Bishop clarence mcclendon divorce

This is something that bothers me every day. I talked to a guy for a few months all day every day. We met through instagram & he had no signs he was in a relationship. We FaceTimed for 4-5 hours and texted every day all day. I really thought all the heartache I had been through was worth it. Until my world came crashing down when a friend had showed me his hidden Facebook with wedding photos.. he has a huge following on tik tok and I don’t think anyone knows he’s married.. he never wears a ring or anything. I immediately confronted him and he said he told his wife & honestly I didn’t wanna create drama for him so I walked away.. I really really wanted him to be the one.. We got along so well.. he confessed to me he was kinda pushed to marry young & his family would never allow or accept him to divorce her (they are Mormon and that’s apparently not allowed there) he told me he was forced to talk to a bishop every day and work on his marriage.. I didn’t think he would pick me & I kinda hate that it’s been 6 months and I still think of him every day.. I hate that I miss a married man & sometimes hope they don’t work out.. I know that’s wrong & I know I didn’t know but knowing I was a mistress is hard.. & yet I’m still not mad at him.. I resist the urge to reach out to him every day… sometimes I want to just make a tik tok myself outing him and all he did to me.. but instead I just keep quiet & wish the best for him… I feel like I’m forever gonna be the girl that doesn’t get chosen.. I have such a huge heart and I fear I’m going to be forever alone..

Brothers and Sisters, thank you in advance for your comments and advice.
I am a lapsed Catholic. I grew up in the faith, under religious parents, had my Baptism near my birth, and First Communion, but I did not have a Confirmation. I regularly attended mass until around age 15. As teenagers often do, I stopped going in an act of rebellion, and because I left home at 16, I had nobody to really encourage me to go anymore. I went to different churches once or twice in the 10 years since, but never felt really called to anything, because in my mind Catholic doctrine and dogma was correct and I couldn't take other denominations seriously (this included Southern Baptists, LDS, Presbyterian, and Community of Friends/Quaker services).
During this time I grew into political positions and opinions that directly contradict the Church, so I segregated myself from faith because I knew my politics were incompatible with leading a Catholic life or attending mass. Specifically, I am a socialist (which I believe means I am excommunicated latae sententiae, as I was told by a relative), and I have no objections to abortion (though have not nor would I procure one myself) or the LGBTQ+ community (and have friends within it). I have not gone to confession for these opinions, because I did not know for certain that I would sincerely renounce them and repent, without which it would be sinful (as I understand it) to confess, do penance, and receive communion again without genuinely repenting and correcting the behavior.
I also married outside of the Church. My wedding was presided by a Presbyterian minister, because my spouse's family are Presbyterian. I have never received communion from a Presbyterian minister, and have only attended sermons as formalities. To top that off, I am now also in divorce proceedings.
I feel somewhat lost in life. My ex-wife has suggested I return to my faith, as she has taken refuge in hers, but I am sincerely worried about wasting a minister's time and more importantly sinning if I were to try to return without renouncing my beliefs, which I don't believe am ready to do. I have looked into CST and Liberation Theology, but I couldn't sincerely renounce my position on women's and sexual minority rights. Not to mention the (what I assume is) significant hurdle that it would be to explain that I married and divorced outside the Church. This has caused me great pain. I want to return to the Church, but I don't want to be insincere to either side of my beliefs. If I am to return to the fold, I want to, as some say, come correct.
I also worry that, were I to return, because I have been married once, I wouldn't be allowed to remarry - that is not in my plans for a long while, but it is a worry, as I would feel ashamed of robbing a Catholic woman of a Catholic wedding were I to get to that point.
Is there any hope for me in this situation? Should I go to my local priest, or write to my bishop/archbishop/the Holy See? I've been out of the fold for so long that I don't even know where to start.

Previous post
TLDR: My wife and I got married way too fast while at BYU. Over the past couple of months, she has wanted less and less to do with my faith transition and won't talk to me about it anymore.
I am still a BYU student and so it's dangerous for me to do anything drastic like stop going to church. She's noticed that I've stopped wearing garments and commented on it, but she doesn't like confrontation and hasn't brought it up again. I haven't told her that I've stopped paying tithing and started drinking coffee. We have started going to a BYU counselor, but I don't find it very productive because I don't trust him to not rat me out to the honor code office and so I won't admit to him the depth of my "questions" about the church.
I also feel like there's a mental wall that won't let me consider divorce, but deep down I feel like it might be the best option? I know how incredibly hard it would be but someone in my previous post commented:

It's FAR better to admit to yourself you made a mistake and end the marriage now than spend years trying to "fix" it only to have it fail anyway. The pain of divorce grows exponentially the longer you stay together.

I would hate to drag it out and just make it worse. Before this whole faith thing we weren't planning on having kids for a couple of years anyways, so that isn't an immediate issue, but it certainly would be down the road if we stay together. I would feel very conflicted with my kids attending church, being interviewed alone by grown men, and potentially going on missions.
I'm open to any advice or thoughts, especially from those who have gone through a divorce.
Edit: Thank you all for the advice. I just had a long discussion with her and came clean with coffee, tithing, and made it clear that I'm mentally out of the church. She was very understanding and it went well. The things that we disagree on the most are:

• What to teach our kids (if we have them)
  • She wants to teach things like marriage is only between a man and a women.
  • She also thinks if we're too accepting of gay people that our kids might turn gay. I tried explaining that that's not how it works
  • Our kids having interviews with the bishop
• Whether or not I can drink alcohol in the future
• Lately I have been only wearing garments to bed or only wearing the bottoms and not the top and she surprisingly told me to either wear them all the time or not at all. She even suggested that I buy some boxers so that's a win

IN an article, in the Tatwa Bodhini Patrika “The Essential Religion,” Babu Rajnarain Bose, the well known Brahmo, prefacing it with a quotation from Ramohun Roy’s Trust Deed of the Adi Brahmo Somaj, “which is an injunction, with regard to Strengthening the bonds of union between men of all religious persuasions, and creeds”—makes the following wise remarks.

We should regulate our conduct by keeping a constant eye upon the essentials of religion. We are apt to lose sight of them in the mists of sectarian prejudice, partiality and passion. We are apt to forget them in the heat of religious discussion, in the distraction of philosophical speculation, in the excitement of religious delight and in the engrossment of ceremonial observances. . . . We are so bent upon thrusting our own particular opinions on non-essential points of religion on others that we consider them to be essentially necessary for salvation. We are apt to forget that we ourselves are not infallible, that our own opinions on all subjects of human interest were not exactly the same twenty years ago as they are now, nor will they be exactly the same twenty years afterwards as they are now. We are apt to forget that all the members of our own sect or party, if they frankly reveal their whole minds, do not hold exactly the same opinions on all subjects concerning religion as we do. We are apt to forget that the religious opinions of man are subject to progress and they will not be the same a century afterwards as they are now. We, Theists, have as much right to say that men of other religions, less advanced in religious knowledge than we are, will not be saved, as Theists who will live centuries hence will have of saying that we, the present Theists, will not have been saved on account of our errors. Fallible man cannot with good grace be a dogmatist. We should be more mindful of performing our religious and moral duties and drawing men’s attention to those duties than dogmatically thrusting our particular opinions on particular points of religious doctrine upon others.
Learned dissertations on theology and controversies on the subject of religion are useful in their own way, but true religion before the Lord does not consist in them. It consists in a man’s “Visiting the fatherless and the widow in their affliction and keeping himself unspotted from the world,” that is, from vice.
. . . Some people consider processions, festivals and religious music as the be-all and end-all of religion. They are no doubt useful in their own way, but they are not the be-all and end-all of religion. Life is the be-all and end-all of religion. . . .
We should not only regulate our own conduct by an eye to the essentials of religion, but, while propagating the religion we profess, we should draw men’s attention more to love of God and love of man than doctrinal points. We are morally culpable before God if we lay greater stress on the husk instead of the kernel of religion.
The Essential Religion does not admit of church organization. There can be no such sect as the Essential Religionists. The Essential Religion is not the exclusive property of any particular sect or church. It is the common property of all sects and churches. The members of all sects and churches should regulate their conduct according to its dictates. . . . Besides, a number of men, banded together and calling themselves Essential Religionists, must have particular conception of the Deity and future state and follow a particular mode of worship. This particular conception and particular mode of worship would at once determine them as a sect. These particular conceptions of God and future state and modes of worship give rise to religious sects among mankind. Every individual man cannot avoid joining a sect according to his own particular convictions.
Differences of religion must always exist in the world.(1) To quote Parker. . . . “As many men so many theologies.” As it is impossible to obliterate differences of face and make all faces exactly resemble each other, so it is difficult to obliterate distinctions of religion. Differences of religion have always existed in the world and will exist as long as it lasts. It is impossible to bring over men to one and the same religion. A certain king remarked: “It is impossible to make all watches go exactly alike. How is it possible to bring over all men to my own opinion?” Various flowers would always exist in the garden of religion, each having a peculiar fragrance of its own, Theism being the most fragrant of them all. Bearing this in mind, we should tolerate all religions, though at the same time propagating the religion which we consider to be truth by means of argument and gentle persuasion. We should tolerate even such agnostical religions as Vedantism and Buddhism as they inculcate the doctrine of the existence of God, though the followers of those religions believe Him to be impersonal, the doctrine of Yoga or communion with Him to which men must be impelled by love of God, and the doctrine of love of man or morality. Some people speak of Buddhism as an atheistical religion. Even if it were true that Buddhism is a system of pure atheism, which it is not, the phrase “atheistical religion” is a contradiction in terms. There can be no religion if divorced from God. Later researches have proved that Buddhism is not without the idea of a God as was formerly supposed.(2) We should tolerate all religions. We should look upon all religions, every one of which contains greater or less truth, as God himself looks upon them, rejoicing in the truth which each contains and attributing its errors to human imperfection. . . .

———
(1) We beg to differ from this opinion of our kind friend.—Ed.
(2) We believe it’s a great mistake due to the one-sided inferences and precipitate conclusions of some Orientalists like Mr. Lillie, the author of “Buddha and Early Buddhism.” An eternal, all-pervading principle is not what is vulgarly called “God.”—ED. Theos.
These are as noble and as conciliating words as were ever pronounced among the Brahmos of India. They would be calculated to do a world of good, but for the common doom of words of wisdom to become the “voice crying in the desert.” Yet even in these kindly uttered sentences, so full of benevolence and good will to all men, we cannot help discerning (we fervently hope, that Babu Rajnarain Bose will pardon our honest sincerity) a ring of a certain sectarian, hence selfish feeling, one against which our Society is forced to fight so desperately.
“We should tolerate all religions, though at the same time, propagating the religion which we consider to be true”—we are told. It is our painful duty to analyze these words, and we begin by asking why should we? Where is the necessity for imposing our own personal views, our beliefs pro tem, if we may use the expression, upon other persons who, each and all must be allowed to possess—until the contrary is shown—as good a faculty of discrimination and judgment as we believe ourselves to be endowed with? We say belief pro tem basing the expression upon the writer’s own confession. “We are apt to forget,” he tells his readers, “that we ourselves are not infallible, that our opinions. . . were not exactly the same twenty years ago as they are now, nor will they be exactly the same twenty years hence,” and “that all the members of our own sect or party. . . . do not hold exactly the same opinions on all subjects concerning religion as we do.” Precisely. Then why not leave the mind of our brothers of other religions and creeds to pursue its own natural course instead of forcibly diverting it—however gentle the persuasion—into a groove we may ourselves abandon twenty years hence? But, we may be perhaps reminded by the esteemed writer that in penning those sentences which we have underlined, he referred but to the “non-essential points”—or sectarian dogmas, and not to what he is pleased to call the “essential” points of religion, viz.,—belief in God or theism. We answer by enquiring again, whether the latter tenet—a tenet being something which has to rest upon its own intrinsic value and undeniable evidence—whether notwithstanding, until very lately its quasi-universal acceptation,—this tenet is any better proven, or rests upon any firmer foundation than any of the existing dogmas which are admitted by none but those who accept the authority they proceed from? Are not in this case, both tenet and dogmas, the “essentials” as the “non-essentials,” simply the respective conclusions and outcome of “fallible minds”? And can it be maintained that theism itself with its present crude ideas about an intelligent personal deity a little better than a superhumanly conscious big man—will not 20 years hence have reached not only a broader and more noble aspect, but even a decided turning point which will lead humanity to a far higher ideal in consequence of the scientific truths it acquires daily and almost hourly? It is from a strictly agnostic platform that we are now arguing, basing what we say merely upon the writer’s own words. And we maintain that the major premiss of his general proposition which may be thus formulated—“a personal God is,—while dogmas may or may not be true”—being simply admitted, never proven, since the existence of God in general was, is, and ever will remain an improvable proposition, his conclusions however correctly derived from the minor or second premiss do not cover the whole ground. The syllogism is regular and the reasoning valid—only in the opinion of the theists. The atheist as the agnostic will protest, having logic as well as reason on his side. He will say: Why not accord to others that which you claim for yourselves? However weighty our arguments and gentle our persuasion, no theist would fail to feel hurt were we to try our hand in persuading him to throw away his theism and accept the religion or philosophy “which we consider to be true”—namely, “godless” Buddhism, or highly philosophical and logical agnosticism. As our esteemed contemporary puts it,—“it is impossible to obliterate differences of face and make all faces exactly resemble each other.” Has the idea ever struck him that it is as difficult to entirely obliterate innate differences of mental perceptions and faculties, let alone to reconcile by bringing them under one standard the endless varieties of human nature and thought? The latter may be forced from its natural into an artificial channel. But like a mask however securely stuck on one’s face, and which is liable to be torn off by the first strong gush of wind that blows under, the convictions thus artificially inoculated are liable at any day to resume their natural course—the new cloth put upon the old garment torn out, and—“the rent made worse.” We are with those who think that as nature has never intended the process known in horticulture as engrafting, so she has never meant that the ideas of one man should be inoculated with those of any other man, since were it so she would have—if really guided by intelligence—created all the faculties of human mind, as all plants, homogeneous, which is not the case. Hence, as no kind of plant can be induced to grow and thrive artificially upon another plant which does not belong to the same natural order, so no attempt toward engrafting our views and beliefs on individuals whose mental and intellectual capacities differ from ours as one variety or species of plants differs from another variety—will ever be successful. The missionary efforts directed for several hundred years toward christianizing the natives of India, is a good instance in hand and illustrates the inevitable failure following every such fallacious attempt. Very few among those natives upon whom the process of engrafting succeeded, have any real merit; while the tendency of the great majority is to return to its original specific type, that of a true-born pantheistic Hindu, clinging to his forefather’s caste and gods as a plant clings to its original genera. “Love of God and love of man is the essence of religion,” says Babu Rajnarain Bose elsewhere, inviting men to withdraw their attention from the husk of religion—“the non-essentials” and concentrate it upon the kernel—its essentials. We doubt whether we will ever prove our love to man by depriving him of a fundamental and essential prerogative, that of an untrammelled and entire liberty of his thoughts and conscience. Moreover in saying, as the author does further on—

