What do you think of the verse that was selected? Could have been much worse...

For instance:

"God authorizes my demands, so refusing me is spiritually wrong" and "your distress proves you need more of my direction"

This ends up being, "I have authority over your decisions even if you don't agree" when entirely followed through. And no concerns may be raised because they are "imperfect people" Making a general truth about everyone becomes a reason to stop acknowledging what is happening. You must then be "humble" or "teachable" but if only agreement counts as humility or teachableness, then it's actually a requirement of submission.

The cultural rebranding of overriding the boundaries of others and rebranding it as concern, care, stewardship, faithfulness, the list goes on. Your disagreement is not evidence that you are incapable of deciding. That is a circular justification that overrides your boundaries saying that you need their direction because you disagree with their direction.

My experience is that someone that respects another adult's boundaries does not treat religious authority as permission to override that adult's refusal.

It does not make someone faithful, loving, or caring to override another's boundaries.

Undermining someone's judgement, punishing disagreement, overriding consent, selectively applying and overriding boundaries of another adult because someone feels entitled to do so, does not make it so.

If a religion teaches that obedience matters more than another person's consent, it is teaching an unhealthy rule for relating. Calling this behavior, "stewardship" does not change that this violates basic boundaries adults have when interacting in a healthy way.

It seems "stewardship" is rebranded into imposed authority. Someone else has the authority over you to make decisions even if you don't agree. Saying God authorizes the demands makes refusal spiritually wrong.

This is not another saying they are responsible for supporting you. It is "I am entitled to govern you"

Is this the cultural reality I'm really seeing? Is this something you see?

EDIT TO ADD

-Claiming credit for good outcomes while assigning harmful outcomes to your lack of faith or cooperation. Consequences are transferred to you.

-Requiring repeated explanations but not accepting an explanation as sufficient.

-Making decisions "for your good" while excluding your wishes from the decision. Paternalism. Another adult makes choices that can replace your judgement. (needing or wanting support does not mean surrendering decision making)

-Having Privacy is now considered secrecy. Keeping personal information to yourself becomes evidence you are hiding something. You prove goodness by giving up privacy.

-Calling independence, Pride. Avoiding your reasons by condemning your attempt to make your own decisions.

-Offering only choices that preserve their authority over you. Like a child, only offering what color of cup they want, not if they want a cup. You get menial choices while the decision of your compliance is already made for you.

-Deciding if you are allowed to object. Being labeled as morally bad for making a normal choice that is part of any healthy relationship. Not being allowed to object is an obvious issue.

I have been crunching some statistical data on cities throughout the country (I am looking at how the cost of living differs across the country). The Bureau of Labor Statistics has data on how many people in a given metro area are employed. Using that against the total population of the metro area, I can figure out the employment rate. Nationwide, the employment rate is 45%, and that is similar in some of the biggest cities in the country, New York (45%) and Chicago (47%). In Salt Lake City, that employment rate is 63%. In Provo-Orem, that rate is 39%.

Now, there are a few things to keep in mind: that percentage not employed includes people who cannot be employed (children, the disabled) and those who don't want to work (retirees, stay at home mothers). In Salt Lake, it seems that a far higher proportion of working-age women are working--especially against the far more socially conservative Provo-Orem.

It appears to me that a large amount of the angst over 'women in the church' within Mormon arises from this social fact. Salt Lake City is, of course, the hometown of Mormonism today as an institution. However, Provo-Orem is a very important dynamo in the faith and is probably retains a lot more of Utah's social culture than Salt Lake (at least the parts that haven't been swallowed by Silicon Slopes). Salt Lake has bought in completely to the idea of working women and women holding formal authority than Provo-Orem has.

This was brought up to me and it makes sense.

When I was posting about personal revelation and how the personal revelation that was acceptable was what confirmed what the Church taught, someone hopped on and said that if you look at the defiinition of confirmation bias, it's the definition the Church is giving for personal revelation.

This has had me thinking. What else is rebranded.

-DIcernment becomes filtering people by whether they believe/conform or not.

Discernement should have examination of someone's reasoning. Instead, Nelson said, in Think Celestial! "never take counsel from those who do not believe" And the concept of 'believe' here is being used to define when someone is or isn't taking all their instruction from the Church. It's not the act of believing.

-Check your sources, only using reliable research is instead only relying on what the Church says is authorized.

