Skip to content

Shunning By Decree: Mormonism LIVE: 145

One LDS couple shares their experience about how the LDS Church tries to prevent members from sharing uncomfortable truths with each other.

5:00 Guest introduction
15:00 The video that started it all
24:00 Voting opposed 44:00 Fast & Testimony Meeting
50:00 Canceling church
58:00 Chatbot and circular reasoning
59:30 Aftermath of the testimony meeting
1:02:30 The nightmare
1:05:00 Email from the Bishop
1:15:15 Stake President meets him in the parking lot
1:17:00 Another fast & testimony meeting
1:37:25 The Cops show up at the house
1:50:00 A Cowardly Letter from Kirton McConkie
2:03:45 The Texts 2:17:15 In Closing
2:26:00 Calls Episodes mentioned:

The Rules of the Game:
Why Mormons Are So Fake: Radio Free Mormon: 079: Why Are Mormons So Fake – Radio Free Mormon
LDS AI Chat:

Welcome to “Mormonism Live,” the ultimate talk show that delves into the messiness of Mormon history and theology while also tackling current events with a live call-in section at the end of every episode. Hosted by two trusted voices in the Mormon community, Radio Free Mormon (RFM) and Bill Reel, this podcast has been taking on the tough issues and exploring the nuances of the LDS faith for years.

🤝Help us continue to deliver quality content by becoming a donor today:
👚👕Take a look at our Merch! 👕👚
📜Sign up for our (mostly) quarterly newsletter:

Our Platforms:
🍎Apple Podcasts: Connect on Social Media:
🗣️Private facebook group:
🎮Discord (hosted by Mormon Stories):

Contact us: 📧 [email protected]

#MormonismLive #MormonDiscussions #RadioFreeMormon

Mormon Discussion Inc is a 501(c)(3) and is in the arena of journalistic work and is part of a free press. Any of the awesome content or the solid opinions expressed, implied or included in Mormon Discussion Inc’s podcast lineup and production are solely those of Mormon Discussion Inc. and/or its program hosts and not those of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


8 thoughts on “Shunning By Decree: Mormonism LIVE: 145”

  1. I’m not sure how to spell the name of the gentleman here………maybe Mitia?

    What did y’all expect would happen in response to your actions?

    Y’all have proven to your ward that anti-mormons are wicked, antagonistic, etc.

    A faith crisis is a terrible thing to go through, so you have my sympathy, but you are not victims of your stake or ward leadership. You attempted to co-opt meetings, antagonized the entire ward and its leadership, and insisted on doubling down………and the stake/ward leadership responded in-kind. Again, seriously, what did you expect?

    I will say that it was particularly turdy for the leadership to question your U.S. citizenship.

  2. The church’s arrogance never ceases to amaze me. That they would think they could send such letters today, in the modern world, reveals how an ego to rival ‘ol Scratch himself… Its also sobering to think that if they think they are so “in charge” of Utah even today, how truly , truly awful it must hav been under thug Brigham Young’s unenlightened rule, when he had Dante’s and “blood atoners” at hs beck and call to feel with apostates.

    1. I need to type slower and not get so riled up, lol. I mean to say: “The church’s arrogance never ceases to amaze me. That they would think that they could send such letters today, in the modern world, reveals an ego to rival that of ‘ol Scratch himself… Its also sobering to think that if they think they are so “in charge” of Utah even today, how truly, truly awful it must have been under thug Brigham Young’s unenlightened rule, when he had Danites and “blood atoners” at his beck and call to deal with apostates.”

  3. @TimmyTim Why does the church ask for opposing votes in public meetings if the church does not want opposing votes? Why go through the process if the only approved outcome is unanimity? Why open the mic in public meetings if only approved viewpoints are tolerated? Is the Truth so weak that it cannot withstand challenges? Are church members so infantile that they need protection from viewpoint diversity—like parental controls on the internet?

  4. Is there a chance for a lawsuit by this couple against the church for emotional distress, or some other injury? They have been given an unenforceable order that would mean, if it were taken seriously, they could not interact with family, friends, and neighbors. They are in violation when the missionaries knock on their door. How do you get the attention of Kirton McConkie that they are overreaching?

  5. We are only getting one side of the story. And i am certain there are at least two sides.

    As I understand it, the law of common consent was originally instituted as a way to democratize decision-making. Unfortunately it has devolved into a loyalty test. So I agree with you on this point. I have no issue with people voting opposed.

    The restraining order came about because they insisted on showing up to testimony meetings to share their loss of belief, among other things. That is not the purpose of testimony meetings, nor is it reasonable to expect local leaders to tolerate that kind of behavior. The church and its leadership have a right to monitor and enforce boundaries on church property.

    Truth can withstand scrutiny. But that is not what church leaders are protecting (even if they think they are)

  6. This interview didn’t get off on the right foot for me, I mean a couple who upended their entire lives due to, how was it said roughly, “due to the EU and vaccination standards” or so it was toned to me, only to come to the US and take umbrage at Nelson’s milquetoast but reasonable recommendation without decree to get vaccinated. The use of getting the “jab” regarding vaccines set a tone for me that questions how far down the conspiracy hole this couple has gone, and everything following was suspect, and for the first time on this podcast, made me question your choice of guests.

    It didn’t get much better as I was thinking that I’d be on the side of the local church and members insisting on distance between the congregation and this family.

    1. So are you saying that you prejudge people negatively based on one of their opinions on a topic which is tangential (at best) to the topic at hand? And you think it’s a good idea to block off any contrary views from your ears or your friends’ ears? If your opinions are the true ones, why fear others challenging them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.