Kolby and Cami Reddish discussed on the "Let's Disagree with Kolby Reddish" channel a recent video by Travis Anderson on Travis' "Missionary Discussions" youtube channel.

They point out how poorly he comes across in the discussion with the agnostic investigator, Dan. Dan is a level headed and knowledgeable agnostic who had been meeting with the missionaries for 10 months. This investigator was trying to understand why Travis has a belief in the God of the christian scriptures.

Travis argues that religion is subjective and several times just resorts to circular reasoning. For example he says if I pray to god for something and it happens I know that God is there. If it doesn't happen I know that God's will was for him not to answer. Heads I win, tails you lose kind of argument. Dan points out things in the Christian bible that are bad. Assault, slavery, etc. Travis argues with Dan that Dan can't know what is good and bad yet Dan told him his definition of what is good and bad.

Kolby and Cami's video is here:

https://youtu.be/SUMSKVq-v1c

Travis video that they discussed is here:

https://youtu.be/UDdZ_VpJMak

Kolby and Cami wonder if the LDS church leaders are aware of what Travis is doing and condone monetization of discussions with missionaries.

I mean, it's obvious that past leaders have made mistakes teaching things that were "essential" and later discarded, just as polygamy or the origins of Black people's skin curse. When I was thinking about the difference between them and for example queer marriage people often say that is unchangeable, because it's rooted more deeply on the theology. Is that an actual problem? Has there been something really important later be discarded or revised on that level? And there have been things that were consistent since Joseph Smith ?

Of course not the obvious like "God exists" or "Christ is the Savior" because as important as it is, it's basically the core tenet of mainstream Christianity and says virtually nothing about the Church being true. I mean the *Restored* Gospel of Jesus Christ. How consistent or inconsistent has it been?

Hi everyone!

I'm in my early twenties, and for some time now, I've been genuinely curious about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's something I've wanted to understand more deeply, beyond what I can learn from websites, videos, or discussions online.

What interests me most is hearing from actual members. I'd love to learn what brought you to the Church, what your faith means to you personally, how it has shaped your life, and what you wish more people understood about your beliefs.

I'm not here to debate, judge, or challenge anyone. I'm simply curious and would really appreciate the opportunity to have honest, thoughtful conversations with people who are willing to share their experiences. I'm also happy to hear from people who have struggled with their faith or have a different perspective.

If you'd feel comfortable talking, please feel free to send me a private message! You don't have to be an expert in theology or know how to answer every question. I'd just love to hear your story and get to know your perspective.

And to our American members, you're absolutely welcome too! I know many of you are from the US, and I'd be just as happy to talk with you as with members from anywhere else in the world.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I look forward to hearing from you! 🙂

So first off I’m pretty open minded, but every now and then I see videos pretty much saying Joseph Smith was a false prophet

I don’t exactly know the specifics on how or why I hope u guys can fill me in on your side

And other videos saying this church (like many others) spiritually is run by the Antichrist spirit, (or a massive fallen principality)

How would u react to these accusations and defend? I’m like pretty much in the dark on your guys’ side of this, not trying to like come barging in and making accusations just trying to get more info

As an avid fan and follower of Dan, I appreciate the insight.

Rylan Fowers on his Ether’s Elephant channel discusses why Nemo the Mormon’s video criticizing the claims that the Book of Abraham is a real translation frustrated him.

So Rylan admits that Joseph Smith couldn’t do a secular translation and we should just accept the claims of Joseph that he got the translation magically and it’s correct.

He points to two “bullseyes” that the apologist want you to know Joseph got right. But he agrees so much isn’t right.

The Book of Abraham has been evidence to me as a lifelong Latter Day Saint that Joseph Smith made wild unsubstantiated claims that I shouldn’t accept. The Book of Abraham we know doesn’t correspond to the papyrus we have so they have to invent all kinds of unprovable possibilities.

I wouldn’t accept such claims from anyone else so I no longer accept them from Joseph Smith. In my view it was a con and deception of Joseph Smith to say he could translate these scrolls.

President Dallin H. Oaks has now been the Prophet of the Church for over a year. In my estimation, his tenure has not been marked by the same large policy changes occasioned by Nelson, but rather a conservative steadying of the ship. Most notably, his temple announcements slowed WAY down. President Nelson announced an eye-watering 200 temples during his tenure, which amounts to 26 temples a year (the same as announcing a temple every two weeks!), as opposed to the much more modest 3 that Oaks presided over the past 12 months.

