Episode 2: Internet vs. Chapel Mormons

In this episode we are talking with special guest Jason, aka “Dr. Shades”, about the Internet vs. Chapel Mormon dichotomy. You can see his webpage dealing with this topic at http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm. We discuss the distinction between internet and chapel Mormons, belief patterns in the Church today, orthodoxy, the influence of apologetics today, and the role of General Authorities. We also discuss the reception that Jason’s ideas have received in the Mormon world and particularly FAIR’s response to Jason’s theory.

Episode 2

76 comments on “Episode 2: Internet vs. Chapel Mormons”

  1. Chris Reply

    Very interesting discussions, guys. It was nice to have Jason explain his views. The discussion never actually got around to what I think is one of the more believable criticisms of the dichotomy, which is that not all Internet Mormons use the Internet, whereas some of the Chapel Mormons. Jason has elsewhere clarified that he chose the terms “chapel” and “internet” not because those are the *only* places where you will find each type of Mormonism espoused, but because they are “generally” where you will find each espoused. I think that’s a helpful caveat when using these categories. Anyway, thanks again for putting together these great podcasts!

  2. Chris Reply

    Very interesting discussions, guys. It was nice to have Jason explain his views. The discussion never actually got around to what I think is one of the more believable criticisms of the dichotomy, which is that not all Internet Mormons use the Internet, whereas some of the Chapel Mormons. Jason has elsewhere clarified that he chose the terms “chapel” and “internet” not because those are the *only* places where you will find each type of Mormonism espoused, but because they are “generally” where you will find each espoused. I think that’s a helpful caveat when using these categories. Anyway, thanks again for putting together these great podcasts!

  3. John Dehlin Reply

    He fellas. I’m happy to see a Mormon-themed podcast emerge. It’s been way to long.

    Congrats for your efforts.

    Someday I’d love to chat w/ you guys about your approach, assumptions, etc. Not sure how to do it, but I’d love to figure out a way.

    Just a few things for your wish list….

    I wish ya’ll could use your real, full names. It would make things a lot more credible and interesting (though I don’t mean to criticize…I know it’s a difficult thing to do (since I’ve done it)).

    Ya’ll REALLY need some diversity on your panel if you can muster it. Can’t you find any women to join in? I also wish you had at least one TBM on your panel, or at least a strong NOM or apologist. It would make your conversations (again) way more credible and interesting.

    Anyway, congrats. I appreciate your work. This is hard to do, so hats off to you.

    I look forward to tuning in occasionally.

  4. John Dehlin Reply

    He fellas. I’m happy to see a Mormon-themed podcast emerge. It’s been way to long.

    Congrats for your efforts.

    Someday I’d love to chat w/ you guys about your approach, assumptions, etc. Not sure how to do it, but I’d love to figure out a way.

    Just a few things for your wish list….

    I wish ya’ll could use your real, full names. It would make things a lot more credible and interesting (though I don’t mean to criticize…I know it’s a difficult thing to do (since I’ve done it)).

    Ya’ll REALLY need some diversity on your panel if you can muster it. Can’t you find any women to join in? I also wish you had at least one TBM on your panel, or at least a strong NOM or apologist. It would make your conversations (again) way more credible and interesting.

    Anyway, congrats. I appreciate your work. This is hard to do, so hats off to you.

    I look forward to tuning in occasionally.

  5. John Reply

    Thanks for the suggestions John. I will leave it to the guys to use their last names. Its a personal issue. They can talk to it, but I think it is mostly to protect their families rather than be anonymous.

    We are working on diversity. Hey, all my TBM friends out there, we need your voice. Same goes with you sisters!

    Anyway, in the next couple of casts will have more diversity.

    Thanks again for the suggestions.

  6. John Reply

    Thanks for the suggestions John. I will leave it to the guys to use their last names. Its a personal issue. They can talk to it, but I think it is mostly to protect their families rather than be anonymous.

    We are working on diversity. Hey, all my TBM friends out there, we need your voice. Same goes with you sisters!

    Anyway, in the next couple of casts will have more diversity.

    Thanks again for the suggestions.

