5 Painful Issues the Mormon Church Isn’t Fixing (ft. Britt Hartley)

A note you've written here on the shared document we've got. You've just written tithing as sky miles. What is that? Have you seen this? Oh, Nemo, you understand why though, right? I I totally understand why. But it's such bull, Nemo. Like I Okay. Right. The church has gone astray, but there is a soul to it that's still salvageable. Yeah. And then you realize, no, that soul is deliberately being killed. Yes. And that that broke my heart.

Hi everyone, welcome to another discussion with an esteemed individual. I am joined by the author of nononsense spirituality today because apparently me on my own on YouTube isn't enough for some of you. You've expressed in the comments, you've expressed in other forums that really you want to see me with more guests. So, I've got a brilliant guest. It's Britt Hartley. Everyone clap for Brit. Happy to be here, Nemo. And we've actually met in person even though you're across the pond. We did get to meet in person this year. So that was lovely. We we spoke about this when we met in person that it would be interesting to look at things the church might change. A lot of things that people put forward that they think the church ought to change and look at whether they can or not sort of theologically, doctrinally, can the church actually change these things about itself? We've selected some things behind the scenes. Brit, I'm going to ask you to kick us off with the first and then we have a bonus at the end if we have time. Okay.

So, the first one is going to be like the most obvious one that that everyone talks about. Not even just scholars of the church, but even just average members will sometimes have conversation about conversations about what are doctrinally the options for the church when it comes to LGBTQ issues. And even just recently, we had Terl Given and Jared Halverson talk about uh how 10 years ago they used to hear things when when people were leaving the church that they were leaving the church because the church wasn't true. And now they're seeing people leave the church because the church isn't good. And one of the reasons that they cited was people, especially young people, don't know how to explain to other people why we limit LGBTQ people. and that was becoming increasingly a problem. And so even apologists are really talking about this. What can we do here? So I'm just I'll throw it out to you first. What do you think are our options for this population?

I I I think it's incredibly tricky because of some of the doctrines surrounding the sort of hetronormative eternities, right? The idea that it is a man and a woman that will eternally procreate. I think that creates barriers to uh any of this sort of uh doctrine. But then I think there's precedent because you you look at the life of Joseph Smith, right? And these same apologists will try and justify what Joseph Smith did with someone like Hela Mar Kimble as it being some sort of eternity only ceiling as a union of houses, etc. So if ceiling isn't all about sex and isn't all about uh those sorts of things, then um I think there's space because I think the debate often from the church around not including homosexual couples, let's just keep it to homosexuality for a second. Not including those couples is, well, they can't reproduce, they can't procreate, they can't have children, and that's what God wants us. We're here to have children. So, if there's other reasons for people to be in eternal unions, like not having children, which is a lot of what's used to justify Joseph Smith's polygamy, then those same justifications could be applied to other types of eternal unions that also can't produce children either here or in the next life.

Yeah, it it's it's very weird. And and the church kind of plays both sides. So, when we're talking about gay marriage, they'll say like, "We know that that this is not the order of heaven." And then when we start asking polygamy questions and those early ceilings that get really messy, then all of a sudden like we don't know what eternal relationships are like. And they do play both sides. So the best philosopher when it comes to queer theology is is Blair Osler. And she's been kind of out of uh discussions of late. She's been out of the public eye, but she she wrote a book and she was public for some time talking about doctrinal options for queer theology. Because when we do look at the early church, we have um men being sealed like under like like it was almost like a dynasty. So men would get sealed into like Bighgam's hierarchy and we have slaves being sealed to Joseph to eternally you know serve him and we have nonsexual ceilings and so essentially Blair Osler takes that and says the earliest doctrines that we have on ceilings wasn't about a man and a woman. It was about sealing together the human race, sealing together everyone. and there was a variety of options that you could be sealed together. And so she kind of took that all the messiness of of early church ceilings and said, "Hey, we have options here." It was never about monogamy. We have Dallin H. Oaks just last week talking about mothers in heaven. We're not even today we're not talking about specific monogamy. And so why have we created to be this monogamous thing when uh our history is a history of of non- monogamy?

Yeah, I think it's important to to say that this then goes to a spiritual place, right? This isn't saying that, you know, samesex relationships will be acceptable necessarily in this life uh before they are acceptable as an eternal thing. But what I think we do see is what happens eternally in the church then ends up essentially becoming acceptable because in physically because the argument is well if that's how we're aiming to live in the next life then why would we not try to live that way now?

Yeah. And there there is doctrinal and and a lot of Mormons today don't know this but there is doctrinal precedent for the idea of God being communal that God is a community. And so if ceilings are a part if if the point of ceilings and doing all this temple work is just to seal the human family as one so that we all learn from each other and it's like a kind of collective God and we even have like you know scriptures that will support this idea of like a council of gods. If that is the concept of God you could certainly build on that to create all kinds of relationships that could seal into each other so that we're all connected together. If the point of it is connection, you could get there with early Mormon doctrine.

Because I feel I feel like in many ways the the church's attitudes towards um homosexuality aren't necessarily theologically grounded in anything specific to Mormonism. They seem like just a carryover from just more generic Christian worldviews and more generic social worldviews that that are represented by the sort of ages of current church leaders. Right. You think about You're right. Yeah. Yeah. The age of Dan Chokes and and where when his formative years were. Yes. Same with Russ Nelson. Because while the mainstream Christian church can be um limited by things like Leviticus, the LDS church is not like we, you know, we can do with the Bible whatever we want essentially. And so yeah, you're right that we don't seem to be held back by any theology. And we have so much early doctrine on God being communal um and different kinds of ceilings and certainly polygamy that there's a lot of doctrinal options.