However, of the threads he unfortunately seems to be inheriting from Nelson is that of out-group derogation and information control. Four months into his presidency, Oaks delivered an address at BYU that makes clear he shares Nelson's views on the wisdom of never seeking counsel from those who do not believe. I've placed an excerpt from his address below for your examination.

The full talk can be read here.

Remember, “to survive spiritually,” you will need the “constant influence of the Holy Ghost.” An abundance of speculation and false information in podcasts and on social media surrounds us. Some may protest or question the truth of Church doctrine without knowing or even understanding the fulness of that doctrine.

Don’t be persuaded by false or inaccurate information. Discuss your concerns with faithful, well-informed friends and always take those concerns to the Lord.

The Lord has told us very little about some things. For example, we know very little about the spirit world that follows mortality or even about the spirit world that preceded it. This lack of knowledge can be harmful when we rely on beliefs on these subjects from well-meaning people who teach beyond what God has chosen to reveal. Trusting God in what we know and in what we don’t know is a great protection against doubts based on mistaken ideas instead of on what God has chosen to reveal.

I share the experience of a wise stake president here on this campus. He was approached by a young man in his stake who admired him and asked him to mentor him in business.

After a few weeks the young man confided, “I should share with you that I have decided to step away from the Church. I no longer believe.”

The surprised stake president immediately began to share his profound testimony of the gospel that had brought him so much joy, peace, and inspiration.

The young man sat stunned, staring back at the stake president with tears in his eyes. He said, “I have not heard anyone speak like that in months. I have been hanging out with friends who don’t believe.”

I say to all of you, as that wise stake president said to this young man, seek friends and associates who are striving to follow the Lord—friends and associates with whom you can feel the Spirit and with whom you can reinforce
your faith.

Surround yourself with people who believe.

It saddens me that he would choose to propagate the same divisive rhetoric that has long been a stumbling block in mixed-faith relationships of every kind across the church. If he could follow his own admonition to be peacemakers and lead with more understanding towards those who disaffiliate, perhaps the echo chamber could be opened, just a bit.

Utah Attorney General declares online gambling public nuisance in lawsuit against Kalshi

.... just weeks after D. Todd Christofferson talks about gambling in LDS General Conference.

That's one crazy coincidence!

https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-attorney-general-online-gambling-sports-betting-legal-action-ban-restrictions-lotteries-game-of-chance-prediction-markets-kalshi

I’ve recently found myself questioning a lot of the beliefs I’ve held throughout my life. One of the more difficult parts of this experience has been revisiting my patriarchal blessing, which I received when I was 17 y/o, and reading it through a very different lens.
This is a portion that has stood out to me:
> “Your Heavenly Father wishes you to become like Him, so that one day you will have all of His wisdom and authority and there will be no difference between you and your Heavenly Father. This will require an effort on your part on this earth to live righteously and faithfully and to fulfill the requirements of the great Plan of Salvation which you supported in the premortal existence, and which you came to this earth to fulfill.”

At the time I first received this blessing, I remember feeling a deep sense of excitement and pride. But now, having gone through life experiences that have challenged me to reflect on my beliefs and reconsider what I want for my future, I find myself wondering whether spending my life trying to fulfill the words spoken by that patriarch might actually limit my ability to experience everything this life has to offer… to connect with people, sympathize with their struggles, and learn from their experiences rather than approach those interactions believing that I already possess the “fulness of truth.” I want to become less afraid of perspectives that challenge my own, less concerned with defending what I believe, and more willing to simply listen, understand, and appreciate the ways other people make sense of the world.

The passage above is just a small portion of my blessing, but reading it now, I can begin to understand why my faith may have contributed to so much of the anxiety I experienced growing up.
I don’t want to be God. At least, I don’t think I do.
And when I really sit with that thought, I find myself reflecting on what it meant to be a 17-year-old boy receiving what I understood to be divine instruction about who I was, what I had agreed to before I was born, and what I was now responsible for becoming.
The idea that I had supposedly supported a plan before coming into existence, and that my purpose on earth was to fulfill that plan or risk falling short of my divine potential, feels incredibly overwhelming to me now.

