The Post-Mormon Perspective

Conversations with a Mormon - Part 1: The Testimony Mantra

2011-12-15T11:18:00.000-08:00

I grew up in the Mormon Church. I had many long conversations with True Believing Mormons before I decided to resign. I honestly gave Mormons hundreds of opportunities to help me understand and be convinced by orthodox Mormon claims. I even made a deal with a Mormon bishop that I would go to church for three months if he would read BH Robert’s Studies of the Book of Mormon, and explain to me after reading the book how he retains a literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Three months went by with me going to church as promised, and when I contacted this bishop he had only read the five page introduction not fulfilling his promise (I presume, in fear of reading the opposing viewpoint ) and said the introduction was interesting and then he only wanted to talk about me praying more until I became convinced Mormonism was true.

I really wanted to be challenged by Mormons to rethink my post Mormon perspective, and like a philosopher will dialogue with others in order to obtain truth, I wanted to locate any error in my reasoning. I’ve learned however that for many Mormons, once you believe emotions prove something factually true, you can always come up with excuses to deny any evidence that disproves Mormon claims.

Below is a fictional conversation between a Mormon and a former Mormon based on my own actual conversations with Mormons. I changed the names, and some of the wording has been changed but this kind of conversation basically did take place. Stan is a True Believing Mormon (TBM) and is worried about his friend Jeff who has resigned. One day they get to talking as Stan tries to “re-activate” his pal Jeff.

Part 1 - THE TESTIMONY MANTRA

We enter the conversation after Stan has just expressed his concern that Jeff hasn’t been to the Mormon Church in awhile …

Jeff: You know Stan, a very common sense question is very often avoided in Mormonism.

Stan: What’s that?

Jeff: Well, how many people are on the earth?

Stan: About 7 billion.

Jeff: Do you know what each one of these 7 BILLION people know in their heart and mind?

Stan: No, of course not.

Jeff: Then how can you say that you KNOW your dogma is the truest dogma and everyone else’s is essentially corrupt and of the devil in some way, having only a particle of truth, while you supposedly have all the saving truths?

Stan: Because I know what I felt, therefore I know it to be true!

Jeff: I’m sure you do Stan. Have you ever met a Book of Mormon believer like I have in Missouri who also “knows” the BoM is true but “knows” Utah Mormonism is false?

Stan: I know Mormonism is true!

Jeff: How do you know?

Stan: I feel it in my heart.

Jeff: So you know only Mormonism is true because of a subjective emotional experience that you can’t share or transmit to me objectively?

Stan: Yes that’s right. You have to be “in tune” with the spirit.

Jeff: Are you saying I have a faulty spiritual antenna?

Stan: No, it is a spiritual feeling that I can’t explain.

Jeff: Well, you assume either that my antenna is defective or I have not tuned in to the “spirit,” but what if I did turn to 100.MormonClaimsFM and didn’t get the same message as you?

Stan: Well you probably aren’t worthy then (Note to the reader: this is a personal attack).

Jeff: I am worthy of God’s communication. Why the insult?

Stan: Well, then I don’t know why God did not tell you Mormonism is true because I know he told me. I bare you my testimony that I know… (Stan begins lowering his voice and alters the tone and pitch of his voice).

Jeff: (interrupting) Can you say – that someone of a different religion, who claims they know their dogma is the only true one based on a subjective emotional experience – is wrong? Can you say you know what they felt inside and it is wrong?

Stan: No of course not.

Jeff: Then it logically follows that if you cannot refute the subjective emotional experience of say a non-Mormon Book of Mormon believer, for example, that leads them to make their claim that their religion is true and Utah Mormonism is false; then your subjective experience is cancelled out as any kind of alleged "knowledge." For neither of you two Book of Mormon believers can discount each other's subjective experience that to both of you, allegedly proves two conflicting dogmas. He or she can't invalidate your internal experience and you can't invalidate their internal experience. I call this the testimony stalemate. Thus, how can you say “you know” your experience is objectively valid when you can’t say that other religious believer’s spiritual experiences are invalid, which you admitted you can’t.

Stan: No, he or she must have been deceived, mislead, or lying.

Jeff: Of course, that is so easy for you to say. You have to attack them to maintain your position. You said you’ve never met a non-Mormon Book of Mormon believer and you admitted that you can't discount what they feel, so how can you say their internal convictions are invalid? How can you know the source or mechanics of their experience if you weren't there and didn't feel what they felt?

Stan: Look, they have the Light of Christ…

Jeff: I know, I know, they have a witness of the spirit to know the Book of Mormon is true, but they need the Holy Ghost to tell them Mormonism is true, right?

Stan: Right.

Jeff: How do you know that it is not YOU who is only experiencing the Light of Christ and THEY have the Holy Ghost? Can you measure the difference? Is their a Spirit monitor you can hook yourself up to like a lie detector test, the clergy then asking questions and the needle either goes beep “light of Christ” or beep “Holy Ghost?” The truth is their internal spiritual feelings are just as valid as yours no matter what you decide to label it in an attempt to avoid that fact. Feelings are feelings no matter what you or the opposing party labels it: feelings are emotional responses and your emotional responses are equal to the Hindu, the Protestant, or the RLDS (Community of Christ) member.

Stan: Well we have more members than they (the Book of Mormon sects) do.

Jeff: That is the fallacy of Jumping on the Band Wagon (an appeal to numbers). Hitler had millions of followers, there are about as many Jehovah Witness and Seventh day Adventist as there are Mormons, and the Catholics have over 300 million members, and there are nearly a billion Muslims!

Stan: I know it’s true I testify…

Jeff: In all do respect you sound like a Broken Record. If a member of a Book of Mormon sect were here all you guys would do is sit around and just repeat your testimonies of the Book of Mormon “I know its true,” “I know its true…” on and on and on and on like two broken records, proving what? You know ‘what’ is true?

Stan: I know the Book of Mormon is true (as he sits up straight with confidence).

Jeff: You have not addressed the problem of other non-Mormons claiming the Book of is Mormon true based on their emotions or personal revelation. But fine, let’s ignore that issue if you want. Now, which of these main Mormon doctrines believed by the Utah based LDS church today is in the Book of Mormon:

1. Church organization
2. Plurality of Gods
3. Plurality of wives doctrine
4. Word of Wisdom
5. God is an exalted man
6. Celestial marriage; Men may become Gods
7. Three degrees of glory
8. Baptism for the dead
9. Eternal progression
10. The Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood

Stan: None of them are in the Book of Mormon, and that is because we believe in continuous revelation.

Jeff: Yes I understand that, but my point is that your testimony of the Book of Mormon does not prove Utah Mormonism is true any more than the testimony from an apostle of The Church of Christ Temple Lot testifying to the truth of the Book of Mormon, proves his church is true. Many groups claim to have continuous revelation as well; did you know that Joseph Smith Jr’s own son, Joseph Smith the III, received revelation for the RLDS church?

Stan: (growing a little agitated) No I didn’t know that, but he was probably deceived or lying.

Jeff: Could it run in the family then?

Stan: (agitated) No, no, Brigham Young was to be the leader.

Jeff: Yes, well let’s skip over Mr. Young’s many false teachings as "the prophet" like his claiming Adam was God and blacks are inferior, for now and go back to my question of the other churches having revelation just like the LDS?

Stan: I can only speak for my church and my internal experience; I cannot transfer my convictions on to you.

Jeff: Well then, in all due respect, if it is not transferable then why give it to me at all?

Stan: (sitting up straight and proud) because I’m right!

Jeff: (amazed) then you must mean that all those who disagree with you are wrong?

Stan: (regressing) No, it means you need to get a testimony, and the only truth is the LDS Church and if you keep searching you WILL come back to the church!

Jeff: I did search and found out that the origin and development of Mormonism is man made. After several years of research I have concluded that the LDS church is not what it claims to be. By the way have you read An Address to All Believers in Christ where David Whitmer says God told him in a vision to leave the Mormon Church, among other things?

Stan: It was just too hard for him to be Mormon.

Jeff: That is an Ad Hominem Attack that has nothing to do with his arguments or his testimony that Utah Mormonism is false. You also ASSUME to know what a man you’ve never met before was thinking or feeling beyond what he wrote, which is an attempt at the fallacy of Poisoning the Well: attacking the person to create a bias against their argument.

Stan: He was probably lying, why should I trust an anti-Mormon!

Jeff: Well, with that logic Stan, only those who are active Mormons tell the truth and all non-Mormons are liars, which is a fallacious Hasty Generalization. Second, as a Mormon you claim that David Whitmer’s testimony, as one of the three witnesses for the Book of Mormon is valid! So which is it, is he a liar forfeiting his testimony of the Book of Mormon, or honest and Mormonism is false?

Stan: You just want to argue, you don’t want to hear the truth, you…

Jeff: Whoa, buddy, please don’t assume you know what my motives are beyond what I tell you they are. I am a sincere seeker of truth. Are you claiming to have the ability to mind read? By the way would you be interested in reading An Address to All Believers in Christ?

Stan: I don’t care what Whitmer said, it doesn’t interest me in the least! I have to go.

Note: Nowadays I try to avoid these types of conversation because of the way they usually end with the Mormon experiencing an Amygdala hijack, followed by name-calling and defensive postures and with what I call a testimony hit and run: a Mormon bearing their testimony and ejecting without sticking around to have a rational dialogue.

If you want to remain friends, or be on good terms, with a Mormon then in my opinion it is best to just avoid talking about Mormonism unless they are very open minded and sincerely interested in understanding your point of view. If you do decide to have a conversation about Mormonism I have some advise and suggestions here.

Blacks & LDS Missionaries and The Temple Before 1978

2011-11-15T10:02:00.000-08:00

I was reading through the excellent article called Blacks and the Priesthood (at http://www.mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm) and I learned something I hadn't heard before. At the end of the article it states:

Blacks banned from the temple.

Some members try to explain that the priesthood ban on black men was just something unique to the priesthood. But if that's the case, why were not black women allowed to receive their endowments in the temples until 1978? It's bad enough to exclude black men from holding the priesthood but to deny both black men and black women the sealing ordinances and other ordinances required for exaltation is clearly racist. Why on earth wouldn't black families be allowed to be sealed to each other before 1978? [End Quote].

I already knew that LDS missionaries were trained to avoid proselytizing to blacks before 1978 but banning black women from the temple endowment is especially alarming.

Movies I Recommend With Themes Related To Mormonism

2011-11-01T11:02:00.000-07:00

• The Hoax: Richard Gere plays a con man who pretends to write the autobiography of Howard Hughes. It reminded me of Joseph Smith pretending to write a history of the American Indians, and when he claimed to write the Book of Abraham based on Egyptian funeral scrolls. Be sure to watch the Bonus Features on the DVD.

• 1984: This movie also reminds me of my experience as a Mormon.

• The Truman Show: This movie is an excellent drama that reminds me of my experience as a Mormon. The end is great for the the former Mormon dealing with leaving the Mormon Show.

• Pleasantville: This is a must see for all former Mormons. The last scene is great for the former Mormon dealing with leaving Mormonville.

• The Matrix: the theme of awakening to reality is what every former Mormon has to go through.

• V for Vendetta: the theme of fear and control vs. freedom and love is great for the former Mormon therapeutically.

• Chocolat’: the authentic characters offer contrast to the self-righteous ones which every former Mormon can probably relate to.

• The Insider: many former Mormons will relate to the main character who takes on an empire for the sake of the truth.

• The Mist: this isn’t your typical scary movie. There is a rich reservoir of philosophical topics from religious cultism to human nature. One of the best films I have seen on how irrational beliefs can spiral into chaos.

• The Sculls: This is an excellent movie about a secret IN group. The main character is immediately forced to deal with his non-member friend who has now become part of the OUT group since he's joined. The movie documents the struggle between the pull of the powerful group and the need for independence and self actualization outside any group.

• The Beach: This movie is not directly about any religion but displays the power of group dynamics. When Leonardo DiCaprio’s character finds a hidden beach where a group of people live in secret he thinks he’s found paradise. What he finds is a group of people living as a village community that will stop at nothing to keep the scarce resources to themselves. When one of the group members gets bitten by a shark, instead of listening to him scream in pain they remove him to an isolated spot to recover or die in a tent. “Out of sight out of mine” says Dicaprio. I was reminded of Mormon society that ostracizes doubts, questions, and dissidents from the paradise of Mormonville. The leader of the group, Sal, even chooses to try and kill another member of the group in order to stay at the secret beach. Sal says to DiCaprio’s character at the end of the film that she would never leave the beach because “she believed in it too much.”

• In the Line of Duty: Ambush in Waco: this movie tells the story of David Koresh and many former LDS members will see parallels to early Mormonism and Joseph Smith.

• Guyana Tragedy: the story of Jim Jones.

• The Outsider: a movie about the result of Us vs. Them thinking.

• A Stranger Among Us: another movie about the result of Us vs. Them thinking.

• The Crucible: a movie that shows what can happen when science and critical thinking is abandoned.

• Scarlet Letter: this movie about shaming will remind many former Mormons of life in Mormonism.

Documentaries:

• The Fairy Faith: This fascinating documentary on some real people’s actual belief in fairies includes testimonies from true believers in Ireland and Canada. This is an excellent human study on the psychology of belief. The movie showcases the problem with beliefs that are non-falsifiable. We also see how even the belief in leprechauns as a type of fairy is believed in literally by a grown man. This movie will help one understand how Mormons can believe in an invisible people in the Book of Mormon. For more information on the movie see amazon.com or try www.winstarvideo.com/dvdform.asp

• Devil's Playground: This is an excellent documentary on the Amish. The movie follows the life of three Amish teens, who from the ages of 16 to 21 are let loose into the world to decide if they want to get baptized and join the Amish Church. It reminded me of young Mormon teens being pressured to go on missions. I learned a great deal about the Amish including how the Amish began as a sect that did not believe in infant baptism. I found a lot of similarities between the Amish and Mormons:

1. Polarized Thinking: Amish vs. the World.
2. The man is above the woman.
3. You must dress plain.
4. When you marry you grow a beard similar to Mormons wearing special underwear.
5. Having large families is encouraged.
6. Amish members are coerced to be obedient to the church through fear of excommunication and shunning: where you are placed in the "bann" and friends and family are not to speak to you. Mormons have no official "bann" but skeptics and dissidents are ostracized socially.

Major Difference:
1. Amish are anti-materialism and Mormons are pro-wealth.

Strong City: The End of the World Cult: This documentary is available on the web as I write this. The movie reminds me of Joseph Smith, see my blog post here: http://postmormon.blogspot.com/2010/03/wayne-bent-and-joseph-smith.html

Recent changes and additions

2011-10-10T17:40:00.000-07:00

I made a recent change to my blog. I moved all the links to other sites I used to have on the right side of my blog to this link here.

Also, to those who are interested I’ve also added some new content to my website under the section titled: Part 3 - Life After Mormonism: “So Mormonism isn’t what it claims to be, so now what?”

Learning Different Points of View & The Courage To Be Informed

2011-09-21T13:50:00.000-07:00

The following is from pages 149-150 of the book, Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff, section 61 titled: Read Articles and Books with Entirely Different Points of View from Your Own and Try to Learn Something:

Have you ever noticed that practically everything justifies and reinforces your own opinions and views on life? The same is true with our radio and television listening and viewing choices as well. In fact, on America’s most popular radio talk show, callers often identify themselves as “ditto heads,” meaning “I already agree with everything you say. Tell me more.” Liberals, conservatives–we’re all the same. We form opinions and then spend our entire lifetimes validating what we believe to be true. This rigidity is sad, because there is so much we can learn from points of view that are different from our own. It’s also sad because the stubbornness it takes to keep our heart and mind closed to everything other than our own point of view creates a great deal of inner stress. A closed mind is always fighting to keep everything else at arm’s length.

We forget that we’re all equally convinced that our way of looking at the world is the only correct way. We forget that two people who disagree with one another can often use the identical examples to prove their own point of view–and both sides can be articulate and convincing.

Knowing this, we can either buckle down and get even more stubborn–or we can lighten up and try to learn something new! For just a few minutes a day–whatever your slant of life–try make a gentle effort to read articles and/or books with different points of view. You don’t need to change for core beliefs or your deepest held positions. All you’re doing is expanding your mind and opening your hear to new ideas. This new openness will reduce the stress it takes to keep other point of view away. In addition to being very interesting, this practice helps you see the innocence in others as well as helping you become more patient. You’ll begin to sense the logic in other points of view. My wife and subscribe to both the most conservative as well as the most liberal newsletters in America. I’d say that both have broadened our perspective on life.

[End Quote]

What a refreshing perspective. I find that most True Believing Mormons are lacking in this openness, for how many of them have truly taken the time to understand the exmormon and why they no longer believe in Mormonism? Instead, most Mormons just call every book, article, or presentation (that the exmormon might offer to better understand his or her point view) a bunch of anti-Mormons lies. They say this without ever checking the footnotes of the book for example, and seeing if what is written is true or not. They reject trying to understand because they are trained by their religion not to try and understand. Before I chose to to resign from the Mormon Church I read both sides of the Mormon debate, reading LDS apologetics and the critics before I reached my verdict just as a jury does. Unfortunately most rank and file Mormons will not to do the same.

Unless you study both sides you are left uninformed or worse yet misinformed holding a heavy bias. Until you studiously look over both sides and come to a fair and balanced perspective you will miss many truths and become blinded by bias. For some people the world revolves around them, and so the truth is wrapped up in what they want to believe and what makes them feel good.

Some people are not interested in objective truth; they are only interested in being right. Truth is void of opinions and traditions. Truth is not an interpretation or subjective experience that’s not applicable objectively and universally. A good question to ask yourself at all times is, “if I received information that proved a point of view of mine false, would I be committed enough to the objective truth, and free from bias, enough to change my opinion?" In other words, would you change your point of view if it were proven false?

Two reasons I have often been given for someone limiting their perspective and retaining their bias by not reading and studying other points of view are:

• "I don’t have time like you do." This translates to: the truth is not my priority.

• "I’m not interested in rigorous study of alternative points of view for I just want to be comfortable." This translates to: I don’t want to think about anything that threatens my preconceived notions, for that scares me.

The choice is yours to be scared and uninformed or courageous and informed.

September 11, 1857 & The Lucifer Effect By Philip Zimbardo

2011-09-11T15:53:00.000-07:00

On September 11, 1857 a group of Mormons killed over a hundred innocent people. See this short clip below:

Note: I am not the biggest fan of the moive September Dawn since it weaves a fictional tale about a Mormon family within the factual events of September 11, 1857. To watch a shortened version of the film with most of the fictional aspects edited out, see the youtube video here.

So how could a group of good and active Mormons kill innocent people? Well, the video [now posted below in the comments section] quoting LDS leader Dallin Oaks about blind obedience and how members must be basically loyal and not criticize their leaders (which is a tradition in Mormonism) no doubt contributed to the Mormon murders in 1857. The video below I believe also explains how:

To watch the above video on the webpage see http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/459.

Horns versus Halos: The Divisive Nature of Mormonism & How Reason and Science Can Unite Us

2011-08-12T18:36:00.000-07:00

I just finished an essay titled: Horns versus Halos: The Divisive Nature of Mormonism & How Reason and Science Can Unite Us.

