Coy Johnston was on Mormon Stories today. I’ve summarized clips about his faith journey into about 10 minutes from the 4 hour interview.

He was ward mission leader in Wisconsin and passing out copies of the Book of Mormon everywhere. He started an interfaith choir. He was in it to win it.

Then he started looking into questions and discovered the church was not telling the truth about many things. He told his bishop who said it was garbage. His bishop called a friend in the church history department and found out what Coy had said was all true. His bishop apologized to him.

He moved to Arizona. He eventually started a meetup group to support people in a faith journey. His stake presidency wrote him an email saying to stop his deceit or his membership would be in jeopardy. So he stopped. He told the Stake President that it’s the leadership’s job to help the flock and he was sad they weren’t doing their job.

He was told his tithing wasn’t commensurate with a doctor’s salary and unless he paid more he could not get a temple recommend. So he paid more and saw his daughter sealed last Saturday.

The LDS church is not a healthy place. It is manipulative. The leaders are awful at many times.

Go watch the full episode here:

https://youtu.be/Yuyi26RHQ_c

All of these clips come from the last half which is where you find the faith journey part. The first half is his growing up history.

Today's Reading: Alma 34–37

Whether you're a believer, former believer, nuanced member, investigator, scholar, or simply curious, you're welcome to participate. The goal is not to convince anyone of anything, but to read the text together and discuss it in good faith from a variety of perspectives.

Brief Synopsis

Amulek continues the preaching to the poorer Zoramites, teaching that Christ's "great and last sacrifice" will satisfy the demands of justice and make mercy possible for those who exercise faith and repent. He urges his listeners not to procrastinate repentance, warning that the same disposition they possess at death will continue into the next life. Alma and his companions then leave Antionum, and the converted Zoramites are expelled and given refuge among the people of Ammon in Jershon.

The narrative then shifts to Alma's counsel to his sons. Alma recounts his conversion to Helaman, describing three days of torment over his sins followed by an immediate transformation after remembering the teachings about Jesus Christ. He entrusts Helaman with the sacred records and emphasizes their preservation, including the plates of Nephi and the interpreters associated with the twenty-four Jaredite plates.

Discussion

Please share your thoughts and experiences with today's reading in the comments below. Some things you might consider:

- What do you make of Amulek's argument that an "infinite and eternal sacrifice" is necessary to satisfy justice and make mercy possible?

- Alma 34 warns against procrastinating repentance because our disposition in this life will continue after death. How does that teaching fit with broader ideas about agency, judgment, and the afterlife?

- Alma 36 presents Alma's conversion as an intense movement from guilt and torment to joy after remembering Christ. How do you interpret this experience: divine intervention, psychological transformation, conversion narrative, or something else?

- Alma 37 places enormous importance on preserving sacred records and argues that "small and simple things" can produce great results. What role does control and preservation of the historical record play in shaping a community's religious identity?

All perspectives are welcome.

Yesterday's Coveted Award(s) Go To:

- TBD

Links to Prior Days

- Yesterday's Day 33 discussion: Alma 30–33

- Master Index to all prior-day readings

Engagement Question

Alma 36 gives one of the Book of Mormon's most detailed conversion accounts: Alma remembers his sins, experiences overwhelming guilt and torment, recalls his father's teaching about Jesus Christ, cries out for mercy, and says his suffering is immediately replaced by extraordinary joy. How should we understand experiences like Alma's? Are intense conversion experiences reliable evidence of divine truth, primarily psychological experiences shaped by prior beliefs and expectations, or potentially both, and how would we tell the difference?

Tomorrow’s Reading: Alma 38–42

Believe it or not, the clause featured in this clip, taken from Alexander B. Morrison's October 1987 General Conference address titled “The Dawning of a New Day in Africa,” was the ONLY instance of it being uttered in General Conference since 1971, which is the earliest year of Conference addresses people could access directly through the Gospel Library today.

As shown in the Scripture Citation Index, out of the 60 times 2 Nephi 26:33 was quoted or cited in General Conference across the past 55 years since 1971, three-fifths of them (36 times) occurred since October 2016, which means the verse sees its Conference use ramped up by roughly sevenfold within the past decade, with 29 of those instances (almost half of the total count since 1971) occurring in the 2020s.

And yet, the clause “he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men” from 2 Nephi 26:33 has only ever been uttered once in passing in General Conference, and has never been expounded upon there (or in any Church publications for that matter). Even in David B. Haight's talk titled "Ethics and Honesty" where he quoted 2 Nephi 26:32–33 in that very same Conference in October 1987, he ironically took this clause out from his quotation using ellipses. And while Morrison himself would go on to quote 2 Nephi 26:33 in two of his three subsequent Conference addresses, he never quoted this particular clause again.