I don’t know that I fully recognized the weight of those expectations at the time. Looking back, I feel a combination of anger, frustration, sadness, and perhaps most importantly, compassion for my younger self. I was an incredibly anxious kid, but I was also extremely hardworking and ambitious. I earned an opportunity to play professional sports straight out of high school, and after serving my mission, I decided to pursue an entirely different sport, one I hadn’t even played in high school. I pushed myself to compete at a high level and eventually earned a Division I athletic scholarship.
I share that because I think it’s important to recognize that, despite the anxiety I experienced, I was someone who worked incredibly hard to achieve the things I set my mind to. But beneath that ambition and determination, I was also struggling in ways that weren’t always visible to the people around me.

Throughout my childhood, I struggled with severe motor and vocal tics that were sometimes so difficult to manage that I would cry out of sadness to God, not understanding why my body was doing these things or why I couldn’t seem to control them.

Recently, after reading The Body Keeps the Score, I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship between our minds and bodies, and how our bodies can sometimes express distress that we haven’t yet learned to recognize or articulate.
I don’t know how much of my childhood anxiety was connected to my religious upbringing, and I don’t want to pretend that I’ve suddenly found an explanation for everything. But I do wonder whether the expectations I internalized about worthiness, obedience, eternal progression, and fulfilling a predetermined purpose contributed to a sense of pressure that I wasn’t equipped to understand at such a young age.

There’s something deeply emotional (dare I say spiritual?) about looking back at that younger version of myself and wondering how much of his anxiety came from trying to become someone he believed he was supposed to be, rather than discovering who he actually was.
What’s interesting is that, as frightening as this period of questioning has been, I’m also beginning to feel something I haven’t experienced quite like this before. A desire for connection.

I’ve always been something of a homebody. The thought of leaving the familiarity and security of home has often brought me tremendous anxiety. And yet, lately, I feel this growing desire to meet people, hear their stories, understand their beliefs, and experience perspectives that are different from my own.

It’s not because I’m looking for people to confirm what I currently believe (tbh, I don’t know what I believe right now and it’s kind of scary), or because I want to “excuse sin” (lol) but because I genuinely want to understand how other people experience life, meaning, faith, and purpose.

I am learning to allow myself to be curious without feeling responsible for arriving at a particular conclusion.

For so much of my life, I felt that the answers to life’s biggest questions had already been given to me. Now, for perhaps the first time, I’m allowing myself to ask those questions without knowing where they’ll lead… Exciting, but it’s also terrifying. Tragic, yet beautiful.

I’m sharing this because I’m curious whether anyone else has revisited their patriarchal blessing, or other religious experiences from their childhood, and found themselves interpreting them differently after beginning to question their faith. Have any of you recognized connections between the religious expectations you grew up with and the anxiety you experienced as a child? And if so, how have you navigated the process of separating who you were taught you needed to become from who you (or God) actually want(s) (you) to be?

I’m not necessarily looking for reassurance that my current perspective is correct. I’d very much appreciated hearing how others have made sense of similar experiences.

I study ancient scriptures and find astronomical/astrological references.

To oversimplify it:

Sun = Good

Moon = Bad

A few examples in the Bible: Psalm 84:11 - "God is a sun" or Malachi 4:2 - "the Sun of Righteousness"; Jesus is the "light of the world" and considered a "risen" savior.

Meanwhile, Jericho, which means “City of the Moon” and gets destroyed by the Israelites. Abram leaves his birthplace, the Ur of the Chaldees, because their primary god of worship was Sin - a moon god. Matthew 17:15, a man comes to Jesus for a miracle because his son is “lunatick”. The original Greek word used was seléniazomai, which means moon-struck. We still call people “lunatics” to this day, which is to say they are under the influence of the moon.

I am learning about more words that have been associated with the moon over the millennia and came across a character we’re likely all familiar with if you've read the BoM. His name means “bright, white, shining one, the moon” and he is definitely a bad guy. One of the Hebrew names for moon is Lebanah (see Song of Solomon 6:10, for example).

Here’s a clue: Nephi cuts his head off.

Who is he?

