![\"Poussin's](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2025\/11\/640px-The_adoration_of_the_golden_calf_1633-36.jpg\")
<\/a>Have you watched any of The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives<\/em>? \u00a0I haven\u2019t. \u00a0I simply can\u2019t summon up any interest in it. \u00a0If you have, though, what do you think of Jana Riess\u2019s take on the show? \u00a0\u201cHow authentically Mormon are Hulu\u2019s \u2018Mormon Wives\u2019? \u2014 \u2018Secret Lives\u2019 offers an absurdly one-sided picture of Mormonism<\/a>. But it\u2019s also not fully wrong.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n And there\u2019s this, from The Washington Post<\/em>. \u00a0I confess to being mildly discouraged by its not entirely well-informed attitude toward my faith: \u201c\u2018The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives\u2019 is essential viewing. Seriously. \u00a0The soapy reality show is a perfect mirror of America\u2019s strange cultural moment.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Nearly three months ago, an anonymous (and anonymized) email was passed on to me that claimed to identify two of the regular pseudonymous participants on what I call the Peterson Obsession Board. \u00a0I don\u2019t know who sent it, I didn\u2019t ask for it, I can\u2019t reply to it, and I don\u2019t know how reliable it is. \u00a0In any case, my correspondent claimed to have based his or her findings upon data that s\/he had somehow acquired (presumably from the POB) and analyzed by means of AI. \u00a0First, my correspondent proposed an identity for my Mini-Stalker for which s\/he claimed 88% confidence. \u00a0My Mini-Stalker is obsessed with me, although the cause of his obsession has never been at all clear; so far as I\u2019m aware, I don\u2019t know the guy and have never met him \u2014 and the person identified in the email is nobody that I know. \u00a0With regard to another of the active participants there, my correspondent suggested an identification for which s\/he estimated a 70%+ probability of correctness. \u00a0I\u2019m disappointed if s\/he is accurate in the latter case, because the person that s\/he named is someone with whom \u2014 for several years, anyway \u2014 I was distantly but respectfully acquainted and from whom I would not have anticipated such unprofessional behavior and such shoddy and biased reasoning. \u00a0But maybe my secret informant is wrong? \u00a0I hope so.<\/p>\n Across the Church, yesterday\u2019s scripture reading for the \u201cCome, Follow Me\u201d curriculum included Doctrine and Covenants 132. \u00a0In that connection, you might have missed these two Meridian Magazine<\/em> articles from\u00a0Valerie M. Hudson:<\/p>\n And don\u2019t forget about this important contribution from the Interpreter Foundation: Paul Fields<\/a><\/span><\/span>, Steven T. Densley, Jr.<\/a><\/span><\/span>, Matthew Roper,<\/a><\/span><\/span> and Larry Bassist<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span>,\u00a0\u201cHistorical and Stylometric Evidence for the Authorship of Doctrine and Covenants 132.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Now, though, it\u2019s time for a couple of highly distasteful stories from the Christopher Hitchens Memorial \u201cHow Religion Poisons Everything\u201d File<\/em>\u2122:<\/p>\n And here is a pair of links that are relevant<\/em> to the Hitchens File<\/em>. \u00a0One is actually from<\/em> the Hitchens File<\/em>, while the other is, let\u2019s say, File<\/em>-adjacent. \u00a0I\u2019ll start first with the latter<\/a>, which drew some (understandably) very negative reactions in a number of circles. \u00a0(For examples, just read through a few of the comments to the link itself. \u00a0However, I saw very critical comments elsewhere before I ever saw these.)<\/p>\n The obvious problem with Nikalie Monroe\u2019s inquiry is that she called the wrong place. \u00a0She called the headquarters of the Tennessee Knoxville Mission, which is an office from which our proselyting efforts in the area are coordinated. \u00a0She did not know that local welfare matters are handled primarily by our bishops, in our local wards or congregations.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, too, she reached a missionary sister \u2014 whether a young sister or a senior missionary, I couldn\u2019t tell \u2014 who didn\u2019t handle the matter especially well (because she almost certainly had received no training for an inquiry of this kind). \u00a0Regrettably, the sister missionary didn\u2019t even express any empathy or, really, try to help. \u00a0She could, for instance, have assisted Ms. Monroe in reaching a local bishop. \u00a0She mentioned that bishops are the proper first contact in such cases, but she provided no idea about how to contact the appropriate local bishop. \u00a0And she kept explaining that Ms. Monroe had reached a \u201cmain office\u201d (which obviously made no sense to Ms. Monroe and makes little sense to me<\/em>) and even that it was a \u201cbusiness office,\u201d which sounds neither very charitable nor very religious.<\/p>\n If you scan through the comments that follow Ms. Monroe\u2019s short TikTok video, you\u2019ll see considerable misunderstanding of the Church\u2019s attitude toward welfare matters and charity \u2014 e.g., that we don\u2019t help people who aren\u2019t members of our church or, even, that we don\u2019t care for the poor at all<\/em>. \u00a0For a better understanding of what we do, this video, which is less than two minutes in length, is very helpful: \u00a0\u201cWelfare Facilities\u2014Bishops\u2019 Storehouse.\u201d<\/a> \u00a0And this\u00a0nine-minute video provides an excellent overview: \u00a0\u201cInside the Church\u2019s Massive Giving Operation.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 In the spirit of the Hitchens File<\/em>, though (which I\u2019ve been perilously close to abandoning<\/em> for the four paragraphs immediately above), the video demonstrates that, notwithstanding Nikalie Monroe\u2019s TikTok report, Latter-day Saint theists are<\/em> actually trying to meddle in the material lives of others, and pretty massively so.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/a>\n
<\/a>\n