Archive for category: works in progress

The CES Letter is a popular summary of arguments made by critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was written by Jeremy Renold’s— originally as an honest request to a CES director for answers to the issues it raises.

The CES letter does a good job of compiling, summarizing and explaining many of the largest issues surrounding LDS theology and more especially LDS history and its conflicts with LDS truth claims. However, this letter does not do a good job of giving any context for the issues it brings up.—and as such it is one sided and biased toward not only loss of faith in all LDS theology, but often departure from God, Christianity and religious participation. It is almost an opposing mirror reflection of the one sided, “faith promoting” (ei. whitewashed) version of history and theology promoted by the church for the last 100 years.

The issues are complicated, and the truths presented shatter many ill-conceived doctrines, mores and cultural beliefs held by most Mormons. But as a whole the letter is akin to dumping a lesson onto a 6 year old which in one sitting breaks their idyllic views of humanity by exposing them for the first time to the harsh realities of moral relativism made evident in human history and the brutality of the human condition. For LDS people, it breaks down the oft-held idyllic “mormon-centric” worldview by exposing members to the imperfect realities of religious prophetic and revelatory mystical experience.

Effectively reconciling the issues in this letter (without becoming angry toward Mormonism) often requires redefining one’s understanding of revelatory and visionary experiences (understanding their subjective nature). It requires redefining many of the LDS church’s exclusive truth claims. It requires a mature understanding of the many shades of grey which exist between the idealized black and white view of right and wrong which is often taught in Sunday school. Here’s a great framework to start evaluating the CES letter from, written by someone I respect a lot…

The CES letter evaluates an “all or nothing” set of church beliefs by using the very same flawed “all or nothing” paradigm.

And when we use such false dichotomies, we typically come to the “nothing” answer, which to my mind is just as false as the “all” answer.

In my impression, the correct conclusion to make after reading the CES letter is not whether the church is true or not, but rather, the entire approach of “all or nothing” thinking is completely bogus, whether being used to defend or destroy the church (or anything else).

Evaluating four or six versions of the first vision, then rejecting the vision because the accounts changed is frankly the wrong answer. Theophanies exist. They happen. I have had at least one, and so have many of you. But to accurately describe one? Impossible. Sure, I don’t know if Joseph had a theophany, but the fact that he described it distinctly over time is more evidence of it than against.

But where is this kind of thoughtful evaluation in the CES letter? It doesn’t exist, because “all or nothing” thinking rejects any possibility of a Middle Way.

Yes, I believe, with others, that our beliefs need to be deconstructed, and for me this meant “complete deconstruction” — I embraced the “nothing” part of the “all or nothing” paradigm. Maybe that was necessary, for a moment in time.

But faith is neither found in the “all”, nor in the “nothing”. Faith is the Middle Way between all and nothing, between knowing and not knowing. Faith is not perfect knowledge or certainty, for as Alma said, when we “know” something, our faith is dormant. Faith is never dormant, it is always exploring, acting, moving, learning, dealing with doubt in constructive, hopeful ways.

If we have faith, we hope for things that are not seen that are true.

For most of the things stated in the CES letter, we can “know” that the certainties of church claims are not certain. In other words, we should come to the conclusion we don’t know what we thought we knew.

That’s great! But what then is the typical response to the CES letter? Another certainty: “the church is not true.”

We trade the “all” certainty for the “nothing” certainty, and we have missed the lesson to be learned here.

If the CES letter is a wake up call toward not knowing, then the answer is twofold: (1) the suspension of judgment, casting aside the “all or nothing” paradigm, and (2) activate our faith, which Alma describes as a process of exploring truth by doing the work necessary to find our own truth. –author requested to be left anonymous

I personally think that it’s good that the CES letter helps people understand that the “church” isn’t true in the ways most people think it is. Everyone, at some point in their faith journey needs to understand that no earthly church is exactly ‘true’ per se. I think that’s a lesson eloquently taught in the LDS endowment, and in the Masonic ideology the endowment is based on. I lay down the obviousness of this in my article ‘Is The LDS Church the Only True Church? Understanding Religion and Truth‘.

But this is what the CES letter does not do. It does not help anyone understand that THERE IS A TRUE CHURCH. The true ‘church’ is in heaven (the higher dimensional levels above us). It is composed of ALL the good people who have lived, and ALL good churches lead people toward it. Life DOES continue after death. And the groups we create here on earth continue after death. And you can usually progress more quickly when part of a group than you can alone. And these groups in the metaphysical realm have more power to help and subtly influence mortals than solitary individuals do. So even though pretty much all earthly church leaders teach more error and ego than truth, churches are often good for both society and individuals (just like political social structures), and there are powerful reasons to unite with them and utilize them to serve your fellow man.  And perhaps most importantly, your faith in the unseen, in your fellow man, and in the social structures you join says more about your integrity and personal progression than perhaps any other part of your character.  As the prophet Jachanan Ben Kathryn puts it…

0 BEHOLD, the LORD knoweth that thou canst not see him. Nor can thy light reveal his countenance. Therefore is he pleased with faith, and he hath made it as the sure foot of the babe running to his mother’s comfort. He shall hear thy cries, and he shall be quick to comfort.

2 Why should the LORD judge a man by his works? A peaceful time breedeth peaceful men; and the righteous of an easy season could very well be the transgressors in a hard season, at the time of the LORD’s testing, at the moment of decision; and contrarywise he who is a rock in an hard time would be overbearing and an offender in an easy time. When the ax is laid to the stump, could not he who died exalted in a peaceful time, falter in a calamitous time? Therefore are the works of man an uneven weight before the LORD. But faith abideth in any time, and the love of God is a steady weight to weigh faith more precious than gold and more enduring than time, and of more value than flesh. (Book of Ben Kathryn 33:1-3; 60:8)

In addition to that, religion proves to be a powerful tool to teach people about their own selfishness and ego. Churches, like political organizations, nearly always become filled with (often well-meaning) individuals seeking power and control over others. Christianity serves as a powerful metaphor to expose the selfishness in those individuals and lead them to eventual humility and repentance. Much like Judas or the Jewish leaders who killed Jesus seeking to “do god a favor” (John 16:2), the dramas of religious leaders doing harm to the “sheep” or harmless people of the world, in the name of god or the greater good plays out countless times in each generation. As the lambs of the world lay down their lives, or reputations, or happiness to the egos of religious leaders both come closer to exaltation as the lambs prove their selflessness and the leaders eventually see the reality of the pain they caused others they will be given another chance to crucify their egos and truly follow Jesus.

8 Behold why I have made such symbols: that at thy corrupting of them, thy heart may be revealed, and the evil known for what it is, made manifest to all mankind. (Book of Ben Kathryn 33:1-3; 60:8)

Summary

Book of Mormon Issues

-Those who have faith in the Book of Mormon, should be prepared for the possibility that all scripture is not objectively true.  That the biblical story of creation is symbolic allegory, and the flood may be a symbolic story largely based on ancient oral myth, that Israel’s cultural stories of Abraham and Joseph and Moses are based on records and myths that combine truth with embellishment and even fiction, that the biblical histories are not entirely accurate. That the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price may also be mystical, more than historical writings. One must come to see how the value of these religious books is not in their objective retelling of history, but in the spiritual lessons which are woven into the history.  But there are many incredibly intelligent aspects of scripture which can be seen as divine and beyond human ability to consciously create. All must read them and decide which parts are human and which parts are divine. I believe all scripture/channeled literature (Christian or not) come from a place outside conscious thought. The better a mystic is able to channel the divine— the better the scripture.  I encourage anyone interested in this to read the following books. Morals and Dogma by Robert Pike. The Gnostic Pearl. Oahspe.

Joseph Smith Character Issues

-One must come to grips with the fact that Joseph Smith was not anything like the idealized prophet hero the church has made him to be.  He was visionary and persuasive. From the records available, it seems he was convinced of his divine mission. But his polygamy and power issues are impossible to dismiss. It seems that in the last three years of his life, he became a sex addict and took advantage of many women by using religious coercion to convince them to marry and have sex with him. On the other hand he was not without boundaries and tried to give the women he propositioned ample change to deny him… and respected their denials. Toward the end of his life, he made many enemies as he excommunicated those who threatened his power.  He turned himself into a king and acted despotically at times.  But he also acted charitably and kindly. He was both good and bad… each individual needs to study his life and decide for themselves whether the good of his life outweighs the bad, or whether the bad makes him unworthy of respect for the good he attempted to accomplish.

