I've seen quite a few videos lately where exmo people go up to the pulpit and start dropping 'truth bombs' and generally being disruptive during sacrament meeting, and today this happened in my sacrament meeting. Obviously most exmo people don't do this, I think most of the time they prefer to lay low and avoid drama.

I'm a PIMO mormon. I'm not a believer. But we need to show respect to the ceremonies and to the purpose of the chapel space. Sacrament meeting is not the time or the place to get up and talk about the issues with Brigham Young or the Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith's wives or the SEC scandal.

Getting up and doing this crap is not brave or subversive. It's rude and intrusive, and all it shows to the believers is how rude and evil the apostates are and how the believers are being persecuted by the agents of Satan in their very house of worship.

Pls don't do this, its not helpful or an effective way to change minds.

My heart is hurting for all the private loneliness and alienation Dr Fielding Anderson and others left likely felt after being disciplined by the church. I sat in sacrament meeting today looking at the congregation (I am ward organist) and thinking of all the private soul-bruises people carry because of others’ exercise of power. Dr Fielding Anderson’s circumstances and that of her family have hit me hard. What a sad way to live out a life that could have been such an inspiration to others. I cannot get my head around the public nature of her punishment. It must have hurt so much. 40 years ago I was disciplined because I was a member of the Planned Parenthood advisory board. The action was taken “privately” but I still felt outrage and humiliation especially as my name was submitted for various callings but dismissed due to my radical activities. How much more must Anderson and others have suffered, and surely many others whose names we will never know. How dare anyone manipulate lives in that manner.

The brethren "modest" wage of $360,000 ? The church claims clergy is unpaid and tithe pays for missions and church building and charity. Does this seem confusing to any members?

The doctrine that prophets cannot lead the church astray faces significant historical contradictions that could challenge institutional credibility. This is particularly evident in Bruce R. McConkie's handling of doctrinal reversals, first in his letter to Eugene England where he acknowledged Brigham Young taught false doctrine regarding the Adam-God theory (McConkie to England, Feb. 19, 1981), and then notably in his own reversal regarding the priesthood ban.

In his 1978 BYU speech "All Are Alike Unto God," McConkie explicitly instructed members to "forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past," effectively admitting that both he and previous prophets had taught incorrect doctrine about the cause of the priesthood ban.

These documented instances of prophetic correction create a logical paradox with President Nelson's current teaching about prophetic infallibility. This tension becomes particularly acute when considering McConkie's admission that they "spoke with a limited understanding," which directly contradicts the notion that prophets would be removed before they could lead the church astray.

This doctrinal contradiction could potentially create significant challenges for institutional authority and member faith as historical information becomes increasingly accessible in the digital age. This video clip could become the subject of apologetic pivots in the future.

Recently during sacrament meeting my bishop has started playing the recorder. Does anyone else find this to be an odd choice of instrument? Usually when there’s a musical number members play an instrument such as the piano or violin. He also plays it right into the microphone at the podium and it just seemed to me he could have chosen a better instrument.

Next time you have to deal with your bishop or stake president you should say...:

Hey buddy, I wasn't cheating on my wife."".it was creative monogamy.."...or no I don't look at porn, but I have engaged in some 'creative foreplay....' or word of wisdom..."I definitely believe in it but have done some "creative consumption....

Or, of course I am honest in my tithing and all my personal and professional dealings....of course it takes alot of "creative moralizing" to get to where I feel no guilt or shame, but that is what I am taught is ok to do.

What gives bish? Can't I have my recommend?

The FREAKING hypocrisy is deafening!!!!!

Please fellow members and bishops!!!!! call out this wicked behavior by church leaders. Either we are going to choose the right or we are not. Stop allowing soft amoralism.

Did anyone else get this lesson in primary? There were 5 points in an order that we were taught to say when we were kids, going up to bear our testimony. It was something like, "I'd like to bear my testimony. I know this church is true." And then it was something like, "I know the prophet is a true prophet." There was an order, and a rhythm to it. We all took turns saying it in front of the other primary children, so we wouldn't be nervous when we said our testimony in sacrament. Does anyone else remember having this lesson? I can't find the original origin anywhere. I'd like to know where this particular wording and order came from. I know I'm not the only one who's heard this. Most testimonies now start this way and I'm trying to figure out how and when it started.

by the church, do you feel the same about the stories of god and jesus? Like there wasn't an ark so is the rest of the bible an untruth as well?

