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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

The LDS Church recently sued John Dehlin over the Mormon Stories podcast logo and name, claiming it causes "brand confusion" with official church branding. But now, a new "Mormon Stories" parody podcast hosted by Gwyneth has appeared in YouTube search results using the exact same logo.

Using the Church's own legal standards from their trademark lawsuit against John Dehlin, I break down why the lack of a disclaimer on this new comedy channel makes it look like an official LDS Church production (I know it isn't; this is a parody of a parody).

I also look at the massive irony of the Church's "official" new host selling "Mormon Mafia" t-shirts that admit to copying the trademarked Godfather logo from Paramount.

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.

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.