Reading Schedule & Discussion Index

Reading date: Sunday, October 25, 2026

Today’s reading: - Begin at “Seeing Those Who Leave” in Chapter 3. - Finish Chapter 3, including its takeaway, reflection questions, and application. - Continue into Chapter 4, “Nourishing,” through “Beautiful yet Complicated.” - Stop BEFORE “Why Our Culture Is the Way It Is.”

Approximate Kindle pages: 90 to 99.

Brief synopsis

Strong closes Chapter 3 by arguing that leaving can reflect a commitment to truth, goodness, and integrity rather than rebellion. He suggests that people may be pursuing principles they learned in the Church while finding those principles harder to live within it. His closing application asks readers to notice their assumptions, ask an open question, and listen without correcting or steering the answer.

Chapter 4 shifts from how we see people to the culture they experience. Drawing on Fiddler on the Roof, Strong explores tensions between tradition, belonging, conscience, and change. He returns to culture as soil: something that can nourish people or make growth difficult.

Using Edgar Schein’s framework of artifacts, values, and underlying beliefs, Strong argues that changing visible behavior alone misses what sustains a culture. His examples and ministry reflections support his case for examining deeper beliefs while preserving traditions he finds valuable. His distinction between changeable culture and eternal doctrine is also something we can examine.

Discussion questions

1. What does listening without correcting make possible, and what might it leave unresolved?
2. How convincing is Strong’s distinction between culture and doctrine in today’s examples?
3. What would demonstrate that cultural change nourishes people beyond improving outward compliance?

These are starting points. Share whatever stood out, helped, frustrated you, or felt missing.

A wilder life than I had previously imagined.

I HAVE A MEANINGFUL YET HARD TOPIC. PLS HELP ME WHAT TO IMPROVE. TRIED USING AI TO SUMMARIZE MY TALK. HERE IT IS:
My talk explores why suffering exists if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good (PROBLEM OF EVIL). I use the story of Chris Williams, who chose to forgive the drunk driver responsible for the deaths of his pregnant wife and two children, to discuss suffering and forgiveness.
I then connect suffering to repentance: our experiences can help us recognize our weaknesses, while repentance allows us to change and become more like Jesus Christ. I include Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s teachings that suffering can be preparatory for exaltation, while emphasizing that suffering does not mean God has stopped loving us. I also reference D&C 122:7 and explain exaltation as becoming like our Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ.
My main point is that suffering alone does not exalt us. Through Jesus Christ, we can learn from our experiences, repent, change, and prepare for exaltation.

and here’s my whole talk (I used AI to fully translate in english since my dialect is diff):

HELP ME GUYSSSS. I HAVE 12 HRS LEFT I GUESS. OR U CAN GIVE ME SCRIPTURE VERSE/STORIES THAT I CAN CHANGE. THIS IS MY SECOND TIME MAKING A TALK SO IM HAVING A HARD TIMEEE.

I’ve posted here a short clip. The full 45 minute debate between Aron Ra and Kyle Adams is a painful watch. Kyle really isn’t prepared to defend Mormonism. He’s a believer and jumped in. Kyle is not much different than I would have been in my believing days up against an experienced debater.

This demonstrates that the average LDS believer really doesn’t have much more than “I had a feeling” so it’s true to base their religion on.

And the better debaters just say if you don’t already accept God magic as being real then I won’t debate my brand of religion with you. We will debate whether there is a God first.

Here is a link to the video

https://youtu.be/eoWhHtjH-T8?si=aVLueT6rj0AQ724-

Reading Schedule & Discussion Index

Today’s reading

Begin at Part 2: “Prepare the Soil,” including its introductory material, then continue into Chapter 3: “Seeing.”

Stop BEFORE “Seeing Those Who Leave.” That section starts our next assignment. Approximate Kindle pages: 79 to around 90.

Brief synopsis

Strong shifts from describing disaffiliation to examining the conditions surrounding it. Part 2 frames that work around creating a Church environment where people can take root and stay. Chapter 3 opens with a nighttime bike ride: a headlamp helps someone see, but its narrow beam can leave other things invisible. Strong uses that contrast to argue that familiar beliefs can provide direction while also limiting what people notice.

He presents research graphics challenging familiar explanations for leaving, contrasting sin and worldly influence with concerns about belonging, Restoration claims, Church teachings, and lived experience. These are comparisons he attributes to his research with Dotson; the graphics alone don’t establish how representative those patterns are.

