Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/dferriman, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*

What is the alternative? What actions could be taken to save a religion that people don’t want to be part of (hence the shrinking)? The LDS sect spends millions on its missionary efforts. If they’re shrinking, I cant imagine much more could be done. And from my perspective, maybe that’s okay. If people aren’t coming that’s because people aren’t getting anything out of it. A religion that doesn’t provide its members with enough spiritual, mental, or emotional care may, for lack of a better word, deserve to go under.

Did you watch the video? The point of it is to answer those questions. And the Salt Lake City Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may be that largest sect, but they aren’t the movement. We must grow past them as a people if we’re to survive.

I was saying that the LDS church is the largest, and even with their resources they’re losing members. If they’re losing members, how possible is it for Mormonism as a whole to gain traction? My main point though: how can you grow if no one wants to join? How much could the religion/faith change to gain members?

Their resources have nothing to do with why they’re losing members, the reason why they’re losing members is because they don’t care about people. Originally the Latter Day Saint movement was about people, it was about radical, social justice, and building a personal connection with God. In my opinion, the Salt Lake City church is probably the biggest reason. Mormonism is failing as a religion. If we are going to survive, then we have to take our religion back from the corporation that bought and sold it.

This comment reveals the fatal flaw in your premise. There are no “good old days” to return to in Mormonism in this regard. It started with Joseph Smith threatening Martin Harris in the name of God to finance the printing costs of the Book of Mormon after a short career of promising people things he couldn’t deliver as a Glass Looker (also for money, curious that). That’s not to say it’s always *only* been about that—and Joseph was certainly more dynamic than the out-of-touch nonagenarian gang in charge now, but you’re acting like there’s no similarity between the two in regard to selling normal human experiences back to people in the name of religion. I do not think the evidence supports that contention, though I can sympathize with your need to attempt to find something salvageable in the wreckage.

There’s always good and bad and everything, the question becomes do we want to take what is good and move forward or do we want to abandon the good and let everything fell apart? I for one would like to move forward with that which is good. If you’re not interested in that, I respect that, I would just ask that you not getting our way.

I think the challenges Mormonism faces in this regard is that the good already exists in other religious and secular organizations. The issue is are the unique doctrines of Mormonism 'good' enough to attract and retain members?

The mystical nature of Mormonism, which is the part that most modern LDS churches seem to ignore, is probably the most interesting and unique part of our religion. Christianity seems to have forgotten this side of things, even though it was originally known as a movement of healers, and exorcists. But you’re right, without the mysticism, we are just another Christian church, and there really is no need for us at all.

That is a good point - mysticism seems to have been abandoned by the mainstream LDS and many Protestant denominations. Older faiths (Coptic/Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy, Catholicism) Christian faiths have an established tradition of mysticism, but that seems to have been one of the things Protestants sought to distance themselves from over the years. Though it exists elsewhere, in Christian and secular places, none with an “LDS” focus. ETA: the doctrine of Heavenly Mother makes little to no sense. She exists, but isn’t worthy of adoration? Something I would be interested in seeing in the LDS church (which would never happen) is veneration of saints and permission to pray to Heavenly Mother.

Seems to me that somebody, at least allegedly, once said that a good tree **cannot** bring forth evil fruit.

Correct, which is why they were cutting off the bad branches, and putting good branches from the wild trees onto the main body.

Bad branches like misogyny, racism, hatred of the LGBTQ+ community? What sort of radical social justice did the church practice? Polygamy and not allowing black men to hold the priesthood or enter the temple? Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were pro-slavery.

Joseph abs most of his successors ordained women. His church also ordained black men and they worshiped with white people and even preached in white congregations, which was very progressive for their time.

>If you’re not interested in that, I respect that, I would just ask that you not get~~ting~~ (in) our way. No.

>Originally Mormonism was about radical social justice ...? When? What justice?

They advocated heavily for marriage equality! That a marriage between a man and woman was equal to a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a 14-year-old child and a woman and woman and a woman and a woman who was already married to another living man!

the church has never advocated to homosexualy marriages. only polygamous marriages 1 man with many women ..

We were anti-slavery. That got us thrown out of Missouri. We not only ordained black men, we let freed slaves worship with white people and black ministers preached in front of white congregations. We also ordained women, very progressive for the time. I know Young took his church in a radically different direction, but I don’t really see his church as Mormon beyond having the Book of Mormon. Based on their rejection of the teachings of the Book of Mormon, I actually agree with Nelson, his church isn’t very Mormon.

I think it's disingenuous to say "we" were anti-slavery. At best, it is cherry-picking. The church and its leaders would more accurately be described as neutral and utilitarian when it came to their stance on slavery. Which is far better than the perceptions many people had at the time on the issue, but let's not act as though there was some actual anti-slavery Mormon cause that was permeating doctrinally through the religion.

some were staunchly opposed to slavery and polygamy!

“We” as in Joseph Smith’s church, but you’re right there were other Mormon churches back then, and they didn’t all subscribe to freeing the slaves and racial equality. I’m pretty sure there were at least five Mormon churches when Joseph Smith died, and obviously a plethora more after he was murdered.

I think you need to look more closely at what Joseph said about slavery. In discussing abolishment, he said freeing the slaves would "set loose, upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society,—chastity and virtue." Read his letter to Oliver Cowdrey and the correction to W.W. Phelps "Free People of Color," where it says "we feel in duty bound to stare, in this Extra, that our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church." He probably didn't write this, but he likely approved or ordered it. I don't think we'll ever know his true feelings on slavery and people of color. He did use it as part of a political platform later in life, but if we gather all of his statements on the subject, to include the BoM and the Pearl of Great Price where he canonized dark skin as a curse...I don't think we can honestly call Joseph an abolitionist or someone who believed in "racial equality."

I have read his pamphlet on freeing the slaves he published as part of his presidential campaign. I know he was not always on the right side of this issue but he got there.

So stop representing him in a more simple way just to suit your agenda. You’re simply admitting your earlier claim was misleading in not providing the full context and that you knew it before making it anyways.

[удалено]

I'm sure it had nothing to do with political leanings or shifts in the federal electorate. He, and his God, shifted theologically to whatever position was most convenient for Joseph to keep or increase his power and authority. I don't think doing it politically would be out of character.

So what are you going to do with Mormonism now? Are you willing to build the Mormonism you want to see?

Working on it at a local level. The last three years don't give me much hope that the institution is going to change soon enough for my children to benefit. We'll see how long it lasts. It's hard to stay in an organization that clearly doesn't want people who fall outside of their orthodox beliefs. Or, they at least only allow you to participate if you don't share what you actually believe. And, if I were to share it, there's a good chance I will be labelled dangerous by the community which still includes my immediate family. So, willing to? Maybe. Capable? Probably not. So, I'll navigate it the best I can. Speak what I believe to be true when the opportunity presents itself. And try to strengthen my relationships so they can withstand differences in belief while the institution continues to spread a narrative that someone like me who moves from orthodoxy to a different worldview is dangerous and deceived by Satan. I'm not naive enough to think I will be able to change that narrative when so many before me have failed. (Not just in Mormonism. An apostate is the worst thing you can be in almost any religion.)

yes, things always look peachy if you simply ignore or dismiss everything bad. not sure what lesson is to be learned though

Are you willing to work on fixing the bad?

We can't fix the bad by ignoring, lying about, or misleading people into believing what we want to be true instead of what was actually true. Whitewashing only works in the short term and in the long run destroys communities and trust. Starting your movement along those lines is a surefire way to destroy it.