Torn Day Book Club - Index & Reference

Reading date: Wednesday, October 21, 2026
Begin: “An Important Pause on Key-Issue Depth”
Stop BEFORE: Chapter 2, “When Belief Is Torn,” beginning at page 61
Navigation: Approximately footer page 50 to before 61; follow the headings.

Today finishes Chapter 1, including its takeaway, reflection questions, and application suggestion. Chapter 2 begins on Day 5.

Brief synopsis

Strong acknowledges that this book won’t examine every historical, doctrinal, or ethical issue in depth. His focus is increasingly on the culture surrounding those concerns.

He presents evidence that disaffiliation is accelerating, while explicitly cautioning that recent leavers may have been more likely to take his survey, potentially overstating the acceleration. He also discusses changing Church demographics. Keep the populations straight: the survey’s breakdown of respondents’ current beliefs describes those respondents, not the broader Church population.

The chapter then turns from numbers to people: strained relationships, broken trust, spiritual depletion, and the different beliefs and sources of meaning people find afterward. Strong reports that many who leave are at peace with their decision. Departure doesn’t mean everyone ends up believing the same thing, or wanting to return.

Strong closes by arguing for cultural renewal: a community where people can question and bring their whole selves. That’s his proposed response, and we can examine how well it addresses the concerns he describes. His closing exercise asks readers to understand someone’s experience without immediately correcting, defending, or reframing it.

Discussion questions

1. Which assumptions about why people leave does this chapter challenge, reinforce, or leave unresolved?
2. How well does Strong’s cultural-renewal argument address the concerns presented throughout Chapter 1?
3. What might listening without correcting reveal that explanations of disaffiliation miss?

We’re picking up the pace, but I want to get a feel for it before committing to a revised day count. Were yesterday’s and today’s readings too much, about right, or still too short?

When men return from a city bearing promises rather than goods, the road feels longer.

We departed Jerusalem with Ishmael’s household under our guidance, the gates closing behind us with a finality that offered no accommodation for reconsideration. The city resumed itself at once—lamps lit, voices raised, doors barred against night—as though our errand had been nothing more than an adjustment to its margins.

The company was larger now, and therefore more delicate. For a single household may quarrel and yet remain one body, but two households joined together resemble less a body than an agreement—one that must be renewed by tolerance, fatigue, and the absence of better options.

The road did its work quickly. Feet blistered. Water thinned. The sun gave instruction with its usual lack of pastoral concern. Consent spoken in a courtyard became another thing when carried across stony ground.

Ishmael, who had agreed in the city with a gravity we had respected, did not bear the road as his sons did. He sat down sooner when shade could be found. His daughters adjusted themselves around him without discussion. His wife watched him with the attention of one already counting what must soon be carried differently.

At first no one named this. Men do not easily narrate decline while they still hope to outwalk it. Water was offered. Pace was shortened for an hour, then recovered. Encouragement was given in that brisk tone by which the healthy try, without malice, to lend their strength to the failing.

It did not suffice. By the third day his breathing had shortened. By evening he no longer rose without help. The company stopped because it had to. Water was brought too late to matter much. He spoke once to his wife, once to one of his daughters, and afterward only with his eyes.

When Ishmael died, there was no violence in it. Only interruption. The women made the sounds women make when the future alters faster than language can receive it. His sons stood about him with the stunned uselessness of men whose strength has not been asked in the right form. And because we were in the wilderness and not among our fathers, there was no ancestral place prepared for him—only ground, tools, urgency, and the question of how long grief would be permitted to occupy the road.

We buried him there as decently as motion allowed. Stones were gathered. Earth was moved. His daughters looked on with the fixed attention of those trying to remember a place they know they will not see again. His wife asked no impossible thing. She did not ask for Jerusalem restored. She asked, only once, why obedience had brought her husband to die far from his kindred.

After this, the wish to return ceased to be impatience and became grief with direction.

Voices rose among Ishmael’s people—at first broken by mourning, then sharpened by fatigue.

“Let us return,” they said. “Our father is buried in a strange place.”

“Why should his daughters go farther from all that knew them?”

“Why should we follow further on the strength of another man’s vision, now that the man who consented for our household is gone?”

These were not wicked questions. They were human ones. We heard them. We answered some of them. And in our own weariness we judged their wish to return neither wicked nor surprising.

