1. I don’t believe the LDS Church is what it claims to be— God’s True Church and the Kingdom of God on Earth. Without that belief, the ROI of being Mormon (money, time, etc) is just too low. Here are some of the specific reasons why I don’t think Mormonism is God’s true religion— and it basically comes down to the idea that LDS leaders receive no more about God’s will than anyone. Joseph Smith and all LDS leaders since have been show to be wrong in what they share as divine revelation.

Joseph Smith altered his First Vision story through the years. The official version taught in Mormonism now is the latest iteration written in 1838, 18 years after the supposed event. Documents that have surfaced within the past 50 years show that Smith’s account was initially different. Joseph later claimed that certain men worked to “excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.” No evidence of any such persecution about his vision exists.
Joseph Smith’s mutiple First Vision accounts | Read this book

Joseph Smith altered his story (stories) over time to suit his needs. As his theology and institutional needs evolved so did his accounts of the First Vision and the Priesthood Restoration. Joseph also altered early revelations— initially intended for the Book of Commandments— before compiling the Doctrine and Covenants.  Read this book

Nauvoo Polygamy and polyandry. As far as I ‘m concerned God did not tell Joseph Smith to marry other women besides Emma or women married to other men. I do not believe that God told Joseph to marry 14 year olds Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Winchester or to marry women like Marinda Johnson Hyde who were already married to other men. I believe Joseph, consciously or not, used the ‘revelation’ on polygamy to accomplish his own desires. To hide his actions Smith kept the practice secret and repeatedly lied about it when asked— and required the same of those he included in the practice. To a large degree the reasons Joseph Smith was in Carthage jail were directly related to his secret polygamous and polyandrous marital activities.
Read this book | Learn more here | There’s more here

Utah Practice of Polygamy. Mormon leaders thought polygamy was a divinely sanctioned practice revealed by God to Joseph Smith. Many early leader taught that practicing the principle was required for exaltation. LDS leaders and members lied about their practice for years before the Manifesto and it’s clear that the Manifesto was not ‘revelation’ but instead a PR ploy to get the government off the church’s back. In fact, LDS leadership not only approved numerous plural marriages after September 1890 but took plural wives themselves. Evidence suggest that Wilford Woodruff took at least one plural wife after the document was published was released to the Gentile world. The underground practice of the Principle was practiced with the support of LDS leadership (although plausible deniability was built in) until at least 1904. Some believe that after that the practice continued in an even more secret manner till at least 1910 with some leadership taking wives into the 1920s. Despite the fact that Declaration 1 is now seen as revelation, LDS history shows it to instead be a calculated political move and an act of deception by the Brethren.
Read this book | Post-manifesto Polygamy | Great book on post-Manifesto polygamy

The Book of Abraham. In the 1830s Joseph Smith claimed the papyri purchased from Michael Chandler contained writings by Abraham’s own hand and allegedly translated a multi-chapter volume of scripture from it. Since the papyri were recovered in 1967, current Egyptology has shown the papyri to not be what Smith claimed but instead common Egyptian funerary texts. Viewing the papyri as the source Joseph’s translation has been shown to be completely wrong and contains a number of errors and anachronisms which show that Smith knew next to nothing of ancient Egypt. In addition much of the astronomy and physics proposed in the volume have been challenged and shown to be false by current scientific thought. Although the Book of Abraham remains canonized LDS scripture, it is clearly unreliable or true in it’s origin claims and in much of what it teaches.
Read this book | Visit this site | Learn more here

The Book of Mormon was translated using Joseph’s failed seer stone-in-a-hat method he used in his earlier treasure digging days. Smith never successfully found treasure although he claimed to see it buried underground and the guardian spirits protecting it. I don’t believe Smith could actually see treasure or the spirits in the stone during his failed treasure digging excursions. In my opinion he was either lying or deluded— so I doubt that the same process would be any more legitimate in the BoM translation.  FYI — in 1826 Smith was not only put on trial but also found guilty of telling people he could see treasure in the stone. Read this book | Learn more at this site | Elder Russel M. Nelson recounts David Whitmer’s account of the BoM translation

The Book of Mormon. If the BoM is the test for Joseph Smith being a “true” prophet, then he fails. The BoM is clearly not what it has been claimed to be for 170+ years. It is not an ancient record but rather a 19th century piece of writing.