Church materials like scriptures, prophets words, the general handbook, general conference are produced by the Church. They are treated as the final authority to decide. The Church is evaluating it's own claims and determining they are true. You are checking whether the sources have their authority on them, not whether they hold up to evidence, or evaluation that would determine their efficacy or not.

This list could go on and on. What other changed definitions have you found? I'm finding that seeing these helps a lot.

Not looking for responses, just need to write for my own sanity. I'm tired of not having money and being told to give 10% of what I make to the church. I'm tired of everyone living with blinders on. I'm tired of the masks everyone wears in the church, even within my own home. I'm tired of not really believing, but going through the motions to keep my family intact. I'm tired of the same old conference talks about the same things, and then have family and friends talk about them like they are some ground breaking revelation. I'm so worn out. I'm tired of having a calling and acting the part on Sundays. I have nothing left in the tank and I'm constantly getting hammered by my spouse for not being a good enough priesthood holder because I don't jump for joy on Sundays or want to minister to anyone. I'm just so sick of everything.aybe it's a midlife crisis. But the thing that is supposed to give me the most joy, the gospel, is honestly the root of all my unhappiness. But I'm stuck for the emotional stability of my loved ones. So I'll live my life with the mask on, only to get flamed when I take it off. Everyone will have what they want and need, and I'll eventually fade away.

Hope everyone has a great weekend 😂🫠🫩

I don't know what my religion is, I believe there is a higher person and I share some of the values of mormonism. Would it be worthwhile for me to go visit a church nearby?

Amanda Barnett tells John Dehlin why she has filed a claim in England complaining of racist harrassment because the Marriott hotel where she stayed insists on putting copies of the Book of Mormon in their hotel rooms.

They discuss the laws in England that allow them to bring this claim. If they lose they must pay the other party’s costs. So they are invested and taking a risk for what they believe in.

They discuss how the Book of Mormon is objectively racist and those parts are an embarrassment to the LDS church’s version of Christianity.

Full video here:

https://youtu.be/Cuf0ZFE9E6k

The story of the lawsuit starts at 1:16:10

What does the actual compensation package look like when someone accepts the calling?

I know the Church has historically referred to a living allowance rather than a salary, but I’m curious about the complete picture beyond the monthly or annual allowance.

Does the Church cover housing or mortgage costs? Healthcare? Cars or a car allowance? Travel? Retirement? Children’s education? Insurance? Security? Tax or financial planning? Other family expenses?

The part I’m especially curious about is what happens financially at the moment someone is called.

Over the years I’ve heard several stories claiming that newly called General Authorities may receive a substantial one time payment intended to eliminate major financial obligations such as mortgages, business commitments, debt, children’s education, or other concerns so they can dedicate themselves completely to Church service.

I’ve even heard claims of payments around $1 million or more in some cases.

To be clear, I have no idea whether that is true. That is exactly why I’m asking.

I personally know or have met people in Church leadership who were certainly comfortable financially, but were not what I would describe as extremely wealthy. Normal homes, normal lifestyle, no obvious millions sitting in the bank. That makes me wonder how the transition works when someone suddenly accepts what is essentially a lifetime full time assignment.

I’d especially like to hear from people who actually know how this works, have family connections to General Authorities, worked for the Church, or can point to reliable documents or firsthand accounts.

I’m also curious whether the arrangements are different for Apostles, Presidency of the Seventy, General Authority Seventies, mission presidents and temple presidents.

Not trying to criticize the Church or start a debate about whether they should be paid. I’m simply interested in understanding what the real financial package is and separating documented facts from Mormon folklore.
Is the “large signing bonus to clear your financial obligations” story real, partially true, or completely made up?

I've been "ponderizing" on the Church's soft-acknowledgements of the retention problem and temple attendance as the suggested remedy. Frankly, I'm disappointed.

For starters, I can only gather that church leaders have no special insight into what is causing the problem or how to fix it. Although *Torn* offers all the right information, the data seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Between the temple-centric "dedicate" series and the recent General Conference, SLC seems to think temple attendance and a vague covenant emphasis is the solution.

