Thoughts on Mormonism after 40 years

For over 40 years I believed all that Mormonism had to offer me. My differences and reservations and concerns were few, and I dismissed these things, I put them on a shelf and ignored them. I gained my testimony like so many others that I have heard about, you pray and pray and read and read until at some point you feel like the answer comes in a moment when everything feels right, feels good, and you feel of an impression that translates in your mind to “Yes, you know this is true,” or something of the sort. This came to me at BYU-I (then Ricks College) while I was reading the Book of Mormon (BoM), I would do this many times a week for 30-60 mins at a time, I did this because I was trying to figure out if the church was true because I felt the pressure to serve a mission and I needed some kind of confirmation to feel good about going. This impression was not overwhelming but it felt good, and the church had always taught me that this was God’s spirit confirming truth to us. (Now I realize how over-simplified this idea is in light of the human experience.) In the decades that followed I chose to attribute good feelings that were in harmony with the church doctrine to a confirmation from God of the truthfulness of the church, and the lack of good feelings about a church policy, position, or doctrine to the fact that I lacked faith and/or the confirmation would come in the future. Bad feelings about church doctrine or positions I pushed aside and ignored… why? Simple… because the church was true. It was all I had ever been taught to seriously consider.

I loved the doctrine of eternal progression and that one day, millions of years from now, we could grow and progress to the point where we could create worlds. I still believe that today, although not in the same way that the LDS church teaches it. I have no idea if this is actually true (there is little that I KNOW about God or the afterlife), but it is a beautiful idea with no way to know one way or the other and so I believe. I loved the idea of eternal families. I loved almost all the intricacies and details of the doctrine and the scriptures. I believed the scriptures (Bible, BoM, PoGP, D&C) were literal and true (with the one qualification in knowing that there were some errors in the Bible – this is what the church teaches and I really didn’t know where the errors might be, or how many, or how significant but for some reason it really didn’t matter). I felt good when I read the scriptures when they spoke of amazing stories, faithful heroic figures, and God’s love; however I struggled with the scriptures when they spoke of the anger, wrath, judgement and condemnation of God for those who sin. This always made me uncomfortable. I knew I was a sinner. I never knew for certain that my repentance was enough. I was always acutely aware that my natural state was an enemy to God (I had been taught this from my youth), and I was aware that my natural state, my natural man, was what I was most of the time, even though I did my best to be good. As a Mormon, I never felt the peace that I thought should come from the doctrine that Christ offers “My yoke is easy, my burden is light.” I never felt that, and I wondered why; I was always chasing a desire to feel good enough, even as I did feel good about the service I gave to other people. Through my good works I chased this desire to feel good enough my whole life. I accepted every calling (primary teacher, young men’s president, ward missionary, elders quorum president, bishopric counselor, and so on), I did my best at them, I fasted, prayed, read scriptures, had family home evening, served a mission, got married in the temple, paid my tithing, did my home teaching, helped people move, went to the temple, setup chairs, took chairs down, cleaned the building, and so on. Don’t misunderstand, I didn’t do any of these things perfectly. Some I did great with whole heart, some I just did, and some I did as best I could which varied from year to year. I also made some big mistakes along the way which I did my best to fix.

The church taught me to fear reading anything that was not church approved material regarding the church. It was all “anti” and full of lies and misinformation and rumor, and they always warned that it would damage my faith. I didn’t want to damage my faith. I wanted to see my father again (he passed away when I was 11). I believed that if I didn’t stay faithful and be a good Mormon that I would not make it to the Celestial kingdom and that I would never see him again. Until I was about 38 years old I never felt like I was doing good enough to get into the Celestial kingdom and that was always a burden in my soul. At this point in life I started to believe more on the grace of Christ rather than my own works (I was hungry to find peace and feel good enough) and I thought the balance the church struck between preaching saved by grace, and saved by works was off balance. This did not make me think the church was not true, just not perfect in the nuance of how the doctrine was taught at the local level. We preach of the power of the grace of Christ’s Atonement, but we live as if our works are what are most important and that we must endlessly prove our worthiness and righteousness in order to have a chance at going to heaven. I always carried with me a worry that my kids would grow up feeling the burden of near-perfection that I always had, and the rigidness of the pre-defined Mormon life (only date Mormons, seminary during high school, mission after HS, then BYU, married in the temple, accept every calling, and so on). The feeling of never being good enough, even though we were good people.

Early in 2017 my son came to me and told me he believed the church was a fraud.

When my son came to me with his disbelief, I believed the church to be true, but I wanted to be able to talk WITH my son about these things, not just talk TO him and tell him the meaningless answers of “you shouldn’t read that” (not knowing what he was reading), or “you just need to have faith” (when having faith would be denying or ignoring facts). I wasn’t going to do that to him. I knew how isolating that would feel and I worried about his emotional state and our relationship should I invalidate him that way. So I began to look into his concerns, which were: women’s place in the church, blacks being denied the priesthood, church leaders getting paid, and trusting the feelings of the spirit. I decided I wasn’t going to be afraid of true information. I was a grown man with 40 years of good spiritual experiences behind my testimony of the church. I figured that if my 40 year-long testimony couldn’t hold up against some troubling facts then it wasn’t what I thought it was, or what the church taught me it was. We are taught that nothing is more convincing than the whisperings of the Holy Spirit which was what our testimonies are built from; even stronger than an angelic witness is what we have always been taught. So then, what did I have to worry about in looking into my son’s concerns? I was pretty confident that I would find reasonable answers to his concerns.

I was shocked and appalled at what I learned, the lies the church had told, the information they had allowed to be kept from members like me, falsehoods that I believed my whole life.  Still, I searched more, I went to the church official essays and FAIRMormon to find the best pro-Mormon answers I could find. I read the pro-Mormon answers many times. Their answers were insufficient and what surprised me also is that they did not (in almost all cases) deny the problem. They simply tried to provide a rationale which did not hold up for me. It sounded like spin to me, and the essays of the church read like careful wordsmithing which skirted the core issues and gave no real answers while continuing to obscure the main facts. The number of issues with the truth claims of the church was shocking. I felt multiple simultaneous overwhelming emotions for quite some time. Betrayal – I was deeply hurt that the church would deceive me as they had; embarrassment – how could I live for 40 years and not know any of this stuff, how could I have heard rumblings of these things and never had the courage to look into them, how could I just dismiss them so quickly, I felt like a fool; fear – I became afraid of what this was going to mean to my relationships, most importantly my wife, then my kids, then my extended family, then my friends. I feared that most of them would see me as I had always seen others who had stopped believing in the “One true church.” I would be counted as fallen, deceived, an apostate, and even potentially an enemy. I had seen it before as I sat in bishopric meetings, ward councils, and PEC meetings talking about the “threat” that certain members (good men and women) were to the ward now that they were non-believing apostates. Now this was me and I was scared.

But I now knew what was stronger and more convincing than the perceived whisperings of the still small voice of the Holy Ghost. Facts. Truth.

I am no longer willing to conflate emotional experiences and spiritual experiences. Although the two may have a relationship, they are not the same. The former is common, the latter is not, and to mistake the one for the other is to deceive oneself. I could now see this clearly whereas before I could not. The church taught me they were virtually the same and now that I am thinking more clearly, I understand that they are not. It has been wonderful to listen with an open and clear mind to many thoughtful voices (REFERENCE) and it has been rewarding to realize that I CAN distinguish between well-founded claims through facts and dubious claims rooted in biased option, and I do not need to fear conversation as I had been taught.

I saw only two options. Don’t tell anyone and live as if I still believed and keep this to myself. Basically, live a lie. This would spare my wife and my marriage the stress of all that would come between us when she learned I no longer believed in the truth claims of the church. If I did this I worried I would be betraying my son who was brave enough to admit to me and his mother that he didn’t believe in the church, but I would not be brave enough to be as honest as him. I also knew this option would likely not be sustainable and eventually I would hate myself for not being true to what my conscience was telling me, what I believed to be right. The other option was to tell my wife and disappoint her deeply, risk losing my marriage and never having a happy wife. But I would hopefully be able to live with a clear conscience that I was being honest with myself and living true to what I believed was right, even if I lost the respect of people I loved. I did not know what this would do to my other children and still don’t, they do not know yet, but at some point I must tell them the basic truth that I do not believe the truth claims of the church anymore, otherwise I will feel like I am being dishonest with them, I already do, and that is not being a good father.

I HATE the position the church has put me in. I know that not all my life’s problems are because of the church, many I have no one to blame but myself. But the fact that I have believed a theology my whole life and have taught my children this theology all the while critical issues and lies lay hidden from me is a position the church has put me in by not telling me the truth about many core and critical things that are foundational and essential to the validity of the church’s claims of being the one true church.

I knew I could only live with one of the two options. I am being honest (to anyone that asks to hear) about what I believe and what I feel is right. I know I will be able to live with myself in the years ahead, even if that means I lose love and respect and friendships. I do not need anyone else to stop believing in the church. I only need those in my life to find peace in my living according to my own conscience and not think I am simply deceived or fallen or a threat and thereby look down on me for doing what I think is right. That is my hope.

Since my letting go of Mormon dogma I feel like I have this new found freedom to think clearly and independently for myself for the first time in my life. This didn't come easy... depressive suicidal thoughts and feelings is a high cost to break the dependence I had on Mormon authority. For months I have been asking myself so many questions that I have never had the liberty to think through before on my own. Do I believe that these 15 men are prophets, seers, and revelators? Do I believe that they have “the absolute truth?” I wanted the answer to be yes. I wanted there to be reasonable answers to all the problems with these claims. I expected there to be. I have loved the Mormon theology my whole life (despite my mistakes at times when trying to live it). The idea that everything I have based my understanding of the universe on for 40+ years might crumble under clear thinking is very sad to me, but I want to know the truth and I want my beliefs to make sense to me. 

In asking, are these men prophets, I have asked...what have they prophesied and have those prophecies come to pass? There is evidence both ways for Joseph Smith (JS), in all that I have read it seems one can believe whatever one wants on this issue, there are many “prophesies” (the term is vague in my mind) that did not come true and some that did. There was no smoking gun in my research on this subject unless one argues that ALL of a true prophets prophecies should come true (a very reasonable argument in my mind, unless God is toying with us, and this is consistent with Deut 18:21-22 wherein it states that ALL a prophet's prophecies should come true, and if one does not, then he is not a true prophet), in which case JS fails the test. I don't come up with any significant prophecies after JS to evaluate (although much of what Brigham Young prophesied or taught is deeply troubling and did not prove true), nor do I feel it is critical to do so. However, recent suggestions might be: The Proclamation on the Family - hardly groundbreaking information, most of the modern world has believed in the importance of the traditional family for thousands of years. The Living Christ - just a reaffirmation of the main point of the New Testament. Strength of Youth - reaffirmation of morality standards that are eroding over time. Temples - saying we are going to build a lot of buildings? Perpetual Education Fund - micro-financing has been around for a long time, and this is just a program of the church, like building temples, I don't see this as prophecy, but I was trying to find examples, but none of these are convincing to me that these prophets and seers are seeing the future in any substantial way that most other people do not. 

Why aren’t these men providing good explanations to these very troubling issues that are preventing countless people from joining the church and convincing many thousands of others to leave the church? Why do they, who are supposed to be God’s mouth pieces to the world, not speak directly and clearly to clear up this confusion? Why do the members not clearly know when these men are speaking for God and when they are speaking as men? Why the guesswork after the fact?