The Danger of a Single Story & Former Mormons

2011-08-07T11:55:00.000-07:00

This morning I watched another TED video titled: The danger of a single story, posted below:

This video reminded me of my life as a Mormon and how I had a single story about exmormons/post-Mormons. I viewed all former Mormons as lost and to be pitied, sinful in need of reconverting, and/or deceived by Satan. I viewed those who were never Mormon or what I called “Gentiles” as equally lost, in need of conversion, and in some way deceived by Satan. I held a very black and white view with little room for complexity. Sure I tried to “love my neighbor” and “judge not” but I was also trained as a Mormon to view myself as the “elect,” the “chosen few,” and there was a cosmic battle between the forces of evil and the forces of good. I, of course, was on the good side. This of course tightened the bond with fellow Mormons and likewise dug a deeper hole in the cavern separating Us from Them.

I am pleased with the new I am an exmormon website. For this site breaks the stereotypes about former Mormons and tells their real story with a face to go with it. Yet I wonder how many Mormons actually watch these stories. In fact, how many True Believing Mormons have actually listened to one of their former Mormon loved ones (a spouse, sibling, relative) share their story of why they are no longer Mormon. What would happen if they did?

The Fruit of Joseph Smith: The Legacy of Mormon Polygamy

2011-06-30T14:25:00.000-07:00

The above clip is from the documentary Inside Story of Polygamy on the BBC (click on the link to watch the whole show). This documentary shows the true legacy of Joseph Smith. One of the reasons I chose to leave Mormonism was because of how much suffering and oppression Joseph Smith created with is adulterous lifestyle and the sexual mythology he created to justify that selfish lifestyle. Because of Smith, even those who aren't "physically" abusing children with their authoritarian “priesthood status” in these polygamous groups, have been duped through indoctrination, subjective emotion and Groupthink, to believe they are being obedient to God by living this way.

I also recommend this video I found on youtube: Lifting the Veil of Polygamy.

The FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter day Saints) depicted in the videos above is the fruit of Joseph Smith and his doctrine of polygamy. Whenever I visit a Mormon home or social activity and see a picture of Joseph Smith on a wall for members to revere, I think of his legacy of polygamy and the suffering and harm it continues to cause in the world.

Those who continue to revere Joseph Smith and even sing a hymn praising the man – even though they are aware of his adulterous activities and manipulation and seduction of young girls – truly baffle me. Sandra Tanner, who has provided extensive historical research on the life of Joseph Smith, was baffled as well during a friendly meeting with a liberal Mormon historian who made excuses for Smith’s sexual activities. She says in a speech given in 2009, available on youtube, that her response to him was:

How can you avoid the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a sexual predator? … for instance in the newsletter [Sacred Marriage or Secret Affair?] I tell about the case of Lucy Walker. Now here is a young girl where she is in a family of ten children, the family converts to Mormonism, they end up moving to Nauvoo. But the mother gets malaria in Nauvoo and dies and then one of the children dies. … and Joseph Smith’s solution to this family’s situation is to send the father on a two year mission to the east coast, divide up the children into different homes, and take the teenagers into his home. So now he [Smith] has this sixteen year old girl living in the home with her brother that’s a year or so older than her. He [Smith] starts privately going to the sister to try to convince her to become his plural wife. She’s praying about the whole thing, she doesn’t no what to make out of it.

Then it turns out that Joseph’s wife Emma and the brother go on a shopping trip to St. Luis and while they’re gone Joseph gets the girl to marry him. And she just that day, the day before, turned seventeen when she marries him in polygamy behind Emma’s back. She later wrote in her own story of her life what a devastating thing, and how hard this was for her to do. She says here I was without mother or father to consult, no one around to go to too talk to, and yet being presented with this great issue. Of course she prays and finally feels God spoke to her and told her to do this and she goes into plural marriage. …

This shows a deliberate effort of isolating this girl from her family, from everyone around her, from any support system, in a time of grief and loneliness; to put that kind of pressure on her is signs of a spiritual predator. I don’t see how we can excuse this kind of behavior and say ‘well he was sincere.’ You wouldn’t give that kind of leeway to someone who approached your sixteen year old daughter. …

Why does Joseph [Smith] get a pass on these things? I don’t understand how they [Mormon apologists and liberal Mormons] keep saying ‘it’s OK.’ And if you read the [stories] of the different wives [of Smith] they all are horrible; going to teenage girls and saying God sent an angel with a drawn sword that was going to kill Joseph Smith if he didn’t go into polygamy; if she didn’t marry him God was going to kill him. … The weight of responsibility this would put on a teenage girl, ‘I’m gonna be responsible for the prophets death!’ Then he would also put the responsibility on these young girls: that if you consent to this it will insure your parent’s eternal salvation. … How can a girl say, ‘no, I’m not gonna help my parents have eternal life,’ and so she finally submits to this. … to me [this] clearly is the pattern of a sexual predator. …

… the lies of Joseph Smith do affect people, they aren’t just innocent things that don’t touch other people; because of Joseph Smith’s polygamy we have all the polygamists today. Mormons will say to me, ‘but look at the fruits of Mormonism,’ yea the fruits of Mormonism is sixty thousand people living in polygamy today, that’s the fruit of Joseph Smith. Those people wouldn’t be in those situations had it not been for him [Smith] privately going to teenage girls and coercing them into plural marriage. [End Quote]

Source: Why Mormons Leave, by Sandra Tanner.

As the video below shows, most Mormons have no idea about Joseph Smith’s true character and secret dealings with other men’s wives and teenage girls:

The Harm of the Seed of Cain Doctrine & Why It Hasn't Been Repudiated

2011-06-14T16:50:00.000-07:00

I just listened to a Mormonstories.org podcast titled "Episode: 256-258: Dustin Jones and the Lingering Legacy of the LDS Negro Doctrine, May 31, 2011 By John Dehlin.

The reason members don’t want to talk about the racists teachings in Mormonism, as Dustin talks about in part 2 of the podcast, is because then they will suffer cognitive dissonance and an "amygdala hijacking" when they contemplate the thought that their leaders – who are supposed to be inspired by God – perpetuated racists doctrines and policies for over a hundred years. Another reason is that if the LDS member begins to admit that maybe the leaders were wrong in teaching the doctrine that blacks are the seed of Cain, then maybe they are wrong about other things. This was actually the first "domino" that fail over for me personally which I discuss in my short exit story out of the church that I titled, Dear Bishop, I'm Leaving the Fold.

Once that first domino fail, and other dominos naturally began to fall over by chance, soon my curiosity about what else could the church be wrong about was ignited. Before I knew it the domino’s started falling down one after another until it knocked down the Mormon House of Cards.

I haven’t seen the pro-LDS DVD, "Blacks in the Scriptures," yet but have consumed as much material about the DVD as possible on the web for free. The authors of the DVD, who are (as far as I can tell) attempting to completely re-interpret Mormon scripture, provide a long list of quotes (listed below) from church leaders admitting the leaders are fallible. As Dustin in the interview above points out, the Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet is still taught today. Compare the Fourteen Fundamentals to this list of “the Brethren” admitting they are fallible men who make mistakes even when speaking officially:

“I make no claim of infallibility” ~ Spencer W. Kimball, Improvement Era, June 1970, p. 93

“We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators.” ~ James E. Faust, Ensign, November 1989, p. 11

“The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility.” ~ George Q. Cannon Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, 1957, 1:206

“We respect and venerate” (the prophet), but “we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God.” ~ Elder Charles W. Penrose, Millennial Star, 54:191

“Even the President of the Church has not always spoken under the direction of the Holy Ghost.” ~ Elder J. Reuben Clark, quoted in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, p. 82

“…if He (God) should suffer him (Joseph Smith) to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray…it would be because they deserved it…” ~ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:297-298

“The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly, or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.” ~ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:100

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation…Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” ~ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 14:205

“Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.” ~ Official Church web site www.LDS.org

“The Lord uses imperfect people…He often allows their errors to stand uncorrected. He may have a purpose in doing so, such as to teach us that religious truth comes forth “line upon line, precept upon precept” in a process of sifting and winnowing similar to the one I know so well in science.” ~ Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, p. 47

“There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.” ~ Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, June 2006, p. 16

“I teach the people correct principles, and they govern themselves.” ~ Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, 10: 57-58

“We are all liable to error; are subject, more or less, to the errors incident to the human family. We would be pleased to get along without these errors, and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing.” ~ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:212

“Sometimes traditions, customs, social practices, and personal preferences of individual Church members may, through repeated or common usage be misconstrued as Church procedures or policies. Occasionally, such traditions, customs and practices may even be regarded by some as eternal principles.” ~ Elder Ronald Poelman, 1984 General Conference

“Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said… that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.” ~ Elder Bruce R. McConkie, CES Conference, August 1978

“We set up assumptions, based on our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.” ~ Elder John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 127

“I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions.” ~ Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 331

Source of list: http://blacksinthescriptures.com/doctrine/statements-by-leaders/ (June, 2011).

I applaud what the authors of Blacks in the Scripture are trying to accomplish, but I also find it strange that they would be part of a church that would have racist doctrines bound in scripture and taught by prophets as if it were "the word of the Lord." There is also the fact that the LDS prophets and apostles gave offical statements about blacks, that they are the seed of Cain and their skin color is best understood by the pre-existent doctrine.

After reading the list above that Mormon prophets are fallible, anyone with common sense I would think would then ask themselves, “why blindly follow the Mormon prophet today when past LDS prophets have been wrong about so simple a moral issue as racism. How can I know that any advice or command an LDS leader gives today isn’t on par with the racist advice and commands of yesterday?”

Mormon doctrine currently teaches that the American Indians are Jews with cursed dark skin, which is clearly false. The Mormon Church is finally beginning to change this core tenant of the faith, a belief I was raised on. The new Doubleday printing of the Book of Mormon recently had the wording in the introduction changed from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" of the Native Americans. Of course, this only changes the teaching that Native Americans are all decedents of Lamanites (Jews). Now it seems that the LDS church is trying to change attitudes about skin curses, which again is the doctrine I was raised on. In the article, Changes To LDS Scripture Headings & Footnotes (February 7, 2011), author Marvin Perkins of Blacks in the Scriptures lists scriptural headings in the Book of Mormon that have been altered to sound less racist.

This is a positive change I endorse, but the problem is that these changes do not change the text of the Book of Mormon, such as 2 Nephi 5:21-23 which is just one example. For more examples of racism in the Book of Mormon see here. These changes in the Book of Mormon headings are troublesome for it is just another example of the LDS church trying to change public perceptions without changing core teachings. Take for example the abolishment of the "practice" of polygamy in 1890 yet today a Mormon male can be "sealed" to more than one wife in the temple. The penal oaths of pantomiming one's own death were removed from the temple ritual in 1990 but one still swears a similar oath in the temple today. These changes prove that Mormonism is willing to adapt to reality only when push comes to shove. With this track record in mind why on earth would anyone follow the directions of an LDS leader when obviously they are only fallible humans and the historical evidence indicates that any current teaching from the Mormon leaders taught today could, and most probably will, change some time in the near future if outside influences apply enough pressure.

UNDERSTANDING THE MORMON BRAIN: Why it’s So Difficult Discussing Mormonism with LDS Members

2011-05-08T14:30:00.000-07:00

I wish I had the following information when I was first learning about the errors of Mormonism; for it would have helped me to have more constructive conversations with LDS folks instead of most of the discussions I had dissolving into ego battles filled with heated emotions, inevitable misunderstandings, and defensive attitudes.

The Amygdala hijack:

In the diagram below we see how our brain responds to a perceived threat as the amygdala is “triggered” sending a message to our nervous system igniting the fight or flight response which often clouds rational thinking or at least the ability to think more clearly.

Image source: http://www.annebaring.com/anbar08_seminar8.htm

Amygdala hijacking explained:

If the above video does not play I recommend going to youtube and searching “amygdala hijack.”

Mormons have been conditioned to interpret an amygdala-hijacking as “evil” and a “sign” to avoid “certain information.” Thus Mormon leaders have used a natural defense mechanism in the brain to keep the membership in line. As a result, LDS members usually refuse to read anything that criticizes the Mormon Church or examines LDS history in an objective scholarly manner. Then they are taught to believe that subjective feelings are the way to know objective truth.

Talking with a true believing Mormon about Joseph Smith putting a seer stone in a hat or how he coerced teenage girls into having sex with him, will immediately “spike” his or her amygdala and they won’t feel good hearing it. They in turn will not be pleased with you for making them feel uncomfortable.

Anything that challenges the idea that Mormonism is the only true religion is labeled “anti-Mormon.” This is a thought-stopping technique that is found in many cults around the world. When the Mormon hears a book or website referred to as “anti-Mormon” they immediately feel an intense aversion to that work. Their minds have been trained to react this way. Mormons are also taught that if reading something about the church makes them uncomfortable, then that’s evidence it’s written by evil “anti-Mormons” and is of the devil. After they feel a sense of anxiety or discomfort while researching information they are then taught to interpret these negative feelings as a “sign” warning them to avoid that information. Once the Mormon has made an association of an author or book with the term “anti-Mormon” their brain then links the amygdala hijacking experience with that author or book, as a result they develop an aversion to that author or book. Over time, all they have to do is hear the word “anti-Mormon” and they are triggered into feeling anxiety. It’s just like Pavlov’s dog experiment .

Throughout their life a Mormon is trained to associate any book or website that is critical of Mormonism as anti-Mormon. Thus Mormons are trained to develop an aversion to, or phobia of, anything that is critical of their religion.Mormon apologists frequently capitalize on this aversion among Mormons by frequently referring to just about any author or work that challenges the traditional faith promoting view as anti-Mormon. Thus Mormons never even take the time to evaluate the evidence the author puts forth, since that person is “of the devil” and “anti,” so why bother?

When Mormons are constantly reinforced with faith promoting literature and refuse to read the opposing point of view, they inevitably develop tunnel vision and a powerful bias; and remain voluntarily ignorant to all the problems in their religion. It is really genius from a tactical point of view to condition your followers in this way, but it is far from ethical.

As a result of this conditioning many Mormons have no idea about certain aspects of Mormon history, like Smith having sex with teenagers and other men’s wives. They have no idea that Mormons who attended the temple before 1990 swore penal oaths involving pantomiming their own death. The Mormon leaders then keep their members in the dark by omitting such information in official publications. When and if, a Mormon does break outside their fear-conditioning and read a book or website that tells the truth about Mormonism they are left shocked and disturbed. They often feel lied to for they trusted that their church would provide correct information and a full and accurate picture of LDS history; while they avoided gaining a fuller picture of Mormon origins from non-LDS sources because they were conditioned to fear such literature. After being manipulated for years and subject to a cover up, as their leaders didn’t offer them full-disclosure about the true history of Mormonism, many Mormon apologists then have the smug audacity to blame the victim of this set up by criticizing the long term LDS member saying they should have exposed themselves to the truths that shocked them earlier on; they do this while ignoring the fact that the church trains the membership not to expose themselves to those "truths" calling it all "anti-Mormon."

Mormon apologists then enjoy pulling out obscure references to brief coverage of some of Mormonism's more controversial topics and then exclaim, “see it’s right there in our own literature.” They do this despite the obscurity and the fact that not every detail is covered. They fail to mention the fact that these obscure references are more of a glitch than the norm. For example, the image of Smith appearing to actually “translate” the plates has been common propaganda for decades and thus an obscure Ensign article that mentions the true method of Smith putting a rock in a hat is lost to the massive volume of misrepresentation in LDS literature for several decades. I have the feeling that Mormon apologists must know the reality of the situation for in the very wards they attend there are likely lifelong Mormons who have no idea Smith used a magic rock when dictating the Book of Mormon, that he married other men’s wives, and the Egyptian papyrus Smith used for the so-called Book of Abraham is nothing but a funeral text mistranslated by Smith. How is it possible that a Mormon of forty years can be completely ignorant of these facts? These lifelong LDS members are not stupid, they are often intelligent and studious members that have been trained to bury their head in the sand when it comes to so called “deep doctrine.”

This vicious cycle of fear and ignorance followed by shock and disillusionment repeats itself in LDS families all over the world, as new Mormon converts are conditioned to avoid anything “anti-Mormon,” followed by years of consuming "white washed" LDS history that presents a false image of the historical facts; then after years of indoctrination these members become brave and read something they “weren’t supposed to,” and then are labeled an “anti-Mormon” for learning the “covered up truths” and talking about it when they are not supposed to. They are socially shunned as a result, families sometimes break up, and people may even lose their job if they aren’t careful.

Mormon apologists then turn around and try to bandage the wounds inflicted by their employer (The Mormon Corporation) by offering a lot of the information members find in non-Mormon works with an apologetic spin added to it: "yes, Smith was a polygamist but it was motivated by dynastic desires"; "yes, Smith used a seer stone, so what, what's wrong with seer stones." These apologists merely perform "damage control" and refuse to hold their leaders accountable and demanding they offer a more accurate picture of LDS origins. When asked why their leaders and their church does not offer an honest disclosure of the historical facts, the LDS apologist will make excuses saying things like it is not their leaders job to inform the public and the membership, that the publications presenting false information are the fault of one or two people, like an artist and editor and not the church that produces the false information year after year over and over again. And on and on do the excuses continue as they continue to defend the "cover up" and excuse LDS leaders and instead attack those who learn about the truth and seek to inform others. The whole system is maddeningly stupid and destructive.

The Three Brains & Mormonism

What makes the Mormon system so affective is that it programs all three modules of the brain (known as Three Brain model). See here and here for a brief summary of the theory. Note: some details of this theory are no longer popular in some circles of psychology, however the basic structure of the theory is correct and is at least useful as a metaphor.

The Mormon Corporation takes over the primitive reptilian brain by training the Mormon’s fight or flight system to respond with anxiety to any material deemed critical of the LDS Faith. The Mormon system also hijacks the entire Limbic system (the mammalian-brain: the seat of emotion) by programming the Mormon to interpret all pleasant emotions as evidence that Mormonism is true, and all negative emotions about Mormonism as “satanic” or “evil.” Mormons are also kept mostly isolated from outside influences, causing the mammalian brain to form a tighter bond with fellow LDS group members, to the point that leaving the group feels like losing one’s whole identity as their sense of self becomes merged with the group. Thus Mormons are hijacked emotionally and nervously. Mormons then form bonds or friendship that are wrapped up in LDS mythology to the point that to doubt the LDS mythos is to sever one’s relationships which for us human mammals can be quite painful. The most powerful “hold” the LDS system has on most Mormons is through the dogma being tied up in family cohesion. The mental programming in the Mormon head is, “to leave Mormonism is to lose one’s family in the eternities.” This hijacks the natural bond between parent and child which is the ultimate form of manipulation.

Regardless of how a Mormon obtains the level of comfort he or she obtains as a Mormon, once that level of comfort is achieved they don’t want to lose it. Just as people attending a magic show don’t want someone in the audience blurting out, “it’s up his sleeve,” – or pointing out that the smoke and mirrors are distracting us from the trap door on stage – most Mormons don’t want you blurting out the problems with Mormonism and the natural origins of Joseph Smith’s religion. So strong is the pull to avoid anxiety – avoid losing emotional bonds and attachments with fellow members and loved ones – that many Mormons will sever ties with those loved ones who defect in order to maintain the tranquil “high” of being Mormon; and so they can maintain and secure their bonds with LDS members and loved ones. Even an unmarried member will often refuse to hear you out in order to maintain their mental and emotional submersion in the LDS system that provides the comfort of “grazing with the herd.”