I'm curious where this solution is coming from. Although I admit that I feel the Holy Spirit at the temple, the ceremony remains unenjoyable and unenlightening. Perhaps it comes from misunderstood applications of church statistics...or simply wishful thinking. It also begs the question of *why this solution* when I can think of a dozen of better suggestions, including further emphasis on Christ's teachings and contributing to one's community. One could argue that the temple is one of the few things that the church has 100% control over, but I think the reasoning has to go deeper. Does anyone have any insight into this?

Kolby and Nemo were on Kolby’s Let’s Disagree show and they discussed how several Mormon apologists have leaned hard into going on the offensive.

They copy something known as “presuppositional apologetics” where you attack the religious presuppositions of your opponent to make the opponent look dumb while that person is criticizing the Mormon religion.

They discuss how these apologists try to stay away from defending Mormonism even to the point of saying in a debate “ok I will concede that Mormonism is false for the sake of this debate” just to keep the person on the defensive.

Interesting clips of apologists and their discussion.

Here is the full video:

https://youtu.be/FuJ39cGhPqM

Reading Schedule & Discussion Index

Thanks to everyone who expressed interest in the Day 0 discussion. We’re starting our 50-day community read of Jeff Strong’s Torn: Why People We Love Are Leaving the Church and What We Can Learn from Them on Sunday, October 18, 2026.

Bookmark the index above. It will hold the reading assignments and links to each daily discussion.

Before we begin

If possible, read the Foreword, Introduction, and “A Short Reading Roadmap” before Sunday.

In the introductory material, Strong draws on his family’s experience and frames religious disaffiliation as involving more than changing beliefs. He emphasizes trust, belonging, and Church culture, using soil and cultivation as a metaphor for conditions that can nourish, or strain,faith and relationships.

That is Strong’s framing. We can examine what it illuminates, what it leaves out, and whether his evidence supports the conclusions he draws.

Day 1 reading starts — Sunday, October 18 to give everyone a chance to get their book.

We’re starting with part of Chapter 1, rather than the entire chapter:

• Begin: Chapter 1, “What Is Happening.”

• Stop BEFORE: The subsection heading in Chapter 1 labeled “Why Are They Leaving? The Four Waves.”

I’m reading the 2026 Kindle ebook, first edition, which displays 331 total pages. Follow the named headings first, since page numbers and layouts may differ across formats.

We’ll aim for roughly five to seven Kindle pages daily, adjusting to sensible section breaks and keeping infographics with their explanations. The idea is to leave room to think, discuss, and check sources.

What kind of discussion is this?

Some people here contributed to Strong’s survey. Others have found the book helpful, have questions about its framing, or want to understand what it says.

We’ll consider the book’s intended audience, claims, evidence, strengths, and omissions. You’re welcome to find parts useful and other parts unconvincing.

You don’t need to own or finish the book to participate. Following the daily synopses and discussions is welcome, too.

A few ground rules

• Critique the text, claims, and evidence directly.

• Distinguish what Strong says from outside evidence, interpretation, and personal reflection.

• Treat individual stories and comments as individual perspectives, not as representative data.

• Nobody needs to disclose their faith status or personal experiences, or speak for a whole group.

• Avoid personal attacks, motive speculation, and dogpiling.

• Mark spoilers from later readings. Be patient and consistent—we’ll get ’er done!

Jeff Strong (u/formal_situation_661) is welcome to participate if he chooses. His participation is optional; he doesn’t need to defend every claim or represent anyone else.

I bring my own experiences and biases to this discussion. I intend to engage candidly, respectfully, and in good faith, especially if Jeff joins the fray.

Getting a copy and recurring logistics

The index contains links to the author’s book and preview information, help obtaining a copy, and the award details.

I’ve offered to buy a Kindle ebook for the first two people who DM because cost is a barrier. Please contact me privately to check availability, and keep personal or financial details out of public comments.

We’ll also track community-given awards toward the end-of-series $25 gift card, alongside my separate commitment to personally give a Reddit award to at least one contribution per reading day. Full details are in the index.

Kickoff questions

1. What does Strong’s soil-and-cultivation metaphor help explain about faith and belonging, and where might it fall short?

2. What does the introductory material suggest about the book’s intended audience? How might that shape its usefulness and limitations?

3. What would make this a worthwhile discussion for you—particularly when we disagree about the book or its evidence?

Ask or answer whichever questions interest you, and share your own insights. My daily questions are only here to get the discussion juices flowing.

