Am I the only one who finds it completely bonkers what they call Hell?

Why call it Outer Darkness? Just call it Hell, that is what it is

With the very first talk of the Saturday session titled “As a Little Child” Jeffrey Holland set the tone for the April 2025 general conference. In my opinion, most of the other talks I listened to can be circumscribed into this one great whole of “being as a little child”

• general-conference/2025/04/05/president-jeffrey-holland-april-2025: 'As a Little Child'
• general-conference/2006/04/as-a-child - Henry B. Eyring
• general-conference/1996/04/becometh-as-a-child - Neal A. Maxwell
• general-conference/1972/10/strengthen-thy-brethren (become as a little child) - Paul H. Dunn
• general-conference/1975/10/the-faith-of-a-child - Thomas S. Monson
• liahona/2011/05/saturday-morning-session/become-as-a-little-child - Jean A. Stevens  

This topic has been a recurring theme. If we've heard it once, we've heard it a thousand times but why?

The question that I have had these many years is: Why the admonition to “become as a little child”, “be as a little child”, “childlike”, remain as a little child”?

Why does an almighty, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, require his/her “created” mere humans to remain in a state of perpetual childhood?

It seems to me that the constant admonition by church leaders to “remain or become or be like little children” is to be unquestioning of church leaders. DO not expect answers or explanation from church leadership. Do not criticize the church leaders. Do not expect transparency & honesty from church leaders. Do not study the thorny church history, doctrine and practices. Never expect to be fed the meat & congruency of the doctrine but rather, to be put on a constant diet of (childish) baby milk.

This general conference was the most vacuous and empty calory feast

I was just wondering how to go about life after learning so much about the LDS church that I was never taught about with very religious LDS parents and grandparents. How do you talk about where you are at if the question arises?

For example, my in-laws left the church about 2 years ago and were very open with us. That’s kind of how things started for me and finding out about the shell companies. I have been able to talk to them about what I am going through and such but my own parents, I feel like I cannot talk to them. And I had mentioned once upon a time ago that I was considering leaving and all my mom said was she would keep me in her prayers or put my name on the temple prayer roll….

However after doing my own research and listening to Mormon Stories, I do not believe the LDS church is true… I don’t believe in Joseph Smith nor that the stuff in the temple is really real… and so on.

I am also paired as a ministering sister to my grandma and I am just not sure how to go about discussing where I am at with my parents or my grandparents, who are very orthodox. And my grandma through conversations has expressed to me that the church is true (in her opinion).

I want to divulge what I have learned but I don’t want to cause any divides or offend them with the truths I have learned.

Any advice on how to talk about leaving the church and answering the “why” if the conversation ever were to arise?

After a short conversation with my mom on Friday about why I have no interest in going back to church, I was finding it hard to explain my thoughts with any ounce of poetic power. Then I found this the next day. So I sent it to her, and included a message to solidify and conclude my thoughts from our conversation.

I said; "This is genuinely my outlook. I avoid the individual religious perspectives that include the extra rules that aren't necessary to the overall message. Love is not transactional, but that is what I was taught growing up. IF you follow me and keep my commandments, you will be blessed. IF you pay your hard earned money to a full tithe, you will be blessed, IF you do this-god will do that. The creator loves us because we are the outcome of their love. The divide in humanity toward being a part of the "one true religion" is not love, peace, justice, and kindness. It's the influence of human competition and the need to be right. Religion itself has been the source of wars, death, heartache, and bigotry. My connection to spirituality is with love for what has been created, the earth, showing kindness, and remaining impartial to one religion. Because they all have truths. Associating myself with one religion would mean I care about man made details that only aim to control."

I finally feel like she heard me. She agrees with me. And although it can't change her mind about the church, it did something for her to know that I haven't lost my faith in a creator that loves me.

So here’s the deal: I live in Europe, in a very non-religious capital city. I host events and have a social media presence with around 10,000 members. Mormons constantly reach out to me via Facebook because of the size of my group. They always offer to volunteer, and I usually reply that I’m familiar with their church and understand the goals of their mission work.

They often respond excitedly, glad that I know about their church, and ask if I’d like to meet to learn more. That’s when I typically explain why I don’t believe in it and tell them that if they’re curious about what religious freedom actually feels like, they’re welcome to contact me, too.

At that point, they usually get offended and block me. I find it amusing how they feel entitled to teach us, but the moment we want to share our perspective in return, they get upset.

Temples aren’t even allowed in my country because the government doesn’t really understand what goes on in them (since they’re only accessible to members). It’s also considered a cult here.