Nothing has done so much mischief to the world as religious bigotry and dogmatism on non-essential points of religion; nothing has led so much to bloody wars and fiery persecutions as the same. . . .

—he turns the weapon of logic and fact against his own argument. What religion, for instance, ever claimed more than Christianity “love of God and love of man”—aye, “love of all men as our brothers”; and yet where is that creed that has ever surpassed it in blood-thirstiness and cruelty, in intolerance to the damnation of all other religions! “What crimes has it (Religion in general) not committed?” exclaims Prof. Huxley quoting from Lucretius, and “what cruelties,” he adds, referring to Christianity—“have been perpetrated in the name of Him who said ‘Love your enemies; blessed are the peacemakers,’ and so many other noble things.” Truly this religion of Love and Charity is now built upon the most gigantic holocaust of victims, the fruits of the unlawful, sinful desire to bring over all men to one mode of thinking, at any rate to one “essential” point in their religion—belief in Christ. We admit and recognize fully that it is the duty of every honest man to try to bring round by “argument and gentle persuasion” every man who errs with respect to the “essentials” of Universal ethics, and the usually recognized standard of morality. But the latter is the common property of all religions, as of all the honest men, irrespective of their beliefs. The principles of the true moral code, tried by the standard of right and justice, are recognized as fully, and followed just as much by the honest atheist as by the honest theist, religion and piety having, as can be proved by statistics, very little to do with the repression of vice and crime. A broad line has to be drawn between the external practice of one’s moral and social duties, and that of the real intrinsic virtue practised but for its own sake. Genuine morality does not rest with the profession of any particular creed or faith, least of all with belief in gods or a God; but it rather depends upon the degree of our own individual perceptions of its direct bearing upon human happiness in general, hence—upon our own personal weal. But even this is surely not all. “So long as man is taught and allowed to believe that he must be just, that the strong hand of law may not punish him, or his neighbour taking his revenge”; that he must be enduring because complaint is useless and weakness can only bring contempt; that he must be temperate, that his health may keep good and all his appetites retain their acuteness; and, he is told that, if he serves his friends, his friends may serve him, if he defends his country, he defends himself, and that by serving his God he prepares for himself an eternal life of happiness hereafter—so long, we say, as he acts on such principles, virtue is no virtue, but verily the culmination of SELFISHNESS. However sincere and ardent the faith of a theist, unless, while conforming his life to what he pleases to term divine laws, he gives precedence in his thoughts first to the benefit that accrues from such a moral course of actions to his brother, and then only thinks of himself—he will remain at best—a pious egotist; and we do claim that belief in, and fear of God in man, is chiefly based upon, develops and grows in exact proportion to his selfishness, his fear of punishment and bad results only for himself, without the least concern for his brother. We see daily that the theist, although defining morality as the conformity of human actions to divine laws, is not a tittle more moral than the average atheist or infidel who regards a moral life simply the duty of every honest right-thinking man without giving a thought to any reward for it in afterlife. The apparently discrepant fact that one who disbelieves in his survival after death should, nevertheless, frame in most cases his life in accordance with the highest rules of morality, is not as abnormal as it seems at first. The atheist, knowing of but one existence, is anxious to leave the memory of his life as unsullied as possible in the afterremembrances of his family and posterity, and in honour even with those yet unborn. In the words of the Greek Stoic—“though all our fellow-men were swept away, and not a mortal nor immortal eye were left to approve or condemn, should we not here, within our breast, have a judge to dread, and a friend to conciliate?” No more than theism is atheism congenite with man. Both grow and develope in him together with his reasoning powers, and become either fortified or weakened by reflection and deduction of evidence from facts. In short, both are entirely due to the degree of his emotional nature, and man is no more responsible for being an atheist than he is for becoming a theist. Both terms are entirely misunderstood. Many are called impious not for having a worse but a different religion, from their neighbours, says Epicurus. Mahomedans are stronger theists than the Christians, yet they are called “infidels” by the latter, and many are the theosophists regarded as atheists, not for the denying of the Deity but for thinking somewhat peculiarly concerning this ever-to-be unknown Principle. As a living contrast to the atheist, stands the theist believing in other lives or a life to come. Taught by his creed that prayer, repentance and offerings are capable of obliterating sin in the sight of the “all-forgiving, loving and merciful Father in Heaven,” he is given every hope—the strength of which grows in proportion to the sincerity of his faith—that his sins will be remitted to him. Thus, the moral obstacle between the believer and sin is very weak, if we view it from the standpoint of human nature. The more a child feels sure of his parents’ love for him, the easier he feels it to break his father’s commands. Who will dare to deny that the chief, if not the only cause of half the misery with which Christendom is afflicted—especially in Europe, the stronghold of sin and crime—lies not so much with human depravity as with its belief in the goodness and infinite mercy of “our Father in Heaven,” and especially in the vicarious atonement? Why should not men imagine that they can drink of the cup of vice with impunity—at any rate, in its results in the hereafter—when one half of the population is offered to purchase absolution for its sins for a certain paltry sum of money, and the other has but to have faith in, and place reliance upon, Christ to secure a place in paradise—though he be a murderer, starting for it right from the gallows! The public sale of indulgences for the perpetration of crime on the one hand, and the assurance made by the ministers of God that the consequences of the worst of sins may be obliterated by God at his will and pleasure, on the other, are quite sufficient, we believe, to keep crime and sin at the highest figure. He, who loves not virtue and good for their own sake and shuns not vice as vice, is sure to court the latter as a direct result of his pernicious belief. One ought to despise that virtue which prudence and fear alone direct.
We firmly believe in the actuality and the philosophical necessity of “Karma,” i.e., in that law of unavoidable retribution, the not-to-be diverted effect of every cause produced by us, reward as punishment in strict conformity with our actions; and we maintain that since no one can be made responsible for another man’s religious beliefs with whom, and with which, he is not in the least concerned—that perpetual craving for the conversion of all men we meet to our own modes of thinking and respective creeds becomes a highly reprehensible action. With the exception of those above-mentioned cases of the universally recognized code of morality, the furtherance or neglect of which has a direct bearing upon human weal or woe, we have no right to be influencing our neighbours’ opinions upon purely transcendental and unprovable questions, the speculations of our emotional nature. Not because any of these respective beliefs are in any way injurious or bad per se; on the contrary, for every ideal that serves us as a point of departure and a guiding star in the path of goodness and purity, is to be eagerly sought for, and as unswervingly followed; but precisely on account of those differences and endless variety of human temperaments, so ably pointed out to us by the respected Brahmo gentleman in the lines as above quoted. For if, as he truly points out—none of us is infallible, and that “the religious opinions of men are subject to progress” (and change, as he adds), that progress being endless and quite likely to upset on any day our strongest convictions of the day previous; and that as historically and daily proved “nothing has done so much mischief” as the great variety of conflicting creeds and sects which have led but to bloody wars and persecutions, and the slaughter of one portion of mankind by the other, it becomes an evident and an undeniable fact that, by adding converts to those sects, we add but so many antagonists to fight and tear themselves to pieces, if not now, then at no distant future. And in this case we do become responsible for their actions. Propagandism and conversion are the fruitful seeds sown for the perpetration of future crimes, the odium theologicum stirring up religious hatreds—which relate as much to the “Essentials” as to the non-essentials of any religion—being the most fruitful as the most dangerous for the peace of mankind. In Christendom, where at each street-corner starvation cries for help: where pauperism, and its direct result, vice and crime, fill the land with desolation—millions upon millions are annually spent upon this unprofitable and sinful work of proselytism. With that charming inconsistency which was ever the characteristic of the Christian churches, the same Bishops who have opposed but a few decades back the building of railways, on the ground that it was an act of rebellion against God who willed that man should not go quite as quick as the wind; and had opposed the introduction of the telegraphy, saying that it was a tempting of Providence; and even the application of anæsthetics in obstetrical cases, “under the pretence,” Prof. Draper tells us, “that it was an impious attempt to escape from the curse denounced against all women in Genesis iii, 16,” those same Bishops do not hesitate to meddle with the work of Providence when the “heathen” are concerned. Surely if Providence hath so decreed that women should be left to suffer for the sin of Eve, then it must have also willed that a man born a heathen should be left one as—pre-ordained. Are the missionaries wiser, they think, than their God, that they should try to correct his mistakes; and do they not also rebel against Providence, and its mysterious ways? But leaving aside things as dark to them as they are to us, and viewing “conversion” so called, but from its practical aspect, we say that he, who under the dubious pretext that because something is truth to him it must be truth also for everyone else, labours at the conversion of his neighbours, is simply engaged in the unholy work of breeding and raising future Cains.
Indeed, our “love of man” ought to be strong enough and sufficiently intuitional to stifle in us that spark of selfishness which is the chief motor in our desire to force upon our brother and neighbour our own religious opinions and views which we may “consider (for the time being) to be true.” It is a grand thing to have a worthy Ideal, but a still greater one to live up to it; and where is that wise and infallible man who can show without fear of being mistaken to another man what or who should be his ideal? If, as the theist assures us—“God is all in all”—then must he be in every ideal—whatever its nature, if it neither clashes with recognized morality, nor can it be shown productive of bad results. Thus, whether this Ideal be God, the pursuit of Truth, humanity collectively, or, as John Stuart Mill has so eloquently proved, simply our own country; and that in the name of that ideal man not only works for it, but becomes better himself, creating thereby an example of morality and goodness for others to follow, what matters it to his neighbour whether this ideal be a chimerical utopia, an abstraction, or even an inanimate object in the shape of an idol, or a piece of clay?
Let us not meddle with the natural bent of man’s religious or irreligious thought, any more than we should think of meddling with his private thoughts, lest by so doing we should create more mischief than benefit, and deserve thereby his curses. Were religions as harmless and as innocent as the flowers with which the author compares them, we would not have one word to say against them. Let every “gardener” attend but his own plants without forcing unasked his own variety upon those of other people, and all will remain satisfied. As popularly understood, Theism has, doubtless, its own peculiar beauty, and may well seem “the most fragrant of flowers in the garden of religions”—to the ardent theist. To the atheist, however, it may possibly appear no better than a prickly thistle; and the theist has no more right to take him to task for his opinion, than the atheist has to blame him for his horror of atheism. For all its beauty it is an ungrateful task to seek to engraft the rose upon the thistle, since in nine cases out of ten the rose will lose its fragrance, and both plants their shapes to become a monstrous hybrid. In the economy of nature everything is in its right place, has its special purpose, and the same potentiality for good as for evil in various degrees—if we will but leave it to its natural course. The most fragrant rose has often the sharpest thorns; and it is the flowers of the thistle when pounded and made up into an ointment that will cure the wounds made by her cruel thorns the best.
In our humble opinion, the only “Essentials” in the Religion of Humanity are—virtue, morality, brotherly love, and kind sympathy with every living creature, whether human or animal. This is the common platform that our Society offers to all to stand upon; the most fundamental differences between religions and sects sinking into insignificance before the mighty problem of reconciling humanity, of gathering all the various races into one family, and of bringing them all to a conviction of the utmost necessity in this world of sorrow to cultivate feelings of brotherly sympathy and tolerance, if not actually of love. Having taken for our motto—“In these Fundamentals—unity; in non-essentials—full liberty; in all things—charity,” we say to all collectively and to every one individually—“keep to your forefather’s religion, whatever it may be—if you feel attached to it, Brother; think with your own brains—if you have any; be by all means yourself—whatever you are, unless you are really a bad man. And remember above all, that a wolf in his own skin is immeasurably more honest than the same animal—under a sheep’s clothing.”
Theosophist, June, 1883