.

CES Letter Issues and responses

________________________________________
1 – What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? An ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?

My Conclusion: I think it’s hard to deny that the Isaiah sections of the Book of Mormon were copied directly from the 1769 king James. One must come to grips with possibility that Joseph’s revelations & translation came from his own mind. But one should not dismiss a divinity in these books either. An argument could possibly be made that Joseph Channeled the text from some spiritual sources, and that those spirits passing the information to him, copied the passages from his own culturally accepted KJV. Or perhaps they simply told him to go to the KJV to get those sections (not likely given the evidence). Really there’s a number of possibilities, but the question this fact poses is more important. What do the KJV verses tell us about the translation process, if we are to attempt to maintain faith in the idea that the text is an actual divine translation of some sort?  If it is not a translation at all, and is just a divinely influenced mythic or mystical story does that need to destroy our allegiance to the LDS religious community?  What if we ask these same questions of the Bible? (especially the old testament myths and stories)
________________________________________
2 – When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they’re italicized in the KJV Bible. What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?

Conclusions: The idea that Joseph “translated” these sections of Book of Mormon (and possibly most, if not all the text), word for word cannot be upheld. The evidence presented would suggest, that if anything, Joseph “channeled” both the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham through “revelation” (channeling being the more modern term for the work of a revelator). The propagation of errors within Biblical quotes found in the Book of Mormon would suggest they were copied, essentially word for word (but with minor changes here and there) from his 1769 version of the bible. The New Testament quotes and New England christology in the Book of Mormon are perhaps even more alarming.

________________________________________
3- Joseph Smith translated the LDS bible, in which he claims to have fixed errors in other translations of the bible. Why do BOM passages match the KJV 1769 rather than the LDS bible? There seems to be a contradiction here.

-conclusion: It seems evident that the JST is not a “restoration” of the original biblical text written by the ancient prophets, but an attempt by Joseph Smith to clarify, expound upon, or reconcile conflicting ideas and doctrines presented in the passages he chose to address (according to his own beliefs and/or inspiration).

________________________________________
4 – DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but rather from Asia. Why did the Church change the section of the introduction page in the 2006 edition Book of Mormon, from “are the principal ancestors” to “are among the ancestors” shortly after the DNA results were released?

-conclusion: Obviously church leaders felt that the original claim was too strict, and was likely not supported by the text itself either. Many articles have been written on this, so I’ll just cover this in my explanations on subsequent issues.
-Questions. Just as with the Bible, there are many ambiguities in the Book of Mormon itself which would make genetic testing difficult. These include things like; what was the origin of the “Jaredite” people and were they literally all killed off (or were there tens of thousands living in scattered pockets whom the ancient Jaredite author knew nothing about? Did the Jaredites share a common ancestor with East Asians (such as Mongolians)? If there were many Jaredite remnants how much did they mix with Book of Mormon peoples. Many indigenous groups such as the Navajos, Pacific Northwest peoples and eskimos (the Athabascan language group) are known to have migrated from Alaska during post Book of Mormon times, how do we know which Native American Groups have no part in the Book of Mormon narrative? If the Book of Mormon truly was channeled from ancient North American Indians was what they wrote prone to their own cultural conceptions? Is it possible to find a genetic sample of unmixed pre-Babylonian captivity “Israelites” with which to compare North American DNA samples? Did the Northern Kingdom Israelites exiled into Assyria mix with the Turkish nomads who are the principal ancestors of modern Mongolian and north Asian peoples? Are there reliable control groups available for these types of genetic studies? Is historically known Viking DNA found in North American Indian DNA? How have post Christian era Inuit language group migrations mixed with more southern North American groups (Navajo tribes for example).
________________________________________
5- Horses, cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times. Why are these things mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas between 2200 BC – 421 AD?

-conclusion: The anachronistic words used by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon, once again seem to strongly suggest that if one wants to assert that the text is based on a true historical narrative—then the text must have been largely channeled using his own cultural biases and language instead of translated word for word. 

________________________________________
6 -There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites/Lamanites who numbered in the millions. This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists are coming up with the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America) and that the real Hill Cumorah is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere and possibly somewhere down there instead.
Latter-day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was BYU’s archaeology division (New World Archaeological Funding) founder. NWAF was financed by the Church. NWAF and Ferguson were tasked by BYU and the Church in the 1950s and 1960s to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. This is what Ferguson wrote after 17 years of trying to dig up evidence for the Book of Mormon:
“…you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere – because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology. I should say – what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.”

-conclusion: One assertion can be made from this. Archeological evidence would certainly suggest these battles almost certainly did not occur on or around the modern Hill Cumorah. (That is unless the battles did not include the use of stone weaponry or the weaponry was completely looted, collected and transported by subsequent indigenous groups. That seems unlikely but not impossible.)
Questions regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon are highly debatable and in many cases impossible to prove or disprove. Using the same logic on known historical documents (especially when legend or myth is concerned) brings similar issues. Numerous battles mentioned in Roman writings, Greek writing, Biblical writings, and Egyptian writings also have produced no archaeological evidence. This does not mean they did not happen. It does not even prove that the historical writings concerning these battles has been exaggerated or mythologized. Sometimes it simply means that archaeological evidence can be hard to find.
Questions: Why did Joseph Smith call the Hill Comoruh such? What real evidence is there that this is the Hill Cumorah from the Book of Mormon and that he was not simply mistaken? Why did He have a vision of a room full of records within the hill (link). Is that vision hearsay? How error prone are such visionary experiences?
________________________________________
7- BOM geography names are strikingly similar to the Great Lakes region where Joseph Smith grew up. There are dozens of place names in BOM which correspond to real places around upstate new york. These include Alma, Boaz, Lehi…

-conclusion: This and similar semantics studies on the book of Mormon text (compared with Prof. Antons encyclopedia for instance) seem to suggest many of the Book of Mormon names may not have been direct “translations” but were at least influenced by Joseph’s cultural experience. It could be coincidence, but seems unlikely.
________________________________________
7b- Off the eastern coast of Mozambique in Africa is an island country called “Comoros.” Prior to its French occupation in 1841, the islands were known by its Arabic name, “Camora.” There is an 1808 map of Africa that refers to the islands as “Camora.” There is an island off the cost of Madagascar called Camorah. Its principle settlement was named Moroni. Joseph Smith was a treasure hunter and fan of pirate fiction. A contemporary source reports that the young Smith was a fan of the Captain William Kid pirate novels, parts of those stories take place on Camorah and in Moroni. The name “Camorah” appeared in the 1830 edition of BOM, but the spelling was changed in later editions.
-conclusion: Same as above.
________________________________________
8 – A fictional book called View of the Hebrews was published in 1825 in Vermont, 5 years before the first edition of BOM. It tells a story that parallels the BOM story in striking similarity, including migrations of Hebrew tribes to America, Jewish origin of Indian language, similar battles, settlements, Indian records recorded on gold leafs and buried in a hill, Urim & Thummim, messiah visits America, quotes entire chapters of Isaiah… Some passages from View of the Hebrews and BOM are word for word identical.

Reverend Ethan Smith was the author of View of the Hebrews. Ethan Smith was a pastor in Poultney, Vermont when he wrote and published the book. Oliver Cowdery – also a Poultney, Vermont resident – was a member of Ethan’s congregation during this time and before he went to New York to join his cousin Joseph Smith.

-conclusion: Once again, it seems obvious from this and the next point that if the book is true, then Joseph’s cultural experience was highly influential in his “channeling” of his texts. Evidence is poor that Joseph copied or plagiarized his works from “View of the Hebrews”, “The Late War” or the “Spaulding manuscript”. But cultural influence on semantics, wording, styling and prose seems likely.