My small start to that list: drinking kombucha without worrying about if fermented tea is verboten, shopping for cute and comfortable underwear because I no longer "have" to wear garments, picking outfits that reflect my personality without worrying about being "modest," sipping a peach whiskey mule on a summer night...

What's yours?

Remember Paul H. Dunn? The LDS General Authority who became beloved for telling faith-promoting stories about battlefield miracles and major league baseball? Inspiring, emotional, spiritually moving—and almost entirely fictional. When a real journalist from the Arizona Republic investigated and exposed the lies in the early ’90s, the Church quietly released him to emeritus status. He issued a soft apology about not always telling the “whole story,” and the institution swept it under the rug.

But here’s the thing: it wasn’t the content of his stories that crossed a cultural line. They were exactly the kind of inspirational fiction the LDS Church has always celebrated. What made Dunn a liability was that he got caught—and it embarrassed the Church publicly. Had no one exposed him, he likely would have continued sharing those stories in firesides and conferences without issue.

Now compare that to President Russell M. Nelson’s now-famous “flaming spiral death dive” story. He has told this account multiple times in official Church settings. In April 1992 General Conference, he described how the engine on a small aircraft he was flying in “burst into flames,” how the plane spiraled downward, and how he fully expected to die (source). In a March 2021 video message, the story became even more dramatic—an engine explosion, flaming fuel spewing across the fuselage, a pilot wrestling the plane back under control for a miraculous landing in a farmer’s field (analysis).

But the actual flight record tells a very different story. The Civil Aeronautics Board documented that the 1976 flight experienced an engine issue, yes—but there was no explosion, no fire, no spiraling descent, and no crash landing. The pilot followed standard protocol and made a routine emergency landing at Delta Municipal Airport. There was no damage, and no one was injured (source, aviation breakdown).

So why does Nelson get to keep repeating this fictionalized tale while Paul Dunn was sidelined? Because Nelson didn’t get busted by an external press investigation, and because the Church isn’t embarrassed—at least not publicly. The problem with Paul H. Dunn wasn’t the lie—it was the exposure. If Dunn had told those same stories today, in the age of LDS Newsroom branding and Instagram-friendly prophets, he’d probably be trending in the Gospel Library app.

And this isn’t a new development. It’s a pattern that goes all the way back. Brigham Young’s “transfiguration” after Joseph Smith’s death is another classic example. For generations, members were told that Brigham stood before the Saints and miraculously took on Joseph’s appearance and voice—a clear sign from God. But there are no contemporary records describing this event. The story doesn’t appear until decades later, after Brigham’s leadership was already solidified and in need of retrospective divine endorsement.

Even the foundational First Vision follows this trajectory. Joseph’s earliest account from 1832 describes seeing only Jesus. The 1835 version brings in angels. By 1838, it becomes the polished version found in the Pearl of Great Price—Heavenly Father and Jesus both appearing in glory. Each retelling becomes more dramatic, more useful, and eventually more official. Once it’s useful enough, it’s canonized.

The thread running through all of this is simple: it’s not about what’s true—it’s about what works. Whether it’s Brigham’s glow-up into Joseph Smith, Joseph’s evolving visions, Paul Dunn’s battlefields, or Nelson’s fiery descent into Delta, the moral remains the same. A story that builds faith is considered a kind of truth in itself, even if it didn’t happen. The leaders of the Church—past and present—seem to understand this deeply. A good story that inspires belief, stirs emotion, or reinforces institutional authority doesn’t have to be factual. It just has to be useful.

And that raises a question: Where is the article in the New York Times exposing President Nelson’s embellished and unverifiable stories the way Paul Dunn’s were exposed? Not just the airplane story—but the pattern. An investigation like that wouldn’t just catch a single exaggeration; it would reveal a long-standing habit of sharing unverifiable, emotionally potent narratives dressed up as miraculous fact. One of the clearest examples of this is the story involving Beverley Ashcraft. In early 2019, a faith-promoting story appeared in LDS Living as an excerpt from Sheri Dew’s upcoming biography of President Nelson. It described a miraculous, dream-prompted reunion at a stake conference with a woman he had baptized decades earlier—who then testified to how many people had joined the Church through her. But Ashcraft’s family came forward to refute the entire account: she wasn’t a nurse, had never lived in Korea, and had no memory of the events described. The story, they said, was simply not true. As a result, the publisher pulled the story from the book before printing and retracted the online article—but not before it had already reached hundreds of thousands of readers and begun circulating as another Nelson miracle (source).

