33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church

August 3, 2008

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”–Carl Sagan

“I hate men base in deeds but wise in words”–Pacuvius

Dear Family and Friends,

I think it’s necessary to put on paper where I stand with the Mormon Church. The 11th Article of Faith says that “we claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

According to the dictates of my own conscience, I have determined I can no longer believe in the Mormon Church. Let me put this in plain terms. Over the years, I have observed situations, and uncovered many facts about the church that have brought me to the inescapable conclusion that the church is not led by true and living prophets.

In fact, I’ve found the Mormon Church is actually a huge fraud; a fraud like the Enron Corporation. When this became clear to me, it also became clear that there is really no positive side to Mormonism that outweighs or balances the simple fact that it’s a fraud. As much as I’d like to be balanced in my discussion about it, the fact that it’s a fraud, makes that goal impossible.

Some background:

I was an active Mormon for my entire life up to the age of 42. I’m a sixth generation Mormon on my dad’s side. My mother is a convert. I went through Primary and memorized all of the Articles of Faith (ages 1 1/2 to 12), Mutual (12-18), Seminary (14-18), served a full-time mission to Germany, and married in a Mormon temple. In Seminary (religious instruction for high school age Mormons), I memorized 159 out of 160 scripture passages. The only one I didn’t do was some 2 1/2 pages long. I’ve read all of the Mormon scriptures; some multiple times. I’ve also read many Mormon classics including Talmage’s Jesus the Christ, and The Articles of Faith.

I served in many positions (the church labels them “callings”). My greatest sins (against Mormon culture) were threefold:

1. I got married “late.” It wasn’t for lack of trying. Prior to marriage, I did my “Mormon duty” by systematically searching for a wife. In the process, I proposed to two women and was turned down (in retrospect, for many reasons, those events were fortuitous). Later, I met my future wife. We married two months shy of my 27th birthday. In Mormon culture, this is very late. An unmarried, marriageable man over the age of 25 in the Mormon Church is, according to Brigham Young, “a menace to society.” By marrying late, I demonstrated to many in Mormon culture that I was selfish (putting “worldly” interests like formal education, travel, hobbies, etc.) ahead of the “most important thing of all”–marriage and raising Mormon kids.

Which brings me to my second greatest sin.

2. My wife and I had just two children.

Believing Mormons generally have all of the children they can have, or adopt. This demonstrates loyalty to the church. Never mind the expense, the popular line is: “the Lord will provide.” Men who marry young, load up on children, and do everything they’re told, are “rewarded” with leadership positions in the church that show the Lord approves of them. On the other hand, men who marry “late,” and have two or fewer children, are seen as less faithful, and, as a result, are passed over when it comes to “promotions” in the Mormon hierarchy, or simply when it comes to determining the informal pecking order in the local congregation. Some Mormons would argue against the above, and I’m sure there are exceptions. But decades of observation on my part indicate such indeed are the exceptions. The rule prevails.

3. Early on, I was exposed to disciplined, logical, and systematic thinking. This was through earning an undergraduate minor in mathematics. More than anything else, it taught me to respect careful and rational thinkers. Along with that, I discovered a growing interest in the humanities, and the scientific nature of historical research. The combination of all of these factors set me on a path that led to the inescapable conclusion that the Mormon Church is a fraud. Now some Mormon apologists will read that and ask about the many Mormon mathematicians, scientists, and humanities professors employed by Brigham Young University (an extension of the Mormon Church). My answer to them would be a favorite quote by Upton Sinclair:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Or in other words, never underestimate what the mind can rationalize when a career is at stake.

This is not a temporary phase:

I would love to remain loyal to the church, but its actions (as I’ve observed over my entire life span) simply make it undeserving of my loyalty. We are familiar with the worthiness interview process in which we are determined to be worthy or unworthy to participate in church ordinances. Well, in that vein, I’ve determined the church to be unworthy of my time, devotion, and service. If you think I’m just going through a temporary phase of disenchantment, let me share a few things with you:

1. I’ve had doubts about the Joseph Smith story since before my mission. On my mission, I wasn’t a true believer. Those who know much about my life then will certainly remember that I saw my mission primarily as a cultural, language-learning experience. Sure, I was a “good missionary,” and made it up the leadership ladder. But even back then, I was uncomfortable with the Joseph Smith story. I preferred teaching doctrines I truly believed in and still do, things like faith, love, and charity. To me, the mission was about living abroad, learning from people who lived through World War II, sampling German foods, visiting museums and historical sites, and becoming proficient in the German language. Surprisingly enough, even though I was ostensibly a Mormon missionary at the time, I feel I succeeded in those endeavors.

2. I asked to be released from all church callings in January 2004.

3. I haven’t paid a cent in tithing and offerings to the church since December 2002, and can’t imagine ever giving them any money again.`

4. I never attend meetings anymore.

5. I formally resigned from the Mormon Church on May 12, 2005.

So why have I turned away from the Mormon Church? The reasons are many, but here are a few that come to mind.

The Reasons:

1. Numerous verbatim King James Version passages in the Book of Mormon; a book purportedly written by AD 421 whereas the King James Version is a 17th century document. Also, the biblical quotes in the Book of Mormon do not incorporate the changes made in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Add to this recent DNA evidence that destroys the claims of historicity of the entire Book of Mormon. Finally, where, besides church paid apologists or Mormon hobbyists, are the archaeologists who study Book of Mormon history? That’s right, they don’t exist. To objective scientists outside of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon has as much historic validity as The Hobbit, and is certainly a far less interesting read.

Also, where are the bones, swords and armor from the epic battles that took place at the Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon? The Jaredite nation supposedly ended there with 2 million men slain, and then the Nephites and Lamanites had a battle there in 421 AD where 230,000 warriors who had steel weapons were killed. Where are the anthropologists of the world who are excavating what would promise to be one of the greatest ancient battle sites? Why has not a trace of evidence ever been found at Cumorah to establish these claims?

I contrast this lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon with the 1973 discovery of the Terra Cotta Warriors near Xian, China. This amazing “army” of some 8,000 thousand terra cotta figures was buried some 600 years (210 BC) before the purported final battle in the Book of Mormon. Surely, if there was battle at Cumorah in AD 421 that involved 230,000 men, there would be something to be found, wouldn’t there? In terms of archaeology, AD 421 is simply not that long ago.

When I was growing up in Southern California, I had direct contact with the Mormon Church’s Lamanite Placement Program. The Lamanites in this program were Native American youth from Arizona, and New Mexico who, during the school year, moved off the reservation to live with white suburban Euro-American Mormon families. Since this program was run by the church under the direction of prophets, I understood Lamanites lived in Arizona and New Mexico. Also, from reading the Doctrine & Covenants (one of the canonized Mormon scriptures), I understood from passages about teaching the Lamanites the Gospel, that Lamanites also lived in Missouri.

And I recall the photos in the introductory pages of the 1950s-1970s editions of the Book of Mormon of ancient ruins in Central America, and the Hill Cumorah in Upstate New York (where the Golden Plates were buried). From those, I inferred that, as the Book of Mormon claimed, the Native Americans’ “principal ancestors” were the people of the Book of Mormon. Indeed, the people of the Book of Mormon must have been all over the North and Central American Continent like Joseph Smith wrote about the Jaredites (only one of the peoples described in the Book of Mormon):

“Jared and his brother came on to this continent from the confusion and the scattering at the Tower [Tower of Babel], and lived here more than a thousand years, and covered the whole continent from SEA TO SEA, WITH TOWNS AND CITIES…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 267.)

I grew up understanding that temple dedicatory prayers were prophetic. Indeed, the prayer at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple was canonized in the Doctrine & Covenants. It’s interesting that almost without exception in the past 75 years or so, every Mormon temple that has been dedicated in Central and South America, and the Islands of the Pacific, has, in its dedicatory prayer, been mentioned as a place that will bring the blessings of the Gospel to the Lamanites who presumably make of the principal population of that country.

Finally, as a missionary in Germany from 1981-83, I regularly showed the official Mormon Church produced filmstrip Ancient America Speaks. It presented what the rest of the world identifies as Inca and Mayan ruins, as ruins of the Book of Mormon peoples. The photos of the ruins in the filmstrip covered a wide geographical area.

So from all of those evidences I personally knew about or experienced, I believed the Book of Mormon people were spread all over the Western Hemisphere. Imagine my surprise when DNA studies in recent decades conclusively revealed virtually no Hebrew DNA among Native Americans. On the contrary, the DNA findings revealed that the ancestors of the Native Americans came from Asia. How could that be if the Book of Mormon was about Jewish ancestors, and was about a civilization that “covered the whole continent” and indeed, according to prophetic utterances, the entire Western Hemisphere?

We always clearly understood the Book of Mormon to be the “keystone of our religion.” As missionaries, we emphatically taught the principle that if the Book of Mormon is true, then the Mormon Church is true. Now that the Book of Mormon has been completely discredited, any member with a shred of intellectual honesty, who cares to remember their own past and life experiences, must conclude the entire religion is a hoax. There is no other option.

2. Book of Abraham source documents found to be nothing more than common funerary texts.

3. 1978 granting of the priesthood to blacks was over a decade after the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Surely God’s church would be ahead of society, not behind. As a child, I was repeatedly taught in the Mormon Church that the reason blacks were black and inferior was because in the pre-Earth life, there was a war in Heaven, and they were less valiant than the whites. So God cursed them with a black skin. Also, the Book of Mormon teaches the reason why the Indians have darker skin was because of a curse for being unrighteous.

4. Polygamy was banned in the 1890s, yet D&C 132 which authorizes polygamy, was never changed. Also, the church distances itself from, and refuses to accept responsibility for polygamy (and its associated problems) in the Intermountain West today even though the Mormon Church was the institution that opened the can of worms in the first place. I’m troubled to find out through the Mormon Church’s FamilySearch website that Joseph Smith had 24 wives (reputable historians have examined source documents that put the number at 33), 11 of whom were married to other living breathing men at the same time (though some of those men were sent away by Joseph Smith on missions), and 11 teenagers, one being as young as 14 years old.

5. President Hinckley’s (the current Mormon President) public minimizing of the couplet of “as man is God once was, as God is man may become.” On the subject of God once being a man, President Hinckley said “I don’t know that we teach it.” Unfortunately, I know beyond any doubt this is something I was taught throughout my life, and understood to be one of the core beliefs of Mormonism.

6. The church today profits from blood sport through ownership of game preserves. This comes some twenty years after I personally heard President Kimball (former church president) admonish us in the April and October 1978 General Conferences, to not “kill the little birds.” Interestingly enough, the Primary lesson manual for children still has a lesson that quotes from President Kimball’s talk about not killing the little birds.

7. The whole idea of doing the right thing so I can get some reward in heaven, or avoid punishment, strikes me as childish. Yet this is a major premise of the Mormon Church taught from childhood up (i.e. Primary songs like “Families Can Be Forever,” and “I am a Child of God”). I like to think I choose to do the right thing because it’s right, and doing good is its own reward. Paying tithing to avoid getting burned, or to gain admission to the temple, seem like the wrong motives to me. If I give a gift, it must come as a free-will offering, not out of guilt. I feel living the best I can for today is the best way to prepare for the afterlife. Guilt should not even be a factor.

8. In an age of instant satellite communication, I find spending $400+ million to build the world’s largest indoor auditorium (Conference Center) extremely wasteful. Once again, I recall how President Kimball talked about satellites as the way to bring the church to the people, thus saving the need for more people to travel to Salt Lake City. Also, I find the timing of the completion of the Conference Center not long before the Winter Olympics somewhat suspect (to be used as a showpiece?).

I worry with the purchase of Main Street between North and South Temple, the Crossroads Plaza shopping mall, and now the intent to acquire the Triad Center, and the Old Navy Building, as well as constructing a luxury hotel in Hawaii as unsettling indications the church is perhaps a bit too obsessed with making a buck. I understand now that the tab for developing the downtown shopping malls and new residences in Salt Lake City is expected to run $1.5 billion. The Mormon Church claims they must do this in order “to protect the environs of the temple” (Dec 2003 Ensign Magazine). No, it has nothing to do with making a buck, right? And what about the Mormon Church’s approval for alcohol to be served in business establishments within the mall? It’s all about money. For a church that expressly forbids its members from drinking alcohol, I find that highly hypocritical.

Recently, I learned with a massive land purchase in Nebraska, the church is now the second largest private land owner in that state. Also, I recall reading in the BBC how the Mormon Church is one of the top ten land owners in the East of England (Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, and Norfolk). And, I understand the Mormon Church is one of the top developers in the Salt Lake City World Trade Center project. Contrast these facts with meager budgets of the local Mormon congregations worldwide, and one can’t be faulted for wondering whether the Mormon Church is really just a real estate development corporation disguised as a church.

9. Repeatedly, I’ve observed how so-called promptings of the Holy Ghost are unreliable, dangerous, and can do destructive things like tear apart families. Clearly, logic, common sense, and a spirit of true charity are far better ways to handle life’s difficulties.

10. Observed the First Presidency duped by Mark Hofmann, even to the extent of publishing in the Ensign what later proved to be spurious documents. Because the First Presidency failed to detect Hoffman as a fraud, a chain of events was set in motion that resulted in the deaths of two innocent people.

11. Repeated examples of the church attempting to whitewash its history. For instance, the recent Brigham Young manual used for Priesthood and Relief Society lessons portrays him as a monogamist. Also, in recent years, I’ve noticed the church has re-manufactured Emma Smith. She was once scorned for her independent thinking (not going along with polygamy) while married to Joseph, and then for her staying behind in Nauvoo after the church left for Utah. These days, in the Ensign (Church Magazine), she is hailed as the closest thing to the Blessed Virgin, the perfect, submissive wife who never complained when her husband had church duties to perform. For as much as I value history, I find such blatant institutional dishonesty very disturbing.

12. The Lamanite Placement Program I observed at close hand as a child and teen. As an adult I’ve come to see it for its inherent racism; that of stripping young Native Americans from their families and turning them into middle class suburban mainstreamers–often alienating them from both their families, and heritage. Such actions run contrary to my conscience. Also, if spirituality is the most important thing in life, why didn’t the church take white children from upscale suburbs, and send them away from their own families each year for 9 months to live with a Native American family on a reservation? Afterall, the Native Americans are far more spiritual than the typical whitebread suburbanite.

13. I find the punitive nature of church disciplinary councils excessively harsh, humiliating, medieval, and out of line with the parable of the woman taken in adultery to whom Christ simply says “go thy way and sin no more.” Why does the church need to excommunicate people precisely at the point in their lives when they could use church fellowship the most? It simply doesn’t make sense.

14. President Hinckley claims the church doesn’t get involved in politics. If spending large sums of money to support anti-gay, and anti-civil rights legislation isn’t “getting involved in politics,” then what is?

15. During the Salt Lake Winter Olympics, an article on missionary work “The Making of a Missionary” appeared on the MSNBC website (2/19/2002 by Clare Duffy and Dana Lewis, NBC News). In it, Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, referring to the missionaries, was quoted as saying:

“We plead with them not to worry too much about whether they have a lot of conversions or whether they don’t….we want them to feel that they had a great experience, that they served, that they loved the people and learned a lot.”

Having served a mission, I find Holland’s comments to be untruthful, and misleading. What I remember very clearly is the constant pressure to baptize, and the constant guilt trips if we didn’t. I also remember the pain and humiliation of having but one baptism my entire mission. That sort of thing isn’t easily forgotten. We had a weekly standard to meet which included how many lessons we taught, how many people we brought to church, how many baptismal challenges to investigators, how many hours we went door-to-door, etc. etc. “How many” refers to numbers doesn’t it? Holland obviously wants me to pretend otherwise.

16. In the Mormon strongholds of the Western region of the United States, I’ve observed (as a rule) that leadership callings in the church are largely determined by nepotism, popularity, and socio-economic status. I was on “the leadership track” myself during my days as an Air Force officer, and college professor to be. When I decided to become a self-employed carpet cleaner, I “fell from grace,” and haven’t been considered for leadership since. Along with this, I’ve personally observed a distinct anti-working class attitude among American Mormons. This is most ironic considering the church was built on the backs of blue collar members. Yet today if you’re a blue collar member in a white suburban ward (the default Mormon ward), you’re near the bottom of the social pecking order. Certainly, no one takes you seriously, gives you responsible callings, or seeks your advice. You’re a loser, plain and simple.