In Progress, Reading Schedule & Discussion Index

Kolby Reddish on his Let’s Disagree show had Nemo on. They discussed as part of the show the claims that dozens of anachronisms of the Book of Mormon have been debunked.

They show that the apologists use three tricks:

1. They pad the list with things that had no credibility as an anachronism to begin with.

2. Use things that are unremarkable as an anachronism such as a “mountain in the old world”

3. False and misleading claims that an anachronism has been debunked. Such as claiming pre-columbian horses is no longer an anachronism.

Full video here:

https://youtu.be/FuJ39cGhPqM

“But I don't even know what to think about myself anymore, I feel horrible also cuz I haven't been constantly going to church for almost two years now and it's pissing me off, all my friends in my friend group don't know what it's like to have a dad that doesn't go to church anymore and a mom who's thinking about leaving the church and it's really hard cuz I wanna tell my friend but they wouldn't understand and I just don't know anymore"

I was previously a very active member and held virtually every ward priesthood leadership calling there was besides Bishop. Served a mission. Sealed in temple, had a big family. Stop believing 8 years ago. Finally stopped going to church two years ago, officially resigned my membership last year.

It’s so hard to emphasize nuance in teens, especially when the church preaches black-and-white thinking of church activity. If you don’t go to church you’re lost or wandering soul.

Active members would say that this is the spirit telling her she needs to get back to church and help her family go.

I would say she wants to belong with her friend group and by being different she feels less than.

I come from a broken family and definitely remember feeling that way because my dad was not active and my parents eventually got a divorce.

I’m just so angry right now at the church and the way that they preached tribalism and othering.

Someone square for me what the apologetic reconciliation is between Jesus words on oaths and the church's oath filled endowment ceremony.

^{Matt 5:33} Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: ³⁴ But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: ³⁵ Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. ³⁶ Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. ³⁷ But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Here he is basically saying, 'Let your word be your bond. You will never need oaths because you will never break your word.'

And yet, one the first things 'restored' in the early church is the LDS endowment. Done in secret, in a windowless room, with secret handshakes, and not just oaths, but blood oaths. In spades, mind you.

So this Jesus that restores the church is all like:

'Ya know what? I was young and an idiot back then. What I have for you is so special, it's gonna break every command I ever gave. We're gonna need some blood oaths. STAT. And a flaming sword. I tried love already. Didn't work. From now on, it's fear and fear alone!'

There is a FAIR talk/video going around now that basically uses the Open Stories Foundation IRS data to attack them and states that this non profit (Open Stories Foundation) is all about using negative faith experiences to make money.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/2026-fair-conferences/august-2026-fair-conference/understanding-faith-crisis-industry-ron-rhodes-2026

The LDS church harms missionaries who experience violence like this on their mission.

He discusses his life before the mission, why he decided to go on a mission and the trauma he experienced. He discussed his story on Mormon Stories and one other podcast with Shelise Ann Sola.

Do better LDS church.

Full video here:

https://youtu.be/3HyJoybDm2E

Some people, including Peggy Fletcher Stack, have suggested it is worthwhile to view General Conference from the perspective of the brethren speaking to each other, rather than to the general church audience.

Is Gong signaling his disagreement with current temple policy and contention? Did he leave out steeple height intentionally? Do you think the Q15 uniformly support the current aggressive and threatening approach to building temples?

A lot of work to get all this with a lot more work ahead!!! A bunch of different books from different groups.

I want to start this off by saying because of my experience with the church I’m not a Mormon. But like practically everyone on my mom’s side is Mormon. Well I was told for 5 generations now that guys got the middle name Christian and girls got the middle name Christine. Not like I’m having a kid any time soon. But I feel from a very young age it was instilled in me that was what I should do if I ever had kids. At first I never questioned it and thought it was a nice tradition. But as I grow up and I’m no longer a part of the church I just don’t entirely know if when I have kids If I’ll keep this going. I mean I have a younger brother who is Mormon so if anything the tradition probably won’t die out. But I have a feeling if I were to voice this to my mom she might be upset. What should I do?

Hey everyone,
I moved to Utah about three months ago. As a Christian, I’ve been blessed to find a good non-denominational church community here Utah County.

However, since moving, a lot of my local friends and neighbors have been inviting me to LDS service. Last Sunday, I finally decided to go check it out with an open mind.