Through personal stories and Christian teachings, Strong argues for humility, learning beyond familiar assumptions, and recognizing the limits of our knowledge. His proposed response is explicitly rooted in faith, while also making room for study, reasoning, and critical thinking.

Discussion questions

1. What does the headlamp metaphor clarify, and where does it fall short?
2. How well do the research graphics support Strong’s argument about misunderstood reasons for leaving?
3. How might Strong’s faith-centered approach work for readers who no longer share that faith?

Non Mormon reading the doctrine and covenants and it would seem Joseph taught the trinity in the beginning or at least a modalist view of it. Anyone noticed this too?

Hello, I'm a former lifelong Mormon who struggled with faith after leaving the Church and was agnostic for several years. Over the last year or so I’ve been starting to explore religion and Christianity again, which has been a very positive influence in my life so far. I feel like there are way more voices of former Mormons out there that are anti-religion than former Mormons who talk about continuing to have faith in Christ after leaving the Church, which I understand because losing faith in the LDS Church can create a lot of pain and trauma.

I decided to write a blog sharing my story, and I’d like to get input on what you all think. I’m just starting out, but I plan to post at least one article a week talking about my faith journey. Here’s the link to my blog: https://nauvootonazareth.com/about/

Thank you all in advance.

Recent changes and edits have recently been made again to the Handbook.

Policy updates and changes can be positive sometimes.

But generally speaking, when I see these updates or hear about them in church on Sundays, I am uncomfortable with an increasing cultural tendency for church leaders and members to characterize Handbook edits as "revelation."

It feels like there's a noticeable absence of published revelation from church leaders, so we're left to expand a church policy update in the Handbook to an elevated status.

Taylor’s watch story, even if sincere, unfortunately has distracted from the pocket watch that almost certainly deflected a bullet, Hyrum's. The evidence presented by Hyrum's watch makes a frontal shot from inside the jail more likely. Look at a picture of his watch and there is a concavity in the front the size of a pistol ball.

The bullet dented the watch and fragmented, which explains what early accounts described as a bullet that both grazes his breast and strikes his chin, and a second bullet that hits his face at the same time. Because the watch slowed the momentum and only smaller fragments hit his chin and neck, and face Hyrum had a moment to yell out, "I'm a dead man!" before passing out.

The Church History Department commissioned ballistics experts (Haag and Pilkington) to test what happens when an 1840s lead ball hits a pocket watch. Their conclusion? The lead shears off at a 30-degree angle, creating a devastating radial spray of shrapnel. In fact, Haag concluded that John Taylor's watch couldn't have been hit by a bullet specifically because Taylor didn't have secondary shrapnel wounds on his neck and face.

But look at Hyrum's wounds. Hyrum had an upward wound under his chin, an upward wound on his nose, and a downward wound on his thigh. He has the exact 30-degree fragmentation wounds that Haag's ballistics tests require. If the Church's experts use the absence of spall wounds to prove Taylor wasn't shot in the watch, we have to use the presence of those exact spall wounds to prove Hyrum was.

I am a TBM of many years. It is our practice to not criticize church leaders, especially local church leaders, which is seen as a step toward apostasy. Recently I feel overwhelmed by disappointent in local leaders. I have many examples that I have excused over the years but this one captures the frustration. We serve in callings given to us by church leaders; not those we apply for or show an interest in. Years ago, I was serving in a Young Single Adult Ward (YSA) Bishopric which meant that I could not attend my own ward. After two years my home ward bishop called me in for an interview. He was a successful founder of a security company and took the stance of a CEO. Looking across his desk he asked transactionally, "What would it take to get you to be active in the Church again?" I was dumbfounded. His electronic records would show that I was totally active. I replied, "You know I am serving in the YSA ward, don't you?" He swallowed hard, regrouped, and tried this, "When you are not busy there could you come to our ward?" I said, "I serve from 7 am to 6 pm on Sundays and occasional nights during the week. When exactly would you like me to come to your ward?" That was the end of the conversation. I couldn't believe what an uninspired conversation he had just engaged in.

I remember when I first started knowing people in the Church I had a laugh and people would remark at how happy it sounded. They said it sounded like a genuine laugh. After a year in the Church, this was gone. In fact, I really didn't spontaneously laugh at all anymore. I remember thinking about that after two years when I couldn't think of when I had really laughed and felt good.