  7. Tom Reply

    John Dehlin,

    I appreciate your comments and suggestions. And I would like to address your “wish list” a little bit. As far as using our full names, you know better than anyone what can happen to ones family when his or her identity is forever out there. As for me, I do actually see a day when I can be just as open as you and John Larsen are. You and John have earned my respect for that type of courage, but I simply cannot do that right now. I hope you don’t think I’m a coward, but I have my family to think about.

    We have already addressed the female issue and don’t think that John hasn’t asked multiple females to participate. You should feel confident that you will hear a female sooner than later on the podcast.

    As far as the TBM/Apologist/NOM on the panel goes. John has invited TBM’s on and we are planning on getting an Apologist as a guest in the future. But to your NOM accusation, I consider myself a NOM, a strong NOM in fact. Now maybe you don’t think I’m NOM enough I guess, but I’m not sure what qualifications I would need to set your mind at ease. I attend church actively and currently have a calling. What do you think I am missing? Am I not defending the church enough in the podcasts? Am I too sympathetic to the opposing view? I am very sympathetic and do understand John, Jim & Nyal’s position. While I don’t agree with some of the things that are said, I think that often their point is vaild and deserves to be heard without me interuppting them.

    I appreciate your comments and suggestions. Considering your work with mormonstories I really do appreciate your feedback.

    -Tom

  8. Tom Reply

    John Dehlin,

    I appreciate your comments and suggestions. And I would like to address your “wish list” a little bit. As far as using our full names, you know better than anyone what can happen to ones family when his or her identity is forever out there. As for me, I do actually see a day when I can be just as open as you and John Larsen are. You and John have earned my respect for that type of courage, but I simply cannot do that right now. I hope you don’t think I’m a coward, but I have my family to think about.

    We have already addressed the female issue and don’t think that John hasn’t asked multiple females to participate. You should feel confident that you will hear a female sooner than later on the podcast.

    As far as the TBM/Apologist/NOM on the panel goes. John has invited TBM’s on and we are planning on getting an Apologist as a guest in the future. But to your NOM accusation, I consider myself a NOM, a strong NOM in fact. Now maybe you don’t think I’m NOM enough I guess, but I’m not sure what qualifications I would need to set your mind at ease. I attend church actively and currently have a calling. What do you think I am missing? Am I not defending the church enough in the podcasts? Am I too sympathetic to the opposing view? I am very sympathetic and do understand John, Jim & Nyal’s position. While I don’t agree with some of the things that are said, I think that often their point is vaild and deserves to be heard without me interuppting them.

    I appreciate your comments and suggestions. Considering your work with mormonstories I really do appreciate your feedback.

    -Tom

  9. Tom Reply

    John Dehlin,

    I appreciate your comments and suggestions. And I would like to address your “wish list” a little bit. As far as using our full names, you know better than anyone what can happen to ones family when his or her identity is forever out there. As for me, I do actually see a day when I can be just as open as you and John Larsen are. You and John have earned my respect for that type of courage, but I simply cannot do that right now. I hope you don’t think I’m a coward, but I have my family to think about.

    We have already addressed the female issue and don’t think that John hasn’t asked multiple females to participate. You should feel confident that you will hear a female sooner than later on the podcast.

    As far as the TBM/Apologist/NOM on the panel goes. John has invited TBM’s on and we are planning on getting an Apologist as a guest in the future. But to your NOM accusation, I consider myself a NOM, a strong NOM in fact. Now maybe you don’t think I’m NOM enough I guess, but I’m not sure what qualifications I would need to set your mind at ease. I attend church actively and currently have a calling. What do you think I am missing? Am I not defending the church enough in the podcasts? Am I too sympathetic to the opposing view? I am very sympathetic and do understand John, Jim & Nyal’s position. While I don’t agree with some of the things that are said, I think that often their point is vaild and deserves to be heard without me interuppting them.

    I appreciate your comments and suggestions. Considering your work with mormonstories I really do appreciate your feedback.

    -Tom

    • John Dehlin Reply

      Tom,

      I’ve only listened to 2 episodes, so it’s probably too early to really opine (my bad).