As it turns out, General Authorities do get paid, about $120K a year in 2014 (REFERENCE). Honestly, the fact that they get paid doesn’t really bother me (although the Bible teaches that they shouldn’t), what bothers me is that I spent my life knowing (because I had been taught it at church countless times) that our church leaders do not get paid. I taught it on my mission every day. I taught my non-member friends this falsehood, I taught my children this lie. That is why this bothers me.

The first thing I discovered and was shocked to learn is that every Egyptologist that has looked at the papyri that JS said he translated the Book of Abraham from says that his translation is 100% wrong. The papyri have nothing to do with Abraham, and was NOT written by Abraham as JS said. It is a common funeral document of which we have hundreds of similar artifacts. The church now implies, in the essay on the Book of Abraham (REFERENCE), that the word translate may not mean translate, which is not what they have taught for 150 years, nor is it what JS himself said, and it seems like spin. I was also surprised to learn about JS claiming the authenticity of the Kinderhook plates (REFERENCE) and translating them only to later have the plates discovered and proven as a fraud. So 2 of the 3 attempts of JS to translate we know to be false and the issues with the BoM are vast as I’ll discuss more.

I am confused by the claim that the BoM has the fullness of the gospel and yet it says nothing about endowments, or washing, or anointing, or 2^nd anointing (REFERENCE), or the degrees of glory, or sealings, or the pre-mortal. 

As I read through the changes to the BoM over the years (numbering in the thousands, and I did not read every single one but I read many) and they are very troublesome given the claims of divine translation of the book. The church claims this was to clarify meaning… perhaps, but why the need if the BoM is “the most correct book on earth.” Removal of words from Alma 29:4 which originally stated that these words of God should not be altered (although later these were put back in) seems very suspicious. And the original version revealed the name of Jesus in 1 Nephi (which was removed) even though 2 Nephi states that his name first was revealed then. The original had King Benjamin doing things after his death and this was changed to King Mosiah once it was discovered. JS stated in history of the church that “we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, “These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct” (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55) so either JS was wrong in this statement of revelation, or the future brethren were wrong in changing it, both cannot be right. (REFERENCE, REFERENCE, REFERENCE, REFERENCE)

Martin Harris (and others that gave this same testimony) explained how the translation could NOT have included any errors, God did not allow it, he said “By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.” Therefore, there should be no need to change what God himself ensured was correct initially, and confirmed by revelation to JS stating such. How could have the error about King Benjamin vs. King Mosiah gotten in there if this was true? According to JS and Martin Harris, God would have not allowed the translation to continue till it was correct. Later the church stopped making the claim that the exact words were given to JS because the number of grammatical errors were simply too numerous to believe that (although that is what JS claimed himself). [Andrew Jenson, ed., “The Three Witnesses,” Historical Record 6 (May 1887):216-217)]

There are word errors in the BoM that strongly suggest JS sourced the words from the Bible not God – The italicized words which should not be there, they were added by scribes hundreds of years after the books were authored. The use of Cherubims (which is Hebrew) in the original version of the BoM is an incorrect usage in the addition of the s to make it plural (which the Bible also does in error which JS could have picked up, but God wouldn’t make this error). This same problem is true with the Hebrew word Seraphims in the BoM. The most likely explanation is that JS used the KJV of the bible as source material in the bringing forth of the BoM, either through memory or direct sourcing, or both. God would not have given JS these words in error. (REFERENCE, REFERENCE, REFERENCE)

Adieu is French. Why would God use a non-English word when giving an English translation? Some suggest that God would do this because its meaning fits the context of the sentence. It does, but why wouldn’t God just use the equivalent English words since he is indeed providing an English translation. I suppose we will never know. It’s a small thing, but seems strange and doesn’t really make sense.

The BoM clearly states that the name of the church should be named after and contain the name of Jesus, so why did JS remove the name of Jesus from the name of the church from 1834-1838? (REFERENCE)

Why would God not tell JS about a succession plan (REFERENCE), but rather leave the church in confusion on this critical issue? The story of BY appearing as JS is highly suspect (REFERENCE). Why did Brigham Young ordain 3 of his sons (REFERENCE) as apostles (one at 11 yrs old) without telling the other apostles about it?

There are inconsistencies everywhere, I could go on and on, there is MUCH more to discuss regarding problems with the BoM (Spaulding’s Manuscript Found, View of the Hebrews, The Late War, The First Book of Napoleon (many analysis of these things online, you decide for yourself, here is one such analysis (REFERENCE)). I asked a dear friend (who is in his 6th year as bishop and who is the closest thing to an intellectual I personally know) about the translation of the book of Abraham not being correct. His response was - yeah it makes no sense but that's why we have to have faith. He went on to mention how the Golden Plates were not used for the BoM (REFERENCE) translation either (something the church mislead members about for over 100 years) and he imagines that if someone got their hands on them and re-translated them that it would not read like the BoM, and I thought... What?! How does that make sense? If the translations do not match the record sources, and yet they are still true, why have the plates and the papyri at all? All that would do is serve to confuse, and the church preaches that God is not a God of confusion (REFERENCE), right? We preach that "by their fruits ye shall know them" (REFERENCE) and yet think that God would have his prophet bear true fruit that by modern investigation makes them look like frauds? If that's true then God is just toying with us. That would be terribly unfair given how the odds are already stacked so heavily against us in mortality in making sense of this experience. I can't believe that.

It is cognitive dissonance in the extreme. (REFERENCE, REFERENCE)

I have reflected recently on many conversations with non-LDS Christian friends about eternal families and what is odd to me is that we teach that, if not sealed in the temple, families and loved ones will not, or may not, be together, and yet many other faiths do not believe this. They believe that we will be together in heaven, maybe not as husband and wife, they often do not know, but all as free individuals with free association with one another. So it feels like we are the religion that holds hostage the ability to be with loved ones after we die on conditions of the temple. And I ask myself, if heaven is really heaven, why would we not have the freedom of free association there like we do here? Why would God (our loving father) keep us apart in heaven when we want to be together? It doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't sound like a kingdom of glory if we have less freedom there than we have here on this earth to be with people we like and love. 

I think about how we preach of the kingdoms of glory, and how there is a limit to the progression you can make in all but the highest kingdom. So let's say you go to the Telestial or Terestrial, and you are able to progress a lot, perhaps a million years’ worth, but at some point, you’re stopped. No more progression. Now for the rest of ETERNITY you are stuck, no more progression. Well, for all intents and purposes... you're now damned. IF we are eternal beings, and IF our progression is EVER stopped, we are now damned.

Also... outer darkness... sons of perdition... it occurred to me recently that in my opinion there is NOTHING a person could do in this life, this short, difficult, imperfect, weakness prone life of 40-80 years to justify ETERNAL punishment. Not even Hitler, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Judas, or anyone... these were TERRIBLE humans, but not even their crimes can possibly justify punishment for ETERNITY! Do you know how long eternity is?!

I am simply done in believing in a threatening God. I am a loving father, but infinitely less so than Heavenly Father is supposed to be, and I even love my kids enough not to teach them through fear and threats of violence and damnation. I am done with that kind of God. I had another epiphany recently wherein I was pondering about the doctrine where Christ says that “Salvation is free” and it occurred to me that just as we claim that death has come into the world through no fault of our own and we are doomed to die and therefore the resurrection is given to us freely, SO TOO sin has come into the world by virtue of the fall and we are all doomed to sin, there is NO WAY to avoid it, so while the specific sins are specific to us, the fact that we do sin is as inevitable as the fact that we do die. So it makes perfect sense to me that God himself would make a way for our escape from sin just as he does death.

I believe we are simply wrong when we behave as though we have to earn our salvation through our good works, our worthiness (and this is deeply embedded in Mormon culture and doctrine). We talk of the Atonement, but we live as if salvation rest heavily on us, and it will come down to our worthiness. No one is worthy. And our hyper-focus on worthiness and righteousness is just a recipe for self-righteousness, chronic guilt, judgement of others, pride, self-alienation from others, condescending attitudes, and self-abuse and self-hatred. And we wonder why Utah has the highest rate of antidepressant use in the nation (twice the national average (REFERENCE), other article (REFERENCE)), and a high level of suicide (5^th highest in the nation (REFERENCE)). IF we know the most about the love and goodness and mercy of God and his plan of happiness for us that is supposed to bring joy to our hearts, then shouldn’t our rate of suicide and depression be one of the lowest? What are we not understanding?

I am done believing in a God that is disappointed in us. He is all-knowing! So it’s totally illogical to say that God is disappointed in us when he knew and has always know exactly what we will do. To be disappointed means that he was expecting or hoping that we would do something different. That makes no sense any yet it is taught all the time.

We say that God is no respecter of persons, meaning plays no favorites – then why is there a chosen people? Mormons or the Israelites? That has never made sense to me. Why does God send angels to intervene with some that are going astray (Saul/Paul, Laman/Lemuel) and not others but kills them instead (Laban)? Do we really believe that God ordered the mass slaughter of men, women, and children in the Old Testament (Canaanites)? I don’t.

The bible says if any man lacks wisdom that he should ask of God that giveth to all men liberally (James 1:5), and yet there is innumerable evidence that this is not true. How many millions of people are praying, vocally or in their hearts, day in and day out to understand and make sense of this world and the problems therein and they get no clear guidance? And those he seems to give some direction to he is giving vastly different “wisdom” to and sending us in countless different directions, because almost everyone is asking God for direction, seeking wisdom, truth, knowledge, and yet everyone is going in different directions.

The brethren teach that a testimony is found in the bearing of one (REFERENCE). To stand and testify even if you are unsure and therein the Spirit will witness of the truthfulness of what you are saying. How is this not bearing false witness? We teach our children to stand and bear witness to things they cannot possibly know, they mimic us saying “I know the church is true” and “I know JS is a prophet” they receive an “Amen” from hundreds of adults and praise for their testimony (which is meaningless and based on nothing but repeating words from their parents) and of course over time they will associate this with a sense of accomplishment and praise and good feelings (i.e. the Spirit). It is scary to get up in front of a crowd and speak but you do it and those nervous feelings are rewarded by praise of your parents, teachers, and self-satisfaction that you did it! Of course it feels like a witness.

My stake president (after not being able to answer any of these concerns, in fact he had never even heard of any of these things I am discussing here) did what we all have been taught to do when we cannot answer difficult questions, testify that it’s true. He told me he always feels the Spirit when he gives a priesthood blessing. I am sure he does. He is doing something he believes to be kind and good and serving to another person; why wouldn’t that feel good? He feels good (and counts it as a spiritual witness) just as the Rabbi who denies the divinity of Jesus also feels good confirming feelings of that “truth”, just as the Catholic priest who preaches that Mormonism is a cult and feels confirming good feelings of that “truth”, just as the Nun who denies herself a family in the name of God and feels good and holy in that “truth”, just as the Muslim Imam feels good teaching his “truth” that there is only one true prophet and his name is Mohammed. Anyone that is honest and thinking clearly must admit that these good feelings are not conformations of divine truth unless God has many truths that denounce one another (and this kind of God I have no interest in worshiping). I also felt genuinely good giving priesthood blessings, but I also never clearly received words or inspiration on what to say, but because I wanted to demonstrate faith I always assumed my words were inspired of the Spirit but I have no evidence that they were. I always attributed this lack of clear inspiration to my lacking and it was another reason I felt bad about myself. Although I was often doing everything I could to live faithfully so that I might get revelation. At times of my greatest most desperate need when I prayed for guidance, answers, clarity, wisdom, when critical life choices depended on me knowing more, understanding more… I got none, and wondered why Laman and Lemuel (wicked guys) got an angel visit.

