Clint Teeples

Rough day for the “Mormonism is dying” industry. Business has never been worse.

"In America's wealthy suburbs, it was the religious teens who were less likely to face the anxiety, depression, and substance abuse that consumed their classmates." Columbia psychologist Suniya Luthar spent her career studying at-risk teens in poor urban neighborhoods. She needed a comparison group, so she studied kids in affluent suburbs outside New York and San Francisco. The affluent kids were struggling. Elevated substance abuse. Elevated depression. Elevated anxiety. In one published study, suburban tenth graders showed higher substance abuse than inner-city students of the same age. Then the researchers measured one more thing. Faith. They asked the teens if religion or spirituality was important to them. Only 15 percent of the affluent teens said yes. That is less than a quarter of the national rate. Rich kids are four times less likely to have a spiritual life. Researchers then compared the 85 percent who did not value faith against the 15 percent who did. The faith group experienced: Lower rates of anxiety. Lower rates of depression. Lower rates of substance abuse. Lower rates of antisocial behavior. One researcher involved in the study took the findings a step further. She followed adults at high familial risk for depression for ten years. The ones who said faith was highly important to them were 90 percent less likely to experience major depression. Ninety percent. In the people whose family history made them most likely to get sick. Published in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Additional research validates this. Take the Latter-day Saints. In the most recent Pew Religious Landscape Study, they were found to be the most devout Christian group. They attend worship services at the highest rate of any major religious group and read scripture at the highest rate. They are also the most likely religious group to say they regularly feel a deep sense of peace and well-being. The same pattern shows up in study after study, decade after decade: You and your children are likely better off with faith.

Quote from Patrick Mason; Proclaim Peace

There is no such thing as enduring coercive power. Not for God. Not for humans. Neither in heaven nor on earth. Enduring influence, for both gods and mortals, can be established only through love because, at its core, enduring influence can be built only through trust. D&C 121

Pete Hegseth’s pastor wants a theocracy. He wants America to be Christian. In his theocracy, Latter-day Saints don’t qualify for office (voting is “to be determined,” how generous). Christian nationalism is a threat to religious liberty. For everyone.

@grok Interesting. Have other prominent non-Latter-day Saint religious figures or scholars expressed similar respect for Latter-day Saint leaders or the Church? Any documented examples?

Hey @grok why did Mr. Rogers compliment the head of the Mormon Church and tell him that he is a man inspired of God?

@BrysonDD Planting the Acorn by Grover

@TeeplesCY @TeeplesCY In which book is this found?

Reinhold Stoof visited Brazil in 1933 with a Church membership book with space for 2,000 names. One elder laughed and said the book would never be filled. Stoof said he would live long enough to see ten of the books filled. The elder died in 1967. Brazil had 27,000 members.

Why was I never taught about this chapel?

You’re right, “supports” was loose. Compressing two platforms into two sentences forced tradeoffs and that word carried more than it should have. I’d write it more carefully now. What I’d keep unchanged is the point. Both sides pursue good, both fall short, and faithful members belong in both.

@TeeplesCY “The other side supports mothers and kids…” what does support mean here? because I dont think it means the same as when the church supports those in need.

The reality is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans fully embrace what the Church teaches, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise. For example: One side fights for babies in the womb, then cuts programs that feed them once they’re born. Meanwhile American mothers die from pregnancy at the highest rate of any wealthy nation. The other side supports mothers and kids but denies any legal protection to the unborn. Both fall short. As the Church itself has stated, gospel principles can be found in more than one party. So when I vote, I ask two questions. Has this person demonstrated a willingness to live a moral and virtuous life? And can they negotiate with people who disagree to reach outcomes everyone can live together with? I will take a leader who seeks the common good and protects basic rights for all over one who chases absolute victory every time.

@JMohl_Montana @Thymeles24 @willennial Paraphrasing the First Presidency letter on political participation and President Oaks April 2021 general conference talk.