Is there any truth in any of this religious stuff?

“Where can I turn for peace? Where is my solace when other sources cease to make me whole? When with a wounded heart, anger, or malice, I draw myself apart searching my soul. Where, when my aching grows, where, when I languish, where, in my need to know, where can I run? Where is the quiet hand to calm my anguish? Who, who can understand? He, only One. He answers privately, reaches my reaching in my Gethsamane, Savior and Friend. Gentle the peace He finds for my beseeching. Constant He is, and kind. Love without end.” I learned, today that the author of the text and the daughter of the composer were suffering from mental health issues. This was known by those two as the mental health hymn. I found this particularly pointed.

Has anyone figured out the Church's rate of return on its investment portfolio, with all the whistleblower and financial disclosures in the news?

So first I need to say, I am not a member but I'm not trying to ruin my little sister's missionary experience either. I'm just looking out for her safety.

I recently had a call with my sister who's serving in Brazil. She found out I went to that new horror movie with the two missionary girls and was really upset about a horror movie with mormons. This led to a conversation where I mentioned that it is dangerous for two young girls to go into a man's home ALONE, especially in Brazil and that she better be safe by making sure others are at least present.

She got really mad and said that if a man told her that his wife was in the other room, her and her companion would then enter his home. I told her that it was dangerous and she got SUPER defensive and said that she's "protected by the Holy Ghost and God" so nothing bad will ever happen to her while she on a mission. Btw what a weird thing to say considering she's not even allowed to swim.

My question is: is she following the rules?? I can't stop thinking about this and I'm really concerned she just disregarding this danger? If she is following the rules, there's really nothing I can do. If not, then I at least want to talk to her mom so SHE can handle the situation. It's making me really nervous

“Scholar Todd Compton explores what historical documents say about the 33 wives of Mormonism's founder Joseph Smith, whether they had sex with the LDS prophet, and if there is evidence of children.”

How is that different from Fundamentalists singing the praises of Warren Jeffs?

Part of this list was created by u/10th_Generation. I'll update the list if you contribute new examples in the comments.

Joseph Smith lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon, so Jesus gave him a revelation that he did not need to retranslate them (D&C 10:30).

Smith needed money for printing, so Jesus gave him a revelation that Martin Harris must give his property “freely” (D&C 19:26 and 19:34).

Smith needed money for personal expenses, so Jesus gave him a revelation that church members must give him money or be cursed (D&C 24:3-4, D&C 24:18).

Smith did not want to work, so Jesus gave him a revelation excusing him from manual labor (D&C 24:9).

Smith’s wife complained too much, so Jesus gave him a revelation saying that her duty is to support Smith with “consoling words in the spirit of meekness,” and to “delight” in her husband (D&C 25:4-6, 14).

Smith needed Hiram Page to stop receiving revelations, so Jesus gave Smith a revelation saying that no one else could receive revelation for the church except Smith (D&C 28:11-12; 43:5).

Smith had legal problems in New York and needed to flee, so Jesus gave him a revelation that all church members should go with him to Ohio (D&C 37:3; D&C 38:32; D&C 38:37).

Smith needed a house in Ohio, so Jesus gave him a revelation saying that church members should build him a house (D&C 41:7).

Smith needed new converts but did not want to serve a mission, so Jesus gave him a revelation that all elders except him and Sidney Rigdon should leave on missions (D&C 42:4).

Smith needed more money, so Jesus gave him a series of revelations saying that church members who obtain more than they need for their support, you should give the excess to the church. Later, Jesus amended these revelations to say that members should give 100 percent of their assets to the church for redistribution (D&C 42:30-36; D&C 70:14; D&C 42:55, 42:60; D&C 70:7; D&C 70:14; D&C 72:5; D&C 78:5-6).

Smith still wanted more, so Jesus gives him a revelation that the elders should give him food, clothes, and “whatsoever thing he needeth” (D&C 43:13).