Here are some of the issues with the BoM:

The main plot of the book is taken from a common 19th century idea that has been show to be false. Specifically that Native Americans are descended from Israelites that emigrated to the New World. DNA testing has shown Native Americans are of Asian descent rather than middle eastern.
More info | Read this book

The book repeats a number of details on this theory (see previous) as well as other ideas from other early 19th century books/sources (View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith, American Antiquities by J. Priest, common moundbuilder myths, anti-Masonic sentiment, evangelical protestant revival  etc.)  Read this book | This book as well | and this book | Check out this article

Pre-BoM time Bible quotes (including KJV errors) included in the BoM. These errors would not have been on the plates.  Learn more here | Read this Book | Read this book

Populations listed in the BoM battle narratives not achievable in iron age civilization and only possible nowadays.  Read this book

Multiple anachronisms in the BoM. Chariots, steel, horses, honey bees etc. More Here

Zero new world archeology supporting the BoM   More Here | Read this book

There are many more issues but I will end the list here. The point has been made, I think, that the BoM has some major issues.

The Kirtland Banking Failure. Despite a  Joseph Smith claiming to have a revelation assuring him that the illegal bank would prosper it failed, bankrupting many Mormons and causing mass apostasy in 1838. Information on the Kirtland Bank Failure | More Info

The Priesthood Ban. For a hundred and thirty years or so LDS leadership refused to ordain people of African descent to the LDS Priesthood, a honor usually open to all male members. The practice mostly came from the way LDS scripture (verses in the Book of Abraham) was interpreted. Brigham Young claimed that it was instituted by Joseph Smith but Smith is known to have ordained at least one, maybe two, black men before his death. The racist teachings surrounding the practice are as offensive as the actual prohibition and some still persist today in Mormonism. The practice was only finally ended by LDS leadership in 1978 (years after the civil rights movement) apparently to allow the Church to expand into Brazil and Africa— and in response to public pressure.
Visit this site | Learn more here | Mormonism and Race | And More

Racist Doctrines in the Book of Mormon. In addition to the priesthood ban LDS doctrine has contained/still contains other racist teachings.The Book of Mormon teaches that Native Americans are dark skinned to signify that their ancestors were cursed by God for unrighteousness. As their descendants they take part in the curse as well. Some LDS leaders such as Prophet Spencer W. Kimball taught that as these people became more righteous their skin would become white. 
Mormonism and Race | Becoming White and Delightsome

2. The LDS Church currently teaches and does some things I do not want to be a part of.

Women’s Roles in the Church and the Priesthood.
The LDS Church continues to put women in a subservient role in the faith by not only denying them the priesthood and leadership roles but also teaching young women that their only real purpose in life is to be a wife and mother. While I think that being a wife and mother are important they are hardly the sole purpose for any woman let alone every woman. I cannot support a Church that in the name of God limits the role of anyone based on gender.

The LDS  Anti-Same-Sex-Marriage and Proposition 8 Campaign.
Simply put the LDS Church claims that homosexuality and gay marriage are prohibited by God. This is the same religion who’s founder married 33 women, some already married to other men and some as young as 14— and the same religion that that was forced to abandon the practice plural marriage by the US government in the early 20th century. Sorry but clearly LDS leaders have shown they have no idea what God wants regarding marriage and sexuality. I suspect eventually te hierarchy will cave to social pressure and accept gays and same sex marriage. Until then add this to the list of LDS social justice faux pas that I want no part of.