Church leadership should be about service, not status. Many of the local Mormon leaders are fine, dedicated, and well-intentioned people. But they have no training for their positions, and as a result, often make serious mistakes. The members who pay so much to the church deserve better than this. And the unpaid leaders who are often serving at the expense of spending time with their families, need to be let off the hook. One other point: I was always told our leaders were called by revelation. If this is so, then why is nepotism so rampant in the General Authority ranks in the Mormon Church?

17. As a rule, church meetings are bland, boring, and uninspired. General Authorities behave like business executives, not spiritual leaders. Frankly, there is nothing put out by the church that can inspire me the way the world’s great authors and thinkers can. A few years back, my wife and I picked up from the library the book Stand for Something by Gordon B. Hinckley. Even though I was still partially a believer, we both found the book superficial, vapid, and jingoistic. After reading a few pages, we both knew our stomachs wouldn’t allow us to get through it, so we took it back to the library. Such tripe is the standard fare being dished out by the General Authorities these days. If you have any taste for rich, thoughtful and mature spiritual guidance, you’re certain to find the words of current Mormon leaders to be quite unsatisfying.

Spiritually speaking, the Mormon Church is dead. Many members seem to be running on fumes. The meetings don’t nourish the spirit, but rather pile on the guilt. The lesson manuals are uniformly boring, and written at a very rudimentary level. They do not address the spiritual and intellectual needs of lifelong members. Heaven help any member who takes history seriously, particularly church history. He/she is branded as a pariah. Indeed once the glory of God was intelligence. Today in the church, the glory of God has become obedience.

The Mormon Church’s response to 9-11 was pathetic when compared with the response by faith groups in the wider world. There were faith vigils by these non-Mormon groups that far surpassed (in spiritual insight) anything the Mormons have ever done. In my lifetime, from what I’ve observed, the Mormon Church has only ever given lip service to Easter and Christmas. Their biggest celebrations by far have to do with things like the Church’s birthday, President Hinckley’s birthday, or Joseph Smith. As I look back at my four decades of experience in the Mormon Church, it’s increasingly clear that the Brethren are merely products of their prevailing culture with all of its inherent prejudices, homophobia, racism, and bigotry. True prophets of God would transcend all of that.

18. Since becoming a father myself, I have gained new insights about the role of Heavenly Father. I love my children quite independent of their works, and how much they serve me. And I would shudder to think of cutting them off from me because of some little mistake they might make. Also, I enjoy the presence of my children, and wouldn’t expect them to have go through a lot of hassle simply to be with me. Why can’t our relationship with Heavenly Father be the same? Why does He have to come across as a petty and jealous tyrant?

Also, having a daughter, I’ve become very aware and appalled by the sexism inherent in the Mormon Church. No matter how much talent or success my daughter achieves in life, she will always be a second-class church member with no voice or authority in the Mormon Church. This is simply wrong. Finally, contrary to the media image the Mormon Church portrays as the “family church,” I’ve found in many instances personally, and from others that Mormon families are usually only close when everyone in the family believes in the Mormon Church.

When it came out that I had left the church, I was horrendously slandered by close family members. Some of the slander included: adulterer, Internet porn addict, mentally unstable, a bad influence on my children, a bad influence on nieces and nephews, a commandment breaker, possessed by the devil, and more. My dad had passed away just months before I came out of the closet–I had contemplated telling him, but he died unexpectedly in an accident. Shortly after my announcement, one family member said she was sadder about my leaving the church than about my dad’s death. So, do I think the Mormon Church is a good family church? Nope.

19. The church is obsessed with numbers. I encountered this in the Aaronic Priesthood, on my mission (especially), and then later as an Elders Quorum President, and in virtually every other leadership capacity. It’s all about percentages, attendance, etc. This numbers obsession runs counter to what I feel should be the emphasis of a church which claims to be the only true one. What truly floors me is to hear the leaders claim it’s not a numbers game!

20. I’ve seen how Priesthood Correlation has gutted the church; turning it into a soulless corporation. Before Correlation, for instance, the Relief Society had its own budget, manuals, and lessons. Now, everything flows through the men at the top, and the RS is but a mere shadow of its former self. The same is true about the other auxiliaries.

21. There is no real spirit of community in the local wards I’ve attended over the past 15 years (4 wards in four entirely different stakes). When long time members move away, they no longer get a chance to speak in sacrament meeting because the Brethren have already correlated the meeting schedule for the year and there’s no room left. Missionary homecomings and farewells have similarly been banned–anything that smacks of community spirit or personalizing the worship services. This is sad. I enjoy community spirit. The Mormon Church offers only dull standardization. Also, the church administration in Salt Lake takes in vast amounts of money from its members yet only returns a pittance to the local wards for their activities.

When I was in my youth in the 1970s, I recall there were many fun programs and ward activities. We had bazaars, dance festivals, speech festivals, roadshows, great youth activity nights, regular youth dances with live bands, seminary scripture chase competitions, a full complement of sports competition (softball and basketball) spanning several months a year, etc. These are the types of things that weld young members to the church, that give them a love of it.

Nowadays, due to many reasons (financial being the prime one), most of those programs are gone, or are a mere shadow of their former greatness. The youth programs are often dull, underplanned, and half-hearted. The church is in dire need of injecting fun back into the experience of being a member. Yet, if anything interesting is to be done, it has to come out of the members’ pockets. Salt Lake gives very little back. Luckily, in some “rich wards,” wealthy members can pick up the slack. But the fact remains, in virtually every ward I’ve observed over the past decade, the activities program is an afterthought, and the social life of the ward is seriously lacking.

22. Pervasive racism

The core story of the Book of Mormon is racist. It’s about a family in which two of the sons turned bad. God therefore cursed them with a dark skin. Dark skin, according to the Book of Mormon is a curse from God. There is no way Mormons can deny this fact. And the only way they can distance themselves from it is to denounce the Book of Mormon. But how do they do that when for decades they’ve claimed it’s “the keystone of our religion,” and “the most perfect book”? Some more thoughts to ponder: The following quote: Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Report 1960, Improvement ERA, December 1960, pages 922-923

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today… The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.”

Why is whiter skin color associated with righteousness? Isn’t that racism? A few more quotes from church leaders:

“Now WE ARE GENEROUS WITH THE NEGRO. WE ARE WILLING that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I WOULD BE WILLING to LET every Negro DRIVE A CADILLAC IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT. I WOULD BE WILLING that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. BUT LET THEM ENJOY THESE THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES.” LDS Apostle Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – As They Affect The Church,” Address delivered at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s book entitled, “The Changing World of Mormonism,” p. 307, emphasis added.

“Those who were LESS VALIANT IN PRE-EXISTENCE and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the NEGROES.” LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

“THE NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, …but this inequality is not of man’s origin. IT IS THE LORD’S DOING, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the LACK OF SPIRITUAL VALIANCE OF THOSE CONCERNED IN THEIR FIRST ESTATE [the Mormon pre-existence].” LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 – 528, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

“We’ve always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise. You may say again, “Well, I know of exceptions.” I do, too, and they’ve been very successful marriages. I know some of them. You might even say, “I can show you local Church leaders or perhaps even general leaders who have married out of their race.” I say, “Yes–exceptions.” Then I would remind you of that Relief Society woman’s near-scriptural statement, “We’d like to follow the rule first, and then we’ll take care of the exceptions.” LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer, from the talk “Follow the Rule” given at Brigham Young University, 1/14/77.

“I will remark with regard to slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families and their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves…

“I am a firm believer in slavery…Those servants want to come here with their masters…and they commence to whisper round their views upon the subject, saying ‘Do you think it’s right? I am afraid it is not right’. I know it is right, and there should be a law made to have the slaves serve their master, because they are not capable of ruling themselves…I am firm in the belief that they ought to dwell in servitude…

“When a master has a negro, and uses him well, he is much better off than when he is free. As for masters knocking them down and whipping them and breaking the limbs of their servants, I have as little opinion of that as any person can have, but good wholesome servitude, I know there is nothing better than that.”

(Speech by Brigham Young delivered in joint session of the legislature, Friday, Jan. 23rd, 1852, recorded by Geo. D. Watt, Brigham Young Papers, Historical Dept. of the Church).

“If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are.”

“Again to the subject before us: as to the negro men bearing rule, not one of the children of old Cain have one particle of right to bear rule in government affairs from first to last. They have no business there. This privilege was taken from them by their own transgressions, and I cannot help it.

“I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term – it is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants…”

“Therefore, I will not consent for one moment to have an African dictate (to) me or my brethren with regard to church or state government…No, it is not right. But say some, is there anything of this kind in the constitution the United States has given us? If you will allow me the privilege of telling it right out, it is none of their damned business what we do or say here. What we do, it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like about it. It is written right in the constitution ‘that every free white male inhabitant above the age of 21 years’, and etc…I have given you the true principle and doctrine.

“What the Gentiles are doing, we are consenting to do [he's referring to the "evil" abolitionist effort going on in the USA at the time]. What we are trying to do today is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privileges. My voice shall be against it all the day long. I shall not consent for one moment.”

(Speech in joint session, Feb. 5, 1852, Brigham Young Papers, Historical Dept. of the Church)

Sorry, but the above quotes indicate a pervasive racism. I can’t in good conscience be associated with an organization that holds such beliefs, or refuses to apologize for them.

23. I think facts matter, and therefore cannot accept the following:

“Our individual, personal testimonies are based on the witness of the Spirit, not on any combination or accumulation of historical facts. If we are so grounded, no alteration of historical facts can shake our testimonies.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “1985 CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium,” Brigham Young University, Aug. 16, 1985, page 26).

I’m sorry, but historical fact is, always has been, and always will be important to me, and I can’t simply ignore it even if the Brethren want me to. Call it a weakness. I plead guilty. The church makes extraordinary claims, and consequently, must be held to higher standards of honesty and integrity. Yet the church repeatedly fails to meet those standards. Also, the church encourages us to “get over” history such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre, polygamy, and blacks and the priesthood, but never get over history such as the story of the Martin Handcart Company. Why?

As a lifelong history buff, and as an active tour guide at the Oregon Historical Society since 2001, I’ve learned firsthand that professional historians follow painstaking procedures to uncover and document the past. They use primary and secondary sources, and without exception (in my observations), only make claims when they have significant documentable evidence to back up those claims. For reputable historians, there are no hidden agendas or predetermined outcomes. The peer review system virtually ensures that. The Mormon Church would have its members believe that any history which casts the church in anything but glowing terms is agenda-driven, and anti-Mormon, and to be avoided.

When we accept the Mormon Church’s spin on history, it’s very easy to see bogey men in everything, and to lose the critical trust that truth does exist. Sure, good historical research isn’t infallible, but for the most part, it’s highly reliable. My point is when we apply these standards to Mormon Church history, all sorts of embarrassing things appear. Unfortunately, rather than come clean with their history, the church would rather run from it.

24. We are told this is a family church yet we also hear crazy stories about members of the past (who are held up as role models) for their sacrifices. Here are two from a recent regional conference held in Salem, Oregon. President Faust’s wife talked about her grandmother who raised 8 young children for two years while her husband was off serving a mission for the church? If being a present father is so important, why did the church take him away from his family? Another story was about a widow who spent nearly every waking hour of the final 12 years of her life doing temple endowments so she could reach her goal of 20,000 during that time frame. By my calculations, that would be 12 hours a day, 5 days a week for well over a decade. What about time for friends, family, nature, learning, and just enjoying Heavenly Father’s creations? To me this lady went clearly overboard, and should not be held up as a good example.

25. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young reported their revelations all of the time. Biblical and Book of Mormon prophets did as well. Yet, our prophets today tell us their revelations are too sacred to talk about. Why the difference? Were the earlier prophets’ revelations just not sacred enough? Logic suggests today’s leaders are pulling our legs.

26. The church teaches its members to get all of their answers through prayer. While I see prayer as very important, I think using it as the ultimate answer key is a recipe for disaster. Logic, common sense, thorough research, and patience are incredibly important in decision making. Sadly, the Mormon Church doesn’t emphasize these essential tools. Sorry, but life has taught me that prayer and inspiration are not excuses for failure to do proper research and apply some elbow grease.

27. The church is insensitive to individual members. The following is from Gordon B. Hinckley in General Conference, October 5, 2002:

“Now we have an interesting custom in the Church. Departing missionaries are accorded a farewell. In some wards this has become a problem. Between outgoing missionaries and returning missionaries, most sacrament meetings are devoted to farewells and homecomings.

No one else in the Church has a farewell when entering a particular service. We never have a special farewell-type meeting for a newly called bishop, for a stake president, for a Relief Society president, for a General Authority, or anyone else of whom I can think. Why should we have missionary farewells?

The First Presidency and the Twelve, after most prayerful and careful consideration, have reached the decision that the present program of missionary farewells should be modified.

The departing missionary will be given opportunity to speak in a sacrament meeting for 15 or 20 minutes. But parents and siblings will not be invited to do so. There might be two or more departing missionaries who speak in the same service. The meeting will be entirely in the hands of the bishop and will not be arranged by the family. There will not be special music or anything of that kind.”

Why have a missionary farewell? Because in terms of devotion, age, and commitment, nothing compares with what a 19 year old boy or 21 year old woman is expected to sacrifice to serve the church–and not get paid. The least the church could do is recognize them when they leave on their mission, and allow them to personalize the meeting. This policy from 2002 is one of the most insensitive things I’ve ever heard from the Brethren. What an insult to the young people who serve so faithfully on their own dime.

Comparing missionary service to the calling of bishop, stake president, or RS president is a slap in the face to the missionary. If President Hinckley doesn’t see the difference between sending a 19 year old boy away from his family and friends for two years, and calling a Relief Society president, then I pity him. Some more words from Gordon B. Hinckley:

“….We hope also that holding elaborate open houses after the sacrament meeting at which the missionary speaks will not prevail. Members of the family may wish to get together. We have no objection to this. However, we ask that there be no public reception to which large numbers are invited.”

Yet another evidence of how the church is deadset on ruining anything that smacks of personalization.

28. LDS scout troops are, on the whole, pitiful when compared with non LDS scout troops. I know this firsthand from my experience in scouting in the Mormon Church, decades of observation in a variety of places, and now my experience with my son in a non Mormon troop. Here are some of the reasons (based on my observations over several decades) why LDS troops are so lousy:

a. Leaders aren’t allowed to volunteer, rather they’re assigned by the bishop. Also, unlike virtually ever other organization outside the Mormon Church that offers youth programs, the Mormon Church fails to do background checks on its youth leaders. In this day and age, such negligence is disgusting.

b. Parental involvement is almost universally lacking; but do you blame the parents what with all of the time-consuming things the church heaps on them such as HT/VT, other callings, temple attendance, leadership meetings, etc.?

c. Camping trips don’t include Sundays (what’s wrong with having Sacrament meeting in nature, the church used to do this?), and this results in boys not having time to develop scout skills to the extent non LDS boys do.

d. LDS leaders are often untrained, and serve only a short time. Every year we read about a new tragedy. Recently, there was the scout in Utah who got lost and died in the wilderness. And, not long ago there was the scout troop in Utah that caused a fire that caused millions of dollars of damage. I recall many years ago hearing my brother tell stories about our ward troop on a trip to Death Valley in which the Mormon boy scouts were guilty of repeated blatant shoplifting and arson.

e. LDS troop size is typically very small (6-10 boys being common). The church could combine wards in creating troops, and thus provide a viable troop size with real leadership opportunities, but they don’t.

f. LDS troops typically emphasize getting rank to the exclusion of providing a well-rounded program. LDS Eagle Scouts have a poor reputation in the wider scouting world as boys who invariably cut corners to achieve their rank. Just how much can a 14 year old Mormon Eagle Scout have gotten out of the program compared with a 17 year old non-Mormon Eagle Scout who has been active in scouting since turning 11?