@TeeplesCY @Thymeles24 @willennial I agree the church doesn’t “back either party. But where do u find the part where the church states as policy “good exists in both parties”? Genuine question. I looked but couldn’t find it.

If people are mad reading my tweets, they will be furious when they read the handbook.

@PioneerPaperTrl Didn’t tweet that. Tweeted that neither party fully matches what the Church teaches and the Church endorses neither. Members who oppose welfare programs in good conscience are covered by that post, not condemned by it.

Definitely didn’t have clint tweeting that you’re unchristian and a poor Latter-day Saint if you don’t support welfare programs.

If you’re saying abortion is graver than a budget line, I agree, and the post doesn’t argue otherwise. What it argues is that no party gets to claim the Church, which is the Church’s own stated position. A party can be right about the gravest issue and still not be the gospel’s party.

@TeeplesCY Did you really just equate abortion with social programs? Bro

@JackMoCoalition I wasn’t trying to roast you or turn your post into an endorsement. It’s a genuinely interesting quote with a good story.

@TeeplesCY This wasn't an endorsement of the Republican party. x.com/i/status/20753…

First, I’m not here to convince anyone to vote for any party. Second, for the record, I’ve never voted for a Democrat (that doesn’t mean I’ve always voted for a Republican). Third, faithful Latter-day Saints vote for Democrats all the time. One of the most faithful men I know serves in a bishopric and is an active Democratic delegate. Fourth, the quote where Joseph swears he’ll never vote for a Democrat again is a paradox. Joseph declared himself a Whig in the same interview, then months later abandoned both parties and ran for president himself. His real conclusion was trust no party. Fifth, Utah’s first presidential vote went 80 percent Democrat, partly because the early GOP had spent decades prosecuting the Saints. Utah voted for FDR four times and didn’t lock in Republican until after 1964. Party loyalty always expires. The Church endorses neither for a reason.

@TheBodyguard777 @grok Hey @grok did Dr. Elizabeth Fenton teach a course at the University of Vermont analyzing the Book of Mormon as a complex and sophisticated work, as stated in the post?

@grok, please create a community note for this @TeeplesCY post. The historical claims of the Book of Mormon have never been verified using the same scientific methods applied to the Biblical text. It is important to clarify what those methods are and what the current scholarly consensus shows. Modern historians and textual scholars use a wide range of scientific and academic tools to authenticate ancient documents. These include radiocarbon dating, ink and pigment analysis, spectroscopic imaging, paleography, codicology, and comparative manuscript studies, all of which help determine the age, provenance, and transmission history of a text. These methods have been successfully applied to manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Judas, and other ancient works, providing objective, reproducible data about their origins. Archaeology also plays a central role in evaluating historical claims. When a text describes specific civilizations, technologies, plants, animals, or cultural practices, archaeologists look for corroborating physical evidence. In the case of the Book of Mormon, non‑LDS scholars universally regard it as a 19th‑century creation, noting that its narrative conflicts with established archaeological, historical, and scientific evidence regarding pre‑Columbian civilizations, flora, fauna, metallurgy, and technology. Despite decades of excavation and research in the Americas, no independent archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, or genetic evidence has ever verified the specific peoples, events, or civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. Mainstream archaeologists—including experts such as Michael D. Coe—report that there is no professionally trained non‑Mormon archaeologist who finds scientific justification for the book’s historical claims. While some LDS‑affiliated publications propose parallels or interpretations that they believe support the text, these claims are not accepted by the broader academic community and do not meet the evidentiary standards used in scientific manuscript authentication or archaeological verification. In summary: Scientific methods—including radiocarbon dating, material analysis, textual criticism, and archaeology—are well‑established tools for verifying ancient documents. These methods have authenticated many historical religious texts. However, no such method has ever produced verifiable evidence confirming the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon’s narrative, and the consensus of non‑LDS scholarship is that its claims remain unverified.

