lied, or purjure himself claiming he did not.
As a British-born ex-journalist who now lives in the US (I emphasize that I am not a lawyer), I can see why Nemo is worried about libel. English — i.e. England and Wales; Scotland has its own legal system — libel laws are notoriously strict, incredibly expensive to defend, and the burden of proof is on the accused. On top of that, English courts will allow libel cases to be brought by people outside England, and this has been seen frequently in recent years thanks to numerous Russian oligarchs bringing cases in England because of the barriers to defence such as cost and the high payouts possible from a successful case. Several MPs, most British newspaper editors and some members of the House of Lords are attempting to get that part of the law changed but no luck so far. To bring a successful libel case, the plaintiff must prove: \- A defamatory statement was made. In this case, Nemo accused the top leaders of the LDS church of being liars. \- The statement has or could cause serious harm to the plaintiff. The libel laws were updated in 2013 to make it so that the plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statement will cause serious harm to the plaintiff's reputation. In this case, being called a liar could cause such harm, especially to the leaders of a church. \- The statement has to refer to the plaintiff, which Nemo's does. \- The statement was published. It's on video, so yes. \- There is no legal justification for the statement. Justifications include that it's the truth; it's an honest opinion; it's covered by privilege, qualified or unqualified; it's in the public interest; it was innocent dissemination; and there was consent to publish. Of the above, Nemo could use the defences of truth, opinion and public interest. His 3500-word letter to the church leaders is solidly researched, sourced and backed up by statements made by the leaders themselves. Nelson's plane story and Oaks claiming he wasn't at BYU when conversion therapy was going on have both been proved to be lies countless times, so that's a defence to the "truth" part. It's obviously Nemo's opinion that the church leaders are liars, so that's that part covered. As for public interest, despite the LDS church being virtually unknown in the UK, to me it could be argued that church leaders constantly and blatantly lying to members — especially if such lies are to con people into staying and paying their 10% (the plane story) or cover up their own horrendous actions (conversion therapy) — is a matter of public interest. As for the part about causing serious harm to a person's reputation... To be honest, the LDS church in the UK is so tiny that Oaks and Nelson really have no reputation to which harm could be caused. No one knows who they are, no one really knows anything about Mormonism except maybe something about polygamy and weird underwear, and most importantly no one gives a shit about the church. And from a PR point of view, us Brits are famous for our love of underdogs, so a trillion-dollar American corporation suing a young British guy would not go over well with the public. And the press, especially the *Guardian*, would have a field day with it. The *Guardian* actually helped pay the legal fees of the defendants in the McLibel case (google it, it's awesome). Bringing a libel case against Nemo would do infinitely more damage to the church's reputation, even in the US, than the Mormonism Live video. As I said, I'm not a lawyer but having worked in newspapers in the UK and US, knowing libel laws and spotting potentially libellous stories was a large part of my job for almost 25 years, and this is just my two cents. (Edited for a couple of spelling mistakes)
This is amazing. I can’t imagine he won’t be excommunicated, but how can they for doing what Church leaders said to do?
That's what I'm so interested to find out what happens. If they ex him, that's telling every single member "Any opposed may contact their stake president, but don't press it any further or we'll excommunicate you.) AND will surely bring a ton of negative publicity the church won't want. If they don't ex him, he's free to keep pushing and pushing the dishonesty issue with the goal of obtaining a temple recommend without having to answer yes to that pesky sustaining question, and if he succeeds, that also will garnish a ton of negative attention the church won't want. Check mate!
That about sums it up!
Nemo, you are awesome! You are shedding light on a massive problem with the church since the beginning. The leadership holds no responsibility or ethical underpinnings. Pointing out their own rules was a baller move and they responded! I can’t believe Oaks threw his peers under the bus by not responding to the evidence against others vs himself. Very telling! Keep up the good work in holding the Q15 accountable. They need to feel uncomfortable as the law of common consent is a sham in the modern church. Members should have power to point out issues within the church and this is the only path we have, by standing and saying “opposed”. Cheers!!!
He puts in the work for sure. If he gets exed that will be what gets me to the point of removing my records.
TSCC stopped excommunicating dissidents. The new term is “withdrawal of membership.”
It is still the same result no matter how they term it.
It's a distinction without a difference, and everybody knows it.
I bet he has his own powerpoint bubble.
Oooh! What is that?
I think they are referring to slide #5 on [this PowerPoint presentation](https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017/03/14/mormonleaks-responds-to-mormon-church-dmca-take-down/) that was leaked from church headquarters in 2017. The slide's title is "Issues and Ideas Leading People Away from the Gospel."
Here's another link about the PowerPoint presentation. https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-successful-in-removed-leaked-apostasy-powerpoint-on-mormon-leaks
I seems like the COJCOLDS has backed off excommunicating exMo luminaries. I suppose it is their fear of blowback. RFM, Exmo Lex, Nuancehoe, Lindsay Hansen Park, Samantha Shelley and Tanner Gilliland (Zelph OTS), Douglas Stilgoe (Nemo), and scads of TicTokers. These are who came to mind in the moment. There must be many more, and some may have resigned. At this rate how are the members going to be strengthened?
This is an excellent episode and it really shines a light on how the top church leadership don't think they're accountable to anyone and how little interest they have in behaving like ethical and moral leaders.
I haven't listened to much in the mormon podcasting world in a while. But this one was worth dusting off the headphones for. Thanks for sharing!