-Question. How does channeling work? Where is the inspiration of all of these works coming from? Did Joseph even read these books? Is there possibly a common source of inspiration for all these works? Are principles of group consciousness at work here? Are the similarities simply a product of the religious culture of the time?

________________________________________
9 – The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain is a children’s text book published 1819. It is written in King James style language, and contains many phrases and passages which appear in BOM. Phrases such as “partly of brass and partly of iron, and were cunningly contrived with curious works, like unto a clock; and as it were a large ball” appear verbatim in both a text book that Smith likely read as a child and BOM.

Same as above.
________________________________________
10 – The First Book of Napoleon was published in 1809. Compare its opening lines to the beginning of BOM:
“The First Book of Napoleon: Condemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Napoleon…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…the land…their inheritances their gold and silver and…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of their hearts…small in stature…Jerusalem…because of the perverse wickedness of the people.
Book of Mormon: Condemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Nephi…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…the land…his inheritance and his gold and his silver and…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of his heart…large in stature…Jerusalem…because of the wickedness of the people.

Same as above.
________________________________________
11- The first 1830 edition of BOM had a trinitarian theology. Many passages that established identity between Father and Son were later changed, as part of over 100,000 changes made after the first edition. For example:
1 Nephi 3 (p.32): These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world”, was changed to
“These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world”
However, there are still some parts of BOM which establish identity between Father and Son. For example : Ether 3:14–15:
“Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.”
The changes to later editions show an evolving theology of the Godhead away from the traditional trinitarian view, but by leaving in some passages like the one from Ether above, the BOM now presents a contradictory view of the ontology of the Godhead.

-Conclusions: The fact that both of the earliest accounts of the First Vision speak of just One being really supports the issues in this point.
It would seem that just as with many textual changes in the Bible, LDS “Scribes” (Leaders) felt they were in good faith, clarifying confusing aspects of the text. However, numerous other references within LDS scripture, Biblical scripture, and other channeled texts of the time (see link) seem to suggest that like biblical textual changes, these additions were more a reflection of LDS leader’s lack of knowledge concerning the complexity of the subject of the nature of God. They seem to have sought to make the words in the Book of Mormon accord with their interpretation of God, just as Joseph may well have channeled the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants to accord with his own changing views of the nature of God.
Questions: What makes someone a “prophet”? Are the visionary experiences of “prophets” largely a reflection of their own understanding? Just as “god” speaks according to the language of a visionary individual, does he also speak largely according to their existing cultural and religious understandings? Thus do a prophet’s “visions” of God change with their understanding?
Along with the both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views in the Book of Mormon, why does D&C define God in a non-anthropromorphic way? Why do later revelations such as D&C 121 and D&C 132, and the King Follet Discourse promote polytheism? Such questions add a great richness to LDS theology.

________________________________________

Book of Mormon Translation Issues

1 – Peep stone translation. Joseph Smith was not even looking at the gold plates when he “translated” them. He was looking at a rock in his hat. At times the plates were not even in the same building, but were rather hidden in the woods. Why has the church been less than forthcoming about the translation process?

Yes, it would seem the plates were more “channeled” than “translated”.
There is much the church has not been forthcoming about. Are they improving in this area of honesty? Was it on purpose? Was it to protect and bolster their own power? Did they think they were protecting fragile testimonies and achieving “the greater good”? How can we judge intentions when we were not there? Does this affect how much trust we should put in religious hierarchy? Are misconceptions in this area all just honest mistakes?
________________________________________

First Vision Issues

1 – First vision inconsistencies. There are four different versions of the first vision in the sacred grove. This is Joseph’s vison that supposedly occurred in 1820. There is no mention of the first vision anywhere until it appears in Smith’s journal in 1832, twelve years after it happened and a few years after the first edition of BOM. The four accounts differ in how old Smith was, why he went out to pray, who appeared to him “a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son – are all over the place”.

Conclusion: The church has made great strides in being honest concerning this point as of late (see gospel topics essays). Original scans of these primary-sources for the first vision accounts are available on the churches website. The differences are indeed significant. And although one would expect even large differences in a person’s recollection and storytelling over a period of 30 years, the differences in the accounts do come across as suspicious. I believe this issue is most disturbing because the Church has used the official version of this account as such a central “selling point” of the exclusive truth claims of the LDS gospel.

Questions: What definition of “vision” was Joseph referring to when he described his experience as a “heavenly vision”? Was this a vision as in a true “supernatural apparition”? Or was it a vision as defined in the sense of “an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance”? (see Webster’s dictionary) What is the difference? Did Joseph’s memory of the vision change greatly over time as his ideas of God evolved? D&C 76 is self-described as a vision given “in the Spirit” which multiple parties had at the same time— can the difference of whether a vision is “real” or not, be differentiated by whether a third party can verify the event. Are visions more subjective than reality where the beliefs of the vision participants are projected into the experience like a shared dream?
How much trust should people put in other people’s “visions”? How are drug induced visions, after-death experience visions and unassisted religious visions different from one another? Would Joseph be clinically diagnosed as a schizophrenic by today’s medical standards and is that diagnosis fair considering the social changes he accomplished? Are the biases of today’s secular medical field concerning visions and hallucinations ignorant of spiritual powers latent within the human mind?
________________________________________

Book of Abraham Issues

1 – Book of Abraham. Smith bought a piece of papyrus from a traveling mummy exhibit and claimed that it was a document “written by Abraham with his own hand”. Smith’s translation is now the Book of Abraham. Egytologists later determined that the paper dated to the first century AD, 2000 years after Abraham lived, that the text was a common funeral item called a “breathing permit” issued to a man named “Hor” who was mummified in the first century, and that Smith’s “translation” was completely unrelated to the papyrus.
The book of Abraham presents a Newtonian cosmology which very closely resembles Thomas Dick’s (1830)Philosophy of a Future State, of which Smith owned a copy.
“Much of the book dealt with the infinity of the universe, made up of innumerable stars spread out over immeasurable distances. Dick speculated that many of these stars were peopled by “various orders of intelligences” and that these intelligences were “progressive beings” in various stages of evolution toward perfection. In the Book of Abraham, part of which consists of a treatise on astronomy and cosmology, eternal beings of various orders and stages of development likewise populate numerous stars. They, too, are called “intelligences.” Dick speculated that “the systems of the universe revolve around a common centre…the throne of God.” In the Book of Abraham, one star named Kolob “was nearest unto the throne of God.”
Of course now that we have good telescopes, we know this model of the cosmos is just as false as the geocentric models which preceded it.

-Conclusions: It seems apparent that the idea of Joseph Smith “translating” the Book of Abraham from an Egyptian manuscript may be unviable. It may be more likely that, like the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, and D&C, the Book of Abraham was channeled. Perhaps the Anthon manuscripts were used as “props” to spur on the desire and need for the channeled material.

It cannot be ruled out that the numerous common elements and glyphs found in The Book of Abraham’s source text, the Book of Dead and other Ptolemaic era Egyptian funerary texts have their cultural roots in a true historical ‘Abraham’. The Kolbrin is worth considering in this discussion.

________________________________________

Polygamy Issues

1-Adultery/polygamy – Joseph Smith had at least 34 wives “11 of them were married women of other living men. Among them being Apostle Orson Hyde who was sent on his mission to dedicate Israel when Joseph secretly married his wife, Marinda Hyde” Another of his wives was a pregnant newlywed.
Pedophilia – 7 of Smith’s wives were teenagers as young as 14.
Incest – Among the women was a mother-daughter set and three sister sets. Several of these women included Joseph’s own foster daughters.
Doctrine & Covenants 132 – This scripture sets out specific rules as to how polygamy can be practiced. It gives a man a right to “destroy” his first wife if she does not consent to further plural marriages, but she must at least be given an opportunity to consent. Smith did not follow the rules set out in D&C 132, secretly marrying women behind his first wife’s back, and marrying women who were not virgins. Moreover, “Plural marriages are rooted in the notion of “sealing” for both time and eternity. The “sealing” power was not restored until April 3, 1836 when Elijah appeared to Joseph in the Kirtland Temple and conferred the sealing keys upon him. So, Joseph’s marriage to Fanny Alger in 1833 was illegal under both the laws of the land and under any theory of divine authority”.
Predatory threats and promises – Smith promised salvation to a girl’s entire family if she would mary him. To another teenage girl, he threatened that an angel with a flaming sword would kill him if she did not consent to marriage.
Smith lied about his sexual activity – when publicly questioned about it shortly before his death he said “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”
The 1835 edition of D&C bans polygamy, but as smith was receiving and teaching these “revelations” he continued to marry new wives.
Soliciting perjury – In an attempt to abate public rumors of his secret polygamy, Joseph got 31 witnesses to sign an affidavit published in the LDS October 1, 1842 Times and Seasons stating that Joseph did not practice polygamy.
“…we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.”
One of the signers of this affidavit, was Joseph Smith’s plural wife. Joseph and Eliza were married 3 months earlier on June 29, 1842. Two Apostles and future prophets, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, were very aware of Joseph’s polygamy behind the scenes when they signed. Another signer, Bishop Whitney, had personally married his daughter Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph as a plural wife a few months earlier on July 27, 1842; Whitney’s wife and Sarah’s mother Elizabeth (also a signer) witnessed the ceremony.