Absolute Obedience and Thinking for Yourself.
Mormonism values obedience above all— it is taught from a young age and repeated over and over again in meeting after meeting. Obedience to God— which is defined as obedience to LDS leadership (those who reveal God’s will)— trumps all. However, since I now believe LDS leaders are no more inspired than anyone else I see surrendering of my right to choose for myself not only un-necessary but even harmful. If there is a God, and if he will judge me after I die than I feel more comfortable making my own decisions to be good and live a worthwhile life than following the edicts of someone I hardly know and do not trust. From what I have seen, I can do no worse these supposed prophets have.

So there it is. My working list of why I no longer believe. As I mentioned,it is not complete so I will be adding to/editing as I go along (or as I find errors, sorry this one is kind of a mess). I’ll try to do individual posts on some of the topics to cover them more fully.

I welcome feedback and questions in the meantime.

I like this letter because it manages to get the resignation job done without the bitterness. Sure it takes a few shots at the Church but all in good fun. It’s pretty funny— and as we all know, if anyone can use a good laugh, it’s the ex-Mormons. Enjoy.

My move away from Mormonism has been a gradual process over the past 7 years or so— sometimes so gradual that I don’t see how far I am from where I began. Now and then though things come up that show me just how far I have really moved.

This weekend I was cleaned out our home office. It was way past due. Anyway, in going through old bills and papers I came across a few relics from my believing past. My missionary release certificate and release letter from my Mission President— and also found the last Temple Recommend that I had.

Both were once proud symbols of my faithfulness and belief. Now they are only reminders of how much of my time and talents I gave to a system that I no longer value.

So like the old tax forms, phone bills and mortgage contracts I no longer needed, these once cherished items found there way into our paper shredder. I held my breathe a little as they went went in, expecting it to hurt a somehow. Surprise. No pain— instead a feeling of relief.

Sure, seven years is a long time but I’ve covered a lot of ground in that time. The fact that I could shred these items at all I think is a testament to that.

Here’s to finding your way from point A to B, one shredded document at a time.

A recent commenter claimed that my blog and it’s ‘webmaster’ present information about Mormonism “negatively and with a distinct bias against the church and it’s history.” While there is truth in his statement— I mostly blog about the less than flattering portions of Mormonism— I take exception to the bias comment. If I am biased towards anything it is full and fair disclosure— something that is sorely needed in discussions of Mormonism. What my blog does is help balance out the eternally sunny and often less than complete spin on Mormonism that come from the LDS church website, PR group, Deseret News, Church News etc. (If you couldn’t tell, I live in Utah.)

Today I saw some positive news on the Mormonism that certainly deserves a nod— so here Mr. Commenter is your feel-good post for the quarter.

Yesterday the LDS Church announced designs for future LDS meeting houses that are environmentally friendly. Read about it here.

It appears that these design which conserve energy and reduce water use will be used on at least a portion of new meeting house construction. Some measures such a solar panels are being considered as a retrofit for existing buildings.

I think this is a great thing. Regardless of the reasons the Church is moving towards a more sustainable building it can only do good. Sure there will be cries of “socialist conspiracy” from within the ranks but who among the rational majority can really argued with lower electric and water bills. I don’t think too that anyone will really miss the mini golf courses surrounding the ward house.

Here we go again with the men, God, and sex thing. More specifically, the thing where men claim that God has told them to have sex with and/or get married to someone else. I found a link to a story posted on a message board I frequent and truthfully I am once again amazed at how often this pattern repeats itself. The pattern specifically being:

1-
A Man thinks God speaks to him and thinks that he is a Prophet/chosen religious leader.

2-
This Man thinks God tells him to engage in sexual behavior that is normally considered inappropriate by society as a whole.

3-
The Man manipulates those he has power over into allowing him to do things sexually that he would otherwise not be able to do.

In this case the man— James Wallace Fall of Mound, Minnesota— married and had sexual relations with his 10-year old niece while on a family trip to Yellowstone in the Summer of 2001. Fall has been charged with criminal sexual conduct and his 49-year old wife has been charged as well for doing nothing although she was aware of the abuse.

Here’s the story for you to read.