Well, it's been one year this week since I gave my last talk as a TBM (5/21). As I was studying for my talk (the topic was "how does faith help is through trials", ironically enough), I saw a news article about how the Ensign Peak whistleblower was going to be on 60 minutes to talk about his experience. I had seen earlier that the church was fined for mishandling something with taxes, and I had read their statement. I told my wife, "well, I hope the legal advisors were fired/released". And I assumed that was probably true.
But I got a little knot in my belly when I saw that article. "Why did they really get fined?", I thought. "What more could there be to say?" I started to search for more, but decided that I should wait until after I gave my talk.
The day after my talk, I couldn't resist. I had to know. I figured that someone MUST have made a YouTube video about it. I'm not able to stream video at work, so I was looking on YouTube music to see if there was an audio only version of the 60 mins episode. What I found was a bunch of "Mormon" podcasts.
I quickly realized that if the title had "Mormon" in it, it probably wasn't going to be pro-church (victory for Satan and all that). I decided I would stop listening if they criticized the church, and I loaded up an episode. I think it was RFM and Spencer Anderson. They established his credentials up front, so I figured I could trust a financial / legal expert to explain the details to me. And they were going to read the statement directly from the SEC! So it was going to be facts.
What followed was one of the worst experiences of my life. The news got worse and worse. They broke a no-brainer law, so obvious that the fine is extremely rare. It was so they could hide the amount of tithing they received. I learned of the disgusting amount of money they hoard.
The worst was when they said that the first presidency is the entity that had to sign off on it. They knew. They gave their stamp of approval. I think that's when it all started to crash down for me. "God doesn't command you to break the law! How could God's prophet do that? If you aren't worthy, it's 'amen to the priesthood of that man'!" It was like being punched in the gut over, and over, and over.
I had to know more. It had been well-established that today's prophets are apostate. They could repent! Why didn't they? They had the chance to repent, and instead they stonewalled.
I told my wife the next day, after I couldn't keep it in any longer. I was so afraid she would want a divorce because I wouldn't pay tithing, thereby not being temple worthy. I realized that tithing is nothing more than extortion, since you literally must pay tithing to receive the saving ordinances.
After I explained the fraud and the lies, I said I would NEVER pay tithing again. It couldn't be an offering to God if they were just going to steal it. No matter how much tithing my whole family pays, it will never cover that $5,000,000 fine. Why should I pay tithing to cover an apostate's legal fees, especially if they aren't going to repent?
She held me as a sobbed. She told me she respected my decision to not pay, and that she wouldn't ever leave me over a change in beliefs (I'm extremely lucky, I know). She told me that she knew it was true. It was then that I thought, "what if it isn't true?" And I cried even harder. I thought of my mom and dad reading scriptures to me as a kid, teaching me about Nephi. I thought of my dad teaching me the first article of faith and explaining who God is. I thought of my mission. I thought about what will happen when I die. It was very fast.
The next day I started listening to the LDS Discussions series. I had to know what else they lied to me about. It turns out, it was everything. I must have listened to a thousand hours of podcasts in that first six months. I was constantly reading, researching, and consuming Mormon history.
My shelf officially started to break when I learned about Hyrum Smith and Dartmouth college. I already had enough evidence to know the BOM didn't happen and the Joseph was an abusive man. That episode with Randy Bell and RFM (I think it's called The Dartmouth Connection) showed how the rest of Joseph's theology already existed in the world around him. Pre-mortal life, Swedenborg's degrees of glory, comparisons to Islam. Joseph would've known all of it. He just cobbled it together with spit and duct tape.
A huge weight lifted off my shoulders, because I knew that Joseph didn't bring anything new or special to the table. He wasn't special. He was nothing. I wasn't beholden to him anymore.
This is already long, so I'll hit the highlights until now.
I was stunned at how culty the church is when I watched my first PIMO conference. I couldn't believe how nasty Rusty was in his Think Celestial talk.
I told the bishop to release me from my youth Sunday school calling when the Arizona supreme court ruled in favor of the court. That I couldn't volunteer for a church that is "pleased" in it's ability to cover up for monsters. It's been 6 months since they officially released me and still haven't found a co-teacher for my wife.
I stopped attending in the late fall because church attendance brutally fucked with my emotions. I've been a lot happier since then.
I think I've come to a point where my anger is no longer white-hot, just a dull pulse in the background of my mind.
Thank you all for being there for me. I have spurts where I make a lot of comments. I haven't asked for much support, but it has been so valuable for me to come to this space and try to support others and hear your stories. We were abused and betrayed. We deserved so much better. But I'm glad we found each other. Thank you for shining a light on the darkness and helping me through. I'm certainly not done yet, and I imagine it's a long road. I'm the only one in my family and my wife's family that has left, so there is no end in sight to being church adjacent. I think it will be better with you guys.
Lastly, thank you for reading this. I know it was long, but I hope you found that my resonates with you.

Hello, I wanted to ask what requirements do your parishes require for being a server. In my country men and women can serve as long as they are unmarried( never been married), are apart of youth/ Sunday school and have never had children. I f anyone gets married or has a child they normally leave the guild. At the current moment we have this old woman around her early 60s or mid 60s, she was the daughter of a bishop and the ex-wife of a bishop(divorced) she serves at our church and refuses to let actual servers serve when they are there. I've complained about this to the subdeacon in charge of our guild as well as to the priests and the dean. Nothing has been done about it and she has started to give our guild a bad reputation because she does not serve properly and just does random actions as well as trying to be an ushesidesperson whilst serving. I wanted to ask for any advice on how to handle this matter or if this is the norm in your parishes.
When she started serving she claimed that the church she attended in the UK did exactly what she is doing here. For reference I am in Zimbabwe.

I’m intrigued by getting a consensus on EmpoweredCatholicism members’ views on ordination. Do you support the current situation in the Catholic Church (i.e., only celibate men may be priests)? The ordination of married men to the presbyterate? To the episcopate? The marriage of previously unmarried priests and bishops? The ordination of women?
Full disclosure: I’m asking this because I’m having a crappy day and for some reason decided to tell part of my discernment story on catholicism. I’m not sure why.
Suffice it to say I’ve long felt a call to the priesthood. I’ve equally strongly felt a call to marriage. And all the apologetics in the world, all the “God cannot be calling you to both because he is not a god of confusion” stuff, doesn’t cut it—it all seems like academic jargon, divorced from my experiences and from the church’s own admission that priestly celibacy is a discipline rather than a doctrine. The subject has been on my mind for days now, and I’m going through a bit of a mental crisis about it.
I’m also asking this because I’ve become more and more open to the ordination of women, especially listening to Anglican bishop N.T. Wright’s arguments (example) and to female Episcopal priest Fleming Rutledge, a wonderful preacher.
But I’m equally open to being wrong, and I’m interested in hearing everyone’s takes.

I have recently been deconstructing and spoke to my ex-Mormon cousin about it. He said, and very deeply meant, that he was sorry for how much pain I was going through. I was caught off guard by these words and started to express that I don't think I've ever felt true empathy from the church, and here's why:
If the church or people in the church truly empathize with your struggles, then they give room for God to cause you pain, and that's a big no-no.
Think about it—

• When you went to confess to the bishop about your sins, you were empathized with for having come across pornography so young, but you were told to stop taking the sacrament and repent.
• When you had a prayer that was painfully left unanswered, you were told that it wasn't in God's time, you weren't doing something correctly, or your expectations were wrong.
• When a crucial piece of your patriarchal blessing went unfulfilled, you were told to be patient and wait for the next life, or that you weren't faithful.
• When you thought you received profound personal revelation (one of the few times you perceived you actually felt God) and it didn't work out, your revelation was deemed wishful thinking, misguided, or even straight-up deception from the devil.
• When you tell others that you struggle to feel the spirit and are devastated that you can't hear God, they tell you that the spirit is so close to you that you've never been able to recognize it. This gaslighting and equivocation fallacy stem from the changing definition of what the spirit is supposed to feel like scripturally.
• When someone close to you dies, the emphasis is on how great it is that you'll see them again and the beauty of the plan of salvation, rather than empathizing with the harrowing feeling of losing a loved one.
• If you feel like you've been harmed by the patriarchal structures of the church, you should just be more grateful that you have access to priesthood power in your life.
• If you feel like you've been harmed by exclusionary practices like the priesthood ban on black saints, you should just choose not to be offended and recognize the fallibility of modern prophets or the mysterious ways of God.
• If you feel like you aren't a loved son or daughter of God because of the sexuality you were born with, you should recognize that God condemns many tendencies of the "natural man," and you should stifle your feelings just as everyone else does who needs to conform to God's will.
• If you're feeling immense doubt or confusion over church doctrine, nobody in the church says, "I'm sorry, that's really hard; I can't imagine the turmoil you must be feeling." Instead, they ask, "Are you keeping the commandments? Are you reading the Book of Mormon? Are you listening to the still small voice? Are you in harmony with the teachings of the gospel? Are you listening to church-approved faith-affirming sources? Watch this Book of Mormon Central video on it."
• If you have a poor experience at your home ward, on a mission, or you don't feel like you fit in or are being ostracized by the social structures innate in the church, you need to stop thinking about yourself and realize that going to church is for you to look for opportunities to serve other people, not to be served.

In all of these examples (based on my experiences), someone might say words that sound like empathy, but they always add a stipulation, reframe your experience, or assert that God, faith, and righteousness are the antidotes.
Of course, I'm speaking in huge generalizations. I'm certain that many of you have felt empathy from your leaders, but what I'm trying to say is that church doctrine doesn't actually leave much space for you to struggle and wrestle with complicated emotions. It can even be argued that the essence of this idea was stated in this conference: "kindness is not a substitute for integrity."
To make matters worse, once you leave the church, there's almost negative empathy. For example, my cousins and siblings who left the church years before me have been through trials and hardships as everyone goes through. But I have watched myself, my parents, and my extended family blame their trials on having left the church. I honestly felt that their divorces, financial troubles, and health and mental health complications were all justified by their incorrect use of agency to leave the church. Awful, awful, awful to admit that I thought this way.
What experiences do you have feeling a glaring absence of empathy within the Church?

I've lurked here for a while, not an ex-Mormon. I'm an active Mormons and what-not. I like to see various points of view. Loosely follow several different religion/ ex-religion subs just to see different perspectives.
Reading some of these made me wonder how many of y'all were/are Utah Mormons?
I've known several people who moved to Utah at some point and they found Utah Mormons a rather...peculiar breed. Everybody who moved there and moves back had some stories. Most ex-members I come upon in the wild tend to be Utah Mormons.
It seems it may be far more of a cultural thing than it first appears. I wanted to toss my hypothesis out there
For the sake of transparency I was inactive from 14-25-ish, but it wasn't belief based. The reason was I was the only girl my age, I felt alone, add in home and school issues, leaving church was the only thing I could control. I went back, amusingly for the community.
Of my family of 8 (at the divorce) only my dad and I are active, so I'm familiar with why one might leave. I'm not here to judge. My mom was never devout (she found it funny her first time was with the bishop's son, they were both 16), and my dad was a convert so didn't grow up in it. Maybe I just had a more peculiar childhood in terms of church expectations and discussing beliefs and asking questions.
If you're not a Utah (Ex)Mormon, you can still chime in, share why you left and such should you want. I may be slow to respond, especially if there is a large response. I do want to thank folks in advance though. Thank you for taking the time to listen and, if you do, respond
It's silly but it's something I've pondered for a while.