There's the argument that okay that's in the past that's how it used to be but continual revelation shows us that this is the way it is. I think the very simple rebuttal to that is continual revelation could then just show us that it is to be a different way again you know. Yeah. Yeah. in the same way that that Joseph seemed to be more open to black people than Brigham Young was. And we could use that when we wanted to, when it was the right time to. He could do the same thing. Now, the issue that we're going to come up against uh is that I I don't think we have huge doctrinal or theological things that are unchanging that is going to limit our ability to do this. I I think what we're finding, and this is now bigger than Mormonism, is that in America, churches are more political than they are theological at this point. And churches are either on the political left or on the political right. Or some churches like the Methodist church over this issue will just split in two. They'll just be now two different churches based on this. So we know from the data that it used to be 20, 50 years ago that your religion would influence your politics. And now we know that politics is really the driving force in America and it will and and when people have to choose and we saw this when we had um you know the vaccine debate in America when people had to choose between their politics and their religion or what the prophet said they chose their politics. So I think the issue here is not a doctrinal one. I think there are ways not only with continuing revelation like you can always play that card but even with early church doctrine about community that you could make it that way. Um I don't think that's going to be the issue. The issue is going to be that we're we're far more political than we are religious in America and this is the hot button deciding political issue for many people.

But then that's a very Americentric view of the church which I understand because the church you know is very American still but their constant boast is that they're growing in places like Africa which currently are politically conservative in many ways. You know uh some of these countries where the church is growing but I wonder what will happen once you have an established population of church members in these countries and if these countries then begin to shift politically what the difference that might make or what you're going to see more in Europe. Are you going to see more pressure from outside of the states on church leaders? I guess the question is, do church leaders care about any sort of social pressure beyond what happens in the on the Wasatch front and in the Mormon corridor?

I would say possibly in the future if the church gets to the point where we start getting apostles from other places. And uh I I've I've had a lot of uh conversations with, you know, Mormons who are either scholars or in leadership talking about hoping that the future of Mormonism has an apostle in each different part of the world and they zoom together, you know, when they have meetings rather than having to all be in Utah. And if that's the future of the church, we would certainly see changes. And for example, you know, the the the best example of this is that in America, the only church in America currently that is able to hold like 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans is the Catholic Church. And the only reason that they are able to manage having a congregation with differently voting people is because once in a while the Vatican will come in and say, "Hey America, you need to you need to knock it off." Um because like you know some of the liberal Catholics will say you know they'll try to like deny communion to the other like oh Joe Biden doesn't he supports abortion so we're not going to give him the the community and they'll have battles like that but because the power source is somewhere else they're able to you know once in a while the Vatican will just say America you need you need to knock it off and so they're able to hold it's it's a tenuous relationship but they're able to hold um differenta different voting populations. So, if the power started to spread where we had apostles in different areas of the world that were able to voice that, that could be a possibility. But we're a long way from that. We're we're still so Utah centric. I don't see that being an issue for a long time.

Well, speaking of the Vatican and I guess religious leadership in general, let's move to uh women and the priesthood because uh and I'll just I'll just read this little thing I've got here. It says um that I've written for myself. Community of Christ have ordained their first female prophet in Stacy Dra. Women have held the priesthood in Community of Christ since 1985 with Community of Christ belief system and origins being so similar and intertwined with Brighgamite Mormonism, so those that follow Brigham. Young that make up the current church based in Utah. Uh could we see Mormon women receive the priesthood in the Brigham sect?

Yeah, my my answer to this one is is no. And largely because I think the women more than the men. So we had that that groundbreaking study by Janna Ree that showed that uh it was it was a question that was like if the prophet said women can have the priesthood now would you be against it? And there were there were more women against that than men. And so what we're seeing is not only is is Mormonism kind of set up for men. It's a patriarchal religion. Uh, but we also see that the women who do well in Mormonism, who want to stay in Mormonism, who aren't weeded out by the time they're 16 or whatever, um, are women who also benefit from patriarchy, who who really do want, um, often to just have a more submissive type of marriage, to have um, to have the man be the leader in in in the home and in the world and things like that. Would a different type of woman survive if the setup were different? Yeah, absolutely. But but for now, it's like the women in the church aren't aren't fully asking for this. They're they're not fully asking for the priesthood, they're asking for more voice. And so I I because because of that dynamic and because we know that the second that you give women the priesthood in any other denomination, male participation goes down that second. Like we know and this is what Blake Osler, not Blair Osler, different philosopher, not related. Uh Blake Osler talks about that that he thinks that men need the priesthood because they need something to do because if women if if women had the priesthood, women would do everything and do it better and then men would have nothing to do and they would just stay home and there'd be no men in the church is his argument. So, we know that that male participation goes down and the the church is bleeding women already. They can't lose men, too. So, I don't I don't see this being a thing. I think they'll continue to give little breadcrumbs of more power to women without kind of calling it, you know, a real a real priesthood or real priesthood power.

What do those breadcrumbs look like then? What does that look like? the little things. You think, you know, in the past it was like you you can witness baptisms and and little things like that. Maybe uh like the beehives or or the mates, they're not even called that. The young women, whatever they're called, you know, could maybe pass the sacrament in the women's lounge, you know, little things like that. Um, but the big one that that is possible that I think would do the biggest change for the church as far as positive things for the church where you don't even have to give f women the priesthood fully is to allow women to have control over their own money. And we do have precedent of this. And so my thing is like I'm not even arguing that women get equal power to men. We're so far from that. Like we're so far from that. Uh, but what we could do like a reasonable next step is we could say can we at least get as much power as early Mormon women had because current Mormon women have less power than women 200 years ago which is actually quite shocking. That's actually quite shocking. So allowing women to bless one another. We had a beautiful blessing ritual where we anointed women's bodies before they went into childirth. When I read it even now as an ex Mormon I I wept. It's one of the most sacred things I've ever read. Uh we used to have power over our own curriculum. We used to have power over our own money. And when you give women money, they they don't just like invest it. They don't just enzyme peak, you know, the money. If you wanted to actually change the church and the church's image overnight. Let women either have all the money, access to the money, half the money, give them access to some portion of the budget and let them change the world because they will. And historically they do and it is the number one um way to relieve poverty is to give women money because women don't just raise themselves out of poverty. Women raise everyone around them. They they move the ground up. They move the floor up for everyone. Right.

So what we're talking about is we're talking about the emancipation of relief society from the control of male leaders essentially. Yes. That's the one that I think we that that at least for now for where we are we have precedent of that. That's how Joseph Smith set it up. He turned the keys over to the women. We could at least get to that because Joseph set it up that way. And we don't have that. We have less than that. So, I think that's the most reasonable first step before you start going into, you know, official priesthood stuff, which I think we're pretty far away from.