The stake president has stewardship and powers of divine judgement over 10 congregations, 10 other bishops, roughly 3000 people, and he had never heard of these issues, had no insight to offer, and in fact asked me, “what difference does it make?” regarding there being no evidence that the BoM was true (other than people’s impression of ‘the spirit’) but much evidence that it wasn’t. “If it helps you be a better father and husband, what difference does any of this stuff make?” His question shocked me. It makes a difference because the truth matters. It especially matters when that claim of truth is the basis for divine authority of judgement of a man’s soul, of his worthiness, of his standing before God, his righteousness to be with his wife through eternity! It matters when dependence is created on the doctrine of these claims. It matters because there are countless obligations of how one should or shouldn’t live their life, and with that burden comes countless ways we feel guilt, shame, and it defines the degree to which we are disappointing or making proud God almighty! It matters because the church asks for thousands of dollars from people’s paychecks, countless hours of service, and obedience to leaders. It matters because the church asks young men to spend years of their life preaching this as the one truth on earth, to postpone schooling and careers in order to do so. It matters because hiding these facts about the religion prevents people from making up their own hearts and minds and coming to a healthy relationship with the church of which they are a part. It matters because once people find out these things later in life they have a traumatic faith crisis. Instead of having a healthy evaluation of their faith in their youth with all the facts at a time when they are independent and can find the balance of beliefs that they will be comfortable with, they stumble upon these things later in life when spouses and children are now dependent upon them and have in turn trusted them to teach them “the truth” when in fact they have unknowingly perpetuated lies or hidden the truth. These reasons and so many more are why it matters. It matters very much.

Why if the restoration of the priesthood really happened (in 1829 (REFERENCE)), and was such a monumental moment in the forming of the church, did JS not tell anyone about it till 5 years after it occurred? Even Bushman in the book Rough Stone Rolling, which can be bought at Deseret Book, concedes that “the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication.” JS said nothing to the members or leadership about the restoration of the priesthood until 1834? (REFERENCE) That makes no sense.

The D&C says that the name of the higher priesthood was changed from “the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God” to Melchizedek but “out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too-frequent repetition of his name” (REFERENCE) but that long name does NOT contain the name of Jesus or Elohim. “Son of God” is not his name, it is a title and one we use all the time. This makes no sense and never has to me. And we use his name all the time “Jesus Christ” in the name of the church, and are encouraged to do so, so why would it be a problem to name his priesthood after him? In fact, since it is HIS priesthood, wouldn’t it make perfect sense to name it after him, just like we do the church?

Tithing was taught very differently from JS than what is taught today. It was 2% and then later 10% of your SURPLUS, meaning after all your bills were paid. We teach in church that the law is “10% of your interest” and give the definition of the word interest to mean “income” but in 1828 the common understanding of the term was “surplus.” Why the change? Why wouldn’t it be considered a full tithe to pay it as taught by JS? The law of tithing as originally taught by Lorenzo Snow was this “I plead with you in the name of our Lord, and I pray that every man, woman, and child who has means shall pay one-tenth of their income as tithing.” That is the original quote from Pres Snow and it is in line with JS teachings on the subject. However today the manual has this quote as follows, “I plead with you in the name of our Lord, and I pray that every man, woman, and child … shall pay one-tenth of their income as tithing.” Is this an honest telling of history? JS did not want people to experience hardship in order to pay tithing, but today the church teaches you should pay your tithing before all else, even if you think you will go hungry, even then and rely on God to bless you. Also, why does the BoM say nothing about the law of tithing except to quote the Old Testament with the accusation of Malachi of the Levities which wouldn’t be applicable to the people in 3 Nephi where it is dropped in randomly? (REFERENCE)

Tithing was part of the Law of Moses; a law that was fulfilled in Jesus and, according to the Bible, ended (like animal sacrifice) in the New Testament. Tithing is not taught in the New Testament but the principle to give voluntarily to support the needs of others is (Acts 2:45; Romans 15:25-27), support Christian workers (1 Corinthians 9:11-12; 1 Timothy 5:18), and expand Christian outreach (Philippians 4:15-16). No specific amount is ever commanded, and no percentage is suggested.

I used to have all sorts of rational thoughts about the place that women had in the church and how theirs was as equal as the men’s. Then I read this article (REFERENCE) and my eyes were opened and I’ve never thought that again. I reflected upon the temple, and how the woman is given to the man, like property, in the sealing ceremony, but he is not given to her. There is clearly a relationship of ownership in that ordinance that I never saw before and I do not feel good about it, it's not right. In the endowment, the woman is put under covenant to hearken to her husband and the man is put under covenant to hearken to God. Why can’t a woman listen to God directly? Why the dependence on a man? It’s belittling and carries with it the implication of some degree of servitude. I can get remarried (and sealed) to another woman if my wife and I divorce, I don’t need her permission, but she would need mine in order to get sealed to another man. Even if that man was a worthy priesthood holder and I was an apostate. And if I didn’t give permission because I decided to be a jerk then too bad for her. Doesn’t that say a lot about how the church sees women in relation to men?

I think about the Word of Wisdom (REFERENCE) - do I really believe that God cares SO much about drinking coffee and tea that if you do them you cannot join the flock, cannot be baptized, and cannot take upon you the name of Christ? I don't. The idea seems absurd (and is not scriptural if you read who could be baptized in the Waters of Mormon - take upon them the name of Christ, and bear one another's burdens, and mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those is stand in need of comfort, and witness and serve God v8-10 ; that was the criteria for baptism in the BoM, Mosiah 8 (of course Alma baptized himself too in that case, but we assume that's ok, at least for him, because the spirit confirms it v14 although this would be an abomination today if someone did it)) and yet the prophets do believe this doctrine but it is nowhere in the scriptures.

• The word of wisdom is specifically called out as “not a commandment” in the D&C but we act as if it is, which was not widely pushed by the church leaders till about the time of prohibition.
• In fact, Brigham Young said in 1861, “Some of the brethren are very strenuous upon the Word of Wisdom and would like to have me preach upon it and urge upon the brethren and make it a test of fellowship. I do not think I shall do so. I have never done so.” In 1870 in General Conference said, “If you must chew tobacco omit it in while in meeting and when you leave you can take a double portion if you wish to.” Also he said, “the observance of the Word of Wisdom or interpretation of God’s requirements on this subject must be left partially with the people. We cannot make laws like the Medes and Persians ‘you shall never drink a cup of tea, or you shall never taste of this, or you shall never taste of that.’” (REFERENCE)
• June 9^th 1897 Pres Woodruff writes in his journal that he took some Brandy and Coffee before bed. (see above for reference)
• James E. Talmage’s journals show that he used Marijuana. (see above for reference)
• I find it impossible to explain why we hold onto the (undefined by God) "hot drinks" part of the Word of Wisdom with a death grip while we completely ignore other parts, liking eating meat sparingly and only in times of winter?
• Why does no one in the church, including the prophet, care about that part?
• Why was beer, wine, and hard cider NOT banned as originally taught by JS? These were not taken seriously until David O. Mackay’s time.
• Why do we ban beer at all when the scripture specifically says it is OK! Mild drinks of Barley are OK. Read the Section for yourself – where is the revelation that reverses these words from God in D&C?
• If drinking wine at all was a sin, then why did Jesus create it for the wedding feast for all to drink?

I bring this up NOT because I need to be given freedom to drink or smoke, rather I bring it up because of the confusion, inconsistency, and unexplained implementation of this non-commandment as a commandment. I am grateful that now because I am thinking more clearly and because I claim authority to live by that which makes sense to me, that I am not burdened by this morass of unclear and contradictory creed (MORE).

Mormons teach that God answers prayers, often taught that every prayer will be answered in God’s own way and time, but there is just as much evidence (possibly more) that he doesn’t answer prayers as much as there is that he does. I had an epiphany recently as I prayed over our family dinner asking God to bless the food. It occurred to me how absurd it was to think that God would grant this prayer and bless this feast of high quality food for a bunch of fat, free, rich Americans while 80,000 children go missing every year in India who are starving, cold, and abused without answering their prayers of a warm and safe place to sleep and a little bit of food. What about the unspoken yet crystal clear prayers of the heart that these little children have? If God was to actually answer my prayer while those kids suffer, I do not want to worship that God.

I think about how Pres. Hinkley said in this interview with Larry King and when asked about polygamy he says "it's not doctrinal" and yet it is. It is canonized in the 132 section of the D&C (REFERENCE). A section by the way that I never remember reading closely or studying or even discussing in church, but says that if "any man" wants to take another wife and if "she be a virgin" then he can, but he needs to tell his first wife and ask for her permission BUT if she says no, he can do it anyway, AND if the first wife doesn't agree then she will be destroyed by God. That's SO terrible and flies in the face of everything I believe about agency. And one could go further and ask why if this is the revelation on how polygamy is supposed to work, why didn't Joseph follow these rules? He married women (34 of them) many who were not virgins (11 of them already married to living husbands (REFERENCE)) and he didn't always tell Emma about it. When I read closely for the first time section 132, I felt sick inside. Was that the spirit telling me this was wrong? I think so. Section 132 of the D&C is abusive and dismissive of women and their rights to freedom of choice and goes even further to threaten them with destruction if they do not concede to the man whenever he desires to take another woman to wife. The New and Everlasting Covenant which we currently teach as simply a temple sealing is NOT what this section of D&C teaches. This section clearly states that The New and Everlasting Covenant is plural marriage. Brigham Young (and other prophets) taught unequivocally that no one would be entered into the Celestial Kingdom without practicing polygamy (REFERENCE). After reading the teachings of the brethren on this subject, it is not inaccurate to say that to preach monogamy, in the days of JS and BY and others, was to be anti-Mormon.

Why does it say in the BoM (Jacob 2:24) that the wives and concubines of David and Solomon (nearly 1000 (REFERENCE)) were an abomination but in the D&C 132:38-39 it says that they were given of God and David and Solomon did not sin? Both cannot be right. The apologists acknowledge (REFERENCE) that the only reason for polygamy is “to raise up seed” to God, the essays (REFERENCE) imply that this was the reason for polygamy in the church, but if you look at the footnote (footnote #6 “Studies have shown that monogamous women bore more children per wife than did polygamous wives”) it disproves this assertion. This is crafty writing to give a false impression in the text to justify polygamy, but then cover themselves by disproving it in their own footnote. There is simply so much to say about polygamy that is just wrong (REFERENCE).

Mormonism creates monsters where no monsters exits; we make monsters out of more than one ear piercing, tattoos, shorts above the knee, not attending church meetings, colored shirts to church, sleeveless dresses, watching TV on Sunday, recreational activities on Sunday, coffee, tea, rated R movies, swear words, saying “thank God”, loud laughter (whatever that means), and so much more… add to that sins of omission: preaching that we should know how to pray better, study the scriptures better, serve better, and on and on. Add all this to the endless ways in which the church asks for our time and commitments and we have an infinite supply of reasons to not feel like we are good enough, to recognize shortcomings in others, and yet we are spending our lives in the effort to prove that we are “worthy” and “righteous”, when all that we should be focused on is being kind and loving and forgiving and not judging a soul. We supposedly have the “fullness of the gospel” and even as we are supposedly living the closest to the way God would like us to live (because we have the restored gospel and the rest of the world is ignorant of it) we are a culture filled with guilt and the feelings of inadequacy. I know that what I just described is tied to my own personal experience with Mormonism and may not be universal, but I do not believe it is uncommon from what I have observed over 40 years, it is pervasive.

Mormonism teaches that if you are gay you must live your life without any romantic love or sexual fulfillment (REFERENCE). It teaches them that they are fundamentally broken and after this life, in which they are deprived of some of the sweetest aspects of life, then in the next life they will be “fixed.” This is a deeply destructive doctrine to those souls. A doctrine that instills depression and leads to suicide in record numbers in Utah. The church policy (REFERENCE) of requiring children to disavow their parents if they are gay is one that tears families apart. This is not in harmony with the commandment to love one another, or the teaching that we will not be punished for the sins of our parents (Articles of Faith 2).