The Church calls Saint Constantine (306-337) “the Equal of the Apostles,” and historians call him “the Great.” He was the son of the Caesar Constantius Chlorus (305-306), who governed the lands of Gaul and Britain. His mother was Saint Helen, a Christian of humble birth.
At this time the immense Roman Empire was divided into Western and Eastern halves, governed by two independent emperors and their corulers called “Caesars.” Constantius Chlorus was Caesar in the Western Roman Empire. Saint Constantine was born in 274, possibly at Nish in Serbia. In 294, Constantius divorced Helen in order to further his political ambition by marrying a woman of noble rank. After he became emperor, Constantine showed his mother great honor and respect, granting her the imperial title “Augusta.”
Constantine, the future ruler of all the whole Roman Empire, was raised to respect Christianity. His father did not persecute Christians in the lands he governed. This was at a time when Christians were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire by the emperors Diocletian (284-305) and his corulers Maximian Galerius (305-311) in the East, and the emperor Maximian Hercules (284-305) in the West.
After the death of Constantius Chlorus in 306, Constantine was acclaimed by the army at York as emperor of Gaul and Britain. The first act of the new emperor was to grant the freedom to practice Christianity in the lands subject to him. The pagan Maximian Galerius in the East and the fierce tyrant Maxentius in the West hated Constantine and they plotted to overthrow and kill him, but Constantine bested them in a series of battles, defeating his opponents with the help of God. He prayed to God to give him a sign which would inspire his army to fight valiantly, and the Lord showed him a radiant Sign of the Cross in the heavens with the inscription “In this Sign, conquer.”
After Constantine became the sole ruler of the Western Roman Empire, he issued the Edict of Milan in 313 which guaranteed religious tolerance for Christians. Saint Helen, who was a Christian, may have influenced him in this decision. In 323, when he became the sole ruler of the entire Roman Empire, he extended the provisions of the Edict of Milan to the Eastern half of the Empire. After three hundred years of persecution, Christians could finally practice their faith without fear.
Renouncing paganism, the Emperor did not let his capital remain in ancient Rome, the former center of the pagan realm. He transferred his capital to the East, to the city of Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople, the city of Constantine (May 11). Constantine was deeply convinced that only Christianity could unify the immense Roman Empire with its diverse peoples. He supported the Church in every way. He recalled Christian confessors from banishment, he built churches, and he showed concern for the clergy.
The emperor deeply revered the victory-bearing Sign of the Cross of the Lord, and also wanted to find the actual Cross upon which our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified. For this purpose he sent his own mother, the holy Empress Helen, to Jerusalem, granting her both power and money. Patriarch Macarius of Jerusalem and Saint Helen began the search, and through the will of God, the Life-Creating Cross was miraculously discovered in 326. (The account of the finding of the Cross of the Lord is found under the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, September 14). The Orthodox Church commemorates the Uncovering of the Precious Cross and the Precious Nails by the Holy Empress Helen on March 6.
While in Palestine, the holy empress did much of benefit for the Church. She ordered that all places connected with the earthly life of the Lord and His All-Pure Mother, should be freed of all traces of paganism, and she commanded that churches should be built at these places.
The emperor Constantine ordered a magnificent church in honor of Christ’s Resurrection to be built over His tomb. Saint Helen gave the Life-Creating Cross to the Patriarch for safe-keeping, and took part of the Cross with her for the emperor. After distributing generous alms at Jerusalem and feeding the needy (at times she even served them herself), the holy Empress Helen returned to Constantinople, where she died in the year 327.
Because of her great services to the Church and her efforts in finding the Life-Creating Cross, the empress Helen is called “the Equal of the Apostles.”
The peaceful state of the Christian Church was disturbed by quarrels, dissensions and heresies which had appeared within the Church. Already at the beginning of Saint Constantine’s reign the heresies of the Donatists and the Novatians had arisen in the West. They demanded a second baptism for those who lapsed during the persecutions against Christians. These heresies, repudiated by two local Church councils, were finally condemned at the Council of Milan in 316.
Particularly ruinous for the Church was the rise of the Arian heresy in the East, which denied the Divine Nature of the Son of God, and taught that Jesus Christ was a mere creature. By order of the emperor, the First Ecumenical Council was convened in the city of Nicea in 325.
318 bishops attended this Council. Among its participants were confessor-bishops from the period of the persecutions and many other luminaries of the Church, among whom was Saint Nicholas of Myra in Lycia. (The account about the Council is found under May 29). The emperor was present at the sessions of the Council. The heresy of Arius was condemned and a Symbol of Faith (Creed) composed, in which was included the term “consubstantial with the Father,” at the insistence of the Emperor, confirming the truth of the divinity of Jesus Christ, Who assumed human nature for the redemption of all the human race.
After the Council of Nicea, Saint Constantine continued with his active role in the welfare of the Church. He accepted holy Baptism on his deathbed, having prepared for it all his whole life. Saint Constantine died on the day of Pentecost in the year 337 and was buried in the church of the Holy Apostles, in a crypt he had prepared for himself.
A shoulder blade of Saint Constantine is located in the Monastery of Konstamonίtou on Mount Athos. Pieces of the Holy Relics of Saint Constantine are also found in Kykkos Monastery on Cyprus; in Moscow's Holy Trinity - Saint Sergius Lavra; and Saint Alexander Nevsky Lavra in Saint Petersburg.
Source

The Church calls Saint Constantine (306-337) “the Equal of the Apostles,” and historians call him “the Great.” He was the son of the Caesar Constantius Chlorus (305-306), who governed the lands of Gaul and Britain. His mother was Saint Helen, a Christian of humble birth.
At this time the immense Roman Empire was divided into Western and Eastern halves, governed by two independent emperors and their corulers called “Caesars.” Constantius Chlorus was Caesar in the Western Roman Empire. Saint Constantine was born in 274, possibly at Nish in Serbia. In 294, Constantius divorced Helen in order to further his political ambition by marrying a woman of noble rank. After he became emperor, Constantine showed his mother great honor and respect, granting her the imperial title “Augusta.”
Constantine, the future ruler of all the whole Roman Empire, was raised to respect Christianity. His father did not persecute Christians in the lands he governed. This was at a time when Christians were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire by the emperors Diocletian (284-305) and his corulers Maximian Galerius (305-311) in the East, and the emperor Maximian Hercules (284-305) in the West.
After the death of Constantius Chlorus in 306, Constantine was acclaimed by the army at York as emperor of Gaul and Britain. The first act of the new emperor was to grant the freedom to practice Christianity in the lands subject to him. The pagan Maximian Galerius in the East and the fierce tyrant Maxentius in the West hated Constantine and they plotted to overthrow and kill him, but Constantine bested them in a series of battles, defeating his opponents with the help of God. He prayed to God to give him a sign which would inspire his army to fight valiantly, and the Lord showed him a radiant Sign of the Cross in the heavens with the inscription “In this Sign, conquer.”
After Constantine became the sole ruler of the Western Roman Empire, he issued the Edict of Milan in 313 which guaranteed religious tolerance for Christians. Saint Helen, who was a Christian, may have influenced him in this decision. In 323, when he became the sole ruler of the entire Roman Empire, he extended the provisions of the Edict of Milan to the Eastern half of the Empire. After three hundred years of persecution, Christians could finally practice their faith without fear.
Renouncing paganism, the Emperor did not let his capital remain in ancient Rome, the former center of the pagan realm. He transferred his capital to the East, to the city of Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople, the city of Constantine (May 11). Constantine was deeply convinced that only Christianity could unify the immense Roman Empire with its diverse peoples. He supported the Church in every way. He recalled Christian confessors from banishment, he built churches, and he showed concern for the clergy.
The emperor deeply revered the victory-bearing Sign of the Cross of the Lord, and also wanted to find the actual Cross upon which our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified. For this purpose he sent his own mother, the holy Empress Helen, to Jerusalem, granting her both power and money. Patriarch Macarius of Jerusalem and Saint Helen began the search, and through the will of God, the Life-Creating Cross was miraculously discovered in 326. (The account of the finding of the Cross of the Lord is found under the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, September 14). The Orthodox Church commemorates the Uncovering of the Precious Cross and the Precious Nails by the Holy Empress Helen on March 6.
While in Palestine, the holy empress did much of benefit for the Church. She ordered that all places connected with the earthly life of the Lord and His All-Pure Mother, should be freed of all traces of paganism, and she commanded that churches should be built at these places.
The emperor Constantine ordered a magnificent church in honor of Christ’s Resurrection to be built over His tomb. Saint Helen gave the Life-Creating Cross to the Patriarch for safe-keeping, and took part of the Cross with her for the emperor. After distributing generous alms at Jerusalem and feeding the needy (at times she even served them herself), the holy Empress Helen returned to Constantinople, where she died in the year 327.
Because of her great services to the Church and her efforts in finding the Life-Creating Cross, the empress Helen is called “the Equal of the Apostles.”
The peaceful state of the Christian Church was disturbed by quarrels, dissensions and heresies which had appeared within the Church. Already at the beginning of Saint Constantine’s reign the heresies of the Donatists and the Novatians had arisen in the West. They demanded a second baptism for those who lapsed during the persecutions against Christians. These heresies, repudiated by two local Church councils, were finally condemned at the Council of Milan in 316.
Particularly ruinous for the Church was the rise of the Arian heresy in the East, which denied the Divine Nature of the Son of God, and taught that Jesus Christ was a mere creature. By order of the emperor, the First Ecumenical Council was convened in the city of Nicea in 325.
318 bishops attended this Council. Among its participants were confessor-bishops from the period of the persecutions and many other luminaries of the Church, among whom was Saint Nicholas of Myra in Lycia. (The account about the Council is found under May 29). The emperor was present at the sessions of the Council. The heresy of Arius was condemned and a Symbol of Faith (Creed) composed, in which was included the term “consubstantial with the Father,” at the insistence of the Emperor, confirming the truth of the divinity of Jesus Christ, Who assumed human nature for the redemption of all the human race.
After the Council of Nicea, Saint Constantine continued with his active role in the welfare of the Church. He accepted holy Baptism on his deathbed, having prepared for it all his whole life. Saint Constantine died on the day of Pentecost in the year 337 and was buried in the church of the Holy Apostles, in a crypt he had prepared for himself.
A shoulder blade of Saint Constantine is located in the Monastery of Konstamonίtou on Mount Athos. Pieces of the Holy Relics of Saint Constantine are also found in Kykkos Monastery on Cyprus; in Moscow's Holy Trinity - Saint Sergius Lavra; and Saint Alexander Nevsky Lavra in Saint Petersburg.
Source

BC testimony was a nothing burger at the hearing but in the court docs on scribd both he and his wife seemingly attempt to derail the investigation by doing interviews with KE in which they refer to JB as a "hot head" who was close to having cops called on him and BC stated his wife had to have a concealed weapon due to her fear of him. Ultimately leading LE to believe that this was a violent man. VC in her interview goes all in for #teamshanna conveniently being at scene of the crime and implicated who I'm assuming was the Good Samaritan as suspicious.
//V. Currie advised she left her house which is located in the Marshside area, at 1950 hours. Currie advised she was going to pick up her daughter near the St. Johns Town Center. Currie stated when she turned left onto the southbound lane of Sanctuary, there were two to four cars in front of her. Currie advised she saw the front car which was a black SUV and the emergency lights were on. Currie advised she saw a "whitish, grayish, silver SUV." Currie stated a slender white male with khaki shorts exited this vehicle and approached the driver side of the victim's vehicle. Currie would go on to explain the man pauses and looks into the vehicle and stops. The man proceeds to the passenger side of the vehicle and stops again. Currie felt this man was acting strange. Currie would explain this man had a baseball cap on his head. Currie advised she saw a white four door vehicle in front of her. Currie explained a white woman exits the passenger side of the vehicle and appears to be confused about what was going on. At this point, Currie reverses the vehicle and exits the area via South Beach Parkway. Currie would explain she knows of the victim and his friends with Shanna Gardner (Ex-wife). Currie advised she does know the victim's older brother but could not remember his name. Currie was told by friends Jared Bridegan was shot Wednesday night. Currie explained she has heard stories about the victim's behavior from Shannah Gardner. Currie explained her husband was involved in an altercation with the victim at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, located in Neptune Beach. Currie advised her husband is the Bishop at the church. Currie advised the victim was upset because Currie and her husband befriended Gardner. Currie's husband was forced to call the church legal services. Currie advised the victim has a "hot head." Currie advised the victim did not want Gardner invited to the church. Currie would not explain the specifics of the argument. Currie advised Gardner described the victim as controlling and impatient. Currie described the divorce and custody as a contentious situation. Currie felt from what she has heard of the victim, she believed his death could have been caused by road rage.
BC interview : https://www.scribd.com/document/704070322/Jared-Bridegan-murder-Documents-released-to-the-public-record-by-State-Attorney-s-Office
VC interview : https://www.scribd.com/document/704063991/Jared-Bridegan-murder-Documents-released-to-the-public-record-by-State-Attorney-s-Office

I am not even talking about scriptural problems within the bible, You don't have to open a single bible to start seeing the problems,
1-) The Problem of Salvation and Faith (Why the plan of salvation is ridiculous, and has failed)
I.The ridiculousness of the plan
A. Demanding blood for remission of sins Heb 9:22 - Why is this the terms that god insists upon? Isn't he the architect of the parameters regarding sin, punishment, and forgiveness? Is he not able to forgive sin without blood sacrifice? Can he not say, “No blood sacrifice necessary, I just forgive you?”
B. God sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself by creating a loophole in the architecture for condemnation he engineered in the first place? This is your solution for a problem in which you yourself are the problem. It’s like a doctor stabbing people to be able to operate and save them.
C. Dying for someone else's crime does not equal justice in any court.
D. The sacrifice was not a sacrifice at all :

1. Jesus is said to be eternal
2. He spent a few days in misery out of his billions of years plus of existence
3. He spent a minutiae of a fraction of his existence suffering knowing he would be resurrected after the ordeal and spend eternity in divine luxury, and that somehow provides him justification to sentence us to trillions of years of eternity suffering without end?
4. Jesus is a supernatural immortal who suffered temporary mortal punishment and then sentences mortals to supernatural eternal punishment if they do not receive his sacrifice.
5. Why is three days of punishment followed by eternity in glory sufficient for all the horrible deeds any man has ever committed, but billions of years suffered in hell by a good moral person who does not believe due to lack of evidence is not sufficient?

