Es Pura Mentira

Salvation For Satan?

2009-03-07T22:36:00.000-06:00

I have been discussing the idea of salvation by faith and not by works a lot lately. It seems that each time the topic comes up, a LDS person has to ask, “If all I have to do it believe, why then are the demons and Satan not saved when the Bible says that they believe in God?” I think this is such a strange question for them to ask. Let’s take a look at it and answer it from the LDS perspective.

From the LDS point of view, you don’t really even have to get into the discussion of Faith vs. Works. The answer is very simple. They (demons and Satan) are actually not eligible for salvations no matter what they do.

In the Pearl of Great Price you will find the Mormon account of our “pre-mortal” existence. It tells of a grand council in Heaven before the world was created. At this meeting, two plans were presented to God. The first was from Satan who had a plan that provided a way for everyone to be redeemed and not one soul would be lost. The cost of his plan would be our agency to choose for ourselves and he would take all of the glory for himself. The other plan was from Jesus who offered himself as a savior, leaving our agency intact and giving the glory to Heavenly Father.

God chose Jesus’ plan and Satan rebelled, becoming the devil and a war started. Satan managed to lead 1/3 of the host of heaven away from God and they were all cast out of heaven, becoming demons. Once they were cast out, they lost what is called their “first estate”. In the October 2006 General Conference, Elder L. Tom Perry said the following about the first estate.

“We first heard about the plan of salvation before we were born, in what the scriptures call our first estate (see Abraham 3:26). What occurred in this first estate is dimly understood, but we do know that we lived there as spirits, children of our Heavenly Father, and we made certain steps of advancement to prepare for the opportunity of housing our eternal spirits in earthly bodies.”

He goes on to say,

“We lived as spirit children of our Father in Heaven before we were born on this earth. We were not, however, like our Heavenly Father, nor could we ever become like Him and enjoy all the blessings that He enjoys without the experience of living in mortality with a physical body.”

As Elder Perry pointed out, those who have been or will be born on this earth kept their “first estate”. Once Satan and his followers were cast out of heaven, they lost their “first estate” and they were no longer able to be born into a physical body and learn to be like God. No amount of works or faith can change their eternal fate and they will never experience salvation.

If this is the Mormon answer to the question and under their own doctrine, such salvation is not possible for Satan and his demons, why then even ask it? By asking it, they unwittingly poke a hole in their own argument of why “faith alone” is not true because their alternative is not a possible solution.

Do Satan and his demons believe in God? They certainly do. They are part of the unseen spiritual realm which I think has access to both the spiritual world and ours which is something hard for us to comprehend because we only have visual access to our world (with very few exceptions). I imagine this takes them out of the faith category and puts them into the knowledge one. They KNOW who Jesus is and that is why they fight so hard against what God is doing for and through His people. Unfortunately for them, Jesus came to save the human race and they are not part of that.

I have heard it said that Satan cannot be saved because he will never submit himself to God’s will which is part of being “born again”. Knowing what I do about his character and goal, I would say that this statement makes perfect sense to me.

Grace and Salvation

2009-02-09T12:40:00.000-06:00

I have been looking into the topic of Grace and the roll it plays in salvation lately and have spent some time in my mind contrasting the Mormon view with that of the Christians. I’m going to try to put my thoughts on paper here the best I can about this subject. Let’s start by quoting a 2001 Mormon General Conference talk. Keep in mind the highlighted section when reading the story of the school boy and see if you can find the contradiction.

"I am profoundly grateful for the principle of saving grace. Many people think they need only confess that Jesus is the Christ and then they are saved by grace alone. We cannot be saved by grace alone, “for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”

Some years ago, President Gordon B. Hinckley told “something of a parable” about “a one room school house in the mountains of Virginia where the boys were so rough no teacher had been able to handle them.

“Then one day an inexperienced young teacher applied. He was told that every teacher had received an awful beating, but the teacher accepted the risk. The first day of school the teacher asked the boys to establish their own rules and the penalty for breaking the rules. The class came up with 10 rules, which were written on the blackboard. Then the teacher asked, ‘What shall we do with one who breaks the rules?’

“ ‘Beat him across the back ten times without his coat on,’ came the response.

“A day or so later, … the lunch of a big student, named Tom, was stolen. ‘The thief was located—a little hungry fellow, about ten years old.’

“As Little Jim came up to take his licking, he pleaded to keep his coat on. ‘Take your coat off,’ the teacher said. ‘You helped make the rules!’

“The boy took off the coat. He had no shirt and revealed a bony little crippled body. As the teacher hesitated with the rod, Big Tom jumped to his feet and volunteered to take the boy’s licking.

“ ‘Very well, there is a certain law that one can become a substitute for another. Are you all agreed?’ the teacher asked.

“After five strokes across Tom’s back, the rod broke. The class was sobbing. ‘Little Jim had reached up and caught Tom with both arms around his neck. “Tom, I’m sorry that I stole your lunch, but I was awful hungry. Tom, I will love you till I die for taking my licking for me! Yes, I will love you forever!”
"James E. Faust, “The Atonement: Our Greatest Hope,” Ensign, Nov 2001, 18)

The first part of the quote establishes the LDS view on salvation and the roll grace plays in it. He chooses to quote 2 Nephi 25:23 that says, “For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”

Notice the end of the story. Tom, who is obviously a representation of Christ, volunteered to take the punishment for the small boy. The boy did nothing to deserve this intercession but Tom gave it willingly despite the wrong done by the boy. There was no works involved, no “after all we can do”. Instead, the only thing the small boy did was acknowledge (after the punishment has been handed out) he sinned and proclaim his love and gratitude for Tom and what he did for him forever.

This story seems to line up more with the Christian view

Romans 10:9-10

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Foust goes on the quote another Mormon leader by saying…

With reference to our mortal acts and the Atonement, President J. Reuben Clark Jr. contributed this valuable insight when he said:

“I feel that [the Savior] will give that punishment which is the very least that our transgression will justify. I believe that he will bring into his justice all of the infinite love and blessing and mercy and kindness and understanding which he has. …

“And on the other hand, I believe that when it comes to making the rewards for our good conduct, he will give us the maximum that it is possible to give, having in mind the offense which we have committed.”

If the above statement is true, then there is no hope for salvation as a member of the Mormon church. It is a LDS belief that “no unclean thing can dwell with God”. If that is true, and the power of grace does not kick in until you have done “all that you can do”, then where is your hope? Can you ever really say that you have exhausted all of your resources and done absolutely everything in your power to live the “law” and be perfect (sinless)? If your answer to this is no, then it is my hope that you will see the freedom and peace Christ offers everyone in the Bible. Paul sums it up so well in the following versus.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 5:8

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 10:13

for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Christ often speaks of the folly found in trying to keep the law as a way to gain salvation. It is not found in the law, but in a sincere belief in Him who died for us even though we can do nothing to deserve or re-pay such a gift.

In the 29 years I spent in the Mormon church, there was never peace in my life. No amount of work or effort was ever enough. Instead of encouragement, reprimand and threats of Satan’s power to control were often given as motivation to do more.

Does Christ want us to be good, moral, and righteous people? Of course He does. The question that begs to be asked then is; are we striving to do and be those things by trying to live by the law and be sin free? Or, are we alive in Christ and because we recognize the grace given to us once we believe on His name, there is nothing we can do to earn or deserve what has been already given to us?

The idea that we can in some way, earn part of our own salvation diminishes the sacrifice made on the cross and limits the power God has to save us.

I see the following verses as Christ's direct words to people who put too much emphasis on the law like Mormons and many other legalistic religions.

Matthew 11:28-30

28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Tithing and Paid Clergy

2009-01-20T01:13:00.000-06:00

While serving a LDS mission in Barcelona, Spain; I had the chance to speak with thousands of people concerning the LDS church. I am regularly reminded of things we would focus on and teach. I don’t remember this actually being in the discussions taught to potential converts but one of the things we would make sure to mention is that the LDS church does not have a paid clergy and that it is run by an all voluntary group of men and women. I normally would not have a problem with this but there are a few things that have stuck out in my mind that now make me wonder why it is set up this way.

I have been attending a non-denominational church with my wife and I am amazed at the depth and quality of teaching they do there. They explain and teach with such clarity. Each sermon or lesson is firmly rooted in multiple scriptures which are often explained using the original Hebrew or Greek text to help ensure that the correct connotation of key words are understood. Listening and taking in this information has been amazing. Here is where I am going with this. In the LDS church, every Sunday is like “open mic” night, where amateur speakers are given 5-20 minutes to teach. Some take this very seriously and spend a good amount of time preparing but a large percentage of those asked to speak probably spend only a few hours on their talk at best. The problem with this is that there is no real depth and quality of teaching which leads to members who are not fed spiritually. There also is no quality control so the person selected that Sunday could slip in many opinions or bad interpretations of scripture and doctrine. I think this is part of the reason it is practically impossible to pin down Mormon doctrine. 100+ years of “un-official” teaching will do that. If you look back on the past 5-10 years of General Conference where the prophet and apostles speak, you will see the same basic teachings time and time again. No depth, no substance, just the same lifeless words taught just 6 months before. Why is that? Should the “true church” be able to give their members more? I certainly think so and I would expect them to.

The other thing is part of the temple endowment ceremony (before 1990 when it was removed). I think I have talked about this before but it applies here so I will just mention it again. In the endowment, Satan paid a “sectarian minister” to lead away those looking for God by using false teachings and doctrine. Why put that image and idea into every stalwart LDS member who went to the temple? What was the purpose of that? (You can read the actuall transcript by going to my "temple" section and reading about the changes made over the years.)

With those things in mind, let’s take a look at the following verses from the Bible paying special attention to verse 4.

2 Cronicles 31:2-12

2 Hezekiah assigned the priests and Levites to divisions—each of them according to their duties as priests or Levites—to offer burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, [a] to minister, to give thanks and to sing praises at the gates of the LORD's dwelling. 3 The king contributed from his own possessions for the morning and evening burnt offerings and for the burnt offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moons and appointed feasts as written in the Law of the LORD.

4 He ordered the people living in Jerusalem to give the portion due the priests and Levites so they could devote themselves to the Law of the LORD.

5 As soon as the order went out, the Israelites generously gave the firstfruits of their grain, new wine, oil and honey and all that the fields produced. They brought a great amount, a tithe of everything. 6 The men of Israel and Judah who lived in the towns of Judah also brought a tithe of their herds and flocks and a tithe of the holy things dedicated to the LORD their God, and they piled them in heaps. 7 They began doing this in the third month and finished in the seventh month. 8 When Hezekiah and his officials came and saw the heaps, they praised the LORD and blessed his people Israel.
9 Hezekiah asked the priests and Levites about the heaps; 10 and Azariah the chief priest, from the family of Zadok, answered, "Since the people began to bring their contributions to the temple of the LORD, we have had enough to eat and plenty to spare, because the LORD has blessed his people, and this great amount is left over."
11 Hezekiah gave orders to prepare storerooms in the temple of the LORD, and this was done. 12 Then they faithfully brought in the contributions, tithes and dedicated gifts.

So, those who lived in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas brought their tithes, which included many different things to the priests and Levites so they could divide it amongst themselves so they could devote themselves to the Law of the LORD.

I find this interesting because they were told to take the tithes given by the people and use it so that they would not have to worry about those basic needs and be able to devote the greater majority of their time studying, teaching and administering the Law of the Lord. This is exactly what churches with paid clergy do with the tithes and offerings they bring in and the amount of preparation and care given to those they pastor can be easily seen.

Why then do Mormons not do the same thing? Interestingly enough, they used to.

D&C 42:71-73

71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families asupported out of the property which is bconsecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;
72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.
73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

I have not been able to find when and why this changed but it appears that for many years the LDS church did the same thing that they later taught was an abomination in their temple. I will keep looking to see if I can find anything authoritative on why this change happened and post it if I find it.

I don’t think that this is a huge issue personally except for the fact that the members of the LDS church are not getting fed in the way they could or should be and that is a shame. I merely bring it up as another example of where the LDS church strays from the Bible and short changes its faithful tithe payers in the process. Those who have grown up LDS unfortunately have no idea what kind of understanding and knowledge they are missing.

Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

2009-01-14T12:29:00.000-06:00

It seems like I keep reading about fruits and vines lately so I thought I would post something that came to my mind this morning. I think everyone knows the phrase, “by their fruits you will know them”. It is a very common phrase in the LDS church and other religious circles. It is something that is used in both a positive and a negative context and can often be self serving as I'm sure some will say that about what I am going to say.

While reading the following passage I had a moment of clarity which is happening more often.

Matthew 7:15-20

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

17Likewise EVERY good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree CANNOT bear bad fruit, and a bad tree CANNOT bear good fruit.

19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

I’d like to focus some attention on verses 17 and 18. I added some emphasis to highlight some key words. If we are to believe these verses, then I think all would agree on the basic premise that good tree = good fruit and bad tree = bad fruit.

The question I had was; where does the tree get its nourishment? The food it eats is in the soil where it is planted and the roots are what not only anchors the tree but feeds it. Following basic logic, if the food in the soil is not good or sufficient then the tree will be weak and lacking in the ability to produce fruit at all since all of its energy must be spent in just staying alive. If the roots stay at the surface and do not go deep into the soil then it will be vulnerable when droughts, storms and other problems come, which is inevitable.

Understanding this we can also conclude that…

Good food+deep roots = strong tree & good fruit
Bad food+shallow roots = weak tree & bad fruit or no fruit at all

Why am I taking my time to explain this? Because I think it has a direct relationship to Mormonism. I don’t think it is a coincidence that Jesus, in the same breath, warns us about false prophets and then tells us how to discern who they are. I have spent almost a year now talking about the Mormon tree’s roots, what it eats, and the fruit it ultimately bears. I have had people ask me in the past, and I think I even blogged about it once, what were some good things in the LDS church? I used to try to find a few “good fruits” but have come to understand that it is incapable of bringing forth good fruits because the food it eats (doctrine, teachings and rituals) contain poison that cripples it. It is further damaged by its roots (history) that are rotten and now only remain on the surface to try to survive.

Again talking about fruit, Matthew 12:33-37 says:

33"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.

34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.

35The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.

36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

I know that Mormons look to their leaders, past as present, with adoration and honor but this can only be because they do not know what their past really looked like and who these men were and are still today. It is my hope that some will be filled with enough curiosity to look for themselves at what their church is really founded on and what kind of soil they are taking their “nourishment” from.

“Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks”. I can only imagine how black and diseased the hearts of the LDS prophets are to have started and now continue a church founded on false doctrine and deceit. One day, those who aided in the proliferation of the Mormon church will have to give an account of the things they said and did. This blog is my attempt to undo the part I played in "spreading the gospel" so I will not be condemned by my words while I was LDS.

I cannot say enough how glad I am to be free from that toxic religion. While my tree is not yet fully healed from years of malnourishment, it is starting to become stronger and the roots are searching deeper into rich soil to find living water.

Happy Birthday to Jesus!

2008-12-24T11:44:00.000-06:00

I think it is common knowledge that Jesus was not actually born on December 25th. I took a few minutes yesterday to see what some of the opinions are as to when he was actually born. It was no surprise that every opinion I read was different and they all made it very clear that there is no way to pinpoint the actual date. Some said it could have been in September while others came to the conclusion that November was a more realistic time. Others believe it was in the Spring during the time of new birth and life.

That brings me to the Mormon belief about the birth of Jesus. Under the claim of modern revelation, they know the exact day/month/year of the nativity.

In a message from the First Presidency, the head of the LDS church, the following was said…

April is truly a historic month in which we commemorate two of the most important events in the history of mankind: the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and the reestablishment of his church and kingdom here upon the earth in these, the latter days. Members of the Church also believe that Christ was born on April 6 in the year 1 b.c. (See D&C 20:1.)
N. Eldon Tanner, “Resurrection and Restoration,” Ensign, Apr 1971, 2

The verse they reference is part of a revelation telling Joseph Smith when to organize and start the church. It reads as follows…

THE rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April—

There have been some Mormon apostles that have said that we can’t know for sure but I could not find any instance where that was said in an official publication put out by the church like the Ensign. In fact, in the book Jesus the Christ by Elder James E. Talmage, the April 6th date is again confirmed. I mention this book because it was, and probably still is, one of the only books LDS missionaries are allowed to read while on their mission. To me that says something and is an obvious endorsement by the LDS church.

I don’t consider this to be a big issue with Mormonism but it is just another interesting piece of information.

Merry Christmas to you all! I hope your holiday is filled with JOY, PEACE, and HAPPINESS!

Endowment = Gift...Really?

2008-12-23T13:20:00.000-06:00

I was on LDS.org the other day looking for information on the temples when I ran into this quote.

“One ordinance received in the temple is called the endowment. The word endowment means "gift," and the temple endowment truly is a gift from God.”

Now, I have heard this a million times before but I have come to know that Mormons like to make up their own meaning to words so I decided to actually check to see what the real definition of endowment was and here is what I found.

Webster defines it as…

Endowment:
1: the act or process of endowing
2: something that is endowed ; specifically : the part of an institution's income derived from donations
3: natural capacity, power, or ability (a person of great intellectual endowment)

Endow or Endowing:

1: to furnish with an income ; especially : to make a grant of money providing for the continuing support or maintenance of (endow a hospital)
2: to furnish with a dower
3: to provide with something freely or naturally

The thesaurus gave me this information…

a special and usually inborn ability (it's a sin to waste one's God-given endowments)— see TALENT

Dictonary.com gave me the following…

Endowment

Assets, funds, or property donated to an institution, individual, or group as a source of income.

I looked at 3 other sources and they all said the same things. The only time an endowment was referred to anything even close to a gift it had to do with either in-born talents or monetary gifts given to an organization such as a charity, hospital or church.

So, Mormons refer to the endowment as a “gift” but who is giving to whom? In order to be found worthy to enter the temple, you must be a full tithe payer meaning that you have to give 10% of your gross income to the church. That sounds like an endowment to me but the church is on the receiving end and not the members.

Now, the LDS church is not the only church to promote paying tithes but it is one of the only ones I know of that has it as a requirement for salvation. Salvation can not be achieved in the Mormon church unless you have been to the temple to receive your endowment and be married/sealed.

No tithing = No temple = No salvation

I wonder if there are definitions to other words they just make up to suit their own needs and give members warm, fuzzy, feelings.

Mormon Temple Prayer List

2008-12-22T15:01:00.000-06:00

Last week I found out the members of my family were putting my family’s names on the LDS temple prayer list. Due to some interesting circumstances, I felt compelled to send them all an email requesting that they refrain from doing that again. Below is the letter I sent them today...

Dear Family,

It has come to my attention that some people have been putting our family’s names on the LDS temple prayer list. While I’m sure it was done with good intentions, I must request that the religious wishes of our family be respected. In no way do we agree with the teachings and doctrines found in Mormonism including the need for prophets today or temples. When Christ died on the cross, the Bible says that the veil in the temple was rent from top to bottom and the temple was destroyed. Then in Acts 17 we read that “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands”.

In the temple endowment, when Adam prays at the alter he made after being removed from the Garden of Eden, His prayer is answered but not by God. He prays, “Oh God hear the words of my mouth.” but Satan is the one who answers him stating that he is the God of this world. Later in the session, that same prayer is repeated at an alter in the endowment room and then those names who are put on the prayer list are placed on the alter and prayed for. It is my opinion that, just as it is in the movie, that prayer is answered by the wrong person. God does not dwell there and there is very little justification for modern temple worship unless it comes from the self serving mouths of LDS prophets. Hebrews 1:1-2 teaches us that God, in the last days, speaks to us by his Son and that Christ was the last prophet.

(KJV)
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

(NIV)
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

The prophets of the Old Testament spoke of Him and He is the last word. After his death he sent his disciples out to preach His gospel and none other. (Galatians 1:9) The apostles preached endlessly about watching out for false prophets and I am beginning to see why.

It is for these reasons and many more that we do not support or sustain the doctrines of Mormonism. It is our wish that our names be kept off of the temple prayer lists and we trust that this request will be honored.

Peace be unto you this Christmas!

