An open letter to LDS church leaders

In December of last year, members of the Mormon church submitted an open letter to the leaders of the church. The link is here

They asked for the church to respond to the many issues and concerns members of the church are learning about the church. One line from the letter really stood out to me.

"It is not as you may suppose a crisis of faith, but is in a very real sense a crisis of authority; your authority, and the authority of those above you in the LDS hierarchy."

The issues surrounding the church are real and they are valid. A member's testimony cannot help but be shaken upon learning this information, no matter how fully they believe.

And the issues cast legitimate doubt on the fundamental claims of the church.

Faith vs knowledge

- I borrowed this because I like it -

If faith is believing in something that you can't see or something that you don't have 100% knowledge of, then if you know something, or are presented with verifiable facts, your faith in the matter disappears. Most members acknowledge that it works this way, but only acknowledge it in the positive sense. "The brother of Jared didn't have faith in god anymore because he saw god. He now KNOWS".

If it is proven that something isn't true, your faith also goes away in the matter, regardless of which side (true/false) your faith rested on. In the Church, this negative aspect is completely ignored and dismissed.

For example, you present the fact that Joseph Smith was a liar. FACT: Joseph Smith lied about polygamy (and cite your sources, especially the church-sponsored ones, b/c everyone knows that everything about the church that doesn't come from official sources are anti-mormon lies from the devil intended to drag you down to the gulf of endless misery and wo). Believing members would say "I still have faith that he was a prophet of God." They won't even accept the FACTS that you presented to them.

I think if they did accept verifiable FACTS, and if they still chose to have faith in something that would still make Joseph Smith a prophet in their minds, their testimony would have to go something like this:

"I have FAITH that Joseph Smith was somehow a prophet of God, even though I KNOW he was a liar, a bigamist, an adulterer, etc"

It'd be nice if everybody on fast Sundays was completely honest about what they KNOW and what they only have FAITH in. It's sickening hearing people say that they KNOW things in testimony meeting when they merely HOPE and have FAITH. It'd be much more entertaining if they didn't lie.

I gave up on the church because I accepted verifiable FACTS that made my FAITH in the church evaporate. I tried to keep going, to read the apologist's rebuttals, to somehow make it work in my mind so we could all stay on the same page, but it was sickening because I KNEW.

I KNEW the facts. What really pushed me over the edge were the facts that I hadn't heard of before, like polyandry, and JS translating by putting a stone in his hat and putting his head in it, and some of the major changes in the BoM and D&C, the Book of Abraham, and the Kinderhook plates. It wasn't the fact that I hadn't heard of a lot of them before that bothered me. The first time I read them I dismissed them because they seemed so outrageous and different from what I had been taught and everything I had heard. The clincher for me was when I saw church friendly sources confirm the FACTS, that they actually occurred.

From that point on, it didn't matter to me what the conclusions were that people from both sides drew from the FACTS, even though I did side almost entirely with LDS-critical conclusions.

My FAITH in the LDS church is gone, and won't ever come back, because now I KNOW.

What is necessary for our salvation?

- I borrowed this because I like it -

Mormons get to have it both ways.

They malign others for cherry-picking the doctrines they're willing to believe/follow, while doing it themselves. They ignore big swaths of their own scriptures/doctrine by using excuses like "it's not necessary for our salvation", but it's utterly arbitrary what they "pick and choose" as necessary or not.

What standard do they sort by? What determines what's "necessary" and what's not?

The scriptures are supposed to BE the standard, yet they apply some other standard to the scriptures that allows them to deselect parts of them. What is the standard then? The prophets? OK, so you have a prophet who can, and does, supercede scripture...why have scripture then? If there are parts of scriptures that aren't necessary for salvation, but EVERYTHING the prophet says IS necessary...then heck, ditch the scriptures in favor of the prophet.

Oh but the prophet is bound by the scriptures? Oh, only the ones that are necessary for our salvation? But he himself decides that? And what about the words of prophets that are now embarrassing or controversial? The church wants to have the option of distancing itself from those teachings so a living prophet trumps a dead prophet.

....Uhhhm, I'm sensing a circular feedback loop here.

What would cause you to leave the church?

Ask a true believer if they can think of a hypothetical valid reason for leaving the church. In other words, can they think of something that would be grounds for leaving, if that reason can be reasonably demonstrated to have a basis in fact.

Due to the emotional connection most members have to the church, I find it unlikely they will be able to imagine any scenario or information that would cause them to leave the church.

Where do we find God's will?

If we are to align our will with the will of God, how are we to know Gods will? So far, we only have the word of other men who claim to speak for God. But these men are fallible and therefore we can't assume everything they ever say is straight from God's mind.

So where is the line where Gods word ends and man's word begins? Is it really up to each individual to determine which conference talks and what lessons are the Word of God, and which ones are merely the words and opinions of men? If I pray about a talk or principle, and I receive an answer that it is just the opinion of a man, is that an acceptable conclusion?

Do I really have the option to determine, through prayer and spiritual confirmation, what applies to me and what I can disregard? Is this approach really compatible with church doctrine? If not, then that means members are required to follow every directive handed down from the Brethren, regardless of how the individual feels about the matter. If you take the church at its word, then the one-size-fits-all directions from the Brethren really must be applied to every individual, regardless of personal circumstances or tastes.

And you are then also required to follow every directive from the Brethren, even if they happen to be speaking as men.

Why so sensitive?

When those outside of Mormonism write articles about the church or articles are written on the subject, Mormons usually bristle at the descriptions and characterizations and claim the author is biased or "has an axe to grind."

I think it's more a simple fact that from the outside, Mormonism looks kinda wacky. But if you're in the church, you filter everything through your "believing" eyes and twist everything around so it appears normal.

So when an outsider calls it as they see it, the church member is offended and cries persecution. This emotional reaction is only exacerbated by the clear and explicit direction from the Brethren to avoid exposure to anything critical of the church or even anything that may portray the church in a critical manner. And objective critiques of the church certainly fall under this description.

Young Women's object lesson

An hilarious, and also very disturbing, account of an object lesson from a Young Women's activity. Is this something you would be comfortable exposing your children to?

- I borrowed this because I like it -

When I was in Young Women's, I went to a stake activity with my sister and my mom. They had set up the primary room with tables lining the perimeter. At each table, there were examples of choices a person could make during their lifetime.

For example, one could get married in the temple, get a tattoo, obey or disobey the WOW, or go on a mission (to name a few). Each girl was supposed to mark off on a paper which decisions she wanted to make in life. It was pretty obvious from the beginning where this activity was headed.

So, just to be smart-asses, my sister and I rebelled. So did my mom, lol. We all got temporary tattoos and none of us went on imaginary missions. I wouldn't say we did anything too horrible, but we definately weren't making all the obvious decisions for brownie-points, either.

At the end of the "game", our points were tallied up and we were sent to one of three different rooms, depending on our scores. Now, this was a pretty large activity, keep in mind. Most of the young women went to the Relief Society room, where they seemed to be throwing a party. They had cake, music, and punch. This was supposed to represent the celestial kingdom. I don't remember much about what the second room looked like, but I wanna say it was a small room with a few chairs and some bread and water. A couple girls went to that room. It was, of course, supposed to represent the Terrestrial kingdom.

And which room do you suppose me, my mom and sister ended up in? The Telestial Kingdom room. This was a small, empty room with no chairs and nothing but a sleeve of saltine crackers to eat. We stood there, waiting for someone to come and tell us the game was over and we could go join the rest of the group.

Finally, people started showing up. But it was only to visit and gloat about the wonderful cake they were eating. We were never allowed to enter the Celestial or Terrestrial room, and we were told so, outright. We really did assume there would be some sort of message at the end and we'd all be included to eat cake. But, if there was a message, we didn't hear it. All of the other YW's leaders were in the Celestial room (except for my mom). My mom, on the other hand, was pissed. She thought they'd made their point. After waiting a substantial amoint of time, we left without saying goodbye to anyone.

Elder Uchtdorf explains the reality of questioning the Church

According to President Dieter F Uchtdorf, those who take a closer look at the claims of the church are to be compared to those who believe the earth is flat and those who believe the moon is a hologram.

"For those who already embrace the truth, his primary strategy is to spread the seeds of doubt. For example, he has caused many members of the Church to stumble when they discover information about the Church that seems to contradict what they had learned previously. 

 If you experience such a moment, remember that in this age of information there are many who create doubt about anything and everything, at any time and every place. You will find even those who still claim that they have evidence that the earth is flat, that the moon is a hologram, and that certain movie stars are really aliens from another planet. 

And it is always good to keep in mind, just because something is printed on paper, appears on the Internet, is frequently repeated, or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true. Sometimes untrue claims or information are presented in such a way that they appear quite credible. However, when you are confronted with information that is in conflict with the revealed word of God, remember that the blind men in the parable of the elephant would never be able to accurately describe the full truth." CES Jan 2013

Apparently anything critical of the Church can reasonably be compared to the ludicrous claims of those believing the earth is flat or claim the moon is a hologram. That's a very interesting, and condescending, position to take Brother Uchtdorf. Maybe you would care to address some of these silly and easily dismissed claims against the Church? I'm more than willing to discuss specifics with you.

Is there really a place in the church for gray?

Many members who learn of the troubling issues and facts that all but completely discredit the fundamental claims of the church still want to associate and attend the church.

They take a more liberal and laid back approach to doctrine and what the brethren say. But in a church that is so black and white, is there room for gray in the middle?

According to what church leaders have said, the answer is 'no.'

“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.”
Smith, Joseph Feilding. (1976) Doctrines of Salvation. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft. Vol 1, p. 188

…[t]hat becomes the hinge pin on which this whole cause turns. If the First Vision was true, if it actually happened, then the Book of Mormon is true. Then we have the priesthood. Then we have the Church organization and all of the other keys and blessings of authority which we say we have. If the First Vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is just that simple. (Italics added)
from the lesson manual Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley

“I would like to say that this cause is either true or false. Either this is the kingdom of God, or it is a sham and a delusion. Either Joseph talked with the Father and the Son, or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in blasphemy"
Hinckley: Conference Reports, October 1961, p.116

…the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon…if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church.
Benson: Ensign, November 1986

Based on what church leaders have said, and the information I now have, I have no choice but to conclude the church is a fraud.

Does God exist?

Maybe there is something valid about the idea of God. However, does he exist in the form we are taught in Sunday school? Maybe. But I tend to believe if he/she/whatever exists, it is in a completely different form. 

And I doubt our relationship to him is that of a father-child relationship. I guess as our creator one could say he is our father, but I don't believe it extends beyond that. 

As for the Spirit, I have had very powerful experiences not easily explained away. I wonder if there is indeed some cosmological explanation for the Spirit. And those feelings are real. However, I have experienced "the spirit" under many different conditions. And not all of them stemmed from church activities. Many different books, many of them not religious at all, have inspired me with feelings of the Spirit.

Because of this, I tend to believe religion as an institution is still man made. I think maybe religion capitalizes on this "spirit" and uses it to create and perpetuate belief among the members. They teach their members to interpret these feelings as being a manifestation their particular church is true. That would explain why religion gets it right sometimes, but misses the mark on other things. The strongest feelings I've ever felt from the Mormon church were while viewing an art exhibit at the Conference Center. But I have never felt anything remotely close to that while doing Endowment sessions in the Temple. Yet we are taught the temple is the place to go where we will be the closest to God. My experience has been the exact opposite. 

All of this also explains why so many religions describe the exact same feelings as the source for them "knowing" their mutually exclusive beliefs. 

More people are beginning to question

The church is heading into a perfect storm. The facts regarding the church's history are now readily available more than ever before. And members are feeling the urge to spend more time with their families.

As more and more people discover the legitimate questions regarding the authority of those leading the church, the more members will question why they are required to sacrifice so much for the church, at the expense of their family time.

Why did the church lower the missionary age?

My dad once made the comment, "without new converts, this church would die on the vine. New members are what keep it going."

At the time I took him at his word and assumed he was right. But over the years I have watched and observed two things. First, how many new members do I personally observe getting baptized and second, in all the wards I have been in who are the main contributors and movers and shakers?

To the first question, in the last 12 years I have observed 4 converts be baptized. I'm referring to being in the same ward as the new concert, not physically observing the actual baptism. So, in 12 years there have been 4 converts. To be fair, 4 of those years were in student wards at BYU. But still, 4 converts in 8 years? That seems like very few. And one of them got baptized and never returned. Not even for a single meeting. And the other 3 are questionable. They still attend but I can't shake the feeling there is an ulterior motive for their conversion. They have connections to the polygamous community and are insisting on going through the Manti temple when they go through for the first time. Maybe they are 100% on the level, but something just seems "off" to me.

So, very few converts. One could argue virtually no church membership increase through converts.

To the second point, all of the main contributors have been lifelong members. The people doing the most work, serving in the highest callings, paying the most tithing have been members all their lives.

When looking at these two things, it makes me really question whether or not the church really gets anything from converts. Convert baptisms are lower than they've ever been. And retention rates are abysmal. It's very common to hear members say every one of their mission conversions are now inactive.

But there is one benefit to those missions. A mission takes those lifelong members and further binds them to the organization. Many members who would otherwise move on from the church end up getting pressured to go on a mission and ultimately end up staying with the church the rest of their life.

The recent age change for missionaries was simply a response to the high number of young men deciding between the ages of 18 and 19 that this church is not for them. So, the church needs to get them in a suit and a name tag before they get that opportunity to move away.

And then as soon as they return at the ripe old age of 20, it is imperative they get married as quickly as possible. Having a faithful spouse will further bind them to the church. After marriage, the cost of leaving the church rises exponentially.

From my viewpoint, the only benefit the church receives from a global missionary effort is to reduce the loss of members born into the church.

As the saying goes, 'it's much easier to get tithing from a lifelong believer than a convert.'

Faith vs facts

The most fundamental issue is that Mormons start and end with the conclusion that the church is true (period).

So, if there is any evidence to the contrary, the evidence must be a lie, from the devil, twisted, OR there is a perfect explanation but we do not understand it yet. Facts do not matter--only faith matters.

Why is information such a bad thing?

Why does the church advocate making life's biggest decisions based on the least amount of information possible?

Commit to baptism after the 3rd discussion.
Consecrate literally EVERYTHING in your life to the church in the temple, with no knowledge beforehand that this is what you'll be doing there.
Go on a mission as soon as you possibly can without investigating first and living life a little bit.
Get engaged as soon as you possibly can rather than take your time and discover who you are and what you should look for in a spouse.
etc, etc, etc.

Why are church leaders so anxious to have members move on these life changing events before looking for any outside information?

I can see why an outsider would look at Mormonism and say its crazy. But when you're on the inside, it's just what you do.

Do non-believers have an evolutionary disadvantage?

I wonder if religiosity is an evolutionary trait. Anecdotal and observational evidence suggests religious people have more children than non-believers.

If this is the case, non-believers may eventually be bred out of existence. And believers pass their beliefs down to their children thereby perpetuating beliefs down through many generations.

We can only hope the Internet and plentifully available information can stem the tide of beliefs that have no basis in fact.

What if I could somehow have my life back?

It is so very depressing to look back on my life and see every major life decision that I made. Because I made them all while operating under a false set of assumptions.

Every major decision I made appeared to be the right decision at the time. But now I look back and see how I have absolutely and completely blown any opportunity to lead a normal healthy life.

Even if I could somehow miraculously fix everything so that my life could be "right" from this day forward, that doesn't change the fact that multiple decades of my life are gone. History. Lost.

We only get one shot at this life and I'm not exactly off to a blazin' start. And the way things are looking, I fear the future decades will just be a repeat of the last decades. So very depressing.

The greatest tragedy would be if my children are subjected to the same life I've lived. Maybe somehow I can make a difference and break this destructive and harmful cycle. But again, history has shown that my children care very little for my opinions and ideas. But at least they'll have a choice. That's certainly more than I ever had.

More missionaries = the work is rolling forward!!

There is a saying in the church that if the church wasn't true, the missionaries would have destroyed it long ago. Maybe that day is quickly approaching. The lowered missionary age is going to result in an overall drop in the maturity levels of missionaries as well as an increase in the numbers of boys serving who really don't want to be there.

I know from my own experience on my mission there were many boys who really didn't want to be there. They had a knack for bringing others down to their level of faithfulness and work ethic, as opposed to more diligent Elders bringing the less stalwart up their level.

Yes, it's true, there are now going to be more young men serving missions. Are they going to bring a positive influence, or something else instead?

Is it too much to ask, for our prophet to be prophetic?

Why doesn't the Prophet speak out about critical issues that pose serious consequences for the country and the world? Global warming, national debt, etc.

And if he's really a prophet, maybe he could give some direction on how to go about curing cancer. We have the Word of Wisdom to help us with improving our health. Wouldn't some prophetic guidance for curing cancer be an even bigger step to improving health? Maybe even some counsel on what causes cancer so we can avoid those things?

Is it really too much to ask that we get more from our Prophet than another anecdote about visiting a widow or a simple motivational quote like, "Dont worry, everything will work out."

I think the world deserves more than that from the one person on earth with a direct conduit to mind and will of God.

We must be ever careful

Members of the church must be ever watchful and careful to avoid ANY information contrary to the teachings of the church.

The reason for this is that the information out there is so clear, so convincing. It is astounding how easily the fundamental claims of the church are so easily discredited.

Even a superficial study of the evidence debunking Mormonism will destroy a "testimony" very quickly.

BYU is the hope for the future of the Church

I believe BYU is the glue holding this church together. Statistically, I would imagine retention rates for BYU grads is higher than those attending other schools or no school at all.

And with a degree in hand, BYU graduates are going to earn more, thus increasing their 10% contribution to the church. The church may find itself in a cash and membership crunch if they ever did away with BYU.