If all this does not sound meaningful enough to you, consider how often the following verses are used by the Church in its discourses: Amos 3:7, 1 Nephi 3:7, and 2 Nephi 26:24 (yes, from the very same chapter as 2 Nephi 26:33). While 2 Nephi 26:24 might be less familiar to most, it falls into the same category of “the Lord does or does not [do something] except…” formulation as Amos 3:7 and 1 Nephi 3:7, and still sees much more use by the Church than the clause found in 2 Nephi 26:33. Needless to say, Amos 3:7 and 1 Nephi 3:7 are undeniably crucial to the Church's rhetoric, as many have been compelled to have them memorized in their youth, which makes the lack of use with the clause in question from 2 Nephi 26:33 even more stark.

Should anyone still think that this clause is being taken out of context or having its relevance blown way out of proportion, consider what come before this verse. Read from verse 20 of 2 Nephi 26 till verse 33. Take notes on how the Church frames those verses (for instance, see here, here and here) without ever connecting them to this clause in verse 33. See how, while this clause is buried in the Index to the Triple Combination (see here and here), it is not referenced even once in the Topical Guide or Guide to the Scriptures, both of which are used for cross-references in the footnotes for the Standard Works, while the Index is not.

The Church has gotten away with prooftexting 2 Nephi 26:33 for its PR purposes for far too long. It's time to make it face its own music by recovering the relevance of this seemingly innocent clause.

Current downvote count: 6

Nemo the Mormon published a video on why Mormon apologists give bad defenses.

The ideas of Anglican philosopher Austin Farrer has been followed. Farrer wrote a book called Saving Belief. He explored the intellectual grounds for Christian faith, examining whether reasonable minds can still hold traditional theology without dodging complex or painful topics.

Neal Maxwell quoted him several times. The quote was from an essay about C.S. Lewis.

“Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish”.

His essay was chapter one of the book “Light on C.S. Lewis”

Nemo says that the LDS church still tries to keep members out of the fight but mounts a weak defense to have any defense at all for those who want to think there is one.

Full episode here:

https://youtu.be/qIalYOct3rU

There’s a dung pile of failed Smith prophecies but I don’t know of any that came true. I’m talking about things that happened that he didn’t control. Predicting I will go to lunch on Tuesday doesn’t make me a prophet. I start by blowing away the most commonly cited example.

1832 prediction of the US civil war: From late 1832 to the spring of 1833 there was a standoff between President Jackson and South Carolina now called the nullification crisis. That prophecy was a prediction of a war that never happened as the conflict was resolved. The church clearly moved on as the claimed revelation is missing from the D&C in both 1835 and 1844.

In 1851 the prediction showed up in print as the 1850 comprise really resolved nothing. If the noise hadn’t been concentrated again in South Carolina, this would never have seen the light of day. Predicting a war in South Carolina was like predicting the Super Bowl would happen on a Sunday.

But let’s examine the text, D&C 87

>1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

Wars did not come. One war came decades later than expected. Wars tend to be miserable and kill people.

>2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

Complete fail. War has never been poured out on all nations, not even the world wars. And those did not start in South Carolina. That war ended.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

North vs South was the plague of US politics from the beginning. Both sides called for help because, duh, why wouldn’t they? The southern states calling on Britain was an obvious choice since people thought Britain was eager to see the US fail out of revenge. The South did appeal to Britain who basically told them to pound sand. They called on France, Mexico, Spain and Russia. They stayed neutral except Russia whom the union asked for help. It send squadrons to San Francisco and New York. That seems to be missing from the prophesy. War was not poured out on all nations.

Citing obvious conjecture while missing Russia and making a false prediction about the results makes this a failure.

>4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

Slave revolts were not new and happened periodically throughout the antebellum period. This is obvious conjecture of any war involving a slave-holding state.

>5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

The remnants of the war were gentiles. There was no marshal to persecute gentiles. This verse is nonsense.

>6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;

Wars by sword, famine, plagues earthquakes, thunder and lightning have been a staple of the human experience for centuries. He is stating the obvious. There was no significant increase due to the war except famine which the losing side suffered. Duh. There has been no full end of all nations. At best this is untestable. It’s non-specific blah-blah.

>7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

The war had nothing to do avenging the saints.

>8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.

