Hmm. You sure? Leaks are a funny thing. Someone could "leak" your last year of emails and forge a few incriminating messages about your coke and hookers habit. The damage would be done before you get a chance to prove the forgery.
Most of it, especially churches, which get special tax and other governmental treatment, at least in the USA. The flip side is that we all need to be more forgiving and tolerant.
Government stuff should almost all be out in the open, way more than is currently. Remember: there's very few real state secrets, but there's a ton of nepotism, self-dealing, dunderheaded blunders, money laundering, fraud and corruption. My guess is that we'd be better off erring on the side of disclosing state secrets, than erring on the side of protecting all the other crimes that probably go on under the guise of state secrecy.
WikiLeaks won't publish the kind of leaks we're seeing because they're insignificant to the public interest. They are standard internal documents like those you'd expect to see in any organization.
The beliefs are batshit crazy, but in my personal experience, Mormons are consistently the nicest most welcoming people you'd ever meet. It makes me sad that the church leadership doesn't reflect that. :(
"Meekness" is encouraged among the faithful corpus.
I would agree that I have met many kind and decent members of the LDS church, but I have also seen how the Church urges families to threaten or enact shunning of their relatives who choose to leave the Church, and their forays into political activism are inhumane.
Fair enough. I grew up outside of Utah, and having spent a number of years living in Utah I must admit that it has people that haven't ever learned how to have a positive relationship with somebody of a different belief system. It's not nearly as big of a problem outside of Utah though.
There's a big difference between "some adherents do this" and "the Church urges and encourages [shunning]". The exact opposite is the case. The Church heartily discourages shunning and teaches people that their good example and continued friendliness is even more important for people who've gone off the path than people who are still on it, children and relatives not excluded.
Children taking foray outside of the faith's bounds is by no means rare. It happens all the time in Utah. Many faithful adults in Utah were such teenagers/young adults themselves and understand that patience and kindness will win the day and help the child find the path back.
Check anti-Mormon forums and they can't stop whining that, far from being shunned, publicly embarrassed, or harmed, the Church continues to send welcoming representatives to ask if they'd like to come back. They also regularly complain that their own family members continue to invite them back. I'm sure that can get annoying after you've made your wishes clear, but it's basically the opposite of shunning.
In my large extended Mormon family (14 aunts and uncles, over 50 first cousins, hundreds of second cousins, etc), probably 65-70% of them no longer practice the faith. I don't know of a single individual who has been shunned. Everyone continues to be welcome to all family functions, everyone continues to discuss and share. The process of someone leaving the faith is not easy and may be painful for both sides, but cutting off communication/shunning people is heavily discouraged, and it doesn't happen often.
Some faiths do require or encourage shunning, including Jehovah's Witnesses, whom Mormons are often confused with because both use door-to-door missionaries, but Mormonism is not one of them. It's a very important distinction.
I lived in Utah for a long time and worked with many mixed Mormon/non-Mormon groups. Everyone seems to get along very well and respect each other despite differing beliefs (with only a few very rare exceptions).
I have been a Mormon my entire life, and I have never once been told, or heard of anyone else being told, to shun anyone. In fact, Mormons believe that they should show love and respect towards everyone, including their enemies, and welcome everyone into their churches, regardless.
My family still talks to my sister despite the fact she left the Church. Sure, people will do stupid things when they feel hurt over loved ones rejecting something they hold dear, and there may be foolish local leaders who have given bad advice on the matter, but shunning is the opposite of what the Church teaches.
Would you shun (or, online, downvote) someone who chooses to behave in a way that you find abominable?
I'm not a Mormon, I don't believe what they believe, but AFAICT they are — most of the time, and in the modern era — behaving justly & reasonably according to their beliefs.
I come at this as an active Mormon, but I see a consistent effort on the part of the leadership to make it clear that shunning shouldn't happen. I definitely see individuals with issues on this, but I haven't seen it as institutional, even though I've had a number of family members leave the church.
As an exmo, I agree and for the most part I haven't been shunned. Several people unfriended me on Facebook but that was the worst of it for me. Others aren't always so fortunate, but with how many exmo's there are now it has made the transition a lot easier.