Okay. Well, again, bringing it all back to the church leaders because we have nothing but the men to talk about. uh clearly uh let's talk about ameritus status for leaders back when they had meeting when they had recorded meetings which as a as a historian I'm really upset that they no longer have personal journals and meeting notes because you understand why though right I I totally understand why but it's such Nemo like I of all the things that get me mad it's like we're a recordkeeping church and we're told from the time we're very little that we all need to keep journals and the second you become a leader do not write a thing down. Do not keep a personal journal. We do not have the notes of these meetings. I I re it really bo it really bothers me. It really bothers me but it it does it it definitely begs the question of well why what are they hiding? Yeah. And you know, and I I see PR why they have to do that, but but um it is disappointing. We've come from a religious tradition of Joseph Smith writing down every little thing that he felt like God told him, including how much people can invest in the Nauvoo Mansion House, right? God was really in every little detail when Joseph Smith was around. So, if he's in the details of these meetings, why are we not keeping a record of them?

I'm I'm for that, too. And and I think I think PR won that battle in the sense that hey it's getting harder to be able to like you know the gray men who run the church won that I think. Yeah. But back when we used to the point was back when we used to take notes there were times where it was brought up hey do we need to do ameritus status for the leaders. People are getting kind of old. Um we know that Hubie Brown expressed a desire to retire in the early 1970s due to his workload and his health issues. He had a fight with it over Harold Belee who he was always fighting against because they had very different theological views. Harold Belee very conservative um and and Hubie Brown much more liberal politically and theologically and he opposed the idea saying that this is an apostolic calling for life. So what what I'm seeing there though is that Hubie Brown was saying well hang on I want it to be something that I can step back from and it's essentially Harold B going no this is a burden for life because we often tend to think or I have certainly been guilty of thinking in the past that maybe the leaders of this church just want to cling on for as long as possible to the power they have and whatnot. But actually this is an example of when one of those leaders went no I would like to you know step away I would like to stop and he was told no this is something you now burned with.

Do you think it's because um they've seen too much they know too much they've seen how the sausage gets made and they now have to be kept within the confines of that group until they die. But I mean there's there's no reason why they couldn't go ameritus and you couldn't just stop them and put a gag order on them. Stop them publishing anything you know.

Yeah. There there's a couple concerns there. Um the allowing ameritus status invites like they watch the Catholic Church and how they do conclave or other religions, how they do succession of power, and they've kind of been able to stay out a lot of out of a lot of those succession leadership issues by just saying until God kills you, it's in God's hands. and and that kind of relieves a lot of the political issues because again these are 15 men that have to be unanimous. It's very difficult. And so allowing ameritus status, I think the fear is it invites pressure to remove leaders for reasons other than age and health. And then we start to see political jockeying because we I mean they they've had, you know, members don't know this, but within the Q15, there's been political issues. There's been lines drawn. There's been we're trying to do this and one person is holding it up kind of stuff. Um, and so when ameritus status becomes an issue, now all of a sudden that stuff becomes more political and more even argumentative within the Q15 because now they can just say, "Well, God put him in charge. God's kept him alive, so that's what we're going to do." And it kind of creates this easy way to uh relieve tension within these 15 men who do have to be unanimous.

What if there was a merit? Because you see some of that in Secondass Saints, right? In Matt Harris's book, you see a lot of that jockeying and that stuff behind the scenes. What if the emmeritus status was simply tied to an age? So, you're a 70 to your 70, right? And then you become an emeritus 70. That's currently how it operates for anyone below the 15. Why don't you just make their age 80 and then you know if they make it out of being a 70 then at the very cip they'll still be an apostle for 10 years. That's still a decent chunk of time for stability. It's a similar length of time to anyone being a state president or anything like that.

Yeah, that is one way to do it where you could still Yeah, you could still have like a hard stop. Uh so that you don't have like because if ameritus status was available in times past, there would have been pressure to like hey Harold be Lee, you're doing some really wild conservative America stuff. We need you to step down for health reasons. Like I think some of that would have happened. He's like, "I'm not 80 yet, so I'm still in." So, you could still have that hard stop. I I think on this one, uh, in in contrast to the other ones we've done, I think this is going to be one that they're eventually going to be forced to do this. Like, they've been able to hide like they were able to hide a little bit Thomas S. Monson's dementia and how much others were running the church, but they're going to increasingly be able to hide this less and less. And I just think at some point the dementia is going to be so bad. He's gonna someone's gonna say something so offcolor, so 1920 that uh they're just going to have to to do this like they can't hide from this forever.

When Henry Biring turned 90, we had for the first time in the history of the church a first presidency that were all in their 90th decade of life. And then uh Russ Lam Nelson because he has to be the winningest bestest prophet ever went to 100 which no prophet's ever done before and he's looking set to reach 101. I'm not sure. I mean there's some stuff going on in the background where it seems like the training for mission leaders he's given the same presentation twice in a row now pre-recorded. So they're just recycling that video now it would seem. Uh and some people saying does that mean he's out of it? But I we just won't know. It's like the death of the queen. We just won't know until he dies that that that's on its way because they will do their best to hide it. But like you said, they can't hide it from us for for how much now we're online and and people are taking videos of DHO in a sacrament meeting and that's now all public information. The more that that continues um where there's videos of these guys all the time and whistleblowers and leakers and all that um they're just not going to be able to hide. And the the shocking thing is that for in a hundred year old man, Russell M. Nelson is quite progressive. Like he's moved a lot in his life. But for where like a 20-year-old is today, it's just it's still just a world of difference. Um so there's only so far a brain can can move in a lifetime and we're meeting the limits of that. And he he doesn't have to be I I would always raise the argument that it doesn't have to be that you can't have any elderly leaders or any people with this sort of life experience. I think they're important. I think it's always important to have people that have lived a full life who can give lessons of the wisdom of age. But it's also important to have younger dynamic people who can bridge that gap. And I don't think the 70s do that because they're all desperate to get their turn at the top. So they don't want to rock the boat.