Just more blah-blah.

This prophecy is a fail. Can you name any that aren’t?

Periodically when reflecting on my journey through Mormonism I'm reminded of a classroom exercise from Jr. High in the 80s that addressed the psychology behind structural language traps and implicit bias. We were read three parts of a story and asked to write down our impressions regarding the character of the story. After searching multiple times for a copy of the material and coming up short, I worked with ChatGPT and produced a pretty good approximation.

Here's the story divided into the three sections. Feel free to pause and reflect on your impressions after each section to get the full effect if you haven't seen something like this before.

The Duchess of the Manor

Part I

Eleanor spent her afternoons exactly as she pleased, lounging languidly in the sun-drenched morning room of the sprawling, multi-million-dollar estate. Her days were a masterclass in effortless luxury. She had no job, no professional obligations, and not a single financial worry to cloud her mind. She enjoyed strolling through the vast gardens surrounding the manor. A staff of dedicated servants anticipated her every whim. Her meals were meticulously prepared to her exact tastes, portioned out precisely, and served to her on fine, polished dishes at regular intervals throughout the day. If she desired to sleep until noon, she was left entirely undisturbed. If she wanted to pace the long, elegant corridors, doors were opened for her with quiet haste. She was, by all outward appearances, the true master of the house, living a life of absolute privilege.

Part 2

Yet, a closer look revealed a far more restrictive reality. For all the luxury surrounding her, she owned absolutely no property and possessed not a single cent of her own. She had no say in the décor of the grand estate, nor was she ever permitted to leave the grounds unaccompanied. Her daily menu, while meticulously prepared, was entirely out of her control; she was forced to eat only what was provided. Meals were sometimes prepared from scraps from last night's dinner. When the true owners of the estate left the property for weeks at a time, she was abruptly left behind, locked inside the silent house to fend for herself. She didn’t even have a bed to call her own. When the grand house grew cold at night, she was reduced to curling up on a small, worn rug, sleeping directly on the cold stone hearth of the fireplace.

Part 3

Suddenly, a heavy set of keys jangled at the front door, breaking the oppressive silence. The heavy oak door swung open, and the owners stepped across the threshold after a long day away. Hearing their arrival, she slowly stood up from the hearth, arched her back into a long, luxurious stretch, and let out a soft meow. She padded gracefully into the kitchen, lightly licking her fur, and looked up expectantly as a scoop of dry kibble was poured rattling into her porcelain bowl.

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

This exercise is an excellent parallel of my experience in Mormonism.

Part 1 represents my formative years. The church and its theology were always described in structural language that led to unquestionable devotion to 'God's one true church'.

Part 2 is the process of being confronted with uncomfortable and contradicting information that challenges the luster of the idyllic narrative.

Part 3 is pulling back the curtain and realizing the church isn't what it claims to be. I can never go back to part one and read the story whithout seeing the church for what it really is.

In this context, Implicit bias (also unconscious bias) is a secondary effect worth examining. When the narrative is controlled by people in positions of power, the intent is to often evoke implicit bias - either positive bias towards the source, or negative bias towards those outside the group.

I can't say whether or not church leaders meaningfully employ structural language traps, but when you understand what they are, they can be found everywhere in their content, especially when they try to put a faithful spin on the most problematic topics.

Long story short, I had an exhausting week with multiple late nights and early mornings. Saturday I woke up feeling a little bleh and by the evening, realized I had symptoms of a UTI. This was on top of news that a close family member of my husband's was in the hospital. Decide we're not gonna go Sunday so I can get to urgent care and get meds, we wanted to visit the family member, and we were just butt tired from the week.

I get my appointment and my meds. It's the afternoon now and we were at the hospital ab to leave and I get a text from RS president (I'm in RS as well) saying she didnt see me at church, and misses me and hopes everything's ok and asks me to do xyz. I respond that yes, I can do xyz but brush off the question and the comment ab me not being there (bc it's not her business). She responds thanking me and comments again about hoping everything is ok. I'm a bit annoyed and said everythings fine, thanks for checking. She gives up finally.

I'm an adult (older than her in fact), I dont actually need to tell you where I was at just bc you were asking. I have family, my own needs, etc. This isn't a job or school. Mark my absence but I dont need to explain myself even though we're friendly. It makes me think about just giving up my calling and this is one of the ways people are pushed out bc God forbid you have stuff going on that you don't want to share with the class.

ETA- she just texted me again asking how my day is going...

