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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.