"Cross" Checking Mormon Policy With the Bible

2008-12-09T00:59:00.000-06:00

Below is a direct quote from lds.org discussing their view of the use of the cross as a religious symbol.

The cross is used in many Christian churches as a symbol of the Savior's death and Resurrection and as a sincere expression of faith. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we also remember with reverence the suffering of the Savior. But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith.

Our lives must be the expression of our faith. When we are baptized and confirmed, we covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. The way we live our lives should demonstrate our love for the Savior and His work.

The only members of the Church who wear the symbol of the cross are Latter-day Saint chaplains, who wear it on their military uniforms to show that they are Christian chaplains.

In the article “The Symbol of Our Faith,” (Ensign, Apr 2005) Gordon B. Hinckley spoke of a conversation he had with a Protestant minister. Through the course of this conversation he said…

“I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

And so, because our Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith. But what shall we use? No sign, no work of art, no representation of form is adequate to express the glory and the wonder of the Living Christ. He told us what that symbol should be when He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

As His followers, we cannot do a mean or shoddy or ungracious thing without tarnishing His image. Nor can we do a good and gracious and generous act without burnishing more brightly the symbol of Him whose name we have taken upon ourselves. And so our lives must become a meaningful expression, the symbol of our declaration of our testimony of the Living Christ, the Eternal Son of the Living God.”

So, Mormons believe that the cross is a symbol of Christ’s death and they believe that the focus should be on the resurrection. What is interesting is that Hinckley apparently was not well versed on his own website or their view on the topic has been changed since the official statement claims that Christian churches look at the cross as a symbol of both the death and resurrection which appears to take away his justification for not using it. Hinckley and other LDS members seem to have defined the cross for those who actually use it as an emblem of their faith instead of letting them define for themselves what it represents.

For Mormons to say that it is only a symbol of the “dying Christ” is a pretty short sighted and shallow way of looking at it. In my time studying about Christianity, I have learned that Christians think so much more of it then just the Savior’s death. To them it is about His sacrifice for our sins which was completed on the cross when Jesus said “It is finished.” It is about the victory over Satan and the ability to be cleansed by the blood Christ shed. It also marked the end of the need for blood sacrifice under the Law of Moses, bringing to an end such things.

To me, without the cross and what happened there, the resurrection would not matter so to ignore the cross to celebrate the resurrection is looking beyond the mark. It is like watching the end of a movie but missing how you got there and what makes it such a powerful conclusion to the story.

Many see the cross as the ultimate sign of love, a pure love that is so immense and complex that it could only come from God. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

I am always surprised to see the reaction of the Mormons I come in contact with when they see the cross necklace my wife wears. They act so shocked that she would even think of wearing such a thing. Any Mormon that judges someone for wearing a cross or other religious symbol needs to look in the mirror at night. You wear a religious symbol every day when you put on your temple garments as a reminder of your beliefs and commitments. The cross serves a similar purpose for those that choose to use it.

I will leave you with one last passage from the Bible that talks about the importance of the cross.

1 Cor 1:17-18 (KJV)

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

(NIV)
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I remember it too well...

2008-12-08T13:45:00.000-06:00

So, I was looking for a video I had seen before regarding another topic when I ran into these. They give an accurate accounting of what missionaries teach on a day to day basis. I remember to well what it was like trying to convince people that what the LDS church believed was right. I recall wincing when some of the more obscure topics would come up. I don't envy those poor boys.

I wish I would have been approached like this because I think I would have seen the light sooner and made my exit long before I did. I am impressed at the way this man talked with these missionaries. He was polite, listened and in a calm way danced circles around them. At some point I want to be able to handle myself that way but I doubt I would be that composed.

Anyways, take a look and let me know what you think. If nothing else, it is fun to listen to their New Zealand accents.

Shackled by the Very Religion That Promises Freedom

2008-11-24T13:07:00.000-06:00

I have had a good couple of months off from blogging so I’m not sure how many people will come read my blog now but that’s ok with me. To be honest, I have not had much of a desire to dig up old Mormon crap anymore so I took a step back to clear my mind. I think I’m done with the grieving process and really could care less about my past in Mormonism.

I now find myself feeling sorry for those that sacrifice happiness today for what they think will bring them “Eternal Life” when they die. It is my belief that they will be sorely disappointed when then they pass from this life to the next when they see how much more they could have enjoyed life living for today instead of what "could be" tomorrow. Many live miserable lives, shackled by the very religion that promises freedom. Blinded by the rhetoric spewed from the mouths of their leaders, they cannot see what they are missing in the world around them and do not realize that they hold the key to unlock the shackles that bind them.

For those willing to take off the blindfold for even a few moments and look outside of the prison window, a new world is opened to them. Light shines on their faces, bringing them warmth and comfort. The key glistens in the darkness. The more they look, the more they begin to see and their shady existence becomes evident. The outside world calls to them and even though they place the blindfold over their eyes again to try to block out the light, they can never forget what they had seen and it replays in their mind. Those who choose to go back to their old ways will try to convince themselves that it is better to stay bound and that they are truly happier that way but what they don’t realize is that others can see their misery.

Those who cannot ignore the daylight that now penetrates their lives offering clarity never experienced before often choose to take hold of the key and loosen the binds placed on them. Not sure of what the future holds, they step out of the darkness into light never looking back. For those who have spent most of, if not all of their lives involved in Mormonism, life outside is not an easy place to be at first but the chance to really discover who you are while finding your own path through life is certainly worth it.

I have decided to continue to maintain this blog in hopes that I will help at least one person to remove their shackles and start their journey to real freedom outside of a religion that wants nothing more then to keep you in the dark as to what they are really about.

Too many thoughts and not enough paper

2008-09-17T11:23:00.000-05:00

I know it has been like two weeks since I have updated the blog so I wanted to let everyone know that I currently have 7-8 half finished posts. I tend to be a bit distracted lately but I am working on finishing a few by then end of the week. Some of the topics I will be touching soon are…

-Changes to the temple ceremony
-The Law of Moses (or lack thereof) in the Book of Mormon
-The history of racism in the LDS church
(a series of 3-5 posts)

So check back this weekend.

Why does this video make me think of Mormonism?

2008-09-03T16:23:00.000-05:00

I find that I am reminded of the way Mormonism works in some of the strangest places. Watch this video and let me know if you see it too.

How much did they know?

2008-09-02T13:59:00.000-05:00

That is a question I keep asking myself but I’m not sure I will ever find the answer. The pro-noun “they” has taken on different meaning throughout my Mormon exodus.

At first it referred to early church leaders like Brigham Young, Martin Harris, John Taylor and others. Was Joseph Smith the “lone gunman” who made all of this up and deceived everyone else or did he have help from these knowing conspirators?

What about the leaders of today? We know by his own admission that Hinckley did not know much about church history or doctrine because he made a habit of reminding us in interviews. What about Tommy Monson and his cohorts? How much do they know? Are they knowingly deceiving their loyal followers today? Do they have a “president’s book” like in the movie National Treasure 2 where each president writes down their secrets and things they need to keep hidden from everyone else?

Then you have local leaders and mission presidents. What do they know? After all, the prophet has told members not to write to him and the apostles any more for clarification on doctrinal issues and that this should be handled on a local level. Does that mean that bishops and stake presidents are really better equipped to answer questions about contradicting points of doctrine and history or do they know these local leaders will keep up the company image and perpetuate the lies?

The “they” group that I keep wondering about now is my parents (they don’t read this blog or at least they don’t admit to it). Neither one is really willing to talk to me about what I have found, especially my mom. The one time I brought up the fact that there are multiple accounts of the first vision that all contradict one another she did not take it well and accused me of attacking her faith and told me not to talk about it anymore. I don’t think she had ever heard that before so I wonder just what she does know. On the same note, my dad has been a little more open about talking about it but seemed equally confused when I mentioned that his beloved Hinckley openly said that he did not know that Mormons believe that God was once a man. My dad was shocked that he would say that because he knows that this is a core doctrine of Mormonism.

I would love to find out exactly what “negative”, “non-faith promoting” truth they know because they never shared any of it with me. If it turns out that they knew even a fraction of the things I know now and never felt the need to share them with me so I could come to my own conclusion about them, then I don’t know if I would be able to forgive them for the years I lost and the guilt I felt while trying to live in a religion that did not teach the truth and forced me to be someone I was not. Not respecting my intelligence enough to give me all the information they had to let me make up my own mind is an insult.

Why are they so afraid of what I have to say? Are they frightened that I will say something that will shake their testimony? If they are, then what does that say about their religious conviction?

How much did they know?

If history doesn't matter...

2008-08-28T15:52:00.000-05:00

This is a letter that I have wanted to post for a few days now but I did not feel right about using someone else’s work. But, as I read it again, it is just too spot-on to not post. It was written on Post-Mormon.org by a lady named “howdimissthat”. She is the wife of a Bishop and has doubted the church for a while now. She just started to discuss her issues with her husband because it came time to renew her temple recommend and she could not do it unless she lied and she was not willing to do that. I respect her honesty and love reading what she has to say. This letter is in response to her sister’s comments on how the history of the LDS church is not important. It is with her permission that I am using this.

Yes, history is history, but the church is based and exists because of its history. Without the grove, the prayer, we have nothing, no history no church. As Pres. Hinckley said either the first vision happened or it didn't, you can look up the rest of that quote if you would like but it is history so maybe it doesn't matter anymore. The church is based on its history. A testimony is based on truth. If the history has been tampered with, and the church exists because of the history, then what do we base the testimony on? The history is our salvation. Every revelation is based on its history, when it came, how it came, who was told, what was said, that's its history, no history means it never happened. How many times have we been told if we don't know the history of our country we are bound to repeat the same mistakes from the past. History is critical to keep us from repeating the same mistakes. If history doesn't matter then a good portion of the BoM was unnecessary, it is a history of the Lamanites, only the doctrine should have been passed on if the history wasn't important to our salvation. The Bible, a history book, is it unimportant to our salvation too?

I don't expect perfection or a pretty past but I do expect honesty. The history isn't the biggest problem; it's that I have never been told the true history, just the white washed version. If history doesn't matter why change it to make it more palatable? Leave it as it was originally recorded. Changing it changes everything. The lesson manuals are full of history, their version, not the facts. If history doesn't matter why bring it up at all, anywhere? If history doesn't matter why re-enact the pioneer trek. If history doesn't matter why did the church build a museum to contain its history or a new library? If history doesn't matter why repent, it's history and history doesn't matter. If history doesn't matter why are we told to keep a journal, it is a history and of no value and there is nothing to be learned from it. If history doesn't matter why are we continually told to follow those who have gone before us and learn from their history? Or are we to handpick only the best stories and let the rest go as unimportant. Or should we change the history to better reflect what we prefer to believe?

Satan is the father of all lies, we have been told lies, I did not create the lies I only discovered them but I am paying a high price for not accepting the lies, being honest with myself and with my family. I couldn't quote all the scripture about the importance of being honest and the importance of honesty to our salvation; do those scriptures exclude the leaders? Is the beginning of the 13th article of faith still in effect? Are the ordinary members the only ones expected to be honest with our fellow men?

I have only been offended by the lack of honesty in presenting our history. It is shameful we exist because of our history and then deny its importance when it becomes a problem. This has nothing to do with the trust and love I have for my husband. This has nothing to do with the trust I have in the Lord. This has nothing to do with expecting perfection, I do not expect perfection. I do expect honesty; I don't think that is too much to ask from men of God.

I could not agree more!

Irony and Contradictions

2008-08-28T15:34:00.000-05:00

I prefer to post original ideas on my blog and try to refrain from posting exact ideas from other people, this list was too good to pass up. A member of Post-Mormon.org made this list of Irony and Contradictions they see in the Mormon church.

-300 pound Mormons, on their way back from the desert bar at the buffet for the second time, who look down their noses at the marathon runner who is finishing off her modest meal with the glass of red wine her doctor has told her will improve her heath.

-About to leave missionaries who are celebrated by the largest crowds of their obscure lives, while simultaneously being told that the rush they feel in the midst of this momentarily adulation is due to the fact that they are finally "keeping their eye single to the Glory of God." The honors of men have nothing to do with what they feel. Ditto for the GAs.

-Feeling confident for years that I was so much better off relying upon the arm of God than the arm of flesh, and then finding that the arm of God was in fact the flabby old arms of Packer, GBH et al.

-Having to go to tithing settlement to "settle" with the lord, yet the church's finances go unchecked.

-Maybe the biggest irony is becoming one of those apostates I thought were all bitter and miserable, but being happier than I ever have in my life.

-Whenever I said "I know this church is true" there was always a nagging doubt inside. It was a slight physical twang in my chest. It would have sent the polygraph needle swinging. Now, whenever I say "The church is a fraud." I feel completely confident and comfortable in my answer.

-The boiling frog parable: Sin gets you a little bit at a time, without you realizing it; and before you know it, you are dead.
Contrast that with:
Milk before meat: New members and investigators can't handle the whole truth. They need to be spoon-fed a little bit at a time until they have a testimony.

-On the one hand claiming that gospel principles are "beautiful in their simplicity." On the other hand, when things get messy or don't make sense, "the gospel isn't supposed to be logical.”

-I love the contradiction between the 'plain and precious truths" and "Well, we don't know the answer to that question. It will all make sense in the next life."

-Free agency applies except in the church, then it is all about unquestioning obedience.

-Feelings ("the witness of the HG") but you can only believe those feelings if they tell you that church is true!

-Secret Combinations vs. The Temple Ceremony

-The "Restoration" of the "Apostasy." I mean what other church is better at changing ordinances, teaching false doctrine, pretending prophecy, and modifying their foundation than the good old Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?!!!

-While the modern mainstream LDS church abhors and condemns any sexual activity outside of marriage, 19th-century church leaders were having sex with up to dozens of women to whom they were not legally married.

-And while 19th-century church leaders proclaimed for decades that polygamy was God's form of marriage, and that polygamy was necessary for salvation, and that monogamy was concocted by pagan Romans etc.---the modern LDS church is possibly the most anti-polygamous religion on earth.

-We have prophets, seers and revelators up the wazoo but receive no prophecies or revelations.

-Mormons who will NEVER go to see the Passion of the Christ movie because it is rated R. Wouldn’t the Bible be rated R?

Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Jesus Christ?

2008-08-26T12:18:00.000-05:00

One thing that has been on my mind recently is the lack of real focus on Jesus in the everyday Mormon teachings. I’m going to get flamed for that comment but I just call it how I see it and I will show you why. Each year in Sunday School they pick a book of scripture to read and study. It usually goes in order like Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants/Pearl of Great Price, Old Testament, and New Testament. So once every four years they read the New Testament and, if the one leading the class does their job right, they should get a good amount of His teachings but that is not what always happens. In Priesthood/Relief Society Meeting, they talk about selected topics out of a manual. For the past 9 years they have used a series of manuals called “Teachings of Presidents of the Church”. (On a side note, why do they call them “Presidents” now and not “Prophets” like they used to?) Each year, the books have focused on the teachings of a specific “modern prophet”. The prophets they have focused on so far have been Spencer W. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, Harold B. Lee, David O. McKay, Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith, John Taylor, Brigham Young and for 2008 and 2009 they will be learning about Joseph Smith Jr. If I did my math right, that is 10 years and probably more after that, in which they will spend a full hour each Sunday learning what their “Latter-Day Prophets” have had to say about key Mormon doctrine.

I took a minute and looked at each book and sure enough there are a few lessons in each one about Jesus, but interestingly enough, there is also at least one lesson that focuses entirely on Joseph Smith. The rest of the lessons talk about things like temple work, tithing, the importance of scripture study, following modern day prophets, obedience, missionary work, prayer and service. That is just to name a few.

Obviously, the fact that the LDS church claims to have a living prophet is unique to them so they want to emphasize that belief but in doing that, are they neglecting the most important prophet of them all?

The claim is that the LDS church is the “restored” church that Jesus himself established during his ministry. The merit of that claim is a topic for another blog but if they really believe that, why not put His teachings at the forefront of their Sunday worship? Is it not better to read directly what he taught in the New Testament and really delve into His word? Is it not His word that we will be judged against? With all he taught, I would think there would be enough material to last at least a couple of years. If they can get 2 years out of what Joseph Smith taught, I would hope they could do the same if not more from what Jesus did.

When I left the LDS church I went and got a new Bible. I got a King James Version because that is what I was used to but my new one has a feature that I really like. Any time Jesus speaks, his words are written in red so they stand out. How cool is that! It makes it just that much easier to focus on His teachings which is where our focus should be.

I can’t remember if I have used this verse before but it is quickly becoming one of my favorites.

Hebrews 1:1-2 (NIV)

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

If God spoke to us by way of prophets but now speaks to use through Christ, why are we even talking about "modern prophets" anyway? There does not seem to be any need for them because we now have Christ's teachings which those living before him lacked, thus needing the prophets to remind them of what He was going to do for them. Since we live after him we need to follow His teachings above anyone else's because he fulfilled what was said through the prophets.

Nooma 001 - Rain

2008-08-18T20:50:00.000-05:00

So I have started watching this series of short messaged by Rob Bell called Nooma. I already did a post about one of his videos, but I have decided to start from the beginning and post about each one of them. What is so great about theses messages is that they are short but filled with so many deep messages.

In his first video “Rain” he tells the story of how he was on a walk with his year old son on a beautiful, clear summer morning. All of a sudden, it started to rain. He describes the rain as a “drenching rain”. It was the kind that completely soaks your body and mats your hair to your head.

His main point was that “it always rains”. It is not a matter of “if” it rains, but rather “when” it rains. We might not expect it or plan for it, but at one time or another, it will come.

Now, when it started to rain, he and his son were almost exactly half way around the lake with no shelter. At first his boy did not have a problem because the rain was light but as it intensified, he began to cry. As time when on, his cry turned into a deep, scared and passionate cry that came from deep within. He talks about the power the word “cry” has in the Bible and how God cannot ignore the cries deep cries of need.

Psalm 107:27-29 (King James Version)

27. They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit's end.
28. Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses.
29. He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still.

He continues his story by saying that in an effort to comfort his child, he holds him close to his chest and tells him, “I love you buddy, were going make it, dad knows the way home, you’re going make it, I love you.”
He kept repeating those words until he got his son back to safety.

When you cry Jesus is close to the broken hearted and to those who admit they are scared, lost, soaking wet and confused.

In Matthew 11:28 Jesus says “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest”. The essence of Salvation is admitting to God that you are lost and that you don’t have it all together and are hurting. Admitting that opens the door for him to enter your life and heal your pain or help you take that extra step when you feel like you cannot go any further.

While in a storm, it is common to not be able to see very far in front of you. You cannot see what lies ahead or if it will end soon. God however, can see from above what we are gong through and knows how to help us get through whatever type of storm we may be experiencing at the time.

For years, I have carried a small piece of laminated paper in my wallet that has a few paragraphs on it that relates to this idea. Until tonight, I did not know where it came from (I love the internet) but apparently it is from a LDS magazine called The Friend back in 1992. Despite my issues with its origin, I still agree with what it says.

“I learned something important that day about my father’s point of view. He could see more than I. He could tell that I would make it—but he let me find out for myself.

I think Heavenly Father is like that. When I’m thrashing along with a bad habit I can’t seem to change, or a goal I can’t seem to reach, thinking I’m not good enough and about to “sink,” I remember that Heavenly Father can see more than I. Perhaps I’m moving in the right direction and don’t know it yet. Perhaps He knows how close I am to safety and success and has the confidence in me that I lack in myself. Perhaps He wants me to learn and grow from a hard experience. Sometimes when I’m struggling the hardest, I wonder why He doesn’t “jump in” and help me. That’s when I remember my dad saying, “You were doing fine.”

I know Father is watching. He’ll help me when I really need Him to. But for now I just need to keep kicking.”

I have not reached the point yet to where I can take that leap of faith and cry out to God but I will admit that there have been many times recently where my desire to do so has been very strong, only to be stopped by my lack of trust/faith in his existence and ability to help.

In the scriptures it talks about how the Lord carries us like a father carries a son. That must be an awesome feeling.