All universities have codes of conduct and expel students who violate them. Everyone who enrolls at BYU knows that BYU students are expected to behave in accordance with the Church's values while they're students. No one has a right to go to a specific university, much less a private one like BYU. Getting kicked out of BYU for breaking rules you'd explicitly and knowingly agreed to is not the same thing as shunning. I'm not seeing a problem here?
It's a tad more difficult when one realizes they don't believe in the church when they've already gone through most of BYU. Or break the Honor Code by coming out as gay or transgendered (and expressing themselves).
These individuals are not far enough to get a degree, but far enough so that they'd lose years of effort if they were to be kicked out. Depending on the situation, BYU doesn't allow you to keep your transcript for transference to another university, which is difficult enough as it is.
Maybe they believed in the church when they joined. Maybe they didn't and they were simply pressured in by family or friends (all of your Mormon friends are going to BYU, so why shouldn't you?)
I've seen the "kicked out and can't transfer" happen on two separate occasions, one of which was a good friend, from these policies and for differing reasons.
I'm aware that's simply how the rules work.
I'm saying the rules suck.
To these people, it seems like they're saying "You decided to be who you are and stop lying to everyone that you believe? Well good luck with life, because we're going to make it as difficult for you as possible."
Whereas, if they continued lying and went to church every week, and told the bishop "Yeah, I've paid full tithing. Yeah, I still believe in the Church.", they'd not have any of these problems. Dishonesty is being rewarded. It's not just the going to church. It's the requirement of belief, which can change over time and can screw people over that none of these other universities' codes of conducts would otherwise do (barring extreme circumstances).
Apparently there have been some recent changes, though, for people who leave the church while at BYU:
In Mormon doctrine it's not a sin to come out and be honest about your experiences with sexuality and gender identity. It is sinful to engage in homosexual behavior. One does not risk Church discipline (including expulsion from BYU) merely by discussing his or her feelings/"being honest".
You also don't have to be a believing Mormon to go to BYU. Non-members do have to pay a different rate for tuition and you do have to have a valid ecclesiastical endorsement from a bishop and stake president and be willing to adhere to the Honor Code, but otherwise it shouldn't be a problem to admit that you no longer believe (and IMO it's much healthier for everyone if people are honest about this). Resignation from the Church is a different matter than lost belief.
Whether one continues to believe or not, he/she should be willing and able to see through the contractual commitment made to the university when his/her beliefs were different. Commitments are not worth anything if you can just say "my beliefs changed; ergo, I am exempt."
We all have to put up with things that we've agreed to and no longer feel are beneficial to us, at least until the term of the agreement expires. I'd say a college student experiencing this is a good opportunity for character development that will serve the student well after graduation.
Ehh.... I come from a family with a long Mormon history dating back to at least 1837-39 (depending on source) with multiple divisions of the family migrating to Utah during the mid 19th century from the U.S. East Coast, England, and even Iceland for religious reasons. Point being it's a culture I'm a bit familiar with (I was born and raised in Utah myself). I am not Mormon myself, and never joined the church, though I did attend for some time.
I never felt any overt pressure from any family or friends to join the religion. Sure, some expressed disappointment, and certainly tried to nudge me that direction earlier in life. But I certainly was never ostracized or shunned in any way, even after it was clear I was not going to be a "prospect" for conversion (and yes, everyone gave up trying long ago).
I have heard one or two stories along the lines of your assertion. And I have known a family that were not the "nice, warmhearted" stereotype being painted generally here either: though the misery they inflicted was primary directed inward and belief was not the issue.
As much as I have come to find all religions at fundamental moral fault, it would be wrong not to say something here about a people, who in my experience, generally don't match what you're describing.
You might rethink that "batshit crazy." Mormon beliefs are your standard "God told prophet to write things down and start a church." No crazier than any other religion.
Elon Musk and his belief that "we're all living in a simulations" versus the religionist's belief that God created the world as a test or classroom?
Stephen Hawking and his belief that there may be super-intelligent life forms out there that may destroy humanity versus the religionist's belief of an omniscient God that will return and destroy humanity?
Richard Dawkins when he tweets "Suppose your descendant migrates to Mars, whose colony then loses contact with Earth. You could be ancestor of all on Mars, none on Earth." versus the religionist's story of Adam and Eve?