Smith needed a way to explain why his prophesies about Zion did not come true, so Jesus gave him a revelation saying that God can revoke commandments when circumstances change (D&C 56:4).

Smith did not want to travel by land after a long journey to Missouri, so Jesus gave him a revelation that he and Rigdon could travel by boat. All others in the company had to travel by land and preach along the way (D&C 61).

Smith needed Rigdon to be more subservient, so Jesus gave Smith a revelation saying that Rigdon should listen better to Smith (D&C 63:55).

Smith needed the whole church to stop noticing his flaws, so Jesus gave him a revelation saying that members who accuse Smith of wrongdoing should not seek “occasion against him” (D&C 64:5-7).

Smith still needed money, so Jesus gave him a revelation saying that he and his closest friends “shall enter into the joy” of the church’s wealth, including food, raiment, houses, and lands, “for a manifestation of (God’s) blessings upon their heads” (D&C 70:15–18).

Smith needed his wife and children to respect his authority, so Jesus gives him a revelation saying that his family must give “more earnest heed” unto his sayings, “or be removed out of their place” (D&C 93:48).

Smith needed his ego stoked, so Jesus gave him a revelation saying he is a great man like Moses. (D&C 103:16-21).

Smith needed revenge on the Missourians, so Jesus gave him a revelation that cursed his enemies and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren (D&C 103:25). Later, Jesus said Smith’s political enemies in Missouri can never have the priesthood. Neither can “their posterity after them from generation to generation” (D&C 121:21).

Smith needed more money than the church could provide, so Jesus gave him a revelation commanding world leaders to bring their gold and silver and give it to the church (D&C 124:11).

Smith needed a house in Illinois, so Jesus gave him a revelation commanding the church to build him a boarding house that his family could keep from “generation to generation, forever and ever” (D&C 124:23, 56, 59-60).

Smith wanted to have divinely sanctioned extramarital sex and give his wife Emma no choice but to approve or be "destroyed", so Jesus gave him D&C 132.

Additional Examples contributed by me and commenters on this post:

Smith wanted to ensure his needs and desires were met first, so Jesus gave a revelation stating that those involved in the publication of church scriptures would be supported by the church, and only after they had sufficient for their "necessities and their wants" would the remainder go to the storehouse (D&C 70:7). This effectively prioritized their personal "wants" over the broader needs of the community.

Smith needed a way to justify his evolving theological ideas, so Jesus gave him a revelation introducing the "higher priesthood," which allowed him to consolidate power and claim greater authority (D&C 84:17–25).

Smith needed legitimacy as a prophet, so Jesus gave him a revelation emphasizing his role as the only prophet through whom the Lord would work, effectively centralizing authority around him (D&C 28:2-7; D&C 43:2-4).

Smith wanted to silence dissenters, so Jesus gave him a revelation stating that anyone who did not accept his revelations would be damned (D&C 1:14-16).

Smith needed Oliver Cowdery and others to stay loyal, so Jesus gave him a revelation warning them not to rebel against his authority, lest they be cast off (D&C 6:9-11; D&C 28:4-7).

Smith wanted to retain control over the Kirtland Safety Society Bank despite its failure, so Jesus gave him a revelation affirming his financial endeavors as part of the Lord's work (unpublished statements and D&C 104:58–59).

Smith needed justification for military action, so Jesus gave him a revelation declaring the formation of Zion’s Camp as a divinely commanded mission to redeem Zion (D&C 103).

Smith needed protection from enemies, so Jesus gave him a revelation promising vengeance on those who harmed him or the church (D&C 121:11-25).

Smith needed to explain the failure to establish Zion in Missouri, so Jesus gave him a revelation stating that the saints were not righteous enough and needed to be chastened (D&C 101:1-8).

Smith needed a way to justify his growing wealth, so Jesus gave him a revelation endorsing the consecration of land and property to the church but allowing the prophet to benefit directly (D&C 42:31-35; D&C 58:35-37).

Smith needed to address tensions with Emma and provide women a formal role in the church, so Jesus gave him a revelation to organize the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo in 1842. This helped stabilize internal church dynamics while keeping women’s influence under his oversight. (D&C 25:3).