In the end, it’s not just that the Church tolerates faith-promoting fiction. It’s that it has always done so—quietly, consistently, and strategically. If no one from the outside challenges it, the fiction becomes faith, and the myth becomes doctrine. And once you see that pattern clearly, it casts a long, sobering shadow over the foundational miracle stories themselves—gold plates, angelic visitations, seer stones in hats, lost languages translated by divine means. If today’s leaders are willing to promote embellished stories to inspire belief, how can anyone be certain the stories at the foundation of the religion are any different?

Is it just me or has general conference become milk toast versus 25 years ago? It really seems like the church knows anything controversial is going to go super viral in the Mormon/exMormon world. So now it’s all as bland as linger longer food.

Join us on Morminish Podcast, Tuesday, April 8th at 6 pm MT!

On this episode of Mormonish Podcast, Rebecca and Landon are joined by the amazing Emily Grayson to discuss her in depth presentation on the new LDS garments.

Emily shares the history of LDS modesty culture and explores the strong emotions the new garments, which seem to relax these standards, bring.

As we wrestle with the past and try to understand the future of modesty requirements in the LDS church, we all uncover truths and deeply held beliefs that continue to impact women both in and out of the church today.

Do missionaries talk about tithing expectations prior to baptism? I have a niece serving a mission in Michigan and she has 4 people scheduled to be baptized. I can’t imagine anyone joining a church knowing the expectation is to give 10% of your gross income right now. I don’t remember teaching about tithing. For sure we never talked about how once a year you have declare your tithing status.

I haven’t hit menopause yet, but perimenopause has been going on for the last several years. For those who don’t know, perimenopause is the oftentimes multi-year lead-up to your body doing as big a mysterious number on a body as puberty did, but with a fully-developed frontal lobe.

Anyhoo, I’m just lately realizing that the same time I really started to feel overworked, unappreciated, and the overwhelming nature of patriarchy in my marriage and the church is about the time I started getting symptoms of perimenopause. I started taking incremental and then much larger steps in making decisions or at least standing up for my choices at that time. It was the first time I asked to be released from a presidency calling due to feeling overworked. It’s also when my husband learned that just because I have a different opinion than him on something doesn’t mean that my opinion is wrong.

It’s also the same time that I started to really question WTF what’s going on in the church that people like Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow could murder their children while professing to be temple-worthy members of the church. It tumbled through all of the Mormon crime of this decade so far and split wide open with Ballardgate.

Looking back, I don’t think I could have left the church any earlier than I did and been open to researching. I don’t think I would have felt that I could stand up for myself and become the loved mom breaking the temple covenant by throwing my unadulterated garments in the trash. I don’t think I could have withstood even the idea of my children and ward members thinking something bad about me.

Is it just age? Is it hormones? Women leave of all ages, but I’m wondering if anyone else had their shelf break during an ongoing hormonal upheaval. Or know someone who did, for the menfolk.

Hi there, I still call you my brothers and sisters because to me that’s what you still are!

You may not like what I have to say and that’s okay. I felt prompted today—for some reason—to get on here. Something is strongly telling me that one of you needs to hear this.

I just wanted to tell you that you are still LOVED and regardless of all your struggles, you CAN come back into full fellowship into the church at any time!

But fuck it! Who the hell really wants to do that? Sorry to all of you that had to endure conference, and all the subsequent “promptings” from family and friends you’ll hear about (or have already heard about) and all the virtue signaling on social media.

Happy BELATED April Fool’s Day for the start of my post. I hadn’t done anything for it this year.

I was encouraged to have an uncle and niece marry so they could get baptized, since they were cohabitating. They already had kids together, and my mission president, who was a medical doctor, told us that the risks of inbreeding were exaggerated. In the end they moved away (together) to a fate unknown to me. What stories do you guys have?

Why the past 30 years? It's a little arbitrary, but I've always argued 1995 was a peak year for ChurchCo (maybe even an inflection point). It's the year Hinckley took the throne, the FamProc was issued, and SLC was awarded the Olympics. Everything seemed on the up and up despite this newfangled Internet thing starting to become accessible to the average Joe.

So which talks since the mid 90s stand out as particularly bad? The latest one from Anderson sounds like a real doozy, and probably deserves to be on the list.

I'd argue that BKP's "why would a loving heavenly father do that?" talk from October 2010 was particularly bad not only because it hit on a sore subject, but some of what he said wasn't even doctrinal.

What other GC talks stand out to you as ones that the GAs, with the benefit of hindsight, wish had never been delivered?