Then Nephi turned and rebuked us, not merely our proposal but our character. He spoke of hardness, of faithlessness, of ease desired over obedience. He spoke as though grief itself were in danger of becoming rebellion if indulged too long.

This last was insufferable. For there is no faster way to turn a weary man dangerous than to tell him his exhaustion is a sin, nor a mourning household disorderly because it cannot yet proceed in a proper spirit.

Wherefore we took him and bound him—not in calmness, but in that blind moment when argument has failed and bodies must speak.

We wished, at the least, to stop his speech and the movement of the company until morning gave everyone back a little proportion.

And Nephi, being bound, prayed.

And the cords were loosed.

Not by our hands.

Not by our repentance.

They were loosed as though the universe itself had rendered a verdict, having first declined to hear testimony.

Now when a miracle occurs in the midst of a quarrel, the quarrel doth not end there. Only its proportions change.

Some among Ishmael’s household cried out in fear. Some in reverence. Some said nothing, which is often the safest passage through wonder.

And then the daughters of Ishmael—those least consulted and most affected—did the remarkable thing.

They pleaded with us.

“Enough,” they said. “We are already leaving one world. Must we also leave each other?”

And we heard them.

Wherefore we softened.

And Nephi forgave.

Readily.

Thus ended that passage of the journey: with a grave behind us, cords loosed, authority confirmed, and a family’s mourning entered into the record under the heading of obedience.

New and Improved Index format! Reading Schedule & Discussion Index

Reading date: Tuesday, October 20, 2026

Begin: “Wave I—Lifestyle Dissonance”

Stop BEFORE: “An Important Pause on Key-Issue Depth”

Approximate Kindle pages: 40–50. Follow the headings, including all four infographics and “An Integrative Perspective of All Four Waves.”

Pace update: Today combines the originally planned Days 3 and 4 so we can discuss all four waves together. Yesterday’s reading felt too short to me; let me know if today feels like too much. I’ll likely adjust the pacing guidance in the index to account for infographics and how much text is actually on each page.

Brief synopsis

Strong develops four overlapping pressures behind departure:

• Lifestyle dissonance: Church demands become unsustainable through burnout, control, guilt, or strain on mental health.

• Church history and truth claims: Historical and doctrinal conflicts unsettle belief, while incomplete or misleading accounts undermine institutional trust.

• Church social positions and moral conflict: Supporting the Church clashes with conscience, particularly around perceived harm, LGBTQ+ treatment, finances, racism, gender, and abuse.

• Church experience and spiritual depletion: Participation stops providing spiritual nourishment or belonging, with institutional demands overshadowing the Christ-centered experience people seek.

Strong presents these as interacting pressures, not mutually exclusive personal journeys. One concern can intensify another, and multiple pressures can converge before someone leaves. He argues that Church culture strongly influences what happens when those concerns arise.

There’s a lot here to unpack. The framework gives us language for different concerns, but I’m interested in where it helps explain them and where it might flatten important differences.

Discussion questions

1. What does Strong’s four-wave framework clarify, and what does it leave out?

2. Where do these categories overlap, and where do their differences matter?

3. Which concerns could cultural change address, and which would require changes to teachings or policies?

Answer whichever interests you, or bring your own questions. If you’re comfortable, share how these waves fit, or don’t fit, your experience or what you’ve observed with loved ones.

is there anyway to report a stake president through email? we really had enough. we had 2 weddings already that almost god called off because of delay processing and no sense of urgency. the most important wedding is the sealing and we cannot schedule due to delay of updates on the LCR. we really are stressed enough to deal with this

My dad is one of the most stressed people I know and has been as long as I can remember. He has a demanding job and keeps getting big callings that add another 20 hours to his weeks. A couple years ago, he got called to be stake executive secretary. He’s clearly just keeping his head above water with all the demands on his time and keeps talking about how he has 8 more years of his calling left. I cannot believe we let men stew in these intense callings for up to ten years with no kind of compensation.

I’m still traumatized by his 8 years as bishop when I was a teenager. I haven’t known my dad to be really happy and relaxed except a few odd vacations here and there since I was a kid. It’s so sad to see. When I asked if he should ask to be released, he told me he enjoys it and he’s close to the men he gets to work with. So I get keeping it. But I wish it weren’t a defacto 9-10 year sentence. I’m worried he’s going to finally get to retirement in two years and get really ill from so many years of stress.

