Sunday, September 7, 2014

By their fruits shall ye know them," they say. . . but they seem to be forgetting the bushels of rotten fruit.

The church has some interesting ideas about how we mortals can come to "know" things.  If we pray about something and then have good feelings, we can then know that the thing is truly true.  Never mind that the thing is often an object or institution, for which the adjective "true" makes no sense.

Never mind the fact that one can have those same feelings while watching a rated-R movie, or TV-MA television show.  That doesn't mean those movies or shows are "true."

Interestingly, members of the church often cite Matthew's treatise on fruit as a way of knowing that the church is true:

Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruits; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

The LDS church does in fact bring forth many "good fruits." If nothing else, the church  is full of wonderful people with the best of intentions.  Most  believing members of the church are dedicated to their cause, and are genuine in their desire to serve others.  These fruits are those that are held up by the believers as evidence that this is a "good tree."

However, there are many fruits that are simply ignored by the membership, fruits that many would see as coming from a "corrupt tree."  To continue the arboreal metaphor, the church is simply "cherry picking" the fruits it is most proud of, whilst hiding the rancid ones under its bushel.

If we are going to consider all the fruits of this tree, then we must include:

1) Families that are torn apart rather than strengthened.  This happens in a variety of ways:
  • Some family members are left out of temple marriages, whether it be for "unworthiness" or by virtue of simply not being members.  Regardless, the message sent is "you are not worthy to be with us, and you will not be with us in heaven."  
  • It is not uncommon for LDS parents to disown gay children, often as teenagers.  These teens often become homeless, and in some cases choose suicide.
  • Family members who express doubts about the church are often shunned and ostracized by more "believing" members of the family.  In some cases they are cut off completely.  
2) Prophets and Apostles who can't distinguish revelation from their own desires and biases.  The greatest example of this is the denial of the priesthood to an entire race for over 100 years, not because God commanded it, but because of the racist attitudes of those supposedly called by God as his mouthpieces.  If over a century of institutionally sponsored racism isn't a rotten fruit, I don't know what is.

In that same vein are the church's past teachings on homosexuality.  Boyd K Packer previously insisted that homosexuality is not an intrinsic attribute, but simply a selfish choice made by certain individuals.  If they would only stop being so selfish, then they could be cured.  The church liked what he said so much that it printed the talk in a pamphlet to be given to homosexuals.  Recently the church has softened its tone, and seems to at least partially admit that gay people can be born gay.  On the other hand, the institutional church seems to have a hard time even admitting that people are "gay," or "homosexual,"  choosing rather to label gays as people "suffering from same sex attraction."

I could go on and on about other teachings from past leaders which have since been proven or admitted false, but it would be beyond the scope of this discussion.

3)  A tradition of selectively retelling our history, resulting in "whitewashing," whether intentional or not.  At this point the church has been around for 180 years or so.  As time has passed, stories about the foundation of the church have been passed on, with emphasis on the positive, and disregard for the negative.  This has resulted in utter disregard for truth, in an institution that so strongly emphasizes the importance of truth-seeking.  In some cases there HAS been an intentional hiding of information- ie Joseph Fielding Smith tearing out pages from Joseph Smith's journal.

4)  Lay Clergy.  While the concept itself is not necessarily a bad fruit, the results have often been.  The term "priesthood roulette" has been coined, referencing the fact that ward and stake members are often at the mercy of the personality and personal beliefs of those called to "preside" over them.  All too often a bishop or stake president will impose his own, non-doctrinal beliefs onto those below him.

In discussing this, I've heard people exclaim, "The church is perfect, but its members aren't!"  In my opinion, you really can't separate one from another, at least when discussing leadership.  We believe that our leaders are supposed to be inspired and guided in the way they lead, and the decisions they make.  If they make horrible decisions, like it or not, those decisions are fruits that the church is putting out into the world.

4) A growing horde of members and ex-members who feel their lives have been tainted by their exposure to Mormonism, for all of the reasons listed above, and more.  One need only peruse any the many online exmormon communities to hear story after story of those who are angry and hurt by experiences they've had with the church. 

Certainly some of these people simply have "sour grapes" and are using the church as an excuse for their many problems.  That being said, too many of them have truly had negative, sometimes life-shattering experiences. 

Marriages have been broken up by bishops who recommend divorce if a spouse is an unbeliever.  Conversely, wives have been encouraged to stay in abusive relationships and avoid divorce if their husbands make even a token effort to participate in church.