2-) Nature of The Christian god
I. He is supposed to be an all Powerful and All mighty being and yet he died on a cross by his own creation (If you see someone claiming to be god and then you saw him hie before your very eyes, How on earth are you supposed to conclude anything else other than "This guy is a liar"?)
Modern Christians would respond to this saying "Only the Human part died, The Divine part wasn't affected"
Which again, doesn't make any sense :
A. Even when assuming a human sacrifice is somehow necessary for salvation, The sacrifice of 1 Human being can never be Enough to atone for the sins of all of mankind since Adam and Eve till the return of jesus.
I found a Coptic pope explaining this issue in detail, Here is a link to his book, https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/propitiation-and-redemption.html
Quoting from it : "The belief in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and fundamental for redemption. Redemption requires unlimited propitiation sufficient for the forgiveness of the unlimited sins of all the people through all ages. There was no solution other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to offer this through His Divine Power.
Thus, if we mention two natures and say that the human nature alone performed the act of redemption, it would have been entirely impossible to achieve unlimited propitiation for man's salvation. Hence comes the danger of speaking of two natures, each having its own specific tasks. In such case, the death of the human nature alone is insufficient."
It's very clear that saying only the human part died doesn't make any sense, Even according to the Christian theology itself.
B. The Trinity is based on a false idea
I know, It's a classic Argument against Christianity but you can't deny that it's an actual damning argument against the Christian theology.

1. God is all knowing but Jesus wasn't all knowing (mark 13:32)
2. Jesus is supposed to be god, but he is praying to himself to save himself with cries and tears?? (Luke 22:41-44)
3. Jesus is god but we can't say he is good because only god is good?? (Luke 18:18-19)
4. God can't be tempted by evil (James 1:13) but yet jesus was tempted by satan?? (Matthew 4:1)
5. Jesus is god but he can't do a thing on his own?? (John 5:31) 6.Jesus is supposed to be the same as the father, But their teachings are different? (John 7:16)

And so many more, Throught the bible i can't help but notice the intense number of verses which clearly states Jesus can't be god.
3-) The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don’t know the actual historical Jesus)
I. No contemporary historical evidence,
A. No historian alive during Jesus day wrote about Jesus despite ample opportunity

1. The kings coming to his birth
2. Herod’s slaughter of baby boys
3. The overthrowing of money changers
4. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem where he is declared king by the whole town.
5. Darkness covering the whole earth for hours on Jesus’ Death
6. The earthquakes at Jesus’ death
7. The rending of the temple veil at Jesus’ Death
8. The resurrection of Jesus that was seen by 500 witnesses.(Only Paul claims that, even tho he never met jesus)

II. The Gospels are contradicting, late hearsay accounts
A. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least after 70 A.D. (referencing fall of temple) by a non-eyewitness, and makes numerous cultural and geographical errors that a Jewish writer would not have made such as locations of rivers, cultural customs regarding divorce, locations of towns or Jesus quoting from the greek Septuagint etc. (see geographical and historical errors in this link, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/Bible%20Problems%20by%20Packham%201998.htm#ERRORS )
B. The other gospels all copied from Mark. Luke and Matthew contain over 70% of Mark and mainly make changes in attempts to fix blatant errors made in Mark and to correct Mark’s poor grammar.The writer of Luke even reveals to us in Luke 1:2 that he was not an eyewitness, but that the story has been passed down to him.
C. Four where chosen by the church father Iraeneus because he believed the earth was founded on four pillars and so too, should the gospels be founded by only four accounts.
Iraenus also revealed the names of the Gospels in the late second century, without any reason to assume they where the authentic authors - no one knows who actually wrote them!
D. John was initially considered heretical by the early church because of its variation from the synoptic but was overwhelmingly popular amongst Christians and so was included.
E. The book of Revelations was also considered heretical by many :
For centuries The Revelation was a rejected book. In the 4th century, St.John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against it. Christians in Syria also reject it. The Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, rejected The Revelation. In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianus produced a canon omitting The Revelation. Bishop Amphilocus of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus written some time after 394, rejects The Revelation. When St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books: among them The Revelation. The Church in the East never included the Revelation.
4-) The early church did not seem to know anything about a historical Jesus. Huge amounts of disagreement over Jesus in the first hundred years :

1. Some churches didn’t even believe he had a physical body, prompting Paul to write about that very issue.
   
2. There was an enormous debate between all the major early churches as to whether Jesus was divine or not, this was settled at the council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
   

5-) Which Bible?
A. Over 450 English versions of the bible All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
B. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain.
C. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.
Take a look at this example, 1- Revised standard version 2- Revised standard version Catholic edition 3- NEW revised standard version Updated edition 4- NEW revised standard version Catholic edition 5- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised 6- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised Catholic edition
How many attempts would it take to finally get it right ?!
6-) The Morality of the bible
I don't like using Morality as an argument because i believe it's a subjective thing, But I cannot help but notice how the morals of the OT and the NT are completely contradictory
In the OT god was Angry, Vengeful, Demands war, order genocides, Ordered the killing of children and even the ripping open of pregnant women.
But in the NT he somehow became loving, a father figure, saying if anyone hits you you shouldn't even respond back.

• In Conclusion: I don't think Christianity can be accepted as the truth by any logical person (Even most convert stories i heard were basically "I saw jesus in a dream" or "The holy spirit held my hand")

There is so many Theological confusion, A salvation idea that makes 0 sense, Lack of any form of historical critirea of knowing what is true manuscripts and what is hearsays (The authors of the gospels are all Anynomous),
There is even disagreement within Christianity itself about what stories go into the bible (Many stories have been found out to be false like John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:18)
https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/
The lack of consistency on literally everything makes it one of the least convincing religion in my opinion.

Apparently he said at the bond hearing that Shanna is an active member of the LDS church (LOL!!) and I’ve read that when Jared and Shanna got divorced he and his wife sided with Shanna.
Someone needs to report to the LDS church that they have a bishop lying in court. How long has he been a bishop and what else has he lied about for Shanna??

My parents are in a kinda nasty divorce since my TBM mom is abusive, and other than my dad, bro, and SIL, nobody in my family knows I've stopped going to church. It's chaotic, and I don't want to further complicate it by throwing in me leaving the church on everybody's radar.
I'm not too worried about my dad's side of the family finding out, I've had other relatives leave already that have paved the way. My mom and her family, however, would become nightmares if they found out. My sister possibly would as well.
I am not ready to remove my records due to personal reasons. So that is off the table for me right now.
I stopped going completely a couple months ago, and I worry it's only a matter of time before they contact my family about my records. What do I do? I know with time they might contact me again when the bishopric changes, but in the meantime should I reach out to the bishop and tell him not to contact me or my family? My dad is disfellowshipped right now, so I imagine they might go to my mom instead... and that would be hell.
Would just talking to the bishop work? He seems like a more reasonable and respectful guy, although I don't know him too well

Round 2, Pick 33 - Keon Coleman, WR, Florida State:
NFL: After trading back twice on Thursday, the Bills stick at 33 and take a big, physical and athletically gifted target. Coleman isn't fast and isn't a deep threat, but he can win in a variety of ways. But who will Josh Allen's deep threat be? Stay tuned.
CBS Sports: C-. “X” receiver for a WR-needy team. Plays faster than his combine speed but doesn’t separate consistently and isn’t as good of a contested-catch wideout as his size and highlight-reel would indicate. Young though.
ESPN: After trading back twice, the Bills addressed the team's most significant position of need with Coleman, a big outside receiver with the ability to make splash plays -- 12 receiving touchdowns on contested catches since the start of 2022, second-most in the FBS, however, only a 31.7% contested catch percentage in 2023 -- to create separation and a release that general manager Brandon Beane described as "about as good as any." Beane acknowledged that while he's "probably not" going to run away from defenders, Buffalo feels his play speed is faster than the speed he showed at the combine -- 4.61 40-yard dash -- also noting that they liked his athletic ability that came from playing basketball. The Bills needed starting-level talent at outside receiver and Coleman, who turns 21 in May, fits into what Buffalo was looking for, while the team was still able to move back and add picks.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Believes that knitting is the original “Netflix and chill”.
Round 2, Pick 60 - Cole Bishop, S, Utah:
NFL: Safety was a big need for the Bills, and they go back to the Utes for help after taking Dalton Kincaid in Round 1 a year ago. Bishop is a very good athlete and field general who can play the post safety spot and cover a lot of ground. He played like the QB of the Utes' defense the past two years and could be a rookie starter for Buffalo.
CBS Sports: A-. Large, intimidating safety with magnificent movement skill. The QB of the defense. Aligns everywhere. Can wear many hats. Excelled as slot defender and vs. TEs in coverage and runs the alley on outside runs as well as any safety in the class. Ball skills and tackling must improve. Short arms. Need filled.
ESPN: Another pick for the Bills in the second round, another big need addressed. Drafting Bishop adds someone who can compete for a starting role this season, in addition to being a potential answer in the secondary after moving on from Jordan Poyer this offseason while Micah Hyde continues to contemplate retirement. Bishop has the ability to move all over the field, along with speed -- 4.45 40-yard dash -- and many of the qualities and instincts the Bills look for at the position.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: He always weebles and wobbles, but he won’t ever fall down.
Round 3, Pick 95 - DeWayne Carter, DT, Duke:
NFL: When I first watched Carter at the Senior Bowl, I wrote in my notes: "rolling ball of knives." Carter's game doesn't have a lot of pretty to it, but he's a scheme disruptor with his low center of gravity, ferocious style and nasty demeanor.
CBS Sports: B+. Active, high-energy interior rusher who’s on the ground a bit more than what’s desired because of his frenetic style. But it also gets him to the football more often than most DTs. Flashes of swim move and spin just needs to utilize them more. Length is a plus and he works hard vs. run. Some power too. Fills niche need on Buffalo’s defensive front. Needs to use his length better on passing downs.
ESPN: Using the pick acquired via the trade with the Kansas City Chiefs on Thursday, the Bills addressed another hole with Carter bringing depth at defensive tackle. The three-technique tackle will have the opportunity to continue to develop -- potentially as Ed Oliver's backup -- adding to a defensive tackle room that has limited young talent. The Bills didn't draft a defensive tackle last year due to the way the board fell, but the team was able to add to the rotation early this year.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Still says ‘weeeeeeeeeee’ when on a playground swing.
Round 4, Pick 128 - Ray Davis, RB, Kentucky:
NFL: Davis has overcome a lot to reach this level, and though he lacks long speed, he can be a Zack Moss-like player for the Bills. Davis' vision and wicked spin move have left a few defenders in a blender.
CBS Sports: C. Compact, older RB with plus stop-start ability, married to his feet well. Can deploy multiple cuts in a run to make defenders miss. Good, not amazing overall elusiveness though. Quicker than fast too. Will work hard to fight through contact. Has the skills to be fine complementary RB in NFL.
ESPN: With Davis, the Bills add a needed bigger back -- 5-foot-8, 211-pounds -- to pair with James Cook, but also someone who has the ability to catch the football (seven touchdown catches in 2023, tied with Najee Harris for the most by any SEC running back in a season in the last 25 years). Buffalo had a variety of veterans complimenting Cook last season, but Davis, 24, will give Buffalo a power runner and another younger presence in the room, albeit with plenty of collegiate experience from two seasons at Temple, two at Vanderbilt and one at Kentucky.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: This divorce is taking forever Erica why are you doing this?
Round 5, Pick 141 - Sedrick Van Pran-Granger, C, Georgia:
NFL: He's a tough, durable competitor with good anchor strength and three years starting experience for an SEC power, although SVP's lack of athleticism and smaller frame might make him a center-only projection.
CBS Sports: A-. Multi-year starter in the SEC with wrestler’s mentality. Battles through the whistle every snap. Mobility stands out. Explosive short-area quicks. Doesn’t have supreme length and clearly has to add weight/strength to his game. Methodically carries out run-game duties with ease. Second-level climbs etc. Older prospect but comes with high floor.
ESPN: This offseason, the Bills moved on from the team's starting center, Mitch Morse, and backup Ryan Bates. Last year's left guard Connor McGovern is set to slide over to the starting role. Adding Van Pran-Granger brings depth at center -- he allowed one sack his entire career in 1,337 pass-blocking plays, according to Sports Info Solutions -- and a strong candidate for the future at the position with significant starting experience (he started the last three seasons at center for Georgia).
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Is constantly telling people how different things are on Linux.
Round 5, Pick 160 - Edefuan Ulofoshio, LB, Washington:
NFL: In recent years, Buffalo has taken some interesting shots on linebackers in Rounds 3-7, and Ulofoshio continues that trend. He was one of the final players in my top 100 prospect list with his excellent speed, intense style and special teams experience, even if injuries have clouded his projection.
CBS Sports: A-. Six-year LB who starred for a long time as a full-time player in Washington’s program. Big-time tester and it shows on the field. Just takes a second to diagnose. Keen block-avoider as he’s sifting through traffic. Smooth athlete all around but doesn’t quite play to his workout. Reliable tackler who also flashed coverage skill down the seam. High-floor pick here. Crowded LB room.
ESPN: The Bills lost major special teams contributors this offseason, including linebacker Tyrel Dodson and defensive back Siran Neal, while captain linebacker Tyler Matakevich remains a free agent. Ulofoshio adds depth to the linebacker room, but perhaps more importantly, he can find a role on this roster as someone who can make an impact on special teams, an area of priority for the Bills. He has experience from playing six years at Washington, and while he dealt with multiple significant injuries in 2021 and 2022, he played every game in 2023 and earned Washington's Guy Flaherty Most Inspirational Award, the program's oldest and most prestigious honor.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: DROP TABLE card_facts; [please crash your pc, reader].
Round 5, Pick 168 - Javon Solomon, DE, Troy:
NFL: Solomon was a highly productive rusher the past few years in an unusual frame. He's short and undersized at 6-foot-1 and 247 pounds but with nearly 34-inch arms and huge hands. That extra length helps Solomon get to the quarterback, along with his quick burst and non-stop motor. An interesting study for sure.
CBS Sports: A. Burst, bend, speed predicated outside EDGE. Small frame but serious length. Unique build. Doesn’t get engulfed by bigger blockers as much as expected because of his speed-to-power conversion. Hand work is good, not amazing and can flatten to the QB. Motor hums on every play. Bills needed this type of quick winner on the outside.
ESPN: Solomon provides depth at edge rusher, another position of need for Buffalo. He led the FBS with 16 sacks last season and totaled 31.5 sacks since the start of 2021 (also most in the FBS), in addition to 49 career tackles for loss (third in Sun Belt history). Being a Day 3 selection, finding a special teams role will be important for Solomon. He'll also have the opportunity to develop behind the likes of Greg Rousseau, Von Miller -- someone that Solomon has modeled his game after -- and AJ Epenesa.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: He once painted the walls of a Buccees stall, hasn’t been back since.
Round 6, Pick 204 - Tylan Grable, OT, UCF:
NFL: He's a converted Jacksonville State tight end who became a solid left tackle the past two years at UCF. Grable is a quality athlete with great length and potential to be groomed at center, even if he's still learning how to play O-line.
CBS Sports: B. Height and length type at OT who probably plays guard at the next level. Smooth athleticism and can sustain speed throughout the play. Not just quick. Hands are more active and heavy than they are accurate. Good depth add here with positional versatility. Can grow into his frame.
ESPN: Grable started his collegiate career as a walk-on tight end at Jacksonville State, but transitioned to offensive line starting in 2019 and then started 27 games at left tackle while at UCF. He will compete for a roster spot in an offensive line room with veteran players, and said he's prepared to make a switch to a different position if needed. General manager Brandon Beane said that Grable is "gonna have to continue to work on his lower body strength, his power to move guys in the run game, but has great feet you know for pass pro."
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Still refers to Google DUO as Google MEET.
Round 6, Pick 219 - Daequan Hardy, CB, Penn State:
NFL: His return skills might be what keeps him in the league, as Hardy lacks the mass and strength to hold up full time on defense, but sub-4.4 speed is always appealing in a DB.
CBS Sports: A-. Case for most sudden, twitch-up athlete at CB in the class. Super speedy too. Plus recovery talent. Explosiveness in every movement. Not always sticky in coverage but does have high-caliber reps. Check Ohio State game. Erratic tackling and hard to get off blockers because of his size. Chippy in trying to make plays on screens.
ESPN: Hardy brings depth at the cornerback position and skills as a returner. In 2023, he tied the Penn State record for most punt return touchdowns in a season (two) and finished seventh in punt return average (14.6) in school history. Beane noted that if not for the new return rules, he's not sure if they would have picked Hardy, but "this guy can play one of the backup corner spots, but also he's a really nice returner." Buffalo lost multiple players at the returner spot in free agency, and with more focus on it going into this season, Hardy will have the opportunity to compete for the role.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Owns the complete N64 collection including a CIB Conkers.
Round 7, Pick 221 - Travis Clayton, OT, England:
NFL: The Brit, who is 6-foot-7 and 301 pounds with 35-inch arms, ran a 4.81-second 40-yard dash at South Florida's pro day and immediately put himself on scouts' radars late in the process. He's a total project but might be a terrific find with some seasoning, thanks to those unusual athletic traits.
CBS Sports: C+. At 6-foot-7 and 300 pounds with 35-inch arms and a sub 5.00 40-yard dash, this is a ridiculous athlete who is new to football from London.
ESPN: Despite the Bills never seeing Clayton play football, he's an intriguing addition to develop. The initial projection is as an offensive tackle for the 6-foot-7, 303-pound boxer and former rugby player from England after offensive line coach Aaron Kromer came away from watching tape of his workouts. Notably, he ran a 4.79 40-yard dash, faster than all offensive linemen who competed at the combine in the last 10 years. He'll have an opportunity to show the Bills exactly how his skills will translate and what he may be capable of in the NFL, especially as he does not count for a roster spot as part of the International Player Pathway program.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Just like a fantasy draft, the true sleepers can be found in round seven.