Reconciling Joseph Smith’s behavior with the idyllic view of “chastity” promoted by the LDS church for the last 100+ years is difficult to uphold given his behavior.

Questions: How many of these relationships were sexual? Why would Emma be so upset unless some of them were sexual? Why did all but 2 of them occur in the last 4 years of his life? How was Joseph’s polygamy different than Brigham Young’s or later church leaders who publicly lied about their sexual behavior. How fallible are “prophets” or those with the gift of prophesy. At what point does their behavior constitute a fall from grace? Was Joseph allowed to be killed because of his moral transgressions? At what point of “unrighteousness” is a priesthood holder’s authority invalidated? Is the LDS view of sexual morality based more on tradition than revelation? Did Judah’s sexual encounter with a temple prostitute and incest with his daughter-in-law invalidate his patriarchal priesthood authority? Is it hypocrisy for the LDS church to promote such a strict sexual morality when the Church’s founder had such lose sexual morality? Is God’s moral standard based on what secures the greatest happiness for all involved? (see Joseph’s marriage proposal to Nancy Rigdon). Is “God” OK with non-traditional sexual relationships as long as they are consensual, secure the greater good and religiously institutionalized? Does current LDS attitudes toward polygamy and sexuality make it more difficult for members to know about Joseph’s polygamy and sexuality and still maintain a testimony of the church’s exclusive truth claims?

________________________________________

Prophet Concerns and Questions

1-Adam-God – Brigham Young taught that Adam was heavenly father descended to earth in human flesh. The Adam-God doctrine was condemned by a later prophet.

In my opinion this is not much of an issue to anyone who’s studied much of global religious traditions or religious esotericism in general.
Response: How does this doctrine relate to Joseph’s doctrine of plural gods as taught in the King Follet discourse? Was Brigham talking as a prophet or as a man? How does anybody tell the difference? Was Brigham referring to the “Most High God” or simply saying Adam is the primary God of this world under the Patriarchal priesthood? Did Brigham Young’s statement that Adam was “the only god of which we have anything to do”, infer that Adam was higher than Christ or Christ’s father? Was he talking about literal father’s or figurative fathers in the priesthood? If D&C 76:xx and numerous other scriptures teach that all celestial beings are “equal in power and authority”, then why is this even an issue?
________________________________________
2-Blood-Atonement – Brigham Young taught that Jesus’s atonement was not sufficient to cover all sins, and that some people needed to be killed in order to atone for their sins with their own blood. “I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them…” Brigham young gave himself the right to kill people under the guise of saving them from their sins.

Conclusion: Brigham Young was an autocratic political and religious leader, leading a large population during a period of great social instability. Like most people in similar circumstances he did and said a lot of things that are very questionable to modern standards.
Questions: Priesthood holders have a responsibility to maintain social stability, but how much power and authority should one give them over our personal lives? Was this simply a religious justification for capital punishment? Did Brigham ever use this form of capital punishment on apostates (or sedition in political terms)? Same question applies to Joseph Smith in relation to his use of Porter Rockwell and the Danites. What’s the difference between a revered empire builder like Alexander the Great or Queen Victoria and a vilified empire builder like Mao Tse Tung or Stalin? Doesn’t history show they often use the same tactics and kill the same percentages of people in their endeavors?

________________________________________
3-Polygamy necessary for salvation – Brigham Young said “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”

Conclusion: This is one of the least, of the many contradictory and obviously false things LDS church leaders have said. Questions surrounding whether Brigham Young’s was directly involved in the Mountains Meadows massacre (like Robert E. Lee accused him of being at his execution confession) are far more pressing when deciding how much power one should give religious leaders over their personal lives.
Questions: Just because someone does and says contradictory or morally wrong things, does this mean they don’t deserve their authority? Does the very fact that they hold social power prove that God approves of them? How does the Chinese philosophy of the “Mandate of Heaven” apply to religious leaders? When does speaking out concerning perceived wrongs done by leaders turn into anarchy and end up causing more harm than good?

________________________________________
4-No Blacks Allowed – Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to black men, but Brigham Young prohibited it and denied black people access to the temple. Every prophet from Young until the seventies upheld the racist ban on blacks in the temple. How can true prophets disagree on a matter such as this? “The same God who “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female” is the same God who denied blacks from the saving ordinances of the Temple for 130 years. Yet, He changed His mind again in 1978 about black people.”
These doctrines were later declared false by future prophets and apostles. “Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine. Yesterday’s prophet is today’s heretic.”

Same questions as above apply.

________________________________________
Falsifiable claims – Smith claimed that he could translate ancient texts – this is a falsifiable claim.
Kinderhook plates – Joseph smith gave partial translation of these plates, claiming they were from a descendent of Ham. The plates were later revealed to be a hoax. This and the Book of Abraham mistranslation show that Smith could not translate ancient texts. His claim was both falsifiable and twice falsified.

I believe the best way to approach these issues is like a scientist—an unbiased truth seeker. One who wades through the facts not trying to prove or disprove truth claims, but one who starting from scratch wishes to use this information to learn truths concerning ideas like:
-how does the scriptural idea of revelation and “the gift of prophesy” really work?
-what is the nature of a “prophet”. How subjective vs. objective are visionary experiences, and how much control is it prudent to give another over our own lives as a result of material revealed in their visionary experiences?
-are there better physiological explanations for visionary experiences and channeled material which account for the subjective and often contradictory information contained in them, while at the same time accounting for the supernatural aspects of them?
-when does the end justify the means? Is it OK to lie, exaggerate or even kill someone if you perceive it will save someone else’s life or accomplish some greater good (killing in perceived self-defense for example, or killing/doing “bad” for a noble cause)?
-what really is the nature of God, and how involved is this being in the experiences of supposed “prophets”? For example is God an anthropomorphic being who whispers in a “prophets” ears everything he should do, say or write or is “God” more like a computer database which prophets & mystics look into and get the answers, that they want, need or are ready for? Answers which are interpreted through the cultural bias of the observer?
-if God, gods or extra dimensional beings really do exist, what is our relationship to them, what is their relationship to each other and why should we even care if they exist or what they have to say?

Mormon’s often boast that our concept of a God with a body is more true than other religion’s concept of a God without a body. But I believe Joseph Smith introduced an amazingly pluralistic concept that actually reconciles monotheism and polytheism as well as the incorporeality and anthropomorphism of God; that earth’s God is just an exalted earth-man operating within a chain of higher eternal beings extending and existing infinitely. This concept is supported and explained in more detail in other restorationist movement texts such as Oahspe (see Chap 7 Book of Jehovah).