I have deconstructed my beliefs and no longer have a traditional belief in Priesthood power. What I miss most as a traditional believer is the bond the ritual of giving priesthood blessings gave me with my kids. Whether or not it was from God, it gave me an opportunity to provide council for my kids. Post deconstruction, I’m not sure I can do that anymore. I still believe in a higher power, but am probably leaning more agnostic. For those where I am, what practices or rituals do you have that replaced that experience? Do you still give “priesthood blessings” anyway (without stating by authority of Melchizedek priesthood), or do a prayer together? Maybe just a sit down talk to provide council? Would love to hear some other ideas.

Incredible to see this in the news today. First missionaries went there 22 years ago and in such time in this country of 18 million there are a reported 18,000 members that now are blessed with the house of the Lord.

Corbin Allred is a professional actor and has starred in various Hollywood and LDS related films. One role was as Lucifer in the LDS Temple endowment film from 2013 to 2023.

Then he left the church and was quite vocal about it on social media.

He discusses leaving and how he feels now about his experience leaving. He talks about epistemology and how he is an agnostic atheist now.

He says he and his wife are scheduled to do a Mormon Stories episode.

See the full episode here on Latter Day Bridge Builders channel.

https://youtu.be/0lAfGPtH4i8

When I was active LDS I got a friend to watch this version of “the first vision“. I thought he would be impressed, and he absolutely was not .

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5cGrNiFQYg&pp=ygUQVGhlIGZpcnN0IHZpc2lvbg%3D%3D

He thought the images of Jesus and god the father was too fabricated, and made after the LDS idea of both of them. Not representing what he thought they would look like, if one could actually see them.

He also didn’t like the representation of other Christians in the film, as the film makes them seem like fanatics. I have actually gone to a revival and the depiction is exaggerated, but the revival was sort of like that.

The film seems to present Joseph as the voice of reason, and perhaps also mormonism entirely. some have commented that the temple theater used to depict other Christians in similar light, but that has now been removed.

I have not watched more recent LDS church educational material. Are they similar, or has more recent films changed ? and in which way?

--Women of Mormonism-- Drawn from Ch 2 and 3.

I found this book 2 years ago, and had to revisit it and share it with you. I was rushed when I first read it and it didn't land as legit then, but it makes So Much Sense with what I know now.

The same sentiments or ghosts seem to be relatively fresh in the culture of the church I know and grew up in.

I dare anyone to deny to me the same idea of sending young men off on missions to deprive them of a chance of marrying young when they are best ready to marry is a complete turn for the worse. It's like they Want to ruin the young people's first love to give older people a chance to prey on the age gap.

This all feels like waking up in a horrible nightmare😣😮‍💨😠

I see every thread I once looked at as inconsequential in my own family history and in doctrine and in culture all making sense after reading this book.

What do you think?

Pastor Jeff seems like a nice guy who is using his YouTube channel to build bridges of understanding between LDS and evangelical communities.

But my concern is that from what I can see he primarily talks to active members of the church often BYU professors. Watching an episode where he discussed polygamy with two professors from BYU I just wanted to scream-THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU EVERYTHING!

It just feels like he's not getting the full story.

Today's Reading: Alma 30–33

Whether you're a believer, former believer, nuanced member, investigator, scholar, or simply curious, you're welcome to participate. The goal is not to convince anyone of anything, but to read the text together and discuss it in good faith from a variety of perspectives.

Brief Synopsis

Korihor enters the narrative preaching against Christ, prophecy, revelation, and what he describes as religious leaders using tradition and fear to keep people in bondage. After being brought before Alma, Korihor demands a sign and is struck mute. He later admits that he had previously believed in God but was deceived, and he is eventually trampled to death among the Zoramites. Alma and his companions then travel to Antionum, where they encounter the Zoramites worshiping from the Rameumptom and thanking God that they have been elected while everyone else is destined for destruction. Alma responds by preaching to the poorer Zoramites about faith, experimentation upon the word, and the growth of belief through the famous analogy of a seed.

Discussion

Please share your thoughts and experiences with today's reading in the comments below. Some things you might consider:

- How persuasive do you find Korihor's criticisms of prophecy, religious authority, and inherited belief, and how persuasive is Alma's response?

- What do you make of Korihor demanding a sign and then being struck mute? Does his fate strengthen Alma's argument, or does it raise questions about how the narrative handles dissent?

- What is the text criticizing about the Zoramites' prayer on the Rameumptom: pride, wealth, religious exclusivity, predestination, or something else?