Was that really false doctrine?

2008-08-11T20:19:00.000-05:00

Last night I went with my wife to visit some of her friends that she had not seen for a few years. They are all members of the LDS church so a discussion about religion was inevitable. There were a few things that were said that made me raise my eyebrow.

At times they said some really honest/transparent statements which was refreshing. One of the first things mentioned was that Joseph F Smith (I think that is who he said is was) actually took the “History of the Church” that was written and took out all of the embarrassing or negative parts. I must say he is the only one who I have ever heard actually admit that their history has been hidden or whitewashed. The thing that puzzled me though is that it did not seem to bother him. He just passed it off as fact but of no real significance. I don’t understand how they can openly say that the Mormon church is not being truthful but not see that as a red flag.

The other thing I thought was interesting was that one of the guys there was a seminary teacher for the church. He told a story about how one day he was teaching and he inadvertently taught “false doctrine”. It happened to be on a day when he was being observed and after class, he was called out on it and had to correct his statements the next day. I asked what the false doctrine was and he said that it was the idea that God was once not just a man but a “savior” like Jesus. Oddly enough, I had earlier this week read the King Follet Sermon which was given by Joseph Smith in the Conference of the church in April, 1844 (just 2 months before he died). It is in this sermon that the Mormon belief on the nature of God was defined and the topic he said was a “false doctrine” was addressed. Here are some quotes from the sermon.

It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

The scriptures inform us the Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power – to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious – in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

I tried to find where Jesus says those things and the closest thing I would find that was in John 10.

17.Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18.No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

If that is what he is talking about then I think it is a bit of a stretch.

Why am I writing about this particular part of the King Follet Sermon? Because it points out not only the outlandish claims of Joseph Smith but it also shows how there is no unity in doctrine amongst the members today. Joseph Smith clearly states that Jesus laid down his life and took it up again “as my Father did”. To me, that cannot be taken any other way but to say that Joseph Smith taught that God was once a savior and that he laid down his life when he was on his earth like Christ did on ours. Somehow, the person who was observing the seminary teacher took it upon himself to correct a teaching that really was not out of line with what Joseph proclaimed. This teacher believes to this day that he was in the wrong, even after going over the quotes again.

The LDS church really has failed to solidify their doctrine and make it clear what they really do believe. That fosters an atmosphere of confusion and really makes conversation hard. I’ve heard it said a lot of times that getting a firm answer on doctrine is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. Impossible!

Desiderata

2008-08-08T10:43:00.000-05:00

I have been reading a lot lately trying to find my course in life now that my Mormon path lead to a dead-end. I'm still not sure exactly which trail I want/need to travel but I'm starting to enjoy the freedom found in marking my own way. About a month ago I came upon this poem that I had read before; in fact it was hanging in my mom’s home office for years. It is only now, at my current place in life that I can begin to understand the wisdom found in its words. I’ve started to read it each day and it is my hope that as time goes by, I will be able to emulate the ideas expressed in such eloquent terms.

Desiderata

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly, and listen to others,
even to the dull and ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter,
for always there will be
greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career
however humble;
it is a real possession in the
changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs,
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you
to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.
Especially do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love,
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment,
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit
to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.

And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore, be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace in your soul.
With all its sham,
drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.

by Max Ehrmann

Mormon Doctrine of Deity

2008-08-04T13:05:00.000-05:00

While reading the “Mormon Coffee” blog the other day, I read a quote from Parley P. Pratt that I thought was interesting enough to post about here. For those who don’t know, Parley Pratt was one of the original 12 Apostles in the LDS church. This quote originally appeared in a church paper called “the Prophet” but was also used in a book called Mormon Doctrine of Deity by B.H. Roberts who was a member of the First Council of Seventy (a step below the 12 Apostles) for 45 years. On FAIR (a site dedicated to defending Mormonism) they talk about Roberts and this book.

This classic book is by Elder Brigham H. Roberts, a General Authority noted for his doctrinal knowledge and literary skills.

Mormon Doctrine of Deity is one of the most comprehensive statements and scriptural presentations of the Latter-day Saint doctrine of the nature of God in print.

Mormon Doctrine of Deity is highly readable. It is scriptural, it is logical, it is comprehensive.

Here are the main points Parley P. Pratt made about the Mormon belief regarding the nature of Deity.

What is God? He is a material intelligence, possessing both body and parts. He is in the form of man, and is in fact of the same species; and is a model, or standard of perfection to which man is destined to attain: he being the great Father and head of the whole family.

He can go, come, converse, reason, eat, drink, love, hate, rejoice, possesss [sic] and enjoy. He can also travel space with all the ease and intelligence necessary, for moving from planet to planet, and from system to system.

This being cannot occupy two distinct places at once. Therefore, he cannot be (in person) everywhere present….

What is Jesus Christ? He is the son of God, and is in every way like his father,… He is material intelligence, with body, parts and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones. He can…perform all things even as the Father—possessing the same power and attributes. And he, too, can travel space, and go from world to world, and from system to system, precisely like the Father; but cannot occupy two places at once.

What are angels? They are intelligences of the human species. Many of them are offsprings of Adam and Eve. That is, they are like Enoch or Elijah, been translated; or, like Jesus Christ, been raised from the dead;… They can go or come on foreign missions, in heaven, earth, or hell; and they can travel space, and visit the different worlds, with all the ease and alacrity with which God and Christ do the same,…

What are spirits? They are material intelligences, possessing body and parts in the likeness of the temporal body; but not composed of flesh and bones, but of some substance less tangible to our gross senses in our present life; but tangible to those in the same element as themselves. In short, they are men in embrio [sic] –intelligences waiting to come into the natural world and take upon them flesh and bones, that through birth, death, and the resurrection they may also be perfected in the material organization. Such was Jesus Christ, and such were we before we came into this world, and such we will be again, in the intervening space between death and the resurrection.

What are men? They are the offspring of God, the Father, and brothers of Jesus Christ. They were once intelligent spirits in the presence of God, and were with him before the earth was formed. They are now in disguise as it were, in order to pass through the several changes, and the experience necessary to constitute them perfect beings.

They are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to such a degree, as to be raised from the dead with a body like that of Jesus Christ’s, and to… go on missions from planet to planet, or from system to system: being Gods, or sons of God, endowed with the same powers, attributes and capacities that their heavenly Father and Jesus Christ possess.

What are all these beings taken together, or summed up under one head? They are one great family, all of the same species, all related to each other, all bound together by kindred ties, interests, sympathies, and affections. In short they are all Gods; or rather, men are the offspring or children of the Gods, and destined to advance by degrees, and to make their way by a progressive series of changes, till they become like their Father in heaven, and like Jesus Christ their elder brother.

Thus perfected, the whole family will possess the material universe, that is, the earth, and all other planets, and worlds, as “an inheritance incorruptible undefiled and that fadeth not away.” They will also continue to organize, people, redeem, and perfect other systems which are now in the womb of Chaos, and thus go on increasing their several dominions, till the weakest child of God which now exists upon the earth will possess MORE DOMINION, MORE PROPERTY, MORE SUBJECTS, and MORE POWER and GLORY than is possessed by Jesus Christ or by his Father; while at the same time Jesus Christ and his Father, will have dominion, kingdoms, and subjects increased in proportion.

Such are the riches, glories, blessings, honors, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, held out by the system of materialism.

Such the wealth, the dignity, the nobility, the titles and honors to which “Mormons” aspire. Such the promises of him whose word can never fail.

With these hopes and prospects before us, we say to the Christian world, who hold to immateriality, that they are welcome to their God–their life—their heaven, and their all.

They claim nothing but that which we throw away, and we claim nothing but that which they throw away. Therefore, there is no ground for quarrel, or contention between us. (Mormon Doctrine of Deity, pages 255-258 emphasis added)

The article is printed in its entirety in Roberts book.

The bold parts are the one that really stuck out in my mind. I have always understood that churches believe that God is Omnipresent (present in all places at all times) but according to Pratt, this is not the case. It is the LDS belief that God, because he has a real body of flesh and bone, cannot be in more than one place at a time. Now, I vaguely remember being taught that when I was a child, that both God and Jesus can only be in one place but the Holy Ghost can be everywhere at once because he does not have a body. Looking at it now, I see how this is in stark contrast to the normal Christian belief.

The other part that really hit me was where he talks about how even the “weakest child of God” will possess more power, dominion, property, and subjects then God/Jesus. WOW, I have never heard that before and in truth, it baffles me. How can they teach that we will become not just LIKE God but BETTER then God? Is it not taught that God is “Omnipotent” or “Almighty” which means having absolute power over all? According to Pratt, it seems that God is not Omnipresent or Omnipotent and if you look at Mormon doctrine about how God came to be, having once been a normal man himself, later being exalted to the status of a God, he is also not the “Alpha” or “Omega” spoken of in Revelations. So if Mormon doctrine teaches that God is not the Alpha and Omega, Omnipotent and Omnipresent, then what on earth do they believe God is?

Reading things like this really make me wonder how they can even make the argument that they are Christian. These teaching are about as contradictory as you can get with the Trinitarian Christian world.

Protestantism

2008-07-30T15:28:00.000-05:00

Here is some more of what the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" has to say, this time about Protestant beliefs.

Christian Protestantism may be viewed as the product of late medieval "protests" against various elements of the Roman Catholic church. Though there were always persons within Catholicism pressing for reforms, the beginning of the Protestant Reformation is usually dated to 1517 when Martin Luther (1483-1546), an Augustinian monk in Wittenberg, Germany, published his ninety-five theses against papal indulgences. The theses challenged the authority of the pope and by extension of the Roman Catholic church. Protestants since that time are generally considered to be those Christians who are neither Roman Catholics nor Eastern (or Russian) Orthodox.

Although Protestant theology is varied today, it can be characterized by four basic beliefs: (1) the Bible is the Word of God and all authority resides within its pages as it bears witness to Jesus Christ; (2) the Bible should be in the language of the people, who, by the power of the Holy Ghost, can gain their own understanding of God's Word; (3) all church members hold the priesthood and should be involved in the total life of the church, meaning that no mediatorial priesthood is necessary; and (4) people are saved by their faith, through the grace of God, and not by any works they may do apart from or in addition to faith.

While Latter-day Saints share with Protestants a conviction of the importance of the scriptures, an extensive lay priesthood (but given only by the laying on of hands by those having proper priesthood authority), and the primacy of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior as the first principle of the gospel, they differ from them by affirming a centralized authority headed by a latter-day prophet and by a number of other doctrines unique to the Church, i.e. temple ordinances for the living and the dead, and the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. Despite some important differences, Latter-day Saints actually share much in doctrine, heritage, and aspiration with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. Even so, they view themselves as embodying an independent Christian tradition standing on its own apart from these other traditions. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a reformation of a previously existing ecclesiastical body but is instead a restoration through heavenly ministrations of authority and of truths, structures, and scriptures that God returned to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors.

I admit that I don’t know much yet about other religious views outside of Mormonism so I wonder if they got it right.

Mother in Heaven

2008-07-30T09:59:00.000-05:00

Here is a fun one for you. There is an underlining belief that God is married (which is consistent with the idea that you can be an “eternal family” and become a God yourself if you do everything right).

On the front page of LDS.org they advertise the completion of the on-line text of what is called the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism”. As with most LDS material, it comes with a disclaimer…

Note: This encyclopedia is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company and does not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

My thought is that if you put it on your website, you obviously find it to be of value and support its use. If there were things in it that do not accurately show the “official position” of the LDS church, I’m sure they would have had them changed before they promoted it.

Anyways, I’m going to post selected topics that I think will be of interest. Here is what it says about the belief in a Heavenly Mother.

Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects the idea found in some religions that the spirits or souls of individual human beings are created ex nihilo. Rather it accepts literally the vital scriptural teaching as worded by Paul: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." This and other scriptures underscore not only spiritual sibling relationships but heirship with God, and a destiny of joint heirship with Christ (Rom. 8:16-18; cf. Mal. 2:10).

Latter-day Saints believe that all the people of earth who lived or will live are actual spiritual offspring of God the Eternal Father (Num. 16:22; Heb. 12:9). In this perspective, parenthood requires both father and mother, whether for the creation of spirits in the premortal life or of physical tabernacles on earth. A Heavenly Mother shares parenthood with the Heavenly Father. This concept leads Latter-day Saints to believe that she is like him in glory, perfection, compassion, wisdom, and holiness.

Elohim, the name-title for God, suggests the plural of the Caananite El or the Hebrew Eloah. It is used in various Hebrew combinations to describe the highest God. It is the majestic title of the ultimate deity. Genesis 1:27reads, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them" (emphasis added), which may be read to mean that "God" is plural.
For Latter-day Saints, the concept of eternal family is more than a firm belief; it governs their way of life. It is the eternal plan of life, stretching from life before through life beyond mortality.

As early as 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the concept of an eternal mother, as reported in several accounts from that period. Out of his teaching came a hymn that Latter-day Saints learn, sing, quote, and cherish, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow. President Wilford Woodruff called it a revelation (Woodruff, p. 62). In the heav'ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal Tells me I've a mother there. When I leave this frail existence, When I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother, may I meet you In your royal courts on high? [Hymn no. 292]

In 1909 the First Presidency, under Joseph F. Smith, issued a statement on the origin of man that teaches that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father," as an "offspring of celestial parentage," and further teaches that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (Smith, pp. 199-205).

Belief that there is a Mother in Heaven who is a partner with God in creation and procreation is not the same as the heavy emphasis on Mariology in the Roman tradition.

Today the belief in a living Mother in Heaven is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought. Though the scriptures contain only hints, statements from presidents of the church over the years indicate that human beings have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.

I'm curious to know what the "Christian" view on this is.

Part of the problem with the Mormon teachings and culture

2008-07-23T12:41:00.000-05:00

I was lead to this audio clip from the Dr. Laura Show that has her discussing if a husband (the caller) should divorce his wife because she wants to leave the Mormon church. Listen to it HERE.

The Mormon culture breeds a sense of “if you are not with us, you are against us” which leads to this idea that if someone chooses a different path, all ties should be cut. Thankfully, there are some who go against this kind of thinking and do not care what church a person goes to and to me they are special people. It is not always easy to distinguish who these people are because, as I have found out through my experience, many act like they are true friends to your face but once you turn your back they are the first to condemn you.

After listening to this clip, it is easy to see that it is the teachings of “eternal marriage” that causes a great divide in families if just one member chooses to not play the game anymore. How sad is it that this man actually thought that he would be justified in leaving his wife of like 14 years, who converted to Mormonism FOR HIM no less, along with their two kids just because she is considering or maybe already has gone to another church. This is the horrible side affect temple marriage has on families.

My mother has had 2 temple marriages and both ended in divorce. While I don’t know all of the details of what happened with either of them, I can give my opinion from my point of view. My mom probably tries harder then any Mormon I know to do everything she is supposed to do and do it right. The down side to that is she is not very tolerant of others when they do not live up to the same standards she has or expects. From where I sit, this is what drove her husbands away. If you push someone long enough to be something they are not or can never be, eventually they will tire of it and walk away. I don’t think my father or step-father should be excused for any wrong doing they might have be part of but I do think it was her “you have to be a perfect Mormon” attitude that drove them away.

Unfortunately, she is not the only one. I know of many women who had no hesitation in their voice when they said that they would leave their husbands if they ever went inactive or left the church. I think they are missing the point about being focused on family.

I am so thankful that I have a wife who, no matter what others were saying, stuck by my side to support me and love me when I decided I had been Mormon long enough. She showed true unconditional love that many members of the LDS church lack. I am blessed to have her by my side.

Exposing the Temple Ceremony

2008-07-09T11:17:00.000-05:00

The other day I ran accross a video that showed a man going through the temple ceremony, wearing the robes and all. I was not sure if I should post it here but today I read THIS POST on Mormon Coffee. I have linked to it so you can read it if you choose. I think it is pretty good.

The best part of waking up is Starbucks in your cup!

2008-07-09T09:41:00.000-05:00

This morning I had my first freshly brewed cup of coffee from our new coffee maker. We bought the coffee maker on July 4th and I finally got around to taking it out of the box last night. Having never made coffee before, I felt the need to read the instructions (which I usually never do). I set the timer, added the coffee and water and waited like a kid on Christmas Eve to see if it would really work. 6:00 this morning the smell of Starbucks Breakfast Blend started to fill the house. I did it! I brewed my first cup of coffee! How silly does that sound coming from a 30 year old man?

“Starbucks® Breakfast Blend is light-bodied and light-roasted, and it will imbue your morning with its essence. This blend makes a bright impression as it sparkles and dances on your tongue - a sign of crisp acidity. A mild and flavorful coffee awaits you.”

As I poured it into my Winnie the Pooh Christmas Mug (that up till now was reserved for hot-coco), part of me was excited while the other half was nervous. How much creamer do I add? What about sugar? I don’t want to make it too sweet but if I don’t put enough in…yuck. A couple shakes of creamer and 3 tea spoons of sugar later, it was done and there was no going back. I was late for work so I had to run out the door without being able to taste and modify if needed. Knowing that it was going to be hot, I let it cool down a bit and then I took my first sip. WOW! It was good! Not bitter, like I had feared. Instead, it was smooth with just a hint of sweet. I did not notice the earthy taste till after the cup was gone but by then I was hooked. I wish I would have given myself more time at the house to drink it because I could have easily had another cup.

We got the “half-caf” because we know that Amy cannot take it full strength yet. For me, it seems to be just enough to perk-me-up and get me moving. I don’t feel jittery or overly stimulated which I guess is good.

Its funny how for years, I grew up thinking that coffee was such a bad thing. When you actually read about the benefits, you see that it can be quite good for you because of the high levels of antioxidants. Even the high level of caffeine in coffee has been found to help reduce the risk of Parkinson's disease. It also has a tendency to reduce the affects of Type 2 Diabetes by improving the body's response to insulin. As with anything, moderation (a few cups a day according to a study done by Harvard University) is the key and you should only drink the amount your body can handle but it seems like the idea I had in my head about coffee was opposite of reality.

As I was drinking my hot cup-of-joe in the car, I remembered this movie and I though it was perfect for the situation.

Getting Mormons to Explain Why They Believe

2008-07-07T12:40:00.000-05:00

This is a brief interlude before my next post about the temple which will be up tomorrow. Below is a 3 part video that discusses the basis of the Mormon belief system, the testimony. Watch all 3 videos, you won't be disappointed.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

The Temple - Part 1 (The ticket to get in)

2008-06-11T22:38:00.000-05:00

I am currently looking at the Temple and what is taught there so I thought I would start by posting the questions you are asked twice (first by the bishop and then the stake president) before you are allowed to have a temple recommend which is what you need to get past the geriatric guards at the front desk.

These won’t be new to most members but to those who are not LDS, these are the requirements to get into the temple. If you do not answer one correctly, then the Bishop can choose to not give one and thus not allow you to go to the temple.

Keep in mind that in order to live in the highest kingdom with God, you must go to the temple and participate in the ordinances that are done there. If you do not, you can not be with your family forever.

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

Now, I don’t have a problem with numbers 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 12. I think these are things most Christians would say are important. Let me comment briefly on the others if I may.

#3 – Should I have a testimony of the restoration as told by the church today or of the restoration as told by the early church history books, which differs on many accounts?

#4 – That depends on if they can answer number 9 in the affirmative and if they can reasonably answer the many questions I have about church doctrine. If they cannot or will not, then I cannot consider then men of God and therefore they would not be prophets.

#6 – I have no problem with this one until it says “the teachings of the church”. I would like to propose that we change that to read “The teachings of Jesus according to the Bible”.

#7 – Is this meant to discourage members from associating with those who have left the church? If so, what do they think would happen if they did? If you take this questions literally, it actually mean anyone who is not LDS because if you do not believe in Mormonism, then your practices and teachings are going to be contrary to those accepted by the church.

#10 – I know that the Bible talks about tithing, but is it really a commandment? I don’t remember it being taught by Jesus in the New Testament. Members today are told to pay 10% of their gross income but when the law was instituted in the Doctrine and Covenants 119:5 it says they should be tithed of their “surplus properties”. My surplus is much different then my gross income. If you can only live with God if you attend the temple, but cannot get in unless you pay tithing, is this not a way of paying for your salvation?