Everyone was welcoming, and the environment was very clean and family-oriented. But after reflecting on the service, I came to my personal conclusion that we do not believe the same Trinity( One God eternally exists as 3 distinct persons: Gos the Father, God the Son(Jesus Christ) and the God the Holy Spirit), even if we use some of the same words.
A few main things really stood out to me:
1. The Book of Mormon vs. the Bible: During the entire service, I didn't see a single person opening or referencing the Bible. Almost all the references and talks focused on the Book of Mormon, and several people emphasized how it is the primary source of truth.

2. Testimony & Focus on the Prophet: It was fast and testimony meeting, and almost every single person who went up to speak focused heavily on being grateful for Prophet (Joseph Smith), the current Prophet, and the Church structure. As an evangelical/mainstream Christian, I’m used to services being centered almost entirely on Jesus Christ and scripture(the Bible), so hearing so much focus on the prophet and church organization felt very different.

I respect my neighbors and appreciate how kind everyone was, but visiting in person really helped clarify the major theological differences for me.

Has anyone else had a similar realization after attending a service?

A man might reasonably suppose that, having gone down into Jerusalem once for the sake of records and returned with brass, a servant, and several new suspicions, he had done enough service for one lifetime.

We supposed as much ourselves. The camp had begun, in its poor and temporary way, to settle. The tents stood where they stood. The beasts had learned the bounds of their tethering. Sariah had restored to our meals what order could be persuaded out of sparse provisions. Even our father Lehi, with the plates near at hand, seemed less like a man perpetually leaning into the next commandment.

This improvement did not last.

Lehi had been searching the plates with a satisfaction we found excessive but not altogether incomprehensible. A man may be permitted to love a genealogy if he hath suffered enough to obtain it. He read of fathers and tribes, of law and language, and of the covenants of the Lord with our people. Now and again he looked up with that grave brightness which in him signified either gratitude or further inconvenience.

We soon learned that it signified both.

“My sons,” he said.

No household in any age hath been improved by those words when spoken in that tone, unless grief be counted among improvements.

We Laman we Lemuel looked at him with the caution of men already wronged by righteousness.

“It is needful,” said Lehi, “that thy younger brother return again unto Jerusalem.”

We waited. Experience had taught us that no commandment arrives alone.

“And ye shall go with him.”

There are, as we have noted, disappointments that descend all at once. This was similar in kind. Another followed hard upon it.

“And ye shall bring down into the wilderness Ishmael and his household, that my sons may take to wife the daughters of Ishmael, and that the Lord may raise up seed unto him in the land of promise.”

For a moment the camp seemed to go still around us: the low flap of tent-cloth, the shift of tethered beasts, the faint movement of reeds by the river. Even the morning light looked suddenly officious.

“Marriage,” we said.

“Marriage,” said Lehi.

“And not our own chosen marriages, one imagines.”

Lehi endured this with patience sharpened by conviction. “The Lord knoweth the end from the beginning.”

“That is a very great comfort,” we replied, “chiefly to the Lord.”

Nephi stood nearby with the same composed attention he gave all commandments once they had declared themselves. One could almost have believed he had been expecting this as well, so little did the matter appear to trouble him. Sam, of course, looked between Lehi and Nephi as though hoping obedience might still become easier by being shared.

Sariah said nothing at first. She was cutting dried provisions into smaller portions, which she did with the competence of one long familiar with making necessity seem orderly. At last she laid the knife aside and said, “Then let it be done quickly.”

This was her gift: not enthusiasm, which would have been false, nor complaint, which would have been earned, but the practical recognition that once trouble is named, delay seldom improves it.

As for us, we did complain, which in that household often fell to us as a matter of office.

“Have we not gone once already? Have we not spent our inheritance upon holiness? Is every household in Jerusalem now to be fetched into the wilderness one relation at a time?”

Lehi answered with the calm of a man who had ceased to distinguish between divine instruction and the re-ordering of other people’s lives. “The Lord prepareth the way.”

“Yes,” we said. “He prepareth it chiefly with our feet, our goods, and the cheerful disposal of our preferences.”

There are speeches a father gives to persuade his sons, and there are speeches a father gives because persuasion is no longer considered necessary. Lehi now belonged to the latter sort. He spoke to us of promise, inheritance, covenant, and posterity, all in such a manner as to imply that reluctance on our part would be entered unfavorably into records kept by descendants not yet conceived.