I think the problem with the structure is if if we had more churn, if we had more people moving through uh if you had a version, which you kind of do in curtain mank, you've essentially got a Mormon civil service, right? That doesn't change with the changes of power. You've got that consistency. So don't rely on these men for consistency. Instead, have these men be actual theological thinkers. Don't have them all be businessmen and lawyers. have them be actual theologians, people that actually can think about these things. Have them be dynamic and and vibrant and some of them younger, some of them older, and have this diversity of view and opinion. And they're not there for the day-to-day running of the church, which does need to be very stable. It's a very expensive organization to run. It has a lot of money, a lot of assets to control.

Yeah, it may go that way if if the church continues to grow internationally and become something more like the Catholic church where there is just there there's so much space to be a Catholic, right? You can be a liberal, you can be a Democrat, you can be this part of the world and that part of the world. There are young bishops and old bishops and there's continuity, but there's also some changes. And um it could go that direction. It would it would have to survive this this kind of collective faith crisis that that that the church is having. Um, so yeah, it it could go that way, but as people are leaving, um, the problem is when you brought up the theologian piece, you know, the church has outsourced the stability to Curtain McConi, but it's also outsourced its theology to BYU. Like BYU and apologists, the professors, that's who's doing theology. And then sometimes like those theological ideas uh or even seminary teachers, there's sometimes that that theology like goes up to the leadership and they'll like learn something and it'll show up in a talk or something like that. But we don't have we don't have a theology in Mormonism anymore. We don't have a functioning theology. We don't really have a functioning theologians. It's kind of outsourced to BYU. But as we're excommunicating certain kinds of BYU professors, the ones who are more liberal, certainly the ones who are more open to change, as those guys are getting excommunicated, now you only have a pool of a very small set of theologians. And Patrick Mason has talked about it when he became um the the chair for Mormon his you know for Mormon history and he said I'm too young to have this job but the generation of historians above me were so scared by the September 6. We lost an entire generation of Mormon scholars. I'm too young to have this position but I guess I'm going to have to step up. So we've lost we've lost all of that theology by all of those excommunications. I look at Spencer Fluman like he was someone I spent some time with while he was over here in Oxford and uh he you know lovely guy uh clearly wants to try and create a bigger tent in Mormonism from what I can tell but has been pushed out has been kind of pushed out of of the Max Institute of these sorts of places um if I'm remembering these things correctly now. Same thing happened with Fiona Given. She was doing a lot for mother in heaven kind of stuff and she was like really like treated very poorly by Maxwell Institute and other intellectual wings of the church that have that have kind of gone a certain direction. And so now we're missing now we don't really have a any theological balance. We only have the most conservative kind of apologists and and professors who have been able to stay under the radar of excommunication. And then if they're informing the leaders of the church, then that's what our theology is. And and and we have that. And it was actually a a one of the reasons why I left the there's multiple reasons, but one of the reasons why I left. I wrote a whole book. It's somewhere on my shelf on on Mormon philosophy and all of the not only options that we have for Mormon theology, but some of the most beautiful things that came out of the early church and real philosophical ideas that are that are profound and beautiful. And I actually had to sit back one day and I remember crying because I had to mourn that that Mormonism that had kept me in this this strand that was very philosophical and interesting and open and beautiful. I had to admit to myself that that strand had died. Yeah. There's no place for it. There's no place for it anymore. There maybe could have gone that direction, you know, if if you go back in time and change some things. Um, but that strand of Mormonism I truly considered dead.

That's something I definitely had to come to terms with when I lost faith in the structure of the church, not necessarily my theological belief, was this kind of, okay, right, the church has gone astray, but there is a soul to it that's still salvageable. Yeah. Yeah. And then you realize, no, that soul is deliberately being killed. Yes. And that that broke my heart. Yeah. That that really did break my heart because there was some beauty there that I had fallen in love with that that now I realized, you know, I used to think maybe there was a space for this strand of Mormonism that I could practice. And and not only did my local congregation, but also the church at large really just said, "That's not Mormonism anymore." And and um it's not welcome here. And that was very hard to accept. And so you get people kind of transferring over to places like Community of Christ and other offshoot groups that seem to be more open and more accepting. But the reason we won't get into the reasons why you didn't go there because that's a that's a whole video in of itself. Uh, but I I will just say that this sort of looking back to early parts of the church and early teachings of the church as we've talked about with women and the priesthood as we've talked about with these things here can be important. I think I do still think it's important to take those and to remind people in the present day this is what was taught at one point. For example, I would say that the fact that in 1958 the church published it or the church's financial records for the year 1958 were the last to ever be published publicly. So when everyone says, "Oh, it's not the member's business what money the church makes." Well, it was until the late 50s. Then all of a sudden it wasn't because Henry de Mo bankrupt the church. So you know uh but similarly we've got this prophecy around tithing in 1907 when Joseph F. Smith said I want to say to you we may not be able to reach it right away but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for $1 of donation for any purpose except that which you volunteered to give of your own accord because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God. That is the true policy the true purpose of the Lord in the management of the affairs of his church. That is a prophet speaking for God, saying that we may not reach it right away, but there will come a day when we won't have to require tithing of you. You can still freely give it, but it will not be something that we ask of you and require of you. That is the true nature of the management of the Lord's affairs. Have we reached that time? No, this one's not going anywhere.

Um, because Mormonism, especially now, places all of its emphasis on the current prophet, whatever past prophets have said, like essentially we just don't give a anymore. Like we don't even really care what Jesus said anymore. Like we, you know, any conference now spends more time quoting Russell M. Nelson than it does Jesus, much less like a previous apostle or prophet. Isn't that so funny for like such a church where you were just talking about how the only people that survive are sort of theologically conservative individuals and people like small C conservative like they want to keep hold of the past. You would think that a church like that would be like, "No, no, we have to just go back to what Jesus said. We should go back to what the founder said." But no, they're incredibly progressive in terms of, "Oh, no. It's all about what the latest leader has said. It's all about It's not that they're not authoritarian because they clearly are very authoritarian because it's all about what the ultimate leader says. It's it's a very Yes, you're right. It's like you see the irony. Yes. Yes. Yes. It's

And the same thing happens with like in in America with the idea that we're a Christian nation and they will claim that this is our history and this is our identity and this is our heritage and we're a Christian nation and they're essent essentially rewriting American history to make it that way in conservative circles. But they actually don't go back and read how critical of religion Thomas Jefferson was. How he cut up a Bible and cut out all the supernatural parts and just kept in a few like moral statements of Jesus. Um, not to mention like Thomas Payne and these men were were deists. They weren't they weren't theists. And and so we not only see that in in conservative conservative churches theologically, but also just in conservative America in general that they want to hold on to this idea of this uh eternal past, but they're rewriting history in a way that's that's just not that's just not history. Um, so that you know that I have to combat in America theologically and and politically. But for this one, we have so many the most recent talks are all about tithing. not for the money of the church, certainly not for the upkeep of the church. It's talking about you do it for the blessings. And even if you are so so poor, how dare you not tell people uh to pay their tithing because that's the way that they're going to get, you know, the the Yeah. the blessings of heaven opened and all of that. So because tithing has turned into very specific prosperity gospel where this is the way that you open the blessings of heaven from God. It's it's I I don't see us going back to that prophecy at all. What I do see is there may be some middle ground options especially if the membership of the church continue to be concerned with you know like Enzyme Peak stuff and and investment stuff. So some middle ground options would be to like remove it from temple recommend questions. You could move it to donations in general.

Well, I started a petition to to ask for just that, right? If you don't want to give up the blessings of paying tithing, if if if tithing is about how you Russell M. Nelson said, I'll insert the clip, but it said tithing is not about the money. It's about how it changed him. Right? Insert clip here. Was the church any different because we increased our tithing? Of course not. However, becoming a full tithe payer changed me. That's when I learned that paying tithing is all about faith, not money. If that is the case, then paying tithing to any organization, faithfully giving up that amount of your wealth to any organization should be should count. Yeah. Should count. And you should be able to say, I I give to the church, but I also give to this women's organization. the women and ch like I I um there's a women and children's shelter here that I that I try to give to and you could add all that up and say this is tithing and they if now that I'm thinking about it didn't they have a time in the church where um there were a lot of like progressive members who were giving all of their money to like fast offerings or humanitarian aid hoping that the money was earmarked for that and then the tithing slip changed and on the bottom it said hey you can say that you're giving this to humanitarian aid, but the church is going to use this money how it sees fit. event like they're essentially saying you can try to ear mark this money for humanitarian aid and you we're going to do what you want in essentially right so so you know progressive members have tried to do this um and that may be something that matters or that that is able to happen in the future just because of public pressure um of of how much you know money the church has and how little it truly gives to humanitarian aid because you know it's counting missionary hours, it's counting things that are really just supporting the church itself. So the actual amount that it's going to people outside the church for humanitarian aid for how large it is is shockingly shockingly small. And you know my thing in America is I want to similar to your petition but a you know with a little bit more teeth in it. The deal that we made in America is that you get tax tax exempt status as a religion because you're offering community services. You're marrying people. You're doing community rituals. You're doing soup kitchens. You're doing um orphanages. You know, like that was the deal that we made with religion. And it's gotten to the point now that that we're looking around and like who's doing all that stuff that we gave you tax exempt status for? You're not doing any of this. And so what I hope happens in my lifetime is with how much we're um how how much churches are becoming political in America that there's such a a pendulum swing in the other direction especially with Gen Z that my hope is that in my in my um lifetime that I see something like you can have tax exempt status. Show me your soup kitchen hours. Show me you know how you're dealing with homeless in your area. show me the rituals that you're doing for the community. And if we don't and if you don't do that, you lose your tax exempt status. That would be the fastest way to actually like raise a social um you know safety net for for America. And also if churches aren't doing it, then you lose your tax exempt status. We have that in Europe and we've seen, for example, we've seen the Jehovah's Witnesses lose their official status as a religion religious group in Norway, I believe, because essentially the practice of shunning extended to children. It was in controvention of child protection laws. Right. In the UK, I think we have a certain level of transparency with the church's finances because they are a registered charity, not just taxexempt by dent of being a religion. They've had to try and register as a charity. But I think even then there is a challenge to be made as to how well they are fulfilling the criteria of a charity as it is kind of found in UK law. Uh, but again, that's an episode for another time. Yeah, that's where I I hope America will go that direction. It's it's currently not. and and maybe there's some middle ground options as far as being able to donate in a variety of ways or have it not be a temple recommend interview. But as far as like removing tithing alto together because we have enough money to support the church, I don't see that happening at all.

So, just before we go on to the next topic, I really want to ask you about uh a note you've written here on this shared document we've got. You've just written tithing as sky miles. Have you seen this? Oh, Nemo. Uh so so you can't use a credit card for tithing like it has to you know and so the the Tik Tok sensation that's gone viral I follow quite a few Mormon content creators to kind of just you know get a pulse of of the situation. But quite a few Mormon content creators are showing you how you can pay your tithing in this sneaky way credit card that turns into a debit card. you know, it's some financial sneaky way that you can essentially pay your tithing and still get sky miles. And so now everybody is asking for um this hack essentially of how you can be paying your tithing and still getting sky miles. So that's the Tik Tok sensation happening right now. How can I get my sky miles and as well as the wind like the windows of heaven opening and also my sky miles to use all those blessings, you know, so I can travel. It's I mean if you're a if you're a a rich member I mean that is just you know that's that's just covering all your bases. Covering all your bases you you are you are covered.

Let's talk about another sort of Tik Tok sensation another thing that's going viral at the moment which is garments. Garments are all over the shop because there is a black market developing an underground sort of thing going on where people are trying to sell garments to you know people that can't get them yet because the sleeveless styles are only available in Africa. There's this new sleever style and everyone's going crazy for it and everyone's forgetting what modesty was about. Everyone's trying to gaslight themselves saying modesty was never about showing your shoulders. Even though down jokes said that people that show their shoulders or people that are immodest rather and walking pornography and immodesty was definitely tied to showing your shoulders because for the strength of youth specifically taught that.

Mhm. So this is one that really really hurt women um who are my age. So like I'm I'm a little bit older than you. I'm I turn 40 next month. And um the Mormonism that I grew up in, it was it was the most important thing like for your soul was to like keep your shoulder covered. And we would be kicked out of activities. We'd be kicked out of girls camp if your shoulder wasn't covered. And it was it it was in the for strength of youth pamphlet, which is like this is how you need to be as a teenager. You need to dress in preparation of wearing your garments. And and so the reason that so many women, you know, cuz cuz Mormon content creators are like, "Why is everybody making such a big deal out of this?" It's it's because like we were told our soul, the the welfare of our soul, like it was it was, you know, it was drilled into me as a teen was was dependent on me not showing my porn shoulders. And so all of a sudden, you know, then, you know, the the garments go shorter in in places that are very hot, which I think is is a good

move in the sense of they're they're having to adjust to an international church where wearing cotton garments in certain areas of the world with sleeves is uh especially for women uh can be damaging to our health. It can certainly be be damaging to uh women's health.

From a from a health perspective, I think the slip right style bottoms are really going to be a gamechanger for women. Yeah. Yeah. Because um women will statistically get more UTI infections wearing garments than not. And this is just one example of the the church really being run by men is we're wearing garments that actually really harms our health.

So yeah, so now there's this black market especially for young brides because they finally get to wear the wedding dress of their dreams and wear garments. And so they are contacting uh Mormon content creators who get the garments uh early or people in other areas of the world where they can get the garments. And so now there's like, you know, uh, you're right, like this black market thing for garments so that they can wear the temple wedding dress again, which was like such a hurtful thing for us 40-year-old women because we had to wear the most hideous, ugly, you know, wedding dresses or not the dress of our dreams or whatever in order to save our souls. And now apparently it, you know, God God doesn't care. Well, when I was a teen, that's all God cared about. Like what do you mean? It wasn't okay to desire that dress cuz that dress was immodest. But now these young women that desire it are now allowed to desire it because it will now work with garments. So that that hurt my generation of women because because it was just so drilled in into us and now it's just kind of seen we've seen a change to the the garments in that respect.

Do we think we could see a change to the frequency with which they're worn? I know that we've had comments from church leaders talking about they're upset by the sort of cavalier and casual nature of women wearing their garments. Uh, and it seems like some of these changes are maybe a way to get them to wear them more often. But as people continue to find them uncomfortable or still struggle with them, do you think we'd see a change to their frequency or the location way more?

I actually do think we will see a change of either moving it to personal choice, you know, like every once in a while the church will go like, you know, we're not going to say like everyone go get a tattoo, but if you get a tattoo, it's a personal choice, you know, some and and they just decide not to make an issue of it anymore. So that could happen. But I I think what's going to happen with this with this thing is that sometimes we get top-down change. And sometimes most of the time I would say it's really a bottom-up change, right? And so the bottom-up change that's going to happen is Gen Z and it's going to be a while before they get to things like leadership. Uh, but Gen Z, when you ask them are are you a Mormon? Like are you fully a Mormon? They'll say yeah. And then you'll ask them do you wear garments and do you not drink coffee? and they'll say, "Well, that's not that's not important. Like, I I don't care about that." So, Gen Z, like it it's very interesting.

Insert one cup of coffee woman. Though she knew it was contrary to the Word of Wisdom, she developed the habit of drinking coffee and kept a coffee pot on the back of her stove. She claimed that the Lord will not keep me out of heaven for a little cup of coffee. But because of that little cup of coffee, she could not qualify for a temple recommend. And neither could those of her children who drank coffee with her. But even with all the indoctrination of the one cup of coffee woman and and the old men saying things about their garments, Gen Z collectively have just decided, I'm fully a Mormon. I'm not wearing garments. It's not for me. and I'm gonna have my my my coffee and my Dutch Bros and whatever. And they've just decided that that is true. Like, God bless them. Like, they've just decided that that's a thing. And so, because of that, that's going to be a bottom-up change where eventually there's going to be so many Gen Z Mormons who who just say, "I really like the church. I I don't think God cares about my underwear, and I don't think God cares about my Dutch Bros order, so I'm not going to do it." But still happy to be Mormon. And that will eventually force one of those it's a personal choice things from the top. I think that's what's gonna happen.

And there's a whole conversation to be had about the backlash that that gets from both Mormons that are older and ex-Mormons who feel like they never got to do those things. Sure. But who cares about the ex-Mormons, you know, we're going to whine. Whatever change that's going to be made, Mormons are going to whine about it. If it's something that they or ex-Mormons are going to whine about it. If it's something that we wanted to happen, we're going to cry that it that we didn't get that change when we were younger. if it's something we didn't want to happen, we're gonna raise a big fuss. Ex-Mormons are going to be mad about everything that happens to the Mormon church at all times. That's just kind of the brand of ex-Mormonism. So, no, nobody needs to be like changing anything to to make the ex-Mormons happy. They're just going to be, you know, always have something to say.

But then, do you think we could see them change to to like temple only? Uh, I think they could. I think they could. I don't think they would say it like that. Um, I think it could go that way as one of those like we always wear, you know, the garment in the in the temple and it's your personal choice how and when you wear the garment outside. I I think maybe 50 years from now, 30 years from now, that that's those Gen Z have just decided God doesn't care about my underwear. And and I think that that's going to have a bottom-up change at some point.

Okay. So, should we go to our final bonus question then? Sure. Temple recommend questions 100 years from now, what do they look like? My gut says based on because temple questions ha have turned into identity markers and what we know about identity markers for a community is that when a community is in threat identity markers go up. So when we're facing, you know, when people are leaving the church and the PR is really bad and we've got Hulu documentaries that show the Mormon church in a bad light, like just one after the other. This is this is when all religions, Mormonism included, circle the wagons. Who's in? Who's out? Who's safe? Who's not? And garments are a big garments are a big part of that. Uh, obedience narratives go up. So we get a lot more obedience narratives lately. Just just just be obedient. Um, and then identity markers to just mark who's safe and in and who's out and and unsafe. And we even, you know, hear like don't take advice from people who have left the church. don't talk to people who have left the church. Um, all of that uh really strong line between who's in and who's out comes from when churches are threatened. And so, as long as the church still feels threatened with the amount of people leaving and the PR that they're getting, I think we'll see the same kind of identity markers. We don't drink, you know, don't drink coffee and the garments and the whole thing. They might lose control of that from the bottom up, right? at at some point, but there'll still be some kind of identity marker if if the church feels very threatened. They'll they'll still even culturally will will still be some kind of identity markers. Um, just so that people feel safe with their in-group when they feel like their church is not very safe because it's it's being attacked from all sides. Um, if we ever get to the point where everyone, you know, it's getting to the point where everyone knows no, no one's finding out about polygamy yesterday and leaving the church, that's not a thing that's happening anymore. So, if we eventually get to the point where uh maybe the church does some humanitarian things in the future that gets them really good PR, maybe people stop leaving, maybe the young men start start staying, they just released a thing saying, you know, we've had better numbers than ever for our missions. If we start seeing signals like that, that then lowers identity markers and you get a lot more big tent theology. We're we're just happy to have you come. just you know come as you are kind of stuff. And so I see the temple recommend changes uh or questions um change based on how much the church is feeling threatened. The more it feels threatened, the more it tightens on identity markers, the less that it feels threatened, the more I think think it'll change where it's not going to kick people out of the temple for certain things.

Anyway, go through the go through the list. I know it's slightly off topic here before I go through the list, but I think it's interesting. Do does the ex-Mormon community have a role or responsibility? If we if we look at the church and say if they don't feel threatened, they're more likely to make positive progressive change and the more they feel threatened, the more they're likely to circle the wagons. Do we as a as a community, I'm literally thinking out loud, so come for me in the comments by all means, but do we as a as a community of people who have left or been forced out of the church have a responsibility to not make the church feel so threatened that it almost squeezes down on the people who have who we've left behind, who are still in there? Do we have some sort of moral obligation?

Nemo, this is why I want you to go into philosophy. So, I'm going to back up that question a little bit because when we uh it it's the question that exact question was the question that gave the four new atheists the most trouble. So, when they had their conversation I'm I'm way backing out of Mormonism for a second, but I think it's relevant. um you know, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, um Richard Dawkins, when they had their conversation, uh and they were asked, you know, what what what about what we're doing as atheists combating religion gives us the most pause? Where are we doing the right thing here? And it was that question because there seems to be some evidence that shows the more you attack religion, the more you get fundamentalist versions of it. And so one of the reasons that Islam is not particularly fundamentalist in America is because we have certain protections for religions. And that gave uh especially Sam Harris the most pause where hey if we were to really come down hard on Islam in America. We could actually be doing the most harm because it could then turn to a more fundamentalist form of Islam rather than an Islam that could perhaps integrate into American society which is what we want. We want uh, you know religion to be able to integrate with society. It's very dangerous when it doesn't. So it's a very deep question that especially my my group of people atheists will talk about which is how do we critique religion without attacking people's identity so hard that we get a fundamentalist response and I don't have a great answer for it but it's a fantastic question of like how do we how do we critique well where there needs to be critique but we always have to and and my personal answer for this is I want to be hard on ideas and soft on people because as soon as I say you're a dumb person for being Mormon, for believing this, for supporting this, you're evil, you're bad, you're wrong, you're stupid, um that's that's not only unfair to that person, but it also that brain that person's brain has no choice but to to defend their own identity. And so I want to separate kind of identity from let's just talk about ideas. Let's just talk about ideas here and we'll take the identity out of it a little bit. Um, that's how I try to do it. But it's a it's a very it's a very deep question that I'm glad.

Isn't that philosophy though? It's like it's a great question. We just don't have a good answer for it. That's all we do. That's all philosophers do. You you you nailed you got to the bottom. You got to the question and we defined the question. And we'll talk forever about the possible answers and because there's no answer. But you're right that is that is the philosophers's task is half of it is just defining the right question. Right.

So provide that we have um that we have not caused the church to become essentially so fundamentalist that it sort of retreats behind the Wasatch front and closes the doors. Right? You get a church that's still trying to be internationally progressive. They're still growing in other parts of the world. They've realized their obligations to humanitarian aid. U they don't feel threatened by other people's suggestions of what they could do with that money, but they see it as a challenge to be seen as the church that's leading the way. All these sorts of positive ways they could act. In that light, temple recommend questions, I think the temple recommend would still exist because I think like you said, it is still a good way to mark who's in, who's out and and groups are always going to want to define who's in and who's out. Yeah. And and groups have like an inner circle, right? Like that's the inner circle.

So, uh what do they look like? because they they start with I'm not going to be able to go through all of these in one go, but the temple recommend interview questions start uh in the first three just talking about what do you believe? So, do you have faith in uh God? Do you have a testimony of the atonement? Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel? Do they stay? So, I've actually as a Mormon answered no to those questions and due to leadership roulette, some bishops would allow me to attend and some would not. Um, it's possible that those faith questions could change to do you have a desire to believe which we have a doctrinal precedent for that you know for something like faith uh even in the Doctrine and Covenants it says to some it is given to know and to some it is given to just believe. So it seems to be like some people even in the Doctrine and Covenants will struggle with belief throughout their life. There seems to be I mean true doctrinal scripture supporting that. So those questions may change to do you have a desire to believe. That would be how it could soften that. Um, I have gone into the temple as saying that I I I don't I don't know or I'm not sure or I have issues or I I um struggle. Um, so some of that is leadership roulette, but it's possible that that some of those could change to a desire to believe as people struggle with certain faith claims of Mormonism.

So question four, which is one that I always uh struggled with when I was trying to attend the temple as sort of someone that was openly opposing church leaders. Do you sustain the president of the church? Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency of the Quorum of the Twelve? Do you sustain other General Authorities? Um, it's all lumped in together and and that to me has always been an issue because it's like they're putting themselves between you and the pinnacle of worship, right? You have to sustain these men. And what it means to sustain them is if you, you know, if you know of something that they're doing that they shouldn't be, then you should say something about that. That's how, you know, common consent works in the church or how it should. But the problem is then you're almost essentially punished for exercising that um, you know, that responsibility of of alerting people when they're doing something wrong.

Have you seen that word sustain soften though? I've seen that word soften in in the past 20 years. Interesting because 2016 Henry B. Eyring said in conference that it is a sin we must repent of to even think of our leaders as having human weaknesses. Have I thought or spoken of the human weaknesses in the people I have pledged to sustain. Those questions will for most of us lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent. Yeah, there's that. That doesn't sound like softening to me. No, there's that. There's that from from the from the top. Certainly. And and Dallin H. Oaks, you know, obviously has some pretty damning quotes on this one, too. Uh, but I've seen I I'll have to think about this. I'll have to think about if if this is just my experience or if if I can pin it down to an actual changes in the church. But I've seen apologists more soften that word sustain where they will like one of the, you know, one of the Webster dictionary, you know, they'll soften it in a way where it's like I recognize that you have the authority and power to make these decisions. I may disagree, but I recognize that I don't have that power. You are the one in that power.

But isn't that interesting because what they're doing is they're trying to broaden broaden the definition so that as many people as possible can say yes, they do sustain. So that the image of sustaining is upheld. So that the legitimacy of these leaders is upheld by broadening what apologists. No, like you're right. The Eyrings and the Oaks have not softened this word. But I have I listen to Faith Matters. I listen to, you know, Terrell Givens. I listen to these voices too. And there's a lot of softening of that word sustain to mean something like you have the proper priesthood keys to eventually make this decision. But I still have my own personal connection with to God. I still have my own convictions. I still have my own worries. You even have Oaks, you know, talking about, you know, before the the priesthood ban was lifted that he struggled with it at times. You still like you have apologists use that to make room with this sustain word. So maybe it may not come from the top, but a lot of times the room that we get in Mormonism isn't coming from the Q15. It's really coming from the apologists who are doing the legwork for that for to make that room cuz I don't think I don't think the apostles care. I I think they they just say, "Well, as long as people keep attending, as long as this organization continues to to grow, then I don't care how people manage and get along. They will say what they want to say, but they they're so disconnected from the people. I don't think they realize."

Or even Jeffrey R. Holland saying like, "What kind of taffy pull faith that you you know that you have?" of I mean it's it's pretty condescending stuff that you get even from him because they're just they're just not connected to the people at the bottom who are having to do this sort of mental gymnastics that is being pushed on them by apologists just to make it work and and they're not and they're not theologians and I always have to remember that whenever they speak like cuz they'll they'll I'm listening as a as a theologian and it's like well you went this direction and then you kind of counteracted it with this and then I have to remember no they're they're not theologians the theology is coming from BYU professors and sometimes apologists Because Terrell Givens I I love some of the things that Terrell Givens um espouses, right? But they're not what is taught over the pulpit. They're not they're not official church doctrine. So you can you know um faith is not blind and things like that. You read that and you go, "Oh, well great. This is brilliant." But if I were to actually espouse any of these things directly to Dallin Oaks, if I was to say, "Okay, so I can think of Jesus this way, right?" He'd be like, "No, no, you can't. You can't think of the atonement that way. Oh, I can think of you as a fallible individual who of course is making mistakes and sustaining you just means that I recognize your priesthood authority. No, sustaining me means that you means that you do not think of me as having human weaknesses says Henry B. Eyring.

Do you think in our lifetime Nemo we'll get a theologian apostle? Well, Holland was the closest that we've got and it's just because he's read literature. Yeah. Not not from seminary. Not from seminary. I mean I mean someone a little bit more I don't I don't I just don't see how they could rise up in the church. No, because the system designed to select they would weed that person out long before leadership. It's it's designed to select the businessmen and the lawyers and professionals and company. Yes-men. You know, loyalty is a very high core value for the majority of these men. And theologians tend to push boundaries and think outside the box and try and you know they all work within their orthodoxy to a point, right? But I I know someone who's uh he's a theology professor um in Oxford. He's chummy with the church, but you you talk to him about the Church of England, which is his denomination, and he has criticisms and he has these things that he'll say, "Oh, I don't like this or I don't like that." Um, and he'll push boundaries and he'll say, "Well, from my perspective, this is, you know, what I think." And because he thinks about these issues and in order to think about these issues properly, you have to be willing to go against the grain. And these men that we select for leads of the church aren't willing to go against the grain. And what's what's sad about that is that when you read Terrell Givens, The God Who Weeps, it's one of the most beautiful conceptions of God that I've ever read. And it's so sad that we've kind of sold that for a really shitty authoritarian loyalty matters more than anything kind of God because that's not the best God of Mormon that Mormonism has to offer. And I do mourn for that. I do I do I do mourn that it's that way that that even Mormon members don't know how much beautiful their religion could be. They just some of them don't even know, you know, and that's sad. That's sad to me.

You know what? This feels like a good place to start because I can't be bothered to go through all the temple recommend questions. If people want to see more of that, they can hit the subscribe button so that they will see future videos we do. We could do this as a standalone video some other time um where we go through the temple recommend questions specifically and just pick them apart. I think that could be fun. Um, but I feel like we don't have the time for it here and I don't want to to do it a disservice. Gotcha. But I love the conversation. I could do this all day with you in the email. So, it's been a blast. Tell people, Brit, where they can find you real quick.

Yeah. So, I'm No Nonsense Spirituality Everywhere, Instagram, TikTok. I'm starting to get onto YouTube. So, check me out on YouTube as well. I have a book by the same name. So, it's just No Nonsense Spirituality Everywhere. And my content would be probably more appropriate for people who are uh either leaving the Mormon church or are never Mormon or um in the deconstruction phase at some level. And what my focus is is all the beautiful things that religions have to offer. How can we regain those tools and resources when we seem to be losing or have lost our belief? And that's the place that I like to hang out recently, you know, recently.

Cool. She definitely has a book. It's a great book. Here we go. Thank you very much, Brit, for coming on. If you liked this video, there is a button that is for that purpose. There is a button specifically for that. You can hit the like button. Uh, if this is the third or fourth video of mine you've watched by now, you should probably subscribe because you're clearly sticking around anyway. So, why not tell YouTube that you want to stick around and get notified when new videos come up. So, thank you very much for watching and uh, watch this next video here.