#11 – This is an interesting one. The focus of the WoW is not the do’s but in the do not’s. Generally, when this question is asked, they are referring to the typical teaching of don’t smoke, drink, do drugs, etc. The WoW is considered an overall guide to healthy living. It tells you to eat wholesome and good foods and only in moderation. When they ask this question to someone who is over weight or who uses food as their drug, is that taken into consideration?

#13 – This one is only relevant if you have been through the temple but even then I take exception to it. The covenants you make in the temple are done under false pretenses. You do not know before you go what they are going to ask of you so once you get to that point in the ceremony; it is too late to turn back. Covenants are defined as a two-way promise. In order for a covenant to have meaning, both parties must hold up their end of the bargain. I consider truth and honesty to be part of the bargain so since the church has not been honest with me by telling me the truth about the church, I consider the covenant, null and void.

#14 – I think confession of sin should be between man and God. It is taught that Jesus was the mediator between us and God, not my bishop.

#15 – No, because those I know that live better, more Christ-like lives then me are not considered worthy because they belong to another church so why should I? If you look at the list of questions, I’m not sure Joseph Smith and others would be worthy to be there either. Joseph drank wine and smoked up until the night before he died and if you read the accounts of the women the polygamist men left behind, they certainly were not taking care of the needs of their families.

The worst thing about this is that numerous members feel as if they have to lie about some of these in order to keep their status as a recommend holder and to be able to witness things like the marriages of loved ones. I know because I have talked to many who, like me, did just that. I admit that I had no desire to go to the temple before my mission but it was required so I did it. I even married my wife in the temple because it was the “right thing to do”, not because it was what we wanted to do. Back then, I did not have the strength to think for myself and just went through the motions. When I “woke-up”, I no longer felt the need to be what others wanted me to be so I did not go back because I knew I could not be honest and answer the questions the way they wanted/expected me to.

Missionaries Being Taught to "Lie for the Lord"

2008-06-06T19:21:00.000-05:00

This is a clip of Robert Millet who is a professor of ancient scripture and emeritus Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University. He is speaking to a group of soon to be missionaries. He has some very telling comments regarding how to answer questions from non-members and the idea of “milk before meat”. This is something I was also taught while on my mission.

The full un-cut video can be found here

In my opinion, this is a way to not only keep non-members from knowing about the real doctrine of the church but to also keep it's members from seriously looking at the more controversial parts that might bring about other questioning. Converts are baptized not having any real idea of what Mormons believe in because of this attitude toward teaching and the fact that many are baptized after only weeks of speaking to missionaries. They know LDS people believe in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, the Word of Wisdom, Tithing and a few other things like baptism but I think we all know that is just the tip of the Mormon iceberg. How can these investigators really know what they are getting into when the only information they have is this? They don't, and they are even asked to attend separate classes called Gospel Principles that makes sure that they only get "milk" for at least the first year they are members. This kind of stuff makes me regret ever teaching others about Mormonism. I hate the fact that I was part of something so misleading.

The Eternal Marriage Myth

2008-06-04T00:33:00.000-05:00

The other day, a comment was left on my wife’s blog about her decision to leave the Mormon church. My wife chose to take the higher road, which I admire her for. I personally prefer the “road less traveled” so this is my reply to the same comment. It is with her permission that I use the comment in question. It was as follows…

”So how does it feel to know that you WILL NOT be with your husband and daughter that you love so much for ever?

Regardless of your beliefs, had your marriage occurred in any forum or religion other than a temple marriage, the last words before you say I do are "til death do us part".

First, for many who are not familiar to the idea of Celestial or Eternal Marriage, here is some information from lds.org to explain what it is.

“The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase" (D&C 131:1–4).

”After receiving the sealing ordinance and making sacred covenants in the temple, a couple must continue in faithfulness in order to receive the blessings of eternal marriage and exaltation.”

I really don’t care about the actual ceremony itself because many churches have their own unique way to performing marriages so I can understand that. The problem is that it divides families and does not allow those who are not considered worthy to enter the temple to be a part of it. Instead, they are relegated to second class citizens, forced to wait outside, only to hear about how great the moment they missed was. Talk about adding insult to injury. It is like saying, “your not one of us so not only are we going to not let you in on our little ritual, but were gong to tell you how beautiful and special it was and that it was too bad you missed it. If only you were Mormon too, then you could have seen your own daughter/son or brother/sister married.” And all this time I thought the church was really about family.

The greater issue when looking at eternal marriage is what comes after the ceremony. Being married for eternity or “sealed” as they call it really does nothing because you are never guaranteed the blessings promised.

Elder Bruce McConkie in his book “Mormon Doctrine” talks about this.

”Marriages performed in the temples for time and eternity, by virtue of the sealing keys restored by Elijah, are called celestial marriages. The participating parties become husband and wife in this mortal life and if after their marriage they keep all the terms and conditions of this order of the Priesthood, they continue on as husband and wife in the Celestial Kingdom of God. Celestial Marriage puts a couple on the path leading to exaltation of heaven of that world.”

”Those who have been married in the temples for eternity know that the ceremony itself expressly conditions the receipt of all promised blessings upon the subsequent faithfulness of the husband and wife.”

The odds of actually doing enough to make it happen are stacked against you. All it takes is one mistake by either of you and the promise is null and void. If you or anyone in your family does not reach each “spiritual milestone” on the path to exaltation then they will not be with you.

Whymormon.net says it pretty well.

• Don't pay your tithing? Your family won't be together.
• Don't perform secret rituals in the temple? Your family will be separated.
• Someone in the family doesn't believe? You can't be with them.
• Children not married in the temple? Eternal separation.
• Family not active in church? You won't be together.
• Someone in the family not a member? They're cut off.
• Relatives not members? You can't be with them.

If you look at the average ward membership numbers and then count the number of people who actually attend, you will see that only around ½ of them are active at that is probably being generous. That leaves a lot of people who, in some way, are tied to an eternal family that will not be allowed to be with their loved ones when they die.

The LDS church teaches that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man”. They interpret that to mean that you can not be exalted without being married to someone who is also worth to make it. What happens if your significant other decides to do something as small as have a cup of coffee every morning? Not obeying the Word of Wisdom would keep him/her from being worthy of attending the temple and entering the CK. If they died before they repented, then that would in affect destroy the bonds between you because they would not be allowed into the highest kingdom of heaven. How sad to think that you could spend your whole life focused on eternity to have it slip through your fingers at the last moment because of something you had no control over.

I think of the unnecessary pain and sadness my poor mother has gone through as she has had to deal with husbands who have not lived up to their end of the deal and two sons who do not prescribe to the Mormon faith. Much of her grief stems from the idea of an eternal family that will never be. Where is the hope in that?

One of the things that attracted my wife to the church was the idea of an eternal family and the strong family values the Mormon church presented. When I stopped going to church, she began to wonder what would happen if I never came back. The idea that you can not be exalted without your husband or wife was hard for her to accept. How could someone else have that kind of control over your personal salvation? Some people told her not to worry but that God would work it all out in the end. That if she held up her end of the bargain that she would still have a chance of being exalted but with another man. That thought disgusted her. Why would she want to be eternally married to someone she does not even know or love? She has found comfort and peace in her new beliefs because she is now fully in charge of her own salvation through Christ. She has faith that she will be with her loved ones in Heaven when the time comes.

As far as I'm concerned being an Eternal Family is really only reserved for a "lucky" few in the church. If your child or another member of your family does not follow the gospel 100% then I’m sorry to say that, despite all your efforts, they won’t be with you in the Celestial Kingdome. There are too many restrictions on it to really make it as great as it sounds.

Please, I would love to know…

2008-05-27T22:12:00.000-05:00

So, one thing I keep hearing is that so many of you True Believing Mormons have already seen everything on this blog but have come to a different conclusion then I have. Now, just let me say that I totally respect your right to choose your beliefs and understand that there are many who are completely happy in Mormonism. What I don’t get is how, knowing all the negative aspects of church history, doctrine, culture, and the character of those you hold in such great honor, you still manage to come to that conclusion. I don’t see how that is possible unless you are able to do some extreme mental gymnastics. I would love to hear how you rationalize the following facts.

-There were over 5 separate accounts of the “first vision”, all of which differ from one another in some vary major ways. The first of those was not written until 1832. That is 12 years after the vision supposedly happened.

-In the years before and following the first vision, Joseph was well known for his treasure hunting excursions using a seer/peep stone that he found while digging a well with his brother.

-He then used that same seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon by putting it into a hat and then burying his head in it. With the hat pulled around his eyes, to close out all light, he then dictated what he saw.

-There are many accounts of those who helped in the translation process who confirm that the plates were not actually used while translating. They were either covered up on the table or sometimes they were even hidden in the woods outside of the home where they lived. This is completely different then the pictures you see in the manuals and teaching aids the church uses, depicting Joseph going over the plates, page by page, symbol by symbol.

-The Book of Mormon was “translated” by the gift and power of God and according to Joseph Smith, the “most correct of any book on earth”. Why then has it been changed so many times?

-The many anachronisms found in the Book of Mormon. For example: The presence of silk, steel, horses, elephants, wheat and other things that were not present in the Americas until they were brought over by the Spaniards and have not been found to exist during the time the Book of Mormon took place.

-The lack of any concrete evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

-Joseph Smith had over 30 wives. Some were as young as 14 and at least 10 were taken by Joseph from their current husbands and made his. Some of these men were sent on missions and their wives taken while they were gone.

-Joseph, on many occasions, preached about how polygamy was wrong, even though he was actually currently engaged in its practice. It was even part of the early version of the Book of Commandments (D&C) but was taken out when section 132 was added.

-Joseph lied to Emma about his plural wives and some were the very women who lived with them as her helpers.

-Even after the Official Declaration in 1890, stopping the practice of polygamy, President Wilford Woodruff, personally condoned and sanctioned other plural marriages until 1904.

-Brigham Young, as well as other “prophets” taught that people of color were part of an inferior race, that slavery was “a divine institution”, and that anyone who mixed with their seed should be killed on the spot. According to many, they will “never hold the priesthood”.

-Even though Joseph Smith revealed the temple ceremony and said it should never be changed, it has under gone multiple revisions, taking out parts that made it more acceptable by the members of today. Some of those things are death oaths, the depiction of a protestant minister doing the work of Satan and more recently, the way the washing and anointing are done.

-These ceremonies are directly related to those done by the Masons which Joseph became a part of only months before he “revealed” them.

-The Book of Abraham translation has been proven a fraud and the actual papyri Joseph used to translate the book is actually a common Egyptian burial scroll called the Book of Breathings. Joseph’s translation does not come close to the real meaning of the text and pictures. The Book of Abraham is still used to this day despite the evidence against its validity.

If the church has nothing to hide, why then are these issues not discussed in greater detail? Why does the church tell their teachers and instructors to only teach and discuss the “faith promoting” side of the gospel and history? Is the truth not important to them?

I would love to know what you do to believe in the LDS church despite these things because I can not. If you care to dispute some of these points, please do so with intelligent, thought out points and be sure to site your sources.

Off Topic: Those who insist on harassing my wife because of the things I have written on this blog need to either get a life or enough guts to come to me about the issues you have with its contents. This is where I voice MY opinion and she has nothing to do with what I write and does not see it till I post it. If you have a problem with what is on this blog, you have two choices, either stand up for what you believe, using intellectually sound opinion and sources or leave it alone and go do your home/visiting teaching.

You don't have to hide away

2008-05-23T09:08:00.000-05:00

So, one of my all time favorite bands has always been Erasure. My brother introduced me to them when I was very young and I have benefited from their music ever since. They have too many songs to actually have a favorite but “Hideaway” has been at the top of my list for years. The song has great lyrics which are very appropriate for my current situation.

One day the boy decided
To let them know the way he felt inside
He could not stand to hide it
His mother she broke down and cried
Oh my father
Why don't you talk to me now
Oh my mother
Do you still cry yourself to sleep

Are you still proud of your little boy
Don't be afraid (Be afraid)
You don't have to hide away

The boy he was rejected
By the people that he cared for
It's not what they expected
But he could not keep it secret anymore
Far from home now
Waiting by the telephone
There's a new world
You can make it on your own
Are you still proud of your little boy
Don't be afraid (Be afraid)
You don't have to hide away
No
(Don't be afraid)
(Love will mend your broken wing)
(Time will slip away)
(Learn to be brave)

Oh my father
Why don't you talk to me now
Oh my mother
Do you still cry yourself to sleep
Are you still proud of your little boy
Don't be afraid (be afraid)
You don't have to hide away
(Don't be afraid)
(Love will mend your broken wing)
(Time will slip away)
(Learn to be brave)

Nooma 008 - Dust (Jesus Walks on the Water - Peter Sinks)

2008-05-16T13:21:00.000-05:00

About 2 weeks ago, a pastor at the church my wife and I go to gave me a DVD of a guy named Rob Bell. He does a series called Nooma and this particular DVD was titled “Dust”. Since I am in a phase where I want to learn as much as possible about religion, I thanked him and took it home. I let it sit untouched on the counter for about 10 days. Not wanting to hold onto it too long, I watched it the night before I knew I would see him again. I was impressed. Rob Bell does a really good job of speaking in terms anyone can understand and I appreciate that since the Bible is relatively new for me.

Part of his sermon, if you call it that, spoke of the story of Jesus walking on water (Matthew 14:22-32). We have all heard the story but after telling the story he said something that got me thinking. When Jesus approached the boat, he called to Peter to come to him. Upon hearing this, Peter stepped, without hesitation, out of the boat, onto the water. He made it a few steps but then began to sink because of fear. When he cried out for help, Jesus pulled him from the water and said “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”

Rob explained that Peter did not lose faith in Jesus, after all it was not Jesus that was sinking, he actually lost faith in himself.

I thought about that for a while and then asked myself; did I lose faith in Jesus/God, in religion, or in myself? That is not an easy question to answer.

Upon further reflection, I think the answer is “all of the above”.

Learning the truth about Mormonism by watching South Park

2008-05-13T22:09:00.000-05:00

I have put other South Park videos on this blog but I have wanted to put this one up for a while now. The way they portray the Mormon family is so perfect. What I love about it is that they got 98% of the story right. I hope y’all enjoy it as much as I do.

via videosift.com

Eight Simple Rules That Led Me Out Of Mormonism

2008-05-13T11:46:00.000-05:00

I am working on a few posts but have not been able to get them to the point where I am comfortable with putting them on this site for you. While I continue to work on those, I will give you this to chew on. I found this written on The Mormon Curtain by someone named XTBM. It was done back in 2005 and I could not agree more with it. I don't really like to post stuff that I have not written but hey, why re-invent the wheel?

Eight Simple Rules That Led Me Out Of Mormonism:

Rule 1: Just because someone says something doesn't mean what he/she says is true

I apply this rule to everyone, regardless of intelligence, point of view, etc. Mormon apologists - many highly educated - have all kinds of explanations for seeming contradictions in Mormonism's history. Some people accept these at face value "Oh, see, there are reasonable explanations for all of these problems!" But for a person who is guided by Rule #1, explanations are only as good as the paper they are written on! A rule that leads nicely into Rule 2…

Rule 2: Just because someone intelligent believes something is true doesn't mean it is true

If a high level of intelligence were the most important factor of discovering religious truth, then all - or a majority of - highly intelligent people in the world would hold similar religious beliefs. As it is, the world of religious beliefs is fragmented into thousands of factions, each with its own set of apologists spinning a web of logic designed to entrap their perception of truth upon its strands. There are a lot of smart people in this world who are enlisted in the ranks of the defense of what are often conflicting religious beliefs - quite obviously, not all of them can be right!

Rule 3: Reality-based belief is better than theory-based belief

"Theory" can be used to support almost any belief because all one has to do is come up with an explanation that falls in the realm of plausibility in order for the breath of life to fill a theory's lungs - and plausibility is not all that tough of a standard to reach.

"Reality", on the other hand, is a different beast altogether. The path from "theory" into "reality" is strewn with the lifeless corpses of theories that couldn't withstand the intense scrutiny required for passage. It isn't easy to distinguish between the two because theory-based beliefs are often passed off as being reality-based, but there is value in being aware of when a belief is based in theory as opposed to fact - at the least it helps one avoid the pitfall of holding too tightly to a belief that ultimately ends up being an illusion.

Mormonism is a religion that is high on theory-based belief and short on reality-based belief. The following quote by Daniel Peterson last year in regards to the lack of evidence supporting the Book of Mormon highlights this principle as it relates to the Book of Mormon:

"There is, thus far, little in the way of specific archaeological evidence -- taking archaeological in the sense of artifactual -- for the Book of Mormon. The NHM altars in Yemen may be the best we've got, along with the general accuracy of 1 Nephi's portrayal of Lehi's route along the Arabian coast (via the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laban, and then through Nahom) to Old World Bountiful. There is, however, considerable philological evidence within the Book of Mormon itself suggestive of its antiquity, and there is a great deal of ancient evidence, artifactual and otherwise, from both the Near East and Mesoamerica, that is consistent with the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon in very specific and striking ways."

Put another way, there is, thus far, little (read: NOTHING) in terms of "reality-based" information to support the Book of Mormon, but there is considerable "theory-based" stuff out there - spun by none other than your friendly, neighborhood apologists.

Rule 4: The definition of "Faith" is NOT ignoring all evidence that is contrary to what you believe

"Faith" is perhaps the single most abused concept in Mormonism. All one has to do is have enough "faith" and the most serious issues facing Mormonism simply fade away into a backdrop of insignificance. The defect is placed with the person, not with the organization - more on that in Rule 5.

But first, for the Biblical definition of faith (this point is about faith as it is presented in Christianity, not on the validity of faith as a principle and the existence of God), let's turn to the oft-quoted standard, Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That definition, though, is incomplete without reading the rest of the chapter where faith is framed as an ACTION-BASED word. It gives many examples of people who were spurred to actions because of their faith: Abel offering a sacrifice, Noah preparing an ark, Moses refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, etc.

Nowhere does it mention that faith is ignoring evidence that contradicts your point of view. Faith is belief that leads to action, not belief in something in spite of its contradictions.

Rule 5: Faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed

This rule ties closely with Rule 4 - if faith is belief that leads to action, that faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. After all, if any issue can be dismissed with "faith", then misplaced faith simply becomes a license to believe in error. Scrutinizing information that has the potential to contradict your belief system does not represent a lack of faith; rather, it's a great way to keep "faith" from trapping you into a false paradigm.

If you ask a Mormon why there is "little in the way of specific archaeological evidence…for the Book of Mormon" as Dr. Peterson stated, some will say "it has to be that way - if not, there would be no need for faith!" Faith becomes an escape hatch for belief systems knee-deep in errors.

Rule 6: Spiritual experiences alone do not lead to religious truth

This rule strikes directly at the heart of why many people stay in Mormonism regardless of the issues. People have certain spiritual experiences that they take to mean the Church is "true" beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is not my place or my desire to tell people what God has or hasn't revealed to them, but one thing I strongly believe is that Mormons are not the only people who believe God has revealed the truth to them.

People in religions around the world don't go around dedicating their lives to their religion for trivial reasons - they believe it is for a higher cause. I'm willing to bet that if I went and talked to 10,000 leaders in various religious organizations around the world, a good number of them would give me a similar answer: "I'm only doing the will of God - He as led me here and He has revealed to me the truthfulness of this work. I see His hand in this work."

I'm not God, so I'm not going to pretend I know why this phenomenon exists. But it is apparent that spiritual experiences can result in many, many different interpretations of truth. And, no matter how much a person claims that their spiritual experiences have led them to know their path is the way to truth - and no matter how sincere they are in that belief - that doesn't automatically mean that they are right. And if that's the case, I believe one shouldn't base one's beliefs 100% on spiritual feelings.