I wish the church didn’t do this. It’s too much time. It’s too much responsibility. It’s too much isolation from family. They need to emphasize that it’s ok to prioritize your mental health, stop making stake presidency and other callings a decade of your life, and stop calling the same men to the same kinds of high profile callings. Imagine how easy it would be to fill callings if, I don’t know, women weren’t automatically excluded from most of them.

I’m tired.

I'll be taping with him shortly for a special preview and tomorrow Dr. Thomas Murphy will be joining me as a special co-host to interview John. Please feel free to share any questions or comments here to help inform the conversation. Thanks in advance! (It'll be posted on my channel Mormon Book Reviews on YouTube).

1 Nephi 9

[1] And all these things did my father see, and hear, and speak, as he dwelt in a tent, in the valley of Lemuel, and also a great many more things, which cannot be written upon these plates.

[2] And now, as I have spoken concerning these plates, behold they are not the plates upon which I make a full account of the history of my people; for the plates upon which I make a full account of my people I have given the name of Nephi; wherefore, they are called the plates of Nephi, after mine own name; and these plates also are called the plates of Nephi.

[3] Nevertheless, I have received a commandment of the Lord that I should make these plates, for the special purpose that there should be an account engraven of the ministry of my people.

[4] Upon the other plates should be engraven an account of the reign of the kings, and the wars and contentions of my people; wherefore these plates are for the more part of the ministry; and the other plates are for the more part of the reign of the kings and the wars and contentions of my people.

[5] Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

[6] But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is. Amen.

First is that this is an odd "insert" into the Nephi narrative, not at the beginning nor at the end of any particular book or hand off, etc.

It's also being inscribed by Nephi supposedly around 600 BCE BEFORE they've ever travelled to the Promised Land or divided into separate people, etc.

But Nephi is claiming these plates will be engraved "the reign of the kings, and the wars and contentions of my people"

And the other for "the ministry".

What kings and wars and contentions of his people as of 600 BCE?

What ministry as of 600 BCE?

Before anyone can claim this is Mormon (really Joseph as author appearing here and there in the text many times as "we see") it says "I" repeatedly and specifically identifies the person inscribing as Nephi (after mine own name) so is it Nephi?

Perhaps was verse 2 supposed to be the LAST Nephi King talking (who later became Mormon and then later his son Moroni)?

Is it supposed to be the Last Nephite King who oversaw the Reign of the Nephite Kings, the wars, contentions and destruction of his people and then buried the plates in Cumorah so that he could appear as the Angel Nephi to Joseph Smith in 1823?

This doesn't make sense to me as Nephi talking at this point in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 9) talking about the reign of Kings (no mention of Judges?) or the "ministry" which hasn't happened yet and happens to be mum about the coming of Chirst among them...(maybe Nephi didn't know yet?)

This appears to me to be an artifact of early intent, rewritten and repurposed, clunkily at that, in light of the Lost 116 pages previously.

HOWEVER it appears to be a version .75 of Joseph's fix for the lost 116 pages (there's a version .50 as well) becuase it omits to mention that the Book of Lehi would have the same information as the plates of Nephi. It simply says why a division of plates.

I have a daughter that is turning 8 this school year. The majority of her school friends (and population) are active LDS, so the topic of baptism comes up a lot as all these kids are turning 8. We stopped attending the LDS church when she was 5. She asks me questions about baptism quite a bit (even though she says she's not interested. I tell her all the time I'll take her to LDS church if she wants and she says no).

I'm working to build a comprehensive list of what one is agreeing to do by getting baptized so she can understand it better. Baptism is often framed as a manifestation of belief (I agree that can be a good definition for other Christian denominations) but in Mormonism it is so much more than that, as it is kind of putting on the jersey of the church and framing your future actions and decisions by the question, 'Does this belief/action I'm choosing align with the church, or against it?'

What are 8 year-olds agreeing to?

EDIT

Due to continued comments about the format of this post, I will add that I'm not as skilled as others in formatting their posts and putting links to sites. The content is about religious beliefs. Not murder, child abuse, rape, or other emotionally charged categories that I've been asked to speak on. And, the source was from the dictionary to state what morality is or isn't. I understand if some people do not consider that a good source. I am open to other ideas of where I would find word definitions if there are others out there that people who format their posts better than I do have available to them or have found.