I find this story both repulsing and fascianting at the same time. I wonder how someone can do that to a 10-year child— and a family member at that. I also wonder what it is with prophetic religious leaders (or those who see themselves as such) that makes them become sexual manipulators/predators.

I’m not talking about your run-of-the-mill pedophile priest or Scout Master here though. Those offenders, while equally offensive, operate under a different set of motivations and self-delusions and I think for the most part they understand that their actions are completely unacceptable in their social context. Self-proclaimed prophets on the other hand feel quite justified in their actions or at least enough to claim to.

This from the Star Tribune article talking about Mr. Fall:

“He absolutely believes what he’s saying,” said Jami Wittke, a detective with the Mound Police Department, who interviewed Fall. “He said the Bible tells him that it’s OK to have a relationship with your niece, to marry someone” that young.

“Everything is permissible for me,” from First Corinthians 6:12, was one of Fall’s favorite passages, police said.

“The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband,” from First Corinthians 7:4, was another.

This guy is not alone in his thinking. Actually he ‘falls’ (sorry) neatly into a long line of prophet types, who whether dishonest or fully believing, use religious belief to get sex— and make no apologies about it. Warren Jeff, Brian David Mitchell, and David Koresh also come to mind pretty easily.

No surprise, most people are skeptical of these claims. I mean, which is more likely— God told these men to have sex with adolescent girls OR these guys are just pervs who have excused their own behavior with a revelation? Most people would choose option 2— that is, unless they are a devoted follower of one of these men.

For the same reasons many LDS likely never see the obvious similarities between the actions of James Fall (or Jeffs, Koresh, or Mitchell) AND those of Joseph Smith. Mormons rightly are amongst the most vocal in condemning men like Fall as self-deluded sexual predators. Meanwhile, Joseph Smith remains immune— who knows why.

I used to think this is because so few Mormons actually are aware of  Smith’s questionable sexual activities but have come to see this isn’t the case. Turns out most LDS assume an almost automatic defensive posture even after learning the unflattering truth about Joseph’s exploits. They’re conditioned to do it. Case in point: My wife was talking with one of here believing friends and the topic of polygamy came up. The friend was unaware that Joseph even was a polygamist. My wife responds, “Yes, he was. In fact, he had in the neighborhood of 30 wives— some of them as young as 14 years old.” (insert long awkward silence here) “Well” the friend finally says, “I’m sure he was still a good man.”

I wonder if she realizes that there are people that say the same thing about David Koresh and Warren Jeffs?

Some people— including myself a times—  are a little mystified by John Dehlin, the podcast’s creator position regarding the Church. While having issues with Mormonism and holding less than orthrodox beliefs he still is an active Church member. A truly difficult thing to do.

Anyway, Dehlin does a great job in facilitating interesting exchanges with some fascinating ‘Mormons’. You can listen at the Mormon Stories web site or through iTunes. Enjoy.

And thanks to John for his work. Welcome back.

On another message board a poster responded quite differently to the announcement:

“I think it ridiculous to criticize the church. It is hypocritical for one to sustain the leaders of the church on one hand and then use the other to write in opposition to them. There are plenty of references and doctrine in the manuals provided by the church to provide a heartfelt and edifying discussion. I have never seen a need to expand the lesson material beyond the scope of church provided and approved lesson manuals. I think doing so leads to speculations. Every time I see a stray from the lesson manual it almost always produces the same result: tangents and contention.”

My response:

“heartfelt and edifying”
Often in the Church this is code for “everyone stays on script and doesn’t work to develop their own ability to gain understanding.” Well, then why all the talk about the “listening to the spirit?” If members are to just be prophet following robots whose conclusions are only valid if they agree with the leadership, then why do the Brethren go through this song and dance. To me this is what hypocritical.

“tangents and contention”
To me this is otherwise known as a ‘discussion’ or ‘the process of critical thinking.’ I personally think the Church is better for such engagement. A diversity of voices is good for Mormonism, IMO.