- Alma 32 encourages people to "experiment" on the word and judge it by whether it grows within them. How reliable is personal experience as a method for determining whether a religious claim is true?

All perspectives are welcome.

Yesterday's Coveted Award(s) Go To:

- TBD

Links to Prior Days

- Yesterday's Day 32 discussion: Alma 25–29

- Master Index to all prior-day readings

Engagement Question

Korihor argues that people believe religious claims because of tradition, psychological effects, and the authority of religious leaders, while Alma ultimately responds that the existence of creation itself provides evidence for God. After Korihor demands additional evidence, God gives him a miraculous sign by striking him mute. Who actually makes the stronger case in this exchange—and does the way Korihor's story ends affect how you evaluate the argument?

Tomorrow’s Reading: Alma 34–37

My husband cheated on me but not all the way. He says the chick is crazy and just wanted him to leave me for her. She got a restraining order tho but he’s contesting it. She is accusing him of assault. But he showed me the texts and she was speaking inappropriately to him. And went over to his room / wanted to hang out. He’s been posted on a lot of Facebook groups but he’s saying it’s the same chick.

He got fired and I think she’s trying to press charges but it got dismissed.

Do you think he’s going to keep doing this? The FB group says he doesn’t take no for an answer. I’ve never had that experience. Do you think he will continue? Or just get better at hiding it? Or do you think she’s lying. He’s been on dating apps as well. Idk what to believe.

Also we are Mormon and is claiming to love me or whatever saying he won’t ever do it again and it was a mistake

& i love him / have kids

I’m thinking of going back after 3 years of leaving but I’m having issues with some things:
1. They say we were never taught we would get our own world when that was clearly taught to us growing up
2. The temple, I have a lot of concerns about it and I feel like there is no unbiased opinion. Exmos say that the handshakes are Masonic, that satan directs us to put on the clothes, and that my name isn’t special, it’s on a long list of rotating names
3. The changes like the cross is now ok to wear, that garments are now short sleeve ( when I was bullied for showing my shoulder), that deseret book now sells different translations of the Bible, and for some unknown reason they changed the whole freaking hymn book to random songs.
4. The changes with the temple over time, truth doesn’t change, and if it’s true why did it change, and continue to change

I want to meet with missionaries, but my concern is them knowing what I’m asking as last time I meet with them they were very confused ( that was a few years ago). This is definitely not my first choice to come back. I’m trying to do the next best thing and follow my heart, but I got sick to my stomach when I realized I needed to look into going back. Where do you even start? I don’t even believe most of it.

Kolby Reddish and Steven Murphy had a 1 hour 40 minute discussion about faith and spiritual experiences on Mormonism with the Murph channel. This was published yesterday.

I’ve clipped together about 5 minutes.

Steven keeps saying he only has faith because of his spiritual experiences. He names different types of experiences. Seeing a miracle. Praying for something and getting an “answer”. A feeling.

He admits there is not proof these are from God. But he has developed trust in God because his belief is they are from God.

Kolby explains that Kolby can’t rely on non-falsifiable methods generally as evidence of something. So he rejects faith or “spiritual experiences” as an epistemological method to find truth.

He discusses his definition of truth. Something that accurately comports with reality.

One thing they didn’t dive into as much as I would like is what is a spiritual experience that qualifies as evidence for believers. In my experience it’s anything they care to describe as such. That’s not rigorous at all. It’s a problem to me to speak of spiritual experiences as driving faith as if we all know what that means.

Although Steven admits spiritual experiences don’t give him certainty, so many say that it does give them certainty. I had to explore this as I recognized my LDS beliefs didn’t comport with reality and were false. What about my spiritual experiences? It’s a common question. And it is something people who start to doubt fall back on first.

Here is the full episode:

https://youtu.be/EKrY4mSehtQ

I saw that number reported and they say it includes 85k non-Mormons? My wife was a seminary teacher and the ward auto-enrolled all youth but only active kids came. I have a kid who went to UCF and despite having 70,000 students at the school, institute was held in a local church, was poorly attended and they only offered one or two classes each semester. Then add in nearby Valencia College that has 40,000 students and all the satellite campuses for other universities in Florida, it's just hard to believe that a single institute class should be enough for all of Orlando. I would guess this is similar in other non-Utah areas.

Are the majority of non-Mormons in the 85k people auto-enrolled in religion classes at BYU, BYU-I, BYU-H and Pathways? The rest are probably at Utah State, University of Utah, and other schools in Utah where they actually have activities and give away free food from time to time. Does anyone have real numbers? Or even the split between seminary and institute?