I cannot identify a doctrine more spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically damaging to a person, than to tell them that God Almighty, the creator of the universe says they are fundamentally broken; that their natural born desire to love a certain way is evil; that they cannot partake in romantic love during their lifetime; that they must live a life with no sexual fulfillment; and that in the next life they will be "fixed" and made into a "normal" person. I disagree completely with such teachings, I see no love in it all at.

Essentially we are telling this person that they will be happier when they are dead.

How could a person love him/herself with this mindset?

Why would a person want to live this life?


Sad stories like this (REFERENCE) are happening every week in Utah. If anyone could have made this harmful doctrine work, it was the Weed family (REFERENCE), but they couldn't and they damaged themselves (with help of this harmful church doctrine) for much of their lives trying. I wish with all my heart that everyone would watch this video (REFERENCE) and love these people as they would love any other human.


Conservative estimates indicate the percentage of homosexuals to be about 1.5% which would be 112,000,000 people; that is 7 times the number of Mormons (or 22 times more if you only count active Mormons). So in God’s wisdom, he deemed it good to give a hundred million more people the "trial" of homosexuality instead of giving them the “fullness of the gospel.” Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t to me.

I feel like for the first time in my life I have a free mind to think clearly about everything. Free from the threat of being a bad Mormon who lacks faith if I don't just peacefully accept all that the brethren tell me. I know that the church does many wonderful things and brings many wonderful values to the table, but I also see for the first time in my life, through deeply painful and costly personal experience the overwhelming dependence the church creates on a person’s understanding about their relationship to God, their worthiness as a human being, their righteousness as a child of God, and these are HUGE stakes inside the human soul and if an entity outside of oneself is going to have control over these monumental aspects of one's self-worth and self-esteem, then that entity had better be in harmony with God to a VERY high degree, because people lives and souls, and mental and emotional well-being are at stake. Their marriages and families are at stake. The stakes could not be higher. I do not mean to be melodramatic; I have seen and experience (and still am experiencing) these stakes first hand. 

I think about all the millions of people who witnesses of the spirit (REFERENCE), just as we do, some in religions that seem reasonable, and some in religions that are ridiculous to clear thinking people. How can anyone, with any certainty say that anyone's witness is more valid than anyone else's? It would be arrogant to do so. What would it be based on? There are 1 billion followers of Hinduism, 500 million followers of Buddhism. Is that not significantly greater evidence that one of those religions may be God’s truth? There are 1.5 billion who claim that Islam is the true religion. Why is that not significantly greater evidence than the 15 million Mormons? If we are trusting in personal spiritual witnesses as evidence of “the truth”, then the evidence is overwhelming that Mormonism isn’t “the truth”. Not to mention the roughly 2 billion Christians that would testify that their version of Christianity is the correct one and ours wrong. That is nearly 5 billion people (against 15 million (or 5 million if we count only the "active" members)) that would testify of their spiritual witness that a belief system different than Mormonism is “the truth.”

Isn’t it fascinating that we find it so easy to be critical and dismissive of other “spiritual witnesses” (Islam, Hinduism, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholicism, etc.) when they come knocking on our door as having no merit, but we don’t for a moment turn that critical thinking on our own religious experiences asking if perhaps they too have no merit.

Imagine for a moment if I as a parent were to have two children, a daughter and a son. To my daughter I taught that it is good to eat sugar with every meal and that this was the ultimate truth, and separately to my son I taught that sugar was poison and that this was the ultimate truth. In addition, I taught each of them that understanding this truth would determine their ability to be happy and please me while in their youth as they lived in my home, but not only that… the proper understanding of this truth is what will determine their ability to be happy or miserable once they became adults and lived out the rest of their lives. What kind of relationship I have setup for these children to have with one another? If any of these “spiritual witnesses” have merit, then they all do, and if they all do then what I just described is what God has set up for his children. Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t to me.

I doubt our ability to recognize and accurately interpret “the spirit” when it speaks for God to us as human beings. This video (REFERENCE) articulates my concerns on this topic clearly; it is part 8 and the previous parts are very thoughtful and I encourage you to listen to this man’s story from parts 6, 7, and 8 (REFERENCE). And yet I do not doubt our ability to tap into truth (REFERENCE), even profound eternal truths (REFERENCE), but when one of us, or some of us, claim to have a special ability in this and claim divine authority in it, and have ability to judge us on God’s behalf and thereby require us to follow them, then I think we have moved into dangerous ground and created an unhealthy dependence and dynamic. 

There is clearly a spiritual aspect to the human experience. The fact that so many of us are having “spiritual” experiences is nearly impossible to deny. However, we have incorrectly associated these experiences as a witnesses of ancient conflicting ideas that put us at odds with one another and prevent us from understanding their real meaning. (REFERENCE, REFERENCE)

I have realized that we do not need the threat or promise of an afterlife of joyful paradise or prison of suffering to understand basic (or even complex) moral values. It is clear to anyone that is capable of basic moral reasoning that it is generally better to cooperate with people to accomplish a common goal than to use force. Is it clear to most human beings that it is better to be kind to others than cruel, and that the exception to that is when someone is being victimized and then it may be rational to offer a defense on their behalf, and that increasing human well-being is better than increasing human suffering. These truths are self-evident to the majority of the human family. It is when we begin to believe that believing, or not believing, a certain idea about God and the afterlife (for which there is no real evidence) that determines if we inherit an eternity of punishment when we are often led to irrational levels of judgement and cruelty to one another and divide ourselves into groups based on what we believe rather than the kind of people we are.

I have reflected on my behavior as I sat in confessional with the bishop, how desperate of a human being I was, how in bawling tears I was broken in shame by my unworthiness and guilt. I reflect on that and the utter dependence I had on the Mormon church and these men to define my relationship with God, to validate my worthiness as a believer, to establish my value as a child of God. I look back at that now and so much has become clear to me. How unhealthy that was! How vulnerable that was! How dependent that was! I think about how I have felt subtle intimidation my whole life in meeting with church "authorities." Intimidation which they never meant to create but nevertheless was there because of the system/organization itself removing authority from me, the individual, and placing it in the hands of strangers (bishops, stake presidents). This is not right. And I really do not think I am alone, or uncommon, or rare in this dependence. I see it everywhere.

I was deeply hurt by this inappropriate claim and use of authority; I sat before ordinary men who, with good intentions, judged me and shamed me and embarrassed me.  Men who knew little to nothing about me except what I had done in my weakest moments and summed me up with that sliver of information and passed judgement on my soul and found me wanting. These moments have been the most emotionally and spiritually damaging experiences of my life, sending me to depression and self-loathing and suicidal thoughts. I find it bewildering that I was punished for crimes that pale in comparison to the crimes committed by the founder of the religion. These men think they are doing good, helping to correct the sinner, but I testify that they are not. They are simply playing God and I believe that someday many of them will realize they have simply spent much of their time and energy judging people. Nothing more. 

“President David O. McKay has pleaded: Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives.” – Spencer W. Kimball, “The Miracle of Forgiveness”

“We have been taught, thousands of us who have been reared in this church from our childhood days, that second only to murder is the sin of losing our virtue;” … “There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or a daughter than to have him or her lose his or her virtue” – Heber J. Grant, General Conference 1944 (REFERENCE)

These are TERRIBLE teachings!

Mormonism tightly couples Virtue and Virginity and this is wrong. Virtue should not be defined by an attribute of our physical make up, or a historical event, or the absence of some future event, but rather by the nature of our character. Our righteousness, our worthiness, our value, our character and virtue is NOT determined by an event but rather by who we are as demonstrated by how we interact with our fellow human beings. The ancient philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics) had this better understanding when they declared the 4 great virtues to be: Courage, Temperance, Wisdom, and Justice. To define virtue as simply not being sexual (outside of marriage) is an extremely juvenile definition of virtue, and when coupled with the transfer of authority to another who can and must judge you and control you based on this “virtue” is highly inappropriate, manipulative, and damaging. 

Also, no one is perfectly virtuous, this is a fallacy, just as it would be to say that there is a perfect age that someone should be. In fact, the myth of the perfect Jesus perpetuates this fallacy and projects an infinity of imperfection on the human race that is infinitely unhelpful. It gives us every reason to believe that we are not perfect, we are broken, and in need of rescue when in fact we are perfect in our creation, meaning we are perfectly human. Our goal and object should not be perfection, but the gaining of knowledge and the exercise of virtue (as I defined it above). If any theologian wants to make any comparisons between me and the demi-God Jesus figure – I will be happy to have that conversation once I too am a demi-God and the comparison makes some sense.

The apex in the cruel religious irony of my life is when at times I found myself sitting in humiliation, guilt, shame, and judgement of such men for sins and crimes that utterly pale in comparison to the founder of the religion which was now condemning me. These men, largely strangers to me, knowing me primarily by my sin that had brought me into their acquaintance, would proceed to interrogate me and then pass judgement on me and restrict me to one degree or another from participating in church activities. The whole thing was horrifically traumatic emotionally and spiritually to me at the time, but now I see it for the kangaroo court that it is. 

• History accuses Joseph Smith of the following sins/crimes: (1) illegally marring 34 women, (2) 11 of which had husbands, (3) 7 of which were teenagers (14, 15, 16, and three 17 yr olds while he was in his late 30s), (4) some of whom he coerced with threats of his death and promises of salvation, (5) several of which he married after he sent their husbands away on missions, (6) most of whom he never told Emma about, (7) all of which he lied publicly (and to the church) about his entire life, (8) illegally ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press leading to this arrest and jailing, (9) falsely claiming to translate the BoA, (10) falsely claiming to translate the Kinderhook plates, (11) falsely teaching the American Indians are descendants of Jews, (and more… but that is sufficient for me.)

It is unbelievable that I have to point out that the practice of having a grown man, who is a virtual stranger, take young boys and girls alone, behind closed doors, and ask them about sexual things, touching themselves, touching their boyfriend or girlfriend, is EXTREMELY inappropriate and an abuse of power that should be shockingly clear to everyone, but it is not to the LDS church. This happens all the time and it needs to stop. This practice is the first step in what is known as Grooming in sexual abuse scenarios (REFERENCE). While I do not think that most church priesthood leaders are predators, or intending to groom these young people, this is what is happening because they are teaching the child that they (the child) is not the authority on their own bodies and behavior. They are teaching them they do not have a right to privacy regarding this. They are removing their defenses and laying the groundwork for the real sexual abuser who will come along next and exploit this damaged understanding the child now has. 

It seems that some of the members and the rest of the world is starting to wake up to this problem, I wish I had when my children were young. (REFERENCE - 300 pages of sexual misconduct, REFERENCE - Lawsuit against church, and media coverage of this problem: REFERENCE, REFERENCE, REFERENCE, REFERENCE, REFERENCE, REFERENCE)

Never again will ANY external authority define for me in any way my relationship to God. This new found freedom of spirit and mind and soul feels SOOOOO good! And yet it is not doctrinal from the Church; we believe that the bishop and stake president and area president and so on... DO have stewardship over me and DO have powers and responsibility of divine judgement. When we make a significant mistake, or desire to participate in things God expects of us (sacrament, temple, baptism), we MUST gain the approval of these men in order to become right with God. If I determine that I believe something about God, that is not in line with the church, these men get to determine if God is ok with it or not. The way these men treat certain sins and what they require to maintain “good” standing with God varies. Some might feel that masturbation is a serious sin, others may not, some may feel that occasionally doing light drugs or alcohol is a serious sin, others may not. As penance for these sins some may require confession only, some may require abstinence from religious activities like the temple or sacrament. It all depends on who happens to be your leader at the time. The idea now sends shivers down my spine and makes me worried for my kids about this dynamic. I want THEM, my children, to always be empowered to define their own standing before God, their own “worthiness” before God, not some guy who barely knows them but looks in a manual for the answer to their soul, and who may or may not be hearing the spirit in a way that is legit with what God really thinks. 