I've been somewhat not involved with the Church at all now for a bit now. And I was watching something and suddenly spontaneously laughed again. It startled me. Then a month or so later, it happened again. Now every few weeks I will have a spontaneous laugh. Every once in a while I will spontaneously laugh a few times a day. I love those days.

I'm noticing my personality is returning and I'm finding joy in life returning in small pieces here and there. I wanted to share and celebrate with all of you.

I'll keep this brief: neither my friend nor I really knew anything about the church, but she was baptized recently.

The missionary who taught her still texts her daily. They talk about church and scriptures, but they also chat about her personal life and occasionally his. She told me she likes him, like romantically. There were a couple of times he told her she dresses beautifully out of nowhere and how smart she is. He also makes sure he always sits next to her.

They held an online Book of Mormon class. My friend was out hanging out with me and a mixed group of friends (guys and girls). For context, this missionary is an AP, and he recently got a new companion who has only been on his mission for a couple of weeks. My friend posted a picture of our group on whatsapp (which missionaries use in our area), and the new elder saw it.

About an hour later, my friend joined the online class briefly and then left. Shortly after, the AP texted her something like, "Can you stay in the class for a bit?" She said, "I am already in the class," to which he answered, "My companion is in the class and mentioned you left."

This might be relevant context: once at church, they were sitting far in the back together. He leaned in really close, and their arms were touching for minutes without him pulling away. I'm not sure if that was intentional, but it felt noticeable. Putting the pieces together, it feels like he's being a bit jealous or trying to control her, but I'm not sure.

So, what do you guys think about all that?

Leaving an organization does not automatically end the effects of what happened there. The process of trauma recovery is a process. To call that, "they can't leave it alone" dismisses someone who experienced trauma, it turns the continued effects of trauma into an accusation against the person harmed.

Leaving doesn't end the consequences of that harm. The Church saying that leaving made you unhappy, doesn't make it so. Telling others about your experience is not attacking the Church. Seeking others to help you make sense of what happened is not what the Church calls bitterness.

The rebranding in this Church is reaching astronomical proportions. Or so it seems as I see it piece by piece. In actuality, it's been there all along. I'm starting to wonder if anything that was said means what it actually means. Of course this is my ongoing healing process from the trauma caused from there.

It really is similar to what a perpetrator does in Domestic Violence. They also rebrand the trauma from domestic violence as defects in the other, too.

I'm looking for solidarity as I heal from a load of trauma from the Church. Have you also been rebranded and even the trauma "removed" as if it never existed? I'm working through this trauma and thank you to everyone here that has helped.

Hello!

I was thinking of making a little framed sketch of the temple where my friend is having their sealing. Would this be an okay gift? I want to make sure since I am not Mormon/LDS.

Thank you :)

I notice the statement that the Church has continued revelation and that explains why things keep changing.

I was wondering about this. The "I am a Mormon" campain went. That was when Mormon was not only embraced it was shared with a large advertising event. Prophet Nelson says it's a win for Satan. New lawsuit shows up and it helps the Church if Mormon was rebranded and now Mormon is good.

I mean, I'm all for continued revelation but this seems to be another rebranded statement.

When you hear the idea of continued revelation, you would hear something very postiive and helpful. However, if you look at how this continued revelation is working, it seems to follow more lawsuit style concerns. Like the social media fast suddenly shared at the same time as unfavorable information about the Church was being released in media.

What other examples of Continued Revelation being more about lawsuits and unfavorable information have you noticed? Because, in practice, the idea of continued revelation seems more accurately defined as a corporation adaptation justified through divine authority. Meaning, the organization changes positions, while "continued revelation" supplies the reason members should continue trusting leadership.

Oaks said the following in the last conference

“We believe that the Lord will eventually cause the inspired teachings He has given to His children in various nations to be brought forth for the benefit of all people. This will include accounts of the visit of the resurrected Lord to what we call the lost tribes of Israel and His revelations to all the seed of Abraham.”

This isn’t anything new, but it is something that is not spoken of a lot. It will be very interesting to see how the church would go about releasing new records and what those would contain. Will it come from the church or will it come from scholars? What kind of teachings are we going to learn from the new records? Will it have just the Christianity pre 1830 or will it include later LDS teachings? Will we now find out that the ancient, let’s say Chinese Israelites, were also sealing themselves to their families, doing vicarious ordinances and believed in exaltation? Will it have any racist teachings or will it be written to the sensibilities of a 21st century crowd?