Yet for all our resistance, the thing had already begun to take shape in the camp. Zoram was now among us, quieter than before, moving with the care of a man still uncertain by what process his life had been rearranged. The plates lay wrapped and guarded. Sariah made ready provisions for another journey, and in doing so rendered argument less effective than it had been a quarter hour earlier. Nephi checked what was to be carried with the quick certainty of one who neither forgot instructions nor doubted their propriety.

This, more than Lehi’s command, vexed us. Had Nephi shown some proper measure of reluctance, some admission that the thing was burdensome, absurd, or ill-timed, we might have disliked him less in that moment. But he moved among the business of departure with that inward ease which made obedience look less like surrender than style.

“You are very ready,” we said.

He looked at us. “The Lord hath commanded it.”

“Yes,” we answered. “And you do so enjoy agreeing with Him.”

Sam attempted a smile at this, then thought better of it.

As someone who is still deciding if there's a way to stay in the church.... I did indeed attend this event on Oct 10th. I had submitted a bunch of questions for the panel, and sure enough they picked one of mine!

"Why don't church leaders address shelf-breaking issues directly instead of leaving it to apologists?"

u/50Relics2021 (Casey Griffiths) and u/donbradley (Don Bradley) both had something to say regarding my question:

Casey:
"In my experience, historians are good at everything. Like, we're the best leaders, and we have a lot of emotional intelligence. And you know, we're good with finances, and we're the most spiritual, and so I don't understand why God doesn't just call historians to do everything in the church. It makes no sense to me"

Said for laughs, of course, but why DOESN'T the church call historians, even for the most obviously historian assignment of: "CHURCH HISTORIAN"? As an aside, he did pitch there is precedent is for a historian general authority in B.H. Roberts.

Casey:
"B H Roberts was the finest historian, I think, we've ever had in the history of the Church. He was a member of the 70"

And yet, we don't ever read or hear of anything from B H Roberts. Wasn't it a book by B H Roberts that helped Don Bradley LEAVE the church in the first place as a teen?

Casey:
"Rather than looking at our leaders and saying 'hey, how come they're not solving the problems', go back to what Elder Corbridge said with his restaurant analogy where if you don't like a restaurant, you may say 'I don't like this. The food isn't good'... No: The church isn't a restaurant. Its a potluck dinner." It's not 'what are they doing for me' it's "what am I bringing there, what am I doing to help the people around me, help me grow and become like Christ

I don't love how my honest question got recharacterized over and over until it was unrecognizable. But then again apologists never like to actually address the original questions, it's what they do, so I shouldn't be offended.

Casey:
"I think every church leader must have a huge burden placed on them because everybody thinks they have the answers to everything, and that leads us back to the point I made earlier, which is, if we expect perfection from them... If we think that they never get angry or upset, or kick the dog, or swear, or something like that. We're setting ourselves up for failure.

Again with the moving the goalposts. I'm not asking church leaders to have the answers to everything. Nobody I've ever met who is on the way out of the church is talking about leaders who are anger or swearing or kicking the dog. You need stop talking ABOUT us in such offensive generalities and you should know better.

You would think an event titled "Come Back" would want to talk TO us rather than AT us.

Casey:
"The only sure foundation that we can build on is Jesus Christ. Along the way, the Savior puts a lot of people in our path that can help us. Or maybe even, more important, we can help them, most of the time. It's honestly both, so I'm happy to fill my role in the body of Christ, which is to make a podcast and read a lot of history books and argue with a guy from BYU Idaho for 90 minutes every week. But I recognize that there are other people that have different gifts that are necessary to build the Kingdom. I'm happy to do what I'm doing to keep up my part of the line, but I want to respect what every single person does. I don't know if you are the pinky toe, or the eye, or the nose or the ear, Paul would say: We all matter. And all of us play a role in building the kingdom of God..."

I'll spare you from the rest of Casey's personal elaboration of the Body of Christ metaphor by Paul. Beautiful, but doesn't answer the question.

Casey:
"When I was watching General Conference last week, I wasn't disappointed because there wasn't an in-depth exploration of the Adam-God theory or anything like that"

Oh, I was. That would have been EPIC

Casey:
"I think that historical concerns, if I'm being really honest..."