People often try to excuse most of these issues by pointing out that prophets are only men and they make mistakes, but these mistakes are not of the inconsequential type (calling someone by the wrong name, getting angry when you should have remained calm, blaming someone for something when you didn’t understand the situation, stating the date incorrectly as to when a meeting will be held, misquoting a passage of scripture, and the like – no one cares about stuff like that). The errors I am discussing speak directly to the truth claims of these men and the church. I know the prophets are only men, but they claim mighty authority (in the case of the local leaders) and absolute authority in the case of the prophet and apostles and create deep dependence on their doctrine and their judgements which people use to define their lives, the way they see themselves, and their relationship to God. When they make errors on the matters of salvation lives are impacted significantly. Feelings of guilt, shame, self-hatred, depression, perpetual feelings of inadequacy are often the result of these mistakes – mistakes in judgement, mistakes in policy, mistakes in doctrine. Would it not be better, safer, more humble to not claim such absolute authority of divine judgement, and instead of claiming that these men speak the mind and will of God, that they are instead offering the best insight they have which may or may not ultimately be God’s thoughts on the matter and that the individual should ultimately determine what leads to the fulfillment of their own soul? But that is not what they claim. Members are expected to obey their priesthood authorities. To the extent that you do not, you lack faith and are disobedient and cannot participate in God’s saving ordinances. So then, with such a bold claim of authority, why can they not, do they not, provide meaningful answers to these problems? What good are prophets and apostles if they cannot, will not, clarify these issues:

• Joseph Smith (JS) falsely translated the papyri claiming it to be the book of Abraham (REFERENCE) to only decades later be proven false (REFERENCE) by every Egyptologist that looks at them?
• JS falsely identify ancient Kingerhook plates (REFERENCE) and translated them only later for it all to be exposed as a hoax (REFERENCE)?
• They (church leaders in 1981) were fooled into believing a conman, Mark Hoffman (REFERENCE) who ripped off the church for $900K with some fake documents of a "Joseph Smith, the 3rd blessing“ (REFERENCE) and “the Salamander Letter (REFERENCE).” Oaks and Hinkley both offered apologetic explanations for these problematic documents and later these were both proven to be frauds?
• Why wouldn’t God tell his prophet that these threats to the church were bogus? Why were they uninspired until science proved the fraud?
• Brigham Young (and others after him) taught doctrine that Adam is God the Father (REFERENCE) in general conference and had it as part of the ceremony in the temple, only later to be denounced by Pres. Kimball and McConkie as false doctrine. What about the people who learned that under Young's teachings and those that continued to believe this till later denounced? 
• Brigham taught that there are some sins that are beyond the reach of the Atonement of Jesus (REFERENCE) and that a man would have to pay for the sin himself (Journal of Discourse Vol4 p53-54) by the shedding of his/her own blood (REFERENCE). This was later declared false doctrine by the church and the way the church addresses this in the essays is skirting the issue and dodging the responsibility of it. It is believed that some believers carried out deaths because of this teaching, what do we say to those people and their families? Sorry, it was just a mistake…?
• The prophets do not see and admit the problem with JS using coercion, threat, and promise of salvation (to the girl's family) to marry young girls (14, 15, 16 years of age), and marrying other men's wives which is in violation to the scripture on polygamy (REFERENCE) (D&C 132)?
• Why did JS not practice polygamy (REFERENCE) in harmony with how God says it is to be done in D&C 132, which says to marry only virgins and that you should tell your wife? JS violated both of these commandments.
• Why did JS lie and deny his polygamy (REFERENCE) (more than 30 wives) his entire life?
• Why did JS marry 11 women who already had husbands?
• Why did Joseph have one of his plural wives (and others who knew the truth) sign affidavits swearing that Joseph was not practicing polygamy?
• Why did JS tell the Whitney's to come comfort him in secrecy (REFERENCE) Their daughter was one of his secret wives Emma didn’t know about, and to make sure Emma wasn’t there, and to burn the letter afterwards?
• Why did JS send a widower man with 9 children away on a mission, take in his children as his own, then take his new 17yr old foster daughter as a wife (REFERENCE) by putting her under immense duress and coercion fearing the gates of heaven would be closed on her if she didn’t comply?
• Any other man who gained marriage of young girls by promising their family salvation and under threat of destruction by an angel with a drawn sword (REFERENCE) would be denounced by us all. Many others have and we always recognize it as totally wrong, except with JS, why?
• Why would God ask us to believe that one man can do something that every other instance of is an abomination? This is blackmail and coercion without question. (REFERENCE , REFERENCE)
• If God was going to send an angel with a drawn sword to threaten someone, why not Hitler, or Ted Bundy?
• Why send it to a 38 yr old man to scare a 14 year old girl into marrying him? That God makes no sense to me.
• What about God respecting a person's agency? This flies in the face of one of the beautiful truths God “revealed” to JS in D&C 121:46 that everlasting dominion comes “without compulsory means.”
• Why do the essays (REFERENCE) from the church refer to JS marriage of the 14 yr old as “Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday.” Why not say she was 14? Why imply in the next sentence that marrying this young wasn’t a problem back then by saying it was legal. Average marrying age according to the census was 20, also girls mature earlier today than they did in 1835.
• The essay points out that “Emma approved, at least for a time, of four of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages”; what about the other 30 marriages? And why did Emma only approve “for a time.” What are we not being told? (REFERENCE)
• The church essay is completely silent on these core troubling issues.
• The essays in general (not just this one) obscure many relevant facts that one can only discover by drilling into the footnotes or the actual church history documents themselves. The wording of the essay says many children were born of polygamist families (implying this was the reason, to ‘raise up a generation to God’ as the BoM talks about), but if you look at the footnote it points out that the implication that more children come from polygamist families is not true. Studies have shown that polygamist families produce fewer children per wife than do traditional families.
• The following are more examples of careful wording to spin these things:
• "plural marriage—the marriage of one man and more than one woman." and "The rumors prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials that denounced spiritual wifery and polygamy but were silent about what Joseph Smith and others saw as divinely mandated “celestial” plural marriage. The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might do so." Plural marriage and polygamy have the same definition when accusing men of practicing it. Also, gospel principles states these "carefully worded denials" are lies.
• "The exact number of women to whom he was sealed in his lifetime is unknown because the evidence is fragmentary." They hide the amount of Joseph's wives in the footnotes which we know was more than 30 (This is a pinnacle piece of information why not include it in the main text?)
• "He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. Significant social and cultural changes often include misunderstandings and difficulties." This does not work with other doctrine that we claim to be truth such as, "Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion." and "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else." are we really to believe that God cares more about how we treat a piece of bread (God gave exact instructions on the sacrament prayers) than how we treat women? I believe there ARE specific instructions on polygamy and they are found in D&C132 God did give detailed instructions about polygamy.
• "participants were asked to keep their actions confidential" restated: Participants were asked to lie.
• "In Joseph Smith’s time, monogamy was the only legal form of marriage in the United States." restated: All of these marriages were all illegal, and therefore NOT actually marriages.
• "Joseph Smith acted on the angel’s first command by marrying a plural wife, Fanny Alger, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the mid-1830s." They don't state that Fanny was 16 nor do they mention that it happened before the sealing keys were restored.
• "Men and women, parents and children, ancestors and progeny were to be “sealed” to each other—their commitment lasting into the eternities...." Except, Joseph was never sealed to his parents nor children while he was alive. He sealed himself to Emma only after 7 years of having the sealing power and after 25 other wives.
• "The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday." Just say she was 14 years old!
• "Marriage at such an age, inappropriate by today’s standards, was legal in that era, and some women married in their mid-teens." Marriage between 15 and 19 was 12% of marriages then and marriages to a 14 year old was very rare if non-existent and taboo especially to a 37 year old man with 24 other wives already.
• "Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for eternity alone,” suggesting that the relationship did not involve sexual relations" However, they carefully never deny that they had sex
• "Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time and eternity or were for eternity alone." They do not mention Sylvia Sessions and other supporting accounts of polyandry sex. Also, what they are saying is that the sex between Joseph and some of these wives is unknown and quite possible.
• "But Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings." restated: Joseph lied to Emma. A prime example of this is when the Partridge sisters (Emily and Eliza) were already sealed to Joseph (and having sex with him unbeknownst to each other), but he later was sealed to these sisters again in front of Emma to trick her into believing that they weren't already previously sealed.
• "Some Latter-day Saints rejected the principle of plural marriage and left the Church" They don't mention William and Jane Law's 'Nauvoo Expositor' to expose the lies of Joseph from being so close to him which JS later ordered to be destroyed for which he was arrested.
• "The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known, and many family relationships will be sorted out in the life to come. Latter-day Saints are encouraged to trust in our wise Heavenly Father, who loves His children and does all things for their growth and salvation." restated: Basically, lots of things don't make sense. Don't worry about it just have faith.
• "Sealings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity-only sealings indicated relationships in the next life alone. //next paragraph// Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings." Just say that Joseph had sex with many of his wives and stop encoding it in a jumble of words.
• Defenders often argue that marrying young was common back then but data from 1830 (REFERENCE) indicates that the average age of marriage for women was closer to 21 or 22 (REFERENCE).
• Defenders also argue that there was a shortage of men, but the census data (REFERENCE) disproves that theory as well.
• Some argue that these marriages were non-sexual, the evidence doesn't support that (REFERENCE, REFERENCE)
• Why, when asked specifically, did the 3 witnesses to the BoM (REFERENCE) never confirm that they saw the plates with their natural eye, but only their spiritual eye? Why do current prophets and apostles allow that misconception to continue? Everyone I have ever known believes that the 3 witnesses saw the plates with their natural eyes, but they didn't.
• Why did all of the witnesses (except Oliver Cowdery) follow James Strang as the next prophet after JS? All of JS’s family (except Hyrum) endorsed James Strang as the new prophet after JS. By 1847 not one of the eleven witnesses were still members of the church. How could have their witness be considered reliable when they are so quickly deceived? Why did JS disparage all of them that left the church as liars? Why did the actual witnesses not sign their own names? All the signatures are done by Oliver Cowdery. And there are many contradictory and conflicting testimonies and concerns about these men (REFERENCE) and what they said at different times. Which testimonies are we to believe? Is God the author of this confusion?
• Why have the leaders of the church for decades mislead the members to believe (REFERENCE) that the plates were actually used in the translation of the BoM?
• The prophets cannot explain why there is a easily identifiable lie in the official account of the First Vision (Joseph says at no time did it enter into his heart that all the churches could be wrong, but in his earlier journal entries (REFERENCE) as he recounts the first version of the First Vision he says that before he went to pray he discovered for himself by reading the bible that all the churches were wrong) and this is only one glaring discrepancy among the First Vision accounts (REFERENCE) written or dictated by Joseph.
• Why did JS not record the first vision until 12 years after it occurred?
• Why do the records show that for the first 20 years of the church the church leaders knew nothing of the first vision but only thought that JS had an ‘angelic vision’?
• Why do we not accept the first version (and the only version we know was written by JS himself) as most accurate (in accordance to what we know about eyewitness testimony being changed and embellished and inaccurate in later versions)?
• Why do we not use the first vision as the most accurate and trustworthy version when it is the only version written in his hand? Why has the church given the membership a canonized version of a JS history (the 1838 version) that was (in the opinion of modern LDS scholars, like Bushman) not written by JS and not consistent with the version JS did write (the 1832 version)?
• In the 1832 version JS only saw one being, the Lord. His motivation to go pray was only to receive a remission of his sins. Why has the church sold us such an embellished inaccurate version of this alleged event? Why would the true church that has the truth of God and is led by him mislead all of us about the seminal event of the restoration?
• MORE TO CONSIDER - PART 1 and PART 2
• Not only can the prophets not clearly explain why the italicized words (which were inserted by scribes long after the original text for various reasons) of the KJV of the bible are found in the ancient text of the BoM, but they cannot explain why when JS went back to correct the bible (JST), he left the uncorrected verses in the BoM (which should have been correct in the first place and not had the italicized words copied from the bible). (REFERENCE, REFERENCE, REFERENCE)
• The prophets do not understand and prevent 125+ years of raciest doctrine excluding blacks from priesthood (REFERENCE), endowment, or sealing until well after the social pressures from the civil rights movement to give equal rights. The church gave blacks the priesthood and temple access in 1978, this was 14 years after the nation passed the Civil Rights Act. 
• Yes these men were a product of their environment like we all are, but if anyone would be enlightened by God on such a life and salvation impacting issue, wouldn’t it stand to reason that that man would be the prophet? What good is a prophet who doesn't lead on such monumental issues?
• President Benson the civil rights movement was of communist origin and should be opposed (REFERENCE).
• The church now officially disavows (REFERENCE) these policies and the teachings that the brethren (the prophet and apostles) preached as false doctrine. So again we know that the brethren of the church DID lead the members of the church astray for nearly a century and a half. This tells me that each of us are justified in NOT following the prophet when there is a policy or doctrine to which we do not believe is of God and do not feel is right. The prophets indeed may be wrong again as they were with the blood oath, the Adam-God doctrine, and the blacks and priesthood, endowment, and sealing.
• I wonder how the prophets might eventually follow the social movement on gay rights.
• The prophets cannot shed light on why there is zero archaeological evidence (REFERENCE) ever found in the Americas to clearly support the civilizations in the BoM. By comparison:
• Mayans lived from about 2000 BC to 900 AD, and their largest populations were in 250-900 AD and numbered in the 50K-120K. We have found lots of archaeology about these people.
• BoM people lived from 600 BC to 400 AD and their largest populations numbered in the millions and nothing concrete has been found anywhere?
• They cannot explain why there are things referred to in massive quantities in the BoM that there is simply NO archaeological evidence to support and ample archaeological data to indicate these things never existed in pre-Columbian America’s:
• No coinage, not a single coin has been found anywhere in the pre-Columbian Americas. Coins are specifically made to be a common unit of exchange, there should be lots.
• No steel, brass, copper, gold, none of which was used in any capacity in the pre-Columbian Americas
• No swords, shields, chariots, – not one found anywhere in pre-Columbian America
• No sheep, horses, elephants, ox, donkey, pig, no pre-Columbian remains found anywhere
• No barley, wheat, which would have left pollen samples in the multitude of core drillings which have been done throughout the Americas, nothing found
• All of these things above these would have had to exist on a huge scale to support the million+ peoples and the massive battles of the BoM and yet there are no traces of any of this, not one sword or shield from the battles, not any of the cities buildings that provide clear links to the Nephite/Lamanite people.
• No other plates or records of any kind that would substantiate the existence of this language called "reformed Egyptian" – Egyptologist agree that there is NO reason to believe that this language ever existed. Are we to believe that only one book was written in this language, the BoM?
• There is ample evidence that these pre-Columbian people were eating maize(corn) and chocolate and dog liberally and yet there is no mention of this in the BoM.
• Many people point to Wayne May’s video’s on YouTube to show some evidence of the BoM, I have listened to hours of his presentations and researched his claims myself and found his presentations to lack any specific clear evidence that ties directly to the BoM people. He only provides speculation of what is plausible, and often citing evidence that has been proven as false and fraudulent.
• The population growth (REFERENCE) described in the BoM would have required a growth rate that has never been achieved by any pre-agricultural (1700s) civilizations anywhere in the world, and in some periods of growth described in the BoM have never been achieved till the 1900s when modern medicine came to be. If you consider that wars were also happening to these people the numbers need to be even higher which goes against all the population growth data for every other civilization in world history.
• Prophets taught clearly that the Native American people were the ancestors of the Nephites and Lamanites (REFERENCE), until modern DNA testing began and continues to disprove this assertion. Now the church backs away from this teaching and if you read the church essay on this they are spinning the talking points and trying to discredit the science. I am confident that if the science had confirmed the theory they church would have been the champion of the science instead of its critic. Just like the explanations about the absence of archaeological evidence the church’s explanations regarding this are avoiding the main issue and focusing on improbable reasoning.
• The BoM introduction itself said the Lamanites “are the primary” ancestors to the American Indian. This has recently been changed to "among the" (REFERENCE) because DNA evidence has clearly shown this not to be true (REFERENCE).
• The essay from the church (REFERENCE) discounts the science and spins the rational but it is clear to any honest clear-thinking person that the church is just totally wrong on this issue.
• Prophets cannot explain why we teach that the earth is only 6000-7000 years old when there is massive amounts (REFERENCE) of scientific evidence (REFERENCE) that this is untrue.
• Prophets teach that the flood of Noah that covered the earth literally happened and yet we know from core drillings that there is significant evidence (REFERENCE) to suggest that this did not occur.
• Prophets teach that the origin of man was in the Garden of Eden in Missouri and yet there are mountains of scientific data showing that the origin of man was in Africa. They also teach that animals were created and all named by Adam in the garden and that man did not evolve. All of these are clearly not true as demonstrated by volumes of scientific data. (REFERENCE)
• Prophets do not give any explanation as to why our temple ceremony is so extremely similar to the Freemason’s which only dates back to about 1400 AD (Mormonism and Freemason PART 1, and PART 2, and PART 3, and PART 4)
• Why would Joseph claim to have "restored" the temple ceremonies when we know the ancient temple ceremonies are nothing like our current ones?
• Why do we criticize the Catholic Church for reducing the baptism from immersion to sprinkling, when we have done the exact same thing in our washing ceremony in the temple which started as a full body washing while standing in a tub and has been reduced over time to now only being a symbolic washing with one touch of one finger? Why would we do this after Joseph Smith taught that the temple ceremonies should not be changed (REFERENCE)? 
• Would a loving God threaten us violently in a sacred ceremony of salvation (from 1842 – 1927) with "my throat ... be cut from ear to ear, and my tongue torn out by its roots" and "our breasts ... be torn open, our hearts and vitals torn out and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field" and "our body ... be cut asunder and all your bowels gush out," each of these having hand gestures that the person would pantomime to act out the punishment. These parts were changed around 1930 to "rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken." Then in 1990 those words were also removed but parts of the hand gestures remain. I do not believe a loving God would teach his children through threats of gruesome torture and death. .
• Why after reading of Jesus throwing out the money changers in the temple (who were selling items to be used in temple ceremonies) are we ok with the church renting clothing inside the temple to be used in our ceremonies? And yet we are so quick to preach to avoid even the appearance of evil and yet we do this?
• Why would God leave the human race alone (the Apostasy) to its own devices without a prophet for 1800 years when knowing “the truth” is so critical to our mortal experience? That does not sound like a caring Heavenly Father, and we teach that God will never leave you alone or abandon you and yet we preach that he did just that to the human family for 1800 years…?
• Why are we not told the full story about the Nauvoo Expositor (PART 1, and PART 2)? The newspaper was critical of JS and his polygamy trying to publish the truth of his many wives, JS ordered its destruction which was a major factor in the mob that came to kill him in Carthage. It is believed that JS offered (D&C 132) Emma to William Law which backfired and made things worse.
• Why do we preach SOOOO much more than what Jesus tells us to preach in 3 Nephi 11?