But few LDS members really think about the implications of this when it comes to understanding God or arguing with other religion’s concepts of God. Joseph Smiths revelations (Facsimile 2, D&C 132:17–20) and King Follet discourse suggests that “Christ” who is taking on rule of this planet is following in the footsteps of a “Father” who followed the same pattern and ruled before him. And that this “Father” also had a Father and so on, and so on. But the questions remain, “exactly which God or Gods relate to us”, “who was the first Father” and who is the “Most High God” or the “Eternal God of all other gods” as D&C 121:28–32 puts it? Here we run into the philosophical paradox of first cause and the realization that because of the principle of Divine Investiture of Authority, all “gods” take upon themselves the authority of the Most High God, but it is unknown whether anyone has physically “met” Him. Understanding the micro/macrocosm nature of the universe (see this article) or the “pattern in all things” spoken of in D&C 52:14, and following the succession of God taught by Joseph Smith to its logical conclusion, it seems evident that the “Most High God” must in a way be eternally distant and yet also omnipresent spirit, finitely embodied in all of us (especially his mediator gods), but in fullness comprising ALL THAT IS.  These biblical verses make this clear; Jer. 23:23–24 | 1 Kings 8:27, Acts 17:24–28, John 4:24 | 1 Tim. 1:17 | 1 Tim. 6:16. LDS Scriptures such as D&C 88:6–13 also support this in saying,

“He is in all things and through all things” including being “in the sun [moon, & stars], and the light of the sun [moon & stars], and the power thereof by which [they were] made”.

Thus both Catholic, Christian and Eastern views of God are all true in Joseph’s cosmogony, but use different words to label the different echelons of beings (those who Hindus or who Joseph Smith label as gods inD&C 132, would be labeled as something like archangels by most Christians). So in light of this worldview the question we should be asking when comparing the gods mentioned in scripture is which “Father” was seen in the “visions” of Enoch, Moses or Joseph Smith and relates to us as earthlings, and what language does he speak? (ie. what kind of distortion of the message is occurring because of difficulties of framing Gods image & words into the language, culture and biases of the prophet).  In these transcendental experiences is it the God/Father/Ruler of the House of Israel (ie. Abraham)? Is it the Father of just this Earth (ie. Adam)? Is it the God of Kolob or our small section of the Galaxy? Or of our entire Milky Way galaxy? (see the cosmology of Oahspe and the law of one for more info on this.) Of our supercluster? Our supercluster complex… ad infinitum?

Contemplating infinity, omniscience and omnipresence, I think it should be obvious that we just don’t know; but given the differences in global prophetic experiences it seems almost certain that each prophet uses his own language, culture and worldview to interpret what they envision. It is completely possible that in some cases, these appearances are subjective visions, where “God” is working from within the minds of the prophets themselves. And because of this it really shouldn’t matter so much exactly who was envisioned by Joseph Smith, Moses or ourselves anyway because we all relate to the level of beings in heaven of which we are best able to comprehend. And at the highest levels we are all connected and are all part of the ONE God (the idea of the trinity/godhead is trying to esoterically teach us this concept, the three are ONE). Man’s ideas of God are just like the mountain allegory. Each religion’s or person’s view of God is a partial distorted idea based on their limited perspective and are like the individual foothills in Jesus’ allegory on truth.  An understanding of the Most High God includes an understanding of all limited perspectives fit into one great whole. This is part of what I believe was Christ’s first teaching to the Nephites in 3 Ne 11:27–32. He essentially says to his multi-denominational audience, “stop bickering over religious doctrine and gods”. “Don’t you see that my goal is to lead you to unification in the Father, and my doctrine is that you stop fighting and get along?!” Let’s switch back to the illustration of the mountain again and compare it with our understanding of and relationship to God. It is so silly for us all to be sitting on our own peaks in the foothills of eternity arguing over whose hill is the top of the mountain. None of them are. The top of the mountain is eternal, and so even though we are all on different lower extremities of the same mountain none of us fully understands the whole picture because the mountain is never ending. Christ’s teachings of unconditional love and acceptance of all people and all creation are of course the beginning to truly understanding the Most High God. That type of love is the Christ-principle that no man can come to the Father without.  Christ tried to teach everyone the keys to love and unity in the principle that like numberless biological cells in a single body, we are all connected and thus part of God with statements like John 15:1–12 and John 17:11,21

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us

Christ also tries to teach that by overcoming his selfish ego, and being fully conscious of his unity with ALL THAT IS, he is indeed a microcosmic division (son) of God the Father.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me (John 14:8–11).

Yet at the same time he tries to teach that the father is much bigger than us all with statements like “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28).  Paul makes the same distinction when he says,

“who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.” (NIV 1 Tim. 6:16, see all translations)

Hidden in these types of scriptures are deeply esoteric teachings & understandings concerning the relationship between human unity, group consciousness and the faces/images of God as revealed by His messengers (those who are able to reach into the realm of spirit and put a face to the deepest spiritual needs, faith and yearnings of mankind & creation).

No One understands the true nature of God and no mortal’s understanding of God is exactly true. We know only our limited perspectives gained from the limited information we have on the limited ways He has revealed Himself to us. No prophet can see God as HE IS. A prophet can only see God according to his own perceptions. We don’t even really know each other and yet each religion thinks they “know” or have the correct understanding of God?

God calls prophets and has them organize religions to teach people about the nature of eternal beings, universal consciousness and reality; and to teach them about themselves. But how do you teach someone who you are with mere words or even repeated short visits? A person can’t explain themselves in words, pictures or even face-to-face conversation. Even living with someone 24/7 we can spend our whole lives really getting to know them; but because most people are so complex you can never properly depict them on canvas, or paper or stone. The problem with religions is that they are like a young infatuated lover who has just got a girlfriend and thinks he “knows” her and is in love with her. Well it doesn’t take long before the magic wears off and the person can see in retrospect that the person isn’t quite what they thought they were. Hopefully they realize that the person is better than they thought, but typically since “infatuation” is really love of self, they find that they were projecting their own hopes and “desires of self” onto their lover. There is good reason why God and Christ compare themselves to a husband and the Church or us to their young bride. God is trying to teach us something about our own psychology.

The God of Israel
God wanted Israel to come up to the mount with Moses and personally worship the “true” God (D&C 84:23–27); but they couldn’t comprehend Him, so they had Aaron build them an idol that they could worship. (They needed something beautiful, concrete, visible and agreeing with their notions of god!) Since it was obvious that’s all Israel couldn’t understand that “God” (just like everyone) is to be experienced with your heart not seen with your eyes, as a punishment/reward God appointed Aaron and His posterity as priest to teach people the nature of God. The problem is that Aaron didn’t know God either, so God helped Israel form a religion that was actually predominately a projection of their own ego. That was all they were capable of receiving at that point in their progression. At this point the “God of Abraham” also allowed the management of Israel to be maintained by a group of lower ruling heavenly beings (the lower or Aaronic priesthood- D&C 84:18–21,23–27). The free system of only two great affirmative commandments was replaced with the negative ten commandments, which the priests turned into hundreds of laws and eventually thousands. The priests were appointed to stand between Israel and God, and in a way, give them the idol that they wanted just like Aaron did (Ps. 81:10–12, Acts 7:38–48). They got a rigid religious system based on Egypt’s, a hierarchical priesthood with an elite priestly class based on the Midianites and they got the understanding of God they were ready for (a watered down gospel) which also essentially became egocentric. Those who, like Moses, knew there was more than “what was being taught” and sought for true messengers to teach him a gospel that couldn’t be etched in stone, wasn’t constrained to a temple hewn by man (Acts 17:24–25), and can only be transmitted and understood in the fleshy tablets of the heart got truth as they asked for it. But it was only relatively few, like Elijah, who ever graduated from the lower Aaronic system into the Melchizedekian system of statutory freedom and personal experience with the invisible God (Colossians 1:15–20). The rest press on under the schoolmasters (Gal 3:19,24–29), who are men led by men, led by exalted man-gods.

Dear Elder Holland:

You have long been one of my heroes. Your leadership while at BYU was remarkable. Your approach as a speaker and writer to challenging issues has usually in my experience been both enlightening and uplifting. I particularly remember hearing you speak while I was in university in the early 1980s respect the nature of human dignity, the challenges you faced as a graduate student laboring through “dark” times during which you did not have enough time or energy to go around, and other related things. You encouraged me while in similar circumstances – a young family, not enough money, way too much to do comfortably, and sometimes doubt as to whether I could keep going.