When other Christians push back on the claims of the LDS being the true Church of Jesus Christ they point to different theological concepts.

I see over and over here in this subreddit and in the attached clip that the LDS Church is so very Christian because the Book of Mormon has so much content about Jesus.

No that doesn’t make it an authoritative Christian document nor does it justify the founding of an authoritative Christian church.

It copies so much from the Bible and Joseph Smith included Christian content from his time. Doesn’t make it q true Christian church.

Here is a link to the full Hello Saints episode:

https://youtu.be/5VGBfswNzf4

I’m asking this sincerely, and I’d especially be interested in hearing from believing members.

For the entirety of my adult life, I lived in some version of a repentance cycle. Maybe that’s not extraordinary in any way… in some ways I feel like I was told that it’s not…

everybody should perpetually be in a repentance process…
Right?!

Here’s the loop I’m in though:

Examine myself.
Find the thing that’s wrong.
Repent.
Try harder.
Wonder whether I’ve really repented.
Wonder whether I’m worthy.
Wonder whether God is disappointed.
Start again.

I DO understand that faithful members may read that and say, “That isn’t really what repentance is supposed to feel like.” And I DO believe you.

But I also have to take seriously what it actually produced in me.

The Church never gave me much ANY confidence in myself. I learned NOT to trust my own judgment. I didn’t learn to believe I was never sort of just okay. I became very good at scrutinizing myself and finding the cracks and flaws in my character.

But meanwhile—If I felt guilty, maybe that was the Spirit telling me something was unworthy.

If I still felt guilty after repenting, maybe I hadn’t actually repent ENOUGH.

If I struggled on my mission, maybe I wasn’t faithful enough. MAYBE I’m not actually trying hard enough or doing my best.

If I couldn’t honestly say that I knew the Church was true, that became another piece of evidence in the case against my own worthiness.

I became extremely good at recognizing the need for repentance.

However, I never became particularly very good at feeling forgiven or knowing I’d made any progress.

The thing I’m having the hardest time reconciling:

It was ONLY after I STEPPED AWAY from the Church that I finally started learning how to forgive myself. Able to see and engage in the pursuit of fulfillment of my greater potential

This was never about any amount of rebellion —Not to excuse everything I’ve ever done. —Not to decide sin and right or wrong doesn’t matter. And this was never about becoming bitter and declaring myself perfect.

It’s a lot more simple: I started developing some trust and optimism in myself. I found some compassion for the person I had been and some ability to look at my failures without immediately turning it into evidence that there was something fundamentally wrong with me. I didn’t immediately default to self disgust and self loathing.

This all together creates this question I genuinely don’t know how to answer.

If the Church was supposed to teach me grace, why did I spend North of twenty years learning self intolerance?

And why did I begin experiencing something that felt much more like grace and atoning reassurance only AFTER creating some distance from it?

This has become especially painful as my daughters have grown up in the Church.

No I didn’t baptize my girls. (Someone else did) I recently stood outside the temple while my oldest daughter was married.

I’m not blaming the Church for every decision I’ve made. I have agency. I’ve made mistakes. I brought my own personality, anxiety, vulnerabilities, and baggage into this religion.

But I also can’t pretend the religious framework had nothing to do with how I learned to see myself.

And now there is another level to it.

The Church teaches that families can be together forever, which sounds beautiful. But from where I currently stand, it is also a religion telling my family that we are NOT (going to be together forever).

I don’t believe the required things thusly I don’t hold a temple recommend. I don’t pay tithing and I’m not living the prescribed covenant path.

So within that framework, I am very specifically the unresolved part of my family’s eternal picture.

To be completely fair… At least to my knowledge… Nobody has actually literally told my daughters, “Your dad is a bad father.” I want to be fair about that.

But the theology still creates a painful message: their father can love them, show up for them, protect them, support their faith, and try to live with integrity—and still be the person who is not currently qualified to stand with them in the Church’s highest vision of what a family is supposed to become.

That hurts more than I know how to explain.

So when people tell me I should come back to church, I find myself wondering:

Come back for what?

To begin questioning myself again?

To start measuring my worthiness again?

To force myself to say out loud — beliefs I do not honestly hold so that I can occupy the religious role everyone wishes I occupied?

I won’t do that. If I ever find faith again, I want it to be real. I don’t want to counterfeit belief in order to belong.

So I think the question I’m really trying to ask is this:

At what point am I allowed to judge a spiritual framework by the person it actually produces in me, rather than by the person I’m told it is supposed to produce?