This post is specifically about how the Church treats its religious requirements as binding to non members.

-------------------------------------

Morality is a set of personal and social standards for good or bad behavior and character as a code of conduct endorsed by a society or group. The concealed step is to claim authority moving it from this is what is taught in this religion to this is what everyone is obligated to obey

You don't even have to choose this religion, they claim authority over everyone and claim you must obey its rules.

If this is false, then what is claimed in the Church is only right and wrong for those in the religion.

Here's the distinction.

Morality is a group's standards.

I've noticed that the word "Morally Wrong" has been thrown around a bit as if it means more than it is. As if it requires religious obedience from nonmembers. That their religious beliefs get to decide how everyone should live.

Morality is being used to test whether you are a good person or not, not that you live by what the Church group wants you to live by. Choose what is right becomes, choose what we say is right.

What's morally wrong to one group may not be morally wrong to another.

Instead, it seems it is being said, our beliefs govern your life. You don't get to reject our authoroity without being judged morally wrong. Claiming authority over people who have never agreed to be governed by that religion.

President Oaks said the following in the last conference:

“We are grateful to know that there are two methods of gaining needed knowledge: (1) the evolving disclosures of man through the scientific method and digital information, which may be inaccurate, and (2) the truths discovered through the spiritual method, which begins with faith in God and relies on scriptures, inspired teaching, and personal revelation. There is no ultimate conflict between knowledge obtained by these different methods because God, our omnipotent Eternal Father, knows all truth and expects us to learn by both methods.”

President Oaks is giving a nod to learning through science and the spirit. Great. I just hate that he only puts the clause “which may be inaccurate” to describe one type of learning. Prophets and scripture might also be inaccurate. Science has a built in method to correct inaccurate information. What is the built in method to correct inaccurate teachings from prophets? The answer is the people just reject the nonsense and ignore it long enough and it goes away. The “wayward” people are often the ones who have to do this.

Remember, if you publicly oppose Church policy, even though public pressure is often what facilitates policy improvements, you may be excommunicated and thus, eternally cut off from your family and God's presence...

Reading Schedule & Discussion Index | Kickoff Discussion

Date: Monday, October 19, 2026

Today's Reading: Chapter 1, “Why Are They Leaving? The Four Waves,” including the overview infographics. Stop before “Wave I—Lifestyle Dissonance.”

Page range: Approximately 36–40; follow the headings above, not an inclusive page range.

Brief synopsis

Strong moves from how many people are leaving to how he understands their reasons. He introduces four broad categories: lifestyle, Church history, social issues, and Church experience. His overview distinguishes difficulty sustaining Church life, objections to truth claims, moral disagreement, and experiences that no longer feel spiritually nourishing.

Strong presents these as interacting pressures that can accumulate and overlap, not four mutually exclusive personal journeys. He also distinguishes a person’s main reason from other contributing factors. That distinction matters: choosing one main reason doesn’t make everything else irrelevant.

For me, the useful question is whether this framework helps us hear people more clearly, and what gets lost when complicated stories become four categories.

Discussion questions

1. What does the wave metaphor clarify, and where does it fall short?

2. How might choosing one main reason change the story the results tell?

3. What do the overview graphics capture well, and what needs more explanation?

Note on daily post timing expectations: I will do my best to post each day's reading discussion post between 10 pm the night before and 7 am (MST) the day of. Apologies in advance for any unplanned deviation from the schedule.

When a man is asked to leave his house, it mattereth greatly who asketh, why, and how much time is allowed for objection. These particulars, though often neglected by prophets, are of great interest to householders.

We arrived at Ishmael’s dwelling in the late afternoon, when the city had begun its slow descent into evening order. The streets were busy with the ordinary industry of belonging: women drawing water with their sleeves pinned up, children running with the holy purpose of children, sellers calling out the last of their bread and figs, the soft clang of metalwork from a shuttered shop where some man still labored because necessity keeps no sabbath. There were smells too—oil, smoke, crushed herbs, donkey sweat, and that faint sourness of crowded places which no prophet ever mentions when he speaks of destruction.