29. The book Drawing on the Powers of Heaven by Grant Von Harrison, was heavily endorsed in my mission in Munich, Germany (1981-1983). We were told to read it before we entered the field, and then keep it for frequent reference once we were there.

I found this book perhaps works for missionaries to Latin America, but it caused me a great deal of pain and suffering in Germany. It was only later through years of observation, and the application of honest logic that the reason some missionaries baptize and others don’t is not personal righteousness. No, the decisive factors are 1. where they are serving, and 2. their salesmanship skills.

Missionaries who serve in areas where the educational, and socio-economic levels of the general population are lower than the USA, tend to have the most success. In areas like Central Europe where literacy exceeds that of the USA, and with access to information, and the socio-economic level roughly equivalent, missionary success is practically non-existent. Yet Von Harrison (who served his mission in Mexico) places all of the blame for not baptizing on the shoulders of the individual missionaries. It’s a matter of personal faith and personal righteousness, he argues. As a young and impressionable 19 year old, I was in no position to defend my mind from such abusive and manipulative teachings. It took me years after the mission to finally realize it wasn’t me who was the problem.

30. The church actually breaks up families. From 3+ hours of meetings on Sunday, to time demanding callings on fathers and mothers, to constant pressure to attend the temple, to missions for boys at the age of 19, to pressure on young adults to marry early, to missions for grandparents, to cleaning the chapel, to various other demands, the church is constantly pulling family members away from spending time together. Since distancing myself from the church, I’ve noticed a marked improvement in our family life, and particularly, an increase in the time we spend together.

31. The church teaches against evolution, yet it employs dozens of professors at BYU in areas such as biology, geology, genetics, and anthropology, who, without exception, teach that the earth is millions of years old, and that evolution is scientifically verifiable. So whose side do we take? The church’s, or that of the church-employed BYU professors?

32. Back in the 1970s, the Mormon Church openly opposed passage of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). In fact, they distributed a small pamphlet worldwide which thoroughly covered the reasons why they opposed it. One key reason was their belief in maintaining the balance of powers between the federal government and the states. They argued that the states should retain authority over questions such as marriage, relationships of the sexes, etc. They made it clear a constitutional amendment for such a matter would be wrong. Ironically, these days the Mormon Church is a vocal proponent for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Why the complete turnaround in just 30 years? Did they think no one would notice?

33. General Authorities regularly give advice that makes no sense, and actually damages peoples’ lives. For instance, consider the pressure to marry young and have children immediately. Such a life course is foolhardy, and often is the catalyst to divorce, depression (anti-depression drug use), absent fathers, no time for fun\bonding, etc. In February 2005, Elder Russell M. Nelson delivered the latest installment of such lousy advice. A few quotes from a Deseret News article by Rodger Hardy dated February 7, 2005: College students should not put off creating families until they have completed all of their studies, an LDS Church apostle said Sunday. He urged his listeners to seek first to follow the teachings of the church before seeking wealth, which includes the commandment to create families. He added,

“Satan is waging war directly at the heart of God’s plan — the family,” he said. The age of couples getting married for the first time is increasing, as is the number of unmarried couples, he said. “It takes real faith to withstand this attack.”

Similar counsel from General Authorities when I was college age, resulted in significant amounts of added stress because I was having a hard time “finding a wife.” Just the term “finding a wife” now sounds weird to me. Why the huge mandate? Because of my “failure” to follow this commandment at the “right age” (21-23), I suffered from a low self-image. I had supposedly done everything right in the rest of my life, but why couldn’t I keep up with “more righteous” Mormon peers who were getting married and having kids right away? What a crock! In retrospect, I look back on the single years of my Twenties as some of the greatest of my life (I didn’t get married until I was nearly 27).

Clearly, such stupid counsel coming from a man whose career was that of a highly paid cardiologist, is a clear and unmistakable evidence that the Mormon Church leaders truly don’t have our best interests in mind. Curiously enough, in May 2005, the US Census Bureau published a report (see Table 1) that shows Utah has the lowest median age for first marriages (21.9 for women and 23.9 for men). So apparently, I’m not just imagining things.

And there are many other factors behind my unbelief. I hope and pray you will find it in your heart to understand what I’m saying, and respect my freedom to worship with integrity, “according to the dictates of [my]…own conscience.”

Sincerely,
John O. Andersen (Guest)

Entry Filed under: ~Guest. Tags: de-conversion, de-conversion story, LDS, mormon, mormonism, religion.

184 Comments Add your own

1. The de-Convert | August 3, 2008 at 3:00 pm

This is a long one copied over from our .org site. However, for those struggling with the Mormon faith, it’s a great resource.
2. LeoPardus | August 3, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Didn’t read all of this, but man, what a solid and complete refutation of any kind of claim to truth the Mormon Church might want to pretend it has!
3. Mike | August 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm

What an uninformed tirade. A little bit of homework would have shown how weak most of these reasons really are.
4. nearlynormalized | August 3, 2008 at 7:08 pm

“We are all Gods children and all our blood is red.” Old Jewish grandmother,;who loved. Thank you for making the break–stay strong.
5. kaffee_ph | August 3, 2008 at 7:32 pm

I didn’t expect to read trough this but did, mainly out of curiosity about the Mormon Church, as I see that most faith founded and perpetuated by contemporary individuals are like loosely woven baskets. The ancient philosophers, at least, knew their places and knew when to open their mouths, and, to this day, their statements are still used as cross-reference.
6. falcon | August 3, 2008 at 10:02 pm

“Uninformed tirade” is right up there with “that has been bebunked dozens of times” as a line of reasoning. The author had the courage to go beyond a subjective burning in the bosom and deal with solid evidence concerning Mormonism.
7. truthwalker | August 3, 2008 at 10:07 pm

As high schooler I went to training classes to learn to “witness” to LDS members with the much of the above data. Ironically it would be another 10 years before I would see the same glaring holes in my own faith.
8. Peter | August 3, 2008 at 11:07 pm

mike

there certainly are some things in this that are merely opinion and personal perspective, but much if not most is factual.

there is no question that the LDS changed its policy after civil rights court decisions, the Book of Mormon plaguerizes the KJV Bible, etc.

sure some of the things are from his perspective, like the boy scout thing or the local church experience, but as one who has done much of the same research, the facts are still facts. and they are pretty hard to deny.

peter
9. The de-Convert | August 3, 2008 at 11:57 pm

truthwalker,

As high schooler I went to training classes to learn to “witness” to LDS members with the much of the above data. Ironically it would be another 10 years before I would see the same glaring holes in my own faith.

I remember when I came to this realization myself. Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon the same way the Bible authors wrote their books. The way we (Evangelical Christians) looked at Mormons is no different that the way the Jews looked at us. Mormons think they’re right. We thought we were right…. and so the story goes.

We should write a newer newer new testament (building on the O.T., N.T, and Book of Mormon) and see if we will have a bunch of people in a few years following it.

Paul
10. Philip | August 4, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Well, even if most of the facts can be verified, reason 5 might be very slightly edited, as Hinckley’s been dead for six months now. Otherwise, this has certainly been a very interesting read.
11. Derek | August 4, 2008 at 1:12 pm

uninformed

Never fails to disappoint me how many people can look at something black and insist that it’s white and keep a straight face.
12. LeoPardus | August 4, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Mike:

There’s plenty of information there. But hey, if you’ve done “A little bit of homework” why don’t you share your superior information (be sure to document carefully) and blow the author’s facts out of the water? SInce these reasons are so weak, it should be easy.

I’d be especially interested to see you come up with any physical (archeological) evidence for any of the historical claims of Mormonism. E.g. battles in N Amer. mentioned in their books; evidence of more advanced races in N Amer at a time when all there was here were very primitive indian tribes. Just a couple that pop to mind.
13. LeoPardus | August 4, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Blasted lack of a preview function. Only the two words “any” are supposed to be bold.
14. Larry T | August 4, 2008 at 3:36 pm

“after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised upon his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died.” (Ether 15:31)

This is from the book of Mormon. The guy got his head cut off, then raises himself up, struggles for breath and dies. One explanation for this is that Shiz’z Dad was a chicken, which are known for running around with their heads cut off.
15. LeoPardus | August 4, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Larry T:

He was known as Chicken Shiz.
16. SnugglyBuffalo | August 4, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Speaking of chickens with their heads cut off…
17. Larry T | August 4, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Very funny Snuggly.
18. David V | August 5, 2008 at 1:55 am

I notice that John doesn’t tell us which church is the “true church” of Jesus Christ, if not the “Mormon” Church. Which church has all of the perfect traits of Christ’s primitive Church that John feels are lacking in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Which has the true authority of the priesthood? Which was started directly by Jesus Christ and not an offshoot of another church?

John seems to think Jesus’ Church should have no dull, volunteer-led worship services, but have only wonderful programs and sermons by inspiring paid professionally trained ministers with completely happy congregation members with perfectly adjusted families who are not encouraged to donate money and time to their church which has little or no central leadership authority.

It seems to me Jesus, himself, had to struggle with such things as developing priesthood leadership, member loyalty, personal disrespect, and persecution. The people in His church and His chosen leaders were not perfect, but His organization and personal examples were goals to strive for.

John, which of all the hundreds of churches and faiths is Jesus’ true church? Or, is there no one church, but all are true, except the “Mormon Church” or maybe, any other particular church one has determined doesn’t fit one’s personally chosen characteristics? Which has no leader and member flaws, with little need to improve and progress?

You are a smart fellow, John. Tell us which of all the churches is actually the TRUE Church of God? You say you do worship according to your conscience, and we respect that. But, where do you worship? We would honestly like to know which is this ideal church or system of worship you have found.
19. Quester | August 5, 2008 at 2:38 am

We would honestly like to know which is this ideal church or system of worship you have found.

What “we” are you speaking for, David V., on this blog for those who are skeptical of, are leaving, or have deconverted from Christianity? On whose behalf are you seeking some ideal church?
20. The Apostate | August 5, 2008 at 3:45 am

David V causing laughter:

It seems to me Jesus, himself, had to struggle with such things as developing priesthood leadership, member loyalty, personal disrespect, and persecution. The people in His church

I’m sorry, but that is just straight out funny. What was the name of Jesus’ church? Oh snap, that’s right – Jesus was a blonde-haired, blue-eyed American. What a load of anachronistic racist spewage. If he is at all historical, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who taught in Jewish synagogues and meeting places. He did not have a “developing priesthood.” Argh.

de-Convert, I think our next project should be to meet up halfway between my house and yours, dig in someone’s backyard and find a text made out of gold. We will hide it in the motel while we separately translate it into English (one American version, one Canadian version). Once it is done we will call Gabriel for him to pick it up just to make sure we don’t leave any physical evidence. I am sure that at that time I will start speaking in tongues and you will go out and heal a multitude of people (I will be your witness). We will keep some entertainingly vague records of our ensuing travels, but tell different people different words of wisdom, just to confuse the hell out of them. Maybe we could pick up a couple wives – one from each state and province and have enough kids to raise our own militia and start our own little freaky colony.

Dibs on the “Prophet” hat!
21. Obi | August 5, 2008 at 8:15 am

“…a text made out of gold.”

I see what you did there.
22. Will Dunn | August 5, 2008 at 11:36 am

Great story! I went through a lot of what you did.

I can’t believe the dolts who run the Mormon Church are STILL telling kids to get married young and have children.
23. DB | August 6, 2008 at 7:09 am

Fascinating post. I really liked your thoughts on point 18 regarding raising children and comparing your love to them to the love many Christians claim god has for “his” children. Interesting point of view that I haven’t heard but I do agree with. I have a LDS blogger who comments frequently on my blog and am never quite sure what her opinion is on many of the issues you touched on.
24. Digital Dame | August 6, 2008 at 3:29 pm

DB:

Regarding your LDS commenter: As they say, if you can’t be brilliant, be vague
25. Oleander | August 6, 2008 at 7:40 pm

John—

Are your holy underwear on sale on EBAY? If they are let me know where the bidding starts and how they are listed.
26. Brittani | August 7, 2008 at 11:04 pm

Although I didn’t live the “Mormon life” for quite as long, (I quit going as a teenager), I still find it amazing that I believed for as long as I did. My parents raised me to be able to think through the “why’s and how’s” of religion and never understood why I kept going, my mom quit going in her early twenties long before I quit. I thought at the time I was being an example to her. I think this is a great collection of why people who leave “the church” finally decide to leave. I appreciate this a lot and plan to share it with others. (Its especially good because I’m temporarily living in Utah!)
27. societyvs | August 8, 2008 at 7:55 pm

John, thanks for sharing that long list of why you left Mormonism – it truly is enlightening to know.

I had some Mormon missionaries over a year or so back – and debated a lot of these finer points with them (found them on recovery from Mormonism site). I actually think the kids are leading good lives but I also found the religion full of holes. The reason I debated Mormonism is because I am a First Nations person from Canada – an Indian. I know for a fact that book of Mormon is made up – or our-right lying concerning how we got here – and that bothers me to some degree.

All in all though – I find the missionaries nice enough and seem to be kind towards people. I may not like the religion myself – but if it can move people towards a more moral stance in life – I have to slightly applaude it.
28. Anonymous | August 10, 2008 at 11:49 am

“O Ye of little Faith”
29. silentj | August 10, 2008 at 1:19 pm

“I think, therefore, I am.”

“A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”

“Here I am. Rock you like a hurricane.”

“Whuuuuuuzzzzuuuuppppppp.”
30. amelia | August 12, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Well, I disagree with your hate of the church for many reasons. I am of African decent and was born into the Muslim faith but later became atheist before joining the Church. And no, I did not find the Church nor did it find me at first. I had Mormon co-workers who I thought were such awesome people. It was their examples that made me interested in their beliefs. Although, I worked with people of other Christian faiths; my Mormon co-workers stood out to me from the rest. They were just different in a unique and positive way. I’ve investigated other Christian churches in my life before but, they never really answered the questions of my specific spiritual needs. Yes, I had a lot of people tell me ALL the anti-Mormon stuff from polygamy, to blacks without the priesthood deal before and during my investigation of the church. The funny thing is all these people were either not members, members who weren’t active, or ex-communicated members of the Church. Not only that, these people weren’t even happy with themselves or satisfied with where they were at in their own personal lives. So, instead of getting clear answers from them, I asked my Mormon co-workers. They explained it to me in a way that I DID NOT find offensive at all. I felt like they had it together and when they were going through any trials, they seemed to really know what source to get their strength from to overcome them. They knew who they were & I loved how they sticked to their morals & values instead of compromising them in which I see a lot now. I wanted that strong sense of hope, assurance, & being they had that I did not have. I am so grateful and happy I have that now, and will never go back to my old life without a true understanding of God and sense of purpose. It’s unfortunate you see things the way you do because being a member is the best thing thats happened to me in my life & its blessings.
31. Obi | August 12, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Of course, ask the Mormons currently active in the church and connected to it for an unbiased opinion regarding discrimination issues in their church. I don’t really know/care enough to jump into this conversation, but I just wanted to say that that isn’t very smart. It’s like asking an incarcerated criminal for an objective and unbiased account of their crime and the fairness of their trial.

I think it would be wiser to ask an active Mormon, one who left the church, as well as consult third-party resources to finish it off. Just in my opinion.
32. Larry T. | August 12, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Joseph Smith “deciphered” a book called “the Book of Abraham” before Egyptologists determined how to decipher hieroglyphics(?). His interpretation of the book compared to what it actually says is (after interpretation ofhieroglyphics was determined through use of the Rosetta stone) proof enough to know the man was a fraud. His interpretation is so far from the real translation it is pitiful. If you get a chance investigate this—it really is enlightening concerning that church to say the least. The fact that Joe was digging for treasure before the angel Moroni (note: anagram is “I Moron”) made contact is another suspicious clue.

Also, note that Paul says “Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you let him be accursed”. (Galatians) This is actually very interesting as the whole Mormon faith supposedly came about due to the “leading” of an angel.
33. Andre | August 17, 2008 at 11:24 am

see John 6:66 why others left Jesus Christ.

I am glad to know and testify that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true and living Church.

May the Spirit enlighten your mind and heart so that you can see the truth of the restored gospel

Andre
34. Obi | August 17, 2008 at 11:26 am

Andre said, “see John 6:66 why others left Jesus Christ.”
35. Estaban | August 24, 2008 at 7:17 pm

I have been interested in the LDS for several years having spoken to missionaries and become curious. Having looked into pro, anti and ex sources, I find it difficult to understand how any intelligent adult could possibly subscribe to this ‘religion’. I guess that the reason is that having invested a certain amount of time, effort and money it just becomes increasingly difficult to admit that it might have all been a waste of time. Joe offered cast iron authority and certainty in a time and environment of uncertainty in areas of both religious and temporal security, and people love certainty.
36. nadine carter | August 29, 2008 at 11:30 pm

You did not mention that Joseph Smith stole outright from the Masons every Temple Rite they practice. And the Masonic symbols on garments. He joined the Freemasons and two weeks later, he formed the Temple Rites. This is no coincidence but theft. He also stole from an unpublished novel the stories in the Book of Mormon. He was known as a notorious treasure seeker by people in his community. His reputation has been so cleaned up by the Church that it bears no resemblance at all to the real Joseph Smith. He was killed by Masons who were angered that he made public the rites practiced by Masons in secret ceremonies.
37. chris | September 13, 2008 at 6:44 pm

No mention anywhere in the article or the posts (that I can recall) of belief in God, and in Jesus Christ as Savior. The main thing is and should be the Main Thing – Jesus. The rest is peripheral, although lies and dishonesty, emphasis on things, station, $$$, etc. are things that get in the way of what is really important – our relationship with God, our belief in His Son as our Savior, Lord and King. K? Have a good one All.
38. My Brainwashed Daughter | September 18, 2008 at 10:55 pm

LDS families are not only Disfunctional but they have been trained by the LDS Church on how to brainwash children from normal familys. Move out of the city as far as you can go if you have an intellagant daughter with good geans involved with an LDS boy. The LDS Church has my daughter and my good geans all taken away from her biological mother.
39. Sad but True | September 19, 2008 at 11:32 am

Teach them young…Repeat…Repeat…Repeat

“I’d like to bear my testimony. I know this church is true. I know that Joseph Smith was the true prophet. I love my family and friends. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.”
40. brian | September 19, 2008 at 5:48 pm

first off your an idiot buddy, there is dna evidence if you just did some research and looked into it. In 2004 or 05 i forget there was a group of lds and NON lds researches who found traces to a ancient tribe that inhabited this land around lehi’s day that has direct link to ONLY finland and ISRAEL. As far as the church, if your looking for something perfect bro, sorry man thats not the church, if your looking for truth with some weaknesses yes thats us. I would rather live as a good lds member and die and find out that i was wrong, than live as any other religion and find out the lds was right. Start looking for the good in things buddy, there is a lot the church does if you dont see it your blind. Satan is rampent in these last days, and hes got ya man. SORRY.
41. brian | September 19, 2008 at 5:58 pm

I JUST LEFT THE LAST COMMENT. I AM A MISSIONARY ON A MISSION RIGHT NOW. JOSEPH SMITH DID NOT HAVE 33 WIFES HE HAD 27, AND IF YOU KNEW THE HISTORY BEHIND THE OTHERS ITS NOT AS BAD AS IT SEEMS. YOU ARE LIKE THE ANTI PEOPLE MAN, STEP BACK AND LOOK AT YOUR SELF. JOSEPH ASKED ONE OF THE EARLY APOSTLES TO LET HIM HAVE HIS WIFE, HE ACTUALLY ASKED A FEW, MOST LEFT THE CHURCH, THIS ONE DID NOT AND SAID JOSEPH I KNOW YOUR A PROPHET AND YOU CAN HAVE HER. THE NEXT DAY JOSEPH MARRIED THEM IN THE TEMPLE AND SAID IT WAS A TEST, THE LORD HAD ME DO IT. THE FACT IS THIS LIFE IS A TEST, IN EVERYTHING. YOU SOUND LIKE THOMAS MAN, STOP LOOKING FOR PROOF, HAVE YOU SEEN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS, WELL I HAVE, DO BELIEVE THEY FOUND THEM, HOW AND WHY? YOU HAVE NEVER HANDLED THEM. DO YOU BELIEVE PERU IS THERE, I DO, IVE NEVER BEEN THERE. IF IT WAS THAT EASY MAN, WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF LIFE, YOU KNOW WHATS RIGHT AND WRONG. IF YOU LOOK FOR THE FRUITS OVER ALL THEY ARE GOOD. THEY ARE MEN, THEY ARNT PERFECT BRO, SO STOP YOUR COMPLAINING AND BE A MAN. YOUR WITH GOD OR NOT, RIGHT NOW YOUR NOT, YOU CAN LIE ALL YOU WANT AND PRODUCE ANTI TO FEEL GOOD AND JUSTIFY WHAT YOUR DOING, BUT IN REALITY YOUR ONLY KIDDING AND CONDEMING YOURSELF. IF THIS CHURCH AINT TRUE THERE IS NOT GOD BRO, CAUSE HE HAS STOPED SPEAKING TO MAN, HE DOESNT LOVE US, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY, SHOULD WE BE BAPTIZED, WE CANT LIVE WITH OUR FAMILIES, PEOPLE WHO DIDNT HEAR THE GOSPEL AND DIED WILL GO TO HELL RIGHT?? WRONG BUDD. GROW UP. JS DID NOT STEAL THE TEMPLE CEREMONY IM NOT GOING TO EXPLAIN BUT JUST SAY DO MORE RESEARCH MAN WOW. AND LAST, BUT DEF NOT LEAST, WHAT ABOUT THE 11 WITNESSES HUH. DO SOME RESEARCH ON THESE PEOPLE. ALL OF THEM WERE RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY MEN IN THEIR COMMUNITES. PEOPLE LOVED THEM, THEY WORKED IN THE COMMUNITY, GOVERNMENT AND HIGH RANKING IN THEIR PROFESSION. 11 POEPLE. NOT TO MENTION THAT EMMA HANDLED THE PLATES. THE FACT IS THERE WERE PLATES BUDDY .SO WITH THIS IN MIND,. JOSEPH MADE PLATES THAT ONE OF THE DESCRIBED WHERE AROUND 70 POUNDS, AND NEVER WENT BACK TO ASK WHERE HE LEFT OFF, LOT OF HEBREW LINKS IN THEIR, LINK TO THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS WHICH WERE NOT FOUND UNTIL 1947, AND STUDY THE QUMRAN PEOPLE MAN LINKS TO THE MORMON FAITH. SO HE MADE UP THE BOM RIGHT? IN LIKE 60 DAYS. TRY TO COPY THE BOOK OF MORMON WORD FOR WORD IN 60-70 DAYS, DOUBT YOU CAN DO IT. SORRY BRO YOUR OUT OF LUCK, HOPEFULLY GOD HAS MORE PATIENCE WITH YOU THAN ME.
42. Cooper | September 19, 2008 at 6:39 pm

The Three Witnesses were a group of three early leaders of the Latter Day Saint movement who signed a statement in 1830 saying that an ANGEL had shown them the golden plates from which Joseph Smith, Jr. translated the Book of Mormon and that they had heard God’s voice testifying that the book had been translated by the power of God.

But even if we or an ANGELfrom heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! (Gal. 1:8)
43. Cooper | September 19, 2008 at 6:45 pm

There is another “statement of 8 witnesses” (making total of 11) who testify that Joseph Smith showed them the plates, but the “statement of three witnesses” states the plates were shown to them by an angel of God named Moroni.
44. Cooper | September 19, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Oh–I forgot—-can you provide a paper on the DNA evidence which shows that the American indians(or whomever is descended from Lehi) descended from Finland or Israel? I can’t find it.
45. Cooper | September 19, 2008 at 6:53 pm

The Finland/Israel connection intrigues me because my grandmother, though senile at the time, said we were descended from an ancient ancestor named Leif Ericstein. So I am just curious.
46. Sad But True | September 19, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Your Testament is Sad but true and the truth and your intentions are exposed to the whole world now . Seek and ye shall find. Thank You
47. Chris | October 9, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Too bad you probably forgot to remember all the good feelings you felt when on your mission, or when you were married. it’s easy to get pissed at life and blame everyone or everything but yourself. Are you still a Christian? Because we have no proof of the resurrection, but we do KNOW that it happened. it takes faith my friend, you might want to think twice about that.
48. SnugglyBuffalo | October 9, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Too bad good feelings don’t mean a damn thing about the truth of anything.
49. Kevin Parkin | October 20, 2008 at 12:01 am

Why did you stop at 33 and why did you limit yourself to such pedestrian complaints? With all due respect, you sound like a 10 year old listing the disparaging characteristics of broccoli (which happens to rate 100 on the Overall Nutritional Quality Index).

Your reason #1: King James’ scholars copied 70% from William Tinsdale’s Bible who virtually invented ‘old english’. This old English was old even in King James time; it was used to give the bible a certain nobility; though one might conclude that the words of God, or at least of His prophets, would be noble regardless of the phrasology. It is interesting to note that many fundamentalist Christians believe that God Himself dictated the bible including all those iconic sayings invented by Tinsdale (like: Blessed are the meak for they shall …).

When Joseph Smith, age 21, translated Mormon’s plates and recognized Isaiah’s words in the section ’2nd Nephi’, he simply transcribed what was already accepted as Isaiah–from Tinsdale’s bible. Clearly, Isaiah did not actually talk or write the way Tinsdale wrote–in old English. Nor did Nephi or Mormon or any other prophet speak or write in old English; but, thanks to Tinsdale, we 16th through 21st century Christians tend to speak religiously in Tinsdalian old English.

One of my professors from the University of Utah (he was Persian and not Christian) said, “I don’t know who wrote The Book of Mormon, but I do know that it was not written by a 19th century english speaking American.” The text, despite the old English shadowing, contains too many Jewish and eastern idioms and literary structures to have been written by a frontier American.

Furthermore, the Terra Cotta army remained undiscovered for 22 centuries. So, someone from 386, or 1049, or 1492, or 1972 could say that this army of clay men does not exist. That person would be wrong, of course. The non-discovery of artifacts does not mean that the artifacts do not exist, you moron.

Your reason #17: Speach delivery or oration technique is a curious characterisitc. Hitler nailed it. Bin Laden is so good at it that he convinces otherwise smart people to fly jet aircraft into office buildings. David Letterman’s “Presidential Speaches” highlights George Bush’s failure at it. His deadpan delivery unconsequentializes even the best speaches written by some very gifted speach writers about some very consequential topics. Go figure. Some LDS Apostles are good at speach delivery, most are not, in my opinion.

Of course, the bigger question is “Why was Jesus so bad at it?” If He was ‘The Word’ and with God from the beginning and the creator of all things, then why couldn’t He speak sufficiently to persuade His audience of who He was and what He was about? Oh sure, a few poor discheveled people believed–long enough to get a free meal–but by and large, He was a gigantic failure at speach.

Your reason #22: Look, let’s get real. America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Or put differently, America is the land of the poor and the home of the slave. As great as America is today, it remains flawed; although less flawed than in its past. Yes. all men are created equal, but Jefferson (himself not a great speaker) defined women and black people out of the word ‘man’. For Heaven sake, Martin Luther King’s civil rights crusade was only 40 years ago! How naive are you to not acknowledge that frontier, 19th century, pre-civil war pioneers will have provincial, narrow minded philosophies about all kinds of things?

Interestingly, Apostle Mark Petersen (a product of racially divided 1930′s to 1960′s American culture) was not in Salt Lake City when President Kimball called the Quorum of Apostles to the Temple to anounce (read that ‘vote’) on the revised policy regarding blacks and priesthood. The LDS Church’s ‘black’ policy never really involved skin color. Black Indians, or black Polynesians, or black Hispanics always were members of the priesthood. It was the africans, the negros who were barred from priesthood. Now, you may say that I am splitting hairs; but, so too was Jefferson.

I hate racism: I hate the fact that the Rwandans killed each other because of tribal competition; I hate that the Iranian Persians want to anihilate the Iraqi Arabs; I hate that the French wanted to destroy the British (in the 17th century) and that the German Nazi’s wanted to destroy everybody! I hate that America is a land of gun violence, and drug addiction, and poverty, and illiteracy, and violence against women. I hate that the indictments of Kruchev and Kim Jong and Mao against America are/were true. The rich do get richer and the poor do get poorer, etc, etc. Sure, the LDS Church should have ordained black bishops in Georgia and Mississippi in the 1950′s, and the United States of America should have stood up to southern racism long before it did. Furthermore, the land of the free and the home of the brave should not have imprisoned tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry out of fear. But, I am not in charge of this country nor am I in charge of rewriting the past.

Your reason #29: When 12 year old Jimmy told 11 year old Mary Sue that she was ugly, she ran home crying. Some how his comment mattered to her. Now, she has two options: 1) as a 20 or 30 or 40 year old woman, she could hold onto that terse, curse comment and be a frightened, paralysized wreck or 2) she could tell Jimmy to ‘go jump in a lake’. John, you “took years” to realise that you aren’t ugly–boo hoo.

All kinds of Parental systems (religion is one of several Parental systems) instill anxiety, guilt, and remorse in the hearts and minds of its subordinates (including the Marine Corps). Grow up! Go to therapy! Stop giving other people power over your ego and esteem.

So, why did you stop at 33 and limit yourself to such pedestrian complaints? Look, I can tirade against coloquial Mormon doctine and philosophy and history better than you can (I know things about church history that would make your toes curl or jaw drop or whatever the expression is). But, if contemplating time and space and creation and eternal individuality are valid topics of thought, then how best to address it? The religious vocabulary is notoriously vague.

Religion as a whole is a pretty tough row to hoe. All religions invent a super hero (not so much Buddahism, but all the others do). Secularism looks for super heros, too: Batman, Superman, Indiana Jones, James Bond, Wonder Woman, Spiderman, Jason Bourne, McGiver; the list goes on. Christianity’s super hero is Jesus. Have you ever seen born again Christian TV? Its nausiating. Jesus this and Jesus that. Its snake oil packaged as Jesus. We have all heard the arguement that Paganism is the root of Chritianity. As the story goes, a 14 year old girl, Mary, is ‘sold’ to a 35 year old Joseph. He paid her parents a dowery so they called it ‘betrothed’ not ‘sold’. Later, she gets knocked-up by her teenage boyfriend and the whole betrothed thing is off so the parents have to return the dowery. Unless, they invent an excuse. You know the rest. And believe it or not, the Catholics eat this stuff up. They even pray to Mary!

Jesus’ super hero status is compounded when He borrows a phrase from Roman coins. Our money says ‘In God We Trust’; Roman money said “Ceasar, Son of God”. So, itinerate preacher Jesus becomes Jesus Son of God. Though He is not such a great speaker, one guy who never actually met Him picks up His cause and runs with it; he is a great speaker (i.e. Paul).

Now that I have insulted good Americans and devout Christians everywhere by illustrating a few elementary problems with America and Christianity, let me conclude by paraphrasing Joseph Smith himself: “I know that what I am proposing is well nigh preposterous; if it had not happened to me I would not believe it myself”. He went on to organize a religion that is both mainstream (if you consider Christianity main stream) and unique (time and space and creation and eternal individuality). Like Jefferson, he gave the Church some good fundamentals (ancient fundamentals from Moses and Abraham and Elijah) and a frame work to improve itself. Your 33 thesese need to be adressed either locally or globally, but in the end, they are rather minor irritants. America has lots of minor irritants and some not so minor. But, I still belive in America.
50. Barter Town | October 20, 2008 at 9:20 am

Joseph Smith was just another charismatic cult leader, no different than your typical Warren Jeffs or David Koresh who spring up from time to time. The fact that his church has completely changed since his time (gone “mainstream”, as you put it) doesn’t change that fact.

It is so easy to discredit the LDS church. All you need is a passing interest in history. Or archaeology, or linguistics, or any sense of intellectual honesty.

The Book of Mormon is so historically wrong it’s laughable. Sorry guys, but the ancient Americas didn’t have steel weapons, or armor, or chariots (the wheel hadn’t even been invented in ancient America, and wasn’t even known in the Western hemisphere until Columbus brought it), or horses, elephants, domesticated pigs, goats, and cattle, or crops of wheat and barley, or silk, or a currency based on precious metals — none of these things were present in ancient America, anywhere. But they are all present in, yep, the Book of Mormon, which purports to be a history of, you guessed it, the Americas.

Think about it for a minute. These are major, major items. If there were horses in ancient America, as the Book of Mormon claims, then why is there no depiction of them on any artifacts from that era? No mention of horses (or chariots, cows, wheat, swords, battle armor, etc. etc.) on pottery, on stone tablets, on temples, or on virtually anything at all. Surely the major civilizations of the ancient Americas — the Inca, the Maya, the Aztec, or any of the thousands of tribes in the 10,000+ year history (at least) of the inhabitants of the American continent, surely somebody would have incorporated, or inherited, such useful and advantageous things as horses, chariots, steel, wheels, etc. Surely someone would have interacted with such a technologically advanced civilization as the Lamanites & Nephites, who numbered several hundred thousand, according to the BoM.

And that is another problem. How could Lehi’s family grow into a civilization of several hundred thousand in just 1000 years (the time-span of the BoM)? Such a growth rate in a pre-industrialized era is ridiculous, and wasn’t even reached anywhere in the world, historically, until the late 20th century.

Moreover, none of the languages of native Americans are in any way related to languages of the Middle East, where Lehi and his family migrated from. The Book or Mormon era (600 BC – 421 AD) wasn’t very long ago, archaeologically speaking, and certainly isn’t enough time for a language to evolve into oblivion. Certainly a civilization as technologically advanced, populous, and recent as the Nephites / Lamanites would have some trace of their language in that of their ancestors? Fact is, there is no connection whatsoever between any native American language and any Middle Eastern language.

Not to mention that DNA has verified what anthropologists and archaeologists have known for quite some time, that native American ancestors migrated from Asia. There is no trace of any Middle Eastern DNA in native American populations. Again, surely such a powerful civilization (they were the only people with horses, steel, and the wheel!) as the Nephites / Lamanites would have intermingled / intermarried with other civilizations and left some trace of their DNA? This was only 1600 years ago, surely there is some genetic record of their existence?

Sadly, there is not. Neither is there any linguistic, archaeological, historical, textual, mythological, or any otherwise biological evidence of such a civilization. The only place one can know about such an incredibly advanced and rapidly-reproducing civilization is in the Book of Mormon itself.

Moreover, the fact that the original papyri Joseph Smith translated as the Book of Abraham (also regarded as scripture by the LDS church) isn’t, in fact, a Hebrew record of Abraham at all, but a common Egyptian funeral text, as verified by virtually any Egyptologist who examines it, doesn’t exactly bolster Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon claims.

I’ll give credit where credit is due — Joseph Smith suckered a lot of people into believing he was a bona-fide prophet. But then again, so did Warren Jeffs. And any other number of other hucksters who fancied themselves as God’s chosen leader bearing the only “true” message for mankind.

In my experience, if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. I grew up LDS, served a mission, graduated institute, the whole nine. But I’d rather know the truth than continue being deluded. As it stands now, I don’t believe in any religion and in fact regard religion in general as a social invention of man, completely unnecessary in this day and age for the advancement of mankind, a remnant of the past with an expiration date that is long overdue.

Does God exist? Maybe. Maybe not. But you can’t tell me you “know” something I don’t just because you’ve emotionally convinced yourself that this particular religion is “true”. If it works for you, fine. It’s a fine religion, nowadays. Long gone is the polygamy, racism, secessionism, and commune-ism of the early church. In fact, if Joseph Smith or Brigham Young saw the church today, they would barely recognize it. It’s perfectly respectable now.

So, keep on believing that the revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants are from the Judeo-Christian God himself, discussing with Joseph Smith the unacceptable behavior of his wife Emma and various other disobedient congregation members. Keep on believing that this particular God is personally represented today by a former sales manager living in Salt Lake City, Utah. Keep on giving your time, energy and 10% of your income to the church. You’re not hurting anyone. Your religion is no more ridiculous than any other religion out there.
51. Kevin Parkin | October 22, 2008 at 11:52 am

In response to Nadine’s comment #36: Some people can’t see the forest from the trees. The Free Masons (a coalition of brick contractors–Jesus was a brick contractor and a carpenter) got their rites from the same source that Joseph Smith got the temple rites. Joseph Smith did not invent truth (the temple endowment); Divinity gave it to him. This same Divinity gave it to other people before giving it to Smith. As the Masonic order wound its way through the centuries, some things were lost or changed or overlooked, much like Christianity itself. Eventually Washington and Jefferson and Adams learned of Masonry and joined in as did Smith. For a 19th or 21st century person to begin practicing Christianity does not mean the he or she is stealing Christianity from Paul or Peter or Mathew; it means he or she is picking up the torch, as it were, and running with it.

Yes, Smith did hope that some Masons were in the mob at Carthage which is why he yelled out the Masonic distress signal, “Is there no mercy for a widow’s son?” But, no Masons had the balls to break ranks and defend one of their own.

As for Smith’s reputation, you obviously don’t get out much or read much. A whole host of Church sponsored writers have been digging into Smith’s history for four decades and have seen writing thier findings. These books don’t make the Times best sellers list, but they are there to read and are filled with warts and all. I suppose the Jews would be surprised or outright shocked to know the true reputation and actions of their boy Moses. (Current historical analyst acknowledge there is zero archelogical evidence of the Exodus and furthermore that Moses was no shrinking violet Hebrew slave; he was Pharoah’s army general. When Pharoah died, the new Pharoah didn’t want foreighners running the army so he demoted Moses and all ranking officers most of whom were Hebrew. Americans feel the same way about foreighners running their affairs.) And you don’t really think that Jesus was the puritanical momma’s boy that Mathew, Mark and Luke make him out to be, do you? And, by the way, you do realize that Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, right? Pull your head out of the sand!
52. Kevin Parkin | October 23, 2008 at 2:39 am

I run a small business, so reading your comments is like reading the comics as the end of a hard day, but your comments are more entertaining than any comic ever was.

The other night on 20/20, contrarian John Stossel interviewed several college students on the upcoming Obama / McCain election; only one question was asked: How many states are in The United States of America? He urged each student ,who did not know the answer, to please DON’T VOTE! I agree with Stossel. I don’t want people that stupid selecting my Commander-in-Chief. Think about it. After serious reflection, General Colin Powell will vote Obama as will many other serious minded people. Five other former Secretaries of State and 20 Army Generals have declared their vote to McCain. But, any 18 year old, has the same vote power as these careful, introspective, experienced, well informed professionals. 18 year olds can barely drive a car, most of them can’t punctuate a sentence (my sister teaches high school english-she knows), they’ve never run a business or bought real estate, they don’t know what role The Fed plays in the US economy and many of them don’t know that America has 50 states!

Many of the comments in this blog, including John Andersen’s, sound like they are coming from 18 year olds. My hope for the election is that all the stupid peoples’ votes cancel each other out. My hope for this blog is that the readers excercise at least the most rudimentary level of thought and analysis.

Regarding Comment #50: You bone head; The Book of Mormon is NOT a history of the Americas; it is a family journal. It is only a family journal. It is a collection of personal thoughts, impressions, sermons, anecdotes, individual experiences and, yes, testimonials. Nephi’s original collection of journal entries was passed through his extended family for about 350 years when it was turned over to another family-Benjamin’s, who in turn passed it throughout his family. Eventually, the collection wound up in Mormon’s hands.

These personal entries do include several references of the society at large, but the collection is by no means a history of that society. The Old Testament is, similarly, a family history of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his 12 sons. That family lived in a larger Hebrew society. Nephi’s family lived among a larger, preexisting American society. To suppose that the entire continent was void of other people is preposterous. China thrived for centuries before Marco Polo ‘discovered’ it. India, Japan, Pacific Islands all had populations about which the Bible says nothing. But the Bible isn’t their book; it is Abrahams’ family book. I suppose that other families from other places and other times wrote about their experiences as well.

In 1903, my 9 year old grandfather arrived at Ellis Island from Norway and in one generation (my mom) every body speaks English. Amazing! There are no Norwegian words, dances, food, clothing, customs what-so-ever in my experince as an American. Nephi-a displaced Jew-wrote about his hometown, but once the imigrant group died off, the family melted into the society at large. I suppose that in 1600 years my decendants will have a very hard time detecting any Norwegian DNA in their bodies. Some bozo may even try convincing them that Hans Hobberstad never really existed; he would be wrong.

The pseudo intelectualizing that some of you indulge in relative to religion and to Latter Day Saintism can be an entertaining pastime like spin-the-bottle, but for some of you it is more like spin-the-revolver (did you see The Puppet Man on Heros last week?) Observations can be measured, recorded, objectified. Observations are often interpretted as evidence and evidence is further interpretted as proof. The problem with these interpretations is that they are frequently wrong. “If the glove does not fit you must acquit” is a gross misinterpretation of an observation. If the glove does not fit (observation) then OJ may or may not be innocent. The non-fitting of the glove is an insuffiently compelling observation to conclude one way or the other. On the other hand (no pun intended), many hundreds of innocent people are in prison in America because juries inappropriately misinterpretted observations as evidence then as proof.

A rancher arrives home and sees his young son lying all bloody on the floor, moaning. Lying next to the boy is the family dog with blood all over his muzzle. The Rancher grabs the dog, takes it outside and shoots it. He then scoups up his son and carries him to the kitchen sink where he discovers a dead coyote lying all mangled in the corner. And, the rancher realized that he just killed his son’s protector.

Drawing conclusions from tenuous observations is a dangerous business; if you want to run through this minefield then do it alone, don’t drag other people with you. Or play spin-the-revolver solo.
53. VorJack | October 23, 2008 at 11:32 am

Kevin – “I suppose the Jews would be surprised or outright shocked to know the true reputation and actions of their boy Moses.”

Not likely. Many of the Biblical minimalists are Jewish. Isreal Finkelstein is probably the most famous archeologist to state that the Exodus never happened, and he’s a Jewish man teaching at Tel Aviv University.

” … he was Pharoah’s army general. … demoted Moses and all ranking officers … ”

Excuse me, but where is this coming from? You’ve just acknowledged that there is not archeological evidence for the Exodus. There’s also no evidence outside of the book of Exodus for the existence of Moses, Joseph, et. al. If there’s a lack of evidence, where are you getting this story from?

“It is a collection of personal thoughts, impressions, sermons, anecdotes, individual experiences …”

… and hallucinations? I can’t think of another way that the book would discuss elephants and chariots that weren’t there.

“In 1903, my 9 year old grandfather arrived at Ellis Island from Norway and in one generation (my mom) every body speaks English. Amazing!”

Not really. America, at the time, was focused on assimilating immigrants as quickly as possible into the dominant culture. But in prehistoric north america, there was no dominant culture. There were multiple tribes, clans, languages, territories, etc. A goodly sized tribe of immigrants could easily maintain their own kin group, language and traditions. In fact, I suspect that they would be expected to – there’s no indication that the existing tribes attempted to adsorb other tribes as the came in from the north. The analogy just doesn’t work.
54. JDL | November 16, 2008 at 5:53 am

Elder Neal A.Maxwell of the Council of the Twelve Apostles noted and prophesied that we “may even see a few leave the Church who cannot then leave the Church alone. Let these few departees take their brief bows in the secular spotlight;
someday they will bow deeply before the throne of
the Almighty, confessing that Jesus is the Christ and
that this is his work. Meanwhile, be unsurprised if, as
the little stone seen by Daniel rolls relentlessly forth,
some seek to chip away at it (see Dan. 2).”

(Conference Report, Oct. 1980, p. 17; or Ensign, Nov.
1980, p. 14.)
55. Josh | November 16, 2008 at 9:36 pm

That’s not a prophecy, its just common sense.
56. Digital Dame | November 16, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Amen, Josh.
57. INTJ Mom | November 17, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Um, Kevin? Masonry didn’t even come into existence until quite a long time after Jesus died.
58. Len K | November 18, 2008 at 4:58 am

Celia Marks November 1983
Were they inscriptions? I think so. When you say an ‘inscription’ that is a rather vague term, right? As I understand it, inscription could mean anything from a simple mark, or scratch to a written word. Were they as powerful as words? I do not think so. Inscriptions often retain great meaning; even through sometimes inscriptions are far from word-like in structure. Elaborate epigraphic markings on wood or stone have been known to convey abstract meanings, emotions, or even to enlighten. On an armrest of an old chair some deep marks made with fingernails conveyed great meaning and emotion, so could one call them inscriptions?

The chair was run of the mill, a chair made of synthetic leather, black, bonded together with staples. The outer armrests, wood shaped into a half-crescent, so one could comfortably rest an arm or hand. The dreary chair was bland, built more for an office than a home, but that’s what Dad and Irene saw fit to embellish their mobile home with in Clearlake around 1971. A quarter century later He disposed of the decrepit chair simply by leaving it on the driveway of his Riverside home so someone could steal it.

From 1983 on a hand palpitating the hand rest of the chair could feel deep uneven serrations and indentations that had been scratched onto the armrest. The indentations were a quarter inch deep, about the same on both armrests. Everyone sitting in the chair noted them, and asked how the anomalous marks came to be. Many figured a child carved them with a knife. Everyone who asked was informed that they were ‘Celia Marks,’ and some were told an interesting story.

It was Thanksgiving Day. I arrived before Celia and Co. I helped Dad move furniture around and chopped wood for the fireplace as Irene fretted in the kitchen. They were apprehensive, but for the most part their apprehensiveness remained concealed. They were fretting about minute details, family photos had to be cleaned, all the books on the book case aligned, towels in the bath roomed had to be arranged ‘just so’, it seemed every corner of the house must be perfect. This all stemmed from their nervousness, a condition I was fully sympathetic to.

Dad’s numerous framed Norman Rockwell prints on nearly every wall of the home spoke about his values as did numerous family pictures. For him the home was the real temple, earning a house displayed good work values; from that house creating a home was a sacred act, an undertaking approximating the divine itself. Irene’s obsession about hearth and home, a home always looking like it could be photographed in Better Homes & Gardens spoke about her values. Her values were simple, ‘you love and support your adult children, spoil your grandchildren, and in particular you keep the commandment about parents.’ These were values they had to a degree before they joined the Church, but became paramount in the years after they joined, as manifested by their changed lifestyles. Herman and Irene, sought average relations with all their children

Irene’s daughter had other values. Irene’s daughter Celia was known as a professional business woman, a sophisticated social butterfly, and an incorrigible religious fanatic. Without respite Celia had been trying to convert Dad and Irene to her fundamentalist religion. Celia’s constant crusades had produced year or two long estrangements between Mother and child. Over time Celia surmised Dad and Irene would not be displace from their faith so it was vital that Dad and Irene divorce, after all, according to their dogma Dad and Irene were ‘unevenly yoked’ and lost in a cult, meaning any and all belief system’s not fundamentalist. Over time that had become her concerted agenda. Motivated by her convictions there had been endless manipulations, setup situations which all served to create those year or two long estrangements between mother-daughter. On another far deeper level Celia’s hidden agenda was for financial motives, as Celia felt all Dad and Irene’s property and possessions really belonged to her. Dad, the step-father was an impediment to that elusive pie-in-the-sky. Years before I was offered as a viable reason they should divorce, now that I was an adult on my own the reasons offered were exclusively religious. There had been a recent thawing, as witness by the fact that Celia and family were all arriving for the Thanksgiving holiday.

As the in-laws arrived social niceties effectively balmed over deep seated feelings. Shallow talk consumed Dad’s Riverside home, serving to put everyone at ease. Celia’s three boys, 17, 18 and 19 talked about high school, the men talked football, and the women busied themselves in the kitchen. In all there were eight in-laws. For over an hour insignificant conversation slowly calmed everyone. In time Irene sported a pleasant optimism that all would remain pleasant, and everyone and everything would be hunky-dory. Such naive notion poised against the veracity of malevolent intention lends itself to often painful realizations. This particular holiday, true to form, Celia, her husband Richard, Carmen his wife Annette, a friend named Lea and the three boys had envisioned a new devise for marital discord. Their scheme was not yet revealed, but most assuredly soon would be. Days before Dad admitted that Celia could not go long without some nefarious devise for discord raising its head. I had seen it enough times before, parental hopes and aspirations for ‘good kids’ did not cloud my vision.

I had been rather alienated for some time from Dad and Irene, the relationship strained for other reasons, but recently they had invited me to several Church functions, and Irene had made me pie. I suspect this is why both Irene and Dad pushed for me to come to their holiday meal, as a buffer, bastion against Celia and Co. ”We would like you to come, Celia and Carman will be at the house, and well, we are rather edgy about it.” Irene, after 3 years had renewed relations some months before with Celia. Their last falling out, in Irene’s terms, was now a, ‘forgive and forget memory. This was, in my view the case at least until the next scheme was made apparent. It was all a game, a dance they had played for decades, and the next one was about to be played out after Thanksgiving dinner at Dad and Irene’s Riverside home.

Dad, about 1983

Before dinner Dad’s Home Teachers arrived. Celia the ever-so-consummate professional was pleasant, as were the other in-laws. They chatted amicably with the Home Teachers about work and other trivia. The taller Home Teacher was a very successful businessman. He was well to do, owning several businesses, but humble about it, something I admire. The other home Teacher, a generational comrade of my Fathers, retired, short, aged, but keenly sharp did most of the talking. He briefly joined Dad and Irene in the front room. The man imparted wisdom through his wit, his awareness of the scope of Dad and Irene’s situation was conveyed by every comment he made, every comment, no matter how seemingly trivial was pregnant with sagacious understanding.

Underneath Celia and Co. seethed in discomfort, being in a home with a few too many LDS folk. After a pleasant visit Dad and I accompanied the Home Teachers to the driveway, away from the family guests. “Are you all going to be alright?” asked the perceptive Home Teacher. “I have dealt with these people for a long time” said Dad, “And My son here, is a 6’5” a safeguard if they start something.” The Home Teacher firmly grasped Dads hand; “I have dealt with such folk a time or two as well.” Through mature in years, he was a most discerning Home Teacher. The man knowing glance gave away his keen awareness of Dad’s familial dilemma. Shaking my hand he added, “Don’t leave your parents to the wolves.” The Home Teacher offered his comment with a wink and nod; it was a half-joke. Like my father, old, bend but still substantial, the Home Teacher departed.

Celia, 1983

After dinner, but before dessert the men sat in the front room pontificating about nothing of import as Celia and Irene finished dishes; both women being the type, for better for worse who could not sit down after a meal until their kitchen was immaculate. I could hear the dishes clatter women chatter, as the men talked. I was 22 and recently out of the CCC. I had no fondness for any of Irene’s progeny, but to please Dad I showed up. Her two children and their brood lived in a ‘really good part’ of Orange County, letting all know about it. Whatever acclamations they assigned to themselves I took without displaying deference, which they took as a blatant lack of respect for their perceived station in life. The three boys and Lea were in the other room watching TV, to be specific televangelist, as the ‘big game’ was over. Dad was indifferent to football, and when it came to televangelist Dad would not allow such swill in his home, finding it an absolute mockery. At present he was out of earshot of the video vicars. It was one of the foibles of their religion. Briefly in the room I watched the flickering images on the screen, the cotton-candy haired lady, the guy who looking embalmed, both who’s verbal parsimoniousness denoted their immense disdain for education. Those preachers ‘scream out’ to be made fun of, and self-control on my part is a virtue I lack, but I managed to bite my tongue, that time. My only wonder is how any self-respecting individual could take such protracted rhetorical jive seriously.

Celia came in the front room and asked if they could have an ‘open-minded Bible study.’ The men, including my father agreed. With a quick glance Dad conveyed he would deal with them, for the moment, unaided by me. Irene was finishing drying dishes and the sound of the oven door opening told me pies were in the oven. I will give Celia credit; like her mother, she made fine pies, pies worth hanging around for. Celia announcing such a theological activity was peculiar, but for some reason it had been agreed on before my arrival by Dad and Irene.

I was perceptive enough to know there was nothing ‘open-minded’ in any ecclesial dialogue with these in-laws. I knew all along he knew some type of hidden agenda would manifest itself, so at least the scheme was becoming apparent. Celia sat down in that chair. The boys left the TV room and joined in. In unison Celia, Richard, Annette, Carman, Lea and the boys opened their Bibles, coincidently to the same chapter and verse. They were smug, but quietly smug. They were solders girded for battle, confident, brazen. Dad sat quietly, silent, appearing cornered. I sat silently as Irene finished up in the kitchen. They read their Bible verse, and only one verse. They read it as an exclusive mandate,-the final word. With resolute self-confidence they confronted Dad, figuring a lack of theological knowledge coupled with an abundance of collective bravado on their part would corner him, rendering him mute, and maybe, hopefully, acquiescent. Without missing a beat Dad quoted from memory the next several verses, then became silent. The ensuing silence was deafening. With a few verses quoted from memory he utterly exposed their idiosyncratic altering of the meaning they assigned that one verse; a verse clearly taken out of context. His articulate response confounded them; his elucidation unanticipated. Befuddled, they were, for the moment rendered wordless, mortified. Their faces flushed, they struggled for composure. In allayed silence Dad patiently awaited a rejoinder he knew could not come. Celia was rendered the most visceral. Her eyes torrid, her face crimson, she grasped the arms of the chair; her sturdy fingernails grinding into the malleable wood. It was the only malleable item in the home. Celia took advantage of that fact, her sturdy fingernails grinding into the wood. If a chair could scream, that chair would have done so in agony. The Celia marks were forever stamped on the chair, inscriptions that conveyed great meaning. Elaborate epigraphic markings on wood or stone have been known to convey abstract meanings, emotions, or even to enlighten. Irene, smiling, pleasant and oblivious strolled into the front room, still drying her hands with a dish towel as Celia, Carman, Richard, Annette, Lea and the boys dispensed smug glances between themselves, closing their Bibles in unison. “Has the Bible study started yet?” asked a beaming Irene as she plopped into a vacant chair, entirely unaware it was finished before it began.

An abundance of apple, pumpkin, and especially peach pie was there for me to take home as Irene’s progeny left within 20 minutes, pies forgotten. Dad that day had been in a form characteristic of him, nothing atypical in his reaction. Was his conduct opprobrious? I don’t know. I do know it was not a self-serving characteristic of him to cast down any gauntlet, but it was characteristic of him to have sturdy elastic net always at the ready in case someone else does.

It was at least two years before any of that bunch was seen again. Dad told me the Home Teacher came by the next month. Sitting in the chair he noted the carvings. When told what had happened the Home Teacher said, ‘There was a shadowy rage in that woman’s eyes.” For years many people felt the marks under the armrest, Dad and Irene often explaining their origin to others who noticed them when on the injured chair. Over the years the marks became more an item of absurd, laughable silliness, time rendered it more a subject of vagarious humor, to all but me. You see the Home Teachers words disturb me. I know something surpassing normal psychology animated Celia, as no matter how hard I, or Dad tried, no one, except Celia has been sufficiently enraged or strong enough to drive fingernails that deep into that wood to leave an inscription.
59. Anonymous | November 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm

mormanism is just another cult, i would have left them in a heartbeat
60. Bamboozled « Blue Lyon | November 18, 2008 at 8:03 pm

[...] H/T de-conversion [...]
61. Corajudd | November 19, 2008 at 3:15 am

Great article. Given a little time, I’m sure any “dyed in the wool” ex-Mormons could double or triple this list. The follow-up comments are interesting as well.

I, too, left the Mormon church after being raised in it. Accepting that the Mormon church is an invention is the only way to get rid of those endless persistent doubts and questions and fully embrace the only life one has.

Changing my mind about the church being untrue would be as easy as going back to the joyful optimism I had at 7 and Santa Claus was on his way. I could try real hard but the truth can’t be ignored. There must be a term for the fact that a person simply can’t close his or her eyes to newly acquired clarity (no Santa, no magic, no golden plates). Psychiatrists call the refusal to do so delusional.

Being a Mormon for 25 years never once felt as good as being free of the church does every day of my reclaimed life!
62. mrlucidity | November 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm

An interesting note about the supposed DNA evidence that disproves the Book of Mormon. The publisher of that research was a botanical geneticist(a plant scientist) and not a human geneticist. Does it sound like he is qualified to make a conclusive argument either way on the matter? Also, he was an excommunicated member of the LDS church. Can any evidence he provides be seen as an objective analysis free of ideological bias?

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (KJV, Isaiah 55:8–9).
63. Josh | November 20, 2008 at 6:21 pm

“The publisher of that research was a botanical geneticist(a plant scientist) and not a human geneticist.”

Are you serious?

My guess is you are neither, and my guess is that you claim to have some authority about the ultimate purpose in the universe. At least genetics is basically the same between plants and humans.

I do not see how your ability to find a potential flaw with a geneticists discoveries due to a supposed flaw in his credentials – and not his research – backs up your claims about meta-physics.
64. Valkyrie | December 3, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Great post. I hope your transition from Mormonism has not caused family and friends to completely abandon you. I know that is not out of the question with many of the members. May you find happiness in your life as you live it the way YOU see fit.

To the Mormons posting here:

This is not a place where you will have much luck converting people or “reprimanding” them for leaving the Mormon faith. The poster has every right to say his personal reasons for leaving the Mormon church whether or not you agree with them or they are factually true. The bottom line is, you believe things about your religion. He happens to not believe those same things. Get over yourselves. DV, he doesn’t state that he needs the “true church” either, so don’t tell him he has to point out which is. Many people are able to live their lives without religion.

And finally, “not being able to leave the church alone” is a fancy way of saying “people will say bad things about us, but LALALALA WE CAN’T HEAR THEM.”
65. Anonymous | December 4, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Well first off, when you were a part of the church, you should believe in the story of Joseph Smith. If you don’t believe this, you probably didn’t believe in half of the stuff the church teaches. Not only that, but if you don’t believe in that story then you aren’t ready for a mission, which doesn’t make you a good missionary. Oh, and your Jeffrey R. Holland comment was a stupid thing of you to say. He briefly stated what a mission should be like if you really want to serve the Lord. It sounds like to me like you didn’t really want to go on a mission. And a missionary isn’t judged by how many people he/she baptized. They are judged by how well they served and how well they love the Lord. You should know this being a “good” missionary.
66. erick | December 24, 2008 at 11:20 am

Why would I trust man to tell me whats right. The Holy Bible is complete as it is. I don’t need to know what Joe smith or any other human being is doing or has done. The bible tells me that i can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus.
67. BigHouse | December 24, 2008 at 11:36 am

Why would I trust man to tell me whats right. The Holy Bible is complete as it is.

This is a neat trick! Don’t trust man, but trust a book written by…MAN!

How DO they do it?
68. Quester | December 24, 2008 at 12:17 pm

The bible tells me that i can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus.

Really? Which verse?
69. LeoPardus | December 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm

erick:

I’m with Quester. Very curious to see you produce some verse(s).
70. Joe Woolsey | January 2, 2009 at 11:07 pm

My dad, sisters, brother and nephew are all mormans and are constantly trying to get me to become one. There are a lot of things that I like about the mormans, the way the look out for one another and the way they stress self-reliance on thier members. But I can’t get past the fact that they didn’t allow blacks to the priesthood unitl 1978 and if it were legal to do so, they would still have multiple wifes. Whenever something becomes illegal or socially unacceptable they change and say that thier false prophets had a revelation from God to change. Drinking coffee in moderation has been proven to be an antioxidant which is good for the body. The stuff they come up with is very questionable, and its always a revelation from God. I plan on sticking with what Billy Graham says and that is Jesus Christ is the only way… I had a LDS Bishop tell me that getting babtized by Billy Graham would be like getting a drivers licence from JC Penny. WHAT ARROGANCE!!!! Mormans are good people and do alot of good in thier community but they need to chill alittle and be more respectful of non-mormans.
71. Connie | January 3, 2009 at 4:29 am

First, Joe, (comment # 70) I would like to encourage you and everyone’s posts on here who are against the Mormon church, to actually READ the Book of Mormon! No, not the critiques, the anti-stuff, but to take the actual book in your hands (and not dwell on biased opinions) and read it with a sincere desire to know for yourself that it is true. There is a POWERFUL promise in the back of the book, Moroni 10: 3-5, that anyone who does this with true, real intent, will not only receive a witness that it is true, but will also know the truth of all things! I have read this book many times throughout my life, and it has influenced me for good. There has not been any problem that I haven’t had, that this book has not helped to direct me, and still continues to direct me, in the right way.
This book has power! Who doesn’t need power in their life to make right choices, to feel love in their hearts, to overcome addictions, to have the power to overcome anger and develop love and forgiveness? Who doesn’t have problems? Who doesn’t need power to deal with marriage/family challenges, work endeavors, or enemies in your life? Anyone who picks up this book and actually reads it in its entirety, with a true sincere desire to know truth from God, (and not in a spirit of anger, hate, or fault-finding) can not deny that it testifies of Christ!! Who desires learning, and goes to High School, and says, “that’s it for me!” I have all the learning I ever need in my life! Who wants to learn more, and more, and desires to better themselves?

Who has a car accident, and only wants one witness there in court for his trial? Isn’t your case more powerful if you have more than one witness? This book, in its purity, testifies that the Bible is true, and with a second hand, is another witness. The Savior, after he died on the cross and was resurrected, actually appeared to the people in ancient America, the other side of the world. These people witnessed the same star the wise men saw from the East, felt the holes from the nails in the Savior’s hands, (3rd Nephi 11) and actually witnessed that Jesus was and is the Christ!

Anyone who actually does the experiment, and who is actually living the basic 10 commandments from God given to Moses in the Bible, who has the Lord’s true spirit in their hearts can not deny this book is true! It is simply black and white! It is not a gray issue. Either Joseph Smith, an uneducated farm boy, was a complete liar and somehow made the whole thing up, the Book of Mormon, the church, etc, or he was actually a true prophet, called by God to be his witness, to bring light and truth to the world.

There are many things from the scriptures, including the Bible (Old Testament) that dumbfounds rationality. Why would the Lord command Abraham to kill his only son? In these days, he would be on trial for voluntary manslaughter. Yet, the Christian world still reveres the Bible and celebrates Christmas. We know and believe as Christians, that Abraham was commanded to do this as a trial of his faith. The Lord tested him; “to see if he would do all things that he commanded of him”. And we further read, that Abraham never did kill his son Isaac, as a fulfillment to God’s purpose. How can the virgin Mary conceive and give birth to baby Jesus? How could it be possible for angels to appear to shepherds? If this bugs you, along with thousands of irrational discrepancies, then don’t believe in the Savior, and don’t celebrate Christmas. You can’t prove religion. It is about faith. The Lord says in Isaiah 55:6-9
Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
:

I am very sorry, Joe, that you and others out there have experienced arrogance from Mormons! To be honest with you, I have also, and am even currently experiencing it from even my own family members. (who are active church-goers who hold high positions) Unfortunately, there are no perfect people on this earth, including members and leaders of the LDS church. But, my faith is not about the members, the leaders, or even my siblings. IT IS about my relationship with deity and overcoming my trials and personal weaknesses. It is about receiving answers to deep heart-felt questions, and a guiding direction of light in my life. I believe what the scriptures say. “To trust in the Lord, and to doubt not, fear not”.

There is another promise in the Book of Mormon. That is in so many words; “if you keep the commandments and do what is right, you will be blessed”. There is a power in righteous living, regardless of what your faith is or what your proclaimed religion is. I have personally witnessed this as I have made the study of the scriptures a lifetime pursuit.

I also have many friends who are wonderful people, who are not members of the LDS church. Some of them, I believe, will be in heaven before some of the Mormons that I know. However, this does not take away my faith and testimony of the Book of Mormon, that it is a true book. Anyone who makes a serious study of it, and actually applies the principles taught in it to their lives, WILL be a better person with more power in their lives!
72. Ubi Dubium | January 3, 2009 at 1:09 pm

Connie

…I would like to encourage you and everyone’s posts on here who are against the Mormon church, to actually READ the Book of Mormon! No, not the critiques, the anti-stuff, but to take the actual book in your hands (and not dwell on biased opinions) and read it with a sincere desire to know for yourself that it is true.

See, that’s the problem. You suggest we read it with a desire to know that it IS true, not with a desire to know WHETHER it is true. You are asking us to make an assumption about the book before reading it. That’s the kind of arrogance we are talking about.

I don’t think it is fair to assume that the ex-mormons on this thread have not read their own book. I, as a non-mormon, have read a little of it myself, and I’ll go with the “Joseph Smith made the whole thing up” hypothesis.
73. Connie | January 3, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Ubi:

I am very sorry that you think I am arrogant. Developing more humility is certainly a Christ-like attribute that I am striving for more of in my life.

If you would read the entire Book of Mormon, you will discover that it actually teaches us love and humility, the antidote to pride and arrogance. If you turn to page 220, it says this: (and the “ye” refers to all of us, including me)

Are ye stripped of pride? I say unto you, if ye are not, ye are not prepared to meet God. Behold ye must prepare quickly, for the Kingodom of heaven is soon at hand, and such an one hath not eternal life.

There are many more countless verses that also teach us about how we can develop more humility and charity toward others. This is what we can all strive for, regardless of our nationality or what our religion is. These teachings are for people not members of the LDS church, current members, and even those who have left the church. The teachings are for ALL of us! The introduction page says: “the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to help others come unto Christ. This book is not just for “Mormons” . It is for the entire world.

Here are the exact words, and promise made (which is what I was originally referring to) in the back of the Book of Mormon

(Moroni 10: 3-5) Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, IF (please excuse my incorrect word, Ubi, it actually says IF and not THAT) these things are not true; and IF ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Obviously, the guy who started this blog, and others, have their countless rational reasons for why they left the church. I am sure they could even write a book or even a novel about it.

I am also sure that he and countless people can also dive in on the Book of Mormon, and take one sentence or verse statements, and try to contend with it. But this reference here is as clear as day. It says; “if ye shall ask God with a SINCERE HEART, with REAL intent, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

Here are some questions that I would like to ask you and all of you contenders concerning your beliefs.

1. When you read the Book of Mormon, did you read it with a sincere heart?
2. Did you read it with REAL INTENT to know IF it is true? Or did you pick up the book with the intent to find fault with it?
3. Did you actually read the entire book, cover to cover?
4. Have you tried to apply its teachings into your life?
4. Did you pray to God to know IF it is true?
5. Do you even read the Bible?
6. Are you even a Christian?
7. Do you even believe in and live the basic 10 commandments?

These are questions that only you can personally answer. If your answer is “no” to any of these, really, your issue is with a lack of faith, and not the Book of Mormon or the LDS church.

I can truthfully answer yes to the above questions. Like all of us, I am far from perfect and have tons of weaknesses. But every day that I mess up, I try to get back on my feet, and strive to do better. I also try to forgive others’ mistakes in the process. I really believe that if everyone, from every religion, would try and just focus on improving their own flaws, and try to have more love in their hearts toward others,(and apply the Christian teachings into our lives) we would all live in a happier, more peaceful world.
74. Ubi Dubium | January 3, 2009 at 6:17 pm

OK, I’ll answer:

1. When you read the Book of Mormon, did you read it with a sincere heart?
What do you mean by “sincere heart”? Does that mean “deciding in advance that the book is true”?

2. Did you read it with REAL INTENT to know IF it is true? Or did you pick up the book with the intent to find fault with it?
I picked it up with the intent of seeing how the beliefs of the mormons did or did not match those of other christians.

3. Did you actually read the entire book, cover to cover?
No. I read enough to realize it is a human book, just like all other books that claim divine inspiration. I’m working my way through the Koran now.

4. Have you tried to apply its teachings into your life?
Certainly not!

4. Did you pray to God to know IF it is true?
I don’t talk to imaginary sky-fairies.

5. Do you even read the Bible?
I’ve read it twice through, cover to cover, back in my church-going days. Two different translations. It’s a human book too.

6. Are you even a Christian?
Nope, not for more than 20 years. I’m a much better person now.

7. Do you even believe in and live the basic 10 commandments?
Nope. They are listed in the bible twice, and the lists are not identical, so which version do you mean? Only a few of them contain basic good advice for living. As for not making graven images or keeping the sabbath, I don’t really see the point. And the “golden rule”, which I consider the most important of all, is not even on the list! I prefer the “Eight I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts”.

I have a total “lack of faith”, and it’s not an issue at all! I’m pretty sure these were not the kind of answers you were expecting, but it’s the kind of answer you get when you take questions written by a True Believer (TM) and ask an infidel!
75. Connie | January 3, 2009 at 11:11 pm

Ubi:

In answer to your first question, no, it does not mean that “you are already deciding in advance that it is true.” Reading it with a sincere heart, instead, means this: you are sincerely wanting to know if the book is true. “Real intent” means that IF it is true, you are willing to do what it says. It also mean reading it with an open mind.

Reading it with an open mind means that its teachings COULD or COULD NOT benefit your life in some way. A sincere heart doesn’t automatically assume that it doesn’t benefit you either. It goes both ways.

I really liked what you said about prayer. I got a good laugh, about “praying to sky fairies”, that was pretty funny. Please know, though, that in saying that, I am not mocking what you think.

There is an actual reference in the Book of Mormon, where a king didn’t know if there was a God that heard his prayers. This is found in Alma 22:18

18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day.

This king, even though he didn’t know who he was praying to, prayed with a “sincere heart” and with “real intent”. Further on, in verse 23, it says that after he received his answers to his questions and followed accordingly.

I would like to compare “searching” and “reading with sincerity” to Christopher Columbus. In his day, everyone told him the world was flat. So, you’re right, Ubi, if Christopher Columbus went, in his quest for knowledge, already “assuming” that the world was flat, (with everyone already expecting him to find that knowledge,) he would have never discovered for himself that the world was actually round. But what did he do? He went, in his quest for knowledge, with an “open mind” that the world could be flat, or could be round. When he actually did his homework, he discovered the truth that the world was really round. That’s all I am saying in my reference to the Book of Mormon challenge. The promise is that you WILL discover the truth for yourself, and in a way that only you can understand it. The way you receive your answer may be different from the way I or anybody else receives their answer. But what’s important here, is you actually got a real answer to your searching question, and that you don’t just make things up, or draw conclusions without doing your homework first. That’s what sincerity is.
Faith is the belief in things not seen, but that are true. We are told that we “receive no witness until after the trial of our faith. first.”

In your response to question #6, “no, you’re not a Christian.” May I ask you, by calling yourself an “infidel”, are you actually classifying yourself as an atheist? I ask that because I believe that there is some truth to every religion. And believe it or not, there are many things that all the religions have in common. Take for instance, what you said “living the golden rule” to be the most important principle, in your opinion, taught in the Bible. I totally agree with you. I believe that living the golden rule in one’s life, is not only beneficial, but necessary for peace and happiness.

In answer to your question regarding #7, “which commandments am I referring to”, I mean the commandments listed in Exodus 20. (By the way, these are also listed in the Book of Mormon. The prophet Abinadi quotes the law of Moses from the Bible to the wicked king Noah in Mosiah 13:15-24)

1-Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2-Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images
3-Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
4-Keep the sabbath day holy
5-Honor thy father and thy mother
6-Thou shalt not kill
7-Thou shalt not commit adultery (or anything like it)
8-Thou shalt not steal
9-Thou shalt not bear false witness
10-Thou shalt not covet

Commandments #’s 5-10 I believe, all refer to the golden rule.
I also believe that the commandments are not “restrictions” for us, but they’re guidelines for more power in our lives. You’re absolutely right, the commandments are “basic good advice for living”. I have witnessed this with myself, in my own family, and with my close friends, that when we don’t live the commandments, we only bring upon ourselves, and more importantly, others, misery and sorrow.

About the sabbath day, and graven images? I can understand why you wouldn’t get that. These commandments go along with having faith in Jesus Christ. Keeping the sabbath day means to make it a sacred day, and focus on worshipping him through study and prayer, and serving others. Having graven images means putting “worldly pursuits” above serving God and living the golden rule.

When you say you prefer them to say “I’d really rather you didn’ts”, are you implying that you don’t like the fact that they are commandments, and not suggestions? We do have our free agency, and we suffer the consequences when we don’t follow them. Nobody is forced to do anything in this life.

As a believer, I also believe in science. I don’t take “the Lord created the earth in 6 days” literally. I think in discovering truth, it’s vitally necessary to also study science and factual data. When we ponder things out in our mind, we wonder and question what we read. Figuratively, the “6 days” means 6000 years. So, in the 7th day, (the 1000th year day), the Lord rested.

So, Ubi, it’s been very nice blogging with you. Please let me know if you have any more questions for me. With me as a believer, and you as a proclaimed “infidel”, we still have a lot in common. I’d also like to invite you to read the Bible and the Book of Mormon again. This time, really do the experiment. You may, or may not, develop some faith.

1- Read the book with an open mind, like I said
2- Ponder its teachings along with the teachings in the Bible
Even ponder science. Continue to read the Koran
3- Really pray with a sincere heart, even if you think you’re praying to sky fairies

The promise is: if you do it in sincerely, you will get truth for an answer. I believe that when we discover for ourselves, who God really is, it is a very real experience. In my discovery, I have found that God is not a God of fire and briimstone! God is actually very real, who loves all of us, as a father who loves his children.
76. Connie | January 3, 2009 at 11:16 pm

I meant to say the word “sincerity” not sincerely. Oh, and I want to add one more thing, Ubi. He may, or may not, even love you!
77. Ubi Dubium | January 4, 2009 at 12:53 am

OK, a few responses. First, to clarify, I am, indeed an Atheist. I was raised Presbyterian, and decided years ago that belief in the supernatural was rubbish. You will find many like me here at de-conversion. After many years I have decided that the existence of any god is about as likely as the existence of the tooth fairy or the easter bunny, and not worth worrying about. I no longer have any interest in seeking god. If on the off chance one actually exists, he knows where I live and can just show up if he is interested in my belief. I’m free for lunch.

…Christopher Columbus. In his day, everyone told him the world was flat…

A common fallacy. Actually, the spherical shape of the earth had been known since Ancient Greek times, and Eratosthenes had figured out its actual size. The Catholic church accepted this, since a sphere was considered to be the perfect shape. Columbus had listened to someone who claimed the earth was far smaller than it actually was, and so thought his voyage to the orient would be short. He was totally wrong. Good thing for him there was a continent in the way.

I ask that because I believe that there is some truth to every religion. And believe it or not, there are many things that all the religions have in common. Take for instance, what you said “living the golden rule” to be the most important principle, in your opinion, taught in the Bible. I totally agree with you. I believe that living the golden rule in one’s life, is not only beneficial, but necessary for peace and happiness.

I would agree that most religions have found some wisdom in common about how people can best live together. That’s one reason why the subject of ancient and modern religion is worth studying. This does not have any bearing on whether supernatural beings exist.

Having graven images means putting “worldly pursuits” above serving God and living the golden rule.

Maybe that’s what it means to you. To the Jews it means not bowing to idols. (Which the Catholics do all the time, so it does not mean the same to them.). To the Muslims it means not making any pictures of anything, especially their prophet, Muhammed. See, that’s the problem with relying on ancient writings, nobody agrees on what they really mean. How many thousands of interpretations are there of your bible? And what are the odds that you have the right one? Also – there are lots of “thou shalt nots” in that list of yours, but nothing about being nice to people in general.

I see you are not familiar with the “Eight I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts”. I’ll refer you to this Wikipedia article for the list, rather than quote it here. It’s a short article, and you should get a laugh out of it, as well as something to think about. My objection to your Ten Commandments ais not that they are commandments, but that they are incomplete, outdated, and read as though they were written by Bronze-Age Middle Eastern goat herders about their tribal war-god. Which they were.

My outlook is Humanist. All we have is this planet and each other. We each bear personal responsibility for what we do. No amount of attempted telepathy with invisible friends will have any measurable efect on the world. What happens when we die is that we are gone. What continues beyond our death is the effect we have left on the people we leave behind, and those to come in the future. Life is once, so we had better not screw it up.

I may read your book at some point, if I am looking for a better understanding of the person who wrote it, or the people who believe it. But there are a lot of other texts ahead of it on my list. I have yet to read the Vedas, the Jaina-Sutras, the Tao Te-Ching or Gilgamesh, among many others. Your book is a relative latecomer to the field of religious literature, and was written by a single person, without a long oral tradition preceding it, so it is really a less interesting text.

Enough rambling.
78. Connie | January 4, 2009 at 2:59 am

Once again, it was a pleasure to communicate with you. The only thing I have left to say, is if you’re going to denounce the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, at least get your facts right. Joseph Smith didn’t write it, he translated it. The book was written by several ancient prophets. The prophet “Mormon” compiled all the writings into 1 book. The Book of Mormon is NOT my book, it’s EVERYONE’S book, that want to sincerely learn the truth about it.

Fantastic question about all the interpretations of the Bible. How do we know which is true? That’s why we need the Book of Mormon, a 2nd witness of Christ. It proves that Jesus is the Christ and what is true about the Bible. That’s why we need prophets, to be God’s special witnesses to teach us the REAL TRUTH about all the tampered interpretations throughout the years. But I won’t go into more detail about truth from the Bible and prophets, because I’d be wasting my time, since you’re not sincere.

I don’t blame you for throwing up your hands, and concluding there’s no God, because all the different interpretations of the Bible are so confusing without knowing, or doing the truth experiment.

So, claim you’re atheist! It’s the easy way out, but not the truth! I’m sure you believe, in your conclusions, that we “can’t prove there is a God”! Like I said, religion isn’t about proof. It IS about faith, and we receive no witness until after the trial of our faith. But let me ask you the same question. What can you say to prove that there ISN’T a God? Everything around you, including the fascinating human body, life, the universe, space, the sun, the planets, etc denotes that there IS a God! And that very day when you do happen to die (which we all will eventually) and you see that your spirit still exists outside of your body, you can then think of me, this Connie person who testified to you on this blog the reality of life, God, and Jesus Christ!
79. BigHouse | January 4, 2009 at 12:25 pm

I cannot understand how I was previously duped by the “not evidence, but FAITH” canard. What a wonderfully self-fulfilling prophesy. And by this method, ANYTHING can be believed. What a farce.
80. Ubi Dubium | January 4, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Connie, you’re preaching. Do you think we have not heard it all before? If you want to talk, or ask questions, fine, but don’t come here to preach. It’s clear you’ve been well indoctrinated in mormonism. Congratulations, you get an A. Now go preach at somebody else.
81. Carlos | January 8, 2009 at 9:25 pm

I was interested in your reason number 3. I mentioned it to my long time Mormon friend. He said, “Yeah, I’ve heard this theory before. I believe it gained circulation among some Mormons (probably those predisposed to be bigots) during the Civil Rights Movement, to try to explain why the church at the time didn’t offer the priesthood to black members. The church itself has never taught this; to the contrary, it always taught that the day would come that black members would receive the priesthood–but exactly when was not known. The day finally came, as you know, in 1978.” I later wrote asked him, “So, what was the explanation for why at the time they didn’t have it? Do you remember the change over in ’78? And what about the ‘Indians’?” but didn’t get any reply. We’re grew up in the Bay Area of Northern California, and both born in ’67.
82. shii | January 10, 2009 at 10:47 am

This is a fascinating inside portrait of the church, but reason number 32 doesn’t really stand up for me: Ironically, these days the Mormon Church is a vocal proponent for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Why the complete turnaround in just 30 years? Did they think no one would notice?

The consistency in bigotry here is more notable than the “inconsistency” in constitutional amendments. Now that the tide is turning towards respect for other people’s love, LDS wants to do anything possible to prevent that from happening. It’s awful that they advocate these sorts of political changes but given the rest of this article it’s not surprising.