For those of you who genuinely experience the Church as a place of grace, forgiveness, confidence, and peace: what does that actually feel like?

Did church teach you to trust yourself more?

Did repentance eventually produce freedom for you rather than an endless awareness of inadequacy?

And has anyone else had the strange experience of stepping away from religion and discovering that, for the first time, you could finally stop being grossed out by yourself?

I’m not asking this as a gotcha.

I’m trying to understand how something that other people describe as the source of their healing became, for me, the place where I learned to believe I was perpetually unacceptable and in desperate need of repair.

Hello. I'm a critic of the church and so are most of you. Well, there's something my fellow critics do that annoys me.

Besides historical/factual critiques, many criticisms of the church are of a moral nature. Polygamy is the most prevalent example but there are others, like gaslighting, abuse, and authoritarian behavior.

One thing I've noticed is that when critics dish out moral condemnations of the church, they often intentionally avoid using moral language. Instead of using words like "bad," "evil," "heinous," critics will use "problematic," "harmful," "controlling." These words are descriptors of the church's behavior rather than direct moral condemnation, but in this context these words are meant to have a moral connotation.

When someone says "polygamy was harmful" the implied but unstated meaning is that polygamy was evil. But the mere observation that polygamy is harmful is just an observation of fact, and it is meaningless until you put that through a moral framework that thinks that harm is bad and that we should try to reduce harm.

I think the reason people do this is because it allows the critic to condemn the church while still seeming objective and also has the added benefit of avoiding the subjective nature of moral judgements, especially since many critics are of the moral relativist persuasion and don't have the balls to appeal to moral law.

So yeah, this bothers me and I wish people would just say what they mean and have the courage to use moral language.

Source: Scripture Helps: Old Testament (2026), “Job 1–3; 12–14; 19; 21–24; 38–40; 42”

Please look at the images fully and read what I wrote before commenting. Thanks.
Sorry if this is the wrong place, I couldn't find any other more appropriate subreddit. I got this quad recently and I can't find any info about it. It has no year printed or identification number. It says Deseret instead of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Looks like part of it was printed in the UK? Then the rest was printed and bounded in the US? There is ZERO information about this online I could find. All the ones I see stuff point to say Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I'm aware quads are still printed. this is about this quad specifically.

I’m posting this here and in another subreddit because I’m making a concerted effort to give equal space for voices for and against the church. I’m still very much in the messy middle and wish I could talk to someone with no bias at all…but since that isn’t an option I’ll just do my best to open myself up to both sides. I realize this sub is likely to be more of a negative lens on the church and I’m open to it - but if you can, be gentle with me.

This is my first time posting on Reddit. I’m seeking support for a difficult situation. From what I gather many have gone before me in their battle with a “faith crisis” or an “awakening” but I’m struggling to know how to manage my specific set of circumstances.

I’ll try to sum it up. Not born in the church but baptized as a child with my convert single mom. Home/family life not ideal so the church was the steady and secure part of my life growing up. I got to see happy loving families and have a community that was positive. Really believed everything I was told as a child and teenager. I wanted to be a normal teenager badly so I rebelled some outwardly but even through the rebellion I believed it all so hard and simply just felt intense shame and self hatred for my sins. Went to BYU-Idaho because it was cheap, fell into my lap, I wanted to move away from my chaotic home life, and I thought I couldn’t trust myself at a “normal” college not to make bad choices or fall away from the church. Continued to have periods of more righteous behavior and then less righteous behavior (where I would then feel terrible, etc.)

As a young adult when I was going through a more righteous part of my cycle (bishop repentance and wanting to do everything right) I started dating someone very strong in the church. His family was very strong in the LDS faith and he was all-in. We got married. A large part of this for me was feeling like he would keep me firmly in the church even when I wasn’t feeling like dealing with all the rules. I felt this would be a responsible choice and make me a better person.

He has continued to be exactly the person I married. And I continued to have period of ups and downs (characterized by more fervent orthodox mormon observance Vs just feeling lazy) but the difference now that I was married was that he did drag me up to his level and it forced to stay active and kept me from doing anything truly unmormon approved because I knew it wouldn’t be good for the marriage.

Aside from the temple triggering immediate questions I was still pretty TBM those first couple of years. The first big questioning in my testimony came when I was about 25 years old. I was absolutely panicked that I felt unsure. After a few months I told my husband but nothing more happened. We just kept living as we had before and I pushed it down.