Rule 7: Everyone's beliefs are grounded in logic

In the world of Mormonism, logic is often turned into the "bad guy", but the reality is no one can escape logic. People who rely solely on spiritual experiences for the basis of their testimony are relying on logic as well, regardless of whether or not they choose to see it that way. They still have to logically conclude that the spiritual experiences that they've had must mean that the Mormon church is "true". They are using logic to determine that there is NO other possible explanation for their experiences. They are using logic to decide they don't need to consider any other information (i.e. - DNA, archeology, etc) in determining the truthfulness of the Church. Everything that a person believes has to pass through his or her own personal firewall of logic!

Some people claim that "logic and reason will never discover truth." Although this might be true on some levels, I disagree with it as a rule that can be consistently applied to all situations. First, as it relates to Mormonism, I disagree with the unstated assumption that spiritual experiences ALONE are a better way to discover truth - see Rule #6. Second, because even the meaning of spiritual experiences must pass through one's personal system of logic. Finally, I disagree because sometimes (though certainly not always) logic does discover truth. One can use logic and reason to determine the truth about whether or not Joseph Smith married other men's wives, or whether or not he revised revelations, or that the American Indians are primarily (probably even entirely) descendants of Asians, or that the papyrus fragments in existence today were not written in Abraham's time. All of these are truths that have been determined through logic and reason! The real question isn't whether or not these things are true,but what will one do when determining the significance of this information?

Rule 8: I will not allow other people to dictate my life

This rule is what gives meaning to all the other rules - at least in regards to Mormonism. After all, what good is it to know something is false if you aren't willing to abandon the falsehood? Many here have felt the intense pressure applied by family and friends when they discover you no longer believe. Too often, in their eyes, "good" is defined relative to belief in Mormonism - it doesn't really matter what type of life you lead, if you don't believe in Mormonism, you are in the grips of evil!

This outside pressure can vary in intensity depending on one's personal situation and it causes some people to live a life that is not in harmony with their underlying beliefs - an "active" Mormon who doesn't believe in Mormonism's claims of truth. I will not fake belief to appease anyone because as soon as I do so, I have lost control of my life and, at that point, what good is that kind of life?

Each of us at some point must decide if we will live life on our own terms or if we will live it on someone else's terms. For some people, this rule is easy to live by, but for me it has been extremely difficult - and, after reading this board for quite some time now, I don't think I'm the only one who has struggled with this issue. Too many people feel their belief system is superior to your own, even when it is riddled with issues that contradict the "simple rules" that you live by…

Any other rules that you live by that caused you to lose you belief in Mormonism?

They Can’t Have It Both Ways

2008-05-06T20:24:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine asked that I write a post about this topic so, Lunar Quaker, this one is for you.

For the past few years the LDS church has really made a strong push to promote themselves as being part of Christianity.

According to Webster, Christianity is…

"the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies."

Those who are part of Christianity are referred to as “Christians”.

Mormons claim to be “Christian” because they believe in Jesus Christ but those in the Christian community point to many reasons they should not be considered as such and by pure definition, Webster agrees. That is not the topic of this post but definitely worth further discussion in the near future.

This post is actually being written to talk about the LDS church and how they have responded to the FLDS issue that is going on in my “backyard”. Below, are two clips from LDS spokesmen regarding the separation they wish to make between themselves and the fundamentalist groups that practice polygamy.

In both statements, the men have asked for total separation of the term “Mormon” from that of any fundamentalist or polygamous sect. It is important to note that there are over 200 religious groups, which are recognized by the US Government, that follow the teachings of Joseph Smith and consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture. The term “Mormon” obviously comes from the idea that the LDS church has an additional book of scripture that sets them apart from other churches. They are often called Mormons because of that simple fact. Why is it then that other churches that use the Book of Mormon can not be referred to by that name as well?

On the church website, they have listed guidelines for how they should be referred to in publications.

"While the term 'Mormon Church' has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms 'Mormons,' 'Mormon fundamentalist,' 'Mormon dissidents,' etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.”

I have two main questions regarding this issue:

1. The Mormon church wants to called “Christian” because they think they share the same basic beliefs as the groups that make up Christianity but they do not want churches who have the same beliefs as them to be referred to as “Mormon”. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this besides me?

2. If the LDS church discourages the use of the term “Mormon” even when referring to themselves, why all the fuss when another group claims a term they don’t really like anyways?

No matter what the church does, it will never be able to separate themselves from polygamy and those sects that split from them that still practice what Joseph Smith taught. If the LDS church wants to really make a statement regarding polygamy, they need to revoke section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants which gives the eternal law of polygamy and speaks of the fact that polygamy will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom (the highest level of Heaven). Until they do that, they will always be known as the church that practiced polygamy and still practices celestial polygamy.

As for me, from now on, I am only going to refer to the FLDS group as “Mormon Fundamentalists”.
To deny the connection is to deny reality.

So Long, Farewell - parody

2008-05-06T15:35:00.000-05:00

While on a Post-Mormon discussion board today, a guy named “Laman & Lemon”, who has been blessed with great wit, wrote a song parody to the Sound of Music tune “So Long, Farewell”. Don’t be afraid to sing as you read it.

There's a sad sort of lying
from the books of our past
And from mo-dern research too
And up in my noggin, there a part of my mind
Is popping up to say "it's poo"
"it's poo"
"it's poo"
Mormon histr'y it tells us
"it's poo"
And logic compels us
"it's poo"
To say goodbye,

"it's poo"

to you!!

So Long, farewell, our feet are stained, good night
I'm shocked, that Joe would lie about his wives

"doot, doo da loot doot doo doot doo- doot do da loot doot doo"

So long, farewell, papyrus showed his lies
It's poo, it's poo, to you and you and you

"doot, doo da loot doot doo doot doo- doot do da loot doot doo"

So long, farewell, offended I am not,
I've ne-ver had beer, cigs, tea or champagne

"doot, doo da loot doot doo doot doo- doot do da loot doot doo"

So long, farewell, I've only "known" my wife
I leave and heave a sigh and say goodbye,
Good bye (I'll have to REALLY gird up my loins to hit THAT high note)

I'm glad to go,
The church has told me lies.
I read, I know
My spirits's on a high

"doot, doo da loot doot doo doot doo- doot do da loot doot doo"

The lies I've put to test and so must you (slowly)
So long, farewell, truth does not change, goodbye,
Goodbye,
Goodbye,
Goodbye!
GOODBYE!!!!! (final goodbye is done by the member/leaders. I doubt they will have the personality to do it)

I love humor like this!

Humanitarian Aid

2008-05-01T14:44:00.000-05:00

Since I was a kid, I remember seeing reports between sessions of General Conference about how much good the church was doing around the world, in regards to humanitarian aid. I was proud to be part of a church that gave so much to those in need. I assumed, as the true church, that our giving was beyond comparison. I was on LDS.org the other day and ran into information about the church humanitarian aid donations that I thought was both interesting and sad.

Total church Membership – 12,868,606

Countries receiving humanitarian aid – 163

Humanitarian Cash Donations Since 1985 to 2007 – 259.8 million

Humanitarian material assistance since 1985 – 750.9 million

Total Humanitarian aid between 1985 to 2007 - $1,010,700,000

At first glance, it looks like a large sum of money. That is over 1 billion given in money and material since 1985 (22 years). I did some further math to break it down into something I could wrap my mind around. Here is what I came up with.

Aid given per year - $45,940,909.09

Per month - $3,828,409.09

Per member - $78.54 over 22 years ($3.57 per year)

Even in 1985, when I was 7 years old, I gave more than that to the church by way of tithing and fast offerings. Every Christmas, my 6 year old daughter gives more than $4.00 to the Red Cross just by dropping money into a red pail each and every time she walks past one. As an adult, I gave thousands a year and there are those that make enough to give tens of thousands to the church. Where is all that money going? The Mormon church does not release its financial records, which is another post for another day, so we cannot really know how much money they bring in and how much goes out. According to this Time Magazine article, the LDS church brings in around $5.2 Billion in tithing each year. If that is true, then the church gives less than 1% of the tithing it receives to humanitarian aid. In my opinion, that is not nearly enough.

I wanted to put this into perspective so I have looked up the charitable donations of other prominent businesses to see where they stand in comparison.

Target – “5% of our income goes to support education, social services, and the arts – which adds up to $3 million a week.” (That is $156 million a year, over 3 times what the church gives annually.)

Nike – “In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, Nike contributed more than $100 million in cash and products to nonprofit partners around the world.”

Wells Fargo – “In 2005, Wells Fargo contributed a record $95.2 million to over 15,000 non-profits nationwide. We thank our team members, who give hundreds of thousands of hours as volunteers, working to improve the well-being and economic self-sufficiency of our communities.”

Microsoft – “Sept. 21, 2006 — Today at Microsoft Corp.’s annual company meeting, Microsoft announced that the company has surpassed a mark that will not show up on a stock ticker or retail shelves. Since 1983, Microsoft and its employees have given more than $2.5 billion in cash, services and software to nonprofits around the world through localized, company-sponsored giving and volunteer campaigns.” (Double what the LDS church has done in basically the same amount of time.)

Now, I understand that Microsoft is a “super company” but Target, Nike and Wells Fargo all outdid the Mormon church. In a time where all we hear about is corporate greed, we see that what we are told can be deceiving. I have to tip my hat to those businesses and corporations who feel a moral responsibility to give back to the same communities that make then what they are and also to areas around the world that are in need. Certainly there are others that I did not look at that do the same.

The part that bothers me the most is that I have heard many times and very recently, “I don’t give to other charities because I already give my 10% to the church and they distribute it to charities they trust.” Unfortunately, according to their own statistics, only about $4 of their donations actually make it anywhere. That brings me to the point of this post.

Hey, Tommy Monson, where does all of the rest of the money go? I think you’ve got some explaining to do.

Tales from a 6yr old…setting Grams straight.

2008-04-28T23:08:00.000-05:00

Tonight my wife told me a story that I find very humorous and I just have to share it. While painting with our 6yr old daughter, the subject of church came up. It is not something that we have talked to her about very much except to correct a few points of Mormon doctrine, mainly the Word of Wisdom. We have been impressed on how fast she as adapted to her new teachers and is learning a lot so we keep focused on new beliefs rather then old ones.

She told Amy, in a very adult way; about a conversation she had a couple of weeks ago with my mother “Grams” who is a firm believer in the LDS church. The dialog went something like this…

Daughter: Grams, why do Mormons think they are the “only true church”?
Grams: Well, every church believes they are the “one true church”.
Daughter: No they don’t.
Grams: Sure they do.
Daughter: Christians don’t believe that because there are so many of them and they don’t think they are the “one true church”. It’s wrong to believe that there is only one true church.
Grams: Where did you hear that from?
Daughter: My mom and dad.

She then proceeded to tell Amy that she hears us talk about church stuff while she is in the other room coloring. Apparently, she has become a good listener and is able to absorb and understand more then I thought. When did that happen? She has shown that she can think about and digest more advanced information so I think it is time to be a bit more open and upfront with her regarding my thoughts on Mormonism. She told Amy that she knows that I don’t believe in God and does not understand why.

Is it wrong to take such pleasure in seeing your kid stand up to your own mom like you wish you would of done at her age an even older?

I could not be prouder of my free thinker! If I had one wish, it would be that she would grow up knowing how to think and act for herself; rooting her beliefs in fact and faith, having properly educated herself on a variety of topics. She has shown me how strong she can be when equipped with knowledge and I now take it upon myself to make sure she is properly equipped with the skills needed to use that wonderful brain of hers.

Looks like it is time for our Daddy-Daughter snow cone outing so I can give her a glimpse into my mind and heart, while hopefully passing on some wisdom she will find valuable enough to carry with her for the rest of her life.

Mormon Scripture

2008-04-23T18:41:00.000-05:00

The LDS church has 4 books of canonized scripture. They include The Bible (King James Version), The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. The last three were of course brought to light during the life of Joseph Smith. Below is a brief intoduction into each.

The Bible they use is the standard King James Version because they believe that it is the most accurate English translation. It has been painstakingly cross-referenced to the other books in the canon and has their own summary before each chapter which I will show you an example of in the next post. Joseph Smith began to correct the KJV due to many perceived errors. He died before he could finish this work. I am not a biblical scholar so I do not know if his claims to errors are valid so I will not comment on that. I do however, find it odd that no Mormon Prophet since his death has found it necessary to pick-up where he left off and finish his corrections.

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel. The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after his resurrection. Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”(Introduction of the BoM)

The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days. Although most of the sections are directed to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the messages, warnings, and exhortations are for the benefit of all mankind. Doctrine and Covenants is unique because it is not a translation of an ancient document, but is of modern origin and was given of God through his chosen prophets for the restoration of his holy work and the establishment of the kingdom of God on the earth in these days.(Introduction of D&C)

The Pearl of Great Price is a selection of choice materials touching many significant aspects of the faith and doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These items were produced by the Prophet Joseph Smith and were published in the Church periodicals of his day.

Following is a brief introduction to the present contents:

Selections from the Book of Moses. An extract from the book of Genesis of Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible, which he began in June 1830.

The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.

Joseph Smith—Matthew. An extract from the testimony of Matthew in Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible.

Joseph Smith—History. Excerpts from Joseph Smith’s official testimony and history, which he prepared in 1838

The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A statement by Joseph Smith published in the Times and Seasons March 1, 1842
(Introduction of TPoGP)

I know that the idea of scripture in addition to the Bible is something that non-Mormons don’t understand so the next few posts will address the LDS justification for having such scriptures.

The Word of Wisdom and the Bible

2008-04-21T11:25:00.000-05:00

I was spending some time on a Mormon message board and someone asked if there were any Biblical references to the Word of Wisdom or other laws restricting the consumption of certain foods and drinks. Now, I admit that I do not know very much of the Bible so I hope I get this right. If not, please correct me. In the Old Testament, you have the rules about eating only “clean” animals and things like that, but that was part of the Law of Moses. It is my understanding that Jesus did away with the Law of Moses during his ministry. With that said and keeping in mind the question about the WoW, read this passage of the KJV in Matthew 15.

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

The LDS church teaches that if you eat or drink certain things such as wine, coffee and tea, you will distance yourself from God and lose the influence of the Holy Ghost. Doing so makes it to where a member is no longer in good standing in the church and, in many cases, cannot participate in communion or holding positions in the church. It always keeps them from going to the Temple which is only reserved for those members who follow all of the commandments of God as revealed by his modern prophets for “no unclean thing can dwell with God”.

D&C 109
20 And that no unclean thing shall be permitted to come into thy house to pollute it;
21 And when thy people transgress, any of them, they may speedily repent and return unto thee, and find favor in thy sight, and be restored to the blessings which thou hast ordained to be poured out upon those who shall reverence thee in thy house.

If you contrast that idea with what Jesus taught in the New Testament, you see something completely different. You see a God that does not care what you put into your body but rather, what you let come out of it. He taught that a person’s heart, mind and soul were more important than a glass of wine. Shoot, Noah got drunk on more than one occasion but that did not stop God from calling him to be a prophet because he knew what was in his heart.

Why then does Mormonism put so much credence in the WoW? I think it is a very easy way to “measure” a person’s loyalty to the church and control its members through social pressure. The Pharisees did the same thing and in return they received a rebuking which I think Jesus would give to the LDS leaders today if he were here.

A follow-up post about TRUTH (Part 3)

2008-04-16T10:13:00.000-05:00

Alright, one more. This one needed its own space.

The religion of God embraces every fact that exists in all the wide arena of nature, while the religions of men consist of theory devoid of fact, or of any true principle of guidance; hence the professing Christian world are like a ship upon a boisterous ocean without rudder, compass, or pilot, and are tossed hither and thither by every wind of doctrine.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v10 p166

If God embraces EVERY fact that exists, that would have to include areas such as the many forms of science that exist like Geology, Anthropology and Linguistics. Keeping that in mind, take a look at the following teachings from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

"As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years.
"He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.
Oliver B. Huntington speaking of Joseph Smith in the 1892 LDS publication The Young Woman's Journal, p. 263

Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v10 p166

Typical Mormon response: “They were speaking as men, not as prophets when they said these things.”

Brigham Young: I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.
Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses v13 p95

Obviously, there are not men living on the moon. Science has disproven that. Based on this obscure teaching and other things that have since been disproven like the translation of the Book of Abraham and the existence of items mentioned in the Book of Mormon, it is my opinion that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would teach things that they never imagined could be disproven. Back in those days, they could not even imagine that a car would be invented, much less, a rocket that could take us to the moon. Since they never thought it could be proven wrong, they had no reservations about making things up that would grab the attention of their followers and make them look prophetic.

When Joseph “translated” the Book of Abraham, no one really knew what they said so he was free to make them say whatever he wanted and no one would know the difference. It was not till many years later that linguists began to decipher the hieroglyphics and understand what the papyri he used really said. By then, the church already had too much invested in the Pearl of Great Price and still has, for the most part, ignored the findings of those that have studied them and have clearly shown that Joseph was not even close to disclosing their true meaning.

The Book of Mormon is full of things like this. I am working on posting about that but it is still down on the list.

So the point of this post is this. If God’s church embraces every fact as stated above, then the LDS church, who claims to be God’s only church, should take these scientific facts and openly discount the validity of the Book of Abraham and other church scripture and beliefs that have been shown to go against modern findings. To my knowledge, it has never come close to doing so.

A follow-up post about TRUTH (Part 2)

2008-04-16T10:12:00.000-05:00

The “modern” view on the relevance of truth is much different.

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."
- Apostle Dallin Oaks Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction

So, what you are saying is that if anyone brings up issues with Joseph Smith it is ok to discredit them even if what they say is true? To what extent will they go to protect the image of Joseph Smith?

"Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid."

"Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up “facts” with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture:

“The righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” (Rom. 1:17-18.)

"I repeat: 'The wrath of God is … against all … who hold the truth in unrighteousness.'"

To anyone who, because of truth, may be tempted to become a dissenter against the Lord and his anointed, weigh carefully your action
Russell M. Nelson, “Truth—and More,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, page 69

Let me get this straight. If something is true, but talking about it will hurt the church, it is best left unsaid? And even if someone finds the truth, if they give it to others or use it to point out something wrong with doctrine, they are using it unrighteously? I don’t see how using truth to uncover manipulation and lies is a bad thing.

"It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."
" As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, 'when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.
Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985

What if you don’t believe that person was really called of God? Is it ok to criticize then? According to these quotes, it’s not ok, even if what is said is true about that person. Perhaps that is how they got away with so many atrocities back in those days and how they change doctrine of the church today without the slightest flinch from the church membership.

“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.”
Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981

How do we know which truth is useful? Which events, teachings and facts are to be taught and which are to be ignored? Should they just say that Joseph Smith had many wives or should they mention that a couple of those wives were only 14 years old when he married them? Is that a faith building part of history or a faith destroyer? I think that it is truth regardless of how it affects one’s testimony and it should be left to each individual to come to their own conclusion.

"We are instructed to be like children, who are willing to be taught and then to act without first demanding full knowledge."
"Let us believe all things. Let us have unquestioning faith in all of the doctrines and truths of the restored gospel."
Elder Robert Oaks, "Believe All Things," Ensign, July 2005, page 30

Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Children are naive, gullible, innocent and are trusting enough to believe anything they are told. They are not capable of discerning between make believe and reality. If they were, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny would be out of jobs. Most children are upset and confused when they find out the truth about Santa, just like I was when I found out the truth about Mormonism.

I am not a child, I am an adult. Many experiences have given me the ability and maturity to think for myself and form my own opinions. The age of innocents is behind me and I have no desire to go back. I no longer believe in “Joseph Clause”. I have seen what living life in the Mormon fantasy land does to a person, and it is no way to live. Life is much better in the fresh air of reality and truth.

"Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. ... When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.”

"Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately."
- Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, Feb. 1987

Privately, I don’t think so! The church has excommunicated many people because they were unwilling to keep their issues with doctrine to themselves. Why should I go along with their censorship of truth? I am no longer subject to their rules and I will not keep silent. When I started this journey, I had no intention of speaking out against the church but the more I see, the harder it gets to bite my tongue. I can not stand by and watch while others are deceived. If that makes me an “Anti-Mormon” then so be it.