One of the big differences: Mormonism was created in the historical age, there are newspaper accounts[1] of Joseph Smith and his antics. It's harder pill to swallow when your myths are concocted after the Age of Reason, rather than in the swirling mists of "the before time".
But, as others have mentioned, with only one exception, every Mormon I've met has been kind, honest, hard-working (with an emphasis on thrift and education) and polite. Whatever the nutty origins and strictures (no tea or coffee, but Diet Coke is ok?) of their beliefs, I have a lot of respect for the people who come out of the system.
As a fairly active Mormon... I'm curious what you see as the difference between the leaders and the people. I would think most of the Mormons you know support most of the things you find distasteful in the leaders.
(Edit: I don't mean to say the nice Mormons are secretly as horrible as you think the leaders are, although that's one possible conclusion. Just trying to figure out how a group of supposedly-vile leaders so consistently produces supposedly-great people.)
Well, I've never had interactions with the leadership, or at least not anyone more senior that holding some sort of small leadership position in a local temple. My experience with "church leadership" is just from reading the news or leaks. And since it's news, it's pretty much all negative.
And with the Mormons I meet in real life I try pretty hard not to get into theological or controversial topics. This is the same way I'd treat anybody else in real life, so maybe the Mormons I meet hold some horrific views that would disgust me? All the better that I don't get into that with acquaintances.
I'm just trying to comment on this very weird phenomenon that Mormons are unusually nice when compared to other groups of people. I don't know why this is. I'm speaking of my own personal experience here, but I know I'm not the only one who perceives this.
The jump cuts in that video are clear. The person who leaked these very likely had access to years and years of daily briefings (which is what these are, they're not discussions/deliberations as some try to claim), and yet was only able to select 15-ish (don't remember exactly how many) short, highly-edited clips to try to concoct a controversy. It didn't work because no one is surprised that a group of 80+-year-old men who preach that homosexuality is sinful are uncomfortable with homosexuality.
This is really the MO of these bitter ex-Mormon groups. They are constantly desperately trying to kick up controversies that just don't have any meat to them, purely out of personal spite. They then express surprise that people without a grudge are uninterested and they have to make their own fake Wikileaks because the real WL knows these standard internal documents are of no public interest.
> Yeah, let's focus on whether Chelsea Manning is gay or not. Really important. Very enlightened.
Chelsea being gay/gender dysphoric is quite relevant to the Chelsea story. It's one reason she joined the army (hoping masculine environment would resolve her dysphoria), it's one reason she was bullied by coworkers and felt unhappy and isolated (augmented by don't ask don't tell).
It was in that environment that Chelsea decided to leak.
The main reason we know Chelsea did the leak is because she confided in Adrian the rat Lamo because he was gay. (reasonable people can disagree whether Lamo was right to rat)
Also, the briefing is about its potential relevance to the Church. In recent years one of the most common reasons people become disassociated from the LDS church is their policies and teachings and political activism regarding homosexuality, it's also one of the biggest criticisms from the mainstream, so it is perfectly reasonable that if a church employee ends up leaking confidential information they stand a significant chance of being disgruntled over homosexual issues.
FWIW: I admire what Chelsea did with the leaks, am saddened that she was so poorly treated/tortured, think she should be pardoned, appreciate that reasonable people can disagree on this, am a believing Mormon, and think homosexual acts are sinful.
They've released 4 rather minor documents so far. It's a fine start.
However, they don't seem to even link to the documents from their website! You have to go to Facebook / Twitter and scroll until you find links...and the documents those links go to aren't self-hosted, making it easier for them to be removed by LDS complaints... Maybe not such a good start.
I wish them well in their goal of more transparency for the LDS church.
Of course they are nice, every salesman is nice to future prospects. They want you to join their cult.
In reality, the people of Utah consume the most anti-depressants in the US, teen suicide rates are among the highest in the country, and if you're not a straight, white, male, mormonism is a terrible environment.
Mormon from Iowa here. I see those behaviors much more among my non-religious friends than I do within the LDS Church, and some of my best LDS friends have been female, Asian, Brazilian, or African-American.
You've posted more than one religious flamewar comment in this thread. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do this on HN. Literal religious flamewars are the last thing this site needs.