"Mormonism's critics said modern scholarship would dismantle the claims of the Church. That has not happened. Mormon studies is embraced in academia, and the claims look better with age." They assumed the claims would collapse under a microscope. The opposite happened. Mormon studies went mainstream. The world’s top academic publishers print it. Major universities teach it. Scholars outside the faith take it seriously. That was not supposed to happen. Take the Book of Mormon. Critics called it an obvious fraud, the work of a conman. Now serious scholars, including non-Latter-day Saints, analyze it as a complex and sophisticated work. Literary structure. Naming patterns. Ritual forms. The conman theory is dead. Take the theology. God with a body. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as separate beings. Critics called these ideas wildly unchristian. The Harvard Theological Review published the research showing many early Christians believed exactly these things, centuries before later councils ruled them out. Take the temple. Critics called it invented and bizarre. Then a Methodist biblical scholar built her career mapping ancient temple worship, and the parallels were hard to miss. Covenant-making. Ritual clothing. Symbolic progression. These patterns are ancient, not modern. Take the Book of Abraham. Long treated as the weakest link. Then ancient Abraham texts surfaced decades after Joseph Smith died, telling details of the same story. Details found nowhere in Genesis. A Yale scholar reviewed it and said it recaptures archaic Jewish religion with enormous validity. Whatever Joseph was doing, guessing doesn’t explain it. A frontier faith with a founder who had an elementary education and spent his life in near poverty was supposed to wither under modern scrutiny. Instead it earned a seat at the academic table.

I absolutely agree with you there. The Church’s welfare system is more personal, more accountable, and more effective any government programs. But preferring private charity to government aid is still a political judgment, and faithful can members hold both views. The Church backs neither party and says gospel principles live in both.

@TeeplesCY Perhaps you don’t understand Conservatism. Conservatives are likely to cut funding of certain programs bc they understand that those funds rarely reach the intended recipients. Churches and private orgs are much better at welfare than any govt org

@rachelle_morris A legend

AMERICA 250 + UTAH PIONEER DAY 🇺🇸: Eliza R. Snow Today I’m highlighting the most documented early Utah woman, who also happened to be an absolute force: Eliza R. Snow (1804–1887). A poet, schoolteacher, original Relief Society secretary and 2nd general president. Eliza was arguably the most influential woman in early Latter-day Saint history — “Zion’s Poetess.” (I promise I wrote the em dash!) Born in Becket, MA, Eliza moved as a toddler to Mantua, Ohio, where her father served as justice of the peace, and Eliza both worked as his secretary and published poems in local papers. In 1835 she was baptized in the LDS Church, moved to Kirtland, and donated her inheritance toward the Kirtland Temple. She taught school for Joseph Smith’s family and helped bring her brother Lorenzo into the faith (yes, her brother was THAT Lorenzo Snow). Eliza followed the Saints from Ohio to Missouri and on to Nauvoo, where she taught school and, in 1842, became founding secretary of the Female Relief Society, keeping the minutes that became its founding charter. She crossed the plains in the exodus, carrying that minute book from Nauvoo through Winter Quarters, and reached the Salt Lake Valley on October 2, 1847, writing the whole way. In 1866, Brigham Young called on Eliza to rebuild the Relief Society across the Utah territory. She spent two decades traveling ward to ward doing it. Under her leadership the Relief Society sent women to medical school, opened the Deseret Hospital, ran co-op stores, launched the Woman’s Exponent, and helped found the YLMIA and scale the Primary Association. “What is the object of the Female Relief Society?” she wrote. “I would reply — to do good — to bring into requisition every capacity we possess for doing good, not only in relieving the poor but in saving souls.” She also wrote 500+ poems and hymns, including “O My Father,” still sung today. Politically, Eliza Snow was a leading Utah suffragist. By her death in 1887, the Relief Society she rebuilt from a handful of Nauvoo minutes had grown to over 22,000 members in 400 congregations. Eliza Snow: leadership personified.