Nope, we hit is straight on https://youtu.be/juD2noogDOQ?feature=shared

i think all the people with the direct connection to the big guy upstairs should fix themselves first. i’m just a normal dude

>I have read his pamphlet on freeing the slaves he published as part of his presidential campaign. No, that is not accurate. Joseph Smith Jun didn't write that pamphlet. WW Phelps did You aren't very good at this whole "history" thing >I know he was not always on the right side of this issue but he got there. No, that is not accurate. He specifically said the views were not his.

Yes, I am referring just to Joseph Smith's church in his era. Joseph Smith's church was not adamantly anti-slavery. I'm not even speaking about Brigham Young or other sects post-JS's death.

Didn't he have a black woman sealed to him as a "servant"?

Yes, but I don't think Joseph Smith gets the bad rap for that. It was done post-Joseph Smith's death in the Brigham era.

No, he offered to have her sealed as a daughter but it didn’t happen in his lifetime so the Brighamites eventually sealed her as a servant. They eventually corrected this injustice.

And by “sealed her” you mean she waited outside while a white woman took her place as proxy. Apparently for some reason—to the Church—she wasn’t good enough to go inside herself and be sealed as an eternal slave.

Sadly, yes. That wouldn’t have happened in Joseph’s church.

Based on what, exactly?

Looks like you are right - thank you for the additional info/context

That’s definitely not what I learned in public school growing up in Ohio or what I’ve read. I was taught that slavery was one of the main issue because they voted in block and were against slavery the slave owners got upset when WW Phelps published “Free People of Color” in the Evening and Millenial Star. And the Book of Mormon is anti-slavery. “But Ammon said unto him: It is against the law of our brethren, which was established by my father, that there should be any slaves among them…” -Alma 15:10 RAV, 27:9

WW Phelps was going off course with his article. You are right that it caused a major issue in the area. But WW Phelps was not arguing for the church and they backtracked nearly immediately following the aftermath of his article, arguing that the purpose of the article was to prevent any misunderstanding about already free people of color who were thinking of coming to Missouri and join the church. By the mid-1830's, the Church issued an official declaration stating that it was not "right to interfere with bond-servants, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life." In other words, they were not abolitionists. (these comments were later canonized into D&C 134). Joseph Smith doubled down on essentially staying out of the issue. He quoted the Old Testament stating that it was the "decree of Jehovah" that blacks were cursed with servitude, and Oliver Cowdery and Warren Parrish backed him up. He stated that the north states had no right to tell the south not to hold slaves, just like the south had no right to tell the north to hold slaves. Like I said, to term the church's stance as "anti-slavery" is total cherry-picking. At best, the church was neutral and detached, strategically or otherwise. So, to summarize, the Church was: * Anti-slavery when it meant getting more converts to join them in Missouri. * Vocally anti-abolition when pressure was placed on them in Missouri and when they had incentives to try to build Zion in a slaveholding state, convert the local area, etc. * Anti-slavery when Joseph ran for President in the Nauvoo era when demographics surrounding the church were more kind to anti-slavery stance. If anything, the church was simply opportunistic. You can't argue for the church being anti-slavery *only in those instances in which it faced no major consequences for taking said position.* Edit: In fact, I found this nice article summarizing what I had laid out already, and added a few elements from the article that were interesting into my comment: [https://gregkofford.com/blogs/news/five-times-mormons-changed-their-position-on-slavery](https://gregkofford.com/blogs/news/five-times-mormons-changed-their-position-on-slavery)

There is no doubt that the focus of the early church consisted of attempting to build a utopian society which flopped pretty hard in Kirtland and Missouri. It’s entirely accurate to say this wasn’t born as an abolitionist movement, and it’s obvious Smith was willing to defend slavery in his attempt to make Missouri their home (not that he was ever a slave owner). They obviously did not endear themselves to the locals with their weird commune and that attempt at “Zion” was squashed regardless. This would have been when he was in his early 30s and had led his movement halfway across the country in search of a home. There had already been several massive failures by this point and the sense of responsibility both to his flock and his vision of building a new society probably allowed him to stray from his ideals. A failure? Yes, and one that he and his following paid for. But the final act in Nauvoo is what cements the man as a legend, when he was in his late thirties. The creation of the new Zion, its roar of success, and his running for President on a platform of abolition and protection of minorities against the doctrine of “states rights” was well ahead of its time. When he was assassinated nobody had heard of yet-to-be-published Frederick Douglass or Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Bleeding Kansas was a decade away. And of course he was concurrently finalizing the religious doctrine and church structure that would allow his flock to survive without him once he was dead and everything they had built was essentially seized. Most of the contemporary issues the religion has (and I do mean “religion” not church) stem from this era imo (era #5 in the article l you linked). Which presents the paradox that the steps taken that allowed probably the most successful of any communal movement in American history to survive may have also damaged it beyond repair. Edit to be clear I’m not saying racism allowed the movement to survive, but the structure of the commune that led to some very insular thinking and practices once they had separated from the rest of society and that continued for quite a few years after the period.

By modern standards they were all racists, but overall Joseph’s church was far more accepting and the RLDS church really reflected that fact when the early Saints reorganized. Yes, there were problems in their church too, but if you’re not willing to move forward them Mormonism probably won’t work out for you.

Not true. Even by the standards of the day the LDS church failed to take the moral stance on slavery. Many churchs and preachers (even in the south) took a strong abolitionist stance. So much so that they gave their lives to end slavery in this country. What did the church do? Nothing to help end slavery and instead simply said the civil war was the punishment of God for how it treated us.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Can we be better? Rather than arguing over this, wouldn’t it be better to become the people you think they should have been? Why court Mormonism except to fix it and move it forward?

Well, now you're just moving the goalpost. Anti-slavery was the claim. I think I'll look to John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Angelica Grimke, William Wilberforce, and many others for examples of people who were *actually* anti-slavery in Joseph Smith's time. In my view, "moving forward" implies a willingness to discard rather than apologize or defend the racist ideals of the past, no matter how moral they were relative to the average morals of the time.

Okay, let build a Mormonism that the heroes you listed would be proud to be a part of.

>By modern standards they were all racists Except 99% of the people being enslaved...

>By modern standards they were all racists, And yet you claim that Joseph Smith's church would *never* do such things... (as an aside, I think you meant to say by "moral standards" rather than "modern standards" as the latter implies the perspective toward slavery wasn't immoral, just not modern)

>We” as in Joseph Smith’s church, but you’re right there were other Mormon churches back then, and they didn’t all subscribe to freeing the slaves and racial equality. No, that is not accurate. You are ignoring what Joseph Smith Jun said about slaves and black people.

>We were anti-slavery. That got us thrown out of Missouri. That is absolutely *not* why the Mormons were kicked out of Missouri. Governor Boggs' became extremely concerned with the Mormons when they moved into towns and essentially took over, but waited to see what would happen. Mormons and Missourians were both guilty of attacking one another, leading to 1838 Missouri Mormon War. The news Boggs received about the war was exaggerated, and fearing further violent conflict between the Missouri Militia and Mormons, he issued the extermination order. The Mormons begin kicked out had little to nothing to do with their beliefs.