As a Mormon, I have a hard time imagining this site being very interesting. Between fairmormon.org, lds.org, all the anti-Mormon sites, and the missionary duos, just waiting to knock on a door near you, I think the world already has a pretty clear view into the workings of the Mormon church, their history, and their beliefs.
Sure, the Mormon church "hides" things, but most of that stuff has to do with disciplinary councils, excommunications, when people were baptized, etc. I can't imagine knowing that Edgar Jones was baptized in 1953, or Deloris Canflap cheated on her husband, is going to make for a compelling web experience; but who knows?
I've often seen people get worked up over the for-profit businesses linked to the Church. Carefully structured leaks can make such businesses look shady, and inspire knee jerk reactions of people claiming tithing is used to build malls, and that somehow tax exempt status is magically extending to the businesses.
Yeah, that happens. People like to have their boogiemen to blame for everything in life that doesn't suit them. I do it too. Personally, I blame everything on Orrin Hatch.
@henrikschroder - Would you mind giving a citation that links Utah's issue of depression with Mormonism? After all, there are a lot of non-Mormons living there too.
Also, I couldn't find any statistics on just teen suicides, but according to CBSNews, Utah ranks 15th in suicide rates in the U.S. Alaska is #1 (http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/suicide-20-states-with-highe...). If you have better citations, could you please provide them?
Finally, I have several extended family members who are gay, and two of my best friends are gay (and active Mormons). My wife is Japanese. Several of my cousins are black, and I have two cousins who were adopted from India. I also have other relatives who are hispanic. In spite of all this non-white, non-straight, and non-male stuff going on in my life, I've never witnessed this "terrible environment" that you're talking about. Could you offer citations for that as well?
Be cautious in that subreddit. There are a lot of people with chips on their shoulders who are more interested in anti-mormon rhetoric than truth. I'd recommend r/mormon instead. It has a better mix of active and ex-mormons and the dialogue is more civil.
Perhaps you could help me understand how a bunch of anonymous rancor on Reddit acts as a citation that proves your previous commentary. I'm looking for a scholarly citation. Not opinion and blither.
It's funny, you just see anonymous rancor, but I see people finally breaking free from their shackles and stepping out into the light. It's truly beautiful.
I didn't ask your opinion, I asked you to cite your statements with scholarly citations. I'm utterly uninterested in your opinion. If you are unable to back up your commentary with documented facts, please say so, instead of flailing around in irrelevance.
Many statistics about Utah are skewed by either pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon bias. For several years, a "study" which used a single unidentified "top 10 paysite" as its source claimed that Utah was one of the largest consumers of paid online pornography in the country.
The study was debunked and mostly stopped being discussed after PornHub released by-state consumption statistics showing Utah ranking in the bottom 10. The author of the fraudulent study appeared to be unhappy about the Church's stance on Prop 8.
I would be hesitant to trust any statistics showing Utah as either unusually good or unusually bad.
Please don't comment like this here. It's uncivil to invoke intimate personal details as ammunition in an argument. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but if you're going to raise something like this, the burden is on you to show that you don't.
69 comments
[ 851 ms ] story [ 2279 ms ] threadGovernment stuff should almost all be out in the open, way more than is currently. Remember: there's very few real state secrets, but there's a ton of nepotism, self-dealing, dunderheaded blunders, money laundering, fraud and corruption. My guess is that we'd be better off erring on the side of disclosing state secrets, than erring on the side of protecting all the other crimes that probably go on under the guise of state secrecy.
I would agree that I have met many kind and decent members of the LDS church, but I have also seen how the Church urges families to threaten or enact shunning of their relatives who choose to leave the Church, and their forays into political activism are inhumane.
I also learned from native Utahns that they had been ostracized in high school for not being part of the LDS community.
It happens, we're all human. All we can try to do is do better. I did meet many fine folks there as well, among the best the world has to offer.
Children taking foray outside of the faith's bounds is by no means rare. It happens all the time in Utah. Many faithful adults in Utah were such teenagers/young adults themselves and understand that patience and kindness will win the day and help the child find the path back.
Check anti-Mormon forums and they can't stop whining that, far from being shunned, publicly embarrassed, or harmed, the Church continues to send welcoming representatives to ask if they'd like to come back. They also regularly complain that their own family members continue to invite them back. I'm sure that can get annoying after you've made your wishes clear, but it's basically the opposite of shunning.