      It does sound at times like a lot of folks who generally agree with each other, which is fine. It’s all about what your goals are. But I’d love to hear someone call the other guys (the critics) on their generalizations and oversimplifications sometimes. It would just make for more interesting listening to have stronger variation of opinion. You need a Mike Ash or a Kevin Barney or a Blake Ostler as a regular panelist. That’s what I think.

      But again — my major message is…kudos to ya’ll for stepping up.

  10. John Dehlin Reply

    Tom,

    I’ve only listened to 2 episodes, so it’s probably too early to really opine (my bad).

    It does sound at times like a lot of folks who generally agree with each other, which is fine. It’s all about what your goals are. But I’d love to hear someone call the other guys (the critics) on their generalizations and oversimplifications sometimes. It would just make for more interesting listening to have stronger variation of opinion. You need a Mike Ash or a Kevin Barney or a Blake Ostler as a regular panelist. That’s what I think.

    But again — my major message is…kudos to ya’ll for stepping up.

  11. John Dehlin Reply

    Tom,

    I’ve only listened to 2 episodes, so it’s probably too early to really opine (my bad).

    It does sound at times like a lot of folks who generally agree with each other, which is fine. It’s all about what your goals are. But I’d love to hear someone call the other guys (the critics) on their generalizations and oversimplifications sometimes. It would just make for more interesting listening to have stronger variation of opinion. You need a Mike Ash or a Kevin Barney or a Blake Ostler as a regular panelist. That’s what I think.

    But again — my major message is…kudos to ya’ll for stepping up.

  12. Andrew S. Reply

    I agree that things seem kinda one-sided without a TBM/apologist on hand, but then again, I also understand that a podcast can go in whatever direction it wants. just depends on what you’re trying to do.

    I think this is an interesting issue, because without having names for the two “groups” (internet Mormon vs. chapel Mormon), it seemed *intrinsically* true that there was a tremendous difference between the groups. Not even specifically discussing apologists (although I see how the distinction is particularly solid for them), what interested me about the Bloggernacle precisely was the difference. I noticed the difference immediately after going to By Common Consent. and I mean, BCC and T&S aren’t some disaffected or new order mormon blogs. But I noticed that with BCC or Mormon Matters (hi John Dehlin!) or T&S, you had people who are definitely practicing and believing faithfully, but in a vastly different way than what is off-putting and…empty…about what is taught in the chapel.

    Not saying it makes me believe more, but it’s more interesting to me to hear what the latest apologist answer is or talk to people through the Bloggernacle and hear their thoughts on doctrinal issues. It’s “fuller” or has more “volume” than what often goes out in a church meeting.

    And I get the sense that no matter how much any particular “internet Mormon” might want to talk about how we all could have the same experience in the chapel or every Sunday, it doesn’t seem like that could happen. It seems like it would be rare and would be dependent on certain people. Whereas, when you go to any bloggernacle blog, you get it.

  13. Andrew S. Reply

    I agree that things seem kinda one-sided without a TBM/apologist on hand, but then again, I also understand that a podcast can go in whatever direction it wants. just depends on what you’re trying to do.

    I think this is an interesting issue, because without having names for the two “groups” (internet Mormon vs. chapel Mormon), it seemed *intrinsically* true that there was a tremendous difference between the groups. Not even specifically discussing apologists (although I see how the distinction is particularly solid for them), what interested me about the Bloggernacle precisely was the difference. I noticed the difference immediately after going to By Common Consent. and I mean, BCC and T&S aren’t some disaffected or new order mormon blogs. But I noticed that with BCC or Mormon Matters (hi John Dehlin!) or T&S, you had people who are definitely practicing and believing faithfully, but in a vastly different way than what is off-putting and…empty…about what is taught in the chapel.

    Not saying it makes me believe more, but it’s more interesting to me to hear what the latest apologist answer is or talk to people through the Bloggernacle and hear their thoughts on doctrinal issues. It’s “fuller” or has more “volume” than what often goes out in a church meeting.

    And I get the sense that no matter how much any particular “internet Mormon” might want to talk about how we all could have the same experience in the chapel or every Sunday, it doesn’t seem like that could happen. It seems like it would be rare and would be dependent on certain people. Whereas, when you go to any bloggernacle blog, you get it.