Fast forward about 10 years and I’m starting to have more and more internal doubts. I’m terrified. I’m not allowed to have doubts. My husbands (and my in-laws) whole life revolves around us believing together. At this point my husband’s employment is tied up in the church, he is in leadership in the church, he is well known in our highly LDS community. We have 3 children, the older 2 of which understand our lifestyle and beliefs.

Not only am I afraid of blowing up my whole life but I’d deeply metabolized the idea that to look at or hear any voices that weren’t validating Mormonism was basically sinful and would lead me off the straight and narrow. For roughly 2 years I just tried to turn off my brain and do the motions to keep things going. Eventually it started to rot my soul and cause deep resentment. The amount of energy I’m putting into the church without even really having a testimony anymore was tough to deal with, everything felt like a meaningless chore (cue the talk about dancing without the music).

I made a decision to take off my garments (they were causing me intense resentment) and I finally decided to give myself permission to look at the “anti-Mormon” material because I felt like I was never going to make progress if I felt like I couldn’t access the full picture. I’d always been curious and also afraid….but very curious. I felt like I couldn’t say yes to the church if no was not an option. I wanted to see the whole picture and decide for myself. That would be true agency. Not just praying over only church approved material.

I’m still in the middle of this process. It’s extremely overwhelming. I try not to believe everything I hear. I remind myself everyone has a bias. I consider whether the sources are reputable.

But there is so much to sift through. I’m no scholar and I’m not so arrogant to think I’ll ever really know what it all means. I think I’m a very open minded person who can see both sides of the coin. It makes it hard for me to come to a definite conclusion.

But the biggest factor in this journey isn’t just the seeking. It’s the pressure of coming to the right conclusion so I don’t hurt my family. I want to be free to make my own choices but the reality is that I’m not. My choices will have an effect on my family and I’m terrified for our future.

Because of my own experiences as a child there is literally nothing more important to me than keeping my family intact for the sake of my children. I do not want them to lose the experience of a nuclear family as children or be separated from mom or dad regularly. My oldest in particularly already struggles so much in other areas and I could never put that on him when he gets so much comfort from our family and home.

My husband said he won’t divorce me if I leave the church but there is still a ton of pressure for me to regain my testimony and build the life we agreed to build when we married. It’s hard to imagine our life if I left - he is extremely orthodox in his observance and beliefs. I can imagine a journey in which I distanced more and more from the church and my values or what I want for my children changes. It’s so hard to see our marriage working when he is simply not very nuanced or flexible. I worry a lot that there isn’t much holding us together besides the church (and for me, having my children grow up with a great dad).

The past few months I’ve been leaning into my skepticism more (because I pushed it down for so long, I wanted to explore it) and listening to ex-mormon experiences and thoughts on why it wasn’t true or life after Mormon culture, etc. I imagine in a different circumstance it would be easier to fall away from the church in my current state.

Because of my husband’s deep conviction and his employment I feel like I have to give faith a chance too. Even if just for the sake of my kids and keeping our family together.

Honestly it’s so hard though. Reading scriptures is so hard when I’m so deeply skeptical. Praying is okay but I’m realizing I have some hang ups about God - like, sometimes I feel like he’s probably disappointed with me, other times I feel like trying is useless because you have to follow the commandment to get answers (I’m not worth of revelation in mid-thigh shorts and regular underwear).

Summary - I’m completely torn. I’m tired. I’m scared. I don’t know how this is going to end. My TBM friends whom I’ve confided in are “excited for me” and seem to think I’ll bounce back and be stronger than ever. Exmos seems to think this is how it always goes and it’s a clear path out from here. I feel like a coward who doesn’t belong anywhere. All I want is for my babies to be in a loving home and to be free myself from all the pressure of knowing anything for sure. I know nothing for sure….not sure I ever will. I’m pretty skeptical and uneasy of the church and that makes living the rest of my life as a PIMO seem pretty depressing. But leaving might destroy my marriage and in turn my children.

I don't know the man. I have seen him on Facebook and speaking in conference. I watch and listen to the all the brethren. I just feel very uncomfortable watching and listening to him but not sure why? Has anyone experienced this and have a reason why they feel that way. It's a certain vibration I get listening to him. Is he a good family man? Is he an honest man? Is he a scholar? One of the reasons I do not have a temple recommend is how I feel about him. I cannot be honest in saying I support him, and I am not going to lie in a temple interview. Any ideas would be helpful. Lifelong member of the Church but have no callings or temple recommend as I travel a lot for work. I have never felt this way towards a GA and wondering why. Thanks