The higher brain (neocortex) is the ultimate enemy of Mormonism, for if it is allowed to run its course without impediment I believe nearly every person exposed to the historical facts about Mormonism will reject its central claims outright. I think Mormon leaders and apologists know this deep down. For all their talk about, "it is the spirit that converts," many of them know how the mind works and what will happen if investigators and rank and file members are exposed to all the facts, “warts and all.” So in order to keep the executive brain (the neocortex) in line, Mormons are trained to practice confirmation bias, selective perception, and are indoctrinated into not critically thinking about their religion. See my essay The Mormon Bubble & Tunnel Vision.

The higher brain (neocortex) is also subdued through Mormon style compartmentalizing: putting a concern or doubt up on the mental shelf of one’s mind, up and away from direct consciousness, i.e. “sweeping it under the rug” and out of sight for the time being. This compartmentalizing is actually encouraged in Mormonism with phrases like, “we’ll understand that in heaven,” or “that’s deep doctrine” and "we don’t need to concern ourselves with that while on earth." Mormons learn to compartmentalize their thinking in that they will apply logic and skeptical analysis when buying a car from a used car salesman but will then turn around and switch off their analytical brain and disregard their skills for critical thinking when it comes to Mormonism; for they will appeal only to emotions when evaluating Mormonism. Mormons are taught to study and be educated but only information that supports their “testimony.”

Once a person adopts a set of premises they can have intelligent ideas within that “bubble” holding those unverifiable premises. This is why you see very intelligent people having logical discussions about Star Wars, quoting lines from different episodes and forming intelligent hypothesis about aspects of the movie series. The same is true with Mormonism; many very bright people write very intelligent things within the confines of the Mormon bubble, just as bright people write about Star Wars. This is how I view LDS apologists.

If Mormons enter areas where their frontal lobe might be exposed to information and too much thinking about things might result, their fear-conditioning kicks in and their amygdala goes to work firing off false-alarms to "beware of thinking that way.” On top of that if they voice their questions and concerns they will be socially punished with unfriendly looks and body language from fellow members showing disapproval or contempt (thus triggering their mammalian brain and reptilian brain into avoiding disapproval and seeking approval and belonging). Once this occurs they often immediately revert back to their mental programming and assume they aren’t being “worthy,” and they are “sinful” to have such doubts; as a result they seek to avoid the consequences of thinking such thoughts. They seek to reduce the cognitive dissonance by obsessively repeating certain Mormon practices, like bearing their testimony over and over (saying they “know it is all true” until they actually convince themselves), attending church and the temple regularly surrounded by other believers that reinforce the bubble while reading compulsively Mormon literature until the dissonance is reduced. After this they shelve their questions (a form of avoidance) and reject the information in order to return to a state of calm or comfort which they interpret as “feeling the spirit.”

In turn, LDS leaders seek to limit any opportunities for investigators to use their higher brain functions to critically analyze many of the absurd claims of Mormonism, like Smith producing a historical book by staring at a rock in a hat, by manufacturing misleading propaganda and withholding pertinent information from investigators (i.e. "white washing" its history). See my post: The Mormon Church & False Advertising.

Thus all three brain modules of the Mormon are strongly conditioned to be a loyal Mormon. So much so that to leave the religion takes a lot of courage and hard work to unravel the years of neurological wiring in the brain. They have to unlearn all the false associations like “critical information is evil,” “Gentiles can’t be fully trusted,” and “the outside world is dangerous and scary.” The longer a person has been a Mormon, and whether or not they went on a mission and attended the temple a lot, will determine how difficult it will be and how long it will take to recover from Mormonism. This might be another reason why many former Mormons “can’t leave it alone” and remain in the recovery phase for years after leaving. For it takes time for the brain to “rewire” itself and the concept of Neuroplasticity takes time.

In short, Mormons are conditioned to avoid anxiety by avoiding anything that isn’t “faith promoting” and seek only the comfort of the isolated LDS tribe. This keeps many Mormons from growing up intellectually, and spiritually in my opinion. Now of course there are exceptions, there are many Mormons who forge ahead and learn the “deep doctrine” as it’s called by some Mormons, they learn to tell the difference between "God telling them to avoid certain information" and avoiding information due to their "mental conditioning and the amygdala." They don’t compartmentalize everything but seriously consider the faults of the Mormon religion from an objective perspective using their higher brain. They are not afraid of losing comfort and growing. But these people are few in number, for they either become N.O.M.s or leave Mormonism and head down the road less traveled like I did.

I can’t be a Mormon because I wear the wrong underwear

2011-01-25T18:55:00.000-08:00

There was a time before I resigned when I contemplated being a cultural Mormon (a.k.a. New Order Mormon). During this time I quickly realized that since I did not fully believe all that is required to be a True Believing Mormon (TBM), and I did not wear the correct underwear, I couldn't fully fit in as a Mormon.

Sure I could show up, take sacrament, talk about Jesus and ethics and support the philanthropy and family values. But I didn’t wear the right underwear. I first went without the Mormon undergarment on my mission in Brazil because they led to me getting a heat rash, so upon medical advice I stopped wearing them until the rash went away. Going without them led me to feel free, as if I was mentally repressed wearing them before. This was my first glimpse into the mentally controlling and repressive nature of the garments.

After my mission I started to study Mormonism and after a few years I was starting to realize it wasn't what it claimed to be. At this point I had one foot in and one foot out of Mormonism, being intellectually convinced it was man-made yet psychologically rooted in LDS subculture. I then began to ask myself, “Do the garments really protect me like a bulletproof vest? Are the garments a psychological device just like a rabbit foot?” When I thought about it I wondered, “Are garments just superstitious mind control devices?”

At this point I decided to stop wearing the garments as a step in the process of stepping outside the “Mormon Matrix” into the “desert of the real.” I soon went to a department store and bought some normal underwear. As I was shopping it seemed weird to me at first, and at that moment I realized just how much control the Mormon Church had over my psyche as to control my underwear habits! I remember feeling so free to purchase some boxers, enjoying the freedom to pick out a pair of blue ones, black ones, and even some striped ones. Then came the thought into the back of my mind, "what if an active LDS member sees me buying regular underpants?" In hindsight I realize now just how powerful the fixation on group loyalty is in Mormonism when you're in that "Mormon Bubble.".

One of the thoughts that occurred to me that gave me the courage to lose the garments was that if God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then he controls the world and knows what will happen before it does; so garments are irrelevant for it would be God that protects us not the garments.

Still, the mental conditioning I received in the temple to always wear them in order to be protected from evil powers and being told that I must never stop wearing them, caused me much anxiety the first few nights going to bed without them on. However, as anyone knows who studies the psychology of behavior, the more I went without Mormon garments the more comfortable I became through something called "habituation"; until now, after years of not wearing them the thought of wearing them today would be the equivalent of someone telling me I had to put on a straightjacket, or else!

In short, I never believed in a magic rabbit’s foot, and I soon realized that I didn’t believe in magic underwear either.

Mormons say the garment is a reminder. If I needed a symbolic reminder to be good, what the heck was my conscience for? I’d mine as well walk around with a tattoo of the golden rule on my chest to remember to be good.

Before I made my final mental break from Mormonism however I wanted desperately to be accepted and loved by the organization I grew up in. I gave a lot of my time and energy to it. I had many friends and family in the LDS church. Yet I was always worried as a New Order Mormon that when people found out what I really thought about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, that I wouldn’t be accepted. Going without the garment would be viewed as a sign I am not a True Believing Mormon. I remember thinking to myself, “They won’t accept me because I wear the wrong underwear.” I realize now how stupid and exaggerated that might sound but it is how I felt. In fact, there were quite a few Mormons who I tried to be friends with during this time; but when they discovered my liberation from the garments and LDS dogma I became a conversion project for them; and once they realized that their testifying to me over and over had no effect on me, and they didn’t like hearing about the facts I was sharing that they’d rather ignore, then we quickly drifted apart.

I also had many conversations with understanding LDS members who tried to tell me that I should not “throw out the baby with the bath water.” They told me how good the church is, and some even told me that a large percent of members aren’t even active. Their point was that I should still go to the LDS church even though I didn’t believe all of it. They would say things like “no one is going to ask you if you wear garments or believe the Book of Mormon is a literal history, so just don’t bring it up.” I wondered if they stopped to think about what they were saying, how unrealistic it seemed to me and how I would have to lead a life of secrecy. I tried what they said for awhile and just felt stifled. I remember running into Mormons I knew at the gym and being afraid to undress in the locker room in front of them lest they discover I wasn’t wearing the garments and then speculate as to why not. I was afraid they would see my colored underwear and think I wasn’t being loyal to the group.

I was single as well and so I knew a lot of Mormon girls looked to see if a young man was wearing the garment. I had witnessed many LDS girls search for garment lines under my clothes, to see if I was a “worthy” member and a return missionary. They learn to do this early on to see if you are able to fulfill her childhood fantasy of marrying her in the temple. A Jack Mormon friend of mine suggested I buy a pair of underwear that was like the LDS garment, that would go down to my knees. Then I wouldn’t worry about being shunned. I tried this and it seemed to work, but who was I fooling? Wasn’t this deceptive? They would find out eventually, so why lie about it?

I thought to myself, "Had my life come to this, fooling people with pseudo secret underwear?" I realized that even if I wanted to be one of the millions of inactive members (New Order Mormons and Jack Mormons) I could not pass the temple interview because I did not have any supernatural experience to confirm the absolute truth claims of the Mormon institution, despite many attempts to have one. I decided I would not lie about it, as I know some LDS members do just to get into the temple so they can get married there; many Cultural Mormons just want to get it over with to please their parents and community. They do this because a civil marriage is frowned upon. I remember when I was younger a friend got married outside the temple and all these rumors were circulated that he had sex with his fiancé. Everyone assumed they were “unworthy.” When I had a chance to talk with him about the rumors I learned that he was "worthy," but he simply decided to elope civilly first to make non-Mormon relatives happy. He then later married in the temple. He did not have premarital sex as everyone said, in fact he jokes about it saying, “gosh, with all that gossip slandering my character, I mine as well have done the 'deed' as they said I was doing it anyway!”

Even if I wanted to try and have a life in the LDS church, in the temple interview they would ask me questions I could not answer to their satisfaction. They would eventually ask me, “Do you wear the authorized garments both day and night?” This question alone would bar me from entering the temple where I’m told God and the angels reside. It would not matter how kind and ethical I was, or how much I wanted to be loved and just fit in, I would be rejected. More to the point, Mormon girls are trained to want a garment wearing, priesthood holding, return missionary. Even Jack Mormon girls still want this fairy tale ending. It’s what their parents’ want, and all their friends talk about it, so even after they rebel a little they still want that temple marriage.

There are Catholics who aren’t true believing Catholics, and Protestants who are not true believers either. There are degrees of faith; some have stronger testimonies than others. They show up at church, they are good, they go home and they are accepted. If they fail to have any magnificent religious experience like others have they are still welcomed at church, and can wear what they want. Mormonism is different. Take me, I wanted to be part of Mormon culture. It was my cultural home. I liked Mormon socials. But the bottom line was this:

I didn’t wear garments

No garments = no temple admittance

No temple = no Mormon temple marriage

Therefore, dating a Mormon girl would be difficult.

I remember thinking during this time, "I can’t be Mormon because I wear the wrong underwear! How absurd is that? I’m socially shunned because of the kind of underwear I have on."

It does not matter if you are a moral person; in the LDS church if you can’t pass the questions asked in a Temple Recommend interview you are considered an unworthy member. It makes no difference if you live your life according to ethical principles and try to love your neighbor as yourself. It doesn’t matter if you want to be part of Mormon culture. If you want to marry a Mormon girl she will probably not want to marry you if you’re not a Mormon. Her church defines you as an "investigator" or "inactive member" to be converted to being a Temple Mormon or you are labeled an “apostate,” or someone “unworthy.” If you can’t take her to the temple, the place she has been trained to believe is her sacred destiny, then you are probably less of a man in her eyes.

The bottom line is that if you wear the wrong underwear in Mormon culture you are supposed to "sit down" and "shut up" or suffer the social consequences.

If a man chooses not to wear the Mormon underwear he is socially ostracized if he makes his thoughts known to everyone. He also cannot go to the temple, which he is told is the key to enter heaven according to LDS doctrine. Most LDS members do not know that the symbols on the garment are taken from the secret fraternity of Freemasonry that Joseph Smith joined before the endowment was completed. In the past garments came down to the ankles and the wrist and were also to be worn at all times. Some members were so superstitious that they would not remove them completely even when bathing. In my opinion the garments have served as a symbolic reminder to be good and such, like the Catholic Priest wears his priestly robes. It is all a lot of tradition, and in my opinion superstition. I hope my reader understands that I am not trying to be irreverent or sarcastic for this is the only way I know how to express my thoughts.

No matter how hard I try I just don't get the concept of garments? Oh, don’t accuse me of not reading a lot about their function for I have read plenty and I still just do not get it. People treat these things like a rabbit’s foot or a bulletproof vest. Is it just me or is that not superstitious? They say to me "the garments protect you." Is it the fabric or God that really protects you? What do you tell someone who inquires into your underwear habits? "Ah, Jim, I was just noticing you're not wearing garments, why aren’t you wearing the sacred undergarment?"

We all know that a lot of LDS members, if they happen to notice you have failed to wear them that day, they are supposed to know what kind of wretched sinner you are! Just like if you notice that someone does not take the bread and water at sacrament, since it is a public ritual, you have no choice but to wonder why they didn’t take it? You may say you are above this, but for me personally, I used to often look to see if those around me are taking it – it’s only human. Members won’t usually go, “Well, he must be hot so that’s why he’s not wearing them,” because you are supposed to wear them at all times no matter what, right?

As previously mentioned, on my mission in Brazil I had a heat rash from wearing garments and was told by doctors to avoid wearing them as much as possible. My companion tried to scold me for taking medical advice and said I was not being true to my temple covenants. This was the beginning of my realization of how controlling the Mormon system can be on the psyche of its members.

I think the most insulting tradition in the LDS church is the social statement that the person is labeled not worthy enough to wear garments or go to the temple. When non-members cannot attend the wedding in the temple it is said that they are not “worthy.” The idea is, “we are not secret or clannish for they can come into our temple if they become worthy: if they become an active true believing and paying Mormon, then they are worthy and can enter.” When I was LDS I heard that so much, “he or she wasn’t worthy to go to the temple.” It is never "he or she is worthy but doesn’t believe. They have questions that haven’t been answered. The person feels God gave them a different message to not wear garments etc." No, the fault is always on the dissenter, they are not worthy. The irony is that the active true believing LDS members tell the more progressive thinking members that they need a firmer “testimony,” and if they don’t have one then they are the problem not the LDS epistemology (truth finding methodology) nor the Mormon institution. They are often negatively labeled “unworthy,” for the LDS church teaches that only worthy members gain a “true testimony.” True Believing Mormons will tell inactive members to come back to church so they can essentially be deemed “worthy” again. The person is not accepted as a whole person in this regard, for they are viewed as a conversion project, someone broken who needs to be fixed. There is no love of the person as an individual with different thoughts and opinions. There is only, “come back, let us mold you into a worthy member, so you can go to the temple.” This is a “we love you if you do what we say” attitude.

Anyone who studies psychology will learn that this dichotomous setup can be the cause of much depression for some Mormons, as well as feelings of low self-esteem and isolation. It breeds class separation, segregation among the labeled worthy and unworthy. It is elitist name calling, rarely justified, and very damaging to the person under the religious systems condemnation; not to mention it contradicts all the teachings of Jesus: which were based on social integration and a release from the letter of the law toward the spirit of the law of love, compassion, and acceptance.

Note: There is always the risk of a post-Mormon writing about some aspect of LDS culture he or she found distasteful in that there will always be a Latter day Saint member who will assume that “one” issue is why they resigned or went inactive from Mormonism. So to be clear when I was a True Believing Mormon garments weren't an issue for me, and losing the garments was simply a bonus byproduct of becoming intellectually and spiritually convinced Mormonism is not what it claims to be. If you wish to know the full reasons as to why I resigned see the link above right on this page to read my story.

Wayne Bent and Joseph Smith

2010-03-24T20:40:00.000-07:00

To watch the whole thing go to YouTube and search the title of the documentary: Strong City.

This 48 minute movie documentary about a cult leader who has sex with his female followers made me think of Joseph Smith. In fact, I consider this a case study in how Smith was able to create his mass following and eventually seduce young women.

Instead of claiming to be the Messiah or embodiment of God as the cult leader Wayne Bent does in the film, Joseph Smith claimed to channel the voice and will of Jesus, which is known in the LDS church as the Doctrine and Covenants. Smith claimed to have direct communications with God on a regular basis. Like Bent, Smith and the early Mormon Church leaders attempted to isolate its members. Smith also had a troubled childhood like Bent did, having to have surgery on his leg at a young age. Both men claimed to have been "forced" by heaven to have sex with one of their followers. More parallels can be given which could fill a page. But I will allow the viewer to find the similarities themselves between Smith and Bent.

After this movie was filmed Bent was later arrested and imprisoned, see here.

Just as Mormons today continue to praise Joseph Smith by singing a hymn in his honor titled Praise to the Man, the followers of Bent also praise him. See the blog here.

For information on Joseph Smith and his "marriages" to teenagers and other men's wives see Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith and Mormon Polygamy: A History.

Rewriting History, Dishonest Advertising, False Propaganda, & the Sin of Omission in Mormonism

2010-01-12T16:08:00.000-08:00

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' ... Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary" ~ George Orwell, 1984, Chapter 3.

“Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer…There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.” ~ LDS leader, Boyd K. Packer, The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect, 1981.

Similar to Oceania -- a future state where an authoritarian political party controls everything and distorts the truth by rewriting history -- the LDS church also rewrites history; only Mormonism is a real organization not a fictional party in a novel. For evidence of this see chapters 2 and 3 of The Changing World of Mormonism. For several links to more evidence of this see the section titled MORMON FALSIFICATION OF MORMON HISTORY at the bottom of this page here.

Also see the message board thread: Smoke and mirrors: Changing Mormon Church history to bolster belief in the truth. Note: I don't support Benson's polemics or use of negative terms to refer to Mormons but I agree with his point in this thread.

The leaders of the Mormon Church also present dishonest information and a false image to the world by promoting false advertising and marketing stratagies which are perpetuated by the uninformed LDS membership. The following brief list of just a few examples is provided with links for more information.

• The LDS church claims Smith saw two Deities in his First Vision, and after this vision he immediately knew and proclaimed that the Father is a personage of tabernacle (flesh and bone). This is false.

• The LDS church presents images of Smith actually reading and translating from the alleged Gold Plates in front of him as if he learned Egyptian and translated it into English. This is false.

• LDS church leaders and apologists are now claiming that the doctrine that “as man is God once was and as God is man may become” isn’t really doctrine. They are also claiming that LDS scriptures and official doctrine don’t teach that man may become a God, but only a god. This is false.

• The LDS church presents to the public the image that Smith was monogamous in their church manuals by omitting his plural marriages; and the church doesn’t correct LDS members who say that polygamy was only practiced to care for the widows. Both are false. Also, see here for evidence that Mormon doctrine holds that the practice of polygamy is a requirement for Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. For more evidence, see my essay Daughters of Zion, Where's Your Pride?

• The LDS church presents the image that Smith abstained from alcohol. Growing up in the church I was told the story of Smith refusing alcohol the doctor offered him to numb his pain during a surgery on his leg in his youth. The idea that Smith didn’t consume alcohol throughout his life all the way up to the day he died is false.

• LDS leaders keep saying they don’t know why blacks were denied the priesthood and that it wasn't doctrine but merely a policy of the church, when in fact on August 17, 1949 the First Presidency of the Mormon Church stated officially:

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.” President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.” ...