Sexual abuse victims have been blamed for their own abuse (though sometimes their "portion of the blame" has been labeled as "lesser" as if that is supposed to be comforting.)  Bishops have outright failed to report abuse if the abuser is a church member.

Youth have been told that it is better for them to die than lose their chastity.  Girls have been told that their worth plummets if they lose their virginity before marriage. 

"None of these teachings are doctrinal," one might argue.  It doesn't matter.  If someone goes to church, and these are the messages they take home. . . then that is what "the church" is teaching them, and the harm that is done is real, regardless of whether or not the institutional church agrees or not with the message.

The growing number of disaffected members, in my opinion, is the greatest evidence that the church is bearing altogether too much rotten fruit.  If the fruit were so sweet and wonderful, then why are so many leaving with a bitter taste in their mouth? 

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

An Angel's Nightmare: Managing the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms (A fictional tale)

I recently had a near-death experience, during which I caught a glimpse of something not normally seen or written about:  The Terrestrial Kingdom.  I'd like to share what I experienced.

To give you some background,  I had to undergo a surgery.  During the course of the procedure an artery was inadvertently nicked, and I lost a lot of blood, to the point that I was clinically dead on the table.  The doctors were (obviously) able to revive me, but while I was dead I was transported somehow to the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Just like described in movies and stories, I felt like I was in a tunnel with a light at the end.  I went to the light and came out in a beautiful city.  The buildings were tall and gleaming; the streets were clean and lined with beautiful trees, and people were walking around smiling and going about their business.

No one told me that I was in the Terrestrial Kingdom, but somehow I knew.  It all made sense because I had left the church during my mortal life, yet I had lived a good and worthy life.  I was truly terrestrial material.

I walked about the city, taking in the sights, when I came to a beautiful park.  I strolled along, enjoying the amazing landscaping and the peaceful tranquility that I felt all around me.    The path I was on wound through the trees, eventually reaching the edge of a crystal clear lake.  At the edge of the lake there was a man sitting on a bench, sobbing.

This seemed curious to me, so I sat down beside him and asked him what was the matter.

He seemed to recognize that I was not yet a permanent resident of the kingdom, and as such he opened up to me in a way that perhaps he normally wouldn't have.

"I've been given an impossible task," He replied.  "My name is Muroni, and I am in charge of segregation."

"Segregation?" I asked.

"Yes," he answered.  "Only those worthy of Celestial glory are able to remain with their families here in the afterlife.  So, it is my job to make sure that those sent here to the Terrestrial Kingdom are kept separated from their families.

At first, it was easy.  This world is vast, and when the first inhabitants arrived here, I sent each one out to start a new city.  Once the world had been filled with individual cities,  the new arrivals would be assigned to one of those cities.  I kept a list of the inhabitants of each city, and whenever there was a new arrival, I simply had to assign them to a city where none of their relatives lived."

Muroni looked off into the distance, as if remembering simpler times.

"That worked for the longest time," he said.  "But eventually, with the billions of souls pouring in, there were simply too many people, and it was impossible to place a new arrival in a city that was devoid of relatives."

"Aren't we all related anyway? Through Adam and Eve?" I asked.

"Yes," he sighed.  "The original directive was to keep people separated from anyone who was within 7 degrees of separation- 7th cousins from each other, for example, or great-great-great-great-great grandchildren from their great-great-great-great-great grandparents.    But as the cities filled, it became impossible, and I received permission to move the cutoff to 5 degrees of separation.

That fixed the problem for a while, but then. . . then came the polygamists.  Who would have thought that the new and everlasting covenant would be my undoing?   It turns out that with such huge families, it's impossible to place someone and keep them truly segregated from anyone and everyone who is within 5 degrees of separation."

"Wow," I said.  "How did you fix that?

I built a huge wall through the center of each city,  and I had to shuffle people around so that any relatives in a given city were on opposite sides of the wall.  As the populations grew, I had to build another wall, dividing the cities into quadrants, and again reshuffle and arrange to keep people apart.  But the population just continues to grow, and I don't know how many walls I can build."

"That is quite the challenge," I said.