Maureen Ursenbach Beecher is a family friend, and has been liberal in her praise of you from both personal and professional points of view. Because of these things, I have chosen to write this letter to you. It would mean a lot to me and many like me if you would read it yourself, and assess the significance of the issues it raises. They are of great concern to a growing percentage of the LDS community, of which I still count myself a member.

Personal Background

I should provide a little personal background. I am of pioneer stock. I served a mission to Peru in the late 1970s and from then until about a year ago I served continually and faithfully in a variety of Church positions. I was called to be a bishop at age thirty-one and served for a five-year term. I am now forty-five years old. I have also served in most other callings at the Stake and Ward levels. I released myself from my last calling, that of Stake Mission President, just over a year ago. Last December I resigned my membership as a result of being required not to talk about things like those published in Grant Palmer’s recent book “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”. I had agreed not to discuss these matters in public, but the requirement was that I not do so in private, even with other members of the Church who were already well aware of things of that nature. I was not prepared to agree to that.

My Stake President, who I still count as a friend, developed his strategy respecting me in consultation with Salt Lake City based General Authorities. Hence it is fair to assume that he was following either formal or informal Church policy in my case. I have heard of numerous other similar cases that were dealt with in much the same way. Spiritual and social isolation through the suppression of communication appears to the common denominator in these cases, presumably to prevent the spread of the kind of “germs” Elder Packer described in his influential 1981 talk entitled “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect”.

I am a tax attorney and partner in one of Canada’s largest law firms. I enjoy reading and thinking, and was one of the more respected speakers at Church meetings and firesides within our Stake and in other places where we have lived. My wife and I have seven children. Our oldest son is currently serving a mission.

One of my friends here in Calgary, Bryce Tingle, has told me a number of entertaining stories about his friendship with your son while at BYU, and your concern with respect to both their advancing bachelorhoods. Bryce is now happily married and raising a family. I hope the same for your son.

Free Will v. Authoritarianism

As I trace the Church’s attitude respecting freedom of thought, speech and inquiry, I see a disturbing trend. For many years, the Church’s leaders from Joseph Smith through David O. McKay encouraged these things. But it seems that during the 1970s and early 1980s things changed, and since then questioning and exploration have been suppressed. I was most discouraged by President Hinckley’s and your addresses at the last General Conference. President Hinckley said:

The book of Revelation declares: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:15–16). … 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.

And you said:

…may I address a rather specific aspect of [our children’s] safety? In this I speak carefully and lovingly to any of the adults of the Church, parents or otherwise, who may be given to cynicism or skepticism, who in matters of whole-souled devotion always seem to hang back a little, who at the Church’s doctrinal campsite always like to pitch their tents out on the periphery of religious faith. To all such – whom we do love and wish were more comfortable camping nearer to us – I say, please be aware that the full price to be paid for such a stance does not always come due in your lifetime… with payments coming out of your children’s and grandchildren’s pockets in far more expensive ways than you ever intended it to be. …

In such basic matters of faith, prophets do not apologize for requesting unity, indeed conformity…

In these and a variety of other ways, your message seemed to me to be that Church members should not doubt or question in any way that would lead to disagreement with Church orthodoxy as interpreted from time to time by current Church authorities.

President Hinckley added that the issue is one of black and white – there is no room for doubt or uncertainty.

Contrast these with the following quotes from earlier Church leaders. Joseph Smith taught:

I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. (History of the Church, vol. V, pp. 498, 499)

I ask, Did I ever exercise any compulsion over any man? Did I not give him the liberty of disbelieving any doctrine I have preached, if he saw fit? (Documentary History of the Church, vol. VI, 273-274, as quoted in Alma P. Burton, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 105, 106)

It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have a creed which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine. The high counsel undertook to censure and correct Elder Brown, because of his teachings … Whether they actually corrected him or not, I am a little doubtful, but don’t care. (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. VI, 273- 274, as quoted in Alma P. Burton, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 106, 107)

And David O. McKay, at the General Conference just after his famous encounter with Sterling McMurrin and in reference to it, said:

Ours is the responsibility … to proclaim the truth that each individual is a child of God and important in his sight; that he is entitled to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly; that he has the right to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. In this positive declaration, we imply that organizations or churches which deprive the individual of these inherent rights are not in harmony with God’s will nor with his revealed word. (124th Annual
Conference, p. 24)

And my personal favorite, from Hugh B. Brown, who said:

I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent if you are informed. Now I have mentioned freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that your thoughts and expressions must meet competition in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth will emerge triumphant. Only error needs to fear freedom of expression. Seek the truth in all fields, and in that search you will need at least three virtues: courage, zest and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, “From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth – O God of truth, deliver us. (BYU Devotional, 1958)

There are many other such quotes, but you are probably familiar with them and so I will not take more space or time to repeat them here.

It seems to me that a sea change has occurred within the Church on this point. It appears to me that Church leaders once were confident that the more questioning and exploration occurred, the quicker the Church’s claims would be verified, thus leading to a “Let’s find out!” attitude. Now, it appears, a lack of confidence in that regard has created a “Don’t look!” attitude. This, in my view, is a shame on a variety of fronts.

Where does that leave people who, with good reason, see issues that cry out for exploration, and as a result perceive a spiritual reality characterized by shades of grey? Is there no place for them? I felt that there was no place for me, and as a result my considerable energy and meager talents have been directed elsewhere. Is that what the leaders of the Church want to happen? If they continue on their current course, I predict that it will happen with increasing frequency.

Obedience to Authority Overrides More Important Values

I would like you to consider the nature of the influence that you and the other leaders exercise over Church members. One of the results of the trend toward increasing deference to Church authority is that the importance of orthodoxy within the Church has risen to levels at which it overrides almost all other values, such as the importance of love and respect within family relationships. Hence, if after the most careful study, prayer and spiritual effort of which he is capable a person feels to disagree with Church leadership, he is bad per se, regardless of what else he does or is.

Think of the difficulty in which I find myself with respect to my family. I am successful in most senses of that word. I have chosen to dedicate myself to providing for and raising seven children, and now one grandchild who lives with us. I have been faithful to my wife throughout our marriage, and continue to be faithful to her. I give heavily of my time and other resources to community causes, many involving my children, such as coaching sports teams and being involved in things at their schools. I am in the process of looking for another church to attend, where I will also give generously of my time, talent and other resources. I am recognized as someone within our community who has good judgement, is hard working and honest. Hence, people who know me seek my advice and other involvement respecting business, personal and community affairs.

I seem like a pretty good guy, right? Well, my parents and other family members are heartbroken and our relationships are in some cases in tatters because of one thing – I have chosen not to follow my religious leaders who first told me that I must not question them, and then told me that if I did not obey, I would have to relinquish my membership. My relationships with these family members has been badly damaged, perhaps irreparably so, because the value of obedience to Church authority trumps all other values.

It is any wonder that fine members of the Church who value obedience and Church orthodoxy to this extent also have trouble recognizing the condescending attitude with which they sometimes regard others who are not of their faith, which attitude I held myself until recently? Is this what Christ would want? I am sure you will agree that he would not. But how can this attitude be avoided by those who are taught to believe that anyone who does not experience spiritual life as they do is at best incomplete?

And what of my relationship with my wife and children? My wife and I were on the brink of divorce because she could not respect and love me as I am now in the fashion she did the priesthood leader I used to be. I could feel a loss of intimacy – an emptiness and sorrow where her love for me used to be. Something had died between us. Thankfully, she now recognizes the legitimacy of my concerns respecting the Church’s influence in our lives and the importance of ensuring that our children are raised with an understanding that religious matters are not clear-cut. The world is full of shades of grey, and the Church is no different. And while she continues to be an active and faithful member, she respects what I have done and supports me. We made it over the precipice with nothing to spare. I recently became aware of an unpublished master’s degree thesis in anthropology at a Canadian university that surveyed LDS returned missionaries who had gone through something similar to what I have, and found an 80% divorce rate. That does not surprise me given my recent experience.