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. [end quote].

Source: Neither White nor Black by Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss, eds. Appendix: Authoritative Statements on the Status of Blacks.

Missionaries were also told not to proselyte to blacks before 1978 which most LDS members born after 1978 are unaware of. When I was in college I became friends with an African American in one of my classes who was a fellow former Mormon and when I asked if he left because of the racial policy and seed of Cain doctrine he didn’t know about this. He managed to remain an LDS member for over a year without knowing any of this. He had left the church for different reasons but when he found this out he was hurt he wasn’t told these facts upfront.

• The LDS church encourages its members and missionaries to use traditional Protestant language when discussing Mormon theology. For example, instead of referring to the “Gods,” Mormons are encouraged to speak only of God or the Godhead, thus misleading the public and investigators. Missionaries are encouraged to read the Book of Mormon with investigators while avoiding the LDS Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price that speaks of "Gods" plural. When I was a missionary I remember reading The Discourses of Brigham Young and how he, over and over again, referred to the “Gods” plural. At the time this sounded more harmonious to my ears knowing true Mormon theology yet as a missionary I continued to use traditional Protestant language as I was taught and encouraged to do.

• The LDS church does not tell investigators up front that they will be expected to change their underwear habits and put on sacred/secret underwear with supernatural/magical powers that they must wear night and day in order to be considered a worthy Mormon.

• Investigators of Mormonism are not forewarned that they will have to learn secret handshakes and passwords in the temple in order to get into the Mormon heaven. They are also not told that they will eventually be expected to swear several serious oaths in the Mormon temple. Some of these oaths include:

-- Swearing allegiance to Mormonism by pledging with a group of Mormons to "sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God [i.e., the Mormon church]."
-- Swearing to “avoid all … loud laughter, evil speaking of the Lord's anointed [i.e., the leaders of the Mormon church] …”
-- Swearing with the group "that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth [i.e. the spread of Mormonism] and for the establishment of Zion."

I can’t think of any other religion that withholds as much information from the public and flat out distorts or covers up the true history and facts related to the religion. This is at least the sin of omission by way of covering up and distorting the whole picture.

Missionaries are trained by Mormon authorities to avoid offering Full Disclosure to their investigators (clients). This is on par with a salesperson withholding pertinent information to the buyer.

Instead of offering full-disclosure and pertinent information the LDS church appeals to emotions. I was a missionary in the 90s so I know all about the ways missionaries are trained to appeal to subjective feelings and manipulate the investigator's emotions. For example, we were trained to “identify the spirit,” which meant we’d create an emotional atmosphere with our tone of voice and personal experiences, which we were taught to share in order to elicit a reaction (the reaction was called "creating room for the spirit"); then, after getting them to say they were feeling good after we set the stage we’d say things like, “that feeling of warmth you feel is the 'spirit' telling you Mormonism is true.” Thus we’d tug at the investigator’s heart strings and then tie those emotions to Mormon dogma creating an association in their mind. We would rely on the relationship of trust we developed with them while doing this; all the while withholding information as we were trained and unknowingly presenting a less than honest picture of Mormon origins to the investigator.

When the LDS church deceived the public about Smith’s practice of polygamy this mislead converts who joined believing the LDS faith was a monogamous organization, only to find out later it was not. For evidence of this compare the 1835 D&C, section 101, with the introductory statement in today’s D&C 132 where it states: “it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation [polygamy] had been known [and practiced] by the Prophet [Joseph Smith] since 1831…” (words in brackets are my own). This is evidence, in LDS scripture, that while Smith and several LDS members were practicing polygamy the LDS church deceived the public by stating in the 1835 D&C that none of its members were polygamous; for a confusing rationalization by Mormon apologists who appear to say the church unintentionally lied due to internal strife between Cowdery and Smith, and for a detailed response by a former Mormon see the following links:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_doctrineandcovenants.html#pub_-559885766

For further evidence of the LDS church's habits of distorting and covering up its own history see:

> chapter 13 of The Changing World of Mormonism.

> MORMON LYING By Richard Packham.

I also recommend The Mormon Delusion. Volume 4. The Mormon Missionary Lessons - A Conspiracy to Deceive By Jim Whitefield. I haven't read this book yet, but I have read other works by Whitfield and watched him on Youtube and find his historical analysis excellent and accurate.

Is the rock in the hat act a trivial matter?

2009-12-26T13:54:00.000-08:00

I would agree with some LDS apologists that the rock in the hat act is not, in and of itself, a major problem for Mormonism. The most important thing is educating the LDS members and investigators about it, which I believe most ethical LDS apologists would agree with me on.

The seer stone was never one of those things where when I first heard about it I went, “Ah hah, the church isn’t what it claims to be because Smith put a rock in a hat.” Because I was aware that the act by itself is only a problem if you’re going to humbly ask, “how can you see words appear on or through a stone by staring at it, i.e. what are the mechanics behind such a claim?” I know that many people are not concerned with such questions. So if you are not the type of Mormon to ask how a claim of scrying via a peep stone can occur in the natural world, and are more than ready to throw out the LDS words “God,” “miraculous,” “spirit,” “Ghost,” etc., as if these words explain anything, then it won’t be an issue to you.

If you are like me and are skeptical of the occult, divination, and magic then it is a problem for it seems more likely that the rock in the hat act is a slight of hand trick performed by Smith to cover up a natural explanation for the production of the Book of Mormon (from now on BoM).

The apologist is not left off the hook though by saying we former Mormons have a bias against the supernatural when it pertains to Mormonism. Because the real question I think is, did the seer stone aid Smith in locating hidden treasure before he claimed to unearth the gold plates? Remember, he used the same stone for both his money digging or treasure seeking adventures as he did for dictating the BoM to his scribes. Do you believe that Smith’s peep stone worked sort of like a crystal ball to guide him where to locate hidden treasure in the earth, yes or no? No dodging the question, please. If you do believe the peep stone had magical, excuse me, supernatural powers then where did these powers of the stone come from? If you say “God did it,” then how do you explain the stone being used by people to try and find treasure? And do you believe every other occult peep stone in Smith’s day had the same powers, or just Smith’s stone? If the LDS church does possess this same stone today why doesn’t the church use it and show it to the public? If you believe in the power of peep stones why aren’t people today who have them able to prove they really work?

If you are skeptical that the peep stone had supernatural powers and Smith was faking his ability to locate buried treasure, or believed he had such powers but was deluded, why was it used to dictate today’s published BoM if it was just a plain old rock with no magical powers?

The reason the rock in the hat act is not trivial to me is that it is one piece of evidence that adds up to an accumulation of evidence showing Smith to probably be, in the words of Dan Vogel, a pious fraud. The following facts in italics -- along with my assessment of what is most likely the truth -- show a steady progression of deception and the man-made origins of the BoM through using the seer stone as a slight of hand trick; i.e. Smith tried to make the production of the BoM appear legit by using of a magic peep stone that was believed to work in his day which was a more superstitious time:

• Fact 1: Smith used the rock in a hat act while money digging. He probably used the rock to trick people into believing he knew where buried treasure was found by looking into his stone as if it were a kind of crystal ball. The fact that he was unsuccessful at it seems to show he was faking it as were other seers in his day. This is what we would expect if Smith was a fraud, i.e. we would expect to see a history of deception.
• Fact 2: Smith was arrested and accused of deception because of Fact 1 above. Again, this is what we would expect if Smith was a fraud; that is a history of deception and an arrest record.
• Fact 3: Based on witness testimony Smith used the same stone he used in money digging to dictate the contents of the BoM to his scribes. This is what we would expect if Smith was trying to pull one over on people; that is he’d try to bolster the claims of his BoM by using his magic seer stone because he would have known at the time that many people believed they had magical powers.
• Fact 4: Based on witness testimony, the gold plates were probably never used, as they were either covered or hidden in the woods during the formation of today’s BoM. Yet again, this is what we would expect if Smith, and possibly others, were orchestrating a hoax. For if Smith was a fraud we’d expect him to rely on a rock he found in a well and had used for money digging, and not use the plates at all during the formation of today’s published BoM. If Smith wasn’t a fraud, it becomes difficult to explain why the gold plates were preserved and unearthed in the first place if Smith was able to dictate the contents of the BoM without them!
• Fact 5: If Smith (and possibly others) produced the BoM we would expect to hear of hidden treasure, magic rocks etc., in the BoM itself; and that is what we find (see the second half of my blog post Urim & Thummim or Magic Stone? How Smith claimed to produce the Book of Mormon.
• Fact 6: Smith reprises his money digging role after he claimed to give up money digging and after the production of the BoM, see D&C 111: 2-4, 8, 11. The author of lds-mormon.com asks, “Why would a prophet need to send members to seek for treasure seen in a vision? See D&C 111. Why wasn't any found when the revelation states they would?” (see here). This is what we would expect if Smith was faking his abilities with the stone and couldn’t resist the temptation to once again relive his money digging past.
• Fact 7: One of Smith’s alleged revelations states that God himself resides on a giant seer stone in D&C 130: 1- 10. This is what we would expect as well, for if Smith was enamored by the occult and peep stones why not bestow upon God himself a giant seer stone the deity would reside upon.

I submit that one of these facts taken alone, and by itself, may appear trivial. But when one examines the accumulation of evidence a picture starts to emerge and the pieces (facts 1 – 7 mentioned above), begin to form the completion of a picture on the box of a puzzle; the picture being the man-made origin of Mormonism. At this point, as a fair and impartial juror in the court of public opinion and common sense, I believe one is left with at the very least the honest admission that it looks suspicious. Then, when one adds hundreds of other facts – like there is no objective scientific evidence that the people or places in the BoM even existed, and despite the claims about the First Vision made by the LDS Church Smith denied that the Father deity has a body of tabernacle and sanctioned the doctrine that the Holy Ghost was not a personage in 1835, and many more facts that I discuss in my blog and articles to the right – a very clear picture begins to emerge showing Smith to be a well meaning pretender. As for me, the evidence adds up showing that it is much more probable that Smith perpetuated a hoax with perhaps righteous, as well as monetary, intentions.

Finally, even if the LDS believer chooses to ignore all the historical evidence that Joseph Smith was a person with a shady past, why would God choose a person to be his front man who pretends to use a magic rock to dig up treasure in the ground? Especially, if Smith would allegedly be asked to dig up gold plates in the ground? Isn't the issue of credibility an important one? If Mohammed had claimed to pull the Koran out of a hat after being a stage magician in his youth, would that lend credibility to Islam? At least for me personally, if that were true of Mohammed it would not be trivial at all. Fortunately for Islam, Mohammed did not claim to pull the Koran out of a hat after being a stage magician in his youth. But if that were true, would any Mormon reading this be suspicious of the Koran as a result of that information? I think so.

My Response to Daniel Peterson on the Seer Stone

2009-12-16T10:58:00.000-08:00

Note: This post is meant to be read in conjunction with my post titled Urim & Thummim or Magic Stone? How Smith claimed to produce the Book of Mormon.

In 2006, on a mormonstories.org message board, Daniel Peterson accused LDS members (who become exmormons), who didn’t know about Smith’s use of a Seer Stone while translating the Book of Mormon as being slothful and ignorant. My response was as follows (with a few updated changes to my original post):

I’ve read through all the comments on this post and wish to put in my two cents. Here is what I will not be saying:

• I will not be arguing that the church deletes all the information about the seer stone in some of its literature; but they do omit details in offical publications and instead portray Smith actually translating from the plates, which is inaccurate to say the least.
• I won’t be ignoring the fact that Latter-day Saints can and do have access to many controversial church subjects by simply reading articles from the Maxwell Institute or FAIR.org. I agree that they can learn almost everything one might read by the Tanners, but not everything, as even the apologists leave out many things. As a former Mormon (or Post-Mormon) this is actually what solidified my own resignation: as Mormon apologists confirmed a lot of what the critics were saying.

Here is the gist of what I am saying:

• The church is voluntarily misleading people about how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon in its offical publications, and this is a kind of false advertising.
• I side with John Dehlin who suggests that the church should offer “full disclosure” about things like Smith’s use of the rock in a hat act.
• I don’t believe the church will offer full disclosure, because leaders are embarrassed by such things like Joseph’s use of a rock in a hat.

Regarding the quote by Hinkley that was posted by Mike Parker below:

“As I have already mentioned, from the beginning of this work there has been opposition. There have been apostates. There have been scholars, some with balance and others with an axe to grind, who have raked over every bit of evidence available concerning Joseph Smith, the prophet of this dispensation. I plead with you, do not let yourselves be numbered among the critics, among the dissidents, among the apostates. That does not mean that you cannot read widely. As a Church, we encourage gospel scholarship and the search to understand all truth. Fundamental to our theology is belief in individual freedom of inquiry, thought, and expression. Constructive discussion is a privilege of every Latter-day Saint.” (From a comment by Mike Parker — July 27, 2006).

What a great quote, but is it compatible with the September Six and/or Grant Palmer’s disfellowship?

John Dehlin nails it on the head when he wrote:

I’m not sure how to wade through all this, but I’ll approach it this way:

It seems to me that it is ethical, and maybe even in the Church’s long term best interest to proactively ensure that every member of the church, and every investigator, knows at least the following about its history:

–Joseph Smith had 33 wives, some of them being married to other men’s wives
–Joseph Smith publicly denied that he was practicing polygamy, and this fact, along w/ the destruction of the printing press, were important factors in his martyrom.
–The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were not “translated” in the traditional sense of the word, but instead were “inspired” works. The BOM plates were likely not used in the BOM that we have today.
–Black men were ordained to the LDS priesthood early on, but then were denied it for over 100 years, and some unfortunately racist statements were made by past prophets/apostles in this regard that are not to be considered church doctrine in any way –etc. etc.

If the church were to take the responsibility to proactively make sure that people learned this stuff growing up, or when they were investigating the church, then we would not have the shock and awe that many experience today.

We talk so much about our history in church publications, talks, etc. Full and proactive disclosure of these basic facts (reminded regularly) would certainly solve this problem, no?

It might introduce other problems, but at least everyone would be in the loop. Today, I can promise you that over 1/2 of the church is out of the loop on these basic facts, and it is becoming a problem for many. You can say that this isn’t the church’s responsibility, but I would disagree with you.

I believe that it is the open, honest, and responsible thing to do. We don’t have to dwell on these issues, but people should at least be made aware of them proactively. (Comment by John Dehlin — July 27, 2006).

Awesome John! The church needs more people like you John Dehlin, who are willing to tell the truth and offer “full disclosure.” But in reality. I don’t believe the LDS church will do that for the same reason that Scientology won’t come right out and tell you about Xenu or body thetans. If the church offered full-disclosure, like a real-estate agent disclosing that the basement of the house has termites, who would join?

The real-estate agent is trying to sell a product/a house so they might fail to mention the termites until after the sale. The church does the same thing. Can you imagine a missionary standing before two investigators saying, “I, Elder Utah, know that Joseph dictated the BoM by staring at a rock.” Close your eyes and imagine every congregation in every LDS chapel full of people who think and feel like Grant Palmer or John Dehlin. Now I respect and support Dehlin (and Grant Palmer) but what would come of Mormonism? What would happen to Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, would there even be a D&C 1:30 (or 132) in the cannon anymore? What would separate the LDS church from other churches? This is why I’m a post Mormon and why I think the LDS church will probably never offer full-disclosure. …

Back to the issue of full disclosure with the rock in the hat act. The real issue is what one person wrote below:

I wouldn’t have known about it had I not read about it in non-church publications like FARMS [now Maxwell Institute] and Dialogue. The church leads all of us to believe that the plates were sitting in front of Joseph Smith on a table, and that he looked at them with spectacles attached to a breastplate. Or that he tranlated by staring at the plates with no spectacles at all. When “slothful” folks like us find out that the plates weren’t even used in the translation process, and that all of the action really happened in a hat, it can be a little disconcerting.

Amen to that comment. The bottom line is that two or three references to the seer stone in a hat in the Ensign and Improvement Era (obscure references you have to dig to find) does not make up for the LDS church’s official image campaign to portray Smith actually translating gold pates in front of him. This image is untrue and church leaders know it for they admit it in at least one article in the Ensign (mentioned in this thread), so why the false advertising?

Why aren’t LDS apologists openly protesting at church the image of Smith with the plates, which comes off as if he is actually translating something, if they know it’s untrue? ... Why won't LDS apologists contact the church and set the record straight rather than give the lame excuse that its all the artist’s fault for not knowing their history?

The apologist, Daniel Peterson, in this thread of comments blames the exmormon and calls them ignorant and slothful when most Mormons, who have spent years in the church don’t know about the rock in the hat act because they are encouraged to only read offical LDS literature, which portrays Smith translating from the actual plates with no mention of the seer stone. In his wonderful video presentation, Why They Leave, John Dehlin points this out in clip #9, and clip # 21 & 22. Dehlin contrasts what Mormons are taught growing up versus the historical truth. Can you imagine what would happen if the church broadcasted John Dehlin’s honest and compassionate video at general conference?

Can you imagine what bridges it would build between couples about to divorce because of Mormonism, how it would help families that have been broken up due to false information put out by the LDS church; how it would create compassion for those who are depressed because they are shunned by the Mormon community for studying information in non-church approved sources and then finding out the LDS church won't put out that information in the church approved sources? Can you imagine how it would help inoculate the LDS membership and keep them from being shocked by reading such information in literature written by critics; instead they would get it from the church itself through offical LDS publications?

But will that happen? I don't think so, no way, not with Mormon apologists who refuse to hold their church accountable for misleading people by showing things like Smith with gold plates in front of him, and instead blame the inactive and exmormon calling them slothful and ignorant.

This comment by Daniel Peterson tells all; in his response to the issue of the LDS church not offering full-disclosure about the rock in a hat act and instead portraying Smith actually translating plates in front of him, Peterson wrote:

“Apostate Mormons make their mistake in blaming the Church, when they do it, for their ignorance and sloth. They create a massive conspiracy to keep the information from them, when it is actually widely and publicly available in a large number of different venues. The issue looms large among some critics, but I don’t think it agitates much of the general Church membership or leadership. So now, I don’t think the Church is likely, any time soon, to address it or “correct the misconception” (Comment by Daniel Peterson — July 31, 2006 # http://mormonstories.org/?p=130#comment-24264).

Peterson completely ignores the issue and the point (that he must know) that Dehlin brings up in his video presentation. Ask ten members at any LDS ward if they know about the peep stone in a hat Mr. Peterson. Are you saying that they are slothful and ignorant? What about you, are you willing to “correct the misconception” when you admit “the Church is [not] likely, any time soon, to address it…”? How long will the LDS Church portray a misleading and false image?

Side Note: this isn’t the only false image promoted by the church. The First Vision picture of two physical gods (or heavenly personages in physical form) is inaccurate as well. See my paper, The Real Story Behind the First Vision: How the Mormon Godhead Changed Overtime Part 1.

There’s no need for the apologist to say look up these obscure references in LDS sources where it mentions the seer stone, when the church advertising campaign is misleading. Why argue? Just go into any Mormon ward and ask ten Mormons if they knew smith dictated the BoM by putting a rock in a hat when the plates were nowhere in sight, and see what they say. LDS references to the seer stone is hardly mentioned except a few times, and the “hat” is hardly ever mentioned compared to the false image displayed in thousands and thousands of official LDS publications of Joseph not using a rock or a hat. Where are the official LDS sources discussing the fact that Smith used a seer stone while money digging to swindle people out of their money? Where do official LDS sources openly discuss Joseph Smith's arrest and being brought before a judge on criminal charges before a court in 1826 for being “a disorderly person” because of his money digging practices as a glass looker? (for details see
here, here, and here). Where are these facts presented honestly in a historical article in the Ensign? Yes I know money digging is mentioned in Joseph Smith’s history, but it does not cover the 1826 court incident or how he swindled people out of their money with his seerstone.