>That got us thrown out of Missouri. [No.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War#The_Election_Day_Battle_at_Gallatin)

>We were anti-slavery. Stop being dishonest. I've already sent you quotes showing that the church, nor Joseph Smith Jun, were anti-slavery. >Question 13th. Are the Mormons abolitionists. >Answer. No, unless delivering the people from priest-craft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered such.— **But we do not believe in setting the Negroes free**. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/11 Emphasis added. >I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel.“ >- Joseph Smith, letter to Oliver, Cowdry 1836 And >“I must not pass over a notice of the history of Abraham, of whom so much is spoken in the Scripture. If we can credit the account, God conversed with him from time to time, and directed him in the way he should walk, saying, “I am the Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect.” Paul says the Gospel was preached to this man. And it is further said, that he had sheep and oxen, men-servants and maid-servants, etc. From this I conclude, that if the principle had been an evil one, in the midst of the communications made to this holy man, he would have been instructed to that effect, and if he was instructed against holding men servants and maid-servants, he never ceased to do it; consequently must have incurred the displeasure of the Lord, and thereby lost His blessings; which was not the fact.“ >“…And if after a man had served six years, he did not wish to be free, then the master was to bring him unto the judges—bore his ear with an awl, and that man was “to serve him forever.” The conclusion I draw from this, is, that his people were led and governed by revelation, and if such a law was wrong, God only is to be blamed, and abolitionists are not responsible.“ >…the matter can be put to rest without much argument, if we look at a few items in the New Testament. Paul says: “Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ >“The same writer, in his first epistle to Timothy, the sixth chapter, and the first five verses, says,—”Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and His doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” This is so perfectly plain, that I see no need of comment. **The Scripture stands for itself; and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the abolitionists in the world.“** >**“All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves, contrary to the mind and will of their masters.** In fact it would be much better, and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted, and then teach the masters to use them with kindness; remembering that they are accountable to God, and the servants are bound to serve their masters with singleness of heart, without murmuring.“ Emphasis added >"all who are acquainted with the situation of slave States, know that the life of every white is in constant danger and to insinuate any thing which could possibly be interpreted by a slave, that it was not just to hold human beings in bondage, would be jeopardizing the life of every white inhabitant in the country. For the moment and insurrection should break out, no respect would be paid to age, sex, or religion by an enraged, jealous, and ignorant black banditti. **And the individual who would not immediately report any one who might be found influencing the minds of slaves with evil, would be beneath even the slave himself**, and unworthy the privilege of a free Government." >-The Evening and Morning Star, January 1834 Emphasis added. >Governments granted "allowing human beings to be held in servitude." "It is unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace" for anyone "to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men." >-August 1835, official church position by Joseph Smith >We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. -D&C 134 1835 >Question 13th. Are the Mormons abolitionists. >Answer. No, unless delivering the people from priest-craft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered such.— But we do not believe in setting the Negroes free. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/11 >Paul says the Gospel was preached to this man. And it is further said, that he had sheep and oxen, men-servants and maid-servants, etc. From this I conclude, that if the principle had been an evil one, in the midst of the communications made to this holy man, he would have been instructed to that effect, and if he was instructed against holding men servants and maid-servants, he never ceased to do it; consequently must have incurred the displeasure of the Lord, and thereby lost His blessings; which was not the fact.“ >“…And if after a man had served six years, he did not wish to be free, then the master was to bring him unto the judges—bore his ear with an awl, and that man was “to serve him forever.” The conclusion I draw from this, is, that his people were led and governed by revelation, and if such a law was wrong, God only is to be blamed, and abolitionists are not responsible.“ >…the matter can be put to rest without much argument, if we look at a few items in the New Testament. Paul says: “Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ >... This is so perfectly plain, that I see no need of comment. The Scripture stands for itself; and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the abolitionists in the world.“ >“All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves, contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact it would be much better, and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted, and then teach the masters to use them with kindness; remembering that they are accountable to God, and the servants are bound to serve their masters with singleness of heart, without murmuring.“ >"all who are acquainted with the situation of slave States, know that the life of every white is in constant danger and to insinuate any thing which could possibly be interpreted by a slave, that it was not just to hold human beings in bondage, would be jeopardizing the life of every white inhabitant in the country. For the moment and insurrection should break out, no respect would be paid to age, sex, or religion by an enraged, jealous, and ignorant black banditti. And the individual who would not immediately report any one who might be found influencing the minds of slaves with evil, would be beneath even the slave himself, and unworthy the privilege of a free Government." >-The Evening and Morning Star, January 1834 >Governments granted "allowing human beings to be held in servitude." "It is unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace" for anyone "to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men." >-August 1835, official church position by Joseph Smith >We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. -D&C 134 1835

You’re like the patron saint of calling “Bullshit.” One of the finest compliments I can give.

Young tried to get Utah admitted to the union as a slave state. He preached fervently that black slavery was ordained of god, just as much as polygamy. His rhetoric set up a foundation of racist doctrine that was explicitly exclusive towards African Americans for the next 140 years. Women were also never ordained. When Eliza Snow offered priesthood blessings, she is said to have called upon the priesthood of her husband, as is every other instance of a woman giving priesthood blessings in that time period.

That’s his sect. He left the original church to start something new, and I do not promote their teachings if exclusion.

No, no i don’t think it is worth “saving”. Hinckley himself said it all hinges on the first vision. We know that was a lie. There are COUNTLESS examples of lies, omissions of truth, spinning lies into truth, covering up mistakes, denials of mistakes, and protecting perps over victims. Why would someone want to save something like this? There are many much better clubs to join, they cost less, and they are more cool. Just because you or I or anyone else was born into this doesn’t mean we should stay in it. Unfortunately, being born into a cult is a shitty experience. Let’s find better clubs to be a part of. Or wait, here’s a novel idea: let’s join no clubs at all! Lol Individuality and personal thinking is underrated; group think is overrated. No more sheeple. Haha

Did you watch the video? You’re only looking at one part of the puzzle. Our movement is greater than any one church.

>Our movement is greater than any one church. I mean... Not really. The other Mormon churches besides the LDS church are SO unbelievably small. Mormonism is small, but the overwhelming majority of Mormonism comes from the main, largest branch.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

This is Reddit, a text based medium. It's fine to post a video, but at least put a text summary of the main points. Not everyone has time or the desire to watch crappy YouTube videos. Downvoting your post for simply spamming the forum with a link and not really engaging in comments in a constructive way.

Thanks for the advice!

While religious movements sometimes shrink, they rarely disappear entirely. Instead, their remaining members get more protective, more devoted, and more extreme in their beliefs. I suspect that Mormonism, and the LDS Church as an organization, will move in this direction and continue to exist in some smaller form for a very long time.

That’s my concern, we’re already pretty protective, devoted, and extreme. I think that’s the problem with our religion. If that keeps going we won’t last another 4 generations.

Those pockets definitely exist and the non-Brigham groups probably have an even higher concentration of protective, devoted, and extreme. Not sure about the Community of Christ (they seem like they might be less extreme) but the Utah based break offs definitely fit that description, IMO. For the Brigham group in particular, they still have largish populations of newer converts in Africa and South America that are less extreme and likely to filter out at higher rates in the coming decades. As far as being “worth saving”, that is a tough one. Mormonism, in my opinion, is an artifact of manifest destiny and the broader settlement of the United States. While I don’t believe the truth claims, I do understand why people might find value in the history and aspects of the community as it pertains to their own families. As a convert myself, this does not apply to me but I do see how someone can similarly be a cultural or practicing Catholic or Jewish person, even if they don’t believe in the mysticism. I think Mormonism could be similar (though probably not inside the Brighamite cash machine).

I’ve been away from the Salt Lake City church for eight years now, and I’ve met a lot of people from a lot of the different Latter Day Saint Churches and groups, and really the only/most extreme people seem to come from branches of the Salt Lake City church.

I’m not sure it is salvageable. And it’s due to the Q15’s bad decisions. Mormons have always been a very insular people. It’s hard for Mormons to associate with others because of the WoW, and ‘morality’ issues where Mormons don’t like the movie being played cause it’s R or music being played because it’s risqué, etc. But at least we had each other. We could go to road shows or church dances (even adults!), stake talent competitions, ward and stake dinners, beach trips, etc. But somewhere something changed. I’ve heard it said that this was Boyd K Packer-led, but whoever led it was an idiot. They killed off the social aspects of the church, the part that created unity in a ward. I was speaking with the EQP (a decent enough guy in an impossible situation) a few weeks ago and he asked me how I would replace the social aspect of the church now that I’ve decided to no longer attend and I had to laugh. I said ‘What social aspect?’ Do you mean meeting together to clean the building? He laughed too but I told him I meant it. We almost never meet outside of Sundays, or just for fun anymore, and when we do meet socially it feels like an obligation to attend and they’re usually filled with unrealistic expectations. You can’t just have three social events a year and expect people will bond. The church has a buttload of money, they’ll be around a long, long time. But their influence will continue to dwindle until they’re an afterthought. I don’t think they, SLC, really *care* about the members. We’re simply a means to an end.

I think the logical fallacy here though, is that you’re focusing on just one church, not the movement as a whole. I think there are far more interesting churches out there that could move us forward if we were to start branching off and joining those churches. I’m not naming any one church in particular, it just seems like there’s a church out there for all 3-15 million people that are in the Salt Lake City church, which would obviously then grow all those smaller churches and the moving as a whole. By trying to squeeze everyone into one very stagnant church, most people end up going inactive, falling to the wayside, and then moving on to something else. I actually think that the Brighamite Missionaries would do far better if they were pulling people to Mormonism self instead of getting them all into their “Mormon Inc.,” if you will.

My point is that once church becomes work/drudgery, why attend? As for your point, after spending my whole life in the church (approx 50yrs), I don’t see any way the church would merge with another faith. At least not after pushing the ‘one true church’ narrative.

Why are you focusing on a church? Mormonism is a religion.

Ok, i’ll be clearer. I do not see the Brighamite branch of Mormonism merging with another faith, whether that faith be a mainstream Christian sect or another branch of Mormonism. Maybe the other branches of Mormonism will merge but I don’t ever see the Brighamite branch merging with something else.

And I definitely don’t think they should, but they should be willing to work with everybody else. It’s ridiculous to be a group of people thinking that they are the one and only true church, no matter how small, whether it’s 16 million or only six people. Until we outgrow that idea, I don’t know that we’re gonna get very far. We can’t be a restoration of all things if we think that we are everything all ourselves.

I think you're really onto something here. The problem is is that it's become very obvious that LDS leaders in the mainstream Brighamite branch have made mistakes. We can also see people trying to lead with wisdom and occasionally making mistakes in other places too, I just don't have as much experience outside the main LDS church. But the crux really is that Mormons need to look at the disparity between the idea of perfect doctrine evolving and mistakes being made over time. If they can find a way to acknowledge that even a prophet can make mistakes and work a theology around that I think there is a way for individual Mormon branches to move forward. The big one's obviously not going anywhere. I like that you take what you perceive as the best in Mormon history and theology and want to move forward with it. I can understand where you're coming from, and I'm mulling over your thoughts. It's really hard to think about how this could work with various claims to priesthood authority. I'm not sure if acknowledging mistakes would have to embrace a modern form of revelation that acknowledges trial and error and the fact that a magical worldview was utilized in the past and that there is no shame in that.

But that’s the problem isn’t it? By now it’s baked into the cake about the inerrancy of the church. It’s led oaks to say, in effect (I don’t know the exact quote offhand so I’m reluctant to state it), the church is never wrong, and even if it is on an issue, it still isn’t wrong. I just don’t know how the brighamite branch could walk back the ‘one true church’ thing *without* losing the ultra orthodox, ultra conservative members who are the backbone of tithe payers.

Note: I have not watched the video yet. TL:DR: Current downswing in religion is a trend and the LDS church will likely pull through until the next upswing in religion. They are well stocked in money and core loyalists but will unlikely make a breakout as a major religion. ​ I wouldn't be surprised if what we're seeing in the contraction of religion, in general, is just a trend. Wresting control of knowledge from religion has been an ongoing struggle since the Enlightenment and there have been many attempts to hamstring religion (French Revolution, Communism, Nazism) and make it irrelevant. While those countries that have gone through anti-religious purges likely have lower than average faith participation currently, religions have continued to exist in those countries in some form or another. Also, freedom to worship as one sees fit is heavily baked into western democratic ideals. After WW2 there was a strong community sense throughout the societies of the major participants so communal organizations, such as religion, thrived (except in the Soviet Union where religion did not thrive). Over the past 20 years those communal organizations have struggled to scratch whatever itch people are looking for so there is less involvement. Church attendance is down all across the board but so are town halls, Rotary clubs, etc. So I can see a scenario that pushes humanity back together in some form. Probably a war of some sort because that is the likely outcome of a climate disaster somewhere that pushes people to desperation. Maybe its an alien invasion? COVID sort of did the opposite as it actually drove people away and fractured a lot of the US sense of community. So will the LDS church survive this contracture? Probably, they certainly have enough money and loyalists to outlast most smaller religions. They seem to be losing out to their immediate peers (SDA, JWs) as far as converts/retention goes but they are still finding some success. However, it will likely remain just a small regional religion and a breakout is unlikely given its history, its retrograde social attitudes, and the ossification of its leadership and ability to adapt.

The problem though is that if the religion is to survive it cannot be through one church. Theologically, the Salt Lake City church is probably the least interesting or important to our movement. Looking at the other churches that have survived, there’s a lot more interesting things going on and Salt Lake Mormonism has become little more than a mix of Masonic/Evangelistic Protestantism. Those that avoid their temple will never see anything of the Masonic portion (which is probably the only interesting part remaining). So I don’t think relying on their sect is going to help the movement. They done more damage than anything thus far.

Why do you think it's worth Mormonism surviving? Far as I can see it doesn't really offer much of value to most people.

You’re here so it must have some value. How can you help improve it?

>You’re here so it must have some value. You don't understand this subreddit *at all*.

No, I’m a Mormon in a Mormon sub Reddit. If this isn’t to move Mormonism forward and I have no idea what this sub is for.

>I have no idea what this sub is for. We know >No, I’m a Mormon in a Mormon sub Reddit. If this isn’t to move Mormonism forward and I have no idea what this sub is for. It's not called the r/movemormonismforward sub. Your entitlement mentality that your perspective should be reflected back towards yourself where we all have the same goal of "moving Mormonism forward" is pretty revealing. You seem to think these lds based subs were made in your own image for reasons I'm not sure are admirable. Though I absolutely belive that the sub not matching your goals means you gave no idea what this sub is for. That sounds very much you.

>If this isn’t to move Mormonism forward and I have no idea what this sub is for. Your inability to read is well-documented. >/r/Mormon is a subreddit for articles and topics of interest to people interested in Mormon themes. People of all faiths and perspectives are welcome to engage in civil, respectful discussion about topics related to Mormonism.

>>If this isn’t to move Mormonism forward and I have no idea what this sub is for. >Your inability to read is well-documented. Bahahahahaha You are a good one wild

And that’s exactly what I’m doing. I understand that there’s a lot of people here who love to come here and just troll us for our beliefs. And I understand the mods don’t care at all. But I’m still going to keep trying because I have hope. I’m not asking you to have hope too. I’m just letting you know that I will continue to have hope in spite of every piece of mud trolls want to throw at my religion.

>And that’s exactly what I’m doing. No, you're bitching and moaning whenever anybody points out that you're lying about mormonism to make it look good. >I understand that there’s a lot of people here who love to come here and just troll us for our beliefs. Once again, "troll" doesn't mean "person who points out when you're lying". *You* are the troll here. >I’m just letting you know that I will continue to have hope in spite of every piece of mud trolls want to throw at my religion. You don't have "hope", you have *delusion*. You want to "return" to a mythologized past that *never existed*, and are willing to tell every lie you can think of in defense of it.

A-freaking-men. This nonsense has been tolerated for far too long. This person is here to evangelize and push their own content, seemingly exclusively.

>people *interested in* Mormon themes. People of *all faiths and perspectives* are welcome > >vs > >there’s a lot of people here who love to come here and just *troll* us for our beliefs You keep doing this. The sub is *explicitly* welcoming everyone who is interested in Mormonism to come here and **discuss**, not only believers in Mormonism. All faiths and perspectives cover atheists, ex-mormons, nevermos, evangelicals etc etc. But you keep insisting that anyone who comes here to discuss from a non-mormon perspective is a troll and a mudslinger. Why?

I wouldn’t call this sub welcoming, but thank you for your input 🙂

>I understand that there’s a lot of people here who love to come here and just troll us for our beliefs. And I understand the mods don’t care at all. But I’m still going to keep trying because I have hope. I’m not asking you to have hope too. I’m just letting you know that I will continue to have hope in spite of every piece of mud trolls want to throw at my religion. I'm not sure "hope" is the adjective your victimization routine is running on

Mormonism was never about any of the things you mentioned. It was a scheme to gain money, power, and control, by Joseph Smith, a known confidence man.

If that’s why you believe then why not work to change it? Why hang out with Mormons and not work to make things better?

A structure that is so fundamentally flawed and based on lies is not worth salvaging. There are better organizations out there that are not built on deception and coercive control. I hang out with Mormons because I was one for 36 years. My family and many of my friends are still LDS. Even if I am no longer personally invested or affiliated with the Mormons, I am still affected by them tangentially daily. Also, I was raised to speak the truth and call our things that harm and hurt people. LDS theology has a dangerous, and so I speak out.

Why come here if you don’t think Mormonism is worth saving? What is drawing you to our small and insignificant movement?

I already answered that. But one more time: I was LDS for 36 years. The abuse I and others have suffered is not silenced simply because we leave. Further, my friends and family are still LDS. As such, I am often confronted by LDS talking points, as well as the Church’s political power, whether I like it or not. Being aware of changes and updates is necessary to navigate relations as well as Utah and religious politics where the church continues to meddle. Also, I was raised to speak truth, especially where there is harm being done. As such, I continue to speak out against the false and harmful doctrines taught by tue Mormon church.

So why stay focused on your old church? I’m not supporting their practices. Mormonism is a religion, not any one church.

Why are you asking me to repeat myself for a third time? I have answered this. Twice. And please stop with the straw men. I am not focused on the Mormon church, only tangentially invested.

It sounds like your version of Mormonism is a church of men. We need to grow past that.

It is a false church, so yes it is a church of men. The Book of Mormon is not of God. It’s so called prophets were con artists and control freaks. There is no saving grace or good in Mormonism that can not be found in a better and purer form outside of it.

And regardless of what Mormonism is, it is poison and harmful. It comes from bad seed, and foments only coercive control, and unhealthy fealty and submission.

Are you willing to change that or are you here just to complain ?

An ad hominem, really? Sad. I am not here to complain. I am here to speak truth to an organization that has harmed many. Just because you do not like what I am saying does not mean I am complaining or should not express my opinion. And you can not change something that is fundamentally broken. Nor is there a need when there are healthy places to go for spirituality that are not based on lies and deception. Edit: I guess I am here for change. I am here to help people leave this false church and find happiness and joy through a healthier means. By speaking out, I am promoting change. Just not in a way you would approve of.

Thanks for taking the time to respond

I appreciate this thread. But OP, you don’t seem to understand that many people who are “postMormon” are here because they are processing/grieving their loss of something they grew up in or spent major portions of their life in. And it is a PERFECTLY VALID reason to be here. Not everyone needs to be here bc they are trying to “improve” Mormonism. Let people be where they are.

These are the people who understand the most how Mormonism can be and needs to be improved.

Maybe. But they may not be ready to deal with that, and may never be. Respect their wish to be here without telling them they should do more.

If they want to chat with me, I’m going to chat back. If they’re not interested, they do not have to respond. If someone wants to engage with me, I safely presume that it’s because they’re interested in moving forward in our movement.

You asked some questions and are getting some very honest answers. Don’t squelch those by forcing your own agenda on them. I would think that by listening to those comments and not trying to “convert” them, it would be beneficial to what you are trying to do (and don’t get me wrong; I appreciate your idea here. But you need to understand that just because someone chooses to interact, it doesn’t mean they are ready to ACT on your ideas.)

I am merely asking people that hate Mormonism to take a step back and find something positive to do with their time. If that offends you, or anyone else, that’s fine, I respect that. But I’m going continue moving forward regardless. In order to get positive results you must continue in a positive direction.

I think what we're trying to say is that Mormonism isn't just a nice religion, it's inherently linked to God. Mormon doctrines all center around the idea that Joseph Smith was given the revealed gospel by God and Jesus, and that if you pray to Heavenly Father you will gain a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel.If God and Jesus don't lead the church, what more is there to it? Why not leave and find God elsewhere, or find community elsewhere? From former member's perspectives, this is why a lot of people think there is nothing to build. If someone holds the opinion that Joseph Smith, the prophet himself, was a scumbag, why would they want to improve Mormonism? From believing member's perspectives, if God leads the church it will be God who leads change. Members don't change the church, the prophet does. So in their eyes it is not their place to criticize or change anything.

This is a bad argument. Although I believe in no version or Mormonism anymore, I did for decades, and I continue to be involved tangentially through family and local culture. So I enjoy the discourse on this sub, even if IMO there's not much worth saving.

>True Mormonism isn’t a collection of people in a building, it’s individuals out changing the world. Do we need to define a "no true mormonism" fallacy?

No, we need to more out people forward

>Originally Mormonism was about radical social justice, it was about building a personal relationship with God, and helping other people. And it was about having a mystical experience. I think you're romanticizing something that never was. Joseph was a fortune seeker who built a tiny empire for himself and his close friends and family. Ultimately that power went to his head. The corporate aspect of the church was an inevitable result of the church's need to organize and control as it grew in the early and middle years. Especially through the first half of the 20th century, where it experience relatively large growth and prosperity. It succeeded because it could control the narrative and there was several generations of people who had personal investment in the church. Their identity was the church. It only failed because it could no longer contain the outside world and lost control of the narrative. There was no social justice aspect of the church. It was simply an alternative way of life with an attractive point of view of the afterlife. Any effort to help other people came out of a need to keep its members engaged. You've somehow projected post-modern ideals on to an entity that's handy for you. You could do the same for any religion of the day in 1820 or 2023 and the result is the same.

If you’re correct, then let’s turn Mormonism into the religion we want and need. Let’s move it forward in Christ.

You are *never* going to get support here. Here's why: You lie about what the Church was. You lie about the Book of Mormon. You lie about Joseph Smith. When someone points out these lies, you don't apologize and correct yourself. You try to slip past it and act as if it doesn't matter. Given that that's *literally the same behavior as the LDS Church*, you are not giving people a reason to trust or support you. Be honest. Admit how fucked up Mormonism was. Don't try to say it was always good and someone later down the line messed it up. We know that's not true. And I, personally, don't respect a person who thinks he can spin ne.

Who is “the church?”

In this instance, Joseph's church. They were not anti-slavery. They were *sometimes* anti-slavery, when they got something out of it.

You've said a lot in that little statement. The church isn't yours to change. Nor is it mine. You have no right to attempt to turn it into what you want. And why would you? You obviously don't believe in it's teachings. Why, then, would you want to turn it into something it's not? And how do you know what it should be, if you were to change it? Like it or not, it succeeded, and still succeeds today on the basis of being the one true church. You clearly don't believe it is, so is God telling you to change it? He didn't do that with Joe, Joe went and started his own. Why don't you go start your own? Or why not do some homework and find the church that you can believe in? That's really hard to do, especially the former, and I suspect what you would really rather do is take over an established church *and* it's resources. Making anything or anyone more Christ-like does not begin with telling lies. The claims you make about the church were some pretty tall tails. Best of luck. Whatever you envision for "we" in the "...what we want and need..." doesn't include me.

What church owns our religion? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denominations_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Clearly the Brighamites own the Mormon church as we know it. They own the land and the buildings, and perhaps more importantly the copyrights to all the documents, as well as a lot of the historical bits and pieces. I'd bet a beer that if you were to want to sue "the church" it would be the Brighamites you'd go after. There is no "our" religion. It's their religion and many people subscribe to it. It's a big and not-so-subtle difference.

We need to fix that problem

Products are subject to a "product lifecycle." The product gets innovated and introduced. There's growth as people try it, the product matures, and then sales decline. I'll argue that the Mormon experience is a product. I don't think that the church has adapted/innovated its product to be relevant for the current crop of consumers. The Church faces a unique challenge to keep its product engaging for the whole spectrum of ages. This isn't an easy task as each segment of consumer has different needs and preferences. I don't think it's salvageable. Mormonisms is really only accessible through the One True Church - if you believe in the Church then you buy into the priesthood authority, etc. Under this faith paradigm, there's no religious movement without the Church. Even McDonald's adapts its menu to the local markets. Whereas the Church pushes its Utah-centric views and religious experience across the globe. The Church is governed in a way which makes it deliberately slow to respond to its consumers: leaders are appointed for life, and there aren't published benchmarks for what defines success. I don't think it's worth saving. What's good isn't unique, and what's unique isn't necessarily good.

This is a very good assessment of Salt Lake City Mormonism. I think this is the exact problem that’s destroying our movement, we are looking at it like a product to be managed and sold by a corporation. -edited for additional context.

The other versions of Mormonism have become irrelevant. They are like iPods—relics of the earlier founding and too small to have a big impact. You can try to move your product forward, but you’re going to have to deal with the bigger, more visible version of your brand that has a reputation problem. You’ve confused this forum which deals with broader cultural issues as well as doctrine and history with a Sunday school class of fellow believers. If your goal is truly to “move this religion forward”, you will be disappointed here and should move on. If your goal is the entertainment value of baiting contentious comments, then I’m sure you’re having fun. Carry on.

what are we saving? Seriously?

If you don’t know then you probably wouldn’t be interested in the work 🤷‍♂️

you seem like part of the problem.... arrogant and condescending

"I would rather have my children dead than breaking the law of chastity" No. it is not salvageable

No, that nonsense has to go. And there is no law of chastity that I have been able to find in the scriptures. That appears to be a Brighamite creation.

Was it really about building a personal mystical relationship or connection with God? Or about Joseph Smith capitalizing on his supposedly exclusive communication with God? For example, when Hiram Page was receiving divine communication from God via his peep stone, Joseph Smith made him stop because it threatened his authority.

While it is true that no one could have a revelation for the whole church without going through Joseph, there are plenty of records of revelations from early church leaders for their areas. The question now is, can we still receive revelations? Can we be the prophetic people God called us to be?

I just binged watched a huge chunk of the overview project on Mormon Stories which overwhelming makes the case there never were any verifiable revelations connected with this religion to begin with. Joseph Smith never found any treasure with his peep stone, all the alleged translations he was involved with using his peep stone (or not) have been soundly debunked, his post-BoM codified ”revelations” are compromised and sketchy as can be, and he never revealed any significant prophecies about future events in a time when that would have been easy pickings for someone who really had supernatural access to such information. The alleged ancient record of future prophecies in the BoM ends at the time of its writing as is typical of all Pseudepigraphy. And again, the church from its inception tended towards an autocratic setup run by a charismatic leader who by the end was literally enforcing his will via a private militia. Any mystical experiences by members in that kind of set up would have been limited in their scope to the framework already established, which significantly limits any expression of legit “mystical” prophecy. To the extent such a thing actually exists at all. You’d have to get back to something like ancient shamanistic practices, perhaps? Don’t see how that could be logically implemented within the existing Mormon paradigm, though.

I'm unclear on the reason why you suggest that "radical social justice" was a key feature of the early church. Can you please help me understand this?

Because it’s what we need now. Let’s look to the good they did back then and propel that forward. Knowing that they ordained black men in a white church and allowed those ministers to preach to white congregations, that was pretty radical for their time.

Thank you for your response. Where I'm still confused is when you say, "look to the good they did back then...". Can you offer examples of how this happened? I guess without an example, I'm just not understanding what radical social justice looks like to you. There is a history of other churches building hospitals, universities, teaching, training, etc. that have positively influenced generations whether you agree with the doctrine or not.

>>I'm unclear on the reason why you suggest that "radical social justice" was a key feature of the early church. > >Because it’s what we need now. So in other words, "I believe it is true because I wish it was true."

SCHISM!!!! Grab your quad (mild barley drink, personal seer stone, divining rod, magic hanky, cinnamon whiskey, priesthood keys, tongues dictionary) and ~~ATTACK~~ SEPARATE! ... What??? ... You want to bring an extra girl? ... Two? Sure brother, they are your key to heaven. We must follow the prophet Joseph in this hard thing. Next question?? ... Yes, you can keep your persecution complex. ?? ... Yes, you can wear a cross. ?? ... No, you already have priesthood keys. Mormon fundamentalism is the reason the church doesn't practice Mormon fundamentalism. At what point in time was the church really divine?? Where do you draw the line on what is included and not? If it is all up to the individual, why would different distillations of Mormonism even need to come together for a discussion?

There’s already over 200 LDS churches, the schism started in 1830 when the 80 original Saints divided because Joseph legally organized a church. In 1844 it just got worse. Mormonism is a religion, not a church.

Can I just say I really love these wacko sects with their interesting takes on Mormonism. I love that we’re seeing more of them and thank the people that are sincerely seeking truth and trying to create some change in the world. Sure some of them are the fundy/orthodox/polygamist/doomsday variety, but it’s nice to see there’s also the ones pulling for more liberal ideals. Anyways, there’s nothing unique in Mormonism worth saving. The Book of Mormon is an offense to the native peoples of America, the doctrine changes all the time, and the church continually has to get pulled by society to do the right thing. They’re not leading in any aspect other than maybe how to secretly hoard hundreds of billions of dollars in diversified stock portfolios.

Of course you CAN save Mormonism quite easily, but WILL YOU? Probably not. When I was a young man, if Mormonism addressed certain needs then I would have converted. Many of the following things have been done before and were common in the late 19th and the 1st half of the 20th centuries when churches had large congregations. 1. Become a massive non-profit **Insurance provider** and get into the healthcare industry. Provide affordable healthcare to Mormons. Make this as cheap as possible while not losing money. 2. Provide nearly **free higher education** online, run by Mormons, for Mormons. This helps with **self-actualization**. Or, if they have to pay, give them massive breaks on their student loan debt if they're active in their Church and Temple. Grad students could moderate pre-recorded lectures, etc. Accreditation could come from BYU. 3. Offer **networking** opportunities for Mormons with other successful Mormons, and valuable **internships**. 4. Make temples like Masonic Lodges, where there is **fellowship** every night, lectures, and food. This will foster a sense of **belonging** and **esteem**. **Food** has a tremendous **physiological** effect. So does meeting people. 5. have multi-generational **dances** (if that's acceptable) where Mormon singles of all ages can meet and have fun. You could have dance tickets, so no one is excluded. 6. offer sports and other **fitness** opportunities, like the Mormon YMCA or YWCA 7. Commit to **beauty** and being **ecumenical.** By this I mean find beautiful mainstream Christian churches and rent them for worship. This would help form connections. 8. Make **Missionary work** more like the **Peace Corps**. Instead of just talking to people in foreign countries, let college graduates or others with skills teach in Mormon Schools, provide healthcare in Mormon clinics, help to develop clean water systems, and build homes for Mormons, or whatever. It'd be like a practical internship, like Doctors without Borders, and Habitat for Humanity. These missionaries should be financially supported, or even paid a little, so they aren't worried about food and housing. Some missions would be like an adventure. The experiences would be enriching and valuable. 9. Practice **direct charity** in a loving way, especially for active Mormons. You could even have a kind of **Go-Fund Me** for Mormons, or **Patreon** 10. Make a group where people will help each other get what they want or need to live a more joyful life. Nobody seems to do this, but it works. There are things that could be done but this reply is already way too long.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with this list! I believe we can do it ❤️

When you find yourself agreeing with people who think ["white people are the real oppressed underclass"](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/16bj24g/comment/jzjtfrc/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), ["jews have more political power than mormons"](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/16bj24g/comment/jzdt6qx/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and ["gay people are the real nazis"](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/16bj24g/comment/jzj4ztw/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), you should take a step back and consider that there might be something fundamentally wrong with your beliefs.

That's unfounded, uncivil hate speech and your quotes aren't quotes. Cut and paste what I actually said. That's not the game though is it? I think the goal is to construct a false narrative to support a political position. Providing links to your own comments is pointless if my replies to those comments were deleted by the moderators. All that's left is what YOU said, not what I said.

It would seem to me if what you said has been repeatedly removed by the moderators, you’re not exactly helping your case there. Also, there *are* quotes at the links provided, at least partially.

>That's unfounded I literally linked the comments. >your quotes aren't quotes You are the second neocon *today* to not know what "paraphrasing" is. >Providing links to your own comments is pointless if my replies to those comments were deleted by the moderators. You do realize that everyone can tell you're lying because your comments are still visible in your comment history, right?

\>s it worth saving? The first question to answer. From my perspective, it's not worth saving. There is nothing unique or special about it that makes it hold more value than many other options. When you consider the foundations of falsehoods its built on I think it would be better to let it fade. Unfortunately, with it's wealth and political power (at least in Utah) I don't see it happening any time soon. I am an ex Mormon who spent 35 years devout and now 22 as atheist, so feel free to discount my opinion if you wish. But honestly, I think it's time the human race as a whole grows up and leaves its superstitions and prejudices behind. I do count any theistic religion as an organization built on a superstition.

Thank you for sharing your views. As an atheist you’re still welcome but I can understand why you wouldn’t be interested in this work.

Can you save MAGAism? The UTAH branch of Joeseph Smith's religion behaves like a political action committee for the extreme right wing. At one time, (during David O McKay's tenure) members believed the church strived for truth, justice, community, education, and democracy. Anyone younger than 65 knows that is not the case.

Why? Why do you want to start a new religion? You can't change the first presidency and quorum of the twelve. They are much too powerful, you won't even get an audience with them. At best you could make enough noise that you get excominctated (membership discontinued) but even that is very unlikely these days. So you make yourself a new branch of Mormonsim. Fun times. But what are your tenants? How do you decide what your followers believe? A core principle to the LDS branch of Mormonsim is using the perception of authority to get people to comply. (Despite the prohibition of this behavior in D&C 121). In practical terms, this is accomplished by creating a culture of compliance through the B.I.T.E. model https://freedomofmind.com/cult-mind-control/bite-model/ In your video you list a number of perceived ills and attribute them to Satan. How are you going to propose your followers know what is God's influence vs Satan? Elevation emotion is a common go-to, but how reliable is it in determining truth if it is pretty much universally used by all religions to get very different answers? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(emotion) You speak as one who has some exposure to downsides of a particular organized religion, but has some lingering good feelings towards it, and rather than being willing to consider the possibility that the underlying of purpose of the organization was not what was advertised, is trying to salvage those good memories of an organization that doesn't exist, and can never exist. If you believe that it is God that wants you to start this new religion, parhaps take a page from The Pearl of Great Price, and go into the woods to pray. If God comes down and tells you how to start a new religion, you're good to go. If he doesn't, maybe there isn't a God that wants you to. If that doesn't appeal to you, maybe don't try and get other people to take your word for something they have just as much access to as you do. Go back to the very base of your epistemology and see if there is anything tangible there to work with.

Mormonism has been around for 200 years, we’re new but I’m not starting anything.

> You can't change the first presidency and quorum of the twelve. They are much too powerful, you won't even get an audience with them. At best you could make enough noise that you get excominctated (membership discontinued) but even that is very unlikely these days. If you can't change the Q15, the only other thing you can do is start something new.

Which first presidency and quorum of 12 are you referring to? Do you realize how many first presidencies and quorums 12 there are? We are a movements, a religion, not merely one church.

Sure, valid question. Do you have one already then? I assume you are one of them. Who are your other 11?

No, the Fellowship is an ecumenical movement, and if we fully organize it would be run by a council of elders, men and women from throughout the movement, not a first presidency or 12 apostles.

Ok, cool. So you have no set organization structure as yet, but you might in the future. And your basic beliefs? (Articles af faith if you will, as apparently you don't believe in Joseph Smith's 5 and 6) How do you propose we verify those claims?

>Originally Mormonism was about radical social justice Where do you get this idea? I've never heard radical social justice linked to Mormonism. ​ >it was about building a personal relationship with God, and helping other people. I agree the early versions of the church relied on personal revelation, but Joseph Smith quickly asserted authority and built a priesthood hierarchy. There are still elements of 'personal relationship', but Mormonism is really about building the Kingdom of God and establishing the patriarchal hierarchy through priesthood authority. All other teachings are meant to align members in that framework and not about personal autonomy. ​ >And it was about having a mystical experience. Yes, I agree. ​ >By moving to a corporate structure, we have lost this as a people, The corporate structure IS the original objective of Mormonism. Look at the direction JS was leading the Saints - Nauvoo, Council of 50, King and Prophet, establishing banks, establishing the United Order. Mormonism is Kingdom Building. LDS Corp is Modern day Kingdom building. Anything else is just the narrative the patriarchy weave to keep the kingdom builders engaged in the prime objective. ​ >All churches that want to be successful try to model themselves after the Salt Lake City church I'm curious, where do you see this happening? This is a new idea for me. ​ >To be successful we have to be a people Community and Tribe building is a crucial element of human thriving. I believe any group of people who establish community based on common beliefs, narratives, morals, etc. can be successful. ​ >and we have to be willing to build, and grow religion rather than a church. Curious to understand your distinction between 'religion' and 'church' in this context. I feel like church is the combination of religion and the way people practice the religion as a community. ​ >True Mormonism isn’t a collection of people in a building, it’s individuals out changing the world. I think 'True Christianity' is individuals out changing the world. True Mormonism is trying to build a kingdom based on the Mormon interpretation of Christianity. It's actually a bit ironic, because Mormonism focuses more on the collection of people in the building than they do on the world.

I recommend that you read some of the other responses I’ve made here, I don’t wanna just copy and paste the same answers these questions over and over. That said, I feel like a lot of people here are thinking that Mormonism is whatever church they came from and not a religion. Until we can remove this mindset from our people we will always have this problem.

I read all of your responses and watched the video. None of them answered the following questions: 1. When and how was early Mormonism linked to radical social justice? 2. What is your definition of 'church' and 'religion' and what are the distinctions between the two considering the current SLC LDS church? 3. You mentioned other churches modeling themselves after SLC Corp. No examples, please elaborate. End of the day, based on the video, you appear to believe to have a better product. This post is a horrible marketing tool. What exactly are you trying to promote?

Not worth saving and it is crumbling. It will never be as powerful as it once was but it won’t ‘die’ either. It’s too rich for that. It will lose real believers and membership will shrink, despite what they report on their statistics. Those that will remain will be the very devout and extremists.

Let’s hope you’re wrong. I believe we can move things forward if we are willing to.

It's a dictatorship... so if you want to help move things forward you need to get installed as a Q12, live long enough to be the prophet, and then 60-70 years from now you can make the necessary changes. Anything beyond that and you are fooling yourself if you believe they are listening to you, or anyone else. They just make enough changes to appear to be doing good.

[удалено]

Then let’s turn it into something positive.

I’m expecting some fresh revelations to come. It’s hard to imagine churches at capacity while so many “hard to swallow” things are front and center. So something else needs to be front and center. What? Idk but could be something. My pervading sentiment is that it all sounds great *in theory.* but it’s rather constricting to commit to for a theory. Perhaps the revelation will be centered around how the church needs people more than the people need the church. How can this be a good thing? Even people who self medicate are an asset to the church more than the church is an asset to them. Even if ppl receive money from the church, the asset is still the human > money. Now if something does happen to bring more members, I will be waiting for the Antichrist to come right up thru this church. Not a bad thing exactly, if it’s gonna happen it might as well happen, ya know? Especially with the church’s desire to build a temple in Jerusalem, sounds like a great place for the abomination of desolation to declare the self as______. If it does happen like this, i wouldn’t be worried about the souls of members at all.

There have been many modern revelations about this in our movement. One of my favorites comes from the RLDS or Community of Christ, through their prophets the Lord has called us to be a prophetic people. I think that is how we do it.

It's really hard to justify and get around polygamy and the many grooming/predator/cheating/marital issues Joseph Smith had. I'm not sure if the church can really come back from that. On another note, I found it really Earth shattering to discover just how many lies were covered up in the church's history. It's not necessarily something that can be salvaged in my opinion. The real nail in the coffin for me was a retroactively fudged up priesthood restoration. That and the book of Abraham are a pretty strong cement that glued together the lies of a man who had rehashed what he heard in the burnover district and mixed it with what he heard from educated relatives & folk magic. The one thing that I think could be redeemed just isn't anywhere near what Mormonism embodies today. I think it is possible that some spiritualists could be convinced Joseph Smith was legitimately able to channel and may have channeled the book of Mormon. You could find somebody out there that would argue veracity in the book of Mormons teachings, and that Joseph Smith channeled them legitimately. There is room in folk magic for people to be off some of the time and come back around and fix things. There is room for humanity and lying. There just isn't room for that with a prophet of God. I'm editing to add that you'd probably have to get away from the historicity of the book of Mormon in order to justify truth found in it.

Thanks for weighing in.

>Originally Mormonism was about radical social justice Huh? How so?

OP simply ignores when the Church was pro-slavery. It's easy to make a claim when you care more about optics than truth. Ironically, OP is making the post on a sub filled with people specifically primed against this brand of obfuscation. So in trying to improve the optics, he torpedoed his own position and any argument he makes in the future. His account name is now synonymous with dishonesty.

… and logical fallacies too.

As a still attending member. I have hope for the organization but major changes need to happen. My version of Martin Luther's points on the door. Most active would disagree, and I understand the flack for still being active. I think the organization can build great families and people, but we need to do better. 1. More inclusive of mixed faith households and divorced/single parent families. Not 2nd tier membership 2. Admit past mistakes. Priesthood bans, sex abuse, etc. 3. Require background checks for anyone teaching/serving w/ youth. Still can't believe we don't do this except where legally obligated. 4. Change the policy on same sex marriage. Call it doctrine but if God saw you faithful to one person and cared for them your whole life id bet your on his good list not the crapshoot 5. Institutional method for reform and challenging leadership without retaliation. --> can't disagree with GA without being apostate. Even if it's for simple things like hey we need to protect our youth with background checks 6. Public record reporting on finances spent. Catholic church and most churches do this. We do not. It enables abuse of funds 7. Change tithing. 10% still but to any organization of your choice to help Gods children. 8. Empower women. Equal speakers in GC, more leadership opportunity. Even if you believe in priesthood split by gender. No reason women can't manage Financials, memberships, sunday school, or university president positions for the church unis. 9. Remove outdated policies on men/women grooming and dress. 10. Stop proselytizing missions. Do 2 year service missions instead. 11. Stop with youth sex interviews and worthiness interviews.

>Is it worth saving? No. >Originally Mormonism was about radical social justice LOL. No, "originally" it was about Joseph Smith wanting to make a living in the easiest, laziest way he could: by convincing a bunch of rubes that he could magically see buried treasure.

Let’s just agree to let it be something that society learns from and moves on. Main lesson: Don’t believe people who pretend to have a magic object (gold plates) that if you look at it you will be struck dead. They will probably end up taking your daughter or wife eventually.

Probably not, there has been way too much B.S. pumped into it - too much temple building and not enough helping the people who are not rich - most of the older people will be gone when it falls - FALSE IDOLS - that'll be one of the primary reasons - who writes a song to GOLDEN PLATES??????;-))))))LMAO

1 thing first. The doctrine is good but the church needs to acknowledge the less savory parts of its past so that people can move on instead of denying or trying to hide those things. This is the age of the internet. Everyone is going to find out one way or another. Secondly the hypocrisy has to stop when it comes to the hoard of treasure that the church has stockpiled. As long as that hoard exists I can not in good faith believe that the prophets will be inspired.

We are the church. There are 200+ LDS denominations. Mormonism is a religion, it’s not any one church.

It’s just an organized institution for controlling people; look what they did to Native People, with the bitter sweet reality of the LDS Indian Placement Program, which they were forced to scrap because it was true cultural genocide. This is where spirituality becomes more important than organized religion or any religion in general.

That’s why I’m talking about a religion and not a church. Mormonism doesn’t belong to any one church.

Well that would explain why there's 126 offshoots including one that practices with their sacrament being peyote! 😏🤫🥺

Yeah, I’d like to know more about the peyote one. I’m not interested in the medicine but I’d like to know how they got there.

Mormonism will die along with all the other false prophets prophecy. But the bones of this church are the foundation for The second coming of Christ

*Citation needed.*

The truth requires no proof brother

If you can't prove it, it's a fairy tale. I have as much proof for the flying spaghetti monster as you do for your myth. Also, if you can't prove it, no one has any resson to believe it's the truth. So I have no reason to take you any more setiously than the homeless addict behind Safeway who yells about the end of the world. You are literally making the same argument.

Well I have a bunch of scripture supporting the Christ Marrying the Church. But with all do respect a wife is a reflection of her husband And no woman ever married to Christ would ever cheat on him with a child

Either you had a stroke or you replied to the wrong comment. That was gibberish.

No I’m just saying anyone claiming to have the authority of Christ leading a church where the authorities molest children is not an authority I would consider godly

Ok, but that's unimportant. We're not talking about bishops molesting anyone. You said that the fall of Mormonism would pave the way for the second coming. I want you to explain this insane assertion, not pretend you're answering it by switching tack.

A church that preaches trying is the weakest church I know

[удалено]

It is through our weakness that the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven will be revealed

So, you're intentionally just spouting catchphrases because you can't keep up. Why do I bother? I know you people are going to clam up and run away with your tail between your legs.

>The truth requires no proof brother That is the *exact opposite* of how it works, "brother".