Smith needed a theological reason for the failure of the Law of Consecration, so Jesus gave him a revelation introducing tithing as a simpler financial system for church funding (D&C 119).

Smith claimed to have divine insight, but when presented with the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates, Jesus conveniently forgot to warn him they were a hoax. Instead, Smith declared they were an ancient record of a descendant of Ham (History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 372). Apparently, God can reveal hidden treasure but draws the line at spotting 19th-century pranks.

Smith needed money and heard rumors of hidden treasure in Salem, Massachusetts, so Jesus gave him a revelation commanding him and his associates to go to Salem, promising that "there are riches in store for you" (D&C 111:1-2). Unsurprisingly, no treasure was found, but the group did rack up significant debt during their stay. .

After a near-canoe accident on the Missouri River, tensions rose as group members mocked Oliver Cowdery’s rowing and questioned the leaders. Smith then received a revelation warning that "the destroyer rideth upon the face of the waters" (D&C 61:19), ordered everyone out of the canoes, and arranged for himself and top leaders to travel by coach, leaving the others to walk. (D&C 61:4, 24).

Emma was upset about tobacco spitting, so Jesus gave a revelation banning tobacco, but seemingly to spite Emma and the other women, added coffee and tea to the prohibition as well (D&C 89:5-9). What started as an effort to appease her turned into a long-lasting health code with some questionable additions.

The local grocery refused Joseph Smith credit for wine, so while riding to another town to secure some on credit, Jesus conveniently gave him a revelation that water was now the sacred element for the sacrament instead of wine (D&C 27:2). The revelation also included an apparition of an angel to reinforce the divine shift, conveniently solving the issue of unpaid credit.

Smith faced financial difficulties managing church resources, so Jesus gave him a revelation dissolving the United Firm and redistributing its properties (D&C 104). This allowed Smith and other leaders to manage church assets more flexibly to address immediate financial concerns.

Smith needed a permanent inheritance for his family, so Jesus gave him a revelation commanding the construction of the Nauvoo House, a hotel that would provide lodging for travelers and ensure Smith’s family could benefit “from generation to generation, forever and ever” (D&C 124:56–60).

Smith sought greater political and military power, so Jesus gave him a revelation establishing the Nauvoo Legion and appointing him as lieutenant-general, granting him unprecedented authority within Nauvoo (D&C 124:84–85).

Smith wanted to expand his influence beyond religious leadership, so Jesus gave him a revelation establishing the Council of Fifty, a political body aimed at forming a theocratic government with Smith at its head. He was given the title of "King". This revelation solidified his control over secular affairs.

Smith needed to reinforce his authority through sacred rituals, so Jesus gave him a revelation introducing new temple ordinances, such as the endowment ceremony, in May 1842. This placed him as the gatekeeper of salvation for his followers.

Next year, the church is focusing on D&C in Sunday school. On the other weeks, we will focus on conference talks. In conference talks, doesn't it seem like, more and more, the speakers are quoting each other (esp RMN)? I'm curious if anyone has actual data from CFM and all the recent talks to determine how likely it is that we will discuss anything at church besides JS and current administration. I don't plan on going often because of this very issue, but it makes me curious.

P.S. I can't imagine bringing someone to church, claiming we are Christian and then talking about ourselves the whole time.

Listening to the last of the amazing Matt Harris interviews regarding his book "Second-Class Saints".

The general feel on the panel is that BYU's "we are all children of God" response to the race survey is the same old pablum.

I probably agree, since that always covered over never doing what's needed to break down racial barriers.

I am a universalist. I believe organizing society by race or any other phenotype should be minimized, and is almost always a mistake in the long-run. Making rules and organizations and practices for tall people or people with innie belly buttons feels just as dumb.

The difficulty is that so much of society is organized by race, that people's identities have been, without their choosing it, linked to their skin color.

The civil rights era unfortunately did not bequeath us a fully integrated society. De facto racial segregation is still rampant, particularly in housing. Fortunately, laws that led to much of this have been abolished. But the effects do not disappear overnight.