And what of my missionary son? I am told that he wept for most of two days when he heard of my “apostasy.” We have had great difficulty communicating since then. And what of my faithful LDS daughter who attends BYU? More pain and difficulty. Other members of our family have reacted differently. Our twenty-one and sixteen-year-old daughters feel that their deep-seated concerns respecting many Church practices have been validated, as have they themselves, by what I have done. They are flourishing, but the fact that their views differ from that of their siblings, and to some extent their Mother, creates additional tension within our home. The three youngest children are confused by all of this difficulty between people who obviously love each other and yet behave in some ways as if they do not.

How can we justify religious beliefs that cause ruptures such as those I have described between good hearted, moral, family members who love each other, treat each other otherwise with respect, and have dedicated themselves to building their lives together?

Does not such relationship rupture, which I assure you is common in situations similar to mine, suggest a dysfunction in the belief system that causes it?

Religious Faith Does Not Change Reality

Religious belief is close to center of my life, as is the thoughtful examination of the world around me. I think that my experience of attempting to integrate the manner in which I experience the world with my religious faith will be close to that of many well-educated or thoughtful members. In short, in order for religious belief to inform me and help me to become more spiritual, more moral and a better person, it has to make sense in light of my understanding of how the world works around me. There is nothing new in this approach. Those who study the formation and evolution of religious belief tell us that this is how things have been for at least as long as human beings have kept records, and the many of the changes in most religions (including the LDS Church and Christianity in general) can be cogently explained on this basis.

If my religious affiliation is to serve a useful function in my life, it must not require me to believe things that, on the basis of reasonable evidence that I see all around me, are highly likely to be non-sense and to disconnect me from reality. And I must not be told by my religious leaders, in contradiction to those within prior Church leaderships who I believe to be among the most enlightened we have had, to suppress the natural and healthy inclination I feel to try to understand reality and harmonize my faith with it.

Religious history is full of examples of how this can and should occur. Why should I think that my religious beliefs will always triumph over evidence that strongly suggests they are out of sync with reality, particularly after learning about the many chapters in LDS Church history in which misplaced belief has given way as better information about reality has come to light?

I feel that I was being put by the Church in a position where my useful desire to explore legitimate questions was being suppressed, and by inference, that I was required to believe non-sense in a fashion similar to the Catholics of Galileo’s day.

As Leonard Arrington said so well in one of his essays on this topic, whether something is literally true or metaphorically true does not matter. The Catholic Church first had to let go of the idea that the earth was flat and then that it was immobile and at the center of the universe, both clearly supported by biblical texts that continue today to enliven organizations such as the Flat Earth Society and various young earth creationist movements. Why should members of the Mormon Church be required to base their faith on the historicity of events that probably did not happen? Faith so based is fragile, and much less useful than faith based on the kind of metaphoric truth of which Arrington and many others have written. If after being given a reasonable chance and encouragement to consider the evidence, members choose to base their faith on the literal occurrence of certain events, that is fine. They have their agency, and can exercise it as they wish. However, it is wrong in my view to suppress the discussion or other consideration of anything that might conflict with such belief.

For example, I acknowledge the possibility that the Book of Mormon is an historic record. Whether it is historic or not, however, is not important to me and nor was it to Arrington and countless other respected members of the Church. What is important is its value as a tool with which to explore and improve my soul, and to enlighten my way through life. The truth will, as Joseph Smith said, “cut its own way”. It does not need me, you or anyone else to protect it. And those who protect partial, misleading truth that amounts to falsehood may eventually look like those who ran the Inquisition and persecuted Galileo. And the fact that the religious and other leaders who made those mistakes did so with the best intent and powerful religious faith will besmirch both them and that kind of faith.

The Reality Gap

What about the cost in terms of human suffering that is inflicted by the Church’s continued suppression of its history, and insistence that the members not question or look? The gap between the faith picture and the real picture will continue to widen, and ruptures like the one I experienced will become more common. And then marriages will founder on the rocks of that same reality gap, as one spouse is less able to navigate the treacherous waters surrounding them than the other. And other family relationships will also suffer, as have mine.

I note a tremendous irony with respect to this reality gap. The greater the gap, the more at risk a person is respecting the kind of things I have just outlined, and the more painful the experience will likely be when reality comes crashing in. For whom is the reality gap the greatest? Those who are most faithful to admonitions such as your “don’t look, don’t question, don’t doubt” advice in your talk last April. That is, the most obedient to what the Church tells them are in a sense those harmed the most.

I was faithful. My faith for a long time trumped all else. However, as it became increasingly clear that living as I was would lead to spiritual death and moral dysfunction in my case given my individual makeup, I began to try other things. Many of my friends, who are still active members of the Church have told me that my main problem was that I was too obedient and did not read “faith threatening” materials, and that had I done so (as they have for many years) that I would not have experienced the rupture I have, and that my spiritual life would have been more healthy all the way along. That is, were I less obedient I would have been better off. I suggest that any religious system that produces this kind of result is out of kilter.

I further note that I now spend a lot of time speaking and corresponding with Church members about heterodox things that are not taught through Church channels. Several of them have told me that I aid the development of their LDS faith (one said I was the “leaven” of his testimony) as we explore spirituality in broad terms and how it is connected to our common LDS roots. One of these friends lamented my departure from the Church because, he said, our conversations are so fruitful from his point of view. I then reminded him that if I had remained a member, we could not have had our conversations because of the agreement I was required to enter into which prohibited me from talking about the very things he finds helpful. I am assisting him to ingest the spiritual food that should avoid the decay in him that led to my questioning and eventual forced departure from the Church. I ask how suppressing this kind of spiritual growth can be consistent with Christ’s teachings, or those of early Church leaders as set out above?

The Effect of Literalism and Authoritarianism on Spiritual and Moral Development

Let’s consider the effect that the Church’s attitude toward its position at the pinnacle of truth and its leadership’s practical inerrancy have on the spiritual and moral development of members of the Church. Many studies have been done that show how people, as they mature, tend to grow out of beliefs that are literalistic and exclusive in nature, and into beliefs that recognize the metaphoric value of religious teachings and the harm that is often done by believing that any one religious tradition is God’s one and only. Please do not equate this with mere skeptical questioning or a loss of faith. I am more excited about learning to be a better, more moral, more spiritual person that ever. My experience in this regard is typical of people who approach life as I do, and we are legion, as well as being many of your potential local leaders.

Can religions function on this metaphoric basis? Of course they can, and during the past couple of months I have found some much larger than the LDS Church that do. Many of them do not trumpet the “hard questions” or their answers, but when those so inclined begin to question, they are provided with ways to keep their faith intact as they evolve toward the kind of metaphoric, inclusive view of religion and humanity described above. They are also encouraged to be respectful of those of their co-religionists who might find such views threatening to their more brittle and less mature faith. Why can’t we do that?

My faith needed to continue to grow, and the narrowness of LDS orthodoxy did not provide the necessary room or encouragement. In fact, it actively discouraged the growth that I needed, making me feel for the past number of years that I was dying from a spiritual point of view, despite my efforts to “lengthen my stride” etc. in the conventional Mormon way. Many, of course, do not experience life as I do, and feel that Mormon orthodoxy is as good as spirituality can possibility be. I am not critical of them, while wishing that those who are part of my life had the chance to at least consider a broader point of view. But why would we assume that all will be like them, or that such is “the” way to be? Life is not that simple. Many people are similar to me, and the Church’s current tendency to further narrow the acceptable ways of approaching spirituality will drive such people out, as it did me. I again ask, is this what you want? Is this what Christ would want?

Other studies have shown a strong correlation between people who think in broad, metaphoric and inclusive terms and those who engage in the most advanced forms of moral reasoning. That is, people who believe that their religion is “the” religion and that their scripture is to be literally interpreted and is 100% “true” are often those who have trouble making moral judgements that require a broad understanding of humanity, its diversity, complexity and needs. Think of September 11th and what we know about how fundamentalist communities of all types operate. Regrettably, the LDS Church is much further up the fundamentalist scale than is, in my respectful opinion, healthy for many people. As a result, Mormons tend toward a mild version of the kind of narrow thinking that produces abhorrent, immoral, religiously motivated behavior.