I wrote mini reviews of each arc here, but because there are so damn many arcs, this ended up being a wall of text, despite me trying to keep them short. Feel free to skim or read only what interests you!
--
The episodic nature of Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla means that its narrative is split into chunks. These chunks take place across the many shires of medieval England and vary in terms of length, depth and, well, pointlessness. I thought ranking them would be a fun exercise — a competition of story arcs, all vying for best Viking mini-narrative.
It goes without saying, but I’m about to spoil the whole damn game, so read at your own risk.
--
21. Wincestre
Wincestre is just another Lunden or Jorvik, accept with more Jesus, more King Aelfred and way less… anything worthwhile. This one was just a total nothing-burger of an experience. The fact that it comes so late in the narrative really hurts it, too, because by now you’ve experienced arcs that are a similar traditional Assassin’s Creed city-style that at least aren’t this bad. Aelfred’s turning on Eivor at the end also didn’t feel coherent, convincing or warranted to me. Big miss.
20. Lunden
The smaller, denser cities with multiple targets to track down and ‘social stealth’ options are certainly here to attempt to replicate the traditional AC experience, but Lunden fails to do so meaningfully, and even gets a huge points deduction for being misleading.
The arc is set up to feature twists with Stowe and Ercke (is one a traitor? Will your romancing of Stowe make things complicated?), but after their initial scenes they’re mitigated to what I would hardly even call side characters as Eivor unveils three randos as Order members, kills them and then leaves town. At least there was a cool boss sequence on the river?
19. Snotinghamscire
This arc sees you reunite with Hemmingr Jarl, his son Villi and his compatriot, Trygve. Eivor has an existing relationship with these characters, but the player doesn’t. As a result, nothing that happens with them lands meaningfully.
After Hemmingr passes, this arc boils down to running dull errands to prepare for the burial ceremony. Eivor chooses whether Villi or Trygve will succeed Hemmingr in the end, but the decision is very clear-cut and suggested to the player, lacking the nuance of the game’s other difficult decisions. This arc isn’t memorable, doesn’t concern the main quest, and feels like fluffy filler in the worst way.
18. Jorvik
Another version of the Lunden & Wincestre arcs, Jorvik is stronger than its competitors for presenting the Order members to your face before you deduce who they are. There was nothing shocking about their reveals, but each provided an interesting set piece to navigate during assassinations.
Problematically, the arc sets itself up for Eivor to accuse a traitor, only for her decision to not matter at all. You never get to act on your accusation at Yuletide — the Order member interrupts and attacks the feast no matter who you accuse.
17. Cent
The Cent arc sees Eivor team with Basim to track Fulke. It feels important and part of the main story, but it’s all for naught in the end — you come face-to-face with Fulke in what seems like a meaningful story moment, only for her to run away. Your reward is finding out Sigurd had his arm cut off.
This arc earns some points for getting Fulke screen time and tiptoeing the tightrope of Eivor and Basim’s rocky relationship believably, but certainly can’t be called good. This is because once you pull back the veil, you realize you never advanced the plot and were running in circles for nothing the entire time. At least the other “filler” arcs were forthright about their (lack of) connection to the main story.
16. Jotunheim
This arc has a compelling story to it — Odin running from his fate and bending over backwards to flee from it is interesting, his broken relationship with Loki should be a strong point for the arc, and his moral gray areas (sleeping with a Jotunn, betraying Tyr) certainly make for a complex character’s development.
It has the ingredients of a strong arc, but I just couldn’t shake the why am I doing this feeling I had the entire time. Everything in between Odin’s big moments is a fetch quest and I just felt like I was wasting my life.
This one is weird because on paper it feels like there’s a lot of substance here, but ultimately, I felt nothing while playing it besides contempt for having drank the potion in Ravensthorpe again.
15. Lincolnscire
Heir to the throne Hunwald is exiled from Lincoln and reaches out to Ravensthorpe for help. Eivor tracks down his sickly and dying father and then must cast the deciding vote for whom the new Ealdorman will be after his death.
The game wastes your time with one of Hunwald’s competitors, Aelfgar, (who is a dork) and paints the bishop as evil pretty clearly (he turns out to be an Order member). I suppose this arc could hit hard for someone who accidently put an Order member in charge. For that and for Hunwald at least having a strong drive and personality, this arc earns some marks.
14. Essex
Eivor is brought in to repair a marriage by separating husband and wife naturally without a public divorce. She reunites Ealdorman Birstan with his former lover and sets up a fake public kidnapping to whisk away his wife, Estrid.
I think many would rate this arc far lower than I have here because it is pure side mission nonsense — but for me, this arc stands strong on the backs of convincing and fun characters in Birstan and Estrid, as well as the tangled web of relationships between the two of them, Birstan’s son, and Rollo, Estrid’s former lover.
13. Ledecestrescire
Ledecestre sees the intros of Ivarr, Ubba and Ceowulf. You team up with the sons of Ragnar to help put Ceowulf’s father on the throne in Mercia.
Ledecestrescire earns points for strong, realized characters in the Ragnarsons and Ceowulf, a believable conflict with the Mercian king, as well as the arc’s biggest moment with killing or sparing Leofrith in Tamworth.
12. Asgard
Asgard looks pretty and hits hard when you first arrive. I appreciate Ubi for creating places like Atlantis and Asgard to run around and explore in.
Unfortunately, both felt supremely empty. However, watching Odin fight tooth and nail to run from his fate was satisfying and Loki is aptly deceptive and frustrating. The Builder gave the arc a nice wrinkle, too and climaxed with a nice boss fight.
I spent too much time tracking down tears, but I think if you look at just the main missions here, this is a solid experience in an incredible environment.
11. East Anglia
In this arc, Eivor works alongside Oswald to fend off violent Dane aggressors and claim his leadership role.
Oswald is honorable and likeable — watching him teach the Danes in his court that bravery can reveal itself in more nuanced ways rather than physically was powerful, and giving Eivor the decision to allow Oswald to fight his own battles or fight for him solidified the feeling of fathering Oswald through this arc into manhood and leadership.
I bought into this arc because I felt the story was touching and meaningful and the cast was strong.
10. Vinland
Nothing really happens here aside from hunting down Gorm Kjotveson, but the arc earns major points for how refreshing it is.
I played it late in the story when I was feeling quite a bit of fatigue towards the game and everything about Vinland just landed for me, giving me new energy to actually enjoy what I was doing.
The new landscape is insanely gorgeous and fun to navigate. The stripping down of Eivor’s equipment essentially forces you to start from scratch — but it really makes the four stealth encounters stronger; you have to approach them differently due to being unarmed and unarmored.
The whole thing was a little bit of a reset button for the entire experience of Valhalla and it sorely needed it.
9. Suthsexe
Suthsexe is the meeting with Guthrum and the rising action leading up to defeating Fulke.
The arc is fun, feels impactful as well as meaningful and sees you reunite with all the old friends you’ve made up to this point. Fighting alongside Soma and others was a big positive for me. Storming Fulke’s fort at least included some different mechanics than many forts up to this point, so it felt fresh. Her boss fight in the darkness of the crypts was exceptional, as was her confession sequence.
This arc was mostly good, satisfying fun the whole way through, but didn’t include too much intrigue as the ones ranked above it did.
8. Rygjafylke
Look, I’ll be honest. I’m writing this particular paragraph after completing the game and this opening section was so long ago that I don’t have a great memory of it.
What I do know is that Valhalla opened strongly. I found it all pretty compelling. I remember it being atmospheric, believable and driven by strong characters like Sigurd, Varin, Haytham, Basim and Kyotve. I was bought-in very early and Rygjafylke really got the game off to a strong start.
7. Hamtunscire & Epilogue
Aelfred screen time is a good thing, and this arc earns marks for his badassery in the face of Guthrum, as well as his manipulation of the Dane army. Ally deaths in the battle at Chepeham give the arc meaningful stakes and ratchet up the tension. This arc is brief and straightforward — there’s not much story to it since it’s really just war throughout the whole thing.
Afterwards, Eivor tracks down the final member of the Order and confronts him in a touching sequence over some burnt bread in a small swampy town in the middle of nowhere. It’s a humble conclusion for Aelfred and the swirling epic that was AC: Valhalla.
6. Hordafylke
The return to Norway contains two things: Eivor & Sigurd finding closure with Sigurd’s father, and the two locating “Yggdrasil.”
I quite enjoyed the pit stop with Sigurd’s father, and the entire Yggdrasil sequence was incredibly interesting. It was a refreshing change of pace from what you’ve been doing for the past 100 hours and featured a nice boss fight at the end. No matter which ending you get, the conversation with Sigurd after the dust settles is impactful and weighty.
5. Oxenefordscire
Finally reunited with Sigurd, this is the arc we learn of his obsession with his ancestry and true nature. Eivor’s reaction of discomfort and distrust towards Sigurd’s change is honest and relatable and she must juggle relations between Sigurd and the Thane they are working to put in charge, Gaedric.
Negotiations with King Aelfred are complex and a late intervention from Fulke reveals her true allegiance to the Order and puts Sigurd in enemy hands.
This arc moves the plot along moreso than the last 400 hours you’ve been playing the game, while also establishing and reinterpreting Eivor’s relations with the cast in meaningful ways. It ratchets up the tension of the main quest and narrative, which up to this point had been lagging behind due to a breadth of shire arcs.
4. Glowecestrecire
I’m so surprised to see myself rank this so high — after the first third of the arc, I was considering putting it in dead last. I felt Gunnar’s fiancé’s unintelligible dialogue, the trick-or-treating, the druid encounter, and Eivor’s 400th drunken night of debauchery to be a disrespectful waste of my time this deep (over 80 hours) into the game.
But then the arc turned, with two solid stealth encounters and a stellar boss fight. Navigating the Aelfwood was a gorgeous thrill and the confrontation with Modran is atmospheric and a fantastically fresh take on the typical Valhalla boss or mini boss fight.
When I decided to focus-up on the story and let the Celtic and Welsh mythos shine, the arc became a terrestrial fever dream of satisfying magic, intrigue and character interactions.
3. Grantebridgescire
Eivor looks to ally with Soma, the leader of Grantebridge, but her town’s just been sacked from the inside by a traitor. After saving her three companions in the thick river bogs, you take back Grantebridge and then embark on an investigation to discover the rat.
Its the investigation that makes the whole arc. It has a slew of clues, nuance and red herrings to consider. One of its strengths is how open ended the investigation is — you can follow the quest markers, but talking to the town’s people and hunting down the yellow-painted ship is up to you (at least I think, I played on the most ‘difficult’ exploration setting).
This arc earns big points because the investigation matters — you have to tell Soma to kill one of her closest friends and then watch her do it, living with your right or wrong decision.
2. Eurvicscire
Finally meeting the third of the famed Ragnarson’s, Eivor finds Halfdan a paranoid soul, waxing poetic about friendship and treason. The arc balances the two on a blade’s edge to tremendous effect.
Halfdan believes he has a traitor in his midst and the main culprit is his right-hand man, Faravid.
Faravid's dialogue is expertly written to feign allegiance to Halfdan, but never reveal too much of his true nature. Eivor’s wavering relationship and trust with him are complex and the Wolf-Kissed can lie to both him and Halfdan depending on dialogue choice. Every decision feels like it carries weight. It’s this ambiguity that makes the arc compelling and gives the decisions importance.
This arc could feel disconnected (it’s not part of the main plot and Halfdan doesn’t appear in the late game, no matter your decision) and thus appear as pointless fluff, but I won’t fault it for that. As a self-contained story, this was flat-out interesting and kept me in anticipation of the next reveal or twist. Imagery and foreshadowing, red-herrings, and great atmosphere all make for an engaging and compelling experience. I only wish every shire arc could’ve reached these heights.
1. Sciropscire
Sciropescire’s strengths come somewhat from the arcs that came before it, as it sees Eivor quickly reunited and working with Ivarr and Ceowulf. Your preexisting relationship with both gives this arc an advantage over others where it doesn’t have to establish too much all at once, as well as it starting off with you already having a personal connection of some sort with the main cast. Still, each set piece here is strong enough on its own –