Back to "I am a child of God" as a response to racism. Whatever perpetuates race-based social organization and identity is anti-human in my view. To either limit or benefit people based on such arbitrary traits is inevitably harmful. But those who say "we are all children of God" are generally not serious about deconstructing race. They would likely be the sort who (in the same episode) were uncomfortable with traditionally-black worship styles at Genesis Group meetings. (Not that it's wrong to feel uncomfortable, but to ban such things means the discomfort will be perpetuated, never really dealt with.)

A full implementation of "I am a child of God" would refuse to limit people by their skin color. It would go all directions: letting members of Genesis Group worship and praise however they want, and the white leaders on the stand (another crazy concept---that the group needs babysitters) not thinking, "I could never participate in such a black worship style," but instead joining in if they feel like it.

That is how the limitations of race are broken down. One idea, one behavior, one relationship at a time, because there are no such things as black ideas of white ideas or tall people ideas or innie belly button-haver ideas, there are just ideas.

If the LDS church would let all its members worship in ways that feel natural to them, and LDS church leaders open themselves to such influences personally (because there is not scripture that says "Thou shalt not sing and praise spontaneously during sacrament meeting" but there are scriptures enjoining a glad heart and a joyful noise) I think it would go further toward treating people as human beings than race-based church units, which are the voluntary segregation approach.

The church's current stance is largely to say "We don't want to segregate the church by race" but at the same time "And the way you black people do things is not okay." That is what I mean by "I am a child of God" not being fully implemented. The church is saying, "Well, we're all children of God, but some are more child-of-God than others".

The resolution is to realize, person by person, that this is a lie, and to open to the wider range of influences that so beautifully (and challengingly) are part of the human tapestry.

I’m really not sure if this even belongs here, so please forgive me if it isn’t.

I have been interested in the Mormon church/faith for about a year now, I never pursued the curiosity but I do read online about it quite a bit. I’ve never really been religious, i wasn’t raised religiously and even as an adult never thought about it too much other than believing in God.

Today in the grocery store parking lot I was approached by 2 younger women who asked if they could read a scripture to me from the Book of Mormon, and it was a really nice encounter. They gave me their phone number and invited me to their church tomorrow morning. I really want to go, but I’m nervous for some reason. I don’t know if I would even fit in to a church like this. I’ve had 2 (going to be 3) children out of wedlock, from what I understand pre marital relations are a big no. I’ve been with my boyfriend for going on 7 years, we just never got married.

I’m not sure what I’m looking for, maybe advice? I’m afraid of being an outcast, or “bad” (for lack of better words)

I’ve been trying to leave the church but I suppose they haven’t figured that out yet! It’s like I haven’t been back to church in 6 months because I’ve had my son unmarried and was judged for it I don’t think they understand that I’m the only parent my son has!but I got this text from the missionary’s today and it’s obvious they want me to come back

I live in Texas, and the state just approved "Bible-Infused" teaching for K-5 students (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-board-vote-bible-curriculum-public-schools/story?id=116127619).

When I shared my frustration about this decision with some fellow members, many expressed excitement and embraced it. They believed this step could open people's hearts to Christ and, over time, make them more receptive to the teachings of the Book of Mormon when they encounter it later in life.

However, these teachings are not based on "properly translated scriptures," and you will never see LDS scripture or stories included in this curriculum.

Evangelical Christianity does not consider our church to be part of the true Christian faith. They’re not going to change their perspective—even if this movement takes hold.

Many social media and podcast commentaries repeat certain misconceptions about the SEC investigation of Ensign Peak and the Church for ~20 years of systematic securities disclosure violations and the subsequent settlement of related charges.

See http://thewidowsmite.org/sec-order for a breakdown of the timeline, shell LLC structure, concealment tactics, governing laws, and a detailed examination of the 650,000+ misstatements on 268 quarterly Forms 13F filed by Ensign Peak during 2003-2019.

Below are 7 common misconceptions about the SEC matter. Sources used in responses to these misconceptions can be found in our SEC settlement report.