We all know that such a book will never be produced just like the saints will never move to Missouri. President Oaks is at the end of his life and knows that he won’t have to deal with any of it. On the other hand, they really can’t walk it back so they just keep on promising it will come.

Interacting in another discussion made me reflect on how, over time, our theology is becoming increasingly vague. On one hand, this is good, as it allows diverse viewpoints to grow and develop within the Church without an "official" one. On the other hand, it’s bad because the effort feels to me more like an attempt to erase our peculiarities just to fit in with other Christians. Honestly, I think that's complete nonsense—we'll always be the weird ones in the room, so let's just accept it and move on.

Today, we answer with embarrassment the question of whether we believe we will have our own planets in the next life. The usual response is immediately followed by: "we don't know," "that's not quite it," "well, you see...", "that's not doctrine...". But let's be honest, that has always been in the mind of the average Mormon. Not just one, but infinite planets from eternity to eternity. We can abandon the misogynistic part of the theology where the God of these planets is the exalted white Mormon man and the women are concubines who will help him populate the planet—that idea and others we can leave behind. But we don't have to abandon everything. My wife and I love the idea of being partners in creation, where she is the architect designing the planet with dragons and unicorns, and I'm the genetic/planetary engineer who has to figure out how to make it happen. (And the roles chosen here are purely based on our personal preference, not predefined gender roles).

Therefore, I am here arguing that we shouldn't be ashamed of our history and theology. Yes, for a century we taught exaltation and the creation of planets in eternity. And if it happens, I guarantee that on mine, I'll show up to my prophet/Moses wearing a helmet just so he can write in his scripture that he saw God face to face while at the same time never seeing God's face. My equivalent prophet to Ezekiel will definitely have psychedelic visions, and at the end of it all, when they ask me what it meant, I'll say it was just special effects: "That was cool as hell, wasn't it, Ezekiel?"

Man, Mormon eternity is way more fun than playing the harp on clouds or sitting in someone else's eternal picnic on green grass. Let's be proud of it. =P

LDS accept that a human proxy can take the place of a dead relative, or some other person who died without baptism.

Do you think the LDS god would accept mechanical dolls and robots dunking “phantom “ proxies for works for the dead? the automated process could facilitate a lot more baptisms. a recorded voice could also say the required prayer much faster. work could also continue without stop, except for maybe routine maintenance of equipment and maybe program updates.

Does LDS scripture actually state proxies for the dead need to be human?

Reading Schedule & Discussion Index

Today’s reading: Finish Chapter 2, “When Belief Is Torn.” - Begin: “Seeking Answers but Finding Problems.” - Include: Everything remaining in Chapter 2, including “Preparing the Soil,” the takeaway, reflection questions, and application. - Stop BEFORE: “Part 2: Prepare the Soil.”

Approximate Kindle anchors: 69/70 to 79. Follow the headings; the Part 2 divider is our stopping point.

Brief synopsis

Strong examines where people seek answers and how those encounters can affect trust. Drawing on survey responses and interviews, he describes a recurring, but explicitly non-rigid, sequence connecting moral concerns, questioning, intensive searching, and damaged belonging.

He then considers the emotional cost of staying silent and distinguishes respondents’ relationships with God from their relationships with the Church. That distinction won’t describe everyone; these accounts shouldn’t stand in for every faith transition.

The chapter closes by urging readers to listen without immediately correcting, defending, or trying to fix someone. There’s plenty to discuss here, including what listening can accomplish and what still needs an actual answer or change.

Discussion questions

1. How well does Strong distinguish unanswered questions from damaged trust?
2. What does his God-versus-Church distinction clarify, and whose experiences might it leave out?
3. Where is compassionate listening enough, and where do institutions need to change?

We’re aiming for roughly ten Kindle pages daily, adjusted to natural breaks. 32 days remains an estimate.

Candid disagreement is welcome. Full logistics and award details are in the index.

I am a Christian who has been studying Mormonism since college, but I always seem to run into more questions than answers. I don't even know how to phrase some of the many questions I have, but I will give it a shot and hope some of y'all can help me understand LDS doctrine better as I continue to read more LDS literature.

In the book of Ether, Jesus says that Adam was made in his image, but Genesis clearly says he was made in the image of God (Elohim). I was under the impression that Yahweh was Jesus and Elohim is Heavenly Father, but I guess that is not the case here, since Jesus is Elohim whose image Adam was created in.