Lets just be honest, the true history embarrasses the church and the apologists for that matter. Honestly, imagine two missionaries with the flip chart flipping to Smith with a rock in a hat. Who, among LDS the leaders, would want that kind of honesty?

The fact is that if they showed images of the truth, of Joseph sitting with a Bible on the table for reference, the plates no where in sight, and his head buried in a hat staring at a rock what would that do for the church? Just look at how embarrassed Mormon leaders are about the South Park episode.

When I read about “the interpreters” growing up in the church I imagined a pair of glasses since the official images were of Joseph hunched over gold plates. I challenge the LDS apologist to walk into any ward and ask 10 people how Smith translated the BoM; and if they are honest the apologist will admit that probably 9 out of 10 Mormons won't know that Smith used his money digging seer stone and a hat with no plates in sight for the dictation of the published BoM; and instead probably 9 out of 10 Mormons will hold the false view that the Urum and Thummin, or interpreters, were used like supernatural aids (like reading glasses) to help Smith produce the published BoM by literally translating the plates on a table in front of him like someone might translate a foreign language.

There was some discussion in this thread that covered the witnesses. Palmer thoroughly debunks the witnesses as reliable in his book, but really why discuss it? As Al Case asks at lds-mormon.com in the BoM questions section, “Why would many of them [the witnesses] become Strangites? If Utah Mormons believe the witnesses’ testimonies of Joseph Smith’s claims shouldn’t they also believe the testimonies of James Jesse Strang’s very similar claims?(same for William E. McLellin’s movement)?”

Why would a deity want us to believe hearsay when we could have evidence of the plates? If you say the Mormon gods didn’t want to give us evidence then why does my 1963 BoM, in the introduction, show a picture of gold tablets found in Persia in 1961 in an attempt to provide evidence of at least the existence of gold plates when all the angel had to was say, “well, look. We, up there, have been doing a lot of thinking. We know in the future DNA evidence will come out and change things a bit. We know the witnesses aren’t reliable. Heck David Whitmer is gonna tell everyone God told him to leave the Mormon Church in his little pamphlet An Address to All Believers ... So ya know what. Keep the plates. Bury them again and later a modern LDS prophet can dig them up and provide some real evidence so that we can save the souls of future exmormons.”

Never mind whether or not the witnesses are reliable, its only hearsay, and they believed in James Strang’s claims; and we could have the plates to examine ourselves if it were all true!

I conclude with these two excellent quotes from comments in the thread:

“the big deal about the [LDS] manual? you ask? well for one, lots of folks dont get much more info than that (due to their own slothfulness of course). in many units the teachers are not actually teachers, rather they are moms, milkmen, cops, doctors, laborers, factory workers, social workers, sex workers (ok, that last one is less common but you get my point.) so, these busy folks and unhistorianed folks rely on the manual to create a lesson. for you, there are other resources, not so for everyone … and more, people trust the manuals as part of the modern revelation schtick. you may not. but some folks do. my mother prepared a lesson recently that I read. the whole thing was from the manual, ensign and scriptures. because, that is what is suggested to her as a gd teacher… we are talking about folks thinking there was a breastplate thing, and finding out it was a hat. in this ONE case" (http://mormonstories.org/?p=130#comment-24326)

"The real heart of the matter for me is that the peepstone, or seerstone, that Joseph used to translate the BoM is the same stone he used in his mystical money digging ventures of which none were ever successful” (http://mormonstories.org/?p=130#comment-24171).

And with that excellent comment, I concur and conclude with, that is in fact the real heart of the matter.

My above post came from: Comment by wkempton — August 1, 2006 # 214; Original source: http://mormonstories.org/?p=130&cpage=5#comments

In defense of Daniel Peterson, after many former Mormons have protested over the years the LDS church's false description of how Joseph Smith put together his Book of Mormon, it appears that some LDS apologists are starting to come clean. In the PBS documentry, The Mormons, LDS apologist Daniel Peterson tells the truth about Smith's use of a seer stone (to watch Peterson go here and click on part 1, chapter 3 'The Early Revelations'....about 1/3 the way into the clip Peterson discussess the rock in the hat act). I was pleased to see Peterson tell the truth after debating with him and another Mormon apologist about why the LDS church doesn't tell the truth about the seer stone on mormonstories.org on a thread about Tal Bachman, see here).

Perhaps we former Mormons, on message boards, got to him (his conscience)? So maybe he decided to be forthcoming about the true nature of the alleged translation of the Book of Mormon or maybe he decided to do it all on his own. Either way, at least Peterson is being honest to the public on this issue.

Types of Mormons and Non-Mormons

2009-07-12T15:06:00.000-07:00

* These terms are not set in stone and other people on the Internet and elsewhere may define these terms slightly differently. Let me begin by saying I think all labels are problematic in that they don't fully cover all of a person's opinions and their unique personality. I personally reject all identity labels and prefer to think of everyone as one humanity; so I prefer to just be called a human being. However, some labels can be useful in that they can show that not all self-labled Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc. are the same. For example, there are different types of atheists (e.g. weak and strong, etc) and different types of Christians (progressive and fundamentalist, etc). So I present these labels as my opinion to show that not all Mormons are the same and each believing-Mormon and former-Mormon should be understood individually and we should avoid lumping everyone into one narrow category; and also to help us understand the differences and similarities between the many types of Mormons and Non-Mormons.

Iron Rod Mormon or TBM (True Believing Mormon): these Mormons obey all the rules of conduct as prescribed by LDS leaders and tow the doctrinal line. They pray, pay, and obey and honor their leaders holding to the metaphorical rod of perceived LDS righteousness. They swear allegiance to the LDS articles of faith, and maintain LDS standards of moral purity. They hold to the central claims of Mormonism: the Standard Works, the Articles of Faith, and official LDS dogma.

TBMs come in two main varieties: McConkie style Mormons (or Packer-Mormons) and David O McKay style Mormons. A third type are various types of Mormon apologists who tend to know more than the rank and file Mormon. There appears to be two main types of apologists as well: like Daniel C. Peterson and Blake Ostler for example.

Mormon aologists often hold radical views that to the rank and file Mormon may seem heretical. For example, while many Mormons have the book Mormon Doctrine by McConkie in their home, I have heard several Mormon apologists from the Maxwell Institute disparage McConkie’s book Mormon Doctrine and some also don’t agree with Boyd K. Packer on several issues.

Cultural Mormons (New Order Mormons and/or Sunstone Mormons). An LDS member in good standing, who culturally identifies as Mormon, and who behaves like a Mormon following the rules of conduct and are active at church but doubt all or most of LDS doctrines. Popular examples include, BH Roberts, John Dehlin, and Grant Palmer.

Inactive Mormon: a Mormon who believes in all or some of LDS claims but for a variety of reasons doesn’t attend church or LDS activities. Many Inactive Mormons are Jack Mormons and/or Boomerang Mormons, see below.

Jack Mormons: Inactive Mormons who socialize with all types of Mormons regularly but are lax when it comes to following all the rules, especially the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Chastity, etc.

Boomerang Mormon: this is a Jack Mormon who instead of staying inactive their whole life, as many Jack Mormons do, are like a wild horse let loose from the corral to sow its oats but has been mentally conditioned to return back home. For example, many Jack Mormon girls will date other Jack Mormon guys and even Non-Mormons for a time but eventually boomerang back to being “good girls” and seeking a Return Missionary and/or an active true believing Mormon to take them to the temple.

Former Mormon: someone who was once a member of the LDS church but has left because they no longer believe the Mormon Church is what it claims to be. There are two types of former Mormons:

Exmormons: Those who are intellectually convinced the church is not what it claims to be; is often bitter and angry with the church hierarchy for lying to them. Some exmormons resign while others leave their names on the roles simply because they haven’t bothered to have them removed. Although some exmormons carry no ill feelings and brush off their experience in Mormonism as a learning experience and move on nearly unaffected at all. Usually the level of emotional, intellectually, and physical commitment, time, and money the person devoted to Mormonism will determine their feelings toward the church when they leave.

Post-Mormon: same as Exmormon in that they are intellectually convinced the church is not what it claims to be. Some people define the post-mormon as someone who has gone through the recovery process most ex-mormons are still traveling through, and are ready to move on with their life. Since they no longer define themselves as ex-LDS and are now post-LDS they tend to be friendlier and more accepting of the LDS church as a whole.

Note: many people use the terms exmormon and postmormon interchangeably as synonymous resulting in no clear distinction between either term.

Anti-Mormon:

Some Mormon apologists have specific people they have in mind when using the term anti-Mormon. LDS apologist John A. Tvedtnes explains that:

A non-Mormon who writes about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not necessarily an anti-Mormon, even if he gets some of his facts wrong. To me, an anti-Mormon is one who deliberately misrepresents the facts about the LDS Church and its scriptures, either by outright falsehood or by faulty logic or by innuendo. (Source)

I am a post-Mormon but not an anti-Mormon as Tvedtnes chooses to define the term. I do not deliberately misrepresent the facts about the LDS Church and its scriptures. In fact, I take great pains to verify all my sources and welcome correction from any "friendly editor." Then again, I don’t know any former Mormons (Christian or non-Christian) who fit that definition either.

I do occasionally find myself correcting some fellow Mormon critics when they sometimes get a few facts wrong here and there, but I don’t know of anyone deliberately and intentionally misrepresenting the facts, with the exception of maybe Ed Decker and his film The God Makers 2; which was critiqued by the Tanners themselves. However, even though many former Mormons like the Tanners, and myself for that matter, object to some of Ed Decker’s work, I wouldn’t call him an anti-Mormon because he doesn’t try and physically harm Mormons individually and is not against Mormons as persons; he just objects to Mormon theology and gets some things wrong.

I personally think the word anti-Mormon is a term that should be reserved for those who are prejudiced against Mormons just because they are "Mormon" and/or actually attack and cause physical harm to Mormons individually (or intend to) as in the early days of the LDS church. I don’t know of any such persons nowadays. The term anti-Mormon sounds a lot like anti-Semite and carries the same pejorative meaning in the minds of many LDS. Thus, I consider it a form of slander when someone calls another person or group anti-Mormon just because they oppose LDS theology and critique Mormon doctrines.

Urim & Thummim or Magic Stone? How Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon

2009-06-12T18:04:00.000-07:00

I remember the first time I learned about Joseph Smith's magic seer stone; it was after my mission. I was shocked! I brought it up to an LDS friend who actually got upset about it. He immediately accused me of reading anti-Mormon literature. He said that Joseph would have never done such a thing, for it would make the whole thing look contrived! When I provided evidence in a little known piece of LDS literature below he had nothing to say.

In an address given on the 25th of June 1992, at a seminar for new mission presidents, Missionary Training Center, Provo, Utah, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles disclosed the real means by which Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon:

The details of this miraculous method of [translating the Book of Mormon] are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.) Source: Russell M. Nelson, A Treasured Testament; Ensign, July 1993. Also see here.

If one does some digging they can find other LDS magazines mentioning the seer stone. Just go do Lds.org and search "seer stone." However, after skimming these articles it seems that they are vague and don't discuss all the details I will present in this blog post. Official LDS Church images also mislead investigators and Mormons alike by depicting Smith actually translating from the plates which is blatantly false. I am not aware of any official LDS source that depicts Smith using his seer stone and his hat. The average LDS member today, who relies on official LDS sources, is left with the impression that Smith used the plates to translate today’s Book of Mormon; and if they have heard about the seer stone Smith used for most of the production of the BoM, they usually mistakenly think it is referring to the Urim and Thummim. The following post will correct these misconceptions and provide information from both critics and LDS apologists, showing that the LDS Church is not being completely forthcoming about the true methods used by Smith to produce the BoM.

It is a historical fact that Joseph Smith followed in his father's foot steps to become a money digger. He actually pretended to put a magic rock (or peep stone/ seer stone) into a hat and then proceeded to bury his head in the hat and claimed to see where hidden treasure was buried underground, kind of like using a crystal ball. Through his money digging adventures Joseph Smith swindled superstitious people out of their money. He was even brought up on charges in court for his deception at one point.

For some Mormons this will be hard to believe but Smith used the same stone he used in money digging to "translate" the Book of Mormon (see here). In fact, according to historical data, the production of the BoM wasn’t a real translation at all since Smith would put his seer stone in a hat and apparently claimed to “see” the words in the hat via the stone which he read out loud to his scribes. Thus, he never actually translated anything; according to witnesses he claimed to “read” words that magically appeared in or through a rock he placed in the bottom of his hat, thus dictating to his scribes the words of the Book of Mormon he claimed to see by staring at the rock.

Even if the LDS believer chooses to ignore all the historical evidence that Joseph Smith was a person with a questionable character in his youth, why would God choose a person to be his front man who pretends to use a magic rock to dig up treasure in the ground? Especially, if he would allegedly be asked to dig up gold plates in the ground? Isn't the issue of credibility an important one? If Mohammed had claimed to pull the Koran out of a hat after being a stage magician in his youth, would that lend credibility to Islam?

In his essay Sidney Rigdon: Creating the Book of Mormon , author Craig Criddle, provides the following timeline of Smith's money digging practices and how it corresponds with his claims to unearth gold plates:

Timeline of events 1822-1828 showing that at the same time Smith claimed to be receiving a supernatural visitor (red arrows) in anticipation of The Book of Mormon, he was also engaged in activities that show him to be a con man (blue arrows).

For more details on the alleged translation processes see here. The official Mormon History sold to investigators of the LDS church is not based on the facts but mere propaganda. It rejects full-disclosure and commits the sin of omission by presenting a false description of the alleged translation process.

In the past, many Mormons believed in magical seer stones. To see pictures of Mormon leader's seer stones click here.

The image presented at the church run website here, and elsewhere in church publications, not only misrepresents the facts – omitting the rock in the hat act – but the LDS church falsely depicts Smith actually translating the alleged foreign language on the alleged gold plates (when the plates were nowhere in sight for much of the writing of the Book of Mormon) and Smith never translated anything, but dictated to his scribes out of a hat.

After reading several articles by Mormon apologists I learned that they generally conclude that the Gold Plates were not “directly” used in the alleged translation process of the BoM. For example, in the online PBS video The Mormons in Part 1:3 titled, The Early Revelations LDS apologist Daniel Peterson is honest and admits that, “We know that Joseph didn’t translate in the way that a scholar would translate, he didn’t know Egyptian. … There were a couple of means that were prepared for this. One was that he used an instrument that was found with the plates that was called the Urim and Thummim. This is kind of a divinatory device that goes back into Old Testament times. Actually, most of the translation was done using something called a seer stone. … He would put the stone … in the bottom of a hat, presumably to exclude surrounding light. Then he would put his face into the hat. It's kind of a strange image for us today …” To read the transcript see here.

Notice how Peterson says Smith used the Urim and Thummim but doesn’t specify what it was used for. That is because the Urim and Thummim that allegedly came with the plates were never used to “translate” any of the Book of Mormon that was finally published, which Mormons read today. In the fair.org article, Joseph the Seer—or Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat?, author Brant A. Gardner is even more forthcoming and clear on the matter. Toward the end of his article he writes:

“As the early saints transitioned from a collection of believers into a formal religion, they began to see themselves within the Great Tradition [that is popular/formal religion]. As with early Christianity, the stories they told of themselves naturally were recast to distance themselves from their Little Tradition [small-town folklore type superstition] heritage and provide an acceptable Great Tradition history. One of the obvious places to see this process in action is with the tools of the translation. We [LDS members] all know that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon—except he didn't. The Book of Mormon mentions interpreters, but not the Urim and Thummim. It was the Book of Mormon interpreters which were given to Joseph with the plates. When Moroni took back the interpreters after the loss of the 116 manuscript pages, Joseph completed the translation with one of his seer stones. Until after the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim belonged to the Bible and the Bible only. The Urim and Thummim became part of the story when it was presented within and to the Great Tradition [acceptable traditional church going investigators]. Eventually, even Joseph Smith used Urim and Thummim indiscriminately as labels generically representing either the Book of Mormon interpreters or the seer stone used during translation.

The Urim and Thummim were traditionally divinatory rocks, but most importantly, they were biblically acceptable divinatory rocks.53 From the Great Tradition [traditional religion] perspective, their presence in the Bible made them religion, not magic. I suspect that the two interpreters made a natural comparison to the two stones, one Urim and one Thummim, from the Bible. Calling the biblical divinatory tools "rocks" instead of Urim and Thummim seems to demean them. The reverse process, calling the interpreters and seer stones Urim and Thummim, places them in a more appropriate religious category where they belong because of the sacred use to which they were put in translating the Book of Mormon.

This recasting of history was a story the Saints told themselves as much as what they presented to the world. I doubt that there was any conscious attempt to reconcile their history with Great Tradition [popular religious] expectations, let alone any attempt at deception. It was simply the natural response to their self-definition as a religion rather than a folk belief. It was a story told in a way that they subliminally knew was appropriate for a Great Tradition religion. The new history did not deny the past or alter the facts, but recolored them with a new vocabulary.”

So if Smith alledgedly unearthed Gold Plates and the Urim and Thummim (or interpreters, i.e. two divinatory stones set in the rim of a silver bow functioning as spectacles or reading glasses, see images here, here, and here) but never used the plates nor the spectacles to translate today’s published Book of Mormon, why did Smith unearth them in the first place? If all he used to “translate” the final version of today’s Book of Mormon was the same seer stone he used while money digging – the same stone he found in a well and used to pretend to see where treasure was buried – why did he need to unearth the plates and the spectacles in the first place!?

Some apologists admit that the plates weren’t involved in the translation process and speculate that the plates served other purposes. See the fair wiki article Book of Mormon/Translation (Aug. 2009) here. But the Anton affair mentioned in this fair-wiki section is hardly helpful to those who have studied the details from a critical perspective. Second, the plates being used as mere evidence of an ancient artifact is hardly useful, for as Faun Brodie pointed out Smith could have produced a fake replica of gold plates, or the witnesses could have imagined them with their perceived "spiritual eyes,” hallucinated, or simply made it up, etc.

And if the plates were meant to merely persuade the witnesses that Smith was using his rock in a hat act to translate a real record, why didn’t the angel give the plates to Smith to show to the witnesses AFTER the dictation of the BoM, which he performed using his money digging seer stone? Then the Gold Plates wouldn’t have been needed at all during the alleged translation process; thus, no reason to hide them and risk them being stolen. Why the whole hiding of the plates in the woods and in a box and covering them up? Why the whole ordeal of being chased and put in harms way by those who wanted to allegedly steal them; was all that necessary when Smith didn’t even use them to translate (and in fact there was no actual translation at all)? And if the plates were to act as physical evidence to an ancient record why did the angel take them up to heaven instead of them being evidence for all to see? After all, if the seer stone Smith used to create his Book of Mormon is still in possession of the church why weren’t the plates or the spectacles (interpreters) left with the church? It seems odd that the angel took back everything Smith allegedly unearthed and all we are left with is his seer stone he used for money digging, which no LDS prophet, “seer,” and revelator has used since to reveal anything even though these LDS leaders are called seers.