  14. Andrew S. Reply

    I agree that things seem kinda one-sided without a TBM/apologist on hand, but then again, I also understand that a podcast can go in whatever direction it wants. just depends on what you’re trying to do.

    I think this is an interesting issue, because without having names for the two “groups” (internet Mormon vs. chapel Mormon), it seemed *intrinsically* true that there was a tremendous difference between the groups. Not even specifically discussing apologists (although I see how the distinction is particularly solid for them), what interested me about the Bloggernacle precisely was the difference. I noticed the difference immediately after going to By Common Consent. and I mean, BCC and T&S aren’t some disaffected or new order mormon blogs. But I noticed that with BCC or Mormon Matters (hi John Dehlin!) or T&S, you had people who are definitely practicing and believing faithfully, but in a vastly different way than what is off-putting and…empty…about what is taught in the chapel.

    Not saying it makes me believe more, but it’s more interesting to me to hear what the latest apologist answer is or talk to people through the Bloggernacle and hear their thoughts on doctrinal issues. It’s “fuller” or has more “volume” than what often goes out in a church meeting.

    And I get the sense that no matter how much any particular “internet Mormon” might want to talk about how we all could have the same experience in the chapel or every Sunday, it doesn’t seem like that could happen. It seems like it would be rare and would be dependent on certain people. Whereas, when you go to any bloggernacle blog, you get it.

  15. Andrew S. Reply

    Just had a thought.

    I think the reason FAIR and others denounce this is because Dr. Shades makes the bold claim (to highlight the starkness of things) that “there are two different religions.” At face value (and even at value to create the effect it needs to), it *does* have to suggest that one or the other kind of “Mormon” isn’t a true Mormon…Dr. Shades generally wants to show that internet Mormons aren’t “true” Mormons because they imply that the General Authorities are unlearned, ignorant, etc.,

    So, for FAIR (which is being aimed at primarily) to try to refute this is not surprising. And for FAIR to try to play it as a “false dilemma” or “false dichotomy” (one that goes so far as to suggest that FAIR’s apologetics imply the brethren to be unlearned, ignorant, or unreliable) is also not surprising.

  16. Andrew S. Reply

    Just had a thought.

    I think the reason FAIR and others denounce this is because Dr. Shades makes the bold claim (to highlight the starkness of things) that “there are two different religions.” At face value (and even at value to create the effect it needs to), it *does* have to suggest that one or the other kind of “Mormon” isn’t a true Mormon…Dr. Shades generally wants to show that internet Mormons aren’t “true” Mormons because they imply that the General Authorities are unlearned, ignorant, etc.,

    So, for FAIR (which is being aimed at primarily) to try to refute this is not surprising. And for FAIR to try to play it as a “false dilemma” or “false dichotomy” (one that goes so far as to suggest that FAIR’s apologetics imply the brethren to be unlearned, ignorant, or unreliable) is also not surprising.

  17. Andrew S. Reply

    Just had a thought.

    I think the reason FAIR and others denounce this is because Dr. Shades makes the bold claim (to highlight the starkness of things) that “there are two different religions.” At face value (and even at value to create the effect it needs to), it *does* have to suggest that one or the other kind of “Mormon” isn’t a true Mormon…Dr. Shades generally wants to show that internet Mormons aren’t “true” Mormons because they imply that the General Authorities are unlearned, ignorant, etc.,

    So, for FAIR (which is being aimed at primarily) to try to refute this is not surprising. And for FAIR to try to play it as a “false dilemma” or “false dichotomy” (one that goes so far as to suggest that FAIR’s apologetics imply the brethren to be unlearned, ignorant, or unreliable) is also not surprising.

  18. Dr. Shades Reply

    I had a FANTASTIC time recording this podcast. Thanks for having me on, John!

    And thanks to everyone else who has shared their comments here so far.

  19. Dr. Shades Reply

    I had a FANTASTIC time recording this podcast. Thanks for having me on, John!

    And thanks to everyone else who has shared their comments here so far.

  20. Dr. Shades Reply

    I had a FANTASTIC time recording this podcast. Thanks for having me on, John!