In that vein, we should ask ourselves why a material percentage of the Church’s members in Utah and certain other areas are still inclined toward a polygamous lifestyle, based on a literal interpretation of certain LDS scriptural passage that are no longer “emphasized”. I was recently informed of a family in Cardston, Alberta near where I live, who after fasting, praying etc. and receiving answers in which they confided, moved to Arizona to join a polygamous group. I suspect that you are aware of many more stories of this type than I am. It seems to me that the tendency toward literalism and deference to religious authority makes members of the Church vulnerable to this kind of thing. Section 132 of the D&C still says what it says. When this scripture is combined with the behavior of the Church’s leadership between the first and second Manifestos, some charismatic authority figures within the polygamous groups, and the tendencies of Church members that I have noted, it does not surprise me that these seemingly archaic and dangerous groups continue to thrive in many places, including Canada. The Church has inadvertently sown the wind in that regard, and as a result some unfortunates reap the whirlwind.

Based on personal experience and on my review of the relevant research, it is my view that the Church’s approach to spirituality, regrettably, augers against the development of inclusive and flexible moral judgement by insisting that it is the “one true church”, that its scriptures are to be interpreted literally, and that its authorities are not to be questioned. These attitudes shut down the ability to learn anything that conflicts with the orthodox line in all areas they touch, and so short-circuit many important moral judgement and reasoning functions.

We Have Entrusted Church Leaders as Our Spiritual Guides

We have entrusted you as our spiritual guides. We look to you as both judge and jury. It is not right for you to respond to that trust by giving us a one-sided story and leave us to make up our minds on that basis. This is what the so-called “faithful history” policy does.

As Elder Oaks said at a CES conference at BYU in 1985,

Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of the official Church literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature. Neither has any responsibility to present both sides.

In this he echoes Elder Packer’s “The Mantle” talk which was the keynote from which my Institute of Religion instructors taught me.

I can’t tell you how disappointed it made me feel to read things of this nature coming from those to whom I had entrusted my heart and soul, and to whom I had given all of the time and other resources for which they had asked over a period of more than twenty-five years. I did not know that they expected me to act as judge in this exercise, while they presented one side of the story and the anti-Mormons presented the other. In fact, I believed them when they told me that I should not read anything that was faith threatening. How, in that case, could I possibly have acted as judge? And if I could not act as judge, who was looking after my interest in this matter? The Church led me to believe that it was doing that for me, and now I find out that it never intended to do more than advocate a one-sided position. It still makes me feel ill each time I think of this.

I respectfully suggest that you and your confreres have a moral obligation to close the reality gap that is causing the problems I have described. The longer you put off discharging that responsibility, the more people like me and my family needlessly suffer, and the more other Church members are being set up to do the same as the Internet in particular brings vast amounts of information into our lives that we did not have access to previously.

The only reason I am no longer a member of the Church is that as a Church member my right of free speech was taken from me, and an attempt was made to repress my spiritual development by cutting me off from the only others with whom I was able to discuss the things required to continue to progress. I have trusted and looked to my church for spiritual guidance. It has been the most disappointing and painful experience of my life to see honest, sincere inquiry treated in the fashion it has been in my case, and many others of which I have been made aware. This ran contrary to all for which I believed the Church stood.

I recognize that the things which have so disappointed me respecting the Church are likely done by well-intentioned people who think that by suppressing free speech and thought that a greater good is accomplished. I do not believe that to be the case, given my reading of religious history and my own experience. Throughout history those who have suppressed speech and thought have done more harm that good – much more – and in many cases have ended up looking, if not playing, the fool.

The gap between faith and reality referred to above has created massive problems for members of the Church, and will create more. This is like deficit financing – the larger the accumulated debt becomes the greater the price eventually to be paid.

New Fuel in a New Age

We have much to be proud of with respect to our history and theology. The real story is much more interesting and uplifting than the sanitized one, once it is put in context. I marvel at what was accomplished by flawed – even tragically flawed – human beings such as Joseph Smith while illuminated by inspiration’s faltering spark. Those that came after him fanned that spark into first a small flame and then a refiner’s fire that attracted and purified my great-grandparents as well as many others, and that still burns, but in my view not as brightly or usefully as it once did. The nature of the fuel piled upon it has changed, and the fire is choking and sputtering. That new fuel is the information readily available to an increasing percentage of members of the Church and others over the Internet with respect to the origins and current reality of their religious faith and the Church itself.

Where are baptismal rates falling? What I learned during my recent tenure as Stake Mission President suggests that they are falling where Internet access, and hence access to information respecting the Church, is greatest. That is not a good sign. The truth does cut its own way. More information about the truth should hence mean more converts, and the opposite is occurring.

Investigators in “wired” areas tend to check the Church out independently much more often than used to be the case, just as they do when purchasing a car or house. When they do this, they find credible information that contradicts the simple story told by the missionaries. I have checked this theory with some of my friends who, while I was Stake Mission President, I encouraged to join the Church. After expressions of initial interest, they politely declined my advances and then seemed uncomfortable when religion was hinted at during our social encounters. Now I know why.

What I describe above is not the force of evil anti-Mormons amplified by the Internet. Shrill, anti-Mormon rhetoric is not effective. Well-reasoned, relatively impartial scholarship is, and there is lots of that now available at a few mouse-clicks distance. It is the gap between that and the Church’s version of many events that really catches the eye. And after the most careful research I can do, I am not certain as to the nature of the Church’s foundational events, and do not expect ever to be. But I am certain that my Church and its leaders, who I trusted with all my heart, have grossly mislead me as to the probability that the story they told me is an accurate summary of the facts. There is great uncertainty with respect to many important aspects of the stories I was told, and have repeated and borne testimony to countless times. This breach of trust has created a terrific sense of loss in me.

I do not know about apostasy rates, but you would. Do they display the same trend as falling baptism rates? I will be astonished if they do not.

Abundant information is rich fuel that will drown fires that have insufficient oxygen to deal with it, and will create great blazes out of what may now only be sparks somewhere that have the openness required to use that fuel.

Mankind, now as ever, needs a meaningful spirituality. Most traditional religions fail to deliver what is needed, at least in the developed world. My perception is that the Church is also failing in this regard. However, it is my view that the Church has imbedded in its foundational theology and current social structures some ideas that well suit it to provide spiritual leadership and meaning in a world where science and theology will walk increasingly overlapping paths.

You can increase the amount of oxygen around the fire. That is what it needs – the oxygen that will come from leadership openness and honesty, combined with the greater exercise of agency and freedom on the members’ part. This will clear the smoke, re-harness much energy (such as mine) that is currently lying idle or directed elsewhere, and permit the best ideas to step forward.

I implore you to use your tremendous talents as an educator, expositor and storyteller to help us understand our history and why it has not been told properly until now. And then turn us loose to govern ourselves. Encourage us and nurture us with your wisdom as we seek paths through the ever-changing forest that will provide us the joy of which the Book of Mormon speaks. Encourage us to nurture each other in any way we see fit, even if it means crossing organizational boundaries in ways that complicate your administrative tasks. We do not need to be controlled. We need to be nurtured. If you do these things, you will provide the oxygen needed to restore the fire, and close the reality gap. Future generations will bless your name.

And please, get us out of our current predicament in which we are surrounded by ticking information bombs that at any time can explode and disintegrate a picture that never should have been painted. The good intentions of those who painted it do not help in the end. Give us the meat that we have heard about for so long. When is a 45-year-old former bishop with three university degrees going to be ready for some meat? Treat us like we do our children when it comes to Santa Claus and sexuality. When we begin to ask legitimate questions, do your best to help us understand instead of telling us that our questions, and by implication we, are bad.

Conclusion

I hope you will do what you can to reverse an unfortunate trend. And I again thank you for all of the wonderful things you do. You have a weighty responsibility made even more difficult because of the virtually blind faith millions of members of the Church vest in you. Such responsibility brings awesome duties. I do not envy your position, and exercise all of my small but growing faith in your behalf.

All the best,
Bob McCue

251209 Range Road 33
Calgary, Alberta
T3Z 1K7
email: mccuer@telusplanet.net

Elder Holland did reply to Bob McCue’s Letter, but requested that it be kept confidential. However, Bob McCue did respond to Elder Holland’s letter.

You can read that second letter here. (It’s an 80-page PDF file)