In my large extended Mormon family (14 aunts and uncles, over 50 first cousins, hundreds of second cousins, etc), probably 65-70% of them no longer practice the faith. I don't know of a single individual who has been shunned. Everyone continues to be welcome to all family functions, everyone continues to discuss and share. The process of someone leaving the faith is not easy and may be painful for both sides, but cutting off communication/shunning people is heavily discouraged, and it doesn't happen often.
Some faiths do require or encourage shunning, including Jehovah's Witnesses, whom Mormons are often confused with because both use door-to-door missionaries, but Mormonism is not one of them. It's a very important distinction.
I lived in Utah for a long time and worked with many mixed Mormon/non-Mormon groups. Everyone seems to get along very well and respect each other despite differing beliefs (with only a few very rare exceptions).
I'm not a Mormon, I don't believe what they believe, but AFAICT they are — most of the time, and in the modern era — behaving justly & reasonably according to their beliefs.
These individuals are not far enough to get a degree, but far enough so that they'd lose years of effort if they were to be kicked out. Depending on the situation, BYU doesn't allow you to keep your transcript for transference to another university, which is difficult enough as it is. Maybe they believed in the church when they joined. Maybe they didn't and they were simply pressured in by family or friends (all of your Mormon friends are going to BYU, so why shouldn't you?) I've seen the "kicked out and can't transfer" happen on two separate occasions, one of which was a good friend, from these policies and for differing reasons.
I'm aware that's simply how the rules work. I'm saying the rules suck. To these people, it seems like they're saying "You decided to be who you are and stop lying to everyone that you believe? Well good luck with life, because we're going to make it as difficult for you as possible." Whereas, if they continued lying and went to church every week, and told the bishop "Yeah, I've paid full tithing. Yeah, I still believe in the Church.", they'd not have any of these problems. Dishonesty is being rewarded. It's not just the going to church. It's the requirement of belief, which can change over time and can screw people over that none of these other universities' codes of conducts would otherwise do (barring extreme circumstances).
Apparently there have been some recent changes, though, for people who leave the church while at BYU:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865660524/BYU-adjusts-hon...
So that's better. Not great, but better.
You also don't have to be a believing Mormon to go to BYU. Non-members do have to pay a different rate for tuition and you do have to have a valid ecclesiastical endorsement from a bishop and stake president and be willing to adhere to the Honor Code, but otherwise it shouldn't be a problem to admit that you no longer believe (and IMO it's much healthier for everyone if people are honest about this). Resignation from the Church is a different matter than lost belief.
Whether one continues to believe or not, he/she should be willing and able to see through the contractual commitment made to the university when his/her beliefs were different. Commitments are not worth anything if you can just say "my beliefs changed; ergo, I am exempt."
We all have to put up with things that we've agreed to and no longer feel are beneficial to us, at least until the term of the agreement expires. I'd say a college student experiencing this is a good opportunity for character development that will serve the student well after graduation.
I never felt any overt pressure from any family or friends to join the religion. Sure, some expressed disappointment, and certainly tried to nudge me that direction earlier in life. But I certainly was never ostracized or shunned in any way, even after it was clear I was not going to be a "prospect" for conversion (and yes, everyone gave up trying long ago).
I have heard one or two stories along the lines of your assertion. And I have known a family that were not the "nice, warmhearted" stereotype being painted generally here either: though the misery they inflicted was primary directed inward and belief was not the issue.
As much as I have come to find all religions at fundamental moral fault, it would be wrong not to say something here about a people, who in my experience, generally don't match what you're describing.
Yea, I believe that's what I said.
Elon Musk and his belief that "we're all living in a simulations" versus the religionist's belief that God created the world as a test or classroom?
Stephen Hawking and his belief that there may be super-intelligent life forms out there that may destroy humanity versus the religionist's belief of an omniscient God that will return and destroy humanity?
Richard Dawkins when he tweets "Suppose your descendant migrates to Mars, whose colony then loses contact with Earth. You could be ancestor of all on Mars, none on Earth." versus the religionist's story of Adam and Eve?