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

Why do we preach SO much more than this? (endowments, washing, anointing, 2nd anointing (REFERENCE , REFERENCE), genealogy, degrees of glory, sealings, baptisms for the dead, becoming gods, priesthood, etc.) Jesus says right in these verses that it cometh of evil. I also want to say that this document is not intended to document all the various issues I discovered as I researched the 4 books of scripture Mormons claim to be true. There are more issues and if you want to further learn and understand you will see for yourself many more. I am confident in saying that I have spent roughly a thousand hours looking for the truth as supported by objective facts and discounting what would be considered subjective opinions. I have given every opportunity to pro-Mormon sources often re-reading them multiple times to ensure they had every opportunity to persuade me.

Are we really to believe that the BoM people are the one civilization on earth of which God hid or destroyed all evidence? The one civilization that would give credence and credibility to the gospel which is supposedly so valuable to his earthly children. Why would he do that? And at the same time his gospel preaches the importance of knowing your genealogy, your history? This makes no sense.

The FAIRMormon group (the pro-Mormon scholarly defenders who I have read extensively) often cite the idea that just because no archaeological evidence has been found to support the BoM that doesn't mean it's not out there somewhere waiting to be found, and lack of evidence doesn't prove anything. Which is just not an intellectually honest thing to say. The lack of evidence when evidence should exist actually tells you a lot. If I were to tell you I have an elephant living in my garage, and you say cool, let's go see it, and we go into the garage and you see two cars, my motorcycle, our bikes, lawn mower, and nothing disturbed or out of place. No elephant droppings, no elephant food, no elephant smell, hair, skin scraps, etc. It would be ridiculous to say "well there is no evidence of an elephant, but that doesn't prove one isn't here, I might just not have found it yet." The lack of evidence is data, a lot of data actually, and it does tell us something very meaningful. In addition, it would also be ridiculous for you to walk over by the lawn mower in my garage and see some grass on the ground and say "hmm... here is some grass, elephants eat grass, see... there probably is an elephant in here!"

I found great comfort the other day when I realized that these issues are not my fault. It is not my fault the church has created these issues. I am simply trying to deal with them in a way that makes sense and not in a way that brushes them off in under the rug of faith. I need to be able to trust my brain, the greatest tool God has given me. Trusting my whimsical hopes and fancies of faith has too many times proven to take me to places of trouble. What I believe upon needs to make sense. 

I have been thinking more about this terrible advice from elder Uchtdorf. "Doubt your doubts, before you doubt your faith," and the longer I consider it, the more I see it for the terrible council that it is. Under what other circumstance would you tell someone this is good advice?

• Your daughter is dating a fellow she liked at first, now she is starting to have doubts about him being a good person.
• Your son recently started a new job with excitement, now after being employed for a while he is having doubts about the company's ethics.
• Your friend is about to make a substantial investment in something that at first he felt great about, now he comes to you with some doubts about the risks involved.
• Your mother joined a religious organization after deeply moving personal experience, now she has learned that they do not allow mothers to ever talk to their grandchildren because of the doctrine of parental-confusion the child will experience and how that is of the devil.
• Your scientist friend is about to run an experiment in her lab, but at the last minute starts to have doubts about it being safe and wonders if it might cause an explosion.
• Or the classic Holy Ghost example, you go to a party all excited and then once you're there you start to have doubts about if it's an environment you should be in.

I could go on... but would you ever give the advice in these situations... "you should doubt your doubts." Meaning... you shouldn't trust your intuition, your instincts, (or even the HG perhaps?), and you shouldn’t look into your doubts, shouldn’t research them, just ignore them, pretend they don’t exist. What an idiotic (and dangerous) piece of advice and council! We do not want people to be doubters of doubt, we want people to be seekers of truth, gainers of knowledge, so they can act wisely. I cannot believe I once heard this (and SO many other things) as making sense. It is terrible advice!