This takes way too much mental gymnastics to rationalize. Common sense says Smith used the same rock in a hat act he used to dupe people into believing he could unearth gold treasures to dupe people into believing he unearthed gold plates. Thus the plates were a “prop” for added affect, to add some authenticity to his story. It would have probably been too difficult to actually create a huge book of gold plates with ancient writings on it. The witnesses could have seen that some of the plates were blank and Smith missed a spot to scribble fake characters that he made up. The seer stone in a hat was a better way to go, for without the actual original language he could never be tested. And the alleged characters he allegedly transcribed from the plates to give to Anton has never been corroborated by a reputable scholar to be anything other than mere scribbling.

Other apologists speculate that the plates served in some magical way to help Smith dictate to his scribes even when the plates weren’t in the same room with him. As they admit that the plates were either covered or weren’t in the same room when much of the BoM was being written. Thus to summarize, all the facts to the alleged translation processes present the following picture.

Joseph put his face in a hat and stared at a stone and claimed to see words on or through the stone and thus allegedly dictated the Book of Mormon while the plates were either covered -- so that no one, including Smith, could see them -- or while the plates were hidden somewhere outside. Thus Smith obviously didn’t need the plates for the formation of the Book of Mormon that was published; and all the evidence shows that he used a seer stone and not the actual plates, nor the Urim and Thummim, to dictate the contents of today’s published Book of Mormon. Thus he didn’t actually translate ancient languages off the plates into English using some spectacles he found in the ground like a modern translator might translate an ancient record; but instead its claimed that he read the contents of the Book of Mormon by allegedly seeing the words in or through the same seer stone he used for money digging; using the same method of placing the rock in a hat just as he did when he would claim to "see" where treasure was buried.

Keep in mind that the average LDS member does not read Mormon apologetics and is encouraged not to read things not officially published by the LDS church. The LDS apologetic sites exist because members read non-Mormon history books and Mormon critics and learn things the official LDS church doesn’t disclose openly. So fair.org and the Maxwell Institute act as damage control that’s caused by the official church withholding information and suppressing the whole picture.

Some Mormon apologists argue that the official LDS church is not hiding the rock in the hat act since it is mentioned in one or two Ensign articles. The problem is these are obscure references in only a few official LDS articles, and you have to dig deep in past issues to learn about Smith’s rock in the hat act. Official LDS articles are also inconsistent and contradictory, for example, the Sept. 1977 Ensign doubts Whitmer's claim that Smith used the rock in the hat act and claims a real translation took place with Smith's direct use of the plates. The 1977 article thus contradicts the Ensign article mentioned above, and the 1977 article also contradicts a recent Maxwell Institute article by A One-sided View of Mormon Origins by Mark Ashurst-McGee. In the process of trying to answer Grant Palmer’s research McGee admits that the image of Smith actually translating gold plates in front of him, that is used by the church in its official publications, is inaccurate. He admits that Smith did use the rock in the hat method and the plates in fact were nowhere in sight during the production of the Book of Mormon.

On a Mormon message board in 2009, Jeff Ricks of postmormon.org, made the following observation:

There are lots of examples where Mormonism misrepresents the facts to the public. The first one that comes to mind is the way the Church misrepresents Smiths's method of producing the Book of Mormon. On the Church's website there are at least four or five different paintings showing Smith poring over the gold plates line by line, while he or someone else writes down what he dictates, as if he's acting as a translator. But the church admits, when pressed, that Smith's actual method of producing the Book of Mormon was looking at a rock in a hat. Hmmmm....so the church has on its site at least four paintings that misrepresent Smith as a translator, while they don't have a single painting that I can find that shows him doing it by looking at a rock in a hat.

This is not a minor oversight. Church leaders have said that the Book of Mormon is the foundation of the Church, and the Church will admit that the book was produced by looking at a rock in a hat. Therefore, if the Church were more honest about its origins, that rock would be a centerpiece of the Church's story to the public. Instead, it continues to knowingly misrepresent Smith as a translator.

Let's summarize: The Church knowingly misrepresents its 'product' to the public, as we speak, and it takes in massive sums of money that's aided, in part, by that misrepresentation (I'm sure the Church's conversion rate, and therefore income stream, would reduce if the dorky rock-in-hat method were more honestly represented). In the real world, that's a serious matter. It's an ongoing willful misrepresentation that, by normal standards is unethical and immoral, and is a matter that, in the real world, possibly merits prison time, yet the Church gets a bye on that kind of dishonest, unethical, immoral behavior. Why?........ "Truth Restored"? I think not. It's more like, "Truth Distorted." ...

[Another person on the message board added the following] ... Another point of contention is they have the actual rock that Joseph Smith used to translate the BOM. If they wanted to, they could put it on display for members to view the mystical magical object. ... They don’t display the magic rock (one of two I believe they have) ... because it would bring to the surface the methods used to translate Mormon doctrine, and provide people that may not know about the arrest of Joseph Smith for glass-looking using the same "money-digger" method.

If Joseph Smith was enchanted with seer stones as a kid would that childish belief in magic rocks enter into his adult writings? Unfortunately, for the faithful Mormon it does. We find that Smith's writings do in fact echo his money digging past. In one of many passages in the Book of Mormon that gives reference to magic rocks, Joseph tells a story of God actually giving one of his faithful servants a stone: “And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me” (Alma 37:23; also see here).

The Book of Mormon is full of parallels to Joseph’s money digging past. A startling example is that just as in Smith's real life – when he was a money digger he’d claim the treasure was moving under the earth and that's why the people who hired him couldn't dig it up every time they tried - likewise, the Book of Mormon people begin hiding treasures in the earth and using sorcery but the treasures are slippery and cannot be held or retained (see Mormon 1: 18-19).

In 1 Nephi 16 of the Book of Mormon a magic ball (the Liahona) suddenly appears outside Lehi’s tent to guide him in the right direction, which is very similar to the way the seer stone worked when Smith was seeking buried treasure; and just as Lehi found the Liahona Smith found his seer stone.

Pressing credulity to the max Joseph Smith writes his fascination with seer stones into the story of Jared who wonders how an air-tight oval shaped barge or submarine like container with no windows could allow the occupants to see in the dark? One wonders why he didn’t ask how they were going to steer the barges? Or what they were going to do with all the human feces accumulated by the passengers? Nevertheless, Joseph decides to fix the problem of darkness with Jared’s glow in the dark rocks to provide light for the Nephites (See Ether 3 & 4).

Joseph's fascination with magic rocks doesn't stop with the Book of Mormon. After Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church, in 1836 Joseph had read in the Painesville (Ohio) Telegraph that a treasure lay buried beneath a house in Salem. What do you think happened next? It is obvious to all impartial investigators that at this point Joseph regressed to his money digging ways and unintentionally showed the hoax of his revelations.

He actually claimed to receive a revelation from the Lord on the matter that is contained in today’s LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Smith spoke as the Lord and said, “I have much treasure in this city [of Salem] for you…you shall be led, and [it] shall be given you…you shall have power over [the city]…and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours…in the place where [the treasure is] …[it] shall be signalized unto you by the peace and power of my Spirit, that shall flow unto you…there are more treasures than one for you in this city” ( D&C 111: 2-4, 8, 11). This theme of seeking treasure is rather familiar to his money digging past. As a money digger his seer stone also allegedly “signaled unto him” where buried treasure could be found. Smith did not take power over the city and was not led to gold or silver. Joseph returned from his treasure hunt with nothing but a failed prophecy.

If Joseph Smith was influenced by the pretend powers of seer stones ever since his youth would he go so far as to have God himself use a seer stone just like he did? It appears that Smith could not resist. In superhero, comic book, fashion Joseph paints his god as a finite exalted-man who gets his super powers from a magic rock the size of a planet, which acts like a super-computer or crystal ball giving him infinite knowledge. Smith writes:

“ ...we shall see him [god] as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there [in heaven]… In answer to the question—Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside? I answer, Yes. But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it. The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim [i.e. a giant seer stone]. This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known…” (D&C 130: 1- 10, words in italics are my own).

Besides claiming that that the earth will one day be magically transformed into a giant crystal ball, Joseph Smith explains that God is limited to a physical body with finite limitations so he and the angels live on, and use, a planet size Urim and Thummim (giant seer stone) that makes all information and knowledge available to those who use it. This brings to mind images of the Death Star, the giant planet in the Star Wars movies where Darth Vador lives and derives some of his powers. Joseph's thinking must have been, "if people already believe that my little rock can find treasure and help me come up with the Book of Mormon, then I'll say god himself must have a HUGE magic rock that he resides on, that gives him magical powers. This will also explain how my idea of god as a finite man can know all things when he can't be everywhere at once." And last but not least, Smith says that those Mormons who make it to the highest degree of his heaven will receive their very own white stone that will act as a crystal ball, whereby advanced knowledge will be made known.

One can’t help but see that Smith’s idea of the Godhead became a projection of himself. For just as Smith’s extramarital affairs were projected onto his god, who became an exalted man who needs several concubines to populate the earth (see D&C 132: 63), Smith’s money digging seer stone days is projected onto his deity who becomes a space-man who lives on and operates via a huge planet size magic rock.

If you’re a true believing Mormon do you really think that God lives on and works through a giant rock and that the earth will one day "be renewed [transformed] and receive its paradisiacal glory" (See Articles of Faith 1: 10), that is, turned into a giant crystal ball? If you do believe in these things, how is your god going to accomplish this other than you just saying, "Well, it's like magic?" And why believe in such a thing as opposed to believing the earth will one day turn into a giant Rubik's Cube, each square representing a level of higher intelligence?

Why believe in Joseph Smith's story that a super god-man living on a giant seer stone, together with a council of gods, organized our universe out of self-existent/uncreated materials and organized the earthly bodies of humanity and produced their souls by having celestial sex with his wife (or wives and concubines) as opposed to any Greek mythology?

If you believe a magic rock can help someone translate a foreign language do you believe in crystal balls? Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Smith in 1822, "Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind."

For more facts surrounding Joseph Smith, peep stones, and treasure digging derived from 100% church-friendly sources click here.

For a brief history of Smith's money digging see: The Locations of Joseph Smith's Early Treasure Quests by Dan Vogel.

For a very interesting article on how Oliver Cowdery used a divining rod or a magic stick to recieve revelation that is similar to Smith's seer stone act see The Rod of Aaron.

For additional historical information on Smith’s seer stone see here.

For information on Joseph Smith's personal biography and more information on the Seer Stone here.

For a discussion of whether or not Smith put up a curtain to hide the translation process see here.

And for a historical analysis of the gold plates click here.

For more details from both LDS members and critics see here.

Is This an anti-Mormon Website?

2009-06-09T14:53:00.000-07:00

Being called a Mormon is something some LDS members do not like to be called. In this new century I see the Old Mormon system of belief being changed to the New LDS belief system. Missionaries no longer ask "what do you know about the Mormons" like my parents used to do. Official LDS church publications shy away from the term Mormonism even though it is in the D&C and ironically one of the church websites is www.mormon.org.

This is not an anti-Mormon site. I am pro-Mormon as far as supporting the LDS church's family values, ethical teachings, and philanthropy. In fact, I've written a lengthy article on the positive side of Mormonism. Calling me an anti-Mormon for being critical of the claims of the LDS church would be like calling a critic of the claims of Judaism an anti-Semite. Someone can be a critic of a theology but not be anti "the people of that religious organization." As LDS apologist (Mormon defender) John A. Tvedtnes writes:

A non-Mormon who writes about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not necessarily an anti-Mormon, even if he gets some of his facts wrong. To me, an anti-Mormon is one who deliberately misrepresents the facts about the LDS Church and its scriptures ... (Source: Shades of Darkness by John A. Tvedtnes FARMS Review: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 427-40).

If any of my facts are wrong I welcome anyone to point them out to me. I am very careful about citing sources and seek honestly to accurately tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

If I am to be called an anti-Mormon by an LDS member then to be fair they should accept the label anti-Baptist or anti-Catholic. Of course, Mormons aren't anti-Baptists or anti-Catholics, they just disagree with their theology and critique their doctrines in books like The Great Apostasy and many others. In fact, in the Joseph Smith—History 1: 17-20 , Smith says God forbade him from joining any of the Christian sects and that God said to him, "their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: [']they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” Does this make Mormons anti-Traditional Christianity? Afterward Smith tells his mother that he had just learned for himself "that Presbyterianism is not true." Does this make Mormons anti-Presbyterian? Of course not, Mormons can be critics of traditional Christian creeds but not be anti-Christian. Likewise, I can be critical of LDS doctrines and not be an anti-Mormon.

I love Mormons as they are my friends and family. Growing up in the church and serving a mission in Brazil I have a great love for the ethical culture it fosters and the men and women of good character it often produces. Thus calling someone like me an anti-Mormon would be nothing less than a form of slander and a cult-like thought stopping technique; as a way to control the inflow of information and keep members ignorant of the opposing viewpoint.

I consider myself friendly toward the LDS Church. I have many friends and family who are True Believing Mormons. One of my motivations for this webpage is that I am concerned about LDS members who do not become educated about the contraversies. It can lead to later shock and dissolusionment as evidenced at www.exmormon.org. LDS members should also look at both sides of their religon, the pro and con, in order to better understand those family members or friends who go inactive or are no longer Mormon.

I want to unite people through mutual understanding. As LDS author, Steven Covey says in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, we should "seek first to understand." Only when one tries to understand someone's point of view can real love and understanding take place. The former LDS member understands the devout Mormon's point of view, having "been there and done that," so isn't it only fair that the Mormon try to understand the former LDS member?

I know that the LDS member has to choose to look at both sides of their religion, and it is not my place to tell them what to do. Unfortunately, when I was a Mormon I was trained to see anything critical of my religion as "anti-Mormon." This caused me to develop an aversion to other points of view regarding Mormonism; it was as if a subconscious "red flag" would pop up in my head anytime I thought about or read something that wasn't "faith-promoting."

Ask yourself this: "If by any chance the former Mormon wasn't wrong - if there were any chance that Joseph Smith wasn't what he claimed to be - and the Mormon Church wasn't what it claimed to be, would you want to know? If there was something you could learn about Mormonism that could change your mind about it, would you want to hear it?" This is obviously a test of open-mindedness. Maybe you're not ready for the so-called "meat," and don't want to know what I know. If so, take the "blue pill" and sign off. But if you're ready to learn more, as Morpheus says in the movie The Matrix, "You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more..."

Topical Guide

2009-06-07T19:29:00.000-07:00

Introduction:

> Is this an anti-Mormon website?

> Learning Different Points of View & The Courage To Be Informed

> The Danger of a Single Story & Former Mormons.

> Types of Mormons and Non-Mormons

> Urim & Thummim or Magic Stone? How Smith claimed to produce the Book of Mormon

> Videos of how Smith actually created his Book of Mormon

> My Response to Daniel Peterson on the Seer Stone

> Is the rock in the hat act a trivial matter?

> The Fruit of Joseph Smith: The Legacy of Mormon Polygamy.

> Wayne Bent and Joseph Smith

> Blacks & LDS Missionaries and The Temple Before 1978.

> The Harm of the Seed of Cain Doctrine & Why It Hasn't Been Repudiated.

> Rewriting History, Dishonest Advertising, False Propaganda, & the Sin of Omission in Mormonism

> UNDERSTANDING THE MORMON BRAIN: Why it’s So Difficult Discussing Mormonism with LDS Members

> How to better communicate with Family and Friends about the problems with Mormonism and your disbelief in Mormon doctrines

> Exmormon musings on a visit to church

> I can’t be Mormon because I wear the wrong underwear.

> Where did the Mormon Gods come from?

> Gay Rights and the Mormon Church

> Is Mitt Romney honest about his religion?

> My Psychological Journey in Brief

> Top 10 Reasons I'm happier now as a non-Mormon

> September 11, 1857 & The Lucifer Effect By Philip Zimbardo

> Movies I Recommend With Themes Related To Mormonism

> Conversations with a Mormon - Part 1: The Testimony Mantra

Communicating with Family and Friends

2009-06-07T16:18:00.000-07:00

“It doesn't matter whether you're selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or 'How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down.' That doesn't make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are - just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it's not a conversation anymore; it's a pitch. And you're not a human being; you're a marketing rep” ~ The Big Kahuna (1999).

“Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still”
~ Dale Carnegie

“If you want to gather honey don’t kick over the beehive; a drop of honey catches more flies then a gallon and gall” ~ Abe Lincoln.

I began my journey out of Mormonism with a chip on my shoulder. Since I was expecting to be rejected by Mormons who knew I rejected their religion, I projected my fears and insecurities outward and became very angry and agressive in my speech with some Mormons. I also tried to debate with every Mormon I could because deep down I wanted to be proved wrong, I didn't like knowing what I did and I wanted someone to show me where my logic was in error. The more LDS members didn't want to discuss it the more agitated I became thinking they didn't care about me. So in order to wake them up to my dilemma I would fire off facts and details about the man-made origins of Mormonism in hopes of eliciting a desire from them to correct me where I was wrong.

Sometimes I feared that since the LDS religion rejected me, labeling me an "apostate" and other derogatory names, then I would "weed out" those who weren’t going to accept me -- because I didn’t profess the correct articles of faith -- by very aggressively arguing why I reject Mormonism with them nearly every time I saw them. The problem was that I was engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy for by sometimes being rude and insensitive, arguing and ridiculing rather than listening, sharing, and caring, I was generating the negative responses I feared.

If you are reading this it is probably because you are interested in getting along with someone who doesn’t share your views about Mormonism. Many former Mormons who have been “burned” by their religion are often ready on the trigger to fire round after round of arguments and facts at their loved ones trying to convince them that Mormonism is man-made and harmful. I had to learn from experience that this is the wrong way to go about it. Instead, when it comes to family and friends (and acquaintances) your main goal should be to befriend them and gain their trust and respect because only then will they be willing to hear you out.

I also want to point out that many former Mormons who speak out about why they reject Mormonism have lost their job, or if they ran a business lost LDS customers which affected their business. Many marriages and relationships have been challenged or ruined because of Mormonism. I think it is important that the person understand the risks of voicing their opinions about Mormonism. It might be wise to select carefully those who you can trust to confide in about your doubts. It is probably wise to prepare to make new friends, business contacts, and customers who are not LDS if you plan to openly declare you are no longer a Mormon.

Before I begin with my suggestions take some time to understand the psychology of a Mormon based on science:

• First, take some time to understand the amygdala hijack that Mormons often experience when they're confronted with evidence and data that calls into question their worldview. In short, this means that whenever we are faced with life threatening decisions, like whether or not to run or somehow confront the grizzly bear in front of us, the natural instinct and brain mechanism of “fight or flight” kicks in and takes over our nervous system. When a Mormon is confronted with a grizzly bear of facts disproving their dogma they will usually respond with a natural fight or flight response. See the link above for more information.

• Understand the concept of "cathexis": this is the act of a person attaching one’s ego onto another person, place, or thing. For example, a father might become so attached to his son’s performance at a baseball game that when his son strikes out, he will become very angry. Mormons tend to form a cathexis around LDS dogma.

• Realize that your loved one is experiencing Group think , i.e. constant social reinforcement/peer pressure and so try not to take it personally when they seem to not act like themselves but as a product of the "Mormon Machine."

• Take a moment to consider their personality type. A lot has been written on this subject, which you can read up on via Google. But for now consider whether they are highly rational or more emotional, are they easy to anger or slow to anger. All of this can help you understand how and why they became so deeply involved in Mormonism and how best to communicate with them. Several books offer advice on how to deal with each personality type.

• Consider how much fear, guilt, and other emotions they are experiencing as a Mormon and be compassionate.

• Understand that a lot of the information you will share will cause severe cognitive dissonance and they will seek to avoid the anxiety this will cause through various methods of dissonance reduction.

• Realize that very intelligent people are Mormons which is best explained by a concept called mental compartmentalizing: this is where a person will ignore an idea putting on the metaphorical shelf in their mind, or deal with it using the non-rational part of the brain. For example, a person may use their frontal lobe (the rational part of the brain) and be skeptical when buying a car to make sure it does not have problems. Yet this same person may see another car they instantly like and start to compartmentalize all the problems with the car by ignoring their frontal lobe response and instead focusing on its pretty color becoming influenced by their emotions. The person will then place all the problems with the car on a shelf, in a hidden compartment of their mind, while focusing on its pretty color.

I put together the following suggestions for dealing with LDS family and friends and advice on communicating with them, which has helped me over the years.

• Getting started: John Dehlin has a great video to send, or show to, family and friends that is completely pro-Mormon while also explaining why many people leave the LDS Church or go inactive here. This is a great place to start, having family and friends watch this video and then having a discussion about it.

• Avoid confrontation and argument: I would avoid arguing/debating with a Mormon friend or family member altogether. This will only cause friction in your relationship. This is because most of the time arguments about Mormonism between former LDS and active LDS is usually just one “ego” against another “ego.” When this occurs the egos involved usually just become defensive and try to inflate themselves while deflating the other.

The only time an argument might be worth it is if there is an audience to benefit from the exchange. Most people who engage in formal debates with large audiences will tell you that they do not expect to convince their opponent or change their mind; instead they are hoping to change the mind of an open minded audience member. But even if there's an audience that benefits from the exchange you will still likely do damage to the relationship with the person you are arguing with. In my experience whenever you try to convince someone in an argument that they are wrong or mistaken in their views they just become threatened and defensive.

Why confront them with your new perspective anyway? As long as they are not trying to convert your children behind your back without your consent and aren’t slandering you why bother confronting them and arguing? Arguing will likely only make matters worse for you, for it will stir “contention” and the Mormon will likely interpret this as proof Mormonism is true. It is not your job to create within them a desire to investigate the true roots of Mormonism. It is up to them to develop their own curiosity and desire to know the facts beyond the white-washed sugar-coated propaganda the Mormon Church feeds its members. Don't try and just shove facts down their throat; allow the Mormon to go at their own pace and allow them room to form their own conclusions without you pressuring them.

I think it is best to just offer information and some sources for them to look things up for themselves. I suggest you leave it at that. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

However, if a calm and friendly discussion does emerge naturally, I recommend the following:

Before you begin any conversation:

• Ask yourself: is this the proper time and place to be having such a discussion? Sometimes a person is not in the mood, or they are surrounded by friends or family members who might gang up on you like a mob. Timing is everything.

• Be aware of the power of the ego: mention that others have taken your questions too personally, give some examples. Put it out there that egos often get involved in these discussions and it is your goal to minimize ego-conflict that arises from our natural human tendency to be competitive and seek validation. Avoiding ego-conflict can be overcome by remaining calm and compassionate, being respectful, and dialoguing rather than arguing or debating when this often allows our emotions to cloud our ability to reason and remain objective and calm.

• Clarify your motives:. the truth will emerge in someone’s mind if its there on its own without our trying to hammer our opinions into them. We should ask ourselves would I rather be right or be happy? Are you arguing your point of view to defend your ego, or are you selflessly sharing information to inspire the person and promote objective verifiable truth for the betterment of all involved? Make sure they understand that your goal is not to persuade but to seek to understand, stimulate thought, and share knowledge. The bottom line is that you will not inspire someone to think free by making them your enemy.

• Consider writing out your journey out of Mormonism, or into doubt, as a personal story in the form of a letter for them to read before the discussion.

• Explain how the appeal to subjective emotions results in what I like to call a testimony stalemate: since one religionist can't disprove the subjective experience of an opposing religionist and vice versa, this results in a stalemate. Furthermore, faith in your Faith makes all Faiths equally true when you pull the "faith card." So if everyone is claiming they "know" they are right through faith and feelings and this is how objective truth is to be obtained then the inevitable result is "epistemological anarchy" (anything goes).

• Read and apply the principles of Dale Carnegie’s book How to Win Friends and Influence People: for example, begin in a friendly way, see things from their point of view; appeal to nobler motives, give them a fine reputation to live up to; and "There's magic, positive magic, in such phrases as: 'I may be wrong. I frequently am. Let's examine the facts.” Even if you don't think you are mistaken in your point of view, saying you could be wrong so let’s examine the facts together shows humility. Present it as, I discovered this information and this is how I feel about it. Would you go over it with me so we can understand this better together?

• Accept where they’re at: We’re all at different stages in regards to Mormonism. Remember that if you're a former Mormon they are at a stage you used to be at. Maybe wherever they are at is the place they need to be at right now, either as a necessary stepping stone on their path or because that is where perhaps they were meant to be whole and content? Realizing we are all on a journey can help us have compassion and understanding for those with differing metaphysical opinions. Thus I think it should be the journey itself and not convictions that unite us.

• Understand they're not you: accept that they might not think and feel the same way you do. If you had their exact genes, upbringing, neurochemistry, personality, and experiences you’d probably think and believe and behave the same way they do (did) since you’d essentially be them and would have had their experiences. Think about that.

• Don't rush; go slow: although you may feel a strong urge to de-convert them over night and convince them to see things exactly as you do. Realize that's unrealistic and instead of trying to change their mind just try to help them to want to understand your perspective. Understand that their desire and ability to investigate your perspective is a process just as for you it was a process. Allow the smoke to clear from the shock of hearing of your doubts. Allow them time to digest it. Allow them time to come around and perhaps in time they might seek to understand your point of view on their own; at the same time accept that they may never try to fully understand where you are coming from for personal reasons (e.g. phobias or feeling secure where they're at, etc.) that has nothing to do with you, and that time will also help you to accept that.

• Don't try to persuade, instead encourage them to investigate things on their own: When dealing with friends and family remember that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. If they are not willing to drink from the cup of reality walk away from an argument, as your goal should not be to try and convince them yourself but to encourage them to investigate the facts on their own.

Your main goal is to get them to start thinking, reading, and researching on their own. Your objective is to encourage them to stop blindly believing and start critically thinking, and to begin consuming information. Arouse their interest and let them figure it out for themselves. Good questions lead a person to think outside the box. Don’t try and persuade them with some fancy argument in one discussion. Make your goal to get them to become proactive in their own search for truth. If you think they can handle it and won't be offended you could offer them a book to read and go from there. I recommend An Insider's View of Mormon Origins by Grant H. Palmer. You could point out that Grant Palmer is an active LDS member. You could recommend An Addresss to All Believers in Christ by David Whitmer. How can they object to reading a booklet by one of the Book of Mormon witnessess? In the booklet Whitmer testifies to many problems with Utah Mormonism. Another book you could recommend is Studies of the Book of Mormon by B.H. Roberts, an LDS leader from the past who is famous in Mormon culture.

• Introduce them to Logic 101: encourage them to read a book on logic or study a short list of common fallacies. If they don’t know how to think critically how can they think their way out of Mormon dogmatism, pseudoscience, and superstition?

• Show don't tell: you cannot argue with a Mormon as they are trained to avoid argument and to just bear their testimony as I was taught growing up LDS. If you try and argue with an LDS member all you will do is force them to raise their defenses and interpret the tension you may cause as proof that what you are saying is untrue before they even investigate it. So don't tell them, show them some facts. One example I like to do is to show them a replica of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (I bought a replica called Joseph Smith Begins His Work Volume 2). I then use this replica to show them the changes in the revelations, the early document denying polygamy was being practiced when it was, and the early doctrine of the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith, etc. This is tangible evidence they can see for themselves. If you can afford it, you can even give them the replica so they can read it on their own after you leave to avoid them feeling any pressure to respond.

• Stay calm and be respectful: if you lose control of your emotions and become frantic, excited, and aggressive in your tone or choice of words their fight or flight system in their brain will go off and they will no longer listen but will resist, defend, and retaliate. Also, if you tease them about their beliefs or mock their beliefs or leaders etc., they will interpret that as an indirect attack on their intelligence. Instead, no matter how angry, frustrated, and excited you are to dump a load of information on them with accompanying snide remarks restrain yourself; stay calm and be respectful of their emotions, the stage they are in psychologically, and pace yourself. Choose your words carefully, show kindness, and be gentle. Slow down and don't try and cover everything in one sitting. When things get intense, take a break, and come back to it later. Try and end with a hug or show of affection, appreciation, and respect. Take it one step at a time.

• Suggest having the two of you view yourselves as both being investigators on the same team. Create a harmonious relationship, like jurors on the same court trial, or a group of scholars examining the evidence in an attempt to find a common ground, and/or a consensus for an article to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. You might, for example point out that you both can agree that the chair in front of you has four sturdy legs. You both can see it, test it, and agree on it objectively. You are united by your shared reality. But if one of you says the chair is brown and the other says it is black, or if a song comes on the radio and one of you loves the song and the other hates it, you are then divided over subjective emotions and perceptions.

• You should always seek mutual understanding and a win/win outcome. The goal is to help them make a paradigm shift from a subjective to an objective epistemology. You can do this by focusing on your shared reality, joint reasoning abilities, and seeking the truth together. Think of the two of you as being on the same team.

• Use Socratic Dialogue: Socrates attempted to ask a series of questions in a friendly dialogue that encouraged the other person to realize for themselves the truth of reality. Reginald Finley explains that “The Socratic method of argumentation [or dialogue] basically states that we should follow the argument wherever it leads. This method is rather sound in helping raise questions and reveal philosophical contradiction. The purpose, according to Socrates, is not to instruct one’s fellows nor to even persuade them, but to think with them and trust the argument will lead to insight, and in some cases, very unexpected insight. Far too many people argue to convince rather than question themselves on the validity of what they are proclaiming to be true.”

Other things to do during the conversation:

• Build on common beliefs
• Apply appropriate use of loving touch, humor, and wit to connect with the person and build trust and comfort.
• Show empathy
• Listen – Restate – Identify – Validate: listen without interjecting, restate what they say to show you heard them and understand; identify how they feel to show empathy; validate their emotions as you would like done to you.
• Look for nonverbal cues: during the discussion pay close attention to their body language and tone of voice. If they are becoming agitated and combative, bring this up, say “I am sensing that you seem a little uneasy, perhaps we should discuss this another time.” Let them know that you don’t wish to upset them. Try and change the subject and put them in a more relaxed and cordial mood.
• Share positive (similar) experiences or feelings
• Ask questions instead of making statements
• Apply the ideas found in the LDS commitment pattern that missionaries use. This may sound strange coming from an exmormon, but the LDS Church spent several years, and thousands of dollars consulting with the top communication experts in formulating this methodology. I found that it works irregardless of the falsity of the religion promoting it.
• Share personal experiences on how you saw the light.
• Use humor as much as possible.
• Use inclusive language: never say “you” or “your religion.” Instead, say “I” used to believe such and such, and think such and such, but now… etc.
• Repeatedly complement their intelligence, passion, and devotion, but do it sincerely.
• Give love and ask for understanding.

Seek professional help if needed: If you're married and your leaving Mormonism or going inactive is causing friction in your marriage consider seeing a non-Mormon counselor that can be neutral.

See the video below on The Strategic Interaction Approach by Cult expert Steven Alan Hassan:

Below is a summary of the lecture by Hassan:

• Do not make your goal getting them to leave the religion. Make them truly feel that your goal is to empower them to think for themselves and thrive as an individual.
• Treat them with respect and build rapport and trust.
• Use other fanatical-religions and cults as examples. Do not directly attack their religious beliefs. Instead, critique a religious idea they have indirectly by bringing up another religion and hopefully they will see the connection that their religion does the same thing.
• Gather information about other cults and share that information.
• Have them watch these videos: The Milgram Experiment, Asch conformity experiment, and The Zimbardo prison study. [I also recommend Daniel J. Simons basketball video. Tell the Mormon “When viewing the video, try to count the total number of times that the people wearing white pass the basketball. Do not count the passes made by the people wearing black.” After they are done ask how many passes they counted? Then have them watch the video again without counting and see if they spot the person in the guerilla outfit. Point out that this is how so many Mormons are unable to see what is often before their eyes].
• Plant seeds of doubt by asking questions and pausing for them to think about the question, e.g. “so did you ever find out why your friend left the church?” Then pause for a response.
• Ask what would it take to convince them the religion was false? Then use that information to reveal the truth to them.

More quotes:

You can't teach a pig to sing; all you'll do is get frustrated and irritate the pig.

I could be wrong, I often am, so let's examine the facts. – Dale Carnegie.

I’m trying to free your mind…but I can only show you the door. You are the one who has to walk through it – Morpheus, The Matrix.

Exmormon musings on a visit to church

2007-12-19T12:28:00.000-08:00

When I watched several LDS members at a church social interact it kind of made me realize that they were all engaged in the suspension of disbelief; like an audience watching actors in the theater. They were all acting and engaging their imaginations and suspending doubt to keep the whole belief-system going: golden plates, magic rocks, good ol’ polygamy (etc), all unbelievable from an outsider's perspective. So what drives them?

I have come to realize that heck life is tough; life is darn right cruel and indifferent to your needs and desires. Not all of us have the mental muscle and strength and skill to overcome this and rise to heights of excellence. We have to make meaning and see the balance in life. Some of us fall down a lot and like a kid looking for sympathy when he scratches his knee, dogmatic religions are the ultimate buffer, for it cradles you in it's arms and tells you everything is going to be OK. Some people prefer the warmth of the barn to the cold of the forest. Some of us prefer the church corral to the borderless wild.

The church is a safety net, where others living the myth start to live in an alternate universe built on imagination and wishful thinking. They live in a bubble where happy shiny people are trustworthy and nice as long as you live in the same bubble with them and reinforce each other’s fantasies; the bubble is a shield from the "big bad scary world." It is a coping system, comforting like a mother’s breast to a child or a father’s strong arm, an engineered security system. I get a return glimpse of that feeling whenever I return to the Mormon Church after a long absence; a sort of regression to childhood dependence, the feeling of a puppy snuggled into the belly of it's mother before it has matured. The feeling is homey and familiar, yet I know it is manufactured by the mythology, music, ritual, and groupthink. I know it is like the movie The Matrix and it's not real. I also know that while the red pill is at first bitter sweet, you get used to reality. You adapt to the desert of the real and learn to find your way in the woods of uncertainty and bask in the glow of freedom after leaving the corral.

It makes sense to me why even highly intelligent people live in the bubble and why I don’t think less of them when they do, since it is part of human nature to seek comfort and security, especially for one’s children. So this is not to put it down, but to say I understand why so many use it, heck most who live it downright need it.

All in all I actually enjoyed the get together at the Mormon Church, the warm atmosphere, sense of familiarity, the shiny happy people and the friendliness of everyone was a pleasant experience. The experience did make me honestly miss the social environment of a church, any church or social group like it, for we are social animals (mammals to be exact) and whether we get that at a church or a secular group, or from our own family at baseball games and PTA meetings, it is important.

At the same time it actually reminded me how free I am beyond the mental shackles of LDS "put downs." I didn’t realize before just how positive my self-image has become since leaving Mormonism behind. For example, I no longer believe that my natural body is an enemy to God as Mormons believe. There are no demons lifting my penis up when I become aroused. I am a normal ethical human being with natural instincts and a good character. So they can keep the syringe full of dogma they wish to inject you with that poisons one’s self-esteem with self-doubt and self-deprecation; as they curse you with the Mormon meme-machine and name-calling (deeming you unworthy, un-elect, un-endowed) and then offering you the placebo pill of conformity and constant repeating of your "testimony" as the cure to the mental malady they infected you with through indoctrination. I’m not sick from lack of metaphysical absolutism so they can keep their placebo cure when I have reason, science, and self respect as a human being full of integrity.

I don't believe God favors blind obedience and relying on feelings over facts and reason. If there is a deity it must be pleased with those of us who choose to use our brains rather than act like people from the book 1984, since he allowed our species to develop the intelligent brains we have.

I didn’t realize how free I’ve been after being emancipated from the burden of trying to believe in unjustifiable dogmatic assertions and how much I both sympathize with and pity the credulous; and in the same vein I envy them for the fantasias utopia they build for themselves by shutting down their brain and turning up the volume of their inner child and operating solely on emotion and sentimentality; then again, I worry that those who do decide to think outside the bubble of Mormonism will suffer mental conflict, and those who shut down their brain miss out on so many new and wonderful forms of knowledge. It is difficult to grow up and become mature but the rewards are plentiful.

As for me, to live in the land of Oz I would have to literally check my brain at the door of the church. Once you’ve peered behind the curtain to see it's only men running the Mormon Show, reality becomes a part of you that can’t be ignored without a load of denial and intellectual dishonesty. As I like to say, Ignorance isn’t bliss but slavery to denial. Over time the bitter facts of reality, like seeds give rise to the sweet nectar of reason and discovery; as the endorsement of the scientific method and the advancement of knowledge shared by all has the capacity to unite humanity. The bliss of discovery becomes contagious as we walk into the Mystery of Being with courage and integrity, conquering new frontiers with the scientific spirit of Einstein.

Gay Rights and the Mormon Church

2007-12-17T22:47:00.000-08:00

Up until recently the LDS church encouraged gays to marry and withhold their same-sex attraction from their spouse. This has led to damaged relationships and broken LDS families. As a heterosexual male I think gays should not be told to have relationships with heterosexuals in order to go to the Mormon heaven. That is horrible and unethical causing harm to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

I always ask Mormons who have a sister or daughter if they would want a guy who is attracted to the same sex to date their sister or daughter; knowing he could one day “come out of the closet” and pursue a different lifestyle after their sister or daughter is invested in the marriage and kids are involved? The answer is always the same, “no,” and yet these same Mormons are more than willing to say gay men should marry other people’s sisters and daughters regardless of their sexual urges because their god said so.

Why can’t LDS folks who oppose gay rights see that if gays were allowed to marry that not only could it possibly cause there to be less promiscuity in the gay community (as marriage in the U.S. is a monogamous institution) and thus there would be less spreading of STDs -- which would also indirectly affect the heterosexual community -- but it would also allow gays to feel more socially accepted and normal; thus possibly cause some gay people to be less likely to pretend to be straight and date and marry straight men and women in order to fit in and feel accepted, when they’d prefer to be with their same gender.

In this video, former LDS prophet, Mr. Hinkley says "these people" (gays and lesbians) have a "problem," what problem? The Mormon Church used to teach that being gay was a choice with no biological basis. But after finally realizing (or acknowledging) that there are biological explanations they changed their minds, like the following from Psychology Today :

"A [new] study points to a possible biological basis for gaydar. When gay and straight men and women sniff the underarm odors of others—unsullied by deodorants or perfumes—gay men strongly prefer the smell of other gay men, according to researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. Lesbians, as well as straight men and women, find the scents of gay men least appealing" (Psychology Today Magazine, Nov/Dec 2005).