"That isn't the half of it," he replied.  People have also learned how to work the system.  Eternity is a long time, and, not surprisingly, people want to see their family members, and they spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to contact their loved ones.  And they succeed, all the time.    They write letters with detailed information about who they were on earth and when and where they lived, and who they are trying to contact.  Then they throw the letter over a wall.  The people on the other side collect the letters, and if the description doesn't match anyone in their section, they throw it over a different wall, and, with enough time, some of the letters find the intended recipients."

"Interesting," I said.  "So what are you going to do?"

"I don't know," he answered.  I wanted to put everyone in their own concrete box so they couldn't talk to anyone else.  But my superiors tell me that Joseph Smith promised that the Terrestrial Kingdom, and even the Telestial Kindgom,  is supposed to be such a wonderful place that if people on earth understood then they would be killing themselves just to get there.  So, turning this into a prison world is out.

Then I suggested simply wiping everyone's memory so that they don't remember their relatives.  But my superiors denied that suggestion too.  You see, despite the fact that this is supposed to be a wonderful place to live, part of the point of being here is for people to reflect on the fact that they were not worthy of the higher kingdom.  There is no hell with burning fire and brimstone, but this world is meant to be a mental hell, where people can continually remember and regret not accepting the church.  To remember that they do have family members out there somewhere, but they can't see them or talk to them.  If we wiped memories, they would not be able to experience this mental torment that God intends."

Muroni paused and stared out over the lake, deep in thought.  I was content to sit and drink in the scenery at his side.

Suddenly, he jumped to his feet and shouted "I've got it!  I know exactly how to make this world a paradise compared to earth, yet filled with mental anguish and the inability to interact with family members!"

"How?" I asked

He opened his mouth to tell me, and at that moment I was pulled away from him, back down the dark tunnel and back into my body.

I have made a full recovery, and therefore I will have to wait a few more years before I know Muroni's master plan for the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

An Answer for Everything: How LDS prophets and apostles are completely incapable of silence on issues they don't understand, and why it has cost them their authority

As a missionary, I loved being the Lord's standard bearer, carrying The Truth with me to share  with any who was willing to listen.  I had no doubt that the message was true; true with the biggest capital "T" anyone could imagine.   How could I be so sure?  Because I had no doubt that, as I had been taught from a young age, I was led by a living prophet.  God had a mouthpiece on earth, and through him I could know God's will. 

In primary, we sang songs in creepy minor keys about following the prophet.  Later, in sunday school, we learned about how the prophet could never lead us astray, and how "whether by My voice or the voice of my servant, it is the same.  The servant, of course, being the prophet.  These concepts were further reinforced in seminary, and later at BYU.  When the prophet speaks, the debate is over!

And thus I believed, and lived my life accordingly.  The brethren are not to be questioned; their word is God's will.  I served my mission faithfully, came home, graduated from BYU, married, and actively sought to follow these men who God called as his earthly representatives.

My disaffection from Mormonism is not unique, but at some point along the way for anyone who is questioning the church,  the question has to be asked:  Is the prophet wrong sometimes?  With a little digging into church history, I had to admit that the answer was "Yes."  And further investigation led to another question:  Is the prophet wrong a lot?  And with a little more digging, I had to admit that again, the answer was "Yes."  And after further studying came the final question:  Is the prophet just plain making things up sometimes?  And the answer again is a resounding "YES!"

This post is not meant to be a comprehensive discussion of things prophets and apostles have been wrong about, but for the sake of the discussion some must be named.   Here are the highlights I can think of off the top of my head:

1) Blood Atonement
2) Adam-God Theory
3) The Lamanites being the principal ancestors of the Native Americans
4) The Book of Abraham being an actual translation from the papyrus
5) Blacks being banned from the priesthood
6) The reasons given for blacks being banned from the priesthood
7) Native Americans' skin becoming lighter after being converted to the gospel
8) The cause of and nature of homosexuality (including that it is caused by masturbation)

Apologists chafe when critics point out these falsehoods.  "God works through imperfect men, and sometimes they make mistakes.  Sometimes they speak as men."  This explanation does not cut it for me.  I can think of examples of prophets speaking as men in instances where they were wrong, but their being wrong did not affect anyone's salvation or well-being.

In 1961, Joseph Fielding Smith addressed a congregation in Hawaii and said:  "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."  He was obviously wrong, and guess what?  It doesn't matter.  To anyone.  THIS is an example of a prophet speaking as a man, and is an acceptable instance of one speaking outside of his prophetic role.  I have no problem with this whatsoever.

On the other hand, teaching, and propagating the teaching, that an entire race is unworthy of the priesthood because they were not valiant before coming to earth?  Telling gays they have same-sex attraction because they are selfish, and that they can make it go away through repentance?  That is not someone succumbing to their imperfection, unless their imperfection is a penchant for inventing false doctrine and teaching it as if God had revealed it.  And if that is one of their imperfections, I would think God might avoid calling them as His living mouthpiece.

So what does it mean if the Lord's anointed are making up doctrine?  I can think of 2 basic scenarios, and neither one is particularly encouraging for the faithful:

1) They are not actually the Lord's anointed, and not only did they make up the above-mentioned items; they made up all of it, and it just so happens that the items above are actually refutable.  Most  ex-mormons end up coming to this conclusion.  If this is the case, no more discussion is needed- ignore them and go on your way.  

The second scenario is more complicated:

2) They are God's representatives, but they can't differentiate true revelation from their own random thoughts and biases.  And when new issues arise, they seem to feel the need to speak out, often forcefully.  Perhaps they feel that they are supposed to have an answer for everything, and when no clear revelation comes forth, they speak on their own. Unfortunately they often seem to do so without truly understanding what they are speaking about, and as such end up teaching their own flawed philosophies as doctrine.  And when this happens, the obvious question becomes, "what good does it do to have a prophet at all?"   

For me and many others, this issue leads us to a breaking point where we lose belief in the entire system.  If the prophet is just a coin to flip randomly, sometimes landing with the "Truth" side up, and sometimes with the "Random Bullshit" side up, what use is he to me?  Each and every time he comes up "Bullshit," his position of authority is eroded.  Unfortunately for the church, the internet now makes available a comprehensive list of all the past coin flips, and the "Bullshit" tally is impressive.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Our Dysfunctional Father and the War in Heaven

As a disaffected Mormon, I've had to completely re-examine everything I was taught as a child.  Allowing for the possibility that the church may not be true has given me a completely different perspective, and many "truths" and teachings that I took for granted don't seem to make much sense anymore.

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is the "war in heaven" that is said to have taken place in our pre-mortal existence.  In a nutshell, we believe that our heavenly parents created us a spirits, and that we all lived together in "heaven."  However, our father had a plan for us to become like him, and part of that plan involved coming to earth to gain a body.

Apparently, to some extent, the rest of the details of the plan were open for debate. states:

The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth. The issues involved such things as agency, how to gain salvation, and who should be the Redeemer.

Proposals were made.  Lucifer put forth one plan, and Jesus put forth another.  It is unclear if there were other proposals.  Jesus' proposal required us to use our agency to choose the right path, which gave us freedom to act on our own, at the cost of the possibility of losing our salvation if we didn't choose wisely.  Satan's plan would have ensured the salvation of all, at the cost of  our agency.  In the end God chose Jesus' plan, and cast out Lucifer and all those who chose his plan.

A few things about this narrative don't make sense to me.

First of all, why do we describe this event as a "war"?  At most it was a war of words.  A "debate" would be a more accurate term.  There was obviously no physical fighting; we didn't have bodies, and thus there was no way to die or be injured.

Secondly, God seems overly harsh if this was his way of doing things.  Think about it.  So he lets his children decide how the plan of salvation would work, or at least he tells them they get to decide.  Did they really have any say?  Or was it all just a show, but God had his mind made up all along?   If so, why was he allowing various proposals to be heard?  And why was the punishment so harsh if you chose the wrong proposal?

Both proposals had merits.  Lucifer's plan certainly has its perks-  EVERYONE gets salvation!  I can see how this seems attractive.  I don't understand how a world without agency would actually function- how would Lucifer or God "force" everyone to do the right thing all the time?  Nevertheless, I like the end result.  It is the safe plan, the "lets include everybody" plan.  It would be the Democratic Party plan if American political parties were involved.    Perhaps this is why so many Mormons associate Democrats with the powers of evil.


Allow me to step aside for a moment and describe one aspect of Mormonism that has always been comforting to me.  I am comforted by the version of Heavenly Father that we teach in primary.  It is the version that describes Him as a loving father who watches over his children carefully and lovingly, just as any earthly father would to his own children.  It describes a father who forgives his children for the mistakes they will inevitably make.  It describes a father who picks up his children after they have made mistakes, and helps them learn from them.

Apparently this was not the heavenly father who was present during the war in heaven.  There was a different father there that day, probably the same one who sent bears to kill 42 children who made fun of a Elisha for being bald.  Probably the same father who killed a man who reached up and touched the ark because he thought it was going to fall off some oxen.

This was the father who came to each of us in the pre-mortal existence and said "There are two plans before you.   You are free to choose whichever one you think best.  But you better pick the one I want you to pick because if you don't, it will be the last mistake you ever make!!  Literally!  Because I'm throwing you out of the house and you won't ever get a body or have any chance at eternal progression if you choose the wrong plan!  What's it going to be?

And he did just that to 1/3 of his children.  They are lost forever.  No chance of salvation.  I wonder if He let the 1/3 skulk around long enough to hear his peptalk to the righteous 2/3:

"Alright guys, you chose the right plan!  Now you get to go to earth.  You are going to make mistakes, I know you will, but I love you so I have arranged it so you can repent.  This is a learning process, so learn from your mistakes okay?   You guys are my spirit babies and I love you.  You are just in your spirit infancy, so I know you will all stray from the path at times.  Remember me and we'll work it all out and get you through whatever trials may come.  "  Looks over shoulder at the 1/3-- "What are you still doing here?!?  You made a MISTAKE and that is not acceptable!  The plan you chose would have given Lucifer glory, therefore I've officially disowned you!  Get out of heaven!!!

We teach that the work and glory of God is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of his children.  How odd that he would so easily pull the plug on the salvation of 1/3 of those children because of a single decision.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

The Sound of Silence is Killing the Church

In my first post I alluded to the fact that I have done a lot of reading about church history since my disaffection began.  My reading has included many scholarly works, but also many online sources.  When searching for answers for these issues online, one is almost certain to come across one or more of the many online exmormon communities.  These communities themselves are likely a significant part of the equation that puts the church in its current state of crisis.  This phenomenon is something I would like to explore further in a future post.

For now though, I'd like to talk about the general sentiment I find in those communities.  I can sum it up in a word: Anger.  So much anger.  Anger that is, in my opinion, justifiable.  The main source of anger is the feeling of being deceived by virtue of the church "hiding" bothersome details about its past.  Whether the "hiding" was deliberate or not is open for debate.

But another source of anger is the fact that nearly everyone who has gone through a crisis of faith has had a very frustrating conversation with "the church."  The conversation varies from individual to individual- for some it was an actual conversation with a bishop or other leader.  For others it was an extensive search through official church publications.  But for nearly everyone, the conversation happened after finding out about disturbing facts about the church.  For nearly everyone the conversation was an attempt to answer the question "What does the church say about {insert controversial issue here}?"  Here is an excerpt from my "conversation."

Me: "Hey, people (and history) are saying that Joseph Smith married other members' wives and teenagers and hid the other wives from Emma, and publicly denied it all. . .Is this true?  I'm pretty uncomfortable with this, what gives?  In what circumstances is polyandry ok?

Church: . . . . . . . . . . . .

Me:  "Hmm. . . ok well I'm confused about how to know when the prophet is speaking as God's mouthpiece and when he is speaking as a man.  There seems to be an awful lot of "speaking as a man," and that doesn't seem right.  What's the deal?

Church: . . . . . . .

Me:  I have to be honest, your lack of participation in this discussion is disturbing.  Your critics seem to be seeking truth, and make what seem like valid points.  They are able to cite primary historical sources to back up their position.  Can you give me some clarification?

Church:  The missionaries can use Facebook now!!  AND GIVE TOURS OF THE CHAPEL!

Me: . . . . . . . . . . . .

The church appears to be very very reluctant to provide any answers to these questions, and I think I know exactly why.  Two reasons why, in fact.  First of all, for many of the questions, I just don't think there are any satisfactory answers.  If there was an easy answer, they would have given it already.

But the second reason is a little more subtle, and interesting.  To illustrate it, I'd like to tell you about the oral Torah.  The Jewish tradition holds that Moses received the written Torah on Mt. Sinai.  This contained the commandments and was, as the name implies, written down.  However, God also gave him the oral Torah- basically the Rabbis believe that God told Moses some additional information to fill in the gaps for situations not specifically described in the written Torah.  Presumably this was for situations like donkeys falling in pits on the Sabbath and that sort of thing.

The oral Torah was passed down, as the name implies, orally from Rabbi to Rabbi.  In fact it was forbidden to write it down.  However, after the destruction of Jerusalem, some of the Rabbis were worried that the oral chain would be broken, and decided to write it down.  They did so, and it now can be found in what is known as the Mishna.  They did so amidst great controversy however, because many of the Rabbis were vehemently against it.

Why would they be against writing it?  Seems like the logical thing to do, right?  Because having an oral set of guidelines has its advantages.  To phrase it gently: it is flexible.  To phrase it bluntly:  you can make stuff up depending on the situation, in order to best try to help those who come to you with spiritual dilemmas (or to best suit your own needs, unfortunately).    But once you start writing things down, they are set in stone.  You lose the flexibility.  If you try to vary from what is written, people will point to where it is written and call you out on it.

The current LDS leadership finds itself in a very similar situation.  The church is awash in doubt, and members are leaving "in droves."  And so far they have said very little, if anything, to address the issues that are bothering people.  There have been hints of answers.  The leaders promised Hans Mattson a document that had the answers.  It has not materialized.  There have been rumors that the church is going to release a series of essays addressing many of these troubling issues.  So far nothing.

The church has sent out Teryl Givens and Richard Bushman, prominent church historians, to speak at various functions where they attempt to answer questions from doubters.  While this is a nice gesture, Teryl and Richard each have a giant asterisk on their forehead.  The asterisks say "The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this meeting are solely those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the Brethren. The content of this meeting has not been reviewed or approved by the Brethren.  The speakers are solely responsible for this content."

The closest thing to a response from anyone in a position to give a response came in Elder Holland's conference talk this past spring when he reassured as all with the words:

"please don’t hyperventilate if from time to time issues arise that need to be examined, understood, and resolved. They do and they will."

So far he has been heavy on the snarking,  and light on the resolving.

So why has there been such an abundance of silence?  Because, like the Rabbis of old, the Brethren know that once they take a position, they can't take it back.   And if the apologists' explanations are the only material they have to work with, it is no wonder they have chosen silence.

In the meantime, with each day that goes by, more and more saints are becoming aware of the church's troubled past and contradictory doctrines.  As such, more and more will try to have their own conversation with the church in hope of finding answers.  Sadly, with each day that goes by, more and more testimonies will be shattered by the sound of silence.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Is God a Trickster who Favors the Stupid and the Lazy?

The glory of God is intelligence

-D&C 93:36

I am thirty-something year-old man in the midst of a "crisis of faith," similar to what Hans Mattson, a former general authority,  described in a recent New York Times article.  I'll spare the details, but suffice it to say that for me, it started this spring and involved the discovery of troubling aspects of the founding of the LDS church.  (There are aspects of the modern church that bother me as well, but they are irrelevant to this discussion)  Most likely if you are reading this post then you are already very familiar with these issues. 

 For further background information, I am a lifelong member of the LDS church,  attended and graduated from BYU on scholarships, and served a full time mission.

I am a reasonably intelligent person.  If standardized testing is any indication (and it isn't always), I possess well above-average intelligence.  Additionally, I have had opportunity to exercise my intelligence through education.  I hold a doctorate degree and currently work as a successful professional. I tell you these things not to brag, but to set the stage for this discussion because I am the demographic the church is hemorrhaging:  young, educated males.    I do not consider myself to be an intellectual giant, and I will be the first to acknowledge that there are gaps in my knowledge base.  That being said, I feel like I have a reasonable capacity to analyze data and draw conclusions. 

Over the past six months I have learned more about church history than I had previously in my entire lifetime.  I have read books and sources both critical to, and supportive of the church.  I've seen the numerous criticisms against the church, and the apologist's responses.  I have analyzed the data, and I have come to a conclusion:  the church is not true, at least not as true as it claims to be.  Understand that I make that statement very much to my own chagrin.  I really really want the church to be true.  I want an eternal family.  I want to know that God is watching over me and understands my problems, and has even given me said problems in order to strengthen me.  In many ways, the world is a much happier place if the church is true (the obvious exception being if you are gay-but I digress).  The point is, coming to this conclusion was not inconsequential to me.  It was life-shattering.  My world crumbled, and continues to crumble.

I'd like to share with you an important part of how I arrived at that conclusion.  Interestingly, the apologists at FAIR, FARMS, and around the internet played a very important role in all this.  Not by simply confirming that the controversies are real and historically accurate, as they have done for many, but by providing answers and explanations to the various controversies.  I find it safe to say that the apologists have an answer to each and every point that critics make.  Not usually good answers.  Not usually satisfying answers.   But answers nonetheless.   Often the answers are far-fetched, and require "mental gymnastics" to the extreme.   But they address everything that critics throw at them, and this forces me to concede that the church could be true.

However, when the apologists' explanations are examined together as a sum total, a very disturbing picture is painted.  This picture leads to an additional uncomfortable conclusion:  If their explanations are correct, then God is a trickster who is looking to deliberately trip up those who think critically, while simultaneously rewarding those who follow blindly or are too lazy or dimwitted to conduct meaningful investigation.

This situation seems evident when there is direct evidence to contradict the teachings of the church.  On the other hand, it does not apply to criticisms which rely on a lack of evidence for the church's teachings.  An example of this is the criticism against the Book of Mormon on the grounds that there is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of the civilization described in the BoM.  While such lack of evidence raises a valid concern of the truthfulness of the BoM, lack of evidence is not evidence, and cannot be used as an argument for a trickster God (unless one argues that the evidence is missing because God took it away or hid it as a test of faith).

Lets examine a few instances where there is evidence to contradict church teachings, in such a way that a trickster God seems apparent:

The Book of Abraham

For well over a hundred years, the church has taught that the BoA was the product of Joseph Smith's translation of some Egyptian papyri.  This was taught and understood to be a literal translation- he looked at the scrolls, understood the writing thereon, and wrote it down in English.  Egyptologists now tell us that his interpretation has nothing to do with what was on the scrolls.  The church has now backpedaled and labeled it as an "inspired translation," whatever that means.  Incidentally, it is not clear how this new information came to light.  The prophet did not make a statement saying he had received revelation regarding this matter.  The PR department simply made an announcement and, presto, new doctrine that seemingly explains away one of the church's most glaring problems.

Apologists feel the need to supplement the "inspired translation" explanation with further explanations, and frequently state that there is some scroll material missing, so maybe what we find in the BoA came from the missing scroll portions.  How convenient.  But fine, I'll concede the point.  Lets focus on solely the facsimiles.

In the case of the facsimiles we have copies of the source material,  Joseph's interpretation thereof, and Egyptologists' interpretation.  Joseph's version does not match up with the Egyptologists.  How can this be?

"LOOK, HE GOT THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH RIGHT!" the apologists scream in a frenzy.  Ok, fine, Joseph Smith earns a 1% on his Egyptian test.  To any thinking person, the 99 things he got wrong is what stands out over the one or two things he happened to get right.  There is no way around it, Joseph was very very wrong in his interpretation of these figures.

What does this mean?   If the church is true, it means that God knowingly allowed his mouthpiece to present erroneous material as if it were scripture.  He would have to have known that scholars would later examine the material and declare it to be wrong, and therefore he would have to have known that this would be a huge stumbling block to intellectuals, both members and investigators alike.  Why would God do such a thing?  To test our faith?  I can understand God not wanting to "prove" every aspect of the gospel to his children, and that he wants us to exercise our faith.  As such, I'm fine with a lack of evidence for certain aspects of the gospel.  But to allow there to be such strong evidence against gospel truths is a whole different matter.  It makes no sense, and it disproportionately punishes those who think critically.

Brigham Young and others teaching falsehoods

Brigham was extremely racist and taught doctrine that was incorrect.  Not a little off base, not just slightly misguided. . .but dead, no doubt about it, WRONG.  Later-confirmed-by-subsequent-church-leaders wrong, and that's saying something.

The "bigger" false doctrines that  Brigham taught were Blood Atonement and Adam-God theory.  If you are unfamiliar with these, then Google can help you; I will not discuss them in any detail.  Suffice it to say that the church has strongly stated that we do not believe what Brigham taught on these subjects.  There are other troubling teachings as well, such as interracial marriage being punishable by death, and monogamy being an inferior form of marriage compared to polygamy.

Brigham Young is not alone among prophets who teach falsehoods.  Spencer W. Kimball taught that same-sex attraction was a choice.  We now concede that for most people, that tendency is inborn.    Spencer W. Kimball taught that masturbation leads to homosexuality.  No one since has made such an assertion, because it is ridiculously untrue.  Many prophets and apostles taught that black people were denied the priesthood because they were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence.    We now deny this.  Many prophets and apostles taught that the Lamanites were the principle ancestors of the American indians.  We have now backpedaled on this, due to scientific evidence that contradicts that assertion.

Once again, why would God allow His messengers to preach falsehoods while fully realizing the resulting confusion and doubt that would come later on because of it?  We claim our church is different from others because we have a direct mode of communication with God.  Is our connection so poor that the prophets misunderstand and are allowed to just spew random thoughts and doctrines while God stands by and does nothing to correct it?   Once again, having prophets who teach falsehoods is going to disproportionately shake the faith of critical thinkers over those who follow blindly or those who aren't bright enough to realize that what prophet A said completely contradicts what prophet B said.

Joseph's Polyandry

Polyandry, in my opinion, presents one of the biggest obstacles for critical thinkers.  Whenever polygamy is brought up, apologists and others love to point out that there is plenty of polygamy practiced by prophets in the Bible.  Fine.  There is spiritual precedent for the practice.  I don't like it, but I won't argue that it's wrong.  But what about polyandry?  To the best of my knowledge, Joseph Smith is the only one who has been allowed to engage in this practice.  I won't count Brigham Young, who "inherited" some of Joseph's polyandrous wives when he died, despite the fact that the first husbands were alive, well, and practicing mormonism.

There is absolutely no precedent for what Joseph did.  It feels slimy, particularly the way he sent some husbands away on missions and then married their wives, and the manipulative ways he proposed, telling young women that their salvation, or their families' salvation depended on them marrying him.   It feels like when David sent Uriah away to battle so he could have Bathsheba.  Except that the church teaches that it was ok for Joseph to do so.  Or, at least, the church won't come out and say it was wrong for him to do it.  Really, the church says almost nothing at all about it, which is part of the problem.

Obviously, if the church is true, God knows this issue will be a huge stumbling block for his children.  Why would he not give us some guidance or explanation?   Is Joseph Smith really so special that he alone gets special rights to "access" other mens' wives?  Even more confusing is the fact that we understand polygamy to be acceptable only to "raise up seed," yet we know of no offspring produced by Joseph's polygamous/polyandrous relations.  So what was the point?  Did God allow these contradictions and then give no explanation as a test of our faith?

Other issues

There are many other aspects of LDS doctrine and history that simply do not make sense from an intellectual standpoint.  Discussing them all in depth would make this post unnecessarily long.  However, I'll list a few additional intellectual stumbling blocks:

1. The presence of anachronisms in the BoM makes no sense if it is divine in origin.
2. The presence of KJV translation errors, word for word, in the BoM makes no sense if it is divine in origin
3. The existence of a book (View of the Hebrews) published 5 years prior to the BoM, which describes the same basic "plot" as the BoM makes a little too much sense
4. Joseph not needing to look at the plates to "translate" them makes no sense.  Why were they necessary then?   And why couldn't Nephi find a rock to put in a hat and use a similar method as Joseph, rather than killing Laban so he could get plates?


These are only a few of the issues I could mention, but I think they suffice for the sake of this discussion.  I personally can't fathom a God who would set up his church in such a way that one has to abandon all pretext of logic and common sense to be able to believe in it.   We believe in God as a supreme intelligence who has commanded us to use our own intelligence to learn and explore the world.  Obviously He does not want us to abandon spirituality, and he wants us to come to Him with questions and concerns.  But I don't believe in a Trickster who purposefully sets "intellectual traps" in order to test faith.  Any such system, as the title of this post states, rewards those who never question or who are incapable of questioning.  And I just don't believe that God is sowing the seeds of his gospel in hopes of reaping a crop made principally of mindless followers.


In anticipation of criticism, I want to make it clear what I am NOT saying.  I am not saying that one must be stupid in order to believe in Mormonism.  I know many believing members who are far brighter than I.  What I AM saying is that in order to fully believe in the the church's teachings, one must almost completely disconnect one's intellect from one's spiritual beliefs.  This is true of most religions, though perhaps more so with Mormonism because of the many firm "truth" claims we make, and the many subsequent findings that seem to contradict those"truths".  In response to some of these difficult questions about the church, I hear some members say things like "I don't know the answers, but I don't believe it is essential to my salvation so I won't let it bother me."   Fine, if that works for you, great.  However, as time goes on and information regarding the church's past becomes more accessible, fewer and fewer people are going to be able to set aside these issues which prick at our intellects, and the church will continue to hemorrhage young, educated members.