A follow-up post about TRUTH (Part 1)

2008-04-16T10:02:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking about the need to find truth and found quotes from both early and current LDS leaders that address the subject. I have grouped them in two parts. This first post will show what early leaders said about truth.

I think a full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want nothing secret nor underhanded, and for one I want no association with things that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation.
John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, V20 Ch1 p265

In the early days of the church, the leaders were very bold in their statements and did not shy away from discussion of doctrine.

Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds.
Orson Pratt, The Seer, Ch17 p15-16

I love this statement! I love it because it plainly states that logic and reason are valid ways to truth, not just the warm fuzzy feeling you get from the spirit. My approach to this blog is very similar to this. I try to put logic, reason and church history/doctrine together. When they are laid out, side by side, it becomes very easy to see where they contradict one another. Orson Pratt welcomed this added insight and encouraged such discussion for the betterment of the church and its members.

I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v13 p271

Can I get an Amen?

Thank you Brother Brigham for making my point. A road made of false principles and ideas will always lead to a dead end. He must have been looking in a mirror when he wrote this sermon.

All of these quotes promote some type of discussion and truth. I see them as challenges to believers and non-believers alike to examine and think about all of the teachings they present and then take any issues to the leaders and they will listen with an open mind.

Do current leaders and members feel the same way?

The whole armour of God

2008-04-13T22:36:00.000-05:00

Tonight I was at an adult group where there was a small worship service. During the sermon, the pastor talked about putting on the whole armour of God. This is a topic I had heard a million times as a youth growing up and also as a missionary. Tonight, I noticed something that I had never seen before. Truth is the first thing needed when combating Satan.

Ephesians 6:13-18
13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

This passage sets out the way we are supposed to prepare for battle against the evil in the world. The first thing we are to do is arm ourselves with truth. Then righteousness is needed, followed by the gospel of peace. The fourth thing is faith. The last few items you need are the helmet of salvation and the word of God (sword of the Spirit).

The order of preparation is very important here. It is common belief that Satan is constantly waging war against us so at any moment, we could be called upon to fight. This would mean that a fight might come even if we are not fully clothed and protected. Keeping this in mind, the first items we are told to put on must be the most vital for our survival. Now, I don’t know anything about biblical warfare and the importance of each article of clothing but I’d venture to guess that without the first item, the rest will not function properly. Ideas were taught in the Bible in terms that the people would understand so I am pretty sure the order of things made sense to those being spoken to.

This part of the sermon tonight really spoke to me. I am in my own search for the truth, not only about Mormonism, but about God in general.

I have been trying to think about times when I was taught that truth was this important and I can not thing of any. Pretty much all of the LDS teachings or sayings seem to put faith first.

Articles of Faith

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

D&C 4:5-6 (A scripture recited on a daily basis by all missionaries and also used to prepare young men to serve)

5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work.
6 Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence.

Young Women Theme – recited each Sunday

We are daughters of our Heavenly Father, who loves us, and we love Him. We will “stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9) as we strive to live the Young Women values, which are:

Faith
Divine Nature
Individual Worth
Knowledge
Choice and Accountability
Good Works and
Integrity

We believe as we come to accept and act upon these values,
we will be prepared to
strengthen home and family,
make and keep sacred covenants,
receive the ordinances of the temple,
and enjoy the blessings of exaltation.

Relief Society Declaration

We are beloved spirit daughters of God,
and our lives have meaning, purpose, and direction. As a worldwide sisterhood, we are united in our devotion to Jesus Christ, our Savior and Exemplar.

We are women of faith, virtue, vision, and charity who:
Increase our testimonies of Jesus Christ
through prayer and scripture study.

Seek spiritual strength by following the
promptings of the Holy Ghost.

Dedicate ourselves to strengthening
marriages, families, and homes.

Find nobility in motherhood
and joy in womanhood.

Delight in service and good works.

Love life and learning.

Stand for truth and righteousness.

Sustain the priesthood
as the authority of God on earth.

Rejoice in the blessings of the temple,
understand our divine destiny,
and strive for exaltation.

In all of these mottos and creeds, are the Mormon values that they are supposed to strive for and are models for proper living. In each example, faith comes first. While I know that faith is important, I think having faith in false teachings is extremely harmful. Faith must be anchored in truth if your testimony is to remain calm in troubled waters. The anchor must latch onto a strong and immovable rock, which is truth, so you do not drift away from the protection of God’s harbor.

You might be on your way out of Mormonism if....

2008-04-11T14:30:00.000-05:00

• Your heart rate increases dramatically every time you buy a coffee.
• The word "apostate" doesn't sound scary anymore, but instead fills you with a sense of pride.
• The word "endowment" makes you cringe far more than any curse word you know of.
• You realize that viewing bits of history that aren't "always helpful" has gone from being troublesome to fascinating.
• You receive nastygrams left by members in the middle of the night.
• 10% of your gross income goes to Fidelity.
• You stop including middle initials when referring to general authorities.
• You smirk when the latest temple dedicatory prayer in Latin America refers to the locals as "the children of Lehi."
• You start finding ways to use temple endowment language in everyday speech.
• You know who Fanny Alger is.
• The merest glance at the Book of Abraham facsimiles causes you to giggle.
• You declare the proverbial oxe to be in the mire from here on out, and start shopping and seeing movies on Sundays.
• You actually like Sundays.
• You watch a movie without even knowing or caring what it's rated.
• The waitress asks if you'd like a margarita, and rather than being offended by the question, you're offended by the low-quality liquor they use.
• If your temple recommend interview doesn't get past the first question.
• You refer to the former church president as "Gordo."
• If you suddenly find all the truth to be "useful."
• You think that girl's tattoo and extra earrings look pretty hot, actually.
• You no longer consider ice tea to be a "hot drink."
• You've actually inquired as to whether you could get a tithing refund.
• TBMs suddenly stop acknowledging you exist.
• You find that when discussing Mormonism online you write "the church" rather than "the Church".
• You walk shamelessly into Starbuck's, hold your head up high, and proclaim "I'll have a grande americano". Then when they ask "Room for cream?" you boldly affirm, "Yes!"
• You've had a few drinks and found that afterwards you curiously didn't turn into an abusing raving lunatic with no self-control.
• You've got a warm feeling inside. This means you either just drank something alcoholic, or you've been fantasizing about life without Mormonism.
• You think it's more important to be a good person than a good Mormon.
• You discover that most people are not looking for "the one true church."
• You wonder just how in the name of all that's holy they got you to believe that God cares what kind of underwear you wear.
• You feel more sympathy for the missionaries than you do pride.
• a relative says what you're doing will impact the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of others including those not yet born
• Another asks what kind of hideous sin you are covering up with this "concern" about church history
• you've met with your bishop and you ask him what he would do if he was bishop of the Nauvoo 4th Ward in 1842 and Joseph Smith asked for his wife or daughter for plural marriage
• you come to the conclusion that the teachings of the LDS church amount to no more than THE PHILOSOPHIES OF MEN MINGLED WITH SCRIPTURE
• Various forms of the word "offend" start appearing in proximity to your name during ward gossip sessions

This list was taken from www.mormoncurtain.com. Some of the information there is not worth a hill of beans and some Mormons will find parts a bit offensive, but there are some sections that are very well done.

Paint Chips- author unknown

2008-04-10T14:24:00.000-05:00

Being a part of the Mormon church is like having your whole body painted with many layers. First you get the lessons...there are several coats of doctrine. Then you get baptized and confirmed; two more thick coats of paint. The "paint" is intended to refurbish you as a member, to make you more acceptable to the church, to "God," to others. With each Relief Society or Priesthood lesson, another coat is applied. With each meeting, each interview, the layers of paint build. A trip to the Temple takes several coats and is inspected after each year. Then one day, you realize, you can't move! When you question about your lack of movement, the inspector tells you that your foundation is just fine. You try and sit still and remain the representation of a church "remodeled" member. But the questions come from within.

Then you hear something. A crack. A deep crack begins from the inside out. You doubt yourself because you know if you don't keep quiet, someone will hear! Someone will SEE that your appearance is now damaged. Someone might question if you have been properly taking care of your foundation, etc. Then one day, it happens. Just a small patch breaks away. You see something unusual. You touch it and are surprised. "Is that my skin?" you ask. It feels so alive and real. You begin to gently pick it away, then in a fervor you are scraping as much as you can off. Paint chips are everywhere! Soon you are standing there uncovered. You feel free. You breathe. Your body aches from the release of all that weight. You sigh and do not worry that other "painted folks" will see you without your so called "protective shell" You start the clean up job. Quickly and efficiently you sweep up all the chips and flakes. There are so many of them! It seems overwhelming at first, but then the job is done. All the mess is tossed out. You love your clean house; the way your body can breathe and move and LIVE! You are rearranging your life and then BAM you find a paint chip under the rug. Somehow you missed it...or did you save it? One day you go to get a coat and a few missed chips fall from a sleeve. Little reminders of what used to be. "It may take a while to get rid of all this residue" you say. But that is ok.

The FLDS church and mainstream Mormonism

2008-04-09T22:33:00.000-05:00

Unless you live under a rock, you have either heard of or read about the raid on the polygamist compound in Texas. Over 400 kids were taken, many of whom were sexually abused. Any time something like this happens, everyone I know asks me about it and I have always wondered why. Having put distance between me and the Mormon church, I am beginning to understand.

When Mormons hear about the FLDS practices, they usually dismiss them because they do not consider that religious group part of Mormonism. I know that because I did it myself for many years. My canned response to such questions would always go something like this.

“While the LDS church once practiced polygamy, they no longer condone it and anyone that is found practicing it is excommunicated. So, the “Mormons” spoken of in this case are not really Mormon and have nothing to do with the church I belong to.”

That would be the end of the conversation and I would think nothing of it. Since then, I have become a bit more enlightened on the subject and have realized that this kind of attitude is dangerous. LDS members seem to ignore the fact that those in the FLDS religion are actually following the teachings of Joseph Smith very closely. They believe that he was a prophet, and they follow the Book of Mormon and other revelations, just like mainstream Mormons do. They have the same roots and their basic tenets come from the mouths of early LDS leaders. They have chosen to stay with those doctrines while mainstream Mormonism has, in many cases, gone in a different direction.

If Joseph Smith lived today, would Mormons think the same way about him as they do Warren Jeffs? If you compare the actions of the two men, they are very similar. They both forced women and underage girls, through coercion, to marry them. They provided the same service to other men who proved their loyalty to them. They both had sex with those women against their will and held their victims hostage through threats of eternal damnation and physical punishment if they were not obedient.

While the church stopped the practice of polygamy back in 1890, there were actually still other plural marriages that were permitted by the prophet up until around 1904. The belief in plural marriage still exists in the Morg and it is my contention that if they had not received so much social and political pressure to change, they would still be practicing it today.

Here’s the question that comes to mind when I think about this topic. If the Mormon church had not stopped the practice of polygamy, would I have ended up like one of those poor kids? As a grown man, would I have been a participant in something so degrading and hurtful to women and children? It is a question worth thinking about because it is my opinion that most Mormons don’t understand how close they were to being put into the same situation.

A few random thoughts

2008-04-08T12:21:00.000-05:00

One thing this blog has done is show me who my real friends are and that alone makes it worth it. I have seen a wide range of reactions to what I am doing here and those reactions have given me a very good look into the heart and mind of each person.

I think there is a misconception as to the tone of this blog. Many see anger towards the LDS church in my posts which I can assure you is not the case. Am I angry? The answer is a resounding YES! But that anger is directed toward me and no one else. I am angry at myself for letting others dictate how I live my life. I am angry because I failed to properly educate myself and know more about the religion I claimed to be part of and even defended using what I now know to be half truths and smokescreens. I’m pissed off that I spent two years teaching people in Spain the same things I now see as manipulative and dishonest. The mere idea that I had a hand in the conversion of the people I taught makes me cringe. I hope they will forgive me for being part of the facade.

I like to refer to myself as a "Hopeful Agnostic" because I have a natural tendency to want to believe but have lost all trust and faith in religion. You see, I have spent the large majority of my life living a religion that hid truths from me. The discovery of those truths has affected my loyalty to them and God. It is a horrible feeling realizing that you have been deceived by someone who claimed to be a man of God. It destroys everything you have built your life around. The moment I realized that the LDS church is not what it claims to be, my faith came crashing down. I was left holding the pieces, having to rebuild my belief system but not knowing where to begin.

I enjoy going to church with my family now more than I ever have in my life. However, I cannot bring myself to the point where I can let go and put my trust in another church and to me that also makes it impossible to put my faith in God because that is where I am supposed to learn about Him. I see all of this as a process and it is going to take time to find solid ground to stand on. In the end, will I find a belief in God? I don’t know, but I do know that, regardless of where I land, I will be better off for having gone through all of this. Knowledge is power and the truth will set you free.

My source for the story of Bishop Snow

2008-04-07T08:56:00.000-05:00

I have had some people request my source for the story regarding Bishop Snow and the young man he castrated due to disobedience. The account appears in a book written by John D. Lee who was part of the Mountain Meadow Massacre and was a good friend to Joseph Smith and part of the leadership of the church. He was also an alleged member of the Danites. The Danites were a group of men who were the enforcers of the laws. They would protect the leaders of the church and quietly take out those who opposed them. Many acts of Blood Atonement in the early church were also attributed to the Danites. There are different historical views on the extent of the actions of the Danites but none deny that they did in fact exist.

The full text of his book is available on-line by clicking the link below. This story is found on page 284-286.
Confessions of John D. Lee, Photo-reprint of 1877 edition

Which one of these is not like the others?

2008-04-03T20:40:00.000-05:00

Let’s play a game!

Which one of these is not like the others?

Having a hard time? I’ll give you a hint. It is the picture featured in most church magazines and lesson manuals. The correct answer is, picture number 3.

Why is it so out of place in this line-up? Well, it is the one that does not depict how the Book of Mormon was actually translated. For years, the church has shown images like this, leading its members and investigators to believe that this was how Joseph translated the golden plates. They depict Joseph intensely focused on the plates themselves, taking the translated words directly from them. This is what the church wants you to believe but it is not in synch with actual accounts of the translation process.

Emma Smith was the first person to act as a scribe for Joseph and she had the following to say about it.

“In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

David Whitmer offered up the use of his house for the translation and this is his account:

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. 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."

He also said that:

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
~An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer

Of course, this brings us to the question of why is the church not forthcoming with the true method used to translate the plates. I would imagine that they are rather embarrassed by it. Try to put yourself in the shoes of an investigator. When the missionaries tell you about the coming forth of the BoM, instead of showing you a nice picture of Joseph using the plates in the translation, they tell you that he put a stone in a hat and then covered his face with it to make the words appear to him. Which account would you be more likely to believe?

Who gets into heaven?

2008-04-02T19:23:00.000-05:00

Just to add a little humor to the blog. This video is funny yet true to Mormon teachings. Enjoy!

A quote about leadership

2008-04-02T14:39:00.000-05:00

I read this quote today and thought that is fit in well with the topic of my last few blogs.

"Ethics must begin at the top of an organization. It is a leadership issue and the chief executive must set the example."
~Edward Hennessy

The story of Bishop Warren Snow

2008-04-02T00:46:00.000-05:00

There is a story that stands out above the rest in when looking at the horrible practices of coercion and unrighteous dominion of the leaders in early church history.

Warren Snow, who was a bishop in Manti, already had a few wives but a young woman caught his eye. He had a problem though in that she was already promised to a young man. He told her that it was the Lord’s will that she leave her man and marry him. She respectfully declined his proposal a couple of times. Not willing to take no for an answer, Bishop Snow then approached the man she was promised to, telling him to break off their engagement. Staying true to his love for her, he also told the Bishop that he could not leave her. Snow then met with some of the brethren and decided to call a meeting with the young man to discuss his unwillingness to follow their council. The unthinkable then happened. When the young man arrived, he was taken, beaten, and strapped to a bench. Bishop Snow, himself, took out a bowie-knife and castrated him. His severed parts were then nailed to the schoolhouse for all to see. He was left there, bleeding with no one to help. After struggling for a while, he managed to free himself and crawl to where someone would find him. He was used as an example and warning to all, showing what could happen if they did not obey the leaders of the church. The young woman was later forced to marry Warren Snow.

There is evidence that shows that Brigham Young supported this action…

“In the midsummer of 1857 Brigham Young also expressed approval for an LDS bishop who had castrated a man. In May 1857 Bishop Warren S. Snow's counselor wrote that twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis 'has now gone crazy' after being castrated by Bishop Snow for an undisclosed sex crime. When informed of Snow's action, Young said: 'I feel to sustain him...' In July Brigham Young wrote a reassuring letter to the bishop about this castration: 'Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it,' the LDS president advised, 'and it will soon die away among the people.' "(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 250-251)

Wilford Woodruff spoke about a meeting he was in with Brigham Young where the topic came up as well.

"I then went into the president office & spent the evening. Bishop Blackburn was present. The subject Came up of some persons leaving Provo who had Apostatized. Some thought that Bishop Blackburn & President Snow was to blame. Brother Joseph Young presented the thing to president Young. But When the Circumstances were told President Brigham Young sustained the Brethren who presided at Provo…
"The subjects of Eunuchs came up…Brigham Said the day would Come when thousands would be made Eunochs in order for them to be saved in the kingdom of God." (Wilford Woodruff's Diary, June 2, 1857, Vol. 5, pp. 54-55)

The idea that prophets knew about and encouraged such things really makes me wonder what kind of men they really were. I see them as greedy, power hungry men, who only looked after the desires of their hearts and cared nothing for the actual will of God or the salvation of those who so willingly followed them.

Many Mormons find peace in the idea that God will never let a prophet lead away the members of the church. My question to them is how many examples do you need before you begin to see that the Mormon prophets have, many times over, lead their followers down paths that only lead away from God? Is this something that the God you believe in would approve of?

I didn’t think so.

For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none

2008-04-01T18:12:00.000-05:00

So, for years I defended the idea of early Mormons practicing polygamy by saying that they only did it to take care of those poor pioneer women whose husbands died on the plains. Or that it was something that was practiced by those in the Bible as well so why not now. After all, God does not change, right? These were ideas that I was taught by various church leaders but they never seemed to sit too well with me. I was reading yesterday and came upon an interesting passage in the Book of Mormon that talks about those who practiced it in the early days.

Jacob 2:22-28
22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

Now, I think I probably read this section 20+ times in my life but never really stopped to think about how it relates to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many other men in the early days of the church. Joseph himself “translated” the BoM so you would think he would know about how God felt concerning the idea of having more then one wife. After all, it was the translation work that brought up questions about baptism and the priesthood so why would he have just skipped over this part?

I have not found a passage that states so clearly the disdain God has towards those who have more then one wife and take away the chastity of women. Now, why then would God command Joseph to implement the principle of plural marriage if he was so displeased with David, Solomon and the Nephites for doing the same thing? If there is a God, I do not think he would. I especially don’t think he would have compelled Joseph to do it by sending an angel with a flaming sword to him threatening to take his life. I also do not think that God would command his prophets to take other men’s wives for their own while they are still married and even pregnant. If what Joseph claims is true about plural marriage, then his God is not one I care to believe in. I believe that Joseph, thinking of his own need for power, did this knowing it was wrong. Why else would he have hid it from Emma, his first wife, as well as others for so long? Why would he send men off on missions and then only months later, take their wives as his own? That practice, in any time in history, would not be looked upon with favorable eyes.

For those of you who doubt that Joseph practiced polygamy and polyandry, go to familysearch.org yourself, just like I have done, and do a search for Joseph Smith marriage records from 1827 and on. I will make it easy on you, just…click here. What will you find? On a church run website, you will find the records of the majority if not all of his marriages, including those women he married while they were still faithfully married to another man.

D&C 132:61-63
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed…

So, according to the revelation given above, as long as the second wife is a virgin and the first wife gives her consent, the marriage is ok. While I disagree with the principle, I am willing to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt up to this point. The problem for me comes next. If the woman is not a virgin and or is vowed to another man, the one trying to marry her is not justified. By that note, anyone who Joseph and others married that were previously married, they did unjustly and committed adultery because of it. Now, it is believed by those brethren that they were not committing adultery but what of the women how already had a husband? According to verse 63, they did commit adultery by being espoused but also being with another man. That is quite the double standard.