After years of encouraging gays and lesbians to marry since their being gay was said to be a choice that can be overcome by "faith" and "prayer." Now the LDS church's position on the issue of homosexuality is that gays "have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71), and the chuch now says in the October 2007, Ensign: "Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. ... attempts [to do so] have resulted in broken hearts and broken homes." Yet, in the video Hinkley is ready to fix their alleged "problem," at the same time admitting he is not an expert on the subject. One wonders if Hinkley would have wished to also fix the so-called problem of homosexuality in the animal kingdom that is quite common and widespread:

In the February 5, 2007 issue of Time magazine, pg. 54, in the article In defense of Rams who love Rams, we learn that "male sheep exhibit homosexuality at least as often as humans: roughly 8% of rams turn out to have sex exclusively with other rams" and "gay rams have different brain structures from heterosexual ones." Why didn't Hinkley spend his time condemning non-human homosexuality as well? Why not call it a problem? Why isn't the Mormon Church trying to help those animals with same-sex attraction? Usually most humble and sane people aren't so outspoken about that which they know next to nothing about.

Let's get this straight (no pun intended), according to the Mormon Church today, gays are gay by way of natural inclinations given them, I presume, by the Mormon deity. They are not to feel pressured anymore (like they used to in the LDS church) to marry and act heterosexual. So how exactly does the church plan on "fixing" their problem if the Mormon gods made gays with inclinations that run so deep? When the highest rates of teen suicide are among gay males shouldn't a group of elderly white men in Mormon leadership roles in Utah, claimnig to be the mouthpiece of god, be just a little more humble and reserved about trying to fix their "problem" when they are not experts and their own teachings in the Ensign imply gays are made that way! Where is their sense of compassion, how many more people will be emotionally damaged or take their lives in Utah and elsewhere over rigid dogmas manufactured by nonexperts claiming to know the mind of God!

The alternative Mormon leaders offer to being true to your nature if you're gay is to ignore your nature, and be celibate your whole life. This coming from a religion whose founder, Joseph Smtih, had over thirty wives some being teenagers and other men's wives! It amazes me how an organization like the LDS church, with such a huge track record of being wrong over and over again on issues like this, can speak so confidently about this doctrine of bigotry.

The Mormon Church used to preach that blacks were inferior spirits in the pre-existence (in a spirit world before earth life) and that is why they were born with a cursed dark skin and were ineligible to receive the priesthood, or marry in one of the LDS temples until 1978.

The LDS church used to teach that polygamy is a moral practice until the government threatened them and suddenly a “revelation” was recieved ordering the stopping of the practice, but the doctrine has remained the same (see LDS scripture called The Doctrine and Covenants section 132).

American Indians have long been thought of as Jews with cursed dark skin. There was even a Mormon system set up to take in American Indian children and raise them LDS in order to undo the curse of dark skin and change them into white, fair, and delightsome Mormons (see my essay here). Then the DNA evidence came out and now the church is changing their doctrine on the American Inidans from declaring all of them Israelites to we don't know where the Lamanties (Jews cursed by god with dark skin) went; they just disappeared apparently.

Now, after once accusing gays of making an immoral choice to be gay, and even subjecting them to electro shock therapy in the past at BYU, the LDS church is finally listening to the experts and admitting it is not a mere choice, but still insists it is immoral to practice homosexuality.

Over the years thousands of families have been destroyed because of the church pressuring homosexual members of the LDS church to marry someone of the opposite sex, telling them if they pretended to be heterosexual their natural instincts would disappear over time. Now the church realizes that has resulted in, as they put it, "broken hearts and broken homes." So their solution now is for homosexual members of the church to deny their inclinations and be celibate or risk ecclesiastical punishment and banishment from the community. They are saying, "The Mormon god may have made you gay but he hates homosexual practices nonetheless," go figure. This is ironic since the Mormon Church has long criticized the Catholic Church's promotion of celibacy as an unnatural state of being. You would think that the Mormon leadership would be sympathetic to an alternative lifestyle like homosexuality since their ancestors were discriminated against for practicing polygamy, but as usual in Mormonism, dogma usually trumps empathy.

Apparently, just like the government outlawing polygamy led to a policy change, the failure of American Inidans to change their skin color after becoming Mormon and the civil rights movement influencing a revelation to give blacks the priesthood, enough families were destroyed before the leaders of the church changed their tune once again. If this is not proof that Mormonism is man-made I don't know what else could possibly pass for better evidence than this.

The Mormon leader's latest answer to the gay question then? They are simply saying to gay members of the church, "Ok, fine, we were wrong, you didn’t choose to be gay, and we (being seers and revelators) don’t know why you are that way, but don’t be that way anyway. We have to say our god loves you otherwise we look like total ignorant bigots and hate mongers, but we have to retain our high and mighty morality based on hetersexual prejudice, so we must say our god hates the inclinations he gave you. So don’t marry a member of the opposite sex if you don’t think you can be happy, but don’t fall in love with a member of the same sex either, happiness is not an option for you, so just be celibate or you’ll not make it to Mormon heaven." But hey, wait, isn’t that the punishment for those who reject Mormonism in D&C 132: 15-20, eternal celibacy for the damned? So by telling gays to be celibate isn't the Mormon Church telling gays to live the punishment of those who don't make it into the highest Mormon heaven? Wow, and one wonders why the sucide rate in Utah is so high!

Update: After writing the above, in 2008 the Mormon Church encouraged its membership to spend millions of dollars to take away gay people's right to marry. Up to 40% (some say more) of the money that went to the yes on 8 campaign came from the members of the Mormon Church as directed by Mormon leadership. See mormonsstoleourrights.com. This website explains how the Mormon Church funded a campaign of lies in order to scare people to vote yes on prop 8.

In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Mormons claimed that plural marriage was not being practiced by the church and such a practice was wrong. This was official LDS scripture at a time when in fact the LDS church was practicing polygamy in secret. Point is that the Mormon Church has a history of liying to the American public. The Mormon Church not only denied blacks the position of leadership in their church and banned them from their temple endowment rooms, Mormon leaders preached against interracial marriage, and opposed the civil rights movement! Then McConkie comes out after 1978 and says everything the Mormon leaders said was wrong, that new light has come to them. You would think that an organization with such a racist discriminatory past would be careful about who they discriminate against now! But not when bigotry and dogma governs your thinking process.

How do we know that soon "new light" won't one day come to the Mormon leaders like it did in 1978 and they might change their minds about gays like they did with blacks and interracial marriage? If so, why should the Mormon be discriminatory now? Or maybe the church will soon be fighting to take away the rights of couples to marry who are not of the same religion? Maybe one day the Mormon Church will take literally and promote 2 Corinthians 6: 14-17 and interpret that as forbidding atheists, deists, and agnostics (and any other nonreligious person) from marrying a theist! After all, it makes as much sense as trying to forbid gays from marrying.

Is Mitt Romney honest about his religion?

2007-07-08T20:28:00.000-07:00

Mitt Romney recently said, "I must admit I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy" (Source: Mitt Romney, Mormon presidential candidate for the Republican party, Time magazine, page 20, May 18, 2007. Watch a short video clip here. Watch a longer video clip here.

Mormon scripture states in the Doctrine and Covenants section 132: "I [the Mormon Jesus] reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant [of plural marriage, i.e. polygamy]; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory" (vs. 4) … "They [virgin girls given as polygamous wives to the male] are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, … and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified" (vs. 63).

As this last verse explains, polygamy is a divine practice in heaven, and yet Romney considers what "his Lord" demands as "awful." Does he think he will spend eternity in an awful state of existence as a god practicing polygamy? If so, would he want to go to the highest degree of glory in the Mormon heaven where polygamy is a necessary practice? Does he really feel that way, or is he trying to appeal to the American public as someone who won't legalize polygamy if he were president?

Then there is the problem that Mormonism is not like other mainstream religions. For example, in a secret Mormon temple rite Romney has done the following. In a group of fellow Mormons in a private theater-like room Romney stood during his first visit to the temple (and does so every subsequent visit) and did the following:

[a Mormon director said,] "All arise. (All patrons stand [including Romney].) Each of you bring your right arm to the square."

"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in this, (The Officiator holds up a copy of the [Mormon] Doctrine and Covenants again.), the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth [Mormonism] and for the establishment of Zion [the future Mormon Kingdom]."

"Each of you bow your head and say 'yes."

PATRONS [including Romney]: "Yes."

[Officator]: "That will do." (All patrons sit down.)

Source. For more information on the LDS temple ceremony and actual audio see www.lds-temple.org.

I will leave it to my reader to put two and two together here linking Romney's swearing cult-like allegiance to building up Mormonism with ALL his time, talent, and earthly blessings and what that would mean if he were to become U.S. President.

On the Charlie Rose show Romney is confronted with the Mormon doctrine that Jesus will return to Missouri and his God was fathered by another God; to watch the entire interview click here. After calling a core Mormon doctrine (polygamy) awful in front of Mike Wallace Romney said to the interviewer on the Charlie Rose show that she didn't get those doctrines right when she said his god has a material body; but his own scripture states that "God has a body of flesh and bone" (D&C 130: 22). Every Mormon knows this! And if one studies the Mormon scriptures (the Doctrine and Covenants) they will learn that Missouri is in fact exactly where Jesus will allegedly return to earth, see here for evidence.

Romney was a high up leader in the LDS church, so there's no way he didn't know this. It would be like an interviewer saying to Billy Graham, "don't you believe Jesus rose from the dead and also believe in one God," and Graham saying to the interviewer that they didn't get those doctrines right.

In the video clip here, put together by some Evangelical Christians, they demonstrate that when Romney says the interviewer didn't get the doctrine right, she in fact did get it right and they spend over a half hour showing that is exactly what Mormon doctrine says.

Ok, maybe I'm being too harsh on Romney and being to nit picky? Maybe he misunderstood the questions. But if that were the case why do we have him in this clip here stating again that Mormons believe that Jesus will return to Jerusalem rather than Missouri when that clearly isn't the case!?

Look, what we have here is a clear pattern of deception. He is more than just dodging the questions, that I could accept as most politicians do this. But to deny and lie about what you know to be true is unethical. Perhaps he is embarrassed by Mormon doctrines, or he thinks he will lose votes if he is honest and forthcoming, which I can understand. But if he really believes Mormonism is true then he believes that it is the "spirit" that will convict of its truthfulness. Therefore, he should be honest and forthcoming unafraid of losing votes for he, as a Mormon, should believe the spirit will witness to the public that God is an exalted man fathered by another God, Jesus is going to fly down from the sky and land in Missouri rather than Jerusalem, and polygamy is an eternal doctrine.

So why isn't Romney honest and forthcoming about his beliefs? Perhaps Romney has been taking lessons from this guy.

Let me make one thing clear, I am not anti-Mormon; some of my friends and family are Mormon. This is about telling the truth. I am a former Mormon missionary so I know the tactics the church uses to withhold information and not offer full-disclosure. I am not protesting a Mormon candidate for president, I am protesting deception and hiding the truth.

For more videos on Romney see here. If you would like to learn more about Mormonism see my website here.

Videos of how Smith actually created his Book of Mormon

2007-05-30T15:00:00.000-07:00

The following video clips shed further light on the subject of Smith's use of a seer stone in a hat rather than any gold plates in front of him to translate.

Top 10 Reasons I'm happier now as a non-Mormon

2006-12-13T10:52:00.000-08:00

10. Instead of giving 10% of my income to the LDS church that is used to build highly expensive buildings where imaginary dead people are dunked in H-2-O -- and everyone gets together and chants giving secret handshakes -- I give my money to those who really need it like to a charity. Helping others in need instead of playing make-believe makes me happy.

9. I’m no longer allowing myself to be indoctrinated while singing songs like "praise to the man."

8. I no longer feel like I’m better than everyone else when I walk into a room. I no longer engage in polarized thinking, “us Mormons vs. the World.” I feel more at one with humanity and interconnected to all of life. I'm less judgmental, more accepting of others, more tolerant, and free!

7. I think like a grown up and I never could get myself to engage in childish dependency void of individualism, looking with star-struck eyes to the commands of an 80 year old man in Utah whom I’ve never met before; who I’m supposed to have tell me what to think and do in life. I now think freely reading any kind of book I want. I'm free to form my own philosophies based on research and reason. I have the joy of thinking for myself.

6. I can look forward to having a normal wedding without wearing a ridiculous hat and green apron in front of my wife-to-be trying not to laugh because you both look like a “baker” for Halloween. I can actually look normal and all of our non-Mormon friends and family can participate in the wedding instead of rejecting them. Families can bring joy so why segregate them?

5. I no longer have to keep shoving my doubts in the back of my head but can embrace the evidence, the truth, and reality without fear. I can free my mind!

4. I can now actually be myself and not feel like a Mormon might be nearby asking to make sure I’m behaving as a proper Mormon i.e. “are you wearing your garments brother so and so?”

3. I can have a cup of coffee, a glass of tea, or a beer in moderation (1 Tim. 5:23) if I want to without fear God will destroy me since “wine maketh glad the heart of man” (Psalm 104:15; Eccl. 10:19); after all didn’t Jehovah himself even command one group to drink wine in the Bible (see Jeremiah 35:1-2)? I have the freedom to drink responsibly if I so choose.

2. I am free of the herd mentality at church, where critical thinking and truly open discussion is socially forbidden; as you are to go and graze with the herd only reinforcing the groupthink. I am like a prisoner set free.

1. And the number one reason I’m happy out of Mormonism is I don't have to wear secret-underwear anymore. Free of those superstitious long johns from the 19th century I can be normal, and wear black or blue boxers if I want, and not be embarrassed to get dressed in the Gym in fear of others seeing the Masonic markings stitched on my chest. I don’t have to be afraid of going to the Terrestrial Kingdom because someone accidentally saw my Holy Undies. I avoid sweating profusely unnecessarily from wearing superstitious magic underwear in the summer. Now I only wear one T-shirt in the summer like a normal person.

My Psychological Journey in Brief

2006-12-13T10:06:00.000-08:00

I went from thinking:

I’m afraid to leave.
I want to be a Mormon for sociocultural reasons.
I have to be Mormon, it’s all I know.
I don’t know where else to go for social support?
I ought to out of loyalty to family and friends; it’s tradition!

To eventually saying to myself:

I can’t imagine remaining in the LDS church.
I feel so free to learn new things and meet new people.
There are so many other social opportunities.
True friends and family will accept me and my resignation.

Where did the Mormon Gods come from?

2006-11-07T20:25:00.000-08:00

Do Mormons believe in a first Creator God of all things? Is there a First Cause that caused all other beings to come into existence?

In the Mormon hymnal called If you could hie to Kolob (pg. 284) it reads, “If you could hie to kolob in a twinkling of an eye, And then continue onward with that same speed to fly… [you'd]... find the generation where the gods began to be?” Huh? A generation is all of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor. So the Mormon chain of procreating gods goes back to a single source? Is this Originator personal or impersonal? male or female? Mormons have no answer. This sounds like the Hindu concept of Brahman that is the source of all the gods and "is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all things in this universe" (Wikipedia.com). Is this LDS doctrine? But wait, the LDS prophet Brigham Young said that “there never was a time when there were not Gods…” (See Journal of Discourses 7:333). So which is it, a Brahman-like orginal source or an infinite regress? Brigham Young's remark reminds me of the story of an old woman who insists that the world is carried around on the back of a giant turtle. So a reasonable young man asked, "Well, what is that turtle standing on?" And the woman retorted, "Oh no, you can't trick me young man! It's turtles all the way down!"

Where did the Mormon Gods come from? There appears to be contradictory doctrines in Mormonism; and maybe, just maybe Joseph Smith made it up?

Who do I pray to anyway?

2006-11-07T20:00:00.000-08:00

In Mormonism there is a Heavenly Mother who gave brith to your spirit body that clothes your soul or your "Intellegence" that always existed. In Mormonism your eternal Intelligence, soul, or spirit-element is eternal and uncreated (D&C 93:21-23), and your heavenly parents merely organized both a spirit body and then an earthly body for your soul or Intelligence to inhabit (click here for more details).

Apparently your soul or Intelligence was just floating around in outerspace like sperm without a home. The Mormon Father deity named merely organized your mortal body from dust and eternal matter like an artist forming clay. But the Goddess Mother created your spirit body (gave birth to it anyway) so then shouldn't she be worshipped and adored the same if not more than the exalted man called Heavenly Father?

Mormons essentially ignore their Heavenly Mother in their worship services. Would you move to another country and only write letters to your Dad? The church teaches to believe in Heavenly Parents but publically only one is mentioned. Mom and Dad in heaven together make up the concept of "God" in Mormonism because both the Father and the unnamed Heavenly Mother "are Gods" (see D&C 132). So to worship God and pray to “God” in Mormondom is to pray to your Heavenly Parents, and this should include the Heavenly Mother.

Mormons should really pray, “Dear Heavenly Father, and my kind sweet Heavenly Mother ... Thanks for the body Dad, and Mom thanks for bearing my spirit to clothe my soul that always existed in space, and to both of you thanks for choosing my intelligence (or soul) that was just floating around out there in space … and to Joseph Smith, please give me your consent as you reign as a supreme being over my judgment... Oh and to all the holy Gods scattered throughout eternity, oh great, great, great, great, great, great, Grandpa and Grandma Gods, thanks for organizing my Heavenly Fathers and Mothers, and thanks to all the Gods; and whoever was the first God thanks for coming up with the idea of eternal procreation. Oh, and where did you come from, and what is my Heavenly Mother's name anyway?”

Milk before the Meat

2006-11-07T19:55:00.000-08:00

Before I resigned I was trying to be a New Order Mormon and I remember going over in my head all the positive things about Mormonism but then I said to myself, “that may all be true, but I believe in full disclosure. A real estate agent must fully disclose all the problems with the home; if there’s a leak you should report it. In the Mormon religion they do the opposite. They give you the ‘milk’ instead of the ‘meat’ as they say. They leave out the seed of Cain doctrine, Joseph Smith practicing polygamy, Freemasonry used to create the temple endowment, the legendary development of the First Vision versions, and the temple penalties, garments, secret oaths, etc, etc. After you’ve invested some time, money, and made friends and got comfortable then you find out about all this stuff when you first join the church, and usually by accident.” I realized the church must be dishonest by omitting these things because otherwise it would be obvious it wasn’t what it claimed to be, and no matter how much good the church does it does not make up for its deceptive practices.

Birds in a Cage

2006-11-06T14:00:00.000-08:00

I have many LDS friends and family who are like wild birds who over the years have slowly adapted to being caged by the church. When wild birds are first put in a cage they fly against the bars and seek to escape anytime the door is open for any reason. The older birds sit in the cage even when left with a chance to escape. Leaving the Mormon Church in my mid 20s (around 2001) after growing up in the church was easier to escape, i.e. it wasn’t as traumatic as someone born in the church that must face the truth at the age of forty with a wife and kids. I feel sorry for Mormons who are stuck in the cage and have lost interest in freedom. It reminds me of the movie Shawshank Redemption, in one scene an old man who has been in prison his whole life is finally set free but he doesn't know what to do with himself and becomes depressed and takes his life. Later in the movie the character Red is set free and has a hard time adjusting to life outside prison as well. He struggles with things like not having to ask permission to go the bathroom. On the way home one day he says to himself, "There is a harsh truth to face. No way I'm gonna make it on the outside. [pausing at a pawnshop window staring at an array of handguns]. All I do anymore is think of ways to break my parole. Terrible thing, to live in fear... All I want is to be back where things make sense. Where I won't have to be afraid all the time." But he finds hope in meeting up with his friend Andy who escaped prison. Many Mormons feel the same way as Red when they abandon the structure of Mormon life. They are truly in prison and many times are afraid to be freethinkers. Their minds are clouded by religious dogma and social pressures. They are not free to entertain doubts that leads to healthy questions that leads to discovery and awakening. Instead, they are prisoners to their fear and ignorance as they have been conditioned to feel terror at the mere sight of a book written by a critic of Mormonism.