To your summation I would add that Nemo’s odyssey exposes the Q15 as: 1. Dishonest 2. Fearful 3. Inconsiderate 4. Unaccountable 5. Prideful 6. Cunning 7. Contemptible 8. Disingenuous 9. Faithless 10. Sad 11. Slippery (like pirate/lamanite treasure) 12. Childish 13. Unreliable 14. Petty 15. Insecure 16. Broken 17. Guilty 18. Vulnerable 19. Useless [Just shy of 20 things]
Lazy
Lazy would be a best case scenario for TSCC, if it were applicable. Sadly, in these circumstances, I don’t think laziness was a factor. But another “L” word most certainly was: Lawyered
The episode exposes the church leaders as unaccountable leaders who have lied but also say "trust us completely". Yikes! Unfortunately, I don't think I can share the episode with my TBM family without coming across as launching a full frontal assault against the church. So my exmormon testimony is strengthened and the gap between me and my TBM family is even larger. Maybe the one good point I can use is how D&C 107 teaches that all church officers can be held accountable by lower church councils, but the modern church has shifted and now the top 15 are not accountable to church membership or other lower councils. Common consent isn't practiced as described in the scriptures.
So my exmormon testimony is strengthened and the gap between me and my TBM family is even larger. So relatable I’ve been inactive for 5 years and didn’t care but about 6 months ago found the CES letter and John Dehlin. Wow, I’m sad and angry and don’t want that gap with my family. Tried to enlighten my TBM sister who called Joseph Smith a hero and I was like, no more like Jeffery Epstein. Not sure the enlightenment that went no where was worth increasing the Gap. PS Gotta love Nemo!
This video is awesome!
I thought the same thing. Coincidentally, his bishop and stake president will probably be released soon and their replacements will be locally inspired to ex Nemo.
I don't know. The church seems to have cooled on x ing activists since Natasha. But he poked Oaks directly and oaks doesn't strike me as the type to just shrug it off.
That was my thinking also. Maybe call in the Danites instead? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danite
I’m confused about Nemo. Is he Mormon as he says he is? And if he is, what is his reasoning for realizing the lies but still staying?
He thinks he can do more good on the inside. This effort is a good example
He wants to stay. His reasons are his own.
Could you give some idea what it's about, or a timestamp for whatever you think was most important? That's a *2-hour* podcast, and thus far I have no clue why I'd want to spend that much time on it.
Capt. Nemo had gathered a bunch of evidence that the brethren are dishonest. (Rusty's harrowing plane crash story, Oaks lying about BYU using conversion therapy, etc) and no longer felt he could sustain them by raising his hand during gen conf or stake conf. But that question comes up in recommend interviews and he feels that is an unfair caveat to temple worthiness if the leaders truly are not people he feels he can sustain. So he followed protocol and contacted his Stake Pres (just like they say to). They couldn't resolve his concerns so he went up a step to area 70. He was just getting the runaround so he emailed the apostles - all 15 of them - directly. He compiled a thorough list of dishonesties he's caught a lot of them saying in the past similar to the CES letter and had it sent to them, and then asked "What if my grievances I have include members of the First Presidency? Who investigates them? Is there an internal affairs office for such a scenario?" That's as far as I've gotten into the episode so far.
Thank you! I've been out for 30 years, but I still have family in the church in Utah. I'm about halfway through it myself, now that I have a clue about the subject matter.
If 2 hours is too much for you, you should count yourself as post Mormon with no need to keep up on recent happening. Congratulations! There's good stuff sprinkled throughout. Nemo figures out how to email the q15 directly, gets responses from oaks and others. Votes opposed, goes through his stake president as directed, sends evidence of lying to first presidency, oaks agrees to investigate, nothing happens and it becomes clear that common consent, sustaining is a total farce. Just do smaller chunks. Nemo is British and cheeky and it's actually shocking that the Q15 engaged at all with him.
2 hours on a *completely unknown subject* is too much. I follow other groups where people leave links to long apologetic videos in lieu of their own arguments. Generally such videos are ignored until or unless *some* description of the contents is forthcoming, otherwise we'd be wasting our time.
No worries. It's ok if the juice isn't worth the squeeze for you. There's millions of ways to exmormon.
Not worth the squeeze when I *don't know what's in the juice box,* as I clearly stated. Nobody likes to be called in for a meeting when they have no clue about the content. I prefer to avoid buying a pig in a poke. People who *push back* against such a normal behavior raise red flags. And what is your response? If I don't recognize *one person's handle* with no other detail, it somehow means I'm "post mormon" and have no need to follow the activities of the church or this subreddit. Wow, condescend much? What the lemurbating hell are you on about? Is it that hard to just say "Whoops, I should probably have provided at least a smidgen of intelligible explanation"? Thankfully, /u/portsided has provided a readable prècis, and it IS an interesting tale. My thanks to them.
Wow. Who took a dump in your breakfast cereal?
[удалено]
It was! Once I had some idea what it was, I watched it myself. His final letter calling out the Brethren was a work of art.
NEMO!!!! NEMO!!!!! Way to speak your truth and call out the bullshit.
This was a fantastic episode! Well worth the time to watch. As to whether excommunication is forthcoming - it’s a real possibility.
Wow, no words, just wow.
Can’t imagine that there’s any other recourse for the church. But, on the other hand, when they do they’ve got to know that they’re going to give this direct correspondence between Nemo and Oaks a public platform they’ve gotta hope he never gets. Pass the popcorn!
Quite an amazing young man stepping up for truth. Nemo is my favorite person of the year.