But, as others have mentioned, with only one exception, every Mormon I've met has been kind, honest, hard-working (with an emphasis on thrift and education) and polite. Whatever the nutty origins and strictures (no tea or coffee, but Diet Coke is ok?) of their beliefs, I have a lot of respect for the people who come out of the system.
1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1893428?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...
(Edit: I don't mean to say the nice Mormons are secretly as horrible as you think the leaders are, although that's one possible conclusion. Just trying to figure out how a group of supposedly-vile leaders so consistently produces supposedly-great people.)
And with the Mormons I meet in real life I try pretty hard not to get into theological or controversial topics. This is the same way I'd treat anybody else in real life, so maybe the Mormons I meet hold some horrific views that would disgust me? All the better that I don't get into that with acquaintances.
I'm just trying to comment on this very weird phenomenon that Mormons are unusually nice when compared to other groups of people. I don't know why this is. I'm speaking of my own personal experience here, but I know I'm not the only one who perceives this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpVh24_wGoY
Yeah, let's focus on whether Chelsea Manning is gay or not. Really important. Very enlightened.
This is really the MO of these bitter ex-Mormon groups. They are constantly desperately trying to kick up controversies that just don't have any meat to them, purely out of personal spite. They then express surprise that people without a grudge are uninterested and they have to make their own fake Wikileaks because the real WL knows these standard internal documents are of no public interest.
Chelsea being gay/gender dysphoric is quite relevant to the Chelsea story. It's one reason she joined the army (hoping masculine environment would resolve her dysphoria), it's one reason she was bullied by coworkers and felt unhappy and isolated (augmented by don't ask don't tell).
It was in that environment that Chelsea decided to leak.
The main reason we know Chelsea did the leak is because she confided in Adrian the rat Lamo because he was gay. (reasonable people can disagree whether Lamo was right to rat)
Also, the briefing is about its potential relevance to the Church. In recent years one of the most common reasons people become disassociated from the LDS church is their policies and teachings and political activism regarding homosexuality, it's also one of the biggest criticisms from the mainstream, so it is perfectly reasonable that if a church employee ends up leaking confidential information they stand a significant chance of being disgruntled over homosexual issues.
FWIW: I admire what Chelsea did with the leaks, am saddened that she was so poorly treated/tortured, think she should be pardoned, appreciate that reasonable people can disagree on this, am a believing Mormon, and think homosexual acts are sinful.
However, they don't seem to even link to the documents from their website! You have to go to Facebook / Twitter and scroll until you find links...and the documents those links go to aren't self-hosted, making it easier for them to be removed by LDS complaints... Maybe not such a good start.
I wish them well in their goal of more transparency for the LDS church.
In reality, the people of Utah consume the most anti-depressants in the US, teen suicide rates are among the highest in the country, and if you're not a straight, white, male, mormonism is a terrible environment.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13224646 and marked it off-topic.
Sure, the Mormon church "hides" things, but most of that stuff has to do with disciplinary councils, excommunications, when people were baptized, etc. I can't imagine knowing that Edgar Jones was baptized in 1953, or Deloris Canflap cheated on her husband, is going to make for a compelling web experience; but who knows?
Not sure if authentic history or minor Harry Potter character
The last I read, scientists believed that the mountain states suffered from depression due to altitude and thin air (http://www.livescience.com/50813-low-oxygen-increase-depress...)
Also, I couldn't find any statistics on just teen suicides, but according to CBSNews, Utah ranks 15th in suicide rates in the U.S. Alaska is #1 (http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/suicide-20-states-with-highe...). If you have better citations, could you please provide them?
Finally, I have several extended family members who are gay, and two of my best friends are gay (and active Mormons). My wife is Japanese. Several of my cousins are black, and I have two cousins who were adopted from India. I also have other relatives who are hispanic. In spite of all this non-white, non-straight, and non-male stuff going on in my life, I've never witnessed this "terrible environment" that you're talking about. Could you offer citations for that as well?
You'll get a lot of answers.
The study was debunked and mostly stopped being discussed after PornHub released by-state consumption statistics showing Utah ranking in the bottom 10. The author of the fraudulent study appeared to be unhappy about the Church's stance on Prop 8.
I would be hesitant to trust any statistics showing Utah as either unusually good or unusually bad.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/545v5n/leaks_mega...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/552yzo/update_on_...
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13226171 and marked it off-topic.