I understand why it’s important to the Church to be clear on it’s position— and to promote the teaching the approved message in lessons. All organizations want to control the message. The unfortunate, and I think, completely intentional side effect though, is a perceived prohibition on any study by members of unapproved sources…ever. For a Church that talks so much about the pursuit of truth, this is pretty sad.

I’ve learned more about Mormonism and it’s origins from reading non-approved sources for a few years than in 25 years of correlated lessons.

Also as I mentioned above, diversity of ideas is important in the Church. The most important “revelations” to come about in Mormonism in the past 100 years (the Manifesto and ending of the priesthood ban) have been because of of people within, as well as without, thinking differently about previously held ideas and expressing these thoughts. A correlated Mormonism works against this very process. It will have little hope of evolving and being relevant in the twenty-first century and loses the radical idealism that made it appealing to so many in the nineteenth.

As a disaffected member the value I still see in Mormonism is the people (and I mean all the people, not just the hierarchy). There is a wealth of knowledge and insight in any organization of that size and I think it would be a huge mistake for the leadership to discourage thought and open discussion among the ranks. I think the leadership could find that “revelation” comes from all sorts of places.

Or maybe not. The reasoning in the article given for correlation makes me think that allowing a free exchange of ideas goes against what the Church, or at least the Brethren, is/are about.

Since the early 1960s, Church members have seen the results of more than four decades of correlation efforts, established to:

Maintain purity of doctrine.

Emphasize the importance of the family and the home.

Place all the work of the Church under priesthood direction.

Establish proper relationships among the organizations of the Church.

Achieve unity and order in the Church.

Ensure simplicity of Church programs and materials.

See the Gallup Poll Results here.

It is nice though to have findings that confirm what we already suspected— and what is denied so strongly by the Church. Despite assurances from LDS officials that the Church does not influence the politics of it’s members, it seems that it does just exactly that.

Whether such an effect is intentional or not is another question. Certainly over the past 30 years there has been a conservative bent amongst the hierarchy— one that seems to originated in the Benson/Skousen era. The often quoted but rarely referenced comment attributed to Benson which claims that one cannot be a “good Mormon” and Democrat a the same time has definitely permeated the culture. Liberals in the Church are the small minority and, in my opinion, viewed with a little bit of suspicion if not contempt.

Specifically I found the poll numbers about lapsed Mormons really interesting. Their political persuasions track more like the general public whereas the faithful clearly skew hard to the right.

This info leaves me wondering: Do liberal leaning people leave the Church because they feel they don’t belong there OR are those who are likely to question and leave Mormonism more often politically liberal?

I did find this article in the Boston Phoenix interesting. Beck is continuing in the ‘proud tradition’ of some conservative Mormons before him— and is clearly referencing LDS ideas in his crusade.

My question: Does LDS doctrine promote these ideas or the Chruch is just a good home for those who think this way?

The talk, entitled “The Gospel and the Church”, discussed the idea free agency in the context of LDS Church and was applauded by many as a important— in that it recognized the importance of an individuals right to choose how to live and what to accept rather than being a strict obedience message. Evidently Church leadership had issues with the talk. The conference report in the Ensign magazine the following month had a dramatically different version of Poelman’s talk. But that’s not all. The Church went through the effort of re-recording Poelman giving the revised talk from the Tabernacle pulpit. A “cough track” was even edited into the re-tape to make it appear as though it was the original presentation.

So what are the specifics? What material did the original talk contain? How different were the two versions of the talk? See for yourself.

L. Jackson Newell, writing in  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, [vol. 19,  (1986)] said, “The rewriting and refilming of Elder Ronald Poelman’s October 1984 Conference address, originally a rare and inspiring defense of free agency, so that it became yet another cry for obedience. His text was not edited — his ideas were turned inside out.”

Anyway, I thought this was interesting. I wonder if anything similar could happen today. Is there no one among the General Authorities who has similar opinions and the boldness to sahre them? Or do the Brethren pre-screen Conference talks a little better these days?