Besides, what does it mean to doubt your doubt, just layer doubt on top of other doubt?! What kind of a life of utter uncertainty and ignorance would that lead to?

We should NOT doubt our doubts, we should investigate them to determine if they have any merit so we can make informed decisions and subsequently confirm the doubt or dismiss it.

I have reflected on some of the covenants we make and how it happens in the church:

• 8 yrs old we decide to join the church through baptism. Does anyone really think that an 8 yr old is wise enough to make such a decision? If they are old enough to make such a significant decision then would they not also be old enough to know some of the troublesome facts about the origins of the church?
• We send people to the temple to enter into endowment covenants right before they leave on their missions, or right before they are about to get married. They have no idea what the covenant will be until they hear it for the first time as they stand before friends and family and have a marriage or mission on the line waiting. They are not given time to consider and the cost of backing out is HUGE in social shame and embarrassment terms and possibly monetarily with a wedding and even possibly losing the relationship with their fiancé.
• People do not know of what the sealing covenant entails until they are kneeling at the altar, surrounded by friends and family and looking across at the love of their life, can you imagine the cost of saying at this moment that you are not comfortable with the sealing covenant which you have now heard for the first time? It's unimaginable!

I think a loving Father in Heaven would instead do something more like:

• No one should enter into a covenant with God till they are of age reaching adulthood wherein they have the maturity to understand clearly the covenant (late teens at the earliest for baptism).
• The specifics of the covenant should be disclosed to the person and then they should be given time to consider and understand and ask questions to ensure they understand before entering into the covenant.
• This should be done in private with only the minister and the person. The covenant after all is between the person and God and none else correct? (with the exception of marriage which includes the spouse) The person should not be under duress of shame and embarrassment should they decide not to participate at that time.

I now see with crystal clarity what I could never see before, that the policy and practice of excluding friends and family from a marriage ceremony is deeply hurtful and unkind. There is no good reason why the church doesn’t encourage (as Joseph Smith taught) people to get married civilly, surrounded by family and friends, and then get sealed in the temple afterwards. This is allowed in other countries where it is required by law, but not in the US without being punished by a 1 year wait for the sealing. There is only one reason for this, control, and it is hurtful to relationships. I do not believe for a moment that a loving Heavenly Father would want loved ones excluded like this. 

The word “love” is not mentioned in ANY temple ceremony, not even the wedding ceremony. 

The first time I visited the temple the clearest impression my mind had was "if this is not secret combinations, then I do not know what it is” and I felt very uncomfortable and I did not like it (this is not an uncommon reaction for first time goers). Why isn’t that a prompting of the Spirit telling me this was not of God and to not be involved? That question lingered in my mind every time I went over all these long years, but I wanted to be faithful, I wanted to be a good Mormon, I wanted God, and my mother, and wife, to be proud of me and not disappointed. The church teaches us that the things of the temple are “sacred not secret,” that has never felt right to me. I have friends that are very respectful and reverence sacred things, either of their religion or not, but I cannot share the temple details with them under threat of disciplinary action, and historically under violent threats from God. That to me seems the very definition of a secret, and I do not feel good about it.

We freely share the details of the first vision, freely share the BoM, are these things less sacred than the temple? The brethren often elude to the idea that they may have seen God or Jesus (there are countless incidents where they speak this way) and yet they are careful to use words that might mean something else. In the case of Elder Cook, he often says, “I know his face, I know his voice.” Does this mean he has actually seen Jesus? Why the obscure language? When they are asked for clarification they all state that these things are too sacred to discuss in detail. Why? Joseph Smith didn’t think so; he told the world all about the details of his vision. Are the visions of current apostles more sacred than the first vision? Seems doubtful.

Mormon theology teaches that the "natural man is an enemy to God." So, this tells me that I, in my natural state, am God's enemy. God created me in my natural state. God created me as his enemy. What?! That's a terrible thing to teach. How do we love ourselves with that burden of starting position? Can you imagine if I told my son that? "Son, who you naturally are offends me in every way and makes you my enemy." What would any psychologist think of that? It would be emotional child abuse. And then to say to the child, "The only way you can overcome this is to do everything I say," knowing that it will be very difficult for the child to hear and understand what I am saying. The idea that I am naturally an enemy to God is offensive to me. Since casting off Mormon dogma, I am truly learning for the very first time in my life how to love me.

According to LDS theology, life is a test, a time to prove if we will obey God. (Abraham 3:25). If that is true, the test is unfair as taught by Mormon theology.

The setup for The Test of Mortality: 

Here is the setup of our life on earth from the Mormon God:

• Our memories will be erased so we do not remember that this is a test.
• Our memories will be erased so that we do not remember ANY of our pre-mortal learnings/wisdom/knowledge.
• We will be placed in a body that is predisposed to desire to do evil (sex, drugs, violence, etc.)
• We will be placed in a body that has all sorts of weakness (arthritis, impatience, anger, headaches, etc.) and these things will make it even more desirable to do the items above.
• God will allow the earth to be filled with all manner of sinful temptations (porn, drugs, bars, violent entertainment, sexuality and lust, fame and pride, etc.)
• God will allow the earth to be filled with all manner of misinformation (political, cultural, cults, bias, right wingers, left wingers, countless religions, philosophies, etc.)
• God will give one man, the prophet, his truth. Hopefully you live in a place where you have access to this man, or his blog, or someone that has heard him speak, or you can buy his book (but in reality, 99.9% of you will never find out about him).
• God will allow for this man to act in ways that significantly undermine his credibility and violate basic morality.
• God will allow for some of this man’s teachings to be contrary to moral standards and scientific evidence.
• God will allow for many other men, who are bad, to act similarly and produce material that is similar to this man. In fact, if it were any other man who did some of these things, you would dismiss him as a bad man or a fraud.
• God will give everyone something called “the light of Christ” which will give you a basic sense of right and wrong.
• God will occasionally give you something called the Holy Ghost to very quietly speak to your heart in feelings so you can know what is true and what is not
• The impressions of the HG will be so subtle as to be easily misunderstood and these feelings will seem to confirm conflicting truths to nearly all of you.
• If you do not hear and understand the HG correctly, and do what he suggests, he will become even harder for you to understand than he already is. 
• God will expect you to hear and understand and follow the HG impressions, even when it conflicts with clear messages from your rational mind which will seem like a more reliable tool.
• God will allow all the cast out devils to fill the earth to tempt you and trick you, but God will also send angels to help you, perhaps these cancel each out, no one really knows, but at a minimum it complicates things on earth. 
• If, in the span of about 40-90 years, you sort through all that and learn God’s truth, then you can live as He wants you to live and get lots of blessings. 
• If you don't, it will have eternal consequences, which God will determine, but will likely result in many of you not being able to progress eternally, you'll go to a nice place (Terrestrial, Telestial), but you won't be with your family or the ones you love, and you'll only be able to progress to a point, but after that you be stuck there without any more progress for ETERNITY.
• If you don't sort through all that complexity listed above and just live a 'normal' life, totally ignorant of this test, you can learn it all in the post-earth life and take the test there before God makes his judgement. 
• You might ask if this means that sorting through all this above really matters then in earth-life, well...yes of course it does... why? Well... God's not really going to answer that.
• Be sure to read the scriptures that have the answers. 
• Oh except it will be pretty unclear, which books are scriptures, which are false and devil inspired, which are just good self-help books, and which are just trendy fads
• The "true" book with the answers (the Bible), God will let lots of people mess it up over the centuries so there are a lot of issues that your mind will detect, but don't worry about that, trust your feelings.
• And the other book (the BoM), God will let there be lots of issues with that too so it looks a lot like a fake, but don't worry about those facts either, trust your feelings.
• And those other books (the Pearl of Great Price and D&C), God will let there be a bunch of issues with those too, they'll conflict the other books at times, and one of them will actually be proven false by really brilliant scholars. Don't worry about that, trust your feelings.
• But don't trust your feelings if they tell you anything is wrong with these books, or this man, you'll be wrong and that would be bad for you.
• Be sure to pray to God
• But it will be pretty unclear when God is answering you and when he is ignoring you (we'll call that… "giving you a no" or maybe "saying not now, not yet, maybe later")
• And when God does answer you, it won't always be clear what that answer is, sorry, that's just the way it's got to be. 
• Most of all...HAVE FAITH!

And we preach that God is not the author of confusion…?

It does not feel right to worship a God that is less kind, less rational, and less moral than I am. Heavenly Father is taught as infinitely more loving and kind and forgiving and thoughtful than I am, which makes sense to me. However, I read the scriptures and I see a God that is often very angry (at people who are lost at times trying to figure out this confusing life), very unkind (in the condemning of some sinners), very violent (in the commands to kill and stone people), not rational (in contradictions of law and teachings), and even less moral (in the slaughtering of people) than I am. Why if homosexuality was such a serious offence did Jesus not say one word about it in the New Testament or in the BoM? Why is there only 6 instances in all of scripture (4 OT, 2 NT)? I ask this question because of the thousands of errors in transcription and translation that have occurred in the Bible over the thousands of years of its history (REFERENCE). Why would an infinitely loving God create a creature whose nature is offensive to him and then punish that creature for eternity for being as he was created?

We are taught that the Bible and The Book of Mormon are the word of God. That the words are given by an omnipotent divine being, and I think about how good a book actually authored by God would actually be and then I compare that to the reality of these “holy” books and the countless issues with them and it doesn’t make sense. Wouldn’t a book given to man by a divine being be at least as good as some of the great literature of man (Shakespeare, Homer, Tolstoy, and many others)? And yet they are not, they are riddled with contradictions and errors. Another question to consider… how difficult would it be for one of us to improve this divinely authored book, the Bible? It would be quite easy for even your averagely thoughtful person, all you would have to do is remove all the verses that suggest that slavery is acceptable and you would be off to a great start. How easy would it be to just go through and remove all the blatant contradictions it has with itself? (REFERENCE)

Do I really believe that a loving Heavenly Father would make an entire people, and their children and grandchildren to come “loathsome” with a skin of blackness? 2 Nephi 5:22

Do I really believe that Jesus would burn alive all the people of Zarahemla, drown everyone in the city of Moroni, bury alive everyone in the city of Moronihah, drown everyone in city of Gilgal, the city of Onihah, the city of Mocum, the city of Jeruselem, the city of Gadiandi, the city of Gadiomnah, the city of Jacob, the city of Gimgimmno, the city of Jacobugath, the city of Laman, the city of Josh, the city of Gad, the city of Kishkumen? Remember that typically about 25% of a city’s population is made up of innocent children? 3 Nephi 9

Why did the apostles violate the commandment found in the scripture D&C 20:65 when they ordained Russell Nelson as prophet and president of the church PRIOR to the sustaining vote of the church that was held later in conference? 

"No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;"

The apostles themselves are not being obedient to our own scriptures. 

The church preaches that the first law of heaven is Obedience. Every time I have heard this, I have felt uneasy, as if it wasn’t the right answer, not for me (it might be for some and that is perfectly ok). Fulfilling my eternal potential is much more than just obeying; it’s about discovering me and all that means, which is a lot (infinitely so). My son wrote me a letter recently from his mission and told of his mission president (who was going home) leaving them with “his deepest wishes for them all” it was one word, “Obey.” This bothers me, I know this mission president is just another imperfect man trying to do what he thinks is right, but missionaries usually see their presidents with nearly the same awe as they do Apostles and in my heart I am asking why isn’t his deepest wish for these young men, “Be happy,” or “Love one another,” or “Find fulfillment,” or something like that? Clearly God does not believe that Mormonism is essential to the mortal experience for most of the human race. 99.9% of the human family knows nothing about the Mormon gospel, therefore it is very reasonable to say that even IF it is true, it’s not critical to the human experience (simply based on the reality that God loves all his children but is ok with most of them not knowing about Mormonism). So if Mormonism doesn’t bring a person joy and fulfilment, why isn’t it ok for them to leave it? Why is a person leaving the church always met with so much fear, pain, disappointment, and even demonizing?