I leave you with the words of one of the late Apostles of the LDS church…

"I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.

I think that statement just about sums it all up. Now I think I’m going to be sick!

Here’s a quarter, call someone who cares

2008-03-29T00:53:00.000-05:00

One thing I don’t think I will ever understand is why some members of the LDS church feel the need to call and preach to those who have chosen a different path. Why do they call to tell me that they are worried and concerned about me and how they “know” the church is true and that I am making a huge mistake with eternal ramifications? I was a member for 29 years and know what Mormons believe regarding those who leave and I don’t need you to tell me. I don’t prescribe to those beliefs and am confident that I won’t be struck down by lightning nor will my soul be damned for eternity for resigning my membership.

I have recently had friends call with the sole purpose of “witnessing” to me. They shove their beliefs in my face and expect me to listen but they are unwilling to return the favor and hear to what I have to say. Why is that? Why do you feel that it is ok for you to preach to me but the second I start to explain myself you claim that I am attacking you and not respecting your rights? Are you really that insecure about your beliefs? Are you afraid that what I have to say will make you doubt that which you have believed for so many years? If you are, I can understand but I cannot help but feel sorry for you.

I make it a point to not talk about my issues with Mormonism unless I am asked directly to share my thoughts. I put my ideas and experiences on this blog and open it to all who care to read it as a way of sharing what I have found in a non confrontational way. Those who want to read my blog are free to, but no one is forced into it. I have never preached to anyone nor do I plan to. It is my hope that my family and I will be treated the same way.

So, if you are contacting us to be a true friend then we welcome you, but the next time you feel the need to call or email us to share your thoughts on Mormonism, don’t bother. I’m sure your time could be better spent magnifying your calling or better yet, having some nice quality time with your family.

The First Big Debate

2008-03-27T23:52:00.000-05:00

So, my sisters were in town over the Easter holiday and I suppose it was inevitable that the topic of my disaffection would come up at some point. Every time we would get together, the topic loomed over us but it was never talked about until Sunday night when I actually decided to bight the bullet and say something. What ensued was a 3 hour argument/conversation. I’m still not too sure what to think of it all but here are some highlights.

The conversation started by me asking my oldest sister why she was the only one in our family who chose not to make some kind of contact with me after my letter was sent to the family explaining that I had decided to leave the Morg. She quickly went down the testimony rout and said that I was making a huge mistake and that she “knows” that the church is true. I have heard that phrase so many times in my life that it has lost all meaning for me. What does that even mean? She then said that she had nothing good to say so she chose to say nothing.

Various aspects of my decision to leave were discussed including my decision to go on a mission due to the pressures and stigma attached to someone who does not go and how that affected me. I told them in very tactful but blunt ways that I never really had a testimony and that I only went through the motions for many years. I tried not to get into actual doctrinal issues too much because I did not want to upset them.

The conversation turned to how I believe the church has changed its policies over the years to conform to social pressures. Examples I brought up were the repeal of polygamy, allowing blacks to hold the priesthood and the release of the proclamation of the family. Much to my surprise, my mom actually agreed with me that some were the result of social and political pressures but refuted my claims that the change in who could hold the priesthood had to do with that. My younger sister found the rational that the change to let the blacks hold the priesthood was like unto the church not letting people cook in the church anymore, and that neither one had a huge affect on the truthfulness of the gospel. I of course, had to respectfully disagree.

This same sister told me that I just have to have faith. In response to that I decided to test the waters and I broke out some historical discrepancies. I presented the information regarding the different first vision accounts and asked which one I was supposed to have faith in; the first ones that Joseph’s Myth wrote in 1832 and 1835 or the one that appears in the PoGP which was written in 1838 but not published till 1842? I don’t recall receiving a good answer to that. My mother, with tears welling up in her eyes looked shocked at the information I had just lain down in front of her and she made a point to ask that I not bring up any more information like that claiming that I was attacking her faith.

After a while, they turned their attention to my wife and began to focus their question on her and how a convert could possibility go back on the testimony they had when they were baptized. They held her to a higher standard then me for whatever reason and they could not really understand that you don’t know everything about the church when you are baptized so as you learn, you either gain a greater testimony of the gospel or your belief is torn down. I was then blamed in part for her loss of testimony because I became a negative influence on her.

For me the all-time highlight of the night was when the topic of the Word of Wisdom came up and how I was a bad influence on their kids who were present because I mentioned that I had some tea the other day. In the conversation, my sister actually said that drinking tea was just as bad as molesting a child. When she said that, my jaw dropped to the floor. I don’t understand how anyone could make such a claim. She went on to try to clarify her statement by saying that both are equally bad because they both keep you from being able to enter the temple. What kind of messed up thinking is that? That is like saying it is just as bad to lie to someone then it is to kill them. The church teaches that there are different degrees of sin. Otherwise, there would not be unpardonable sins such as denying the Holy Ghost or murder. Also, if her statement was correct, then you could be excommunicated for the smallest of infractions. I kind of feel sorry for her because that seems like a really crappy way of looking at life. She was even willing to completely disassociate from us if we ever spoke about drinking tea or alcohol around her kids again.

In the end, the night was a mix of both good and bad moments and overall, it was probably a healthy conversation. I was glad that I was finally able to get the issue out in the open and get the first major discussion over with. It is sad to me that they are so closed minded regarding the church. I wish there was some way I could make them open their eyes for just 30 minutes so I could show them the hypocrisy found in the church, especially my mom. I think that if she was really honest with herself she would say that she is not happy in the church but she is in too deep to let that happen.

I am the second of her four kids to leave the church and I am sure she feels like it is her fault in some way but really, she should not feel too bad. Even God lost 1/3 of his kids so why should she think she would fare any better?

Modern Day Prophets

2008-03-22T17:40:00.000-05:00

The other day I was mowing my lawn and began to think of all of the latest revelations given to us by a “modern day prophet” I could think of in my life time. I could not really think of very many.

Let’s see, you have the revelation that states that you should only have 1 set of earrings and no tattoos. Then you have the re-confirmation that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world set out in “The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles. Then you have the revelation that marriage should be between a man and a woman, we should have many children and homosexual relationships are bad in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”. None of these were a big surprise and already commonly believed by the members.

The big one of course was made when I was only a few months old. In that one, “all worthy male members” became eligible for the priesthood and temple blessings. Now, I’m not a rocket scientist or anything but even I could tell you that black men should have the ability to hold the same authority and positions as any other men in the LDS church. What I really find interesting about this one is the manner in which it was received. President Kimball “received” it after much prayer and meditation but then took it to 3 different levels of the priesthood leadership and had them vote on and approve the revelation before he would make the formal announcement. That sounds more like a CEO going to the Board of Directors of a major corporation to have his new business plan approved before it could be implemented. I can’t recall ever reading where the early LDS prophets had revelations voted on before they were given to the general membership. In fact, I could not see Joseph Smith and many of the early prophets putting the “revelations” they received up for a vote. What the prophet Joseph said in those days was considered concrete revelation from God and no one second guessed it.

What would have happened if there were enough people who voted against the revelation to let Blacks have the priesthood? Would that have rendered the revelation false? Could the general authorities of the church really override the prophet? If they in theory could, then would that infer that the prophet could in fact lead us astray if he did not allow others to review his revelations before they are made public?

The major question I have regarding modern day prophets is what is the point of having them if they only tell us what we already know with the use of common sense? All I hear about is how bad the world is getting and how we need a prophet to guide us who can talk to God in these troubled times but there does not appear to be much of anything coming down from on high. It seems that the church focuses on “personal revelation” because those who should be able to receive revelation for the entire church have not been able to for quite a few years now.

Book of Abraham Sounds Like a Sham

2008-03-19T09:44:00.000-05:00

It is common knowledge that Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Abraham came from his translation of some papyri acquired along with some mummies from a traveling show that passed through his town. What I think is not very well known are the details of that translation.

At the time in which Joseph Smith lived, there was very little knowledge regarding Ancient Egypt and everything that surrounded it was a mystery that intrigued many in the US. There was at that time, no real expert in reading Egyptian hieroglyphics but some were beginning to make small strides in understanding that civilization. When Joseph Smith saw the scrolls he had some of the members put together enough money to buy the mummies and scrolls for the sum of $2,400 which was a very large sum at the time. Joseph began translating the writings but it would take him many years to finish it.

As science has progressed, our knowledge of the Egyptians has increased substantially since the 1830’s. The discovery of the Rosetta Stone helped linguists discover the true meaning of Egyptian hieroglyphics. With the knowledge of today in both ancient writings and time dating, scientists have been able to evaluate the scrolls Joseph Smith used to create the Book of Abraham. The scrolls were believed to have been destroyed in the “great Chicago fire” of 1871 but in 1966 they were found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Many experts in Egyptology, from various parts of the world, have since inspected and reviewed the scrolls along with the three facsimiles found in the Pearl of Great Price and they have come to a very different conclusion regarding their origin and content. For the sake of time, I am not going to go into great detail on the specifics because they are too numerous to put here and I do not want to bore you all to death. There are many great books and web sites that do a good job of putting all of the information together for you. With a quick click on one of the links found on this blog you can read bout it in greater detail. 20 Truths About Mormonism has a very good accout of this and it also has the Mormon response to the issues surrounding the BoA.

Joseph claimed that the BoA was the writings of Abraham but according to those that have since reviewed the scrolls; the name of Abraham is not mentioned. The conclusion they all came to was that the scrolls were actually common Egyptian funerary documents for a man named Horus and that Joseph’s interpretations were far from accurate. The BoA has been identified as the Book of Breathings and time dating of the scrolls puts their creation at around the time of Christ which was approximately 2,000 years later then the time of Abraham. What Joseph Smith claimed to be the Book of Joseph was actually the pagan Egyptian Book of the Dead which dates to at least 1,500 years after the time of the biblical Joseph so it is not possible that he wrote it.

After reading all of the facts regarding the Book of Abraham, I have come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith did not know how to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics nor did he ever think that others would be able to, so he made up his own translation because no one would know the difference. His interpretation of the scrolls has been found to be no where close to the actual text by the scholars of today. Joseph has deceived the church regarding the Book of Abraham and the current leaders of the church choose to ignore the evidence against it.

If the Book of Abraham has been found to be a fraud, then could that same thing be said about the Book of Mormon? Unfortunately, without the actual plates, it would be impossible to make that assumption based on actual translation records alone but there are other issues in the Book of Mormon that I will get into later that lead me to believe it is no more accurate then the Book of Abraham.

Setting the Record Straight

2008-03-18T18:54:00.000-05:00

First, I think it is unfortunate that I have to do this but I received a comment that in my opinion made certain assumptions that are incorrect and put words into my mouth that I have never said. The person who made the comment chose to stay anonymous and I respect that however I believe that much of what he had to say was misguided. If you care to read his comment, it is #10 on the “Why I Blog” post. This post will be discussing some of the arguments made by that person.

” You tell us we are all arrogant and then state that we say there "is no hope for anyone else." That is completely false. We believe that other righteous people will be in the Celestial Kingdom.”

My original statement was about how those outside of the Mormon Church interpret the teachings of LDS leaders and then think of members as arrogant and self-righteous due to those teachings. Some examples are as follows:

"And the angel of God said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
- Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10-11

"I was answered by God that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith History 1:19

"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."
- Prophet Joseph Smith , The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60

Those are some pretty strong statements. Couple those with the fact that in the early pre-1990 temple endowment ceremony, before it was one of the parts removed, there is a protestant preacher that is depicted as a hired servant of Satan, paid to teach his doctrine and lead away Adam and his posterity, and you have built-in teachings that lead members to believe that anyone who is not Mormon is part of the Devil’s church. In the Teachings of The Prophet Smith on p119, Joseph makes a plain statement regarding this issue as well.

Q: ”Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?”
A: “Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness.”

You personally may not be arrogant but you can not hide from the fact that statements such as the one above and others that claims that the LDS Church is the “one and only true church” are in their very nature derogatory towards other religions and makes the church appear arrogant and better then all the rest.

In the Preparing for Exaltation lesson manual, Lesson 41 it says the following…“What are some things we must do to be able to enter the celestial kingdom? Be baptized, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, Exercise faith in Jesus Christ, and obey the commandments.” It then goes on to talk about how a temple marriage is the only way to reach the highest kingdom and be with our families forever. Now, I taught on my mission, that in order for a baptism to be valid, it has to be done by someone having authority meaning that it had to be done in the LDS faith. So, if the church teaches that baptism is a pre-requisite for entering the Celestial Kingdome then it also teaches that membership in the church is also required just as Joseph Smith said. If these “other righteous people” spoken of are also allowed into the CK then they are either Mormon or the doctrine of the church has to change.

"Other Christian denominations co-exist with one another because there is a "body of Christ" and they believe that they each make up part of that."

This is completely false. I guess you haven't been to many fiery Baptist sermons as well as many Lutheran, Evangelicals of most kinds , Methodist or Presbyterian meetings. Many of them bash all other religions and go to great lengths to do so. So your point of how all other Christian religions co-exist in harmony is totally misrepresented.”

I can only speak from my own personal experience in regards to the manner in which other churches co-exist. From what I have seen, they are more concerned that you are going to a church rather then their church. Many preachers stress the importance of being part of a “bible based” church and they understand that people find comfort and salvation in different ways. The church I currently attend with my wife, as a way of support for her, has people from many other congregations who attend the Wednesday night bible study and together, they edify and help each other come closer to God. They do not dispute with one another but rather, they find common ground and build upon that.

”Your blog domain is "Es Pura Mentira" meaning It's Pure Lies is also attacking Mormons because you are saying that Mormons are Liars and so is our doctrine.”

The full name of my blog is “Es Pura Mentira…the thoughts coming from behind my eyes regarding the Mormon Church.” What I write here is my view on the doctrine taught to me since I was a child. The conclusion I have come to is that it is a lie. I have had comments from other people who have taken the same information and arrive to completely different conclusions and I have no problem with that. At no time have I called out the church’s members and called them liars. Those are words that have been put into my mouth. I distinguish the leaders of the church from the normal members because the leaders are the ones who control the flow of information and ultimately have the last word in what makes it into church teaching materials. I believe some leaders have lied and continue to lie to cover-up points of doctrine that paints the church in a negative light.

”Also, the books you say you are reading are not all church publications. Many, like Mormon Doctrine, are not official church publications because even though McConkie was an apostle he put in his own opinions and some of it was not official church doctrine.”

I know that McConkie caught some flack for some of his comments in Mormon Doctrine but that has not stopped the use of that book and others in church meetings. It is my opinion that if something is ok to be used in church talks and lessons then it should be a reliable source of information regarding doctrine. If the book is not correct, then church leaders should forbid its use because it would be impossible to discern which points are correct and which are not.

”You keep going back to the founding days of the church and that is fine but you need to realize that the church has evolved and continues to evolve. In the beginning the leaders were just learning about certain doctrines and they were going "line upon line" They were not perfect and I'm sure you'll find contradictions like I find in many of your statements. This doesn't mean the message of the church is false.”

I was taught as a kid and I taught others on my mission that God does not change, that his gospel is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I use a lot of information from early church leaders because they are the ones that set up the foundation of the church and many of the most precious points of doctrine. They received the largest portion of revelation and therefore, had more to do with what the key points of beliefs would be. Today, those points of doctrine are often simply dismissed by current leaders. An example follows…

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us. Here, then, is eternal life--to know that only wise and true God, and you have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you. .. God himself, the father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ."
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345, also quoted heavily by the church, see Gospel Principles, Chapter 47.

Speaking about this same doctrine…President Hinckley said the following…

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"
Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."
- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997

Joseph Smith thought that this was a very important point of doctrine but it seems to be glossed over now by the current leadership. If it was so important in the early days of the church, then why would it not be as important now?

”I am still waiting for someone to tell me what part of the Mormon church's teachings leads us away from Jesus Christ.”

From where I sit, the mere example of Joseph Smith is enough to make me believe that what he did and taught took people farther away from Christ. Christ taught us not to lie, commit adultery and many other things. Joseph Smith lied about many things including the translation of the Book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates, and many other things. He also made it a common practice to take the wives of other men, committing adultery. This he also condoned for select brethren of the church. Polyandry is a practice that I can not believe was condoned by God.

”Another point you make is that you use your brain and you think for yourself thus making the impression that all Mormons are just sheep and can't think for themselves. This is a great personal attack on every Mormon in and of itself. I am an open minded person and fairly smart. There are millions of members who are very intelligent and smart.”

Once again, you twisted my comments to make it seem as if I said that Mormons do not use their minds and are not intelligent. If you go back and read my original statement, all I said is that I think for myself and that I have come to my own conclusions regarding the history and teachings of the church.

”I just want everyone that is reading this blog to realize that there are several other ways to look at what is being posted here. It all comes off like this is the way it is and there is nothing out there that can contradict these facts--well there are and there are other view points.”

I have never claimed to show both sides of the coin here. These are my thoughts and opinions and I have stated that from the very beginning. Obviously, there are other view points but I can only speak for myself. If you seek the opinions of others, then you will have to go elsewhere.

”Also, it's kind of funny how it was stated that those who post anonymously are hiding behind anonymity when the author is Soy YO (It's Me) and doesn't reveal his identity as well as "your wife:)". That's not a big deal and doesn't make any difference to me I just wanted to point out another contradiction.”

At times, my wife chooses to stay anonymous because she does not want people like you stalking her blog and attacking her and our family. She chooses to not get into posts about doctrine because she has many dear friends in the LDS church and does not want to offend them. Those who know her know me and I am a link on her blog. In regards to my anonymity, you can click on the “contact me” link and see that my name is Douglas Pennington. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. What about you?

Why I Blog

2008-03-16T22:57:00.000-05:00

Many wonder why I “waist” my time writing my thoughts on this blog, and I am happy to explain my reasoning for it. To me, it is not a waist of time since ultimately this is the medium I choose to express my thoughts and feelings regarding the Mormon Church and what I have gone through on my path to resignation. Many people who comment and read my blog also maintain their own. So to them I ask, why a blog instead of a personal journal or diary? I know from reading your blogs that most of you use yours as a type of journal or a way to let others know what is going on in their lives and it is a great way to communicate with a large number of people. It is a part of the web based era we live in. The only difference with mine is that I am probably more open with my thoughts then most. I have nothing to hide and see no point in sugar coating anything. What you read here is nothing but pure and raw emotion and it come from the organ behind my eyes that I like to call a brain.

Typically, the brain is what is used to sift through data and it uses past experiences as well as intellect to decipher what information is valid and what is not. I do not claim to be the most intellectual person around but I do know how to think for myself. I have been reading books regarding the history of the church and its doctrine and it has opened my eyes to so many beliefs that contradict each other. The books I have been reading are Teachings of The Prophet Joseph Smith, Mormon Doctrine, Journal of Discourses, Times & Seasons, History of the Church, and others. These are Church publications and I have no reason to doubt that they reflect accurate church beliefs and teachings since they are used on any given Sunday and by church leaders. When speaking on a topic, I will always quote my source so that anyone who doubts my information can look for themselves and come to their own conclusion about the same passages.

The purpose of this blog is not to persuade anyone to leave the Mormon Church. It is not the result of misplaced anger, but rather a vehicle for me to express the hurt and distrust associated with leaving a church that I have spent all my life serving and from my point of view, has lied to me. I acknowledge the fact that many of the things I write about will come off as harsh or shocking to those who believe in Mormonism but I do not and will not apologize for any of it.

Some have asked why I spend my time researching the problems in the Mormon Church instead of focusing on my current beliefs. For the most part, my research has already been finished. My posts are the result of that study but it is impossible for me to write everything in one day. In fact, I started with what in my mind were the more simple issues and am working my way up to the ones that were the main cause of my disaffection. Due to the response I am getting, I will push this week to get more of my thoughts posted. It takes a considerable amount of my time to do this due to the fact that I am the kind of person that speaks only after much thought and I try to be very careful not to speak out against the members of the church, but rather the doctrine, how it has changed and those who work to keep the truth from those that put so much faith in them.