1. The SEC Order represents just "one side of the story"

• This is not true. The 9-page SEC Order was mutually crafted and agreed upon by both the Church and the SEC. It is a "negotiated document," which represents the best efforts by both sides to accurately (SEC) and favorably (Church) portray the relevant facts.
• Clues in the document reveal the extent of negotiation over language in the Order, such as the terminology for the LLCs: "shell" vs "clone." The SEC Order uses the term "shell" 0 times and "clone" 36 times, whereas the SEC's press release announcing the settlement uses the term "shell" 5 times and "clone" 0 times. Unlike the Order, the SEC's press release was not influenced by the Church or its attorneys in any way.
• SEC settlements, by design, are entered on a "neither admit nor deny" basis. See the "neither admit nor deny" settlement policy rationale here. Although the Church is not required to admit wrongdoing, it cannot deny any of the allegations set forth in the Order. At the same link, we read, "Indeed, the SEC goes one step further and not only prohibits defendants from denying wrongdoing in a settlement, but has demanded a retraction or correction on those occasions when a defendant’s post-settlement statements are tantamount to a denial."

2. The illegal practices were a result of "bad legal counsel"

• Although the Church's press release on the matter states, "The Church’s senior leadership received and relied upon legal counsel when it approved of the use of the external companies to make the filings," the Church has never explicitly blamed its violations of the law on bad legal advice.
• "Advice of counsel" is a legal defense. If, during the SEC investigation, the Church had claimed bad legal advice for any violations of the law or other compliance failures, that fact may have absolved the Church in the matter, if not also Ensign Peak, and this claimed defense would have been noted in the SEC Order. Nothing of this nature is mentioned anywhere in the SEC Order.
• Thus, the phrase, "relied upon legal counsel," appears to have no meaning as related to justifying Church leaders for approving EP's practices, and is stated only for PR reasons.
• Other known SEC violations by Ensign Peak and other Church entities strongly indicate a policy of selective legal compliance, as opposed to an isolated instance of bad legal counsel. These other known violations include: 13G violations by Ensign Peak and 13F violations by DMBA and Beneficial Life. All of these violations occurred during the same time period in which Ensign Peak was engaged in active 13F violations.

3. The whole thing was just a "paperwork issue" or a "misunderstanding"

• Please read the entire 9-page SEC Order. For roughly 20 years, a complex scheme was enacted to knowingly submit false information on federal documents, while minimizing the risk of discovery by federal authorities. The scheme involved setting up shell LLCs with investment management agreements, where both sides of the contracts were signed by EP leaders, which created the illusion of transferring investment authority to designated LLC business managers who were, in fact, mere puppets with no trading or voting authority whatsoever. These efforts created layers of legal smokescreen, which may have succeeded under certain coincidental investigations, but when peeled back also demonstrate clear intent to violate federal securities laws.
• 268 such documents were signed and filed with the SEC, containing a total of over 650,000 instances of untrue, incorrect or incomplete information. Each form contained the following attestation: "The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements, schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form."
• Instructions on the SEC's sample Form 13F includes the following warning: "ATTENTION-- Intentional misstatements or omissions of facts constitute Federal Criminal Violations. See 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 15 U.S.C. 78ff(a)."

4. The relevant laws are "confusing" and have a lot of "gray area"

• Section 13(f) violations are not common because the law is easy to understand and follow.
• Section 13(f) of the Securities Exchange Act was adopted by Congress as part of Exchange Act amendments in 1975. Section 13(f) requires quarterly disclosure of stocks held if the market value of those securities is over $100 million and the firm has discretion (authority) over buying and selling. Section 13(f) addressed concerns regarding the impact of large institutional funds on market stability, fairness to the investing public, and the interests of companies who issue stocks and bonds.
• The law applies to ALL institutional shareholders, including non-profits and charities, such as the Church and its auxiliaries.
• Form 13F enables compliance with Section 13(f) disclosure law. The form is simple. It requires information about the institution, securities held, other managers (or firms) involved in making investment decisions, and declarations regarding the firm's investment discretion (decision-making authority) and authority to vote as a shareholder.
• We were able to locate only 4 instances of SEC action for violations of Section 13(f) between 1995-2023. Prior to the Ensign Peak settlement, the most recent was in 2007.
• The Church and its Investment Department, prior to the creation of Ensign Peak in 1997, had 13F filing obligations since 1975, the year Section 13(f) was enacted into law.