And we Laman we Lemuel—who in later summaries are commonly reduced to two stubborn eyebrows—felt for a moment the ache of being known by a place that did not require us to be a lesson.

But Nephi walked as one already half outside the world, as though he carried in him a map that did not include sentiment. This was his manner: not cruelty, but a continual readiness to exchange the present for the promised, and to call the exchange righteousness.

Ishmael’s house stood among others of its kind—respectable, established, furnished not for travel but for endurance. A courtyard opened inward, jars lined in their shadows, woven mats laid with care. The household’s evening was already assembling itself.

It is no small violence to interrupt such a thing with destiny.

Ishmael received us courteously enough. He was a man of years, careful in speech, accustomed to being listened to. His household gathered behind him as households do: wife, sons, daughters, servants lingering at the edges of attention.

It was the daughters we noticed first. They stood together, composed and observant, the way of women who have already learned that men often arrive bearing futures they did not ask for.

At last Ishmael said, “And what brings Lehi’s sons to my house at such an hour?”

Nephi answered. He spoke plainly, without haste, and with that mild assurance which made even unreasonable things sound orderly. He spoke of our father’s visions, of covenant and promise, of a land prepared, of marriage as necessity, of daughters given, of seed raised up unto the Lord.

He spoke well.

We must grant him that.

Ishmael listened without interruption. When Nephi finished, Ishmael said, testing each word as though laying a beam by hand:

“You ask me to leave my house.”

“Yes,” said Nephi.

“And my kindred.”

“Yes.”

“And the city of my fathers.”

“Yes.”

“And to go into the wilderness.”

“Yes.”

“With my daughters.”

“Yes.”

“And to marry them to your brothers.”

“Yes.”

There are questions which, once spoken aloud in sequence, acquire a weight no single answer can easily bear.

“This is a great deal you ask,” Ishmael said.

“The Lord requireth it,” said Nephi.

Then Ishmael’s wife spoke—once.

“And what,” she asked, “do our daughters require?”

The room altered.

Nephi hesitated only a moment. “The Lord knoweth all things.”

“Yes,” she said. “But my daughters know themselves.”

We Laman we Lemuel felt, for once, a moment of alignment. We said nothing, lest we spoil it.

Ishmael dismissed the servants and bade us wait while he spoke with his household. From the courtyard we heard the low, undecided music of argument: fear, practicality, hope, laughter that resolved nothing—the sound of a family discovering that obedience was about to rearrange it.

When Ishmael returned, his face bore the look of a man who had already lost something, though he could not yet say what it was.

“My household will go with you,” he said.

There it was.

Not triumph. Not joy. A decision rendered under pressure, wearing the garments of consent.

“So,” we thought, “this is how posterity begins.”

Preparations followed swiftly, for once the thing was agreed to, delay only invited regret. And here we must speak plainly: much of what men call following the Lord is, in practice, women bundling household life into carryable form—garments folded, jars sealed against leakage, bedding rolled, tools wrapped, children quieted, bread baked hard enough to endure travel, and small valuables hidden where male optimism is least likely to mislay them.

By morning we departed Jerusalem again—this time not as thieves of brass, but as recruiters of fate, carrying with us a household bound by agreement, reluctance, and the hope that obedience might yet be repaid.

And if any suppose our murmuring ceased thereafter, let them try persuading another family to leave their home for the sake of a vision not their own.

Growing up church history was very correlated and didn’t follow accurately to the actual history. Before the internet the church could publish whatever it wanted to be its history and keep the actual documents close to heart (aka the archives) and limit who can see them. Now with the ask for more transparency and the internet the church realizes hiding documents just creates questions and doubts. So what is the shift? Release the documents and create an accurate history but move away from teaching it in church at all. The new 25/25 church schedule ensures a very limited lesson is taught so the church can move into saying, yes we are now providing accurate history but if you’re not looking it up then that’s on you because we’re not requiring it to be taught or discussed at church anymore with the limited time lessons. And when members find the accurate history that is different than the correlated material it gaslights them into thinking it was always that way. Thoughts?

Sitting in sacrament meeting today, I was saddened by the total absence of the Spirit during the talks.

Both talks enthusiastically embraced the false premise of the prosperity gospel, and that paying tithing is the way to accumulate material success and financial blessings from God.

I sat quietly and read from the New Testament instead.

Any other coping strategies?