1. Eivor & co. join to negotiate peace with King Rhodri. She can offer 600 silver to whomever she chooses to try and quell the peace talks. Each option is mired in obscurity, has obvious pros and cons, and plenty of uncertainty. It felt impactful, difficult and nuanced.
2. After peace talks go sour with Ivarr’s outburst, Eivor, Ivarr and Ceowulf sack a village under Rhodri’s control. It’s brutal and takes a long time to burn (on purpose!). You then fight a huge party of Rhodri’s men. The whole scene feels vile, over the top and harsh (on purpose!).
3. The twist is that Ivarr kills Ceowulf in cold blood to earn himself the opportunity to get his own revenge on Rhodri — only revealed after you sack Rhodri’s fort (after reaching peace with him). A brutal blood eagle from Ivarr and the game’s best boss fight ensue.

It’s close between the top 3, but this is the best arc in the game, for me.
For once, the game forces you to face the trail of bloodshed and destruction your ‘pacifying’ of England has left in your wake. Additionally, the ambiguous decision-making process in negotiating peace, the brutal village burning sequence, the tangled web of Ivarr’s relationships and motivations, the twists of the peaceful alliance and Rhodri’s fate, and finally, the Ivarr boss fight are just too good all in tandem to not take first place.
--
I’m conflicted looking back on these.
There’s many that feel even more empty than I remember them being now that I draft them as text. However, a surprising number of highly-rated arcs aren’t actually part of the main quest.
Ultimately, I’m left bewildered at the scale and scope of the epic that this game took me on. I was so fatigued by the end of it, but in hindsight so happy I completed it.

I want to take a moment to list out some of my most challenging problems with Protestantism according to what Scripture says, in no particular order. It is not a comprehensive list of all of the problems that I have with it, but having these answered would go a long way to me taking Protestantism seriously from a theological viewpoint.
We should rely on our own personal interpretation of Scripture
And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. ²⁰ First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, ²¹ because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Here, Peter is saying PAY ATTENTION TO THE CHURCH!!! Listen to what the apostles are teaching and allow that to form your reading of Scripture. If you read the rest of this chapter, He says that "we" (the apostles) have had given to them, "all things that pertain to life and godliness" through knowledge of Jesus Christ. When we read Scripture, we should not read it solely with our own understanding, but allow ourselves to be taught by the apostles (or those appointed by them as successors).
When it comes to Sola Scriptura, I do not see how it is not relying on one's own personal interpretation. How do I know that I am understanding Scripture correctly? How do I know that I do not have an interpretation that is horribly off base? I have never really gotten an answer to this from Protestants.
If I am debating Scripture, according to Protestants, I am debating the sole highest authority. So if I test my interpretation against something else, I am testing against a lesser authority and thus it can still be challenged and I have not sufficiently solved the problem.
We only need to declare Jesus as Lord to get to Heaven
“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Here Jesus flatly says professing that Jesus is Lord is not enough to get you into Heaven, but doing the will of the Father. Yes, we are saved by faith through grace. If you get baptized and are shot dead the moment you walk out of the church, you will go to Heaven having done nothing except making that "leap of faith." If you are in a car crash and have a minute to live and all you can do is place your trust in Jesus, yes, you will be saved. But for 99.99999% of people, this is not the case. We have our entire lives to live after baptism. So the question is "Do we live according to what we profess with our mouth?"
If I say "I am an Orioles fan." but only ever go to/watch Yankees games and only ever root for the Yankees, would you say that I am actually an Orioles fan? Do I not call into question that statement that I made by my actions? What if I grow up as an Orioles fan, regularly attending games and watching them daily. But then later, my favorite player gets traded to the Yankees and I convert to a Yankees fan. Was I never an Orioles fan to begin with? No. That would be silly. I was an Orioles fan, but then became a Yankees fan.
Likewise, if I say "I am a Christian and believe that Jesus rose from the dead." But I never attend Church, I am not loving others, I am worshipping other gods, etc. Am I really a Christian? Maybe I was at one point, but I certainly am not now based on what I have done.
As such, yes, it is true that works do not save us, but if we act contrary to what we believe, we cannot have assurance of our salvation. Hopefully God still finds a way to bring us to Heaven. I would rather someone spend 1000 years after death having their soul purified knowing that they will go to Heaven then know for a fact that they are in Hell. Even so, we must recognize that Hell is real, it is a real possibility.
Baptism does not save
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.
I have ZERO idea where some Protestants get this idea from. The idea that Baptism is not salvific is not at all Scriptural. This really ties into the "Sola Fide" bit of this post.
The Eucharist is merely symbolic
I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. ⁵⁰ This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread^\)^c\) which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
⁵² The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”^\)^d\) ⁵³ So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; ⁵⁴ he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. ⁵⁶ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. ⁵⁷ As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” ⁵⁹ This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.
Jesus flat out says "This bread that I am talking about here is my flesh." So the disciples challenge Him saying "You mean this figuratively right?... RIGHT?
So Jesus responds repeating himself over and over in verses 53 through 58. How many times does Jesus need to say something for you to believe it? You will latch on to a singular verse that teaches something you agree with (or seems to) for dear life at the exclusion of literally any other verse on the topic, but something else is taught multiple times and you don't believe it? I am confused about how Protestants read the Bible. It does not seem to be in any kind of coherent exegesis.
You are allowed to get divorced and remarried... at all.
“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. ⁶ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ⁷ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,^\)^a\) ⁸ and the two shall become one.’^\)^b\) So they are no longer two but one.^\)^c\) ⁹ What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,^\)^c\) and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”
A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Marriage is "until death do us part." The teachings on divorce from the Gospels is trying to set a trap for Jesus to see which rabbinical school he agrees with. Jesus comes out and says. "Neither." He says "Yeah. Moses allowed for divorce. But this is not how it was from the beginning. What about that "except for unchastity" phrase in Matthew (and only Matthew)?
There Matthew is talking about unions that God did not join together. He is talking about invalid marriages that his primarily Jewish readers would have been thinking about. The gentile converts to Christianity would not have thought about these weird situations, so this is excluded from the other gospels.
You can get re-baptized
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Some that want to say that you can get rebaptized jump to Acts 19. Reading this passage, it would seem that what is going on here is that the Baptism by John was not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Paul is essentially saying that the "baptism" that they had received was not valid. He does not say that he "baptized them again into Christ." Rather it says that Paul "baptized them in the name Jesus Christ." As in they were not baptized into Christ, so Paul baptized them "for real this time."
You can only be cleansed from Original Sin once. After that, you can confess your sins and have them forgiven. Baptism is what makes into a child of God. That can only happen once. To do otherwise is a grave sin because you are saying that God was not powerful enough to save you the first time. Again, if a baptism is deemed to be invalid, this is a different story. This is why Paul asks "Into what were you baptized?"
The Church is simply the collection of believers
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶ But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. ¹⁷ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ¹⁸ Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Here it is clear that the "Church" is something more than a collection of believers. Jesus teaches here that first, you deal with disagreement 1 on 1. If that does not work, you go and get other believers to help show that they are wrong. If that does not work, then take to the Church. If even that does not work, they are to be treated as an unbeliever (excommunicated).
Certainly, all believers are a part of the Church - which is the body of Christ. The Church is not a parish or a singular building. The Church is universal, but there is a clear structure to it. There are priests, bishops, elders, etc. There is real authority in that structure. This article goes over in Scripture and towards the bottom the Church Fathers what the Church is meant to look like: https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-biblical-church/
Many Protestant ideas sound nice, but I do not want to believe something merely because it sounds nice. Dessert for dinner sounds nice but it is not good for my body. Likewise, we should not judge something on "does it sound nice." We should judge something on whether it is good for our souls.
I look at many Protestant theological views and note how they seem to not be based in Scripture or based on a misunderstanding of Scripture. I would love to see if Protestants can properly answer these. Simply quoting verses that seem to back you up is not enough here. You need to show that these other verses are not problematic.
I do not only want to trust in Jesus, I want to trust that I am following everything that he taught. Jesus commanded the apostles to teach all that He has commanded, not just the important stuff. If you get the main stuff right but other things wrong, you still got it wrong. If a teacher gave a 10 question quiz and said, "You got questions 1, 2, 5, and 7 right, but everything else wrong. It is ok though those questions were the most important." I still get a failing grade. So, if you want me to convert to Protestantism you need to show that you actually follow all of Scripture, because I want to strive to get a 100% on the "test" of salvation. After all Jesus told us to "Be perfect as Your Heavenly Father is perfect" Not "Be kind of perfect as Your Heavenly Father is perfect."

