the same sincerity that I say I’m skeptical about how church leaders juggle their knowledge of obvious inconsistencies and withholding of truths and still sincerely believe.

I may not have an uncle who was a temple president, but I am a direct decendant of LDS 1st presidency members, apostles (some whose names are in the D&C, some more contemporary). I spent 20 minutes alone in the temple with President Oaks. I have met personally with most of the Hinckley/Monson era apostles / 1st presidency members and had the presidency of the 70 to my home to address my concerns. My immediate family boasts 2 recent mission presidents, area authority 70’s, several stake presidency members and bishops. Each of whom have very spiritual experiences, many of which of great historical significant to the church. I won’t go into specifics, but I have my own unique chapter of church history that I can claim as my own. I’m sure it’s recorded somewhere in SLC. My lesser known ancestors were among the saints sealed in nauvoo prior to its destruction and travelled with Brigham to the west. Their journals are powerful testimonies of faith.

I used to call these things evidences (or even proof) of the truthfulness of the church. But while you don’t find Catholics arguing much over who is in or who is out, you do find former jehovahs witnesses, Scientologists, Orthodox Jews (ask the Sanhedrin) some more radical Muslims (and the FLDS, NXIUM, and many other more cult-like religious groups) caring deeply about who has left the true faith. I don’t typically refer to their discussion of the same things as evidence that their religion is true. And I’m not convinced that Mormons caring so deeply about who is in and who is out is proof of truthfulness as much as it’s proof that the church has a lot in common with other high demand religions.