    And thanks to everyone else who has shared their comments here so far.

  21. Swearing Elder Reply

    Fascinating discussion. I noticed this Interent/Chapel dichotomy and was pleased to hear this discussion and see someone who had created such a great description of this phenomenon.

  22. Swearing Elder Reply

    Fascinating discussion. I noticed this Interent/Chapel dichotomy and was pleased to hear this discussion and see someone who had created such a great description of this phenomenon.

  23. John Reply

    I think that the internet Mormons and the chapel Mormons have constructed a feed back loop. An apologist comes up with a new “Lame” explanation for where Lehi landed and it starts to creep into the mainstream chapel types. The chapel types then spread the new explanation, it gets picked and watered down by the authorities and then the internet picks it up and causes it to further evolve.

    Religion works a lot like biological evolution. It probably more resembles punctuated equilibrium (long explanation, so I will go with natural selection). As new adaptations are found to be beneficial they are adopted. Old adaptations that may have worked in the past but no longer work are cast aside. Like evolution though, the cast aside adaptation usually sticks around for a long time and causes problems, think the human appendix.
    The same is true with the Church. It has a lot of bad adaptations that at one time led to tremendous growth and now cause infection and thus defection from the Church.

  24. John Reply

    I think that the internet Mormons and the chapel Mormons have constructed a feed back loop. An apologist comes up with a new “Lame” explanation for where Lehi landed and it starts to creep into the mainstream chapel types. The chapel types then spread the new explanation, it gets picked and watered down by the authorities and then the internet picks it up and causes it to further evolve.

    Religion works a lot like biological evolution. It probably more resembles punctuated equilibrium (long explanation, so I will go with natural selection). As new adaptations are found to be beneficial they are adopted. Old adaptations that may have worked in the past but no longer work are cast aside. Like evolution though, the cast aside adaptation usually sticks around for a long time and causes problems, think the human appendix.
    The same is true with the Church. It has a lot of bad adaptations that at one time led to tremendous growth and now cause infection and thus defection from the Church.

  25. John Reply

    I think that the internet Mormons and the chapel Mormons have constructed a feed back loop. An apologist comes up with a new “Lame” explanation for where Lehi landed and it starts to creep into the mainstream chapel types. The chapel types then spread the new explanation, it gets picked and watered down by the authorities and then the internet picks it up and causes it to further evolve.

    Religion works a lot like biological evolution. It probably more resembles punctuated equilibrium (long explanation, so I will go with natural selection). As new adaptations are found to be beneficial they are adopted. Old adaptations that may have worked in the past but no longer work are cast aside. Like evolution though, the cast aside adaptation usually sticks around for a long time and causes problems, think the human appendix.
    The same is true with the Church. It has a lot of bad adaptations that at one time led to tremendous growth and now cause infection and thus defection from the Church.

  26. Momlee8 Reply

    Excellent discussion! I’m very impressed by Troy and his current attitude towards the community.  It gives me hope.  🙂

  27. Elder Vader Reply

    I enjoyed this.  Thanks Troy for sharing your story.  I have got to say, keep on agitating.  I was totally one of those people out to save marriage from the gays.  I totally saw it as an us versus them thing.  But its really hard to think that way when you actually know somebody, and there is a face to go with the ‘them’.

  28. Chino_Blanco Reply

    Talk about bait-and-switch.  When I see an activist holding a megaphone, I expect to hear some amped up righteous indignation, not the kind of thoughtful, reasonable repartee on offer in this podcast.  🙂

  29. Kyle Harris Reply

    I loved Troy’s idea about a black lesbian in the quorum of the twelve. I could get behind that. You have to figure that if the church was that liberal that they wouldn’t really be dogmatic about anything by then.  

  30. Richard of Norway Reply

    So many great quotes in this one! Go Tom!

    “Tom one, veil nothing!”

    “You hear that ladies? The men get to lead you through!”

    “I don’t want God’s wrath on me, man!”

    I was Executive Secretary as well bro. Nice. 🙂

  31. Richard of Norway Reply

    Tom, what was your calling after High Counsel? (What was your calling when you went through the stuff with your Bishop?) When did the event occur with your Bishop and your resignation letter (which you ended up not sending in)?