I wrote mini reviews of each arc here, but because there are so damn many arcs, this ended up being a wall of text, despite me trying to keep them short. Feel free to skim or read only what interests you!
--
The episodic nature of Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla means that its narrative is split into chunks. These chunks take place across the many shires of medieval England and vary in terms of length, depth and, well, pointlessness. I thought ranking them would be a fun exercise — a competition of story arcs, all vying for best Viking mini-narrative.
It goes without saying, but I’m about to spoil the whole damn game, so read at your own risk.
--
21. Wincestre
Wincestre is just another Lunden or Jorvik, accept with more Jesus, more King Aelfred and way less… anything worthwhile. This one was just a total nothing-burger of an experience. The fact that it comes so late in the narrative really hurts it, too, because by now you’ve experienced arcs that are a similar traditional Assassin’s Creed city-style that at least aren’t this bad. Aelfred’s turning on Eivor at the end also didn’t feel coherent, convincing or warranted to me. Big miss.
20. Lunden
The smaller, denser cities with multiple targets to track down and ‘social stealth’ options are certainly here to attempt to replicate the traditional AC experience, but Lunden fails to do so meaningfully, and even gets a huge points deduction for being misleading.
The arc is set up to feature twists with Stowe and Ercke (is one a traitor? Will your romancing of Stowe make things complicated?), but after their initial scenes they’re mitigated to what I would hardly even call side characters as Eivor unveils three randos as Order members, kills them and then leaves town. At least there was a cool boss sequence on the river?
19. Snotinghamscire
This arc sees you reunite with Hemmingr Jarl, his son Villi and his compatriot, Trygve. Eivor has an existing relationship with these characters, but the player doesn’t. As a result, nothing that happens with them lands meaningfully.
After Hemmingr passes, this arc boils down to running dull errands to prepare for the burial ceremony. Eivor chooses whether Villi or Trygve will succeed Hemmingr in the end, but the decision is very clear-cut and suggested to the player, lacking the nuance of the game’s other difficult decisions. This arc isn’t memorable, doesn’t concern the main quest, and feels like fluffy filler in the worst way.
18. Jorvik
Another version of the Lunden & Wincestre arcs, Jorvik is stronger than its competitors for presenting the Order members to your face before you deduce who they are. There was nothing shocking about their reveals, but each provided an interesting set piece to navigate during assassinations.
Problematically, the arc sets itself up for Eivor to accuse a traitor, only for her decision to not matter at all. You never get to act on your accusation at Yuletide — the Order member interrupts and attacks the feast no matter who you accuse.
17. Cent
The Cent arc sees Eivor team with Basim to track Fulke. It feels important and part of the main story, but it’s all for naught in the end — you come face-to-face with Fulke in what seems like a meaningful story moment, only for her to run away. Your reward is finding out Sigurd had his arm cut off.
This arc earns some points for getting Fulke screen time and tiptoeing the tightrope of Eivor and Basim’s rocky relationship believably, but certainly can’t be called good. This is because once you pull back the veil, you realize you never advanced the plot and were running in circles for nothing the entire time. At least the other “filler” arcs were forthright about their (lack of) connection to the main story.
16. Jotunheim
This arc has a compelling story to it — Odin running from his fate and bending over backwards to flee from it is interesting, his broken relationship with Loki should be a strong point for the arc, and his moral gray areas (sleeping with a Jotunn, betraying Tyr) certainly make for a complex character’s development.
It has the ingredients of a strong arc, but I just couldn’t shake the why am I doing this feeling I had the entire time. Everything in between Odin’s big moments is a fetch quest and I just felt like I was wasting my life.
This one is weird because on paper it feels like there’s a lot of substance here, but ultimately, I felt nothing while playing it besides contempt for having drank the potion in Ravensthorpe again.
15. Lincolnscire
Heir to the throne Hunwald is exiled from Lincoln and reaches out to Ravensthorpe for help. Eivor tracks down his sickly and dying father and then must cast the deciding vote for whom the new Ealdorman will be after his death.
The game wastes your time with one of Hunwald’s competitors, Aelfgar, (who is a dork) and paints the bishop as evil pretty clearly (he turns out to be an Order member). I suppose this arc could hit hard for someone who accidently put an Order member in charge. For that and for Hunwald at least having a strong drive and personality, this arc earns some marks.
14. Essex
Eivor is brought in to repair a marriage by separating husband and wife naturally without a public divorce. She reunites Ealdorman Birstan with his former lover and sets up a fake public kidnapping to whisk away his wife, Estrid.
I think many would rate this arc far lower than I have here because it is pure side mission nonsense — but for me, this arc stands strong on the backs of convincing and fun characters in Birstan and Estrid, as well as the tangled web of relationships between the two of them, Birstan’s son, and Rollo, Estrid’s former lover.
13. Ledecestrescire
Ledecestre sees the intros of Ivarr, Ubba and Ceowulf. You team up with the sons of Ragnar to help put Ceowulf’s father on the throne in Mercia.
Ledecestrescire earns points for strong, realized characters in the Ragnarsons and Ceowulf, a believable conflict with the Mercian king, as well as the arc’s biggest moment with killing or sparing Leofrith in Tamworth.
12. Asgard
Asgard looks pretty and hits hard when you first arrive. I appreciate Ubi for creating places like Atlantis and Asgard to run around and explore in.
Unfortunately, both felt supremely empty. However, watching Odin fight tooth and nail to run from his fate was satisfying and Loki is aptly deceptive and frustrating. The Builder gave the arc a nice wrinkle, too and climaxed with a nice boss fight.
I spent too much time tracking down tears, but I think if you look at just the main missions here, this is a solid experience in an incredible environment.
11. East Anglia
In this arc, Eivor works alongside Oswald to fend off violent Dane aggressors and claim his leadership role.
Oswald is honorable and likeable — watching him teach the Danes in his court that bravery can reveal itself in more nuanced ways rather than physically was powerful, and giving Eivor the decision to allow Oswald to fight his own battles or fight for him solidified the feeling of fathering Oswald through this arc into manhood and leadership.
I bought into this arc because I felt the story was touching and meaningful and the cast was strong.
10. Vinland
Nothing really happens here aside from hunting down Gorm Kjotveson, but the arc earns major points for how refreshing it is.
I played it late in the story when I was feeling quite a bit of fatigue towards the game and everything about Vinland just landed for me, giving me new energy to actually enjoy what I was doing.
The new landscape is insanely gorgeous and fun to navigate. The stripping down of Eivor’s equipment essentially forces you to start from scratch — but it really makes the four stealth encounters stronger; you have to approach them differently due to being unarmed and unarmored.
The whole thing was a little bit of a reset button for the entire experience of Valhalla and it sorely needed it.
9. Suthsexe
Suthsexe is the meeting with Guthrum and the rising action leading up to defeating Fulke.
The arc is fun, feels impactful as well as meaningful and sees you reunite with all the old friends you’ve made up to this point. Fighting alongside Soma and others was a big positive for me. Storming Fulke’s fort at least included some different mechanics than many forts up to this point, so it felt fresh. Her boss fight in the darkness of the crypts was exceptional, as was her confession sequence.
This arc was mostly good, satisfying fun the whole way through, but didn’t include too much intrigue as the ones ranked above it did.
8. Rygjafylke
Look, I’ll be honest. I’m writing this particular paragraph after completing the game and this opening section was so long ago that I don’t have a great memory of it.
What I do know is that Valhalla opened strongly. I found it all pretty compelling. I remember it being atmospheric, believable and driven by strong characters like Sigurd, Varin, Haytham, Basim and Kyotve. I was bought-in very early and Rygjafylke really got the game off to a strong start.
7. Hamtunscire & Epilogue
Aelfred screen time is a good thing, and this arc earns marks for his badassery in the face of Guthrum, as well as his manipulation of the Dane army. Ally deaths in the battle at Chepeham give the arc meaningful stakes and ratchet up the tension. This arc is brief and straightforward — there’s not much story to it since it’s really just war throughout the whole thing.
Afterwards, Eivor tracks down the final member of the Order and confronts him in a touching sequence over some burnt bread in a small swampy town in the middle of nowhere. It’s a humble conclusion for Aelfred and the swirling epic that was AC: Valhalla.
6. Hordafylke
The return to Norway contains two things: Eivor & Sigurd finding closure with Sigurd’s father, and the two locating “Yggdrasil.”
I quite enjoyed the pit stop with Sigurd’s father, and the entire Yggdrasil sequence was incredibly interesting. It was a refreshing change of pace from what you’ve been doing for the past 100 hours and featured a nice boss fight at the end. No matter which ending you get, the conversation with Sigurd after the dust settles is impactful and weighty.
5. Oxenefordscire
Finally reunited with Sigurd, this is the arc we learn of his obsession with his ancestry and true nature. Eivor’s reaction of discomfort and distrust towards Sigurd’s change is honest and relatable and she must juggle relations between Sigurd and the Thane they are working to put in charge, Gaedric.
Negotiations with King Aelfred are complex and a late intervention from Fulke reveals her true allegiance to the Order and puts Sigurd in enemy hands.
This arc moves the plot along moreso than the last 400 hours you’ve been playing the game, while also establishing and reinterpreting Eivor’s relations with the cast in meaningful ways. It ratchets up the tension of the main quest and narrative, which up to this point had been lagging behind due to a breadth of shire arcs.
4. Glowecestrecire
I’m so surprised to see myself rank this so high — after the first third of the arc, I was considering putting it in dead last. I felt Gunnar’s fiancé’s unintelligible dialogue, the trick-or-treating, the druid encounter, and Eivor’s 400th drunken night of debauchery to be a disrespectful waste of my time this deep (over 80 hours) into the game.
But then the arc turned, with two solid stealth encounters and a stellar boss fight. Navigating the Aelfwood was a gorgeous thrill and the confrontation with Modran is atmospheric and a fantastically fresh take on the typical Valhalla boss or mini boss fight.
When I decided to focus-up on the story and let the Celtic and Welsh mythos shine, the arc became a terrestrial fever dream of satisfying magic, intrigue and character interactions.
3. Grantebridgescire
Eivor looks to ally with Soma, the leader of Grantebridge, but her town’s just been sacked from the inside by a traitor. After saving her three companions in the thick river bogs, you take back Grantebridge and then embark on an investigation to discover the rat.
Its the investigation that makes the whole arc. It has a slew of clues, nuance and red herrings to consider. One of its strengths is how open ended the investigation is — you can follow the quest markers, but talking to the town’s people and hunting down the yellow-painted ship is up to you (at least I think, I played on the most ‘difficult’ exploration setting).
This arc earns big points because the investigation matters — you have to tell Soma to kill one of her closest friends and then watch her do it, living with your right or wrong decision.
2. Eurvicscire
Finally meeting the third of the famed Ragnarson’s, Eivor finds Halfdan a paranoid soul, waxing poetic about friendship and treason. The arc balances the two on a blade’s edge to tremendous effect.
Halfdan believes he has a traitor in his midst and the main culprit is his right-hand man, Faravid.
Faravid's dialogue is expertly written to feign allegiance to Halfdan, but never reveal too much of his true nature. Eivor’s wavering relationship and trust with him are complex and the Wolf-Kissed can lie to both him and Halfdan depending on dialogue choice. Every decision feels like it carries weight. It’s this ambiguity that makes the arc compelling and gives the decisions importance.
This arc could feel disconnected (it’s not part of the main plot and Halfdan doesn’t appear in the late game, no matter your decision) and thus appear as pointless fluff, but I won’t fault it for that. As a self-contained story, this was flat-out interesting and kept me in anticipation of the next reveal or twist. Imagery and foreshadowing, red-herrings, and great atmosphere all make for an engaging and compelling experience. I only wish every shire arc could’ve reached these heights.
1. Sciropscire
Sciropescire’s strengths come somewhat from the arcs that came before it, as it sees Eivor quickly reunited and working with Ivarr and Ceowulf. Your preexisting relationship with both gives this arc an advantage over others where it doesn’t have to establish too much all at once, as well as it starting off with you already having a personal connection of some sort with the main cast. Still, each set piece here is strong enough on its own –

1. Eivor & co. join to negotiate peace with King Rhodri. She can offer 600 silver to whomever she chooses to try and quell the peace talks. Each option is mired in obscurity, has obvious pros and cons, and plenty of uncertainty. It felt impactful, difficult and nuanced.
2. After peace talks go sour with Ivarr’s outburst, Eivor, Ivarr and Ceowulf sack a village under Rhodri’s control. It’s brutal and takes a long time to burn (on purpose!). You then fight a huge party of Rhodri’s men. The whole scene feels vile, over the top and harsh (on purpose!).
3. The twist is that Ivarr kills Ceowulf in cold blood to earn himself the opportunity to get his own revenge on Rhodri — only revealed after you sack Rhodri’s fort (after reaching peace with him). A brutal blood eagle from Ivarr and the game’s best boss fight ensue.

It’s close between the top 3, but this is the best arc in the game, for me.
For once, the game forces you to face the trail of bloodshed and destruction your ‘pacifying’ of England has left in your wake. Additionally, the ambiguous decision-making process in negotiating peace, the brutal village burning sequence, the tangled web of Ivarr’s relationships and motivations, the twists of the peaceful alliance and Rhodri’s fate, and finally, the Ivarr boss fight are just too good all in tandem to not take first place.
--
Ultimately, I’m conflicted looking back on these.
There’s many that feel even more empty than I remember them being now that I draft them as text. However, a surprising number of highly-rated arcs aren’t actually part of the main quest.
I’m left bewildered at the scale and scope of the epic that this game took me on. I was so fatigued by the end of it, but in hindsight so happy I completed it.