Wait, was that a slip of the tongue? or was that a flat out admission that this whole time you were not being really honest?

Casey:
"I think that historical concerns, if I'm being really honest... The history of the church is sometimes listed as a top concern when people talk about struggling. In my mind, and when it comes down to it, it's sometimes kind of a smoke screen for deeper concerns. Things that they worry about. A lot of the times, saying "well, I think Joseph Smith was a shady character" or "I don't like Brigham Youngs attitude towards race" is a way of masking, maybe, some deeper concerns and some deeper problems."

Ah, the common insinuation that we who are on the fence with the church, we must be secretly harboring some deeper sin or desire to live more wicked lives.

Casey:
"We need to remember that answering their historical questions isn't really something that has a silver bullet. Your not going to say the right thing and everything's going to click into place.

Finally, after all that, the admission. There are no good answers. That's why the Church leaders don't address them. They leave that to people who have no shame peddling the bad answers.

Casey:
"If you show love, give them good information, and then remember that there's somebody else who's working the problem at the same time as you over a long period of time, It can make a big difference in a person's life".

Casey might well have said "A super smart person is looking at it, and they said don't worry about it." That's also what the Scientologists and Jehovah Witnesses said to my investigators when I was teaching them as a missionary. Really kills the spirit of studying and learning, by the way.

Don:
"General Conference is for everyone. This is for members of the church in Thailand and Australia, and Brazil. This is for the lifelong members and this is for the newest converts. Maybe some of these issues, if we were to put it at a sort of grade level in terms of someone's development in asking question about the history of the church or whatever... Maybe some of these are sort of a college level questions and general conference is addressing people all along that spectrum, so it might be inappropriate for the newest convert in Thailand to be hearing a general conference talk on polygamy or something right?

So much to unpack here, and I think Redditors will have a field day in the comments, but I'll plug Bill Reel's "The LDS Missionary Discussions If the Church was Honest". I very much do think converts should know the real messy history and doctrines and not the sanitized correlated history and doctrines. Members are DROWNING in 'milk', and so much of the college level 'meat' of the church is... problematic.

I invite Casey and Don to offer a more compelling answer to my original question. My exhibit A is the gospel topic essays written by historians, unsigned by the leaders and buried in the website curriculums, and rarely, if ever, quoted or referenced the the leaders.

I get it.

You're busy. Studying for pre-med courses and the MCAT. And you think, "Why wouldn't I apply to the BYU medical school? I am Mormon after all. And I'll always be a Mormon, right?"

It is very possible that you will still be a Mormon after you graduate medical school, finish residency and go into practice. You're pioneer stock. Belief in the Book of Mormon courses through your blood, heart, lungs, and everywhere capillaries reach.

Wait.

Just wait.

Think about negative stereotypes surrounding Mormons. The ones that even modern media campaigns cannot budge.

Polygamy.

Cults.

Weird underwear.

Nothing new. You've faced it before. But I want you to consider something.

Where you go to medical school will impact the rest of your career for your LIFE.

Your medical school can and will influence what happens to you.

Do you really want your life's devotion connected to a group of people (mormon leadership) with LESS education than you who can potentially ruin you if you disagree or step out of line with them? Whose choices can affect how patients and medical boards see you and your qualifications to practice?

Men who don't understand genetics, chromosomes, or evolution?

Men who at the drop of hat, could end your career over a single medical decision or prescription you provided a patient?

You should be able to follow your own judgement as a doctor. Dear premed. Please.

Go to a different school. With different beliefs than you. Learn new things. Meet new people. Rejoice in diversity. Become the best fricking doctor you can be. Outside the control of a group of power hungry men that you currently call prophet.

Because one day you might have a different name for them.

Please.

Sincerely,

Future You

My brother's attend a SA ward where this month, a guy got up ranting about how God is an alien living on a planet, but also saying how people say he has "Scitzo" he added the quotation marks, but how he knows it's actually God giving him visions. Apparently the bishop told him to wrap it up, which I've never heard of a bishop doing.

Made me feel sad for him. I don't know how to help people like that where the issues they face play into their religion and you don't know how to help them disconnect from that.

What are the wildest testimony meeting stories you've seen or heard?

Are we asking the wrong questions about racism, sexism, and homophobia in the church?

I would argue that the church does not change without members asking the right questions.