    Sorry for so many posts but Tom is one of my favorite dudes and I can’t help myself. 🙂

  32. Anonymous Reply

    I loved this. Thanks Tom and Heather! Tom, I can’t imagine how much guts it must have taken for you to bear that “untestimony” at girls camp. I’m sure it was helpful for others to hear.

  33. Elder Vader Reply

    Tom — What do you mean you don’t fit in with Mormon Expression?  What does that even mean man?  I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way, but that was sad to hear.  Not that you’re leaving the podcast, I mean, I’m happy that you’re going whatever direction you want to take.  It just surprised me to hear you say that you didn’t fit in.  I don’t know how to say it. 

    • Tom Perry Reply

      There were lots of factors involved in my decision.  Saying that I didn’t fit in was the briefest explanation I could come up with on the spot. 

  34. Jack Rodwell Reply

    sad podcast to here.  i can relate . my mom was a devout Jehovah witness and took my sister and i to the kingdom hall four days a week.  i guess my mom and dad who have been married 30 years had a deal worked out . he was a capt. in the marines and would stay home and watch star trek and drink one tall boy while we were at the kingdom hall. saying church is a no no. but thats neither here nor there . mormons and Jehovah witness are arch rivals and think each others branch are the devil.  i grew up in sd and my mom would turn away whenever she saw the huge temple. she said Satan resided there . 

    my dad is now a meteorologist.  he never believed but went  on one day only. Passover .  he never put  his family in jeopardy over superficial matters. 
    let the wife and kids believe whatever they want. its not the worst thing in world .  its not worth a happy life which is your one and only  

    i am now a successful agnostic who has no idea what happens when you die but going to the kingdom hall taught me morals to be a good person and i wouldnt trade it for anything in the world. what else would i have been doing , playing video games?

    all the best.  cheers mate

  35. james hafen Reply

    Well, Tom you were always the voice on ME that I seemed to relate too the most.  You felt like the guy I could imagine sitting in the pew in front of me – and I think you and I have had similar paths and similar experiences.  

    For what it’s worth, I think your voice on the podcast is needed.  I know you need to do what you need for your family and ENTIRELY respect that but will hope to hear your name announced in the future when I queue up the latest and greatest from ME. 

    Good luck and mucho respect, friend. 

    • Tom Perry Reply

      James,

      I really appreciate the kind words.  As you said, you and I have tread very similar paths.  I’m very honored to call you a friend. 

      Keep in touch bro.

  36. Kris Fielding Reply

    *sigh* Sad to see you go Tom. You always brought a non-judgmental attitude and I thought you fit perfectly. And dude, you’re not a hypocrite, either. IMO, it’s admirable to do what’s best for your relationship by going to church but still do it with integrity.

    • Tom Perry Reply

      Thanks Kris.  I really appreciate the fact that you don’t think I’m a hypocrite.  As I said in the interview, I’ve been called that many times, but the toughest part is honestly feeling like one.  I can usually shake what people say about me, but to feel like one deep down inside is tough.

  37. Anonymous Reply

    Calling you a hypocrite is like calling a prisoner a squatter.  Anyone who calls you a hypocrite is either ignorant of what’s going on, insecure, or intellectually immature.

    One bone I want to pick with you is that when Heather asked you if you are an atheist now, your reaction was something like mine would be if someone asked me “are you sexually attracted to young boys?”  🙂

    If this truly is farewell, and I hope it’s not, I’m glad I was able to do one podcast with you and argue about the orcs.  

    • Steve Kimball Reply

      He was just being honest, go read the definition of a hypocrite.  I thought it was awesome he just said it. Sad, true, but very honest.  I was one for a long time I never could have just said it.

      • Anonymous Reply

        Steve, you didn’t need to start with such a condescending line.  I actually think I get what you’re saying and I don’t think you meant it in a harsh way but basically, everything FullyWashable said about morality and the inherent grayness of coming to moral decisions in many instances, Tom’s plight as the perfect example.  It’s not as black and white as you imply with this post.  