It has been stated that I should spend my time focusing on my current beliefs rather then those I so recently left. In order to understand where I am now spiritually and where I want to go, I must first understand where I have been and what affect that has had on me. To do that, I feel the need to educate myself on the LDS church to find both the positive things that I can take from it and the negative things that I want to make sure do not follow me. At this point, I consider myself an Agnostic. I am uncertain of the existence of God. I am also at the point where I can not trust any religion. It is my belief, that the LDS church betrayed the trust I gave it for more then 25 years and that realization has made it impossible for me to put my trust in another “man of God”. I believe that Mormons do not have a monopoly on morals and righteousness and that I can be a great husband, father and person without it or any other church. I have begun to focus more time and energy into Eastern Philosophy. I have found peace in practicing Yoga and reading and pondering the teachings of Taoism. It quiets my soul and brings peace to my mind.

To those who choose to read the thoughts coming from behind my eyes, Welcome! I honestly appreciate the fact that you have chosen to spend some of your precious time today reading what I have to say. I encourage everyone who feels the need, to please comment. There is no need to be shy. If you choose to stay anonymous, I understand. Your comment is welcome either way. All that I ask is that you follow standard blog etiquette and refrain from personal attacks pointed towards those who also share their religious thoughts and beliefs. I encourage open, intelligent and respectful discussion here. If in your comment, you make reference to a certain quote or doctrine, please note your source so we can also read it and expand our knowledge on the topic at hand. If you would rather send me an email, you can do so knowing that I will not share your comments or identity with anyone else.

May you find peace and happiness in whatever path you choose.

Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do?

2008-03-12T22:30:00.000-05:00

D&C Section 89
1 A WORD OF WISDOM, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom

I was doing some reading about the Word of Wisdom and came upon something interesting. Before I get to my main point, I feel the need to give a little back story.

Now, after I graduated high School, I went to live with a former bishop of mine whose family had moved to Seattle. It was a chance to get away from Texas for a while and hopefully point my life in the right direction. While living up there, I was asked to speak at a fireside where different topics were being addressed. My topic was the WoW. In preparation, I asked Bishop for some insight on the subject. He asked me one question…”Is the WoW a commandment?” I thought about it for a second then I replied, “Yes”. He opened to section 89 and had me read the passage I quoted above. I was surprised to see that it says in very clear language, “not by commandment or constraint”. He explained to me how the revelation came about and that it was, at the time, a suggestion to the brethren. He left it at that and let me formulate my own opinions about it. I decided to ask his question to the group of youth there and they answered just like I had. I explained to them the same thing as best I could and then got into the traditional aspects of the revelation.

Over the years since, I have thought about that experience a lot. I could feel at the time how uncomfortable the leaders in the room felt when I told them that it was not a commandment. No one spoke to me about it but I always ask myself if I was right in saying that. After all, in the church today, you are asked very specific questions regarding the WoW and you must follow it to be considered a “member in good standing”.

Now, back to my current reading on the topic. I was again asking myself if I was right in teaching that so I began to read in Mormon Doctrine to see what McConkie had to say about it. I found what I expected. He states that it was not originally a commandment but was made one by Brigham Young. I then stumbled upon a quote by Joseph Smith made on April 7, 1838. The quote reads:

“No official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office after having the Word of Wisdom properly taught him, and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with and obey it.” (Teachings of The Prophet Joseph Smith p117)

The reason this quote struck me is because I read an account from History of the Church where, even up to the night before he was killed, Joseph Smith did not obey the WoW. The following account is from the night before his murder at Carthage Jail.

"The guard immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of tobacco; and one of the guards brought them into the jail…Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented a glass to Joseph, who tasted, as also Brother Taylor…" (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 616)

At the time, the use of wine as part of the Sacrament was generally accepted but this was not the use here as confirmed by john Taylor.

"Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent to revive us." (History of the Church, vol. 7, p. 101)

Based on this account as well as others, and the quote by Joseph Smith in 1838, he himself should not have been worthy to hold the calling and office of Prophet.

This is just another example of the hypocrisy of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church. I find it odd that in “worthiness interviews”, the only aspect of the WoW spoken of is abstaining from coffee, tea, and tobacco. They completely ignore the revelation that speaks of the good and healthy foods to eat and put no importance in being healthy as a requirement of worthiness. They choose to only follow/require the part of the revelation they want to enforce and the rest is just an afterthought in the last 2 minutes a Sunday school lesson. I have found that this is a typical practice of the church. They change their own doctrine to suit their needs at the time or to rationalize a behavior and then change it back at their convenience, acting as if nothing ever happened.

If some are of God, some are of men and some are of the Devil, then how do we know which is which?

2008-03-08T00:18:00.000-06:00

In my studies, one story that I read has constantly bothered me. The story is about how Joseph Smith received a revelation sending some of the brethren on a trip to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. They went as they were told but were not able to complete the task. The explanation they received from Joseph Smith as to why is what concerns me. It is better to hear the whole story from the source, so here is the account of the revelation as told by David Whitmer in a book he wrote in 1887 called, An Address To All Believers In Christ, by a witness to the Devine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I hope it is not too long for you to take the time to read it. The last part is important to the point I am trying to make.

“When the Book of Mormon was in the hands of the printer, more money was needed to finish the printing of it. We were waiting on Martin Harris who was doing his best to sell a part of his farm, in order to raise the necessary funds. After a time Hyrum Smith and others began to get impatient, thinking that Martin was too slow and under transgression for not selling his land at once, even if at a great sacrifice. Brother Hyrum thought they should not wait any longer on Martin Harris, and that the money should be raised in some other way. Brother Hyrum was vexed with Brother Martin, and thought they should get the money by some means outside of him, and not let him have anything to do with the publication of the Book, or receiving any of the profits thereof if any profits should accrue. He was wrong in thus judging Bro. Martin, because he was doing all he could toward selling his land. (Page 30)

"Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man. When a man enquires of the Lord concerning a matter, if he is deceived by his own carnal desires, and is in error, he will receive an answer according to his erring heart, but it will not be a revelation from the Lord." (Page 31)

Now, ok, first I have to comment briefly on the whole stone in the hat thing. For years, I heard non-Mormons talk about how Joseph received revelation by putting a stone in a hat and putting it over his face. This sounded so absurd that I could not bring myself to believe it, especially since I had never heard that in all my years in Sunday school and other church classes. Some might ask if that is a significant omission and I have to say that it is. My reason for thinking that it is something that the church leaders do not want to talk about is the topic of my next blogs where I will talk more about the early life of Joseph and the translation of the Book of Mormon.

To the point I would like to focus on. When Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Toronto empty handed and disillusioned, questioning the revelation. The answer they received from Joseph was one that should have been alarming to them and one that should send up a red flag to everyone that hears it. "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil."

What I find so troubling about this statement is that at this point in his life; Joseph Smith already had many “experiences” with revelation and visions and was the prophet. He claimed to have seen God, Jesus, Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John amongst others, not to mention the revelation needed to actually translate the golden plates. If all that is true, then how is it that he, as the prophet, could not tell the difference between a revelation from God or Satan? Shouldn’t he know the difference by now? If he could not tell one from the other, then how can we trust that anything he claims to be revelation actually came from God and not the devil?

My wife reminded me of this scripture that I thought was appropriate for this situation.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

I also found this one…
2 Nephi 9:9
9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

I can’t help but question Joseph’s ability to discern revelation from God from that of Satan. If he himself had been deceived by the devil on something relatively small like the Toronto revelation, how do we know he was not deceived on other occasions as well?

Some of his visions and revelations relate to these scriptures. He refers to the first vision as seeing an angel in a pillar of light and Moroni was surrounded by light. Could these possibly be the “angel of light” spoken of in these passages? Could the “secret combinations” be what is practiced in the temple? What about the “murder” and “secret works of darkness” mentioned in 2 Nephi? I can find many accounts in early Mormon history that speak of these types of things. The Meadow Mountain Massacre, Blood Atonement and others are documented proof that Mormon leaders sanctioned and condoned these types of practices. Is it possible that Satan, disguised as the “angel of light”, used Joseph Smith to lead away millions of people and destroy the salvation of their loved ones for generations to come?

These questions have plagued my mind for a while now and I don’t expect I will get an answer for them any time in this life. I remember being taught, “By their fruits you shall know them.” Personally, I have seen all the fruits I need to see from Joseph Smith to know that he was nothing close to what he claimed to be.

Resignation Day

2008-03-03T22:23:00.000-06:00

Well, today we made it official. We drafted our resignation letter and sent it to our Bishop. It is a rather liberating experience but I can't help but feel a bit sad. This closes a very long chapter in my life and opens a new one. It will take time to navigate through the uncharted waters outside of Mormonism but I am anxious to get started. It will be nice having my wonderful wife by my side as we work together to write our new story.

The church has taught me many valuable things and I owe a lot to those that have helped teach me the values and principles I try to live each and every day. Without them, I'm not sure what kind of a person and where I would be today.

I want to express my appreciation to my Bishop and Stake President. They are both great men and they mean a lot to me. I hope that they will be able to accept and understand our reasons for leaving. They have been tremendous examples to me and I hope that I can be like them in many ways.

This by no means puts an end to the feelings of resentment I have regarding the parts of the church that have been hidden from me for some many years. I know the process of getting over those feelings will take time. I am still researching the church's history as I am more intrigued by it then ever. I will continue to express my thoughts on what I find here on this blog as I find it somewhat cathartic.

Eating a piece of humble pie

2008-03-01T20:00:00.000-06:00

I have to say that the hardest thing I have had to deal with so far was spending time with my wife's family after we told everyone that we were leaving the LDS Church. She is the only member of her family and at the time of her baptism, her family was very opposed to the idea of her becoming Mormon. She showed great strength and courage to go against her family's wishes. It is because of that decision that we met several years latter. Had she backed out at the last minute, we would not have met.

Over the past 8 years, they have asked various questions about the church. Some were simple while others involved what members like to call, "deep doctrine". Since I met them, I have spent an enormous amount of time defending the church, trying to convince them that we believed in many of the same things they did and that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon was a true book of scripture.

Talk about having to "eat crow"! About a week ago, we spent some time at her mom's house and the topic of religion came up. That was of course no big surprise. I could not help feel a bit embarrassed at the fact that I had spent so much time defending something that I now think is rubbish.

To their credit, they have been nothing but understanding and supportive. I have not heard one negative word come out of their mouths regarding the church or my repeated defense of what I then believed. I must say that I respect them so much more for the way they have handled the situation. They could have easily thrown all of my certainty back in my face but they have taken the higher road and that has made all the difference.

"Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start."

2008-03-01T09:35:00.000-06:00

I know, singing songs from The Sound of Music entitles me to give up my man card but I have always loved musical and this one seemed to fit nicely into the theme of this post.

Last night I was trying to collect my thoughts regarding my disaffection with the Mormon Church and it became rather clear that what I need to do is start from the very beginning. Where is the beginning of the LDS Church? Joseph Smith, the First Vision and the books of scripture he translated. So, the focus of my next couple of posts will be on those subjects.

On my mission, one of the first things I learned in Spanish was the account of the first vision. For weeks it was the only thing I could say so I got really good at it. It has always been kind of special to me and I still have it memorized. While studying the topic of the first vision in the recent past, I was very surprised to find out that the official account we read in Joseph Smith History was written in 1838 but was not actually published until 1842 in Times and Season. I was always taught that the vision happened in 1820 so that would mean that 18 years passed before our version of the account was written and 22 years from when it was published. There were many accounts written before that and they all contradict each other in some way.

The fist time Joseph wrote about the account was in 1832.

"… thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind...my mind become exceedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ…Therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my son) thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy (way) walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (behold) the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not (my) commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me"

Joseph makes a few statements that are different then the "official" version we know. He states that he had already come to the conclusion that there were no denominations teaching the true gospel of Jesus Chris. He also says that he saw the Lord but there is no mention of him seeing God.

Another account was written in 1835 in Joseph Smiths diary.

"“being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involve eternal consequ[e]nces; being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and bow[e]d down before the Lord … I called upon the Lord for the first time, in the place above stated or in other words I made a fruitless attempt to p[r]ay … I called on the Lord in mightly prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication."

In this account, he no longer knows that there was not a true church on the earth. He mentions that the personage testified that Jesus Christ is the Son of God but he does not say that he saw Jesus or God. He also talks about seeing many angels but that is not part of the "official" account.

Later in 1835, Joseph gave another account to Erastus Holmes that was published in Deseret News and History of the Church.

"This afternoon, Erastus Holmes, of Newbury, Ohio, called on me to inquire about the establishment of the church, and to be instructed in doctrine more perfectly. I gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from six years old up to the time I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old; also the revelations that I received afterwards concerning the Book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church up to this date.”

Again Joseph only talks about seeing angels and there is no mention of God and Jesus.

In 1844 Joseph wrote a chapter on Mormonism in a book called An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States.

"I retired to a secret place in a grove, and began to call upon the Lord. While fervently engaged in supplication, my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enrapt in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light, which eclipsed the sun at noonday. They told me that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as His Church and Kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to "go not after them," at the same time receiving a promise that the fullness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me."

As in other accounts, Joseph does not specifically say that he saw God and Jesus and only refers to them here as personages. i find Josephs accounts puzzling. When talking about an experience so important and great, why was he so vague? Would he not be more specific in telling who it was he saw? If this is such an important event in Mormonism, why then are there so many different accounts?
I think it is hard to believe that an event so important to the world and the center of the LDS Church could have been told in so many different ways. Why could they not get the story straight and which one am aI supposed to believe? The "official" account is obviously the one the Church teaches but it appears to only be a compilation of different facts from the various accounts.
A fellow blogger has a great blog about this as well that also has many quotes from Brigham Young and other church leaders that clearly state that the first vision was the visitation of Angles and not God and Jesus. You can read it here.

The accounts of the first vision were taken from a web site called Mormons in Transition and it has the sources listed there if you would like to research further.

3 out of 5 ain't bad

2008-03-01T08:52:00.000-06:00

I'm happy to report that I have now heard from 3 of the 5 family members I sent my letter to and they have all been surprisingly supportive. Obviously they do not understand my decision but they are willing to accept it. I'm sure there will be rough or awkward times and many questions in the coming months about the reasoning behind leaving the church so I will start to put my thoughts down here on the blog. Hopefully that will at least give them a glimpse into my mind so they can know where I am coming from.

Letter to my family

2008-02-27T13:53:00.000-06:00

Below is a letter that I sent to my family today regarding my recent decision to leave the Mormon Church.

Dear Family,
As I am sure many of you have heard, Amy and I have decided to officially leave the Mormon Church. This is a decision that we made through serious thought, study and prayer and it is a choice that we do not take lightly.
Growing up in the Mormon Church has taught me many valuable lessons which I am very grateful for. It has been the vehicle through which I learned to be the best person I can be, to serve others and love everyone unconditionally. It has taught me to be a leader and gave me the opportunity to learn the Spanish language which has been pivotal to my career. It also brought me my wonderful wife and daughter, whom I would not have were it not for the Church.
My purpose for writing this letter is to help you understand our reasoning for leaving a church that has been a part of our lives for many years. I do not wish to go into too many specific details in this letter as that is not the point. I also do not wish to dissuade you from believing as you wish since that is a principle and right that I take very seriously.
Despite all of the good that has come into our lives by being members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we have come to the realization that the church is not all that it claims to be and is not “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.” (D&C 1:30) Through our studies of church history, we have found many inconsistencies that we can not accept as something that would be part of God’s “true” church. Our studies consisted of official church publications as well as journals of prominent leaders and members. The history and doctrine that we have been taught over the years is quite different then what was practiced and taught from the beginning of its organization and even through modern times. The lesson manuals of the church today fail to mention many of the unpopular or embarrassing teachings of the early leaders of the church such as polygamy and polyandry. In addition to that, many of the key points in church doctrine have been disproven as science, intellect and knowledge has progressed to the point where it can test them. Examples of this would be the translation of the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook plates, the lack of historical facts regarding the Book of Mormon and the fact that people are living on the moon (which was taught by Joseph Smith & Brigham Young).
This has been a very long and difficult process for me. As I sifted through countless pages of information, I found my self with very mixed feelings. I had not been comfortable in the church for many years but with no real explanation as to why. This lead to my inactivity for the better part of two years. Despite my indifference to the church at the time, as I began to study its history, I could not help but feel a deep sadness that what I grew up learning was not what I thought it was. That lead to a feeling of confusion as to why I did not already know the things I was reading. I came to the conclusion that that information was, in some way, withheld from me for a reason I could not understand, which led to anger.
I began to ask myself questions. Why would the leadership of the church feel a need to not be upfront and honest with its members regarding the actual teachings of the prophets of the restoration? What else could they be hiding? Why do they not trust me to take the information and come to my own logical conclusion? These are questions that have consumed my mind and notwithstanding my efforts, I have not found a suitable answer to any of them. The only explanation I can come up with is that the leaders do not value knowledge and intellect. They preach about the need for education but they only put forth the information they want you to see. The truth is obscured from the eyes of the members and many of them (like me) do not even know it exists until they have reason to search it out. They do not want members to find this information out of fear that they will discover the truth that they have been trying to conceal all these years.
Can a church that is not open and honest with its members be what it claims to be? To that question, I have to answer, no. I recently read a quote that touched my soul and took away the confusion I was experiencing. The quote is as follows:
"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
- President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.
To me, that statement helped me make my choice. President Hinckley did not leave any room for ambiguity. Through my studies, I no longer believed that Joseph Smith worked under divine inspiration. So, if I did not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he translated the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham, then in my mind, the church could not possibly be true.
With that said, after much consideration, we have decided to have our names removed from the records of the church and have sent the appropriate resignation letter this week. Continued association with an organization that we no longer believe to be true and that does not act in the best interest of its members is something that we can not, in good conscience, do.
I want you to know that our opinion regarding the church does not in any way change our feelings for you. We believe the church can be a positive place to raise a family and that its members try very hard to live their lives according to the teachings of the Savior. We have many friends in the church and know them to be good people. We love and respect each and every one of you and hope that this decision does not affect our relationship. The reasons listed in this letter are but a small portion of what we have found to be in contradiction to our core beliefs. Should anyone have questions regarding anything written here or our reasons for leaving, I am open to talking with you in a spirit of love and understanding.
We are at peace with our decision and are exploring our faith outside of Mormonism. As we search for another church, we are continually blessed to find people who have opened their hearts to us without exception. Amy’s relationship with God is stronger then ever and Megan has developed a greater desire to learn about Jesus and follow his example. I am trying to redefine God’s role in my life and find myself going between being Agnostic and Christian. I have opened a new world of possibilities and I know it will take time to find my path. I can honestly say that we have never been happier as a family and we feel closer then ever.
It is my hope that you will all have peace and happiness in your life. I love you all and can not wait to see you during the Easter holiday.
Love, Doug

It is my hope that they know that this letter was sent out of love and a desire to be upfront and open with them about my belief in the religion of my childhood.

Why did I not see this before?

2008-02-27T11:31:00.000-06:00

For so many years, I plodded along in the Mormon Church because it was where I was "supposed" to be. I finally got tired of that and two years ago, I chose to go inactive to give myself a need break from the culture of the church, which I hate. During that time, I began to read about the history of the church and found some things that opened my eyes to a completely different side of the church then I had ever seen before. My whole life, I believed in the basic teachings of the church but never had a great "with every fiber of my being" testimony. I always though something was not right about the Golden Plates and some of the visions Joseph Smith had. It seems that my doubts were valid. I have found so many things that go against what I have always been taught. The purpose of this blog is to give me a forum in which I can express my views of the church and its doctrine. This is not an anti-Mormon blog. I remain respectful of the church and those in it and I think they do tremendous good throughout the world. It is however a place for me to point out valid points of conflict I have found through my studies. I believe in looking at both sides of an argument and letting people come to their own conclusions. I hope you find what I write insightful and informative. Please feel free to comment and share with me your thoughts.