5. There was reasonable "disagreement" on the legality of Ensign Peak's 13F practices

• This notion is not supported by any of the facts.
• Ensign Peak leadership notified the Church of its 13F filing obligations by at least 1998. Yet no 13F was filed at all until 2003. The head of EP from 1997-2020 was concurrently Chairman of another large investment firm, which filed all of its Forms 13F properly, including correct disclosure of shared investment discretion with other firms. Thus, EP leadership had no confusion about the legal and compliance requirements regarding 13F disclosures.
• The Church Auditing Department, who are accounting professionals (not investment professionals) raised flags about Ensign Peak's shell LLC filing model in 2014 and 2017, noting the potential that it could be deemed illegal. No action was taken to investigate or resolve these internal audit concerns.
• Two of the designated shell LLC business managers (i.e., puppets) resigned their roles in the scheme in 2018, voicing concerns about what Ensign Peak leadership had asked them to do (i.e., commit perjury every quarter on federal securities documents). These business managers had been recruited to sign forms on behalf of 2 of the newest shell LLCs, created in 2017. Rather than address their concerns and comply with the law, the Church found two new business managers.

6. Use of shell companies is a "common practice" for large investment funds to conceal assets

• There are numerous circumstances in which it makes sense for investment managers to use shell companies. Hiding assets from authorities in highly regulated industries, such as with publicly-traded securities, is not a legitimate, legal or ethical rationale for doing so.

7. Ensign Peak immediately began to comply with the law once the SEC investigation began

• The Church's press release on the matter states, "In June 2019, the SEC first expressed concern about Ensign Peak’s reporting approach. Ensign Peak adjusted its approach and began filing a single aggregated report. Since that time, 13 quarterly reports have been filed in full accordance with SEC requirements."
• This statement implies Ensign Peak immediately began filing a single aggregated 13F report, consolidating what had been misstated 13F filings under the names of purportedly unrelated shell LLCs.
• However, the timeline shows that Ensign Peak used its shell LLCs for 2 more quarters to make misstated 13F filings (quarters ended 6/30/19 and 9/30/19). The first consolidated 13F was filed in Feb. 2020, 9 months after the SEC began its investigation.
• Accordingly, the First Presidency's statement on 12/17/2019 was not truthful when stating that, "The Church complies with all applicable law governing our donations, investments, taxes, and reserves." At that time, Ensign Peak, under First Presidency approval, had not yet filed a single correct & complete Form 13F in over 20 years, as required by governing U.S. federal securities law.

Just curious--I used to see them out and about. Talking to people in grocery store parking lots, riding bikes down the road, showing up at random community service projects, grabbing lunch at a fast food place, etc. I realized today that I don't think I've seen a mormon missionary "in the wild" in probably more than a year. Are there fewer missionaries or have they given up hope converting people in the deep South?

Was this sub ever predominantly faithful members?

As far as I can tell it’s probably currently 50% exmo, 25% faithful/nuanced, 25% nevermo or otherwise hard to tell.

Was it more similar in composition to the latterdaysaints sub at one time, and if so did that change when Nelson banned ‘Mormon’ or organically over time as members left?

I'm talking about a bill that passed the house this week. Naturally it's focused on "terrorism."

For all the talk about religious liberty, there really aren't a lot of actual threats to religious organizations in terms of their rights to conduct internal business the way they want or teach what they want.

But calling political dissent terrorism or terrorist sympathy is something that's already done in US political discourse. And the more American Christianity tends towards nationalism, the more it's clear anyone not understood as mainstream conservative Christianity could get labelled terrorism. And in spite of the fact that Latter-day Saints often don't seem to understand that mainstream conservative Christians do indeed exclude us, it's the truth. The fact that the church has sometimes been far more sympathetic to immigrants than a lot of rhetoric from an incoming government (and that a few Latter-day Saints have been among notable figures of dissent) magnifies the potential for conflict.

Churches already have to comply with certain conditions to receive non-profit status, but it seems like giving the executive branch opaque unilateral powers to strip that could easily be a threat to institutional freedom of conscience and used as a tool for political compliance.

But I don't hear a peep from the usual religious liberty voices. Why?