    • Tom Perry Reply

      Rannnndy.  One of my all time favorite atheists.  🙂 

      The word atheist stirs up a lot of negative emotions in the general public.  More than most like to admit.  So yeah, it did feel like Heather was asking me if I was attracted to young boys.  😉

  38. Hermes Reply

    Maybe the shift in tone that ME frets about is just the absence of Tom and Nyal.  Tom always seemed kind of positive to me, trying to paint church leaders in the best light (without ignoring problems).  Nyal was resoundingly negative (the anti-Tom).  Between them, John Larsen managed to create a middle space, challenging each without allowing himself to be vociferously pro- or anti-church.  But that balance is gone now, and ME strives to create another one (with John as the new, more nuanced Nyal?).

    I really like Tom, and I wish him well whatever he does.  Thanks for sharing your life with us Internet folk, Tom.  Happy trails!

    • Tom Perry Reply

      Thanks Hermes.  I tried to be positive as often as I could.  It is no easy job, that’s for sure.

  39. Oz Reply

    Tom, you’re the only one I felt could talk church AND sports…the perfect combo!!!!  You’ll be missed Tom.  Thank you, Thank you for opening up about your journey.  Good luck to you man!!!

    • Tom Perry Reply

      Thanks Oz.  I’ve always appreciated your comments and feedback. 
      Hopefully our paths will cross someday.

  40. Anonymous Reply

    Tom your story is legitimate and needs to be heard. For most people it isn’t practical or realistic to simply walk away from the church as if it didn’t exist, and I respect the path that you’ve taken. I’d love to hear from you again.

    • Tom Perry Reply

      Thanks.  I wouldn’t recommend the path that I’ve taken on anyone.  It is not easy or fun, but there are more important things at stake than my discomfort.  I appreciate your comment.

  41. Buffalog Reply

    Hey Tom, you’ll be missed. Your fights with Glenn were funny, and it was nice to have your “normal dude” perspective on things.

  42. Steve Kimball Reply

    Super nice job Tom.  I was one of the critics of a few things you said back in the day. I must admit regardless of the past you sound like a good guy that would be welcome at my campfire.  I wanted to say that as an investigator for 21 years I find it difficult to listen to people laboring and straining to compliment the perpetrator.  In a family with abuse you will find the same thing happening as you find with an LDS member who is leaving.  The victim of a very life altering lie is then faced with loved one’s and friends, and ward who abandon them to some extent and attack them for merely saying they were abused.  They defend the abuser, communication and shunning rule the day until the abused finally learns the only means of survival is to surrender and play along or pretend.  It is a sad thing.  Even mother’s defend their abusive husband usually its about a meal ticket and survival–but who needs a Mom like that, right. To Tom I would just say you and everyone has a right to be angry your world was turned upside down.  You have the right to speak your mind always.  There is life outside of the abusive family.  There is a future far better for you Tom then sitting biting your tongue sick in Church to please others. There are people who will love you for who you are, that is true love.  I know, I did it for years and have discovered it. A better life awaits you Tom with or without those supporting your abuser. And when I say this I am speaking to all who are in your shoes and all who have been there or might find themselves in the same loveless situation and know or will know love if they let go of people who do not fully accept them. Best wishes Tom. God, if your there, bless the USA and force the LDS church to come clean….(smile).

  43. Guest Reply

    Tom, is there a way to send you a private message?  Your story sounds so similar to mine and I wouldn’t mind getting your opinion on something.

  44. James Leverich Reply

    Tom you mentioned an Interview with 10 historians on the Mountain Meadow Massacre.. do you have a reference for that? Is it on youtube?

    • Tom Perry Reply

      I don’t know if the news clip I watched is currently on youtube or not.  The local news (I don’t even remember what station) were doing a report on the upcoming September Dawn movie and I remember it was a woman who was doing the report and all the historians were in a conference type room with her.  If it is online somewhere and I find it, I’ll pass it along.

  45. Justin Jensen Reply

    Tom,
    Many thanks for sharing your story.  I’ve always valued your contributions to the podcast.
    All the best!

  46. Michael Johnson Reply

    Tom, hope you change your mind. You’re insightful, funny and center the other contributors when they get carried away. Take care mate.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *