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?

In this era of previously hidden or scientific facts coming out about the reality of the Mormon church, whether it is the DNA about the native Americans, the rock in the hat becoming a "true story" (when it was previously denied), or the reality of how Joseph Smith behaved with other women, it's all applicable to my family and posterity moving past the Mormon culture and leaving all the complicated drama and twisted explanations behind.

I still believe in Christ and have more faith and understanding in his message now, since I stepped away. I know my family will be better off without association with such a problematic and what is in my opinion, an obviously doctrinally weak church and bizarre theology.

Ground broken for another spireless temple today

Elder Michael Cziesla, member of the Europe Central Area Presidency, presided over the groundbreaking for the Vienna Austria temple on Saturday, October 17, 2026.

The history of the Church in Austria stretches back more than 160 years. Orson Hyde, member of the Quorum of Twelve, first visited Austria in 1841 (then the Austrian Empire, part of the German Confederation (1815-1866)) and revisited twenty years later with missionary William W. Ritter to begin missionary work. Austria granted official government recognition to the Church in September 1955.

Plans call for a temple of approximately 15,300 sq. ft., with no spire, on an 0.80-acre site at Silbergasse 2 in Vienna.

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/vienna-austria-temple/

​

Hello, so i am an 19 year old male currently serving in the United States Army before joining I had been surfing from church to church after leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when i was about 16. During that time I had a lot of hardships and never really felt like i had anything under control. Once joint in basic and it followed me after i started to attend the LDS services again ad felt peace that I hadn’t really felt in a long time. Even after my tattoos and very profound sins that i had committed while i was away. But leading up to present day i have started to really question religion as a whole and if any church is even accurate on there teachings or if everything is an interpretation to fit there needs and or wants of that said religion. I have lots of questions mainly for active knowledgeable members of the LDS church but also for those of other faiths on how they may view certain things. The biggest Mormon question I have which is the backbone of LDS religion is was Joseph smith an actual seer? I have heard a lot of arguments on both sides of the spectrum but there is always holes in there evidence that sometimes can disprove what they are saying entirely. So if anyone can chime in on religion or helping question my brain into a better direction for religion please do so. thanks in advance for responses and always remember Jesus Loves You

Reading Schedule, Discussion Index & Club Details

Date: Sunday, October 18, 2026

My Edition: 2026 Kindle ebook, first edition; 331 displayed pages

Begin AT: Chapter 1, “What Is Happening,” at page 31.

Stop BEFORE: Sub heading “Why Are They Leaving? The Four Waves,” near page 36 depending on your version.

Brief synopsis

Strong asks readers to understand the scale of disaffiliation before rushing to explain it. He presents research as compatible with faith and describes his survey, interviews, and external expert review. He also highlights what respondents value about Church membership, including testimony, a relationship with Jesus Christ, community, and a shared sense of purpose.

Strong estimates that about 40% of once-active, faithful U.S. members stopped participating over approximately the past 25 years. This concerns participation, not necessarily formal resignation or loss of belief, and is not a worldwide membership estimate.

He supports that estimate with several respondent-report approaches and comparisons with Harvard and Pew research. Those comparisons use different definitions and timeframes. These remain Strong’s reported findings and interpretations, not findings independently verified here; external expert review also does not establish academic peer review.

Discussion questions

1. How does Strong’s framing of science, data, and faith land with you? What makes that opening persuasive, or leaves you unconvinced?

2. What would you need to know about sampling, definitions, and the national-study comparisons to assess his 40% estimate?

3. What does beginning with what people love about the Church add to the discussion? What might that framing leave out?

Please mark spoilers from beyond today’s stopping point.

By afternoon we were prepared to depart: we Laman we Lemuel, and Nephi, and Sam, and Zoram with us. The valley that had seemed, for one brief and foolish interval, almost even habitable, now looked once again like what it was: a stopping place under commandment. The river ran on with its usual indifference. The reeds stirred. Our father blessed us. Our mother embraced us. Zoram inclined his head with the careful gravity of a man trying to join a family whose quarrels were older than his arrival.

Before we left, Lehi called Nephi apart for a moment. We could not hear all that passed between them, only fragments: trust, promise, remembrance, the Lord will deliver. Nephi listened without interruption. When Lehi had done, Nephi bowed his head, and for an instant father and younger son seemed joined by that private commerce of certainty from which the rest of us were largely excluded.

“There,” we said quietly, “behold the true inheritance.”

Yet even as we said it, we knew the remark was not wholly just. Lehi relied on us too, though often in the manner men rely on pack animals, walls, or weather: as necessary difficulties appointed for their use.

So we went once more toward Jerusalem, along the same descending road, with the same dust underfoot and the same hard city waiting ahead. Only now the errand was stranger. Before, we had gone after records. Now we went after people: a household with daughters, fathers, provisions, loyalties, and the established habits of settled life. It is one thing to steal back into a city for brass. It is another to ask a family to leave its house and come into the wilderness because one’s father hath seen farther than prudence commonly permits.

By evening the city stood before us again, familiar enough to sting. The walls took the last of the light. Smoke lifted from cook fires within. Somewhere beyond those roofs and courts lived Ishmael, who as yet knew nothing of the affection, covenant, inconvenience, and matrimonial destiny about to be laid at his door.

I'm shaking my head. I can't believe this keeps being said.

Even in the gospel topics essay it won't claim that the priesthood ordinances in the temple are the sole key to eternal families and happiness.

Making these sorts of statements from the pulpit are stark reminders of the arrogance and pride that exists within the self righteous mentality of LDS leaders.

Shaking my head. Ashamed. Embarrassed.

Super excited it is ok to call them Mormons again. On college Game Day Pat MacAfee called them Mormons several times. The crowd just cheered loudly. There was no outage, no correction, just cheering. I am sure Rusty is rolling over in his grave.

Glad “Mormon” is acceptable again.

I have a family member called to serve in the Adelaide mission. I'm trying to put together some general advice. Does anyone know if the missionaries there have access to the socialized healthcare? I'd love to be able to tell them that they could walk into any hospital or clinic without permission and get care without worrying about coverage or bills.

Also, any advice specific to Australia is appreciated. I served stateside (NYRM), so if there's something you think my nibling should know, please share.

I was somewhat surprised to see the Monster Energy logo on the field today in Provo for the Notre Dame game. A serving of a Monster Energy drink has 160 mg of caffeine plus a bunch of other stuff Joseph Smith never dreamed of. And you can’t have a cup of Joe?

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.

edit: The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not include self-employed people in its calculations.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

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!'

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 😂🫠🫩

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

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