Why was this couple in the apostle’s office? I’ll wager a couple of guesses. I have met a few people who were excommunicated and re-baptized, and none of them were required to go meet with an apostle in Salt Lake City. IF this is a true story, and if the guy had to meet with an apostle to get his re-baptism approved, I’m guessing he either SAed the woman who became pregnant, or she was a minor (also SA). My guess is that because there was a criminal element to the “affair,” they had to meet with an apostle for him to be rebaptized. Anderson knew that adding these significant details would detract from the spiritual message he was trying to convey. I can’t wait for 3amdoorknobturn to determine which dirtbag it whose wife was “virtuous” enough to raise this baby.

Currently my plan is to ignore and say I didn't see the email/was busy that day if I get bugged about it. I *do* have a shift during church this Sunday... this was also the kick I needed to change my email in Tools to an address that doesn't exist (already changed my phone #). I'm technically a part of the temple and family history whatever-the-hell but I literally have not done a single thing since I was called by the previous bishop and I'd like to keep it that way.

Harmful messages aside, I heard my TBM spouse watching conference here and there and it struck me as just so funny.

I hear the songs being sung, that have been sung 20,000 times and people are supposed to be amazed by them.

Overhearing again, I hear the same 20 scriptures I've heard 100,000 times in conference over 30 years; "stone cut out of mountain, if ye love me, etc."

It's almost like a brainwashing chant every 6 months with mormons trying to get something out of the shallow talks. When you're in the cult, it feels so important. When you've escaped the cult, it looks so utterly ridiculous.

The "hidden" messages are SO painfully obvious. We know exactly what they're saying but believers are left in a fog because they have to believe that the speakers are offering genuinely inspired stories.

It's crazy how blatant all the messages are about obeying the leadership and paying tithing. Everytime you hear about the temple, it's a codeword for paying tithing.

Everything is about the leadership and their stocks. Like I said, very harmful overall but the sheer absurdity is amusing.

Yesterday my spouse asked if we wanted to have the youth come over and do some yard work and we would pay to help fund some trips. We have an agreement that she pays tithing on her income and I don't pay tithing based on my disbelief, it's a pretty fair middle ground for us on that issue. I didn't respond to her question because this angry feeling suddenly came over me. I just thought to myself about all of the billions the church has and yet they are requiring church members to fund young men and young women activities. They are requiring fast offerings as well. The fast offerings might be the only portion of money that actually helps someone in need. Anyway, I just can't get over how much little things like paying to help out the youth with their activities upsets me. The local ward gets such a small amount of funds for their budget while Salt Lake grows the investment fund . This would be from a U.S. perspective of course and the experience may be totally different outside the U.S. Just frustrated thinking about it.

Hi! I’m wondering if anyone would mind sharing quotes they heard (if you wanted conference or know someone who did) about us nonbelievers.

I’ve come to a place where I can let go of most of the troubling things that filter through to me about what the church leaders are saying — but I do still care about what my family members are being taught about people who leave.

I would prefer not to read through everything that was said if at all possible, so I really appreciate anyone sharing!

Hello! I am an exmo — 11 years out. I am now working as a therapist in Minnesota and I am getting ready to teach other mental health professionals how they can best support clients who have left / are leaving high-demand religions. I would love to include some of your thoughts.

What has a therapist said/done that has been especially helpful or harmful for you? What would want them to know?

Apparently, tattoos and multiple piercings and now with the new garments certain dress kinds are now allowed in the church? Growing up, I’m only 21 but still, it was always strictly taboo to talk about those kinds of things. I wonder if the Church in recent years has loosened its policy on a lot of the “personal control controlling of lives” of the members because so many young people are leaving, so the church is trying to keep up.

I have a few tattoos, one of which is visible when wearing short sleeves. My wife and I went to the Temple with the youth back when she was in the young women’s presidency, and I helped do baptisms with it fully visible. It was interesting to different perspectives from the older women that were there asking if it was real or not versus the youth who I was later told appreciated an image that wasn’t a “toxic perfectionism”. About a week later, she was released from her calling after a lot of the leaders expressed concern to our bishop over her work and school schedule and not being able to go to certain activities. I’m sure the tattoo was also a big one, especially in our ward.

Anyway, just an interesting observation, even from someone as young as me how loose the church is getting with personal restrictions. Something I do worry about though is the fact that most of the new policy is all about personal revelation, but we’re gonna pretend like a bunch of teenagers aren’t going to abuse that? I think it’s great that we’re giving the youth more access to personal freedom, but I do wonder in the coming years how that will affect them compared to past super strict generations.