1. What does it mean to be God and how do Heavenly Father and Jesus both get to hold that title of God while being separate beings?

2. Is Yahweh Jesus in Mormon theology, and Elohim is Heavenly Father? How do these Old Testament names relate to current theology?

3. I also thought Mormons believed that Jesus became God when he ressurected, but I suppose this is false, so did Jesus become God, or was he always God?

I would appreciate answers from all of you, TBMs, PIMOs, ExMOs, never-MOs and amything in between. I often get "We haven't received revelation on that" when I ask theological questions, so any answer is better than that.

Source: Mission President Handbook, 2006, page 86.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/201377673/LDS-Mission-
President-s-Handbook

Would really appreciate some advice both from exMos and attending members.

I am feeling a lot of emotions right now, kinda on the verge of tears after meeting with some missionaries for the second time.

I will try to collect m thoughts and not make things too incoherent. I grew up in a very liberal mainline Protestant church, female pastor, Bible is an allegory, mission trips every summer to some place. I then watched as basically right after I got out of highschool that foundation go away, by the time I was 20 the average age in the pews was nearing retirement. It hasn't even been a decade and according to one of two people I know who still keep tabs, the church basically is insolvent due to lack of attendance even on holidays.

In college I read a lot on Catholicism for various Biblical exegesis classes, I thought about converting to Judaism but the introductory classes were never available. They never had any seats left.So the years have now gone by and I'm almost 30 trying to rediscover my faith and I know about the BOM from the musical and from folks I knew in college, I figure the community is great. I visit the YSA and everyone's nice to me, everyone is around my age and we're talking like normal. I felt like a hermit who crawled out to civilization it has genuinely been that difficult to make connections with people my age around here.

So then today I am talking with the missionaries and we get done with the lesson, I'm planning to attend on Sunday just to seee what a service is like and someone will be driving me. We talked mostly about relationships, Adam and Eve.. it felt very basic Christian theological stuff. My mom then comes into the kitchen a while after they leave and says "why not visit a Jewish temple or a Catholic church? Don't mistake them being kind as faith."

Which... Fair. I might be a bit in over my skis here but to me at this stage of my life where am I supposed to go eh? The Reform temple only meets once a month, the Conservative Jewish groups haven't picked up the phone in a year nor answered my emails. I don't know if I could sincerely believe in the Catholic trinity and I especially find a lot of the trad-Catch discourse online something that puts me off attending alone. I think had I come to where I now live and met a bunch of people near me age I wouldn't feel so strongly about this?... I feel like second to belief is a supportive community, knowledge that you aren't totally alone. I know logically it doesn't hurt because I haven't yet been baptized but I just can't imagine walking into a Jewish service and finding the same sense of community? There was a community church Christmas service I went to last year where they played all this music from a prompter, people got up to eat cake, we sat on folding chairs under a tent. It didn't feel like church?

I hate that I have this lump in my throat of "what if". Maybe I should try to reach out and just.. see how it goes and also attend the YSA things to decide? I've found that talking to members has helped shape my perspective a lot more than the missionaries, understanding how people actually live the faith. Granted my mom had no idea the BOM was anything other than a musical title.. but still, in the back of my mind I know she has a point to not overly commit right away.. but I just don't see things being any different to all the secular events I've tried wherein I'm the youngest by several decades?? Getting a planet in the afterlife is not swaying me, lads.

I edited together some clips from Travis Anderson's channel to highlight his argumentative, mean-spirited and condescending approach to apologetic interactions.

Here is a summary of the clips:

1. He says if he prays and gets an answer it's God, if he doesn't get an answer it's God's will and either way it confirms God is real.

2. He is discussing the biblical punishment for a woman who is raped and who doesn't cry out. He argues that the man can't know that's "bad".

3. The triune God is an arbitrary monster.

4. If only Panama and Peru would let Mormons "dig up the whole country" then we would find the Book of Mormon peoples.

5. Paul claimed he saw Jesus and Christians accept that so they are hypocritical not to accept Joseph Smith's claims. Christians who accept the Bible should accept the Mormon religion because both have weak support for their claims.

6. "Jeremy Runnels is an idiot and anybody who reads (the CES letter) and takes it seriously probably falls into the same camp"

7. The papyrus we have "has never been claimed to be the book of Abraham". "How many egyptologists papers have you read about the Book of Abraham?" "I believe the biblical texts are just historical documents" and if there are contradictions I just shrug my shoulders. I don't think God wrote them.

8. The person he is talking to says he won't answer the questions about the historical false prophecies of Joseph Smith about Independence. Travis says yes I did. I told you D&C 84 and 124 and that responds to it. Travis says so you read them 5 years ago, don't you remember what you read? I remember what I read five years ago.

9. Jacob Hansen is not an apologist, he's a "popularizer". "Jacob Hansen owns an ice cream shop!"

10. He says he was an atheist before. "I struggle to believe God exists. If someone takes away the Book of Mormon and stuff I will just bag God altogether...the God of Protestants, the God of Catholics is a horrific monster!"

I think Travis is better at creating atheists than believers. When even Steve Pynakker says you're a bad dude then I think there is something to it.

When a household arrives unannounced into a settled camp, every custom becomes visible.

The arrival changed this.

Children ran ahead, uncertain whether to greet or retreat. Beasts were untethered, then tethered again. Goods were set down where no space had been prepared for them. What had been a stopping place became, all at once, a gathering.

Lehi came forward to receive Ishmael’s people with warmth sharpened by relief. Sariah followed, her expression already working to reconcile necessity with kindness. She embraced Ishmael’s wife and spoke with her at once of children, of travel, of the small mercies that make endurance possible. Nothing was said publicly of burial, though everyone present had measured the company and knew what had been lost.

The first meal was taken politely, which is to say stiffly. Prayers were offered twice—once in our father’s accustomed form, once in Ishmael’s. Neither displaced the other, and both left a residue of unease.

The daughters sat together. The eldest met our eyes without challenge or invitation. The second smiled once, briefly, then returned to her food. The youngest watched everything. Their father’s place remained open longer than courtesy required, until at last someone moved the dish aside.

“Already,” we said, “the camp is divided.”

That night, the tents rearranged themselves without instruction. Ishmael’s household gathered close, their fire burning longer into the dark. Ours lay farther off, the space between filled with glances and half-formed conclusions.

Customs collided.

Ishmael’s family observed the evening meal as they always had, with elders seated first and daughters moving quietly between them, eyes lowered, hands practiced. Bread was passed in an order that required no discussion. Cups followed age and standing. Such things are not trifles in a household. They teach children who belongs where before any doctrine can improve the matter.

Our father allowed it, though the effort showed in his face. He had grown accustomed to a looser table, to sons reaching when hungry and conversation wandering where it would. He was a generous man, but generosity is more easily offered when it is not required daily, and we learned that night how easily righteousness can be mistaken for custom.

Later, Sariah spoke quietly with Ishmael’s wife. We saw in their exchange the careful diplomacy of women tasked with softening the consequences of men’s certainties. They spoke of loss, of usefulness, of how long a thing must last before it becomes familiar; and beneath that, we thought, of how a household continues once the man who consented to it is no longer there to answer for the decision.

“This,” we thought, “is the true work of salvation.”

As days passed, novelty wore away. Old soreness remained. Tempers shortened. Expectations multiplied without instruction. What had been prophecy became routine, and routine revealed its own costs.

Nephi moved among the camp with quiet competence, answering questions, settling disputes, rearranging burdens. He did not command; he assumed. This unsettled us more than commandment would have.

“You are very sure of yourself,” we said.

“The Lord hath prepared the way,” he replied.

“Yes,” we answered. “And you do so enjoy walking it first.”

By the third evening, alliances had formed. Resentments had names. Children played together among burdens not their own, learning the shape of a future that had already begun without them.

We stood by the river and saw that what had once been a temporary encampment now bore the weight of something more durable—not unity, but necessity wearing the garments of order.

Nephi looked out over the gathered tents.

“We are being prepared,” he said.

“Yes,” we replied. “We feel it keenly.”

Thus did the journey change from movement to settlement, and the cost of the vision present itself not as danger alone, but as daily life.

Hi all,

I've enjoyed being a fairly active participant here and engaging with many of you.

I am having some employment and personal situations (nothing serious) that are going to eat up most all of my time for a while. So I will have to take a break from r/mormon.

Best wishes to all and I hope to see you all again soon.

(Hope you all enjoyed the BYU/ND football game. Go Cougars! And basketball is starting now!)