I don’t think God wants us to be obedient above all else, I think he wants us to be fulfilled, to learn, to grow, to love one another. I believe he wants us to find ourselves and the transcendent within us. To find the divine within us and share it with the world because what we are, each of us as individuals, is unique in all of the great expanse of the created universe and therefore it is our uniqueness that defines our infinite value and the endless possibilities of what we are and can be.

So, where is the smoking gun that proves the church is not true? Everyone will have to decide for themselves which of these issues is most troubling and if it constitutes a “smoking gun.” For me, it is the totality of this picture. There is confusion and complications and inconsistencies and hidden truths and irrationality everywhere I look and THAT is the smoking gun for me.

I look at all of this of which I have written and ask one simple question. Do I believe that this is the work of a loving perfect Heavenly Father? This is his plan of how to lead his children through this confusing and difficult time of mortal life? The feelings of my heart tell me no, and as I ponder these things, my mind tells me no. Both my heart and my mind tell me I’ve been misled. Mormonism doesn’t make me feel good, or at peace, or closer to God. It makes me feel guilty, anxious, obligated and confused. It doesn’t bring me great joy or happiness, but other ways of thinking and believing do. So given this is my experience, my knowledge, my testimony, how would you counsel me to live my life? Would you have me follow my conscience and do what I feel and believe is right? Since letting go of Mormonism and opening my mind to more sources of truth, wisdom, and knowledge, I have found more peace in my soul than I have ever before had and I am grateful for this. For the first time in my life I feel like I have a real opportunity to love myself and have peace to my soul. My worry is, that this will continue to cause sadness in many of my friends and family who are Mormon and possibly ruin those relationships.

So many mental gymnastics are required to believe this is God's work: suspension of disbelief, rationalizations, and simply ignoring the issue under the 'mysteries of god' are required to get through all these issues... or one explanation answers them all... it's made up by man. Occam's razor could be our guide here.

I heard it said once that ‘until a person of their own free choice cracks open the door to the possibility that the church might not be true, there is nothing you can say or do to make them open that door,’ and I ask myself…why after 40 years was I able to open that door? The answer is because I loved my son (who came to me unbelieving) more than I loved the church. My desire to love and care for him was greater than my desire to protect my testimony. I believe that is why I was willing to open my mind to new possibilities. I am deeply grateful that my son had the courage to be honest with me in a way that I might never have been able to do without him. One might criticize me and say that this was my great sin, that I loved my son more than God. To that I simply say, if this be my sin, and for the love of my son, God will condemn me, then that God I want no part of.

Isn’t it interesting that almost everyone on earth ends up in the religion of their parents, and that that religion is the true religion? Does that sound like the work of God or the natural result of pervasive teaching of a person during their formative years of youth? It reminds me of the quote from Lenin, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world.” What we learn in our youth is almost impossible to move away from, especially if you have been taught that your eternal salvation (or seeing your loved ones again) depends on not changing your beliefs.

I recently sat in a Sunday school lesson where the subject was “why do people leave the church?” The answers offered up by the class were dismissive and condescending: sin, anti-literature, taking offense, they never had a testimony to begin with, loving the things of the world, complacency in their praying and reading the scriptures. I was deeply saddened by the inherent judgement and self-righteousness of the answers. I spoke up, “I don’t believe we are giving these people enough credit. Many leave because the teachings of the church do not make sense to them. They do not feel good about them.” I wonder if it made anyone think differently.

At church we are taught endlessly that we have to continue to reaffirm and protect our testimony because it’s the truth and under attack from the world, and this takes a lot of work or you will lose it. But truth stands on its own strength, in order to keep my belief in mathematics, or the principles of effective communication, or countless other truths I know, I do not have to continually recite words, phrases, ceremonies, or avoid ideas that might challenge me. Elder Packer once said that “the problem with historians is that they idolize the truth.” What?! He went on to say that some things that are true are not very helpful. I would ask… helpful to whom, and for what agenda? Why do most members not look into the rumors of troubling church history? Because they fear that the truth will destroy their belief. They may not admit this, I wouldn’t have, but it was the truth; the church had taught me to fear any information that was not from Them regarding the church history.

The religion fosters a deep relationship of codependency: “Codependent relationships are a type of dysfunctional helping relationship where one person supports or enables another person's addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement. Among the core characteristics of codependency, the most common theme is an excessive reliance on other people for approval and identity.” I had total dependency on God, the church, and church leaders to validate and approve of my worthiness. My identity was completely defined by what the church told me about what God wanted of me. No regard was given to my uniqueness, my authenticity, my personal needs (although I had a deep yearning to develop these things). All that I am was expected to be given over to God as defined by the church. A more codependent relationship I cannot imagine.

I am not leaving Mormonism because I desire to sin, or because I have been offended, or because I love the worldly things more, or because I stopped reading or praying or serving. During my investigation I read the scriptures and prayed more than ever (and I’ve always prayed a lot). I am not leaving because of so called “anti” literature, and I did have a strong and sincere testimony for 40 years of Mormonism, but it was a testimony based on misinformation, lies, half-truths, indoctrination since my youth, nice feelings, and coercive teachings (the threat of not being with my loved ones if I don’t stay “faithful”). I am grown now and I have learned more. I have learned that which was kept from me. I am leaving because it doesn’t make sense to me and I am happier without it. I am not mad or offended. I am free.

Again, I do not need anyone to think or feel the same way I do on these matters. If anyone looks at this same information and decides to believe this is God’s truth, Mormonism is his work, his one true church, I have no problem with that. I want people to live and believe that which brings them peace and joy and fulfilment.

Do I reject everything about Mormonism? No. I keep the truths which make sense to me and that bring me peace and joy.

The Buddha taught that the greatest of all gifts is the gift of truth.

Truths of loving and serving your fellow beings, truths of honesty and learning, forgiveness and not judging, mercy and patience, these are all things that Mormon teachings preach and I still believe in these values and virtues. While I do not believe the claims the church makes in having “the absolute truth” or “the authority of God,” and while I do not believe the scriptures are literally true, I do find value in some (but not all) of the principles they teach and I keep those that bring me peace, joy, fulfillment, and set aside the ones that do not.

This is how I approach all information claiming to be truth, be it Christian, Hindu, Buddha, or any other philosophy or idea, even works of fiction. Truth can be found in a great many places, but so also can deceptions. A religion or philosophy is not always one or the other, in fact rarely is. The BoM teaches that an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit and a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. This is simply not true. Read the descriptions given by friends and neighbors of so many of the modern day serial killers. They are known as kind people in many cases. Likewise, many so-called men of God who have done much good with their lives and blessed the lives of many have, in moments of weakness, done evil things. I evaluate each proposition on its own merits. Does it make sense? Is there good and reasonable evidence to support it?

I believe that in discovering all that I have written about in this document has given me more knowledge of truth. JS taught that “a man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge.” That is what I believe I have accomplished in learning of these truths. If any of the thoughts or facts in this documents are shown to me to be false, I will reject them as soon as I learn of it. I believe as Joseph Campbell wrote, “The mind of man, cleansed of secondary and merely temporal concerns, beholds with the radiance of a cleansed mirror a reflection of the rational mind of God. Reason puts you in touch with God…the mind of man cleared of its fallibilities is sufficiently capable of the knowledge of God.” I have been learning much which I feel is truth from various sources. I have found much wisdom and understanding in the teachings of Buddhism. I have found strength of soul in the exercise of meditation, I have found merciful and meaningful insights from non-LDS Christian writers, I have found deep insights regarding the magic of the cosmos from atheists, I have found wonderful insights to life’s journey from agnostics, and I have found love and acceptance from people with all sorts of differing ideas, and I have found all of this beautiful and lovely and believe with all my heart and soul that it is the way we should be. Daily I search for more truth and knowledge so that I might find fulfilment to my soul. I feel good about the new direction of my journey and the growth of my soul.

I love my family and friends and I hope with all my heart that these relationships accept my new direction of belief. I do not yet know if they will.

As to faith, faith is a wonderful part of the human experience. However, there is a significant difference between being asked to have faith in that which we do not yet understand, and that which violates our understanding. Faith in that which we do not understand is to be asked to believe God created the world, when we have no understanding either way as to how this could or could not be accomplished. Faith in that which violates our understanding is to be asked to believe that we do not need air to live. The former I am ok with, the latter I am not. Each week I place my garbage in front of my house to be collected. This is an act of faith. I do not KNOW for a fact that it will be picked up, perhaps the company has gone bankrupt. However, I believe that it will be collected based on past personal experience and sound reasoning. I do not toss my trash into the treetops believing it will be collected by the birds. Why? Because it makes no sense and goes against my reasoning and experience. I believe there is a different standard when asking a person to have faith in God vs the actions of a man who claims God’s power and authority. God can allow or cause a disaster which damages the lives of innocent people and give no explanation, a man (of God or otherwise) cannot.

It is deeply interesting that there are innumerable examples throughout history where at one time the best explanation for something was a religious explanation but now science has given us a better explanation, but there are no examples where at one time the best explanation for something was a scientific one but now religion has given us a better explanation.

I respect everyone’s individual journey. I do not believe that my journey or my ideas are superior to anyone else’s. They are good for me, if YOU feel they are good for you too then that’s fine, if you feel they are ridiculous for you, well that’s fine too. Either way I would love to sit down and talk about all of it with you in the purest of friendships in an effort to understand one another and learn and grow in love without judgement.

My desire is not to search for the meaning of life, but rather search for “the experience of being alive!” (Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth)

Reading Joseph Campbell has made me realize that we need a new mythology, a new theology, one that is not based on tribes, an in-group or an out-group. Because of technology and science the world has become a much smaller place, a neighborhood of humanity. We need to stop thinking and acting like street gangs spending our time on turf wars and start seeing ourselves as the amazingly diverse galactic headquarters of the human race. We need to stop limiting ourselves. We need to stop limiting God. We need to stop putting God and science at odds with each other; it is foolhardy to believe that God would create something so beautiful and meaningful as scientific knowledge and discovery and then place him/herself at odds with it. What if God is every good thing that we all think God is? What if God is even more than that? What if God is larger and more incredible than our biggest and greatest ideas of God? Seems possible doesn’t it? After all, we are talking about God.

I spent over 40 years trying to be the best Mormon I could be. Now I know that I should have spent that time being the best ME I could be. That is exactly what I plan on doing for the next 40 years of my life.

Given all that I know, and all that I do not know, and all that I have experienced in life… I am doing the best that I can.

Things worth reading:

If you are religious, you might find some of these suggestions make you nervous, but if you desire to seek truth then ideas should not frighten you and you might just be amazed by, and grateful for, what you discover. I was.

Joseph Campbell, The Hero’s Journey, The Power of Myth

Sam Harris, End of Faith, Waking Up, Letter to a Christian Nation

Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution is True

Boyer Pascal, Religion Explained

Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus

Ryan Holiday, The Daily Stoic, The Obstacle is the Way

Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught

Things worth listening too:

Mormon Stories

Mormon Discussion

Year of Polygamy

Mormon Expressions

Sites to Research:

LDS Essays

FAIRMormon

CESLetter

MormonThink