Also, a little word for Ubi: You are not going to find any notable evidence for God in holy texts, although maybe you’ll find some nice stories (I recommend the Bhagavad Gita). Religious people get their faith from “God”, not from books, and to understand what that means you should read some theologians– for example, “I Don’t Believe in Atheists” by Chris Hedges.
83. Brent | January 10, 2009 at 4:04 pm

It is an odd thing I suppose, to speak of an experiment whose chief requirement is to read, and to ask God, in the name of Christ, in complete humility and sincerity, if the Book of Mormon is true. The familiar scientific method, so far as the experimentalist’s approach is concerned, says “if you will tune your instrument is this way, and point it in this direction, you will see or discern evidence that will convince you of this truth”.
The instruments are varied. Some are extremely sophisticated. Others are modest. The principal requirement is that the experiment be such that it can be reproduced by others. Some are willing to accept the opinions of other men, without performing the essential experiment that is prescribed. But in matters of the deepest import, I submit that this is not wise. There is no substitute, as it pertains to discovery of the Book of Mormon, than to perform the prescribed experiment.
Well, please count me as one who has performed the experiment mentioned by several of the respondents regarding the Book of Mormon (as it is related in Moroni 10:3-5 of the Book of Mormon). My experiments have extended over nearly 40 years now, and includes at least forty readings of the Book of Mormon. And I find the evidence of its truthfulness, merit and divine origin to be overwhelming. I find great harmony in its teachings as compared to the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The Book of Mormon has been an endless source of inspiration and guidance in my life, since I first picked it up as a young man. This exploration has been the most important of my life. And I recommend the experiment to all honest seekers of truth.
84. LeoPardus | January 10, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Read the BoM with a non-critical, non-reasoning, willing-to-be-duped mindset and you WILL enter into the wonderful world of delusion.

Read in in light of archaeological evidence, and with your brain turned on…… well the results are rather different.

There ya go Brent and Connie. Evangelism from the other side of the coin. Why don’t you try it? [Don't worry, I already know why. Because you already KNOW the truth.]
85. Ubi Dubium | January 11, 2009 at 2:35 pm

@Shii -
First you state that I’m not going to find evidence for God in a book, then you turn around and recommend a book! My irony meter just went “Sproingg!”
86. Kevin Parkin | January 13, 2009 at 6:59 am

For goodness sakes! Where do I begin? You people are hilarious.

I needed a good laugh so I read a blog from this same ‘de-conversion’ series called ” Reasons I no longer believe – God is not trustworthy” and left comment # 76. Then I read the most recent blogations here and have the following comments:

First: Connie #71 #73 #75 #78 and Len #58 Please learn to edit.

Second: I have been very busy lately, but now have time to response to #53. Your points are well taken. My responses:

1) While some prominent Jewish thinkers do acknowledge the absense of archeological evidence of the exodus, most Jewish and Christian believers rag on the Book of Mormon (or Mormon’s Book as I like to call it) as uncredible because of the lack of archeological evidence. For Heavan’s sake, Jesus lacks archeological evidence. Columbus’s voyages lack archeological evidence. The Apolo moon landings lack archelogical evidence. (I realize there are footprints on the Moon, but you get my point). But there are many other historical and observational and literary evidences which richly suppoprt these and other Biblical and Book of Mormon accounts. My original point with respect to Moses was that he and other Biblical prophets are accepted without reservation by their supporters (without archelogicl evidence) so please allow the Book of Mormon prophetic supporters the same consideration. We get it – prophets rarely leave behind archeological evidence.

2) You were right that my DNA argument with respect to my grandfather was flawed. Turns out, mitochondrial DNA (mt DNA) is used to track human decendency and therefore human migration. mt DNA is passed only through females; I should have used my grandmother in my example. She had seven sons and no daughters. Five of the sons served in WWII; four survived. Of the six remaining sons only two had daughtes – my sisters and cousins. Of all my sisters and cousins, none have given birth to girls. And, since they are all over age 40, none will likely ever have daughters. So, upon the death of my sisters and female cousins, every trace of my grandmothers mtDNA will vanish from the earth’s population. (Google “NOVA: Tracing ancestry with mtDNA” for more information).

3) In my blog #52, I pointed out that the Bible is not a history of the middle east and the Book of Mormon in not a history of the Americas. They are family journals – Abraham and Lehi’s families. Bringing this to people’s attention seams unnecessary because it is so obvious. I said, these books are “collections of personal thoughts, impressions, sermons, anecdotes, individual experiences and testimonials”. Then, you quipped back, “and halucinations” and then mentioned elephants and chariots. Another blogger mentioned precious metal currency and the wheel.

With respect to halucinaltions: I acknowledge that some people halucinate; whom those people are is the real question. Did Mary halucinate or simply makeup that story of the angel of God impregnating her? Did Moses halucinate or simply makeup that story of the burning bush? Did Jesus halucinate or simply makeup that transfiguation story? Did Abindigo and his two brothers halucinate or simply makeup that story about being in the firey oven without being burned to death? Throw in some Saul, a little King David, some talk of a flood and building a boat big enough to hold a complete collection of every animal species and you have an halucination brew that would make a witch all giddy. Look, calling a black cat ‘black’ is one thing, but labeling a person’s journal entry about his real experience as an ‘halucination’ is beneath your inteligence. And, the Book of Mormon does not mention elephants.

4) Migratory and human social history are complicated topics. For you to declare that Lehi’s family would not have assimilated into a wider American population is simply beyond your declatory rights. This happened 26 centuries ago; you can’t possibly know what Lehi’s family endured. That is not unless the family left a journal behind for you to read. We know about Marco Polo, James Cook, Lewis & Clark and many others not because of the records of the indiginous people whom they encountered, but by way of their own journals. The Book of Mormon isn’t so complicated, people; it’s a family journal!

No offense to all you Mormons out there, but quoting Moroni’s promise about the ‘sincere heart and real intent’ is unnecessary, because his promise is unneccesary. No one needs Moroni’s permission or promise to approach Diety for an interpersonal inquiry. But, Moroni’s words do act as a reminder to use rational thought in our quest for truth and knowledge (no halucinations allowed) and to avoid manuevering or manipulating our own conclusions before all the facts are in.

Third: Right back at you #57: I said Jesus was a brick contractor. You implied that I meant he was a mason. Well, I suppose he was a brick mason. Yes, I know that the Masonic order of which Washington, Jefferson, and Smith were members originated long after Jesus.
87. Andy | February 22, 2009 at 4:40 pm

very interesting read…I was raised in the church…Dad came from a long line of Utah Mormons, Mom converted…I never had a desire to go on a mission…never have read the B of M…tried several times…found it boring (too much like a fairly tale or bad science fiction)…I was raised with almost no LDS friends other than those I met at church…none in my rural school…started enjoying good beer at 16 and still do…went to Ricks College for 1 year…really cut into my drinking time…and I was never really a believer…and I married a wonderful Catholic girl and have 2 kids…and now at age 60 I’ve had a great life so far without the church in it…
88. Jay | March 15, 2009 at 6:37 am

“…they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do
they understand.” Matthew 13:13. It is incredible how people with so little study can presume to speak authoritatively. This is true of both sides of the argument. I have studied and written books on both Old and New Testaments, completed studies of the Koran, the Vedas, the Analects, various Buddhist writings, Tao Te Ching, the Apocrypha, the writings of Josephus, and the histories of all the main Christian sects with particular stress on Catholicism. Further, I hold a degree in philosophy with emphasis on deductive and predicate logic. In light of all this, including a view of the argument studied from every angle, the Book of Mormon continues to be the most correct and consistent book I have ever read. I was not a member and never had the opportunity of Mormon “brainwashing”. The book speaks for itself. I suggest reading it unbiasedly and with no ulterior motive (either to confirm truthfulness or find fault). Enjoy it for the gift it is.
Note-I won’t be checking back to read the presumptuous and ill-founded diatribes i’m sure this comment will evoke. Please keep them to yourselves until you’ve at least read the book.
89. Haider Naseeb | March 20, 2009 at 5:40 am

very good
90. Dennis | March 30, 2009 at 12:13 am

Holding a M.A. in linguistics from the University of Colorado and having also studied all of the books mentioned by Jay (above) I concur completely with his analysis. It is obvious that most who have commented here have never taken the time to educate themselves on the Book of Mormon. Having studied it in depth, as a linguist, I find the use of so much Middle-Eastern verbiage and customs uncanny and I wonder to myself how anyone in rural New York in 1830 could have possessed such knowledge, much less an unschooled and ignorant farm-boy. And then, comparing Joseph Smith’s writing style from his early journals to that of the Book of Mormon again gives the rational world reason for pause, as the styles are completely different. I think one would be wise to do the research before commenting so vociferously against this wonderful book.
91. LeoPardus | March 30, 2009 at 10:57 am

Of for crying out loud Dennis. Pick the crap back up, close the can, and take it all elsewhere. You didn’t stumble into a turnip patch of morons you can hoodwink with a degree. More than a few of us have read that book (and the PoGC and the BoC and the D&C). We know as well as you that it’s a cheap rip off of phraseology from the KJV bible plus some conspiracy theory-like, bad historical revisionism thrown in.
Take it to your local ward meeting. I’m sure they’ll be impressed.
92. Dennis | March 31, 2009 at 10:27 pm

I only ask that one compare the 1832 Journal entries of Joseph Smith with the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon and Joseph’s dictated revelations one with the other. The inquisitor will find such a distinct writing style in each that they would be hard pressed to surmise that the same person wrote them.

Leo, my friend, perhaps you could show what you term to be a “cheap rip-off of phraseology” and then explain how an individual with a third grade education could have the extensive knowledge of Olive cultivation (not known in the Western Hemisphere at this time) as is described in the allegory of Zenos. Then perhaps you could explain how such an individual could write such detailed and lengthy Chiasmus. Then explain the statement by the native born Arab translator of the Book of Mormon who declared that the text flowed easily into the language and how the customs described in the Book of Mormon would have to have come from someone intimate with Middle Eastern culture.

Leo, your little bad-tempered rant, above, is just that and oozes with the ignorance and hatred anti-Mormons have perpetuated upon the faith since its genesis. I have studied the Book of Mormon and ancient scripture for more than 5 decades. You can present no argument that I have not heard before and personally debunked. So, you can keep your little juvenile tirade to yourself and present factual evidence in your debate (I haven’t seen any presented here as yet – even the author of this piece is wrong on so many points that it is hard to take him seriously). So far all I have seen are the same tired, old anti-Mormon arguments that have been around forever. Along with the preacher of Ecclesiastes I ask, “Is there nothing new under the sun?”
93. LeoPardus | April 1, 2009 at 11:54 am

Dennis:

Perhaps you can explain why not one scintilla of archeological evidence has ever supported Mormon claims of events in the Americas.
Or maybe why the “Arab translator” story has no verification outside of Mormon story telling.
Or maybe why the original BoM has multitudinous textual differences from today’s versions. (This despite the BoM being “the most perfectly translated book”.)
Or maybe why the church has changed positions on blacks as members/clergy, and on polygamy.

I’m sure you’ve heard those before of course. Just as I’ve heard efforts to explain them away. The efforts are no more impressive than similar efforts to explain away all the problems with any other christian sect.

Oh and by the way, do Mormons have different behavioral standards toward unbelievers from those expected of other christians? I ask because I can’t square your nasty-tempered, attack-dog response with the several bible scriptures that advocate patience, gentleness, not returning evil for evil, turning the other cheek, and so on. So do Mormons have a pass on snide, bad-tempered attitudes, or are you just a hypocrite like the overwhelming majority of other “christians”?
94. Dennis | April 1, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Oh what a nasty, little, Godless atheist you are! Seems you can dish it out but you can’t take it! But not so quick. I have asked for your response first. I have debated all of these subjects at length and even your asking about them shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Oh and I notice that you still present no factual evidence. Oh well, that is typical!

But just a samipling of the evidence in question (since you atheist aren’t prone to spiritual confirmation of anything you only believe in things that you can see). After you read these proofs if you still have questions I have hundreds of more documented pages.

Concerning the original Aztec and Maya inhabitants of Mexico at the time of European conquest and colonization, Alan Knight writes:

“Conversion was further facilitated by the many points of ostensible similarity between Mesoamerican religion and Catholicism. Elements such as sacrifice, confession, asceticism, divine intercession (and, in Yucatán, baptism) [sic] were common to both, at least in the eyes of heterodox Indian converts” (Alan Knight, “Mexico: The Colonial Era” (Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 39).

And of course anyone having the least knowledge of Mesoamerican History knows about the easily conquered Aztecs because they assumed Cortés to be the fair-skinned, bearded savior of the Toltec (and borrowed by the Aztec) Quetzalcoatl (Central American deity of creativity and life) who had promised to some day return. The Aztecs also practiced a corrupted form of the sacrament (communion) where they actually ate the flesh (the right thigh) and drank the blood of sacrificial victims as part of a religious tribute to their god Huitzilopochtli (patron deity of the Mexica-Aztecs), “If you were a slave between owners, literally “on the market,” your life was in jeopardy. The bright side was that if you were physically attractive, you might be purchased to be a deity impersonator and live the life of a god – or goddess – for a full year before being the featured player in the ceremony dedicated to that deity. The end was the same, however, your still-beating heart was ripped from your body and then your right thigh was delicately prepared as the day’s special on the menu of the ensuing feast” (Susan Toby Evans, “Ancient Mexico & Central America: Archaeology and Culture History” (London: Thames & Hudson, 2004), 467). Drinking the blood and eating the flesh of “sacrificial victims was a sacred act, because the dead body had been sanctified by the ritual, if not by having served as a deity impersonator beforehand, and the victims soul was thought to enter a privileged afterlife. Only nobles could participate in meals involving sacrificial victims, and if the victim was a war captive, the warrior who made the capture was awarded the most valued part of the body, the right thigh…transubstantiation is the ritual conversion, in the context of the eucharist or mass, of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Sincere participation in holy communion depends upon belief in transubstantiation. With their sophisticated ability to sense supernatural power morphing from one form to another, the Aztec’s found the concept of transubstantiation fully understandable, because this was their belief in consuming the body of the sacrificial victim” (Susan Toby Evans, “Ancient Mexico & Central America: Archaeology and Culture History” (London: Thames & Hudson, 2004), 506).

Why would there have been so many vestiges of Christianity found among the Indigenous peoples: like the belief in a sacrificial savior, the return of a fair skinned Messiah that had once walked among them (for whom they mistook Cortés), the practice of asceticism (orders of priesthood), a type of communion that was practiced (although perverted), and the practice of Baptism? Where did they learn such things?
“In pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, ritual confession was related both to Tezcatlipoca, whose omnipresence enabled him to see all, and to Tlazolteotl, a manifestation of the female earth goddess known as the “filth eater” since the earth received everything. Confession could take place only once in a lifetime, and therefore the moment for it was carefully chosen. The penitent confessed his sins to a priest who was bound to secrecy; the confession was solely for the deity for whom the priest acted as agent. Then the priest, according to the severity of the sin, set a penance that, once accomplished, provided immunity from further temporal punishment. Durán explains that the confession was “not [always] oral as some have claimed,”which he deduced from the fact that when he heard the Catholic confessions of Indians, they often brought pictures of their sins, evidently in the style of the codices. Although the modes of pre-Columbian confession varied somewhat from area to area—among the Zapotecs, for example, there were annual public confessions while the Maya might confess to family members in the absence of a priest —the correspondence of all these practices to those of the Christian confessional was remarkable. It is little wonder that Durán was led to conclude that “in many cases the Christian religion and the heathen ways found a common ground.” (Roberta H. Markman and Peter T. Markman, “Masks of the Spirit: Image and Metaphor in Mesoamerica” (Berkley: University of California Press, 1989)

He was amazed as well by similarities in the rite of communion fundamental to both religions as each prescribed the ritual consumption of a sacrificed god. While “the Catholics drank wine and swallowed a wafer to symbolize their contact with the divine blood and body of Christ, the Mexica consumed images of the gods made of amaranth and liberally annointed with sacrificial blood.”[48] The dough that formed those images was known by the Aztecs as “the flesh of god,”[49] a ritual substitute for the flesh of sacrificial victims who had become gods but a substitute paralleling remarkably the Christian idea of transubstantiation. Other similarities in ritual practice existed as well: both religions accompanied ritual by the burning of incense in sacred places, and the priests who conducted that ritual in both cases “chanted, wore elaborate robes, made vows of celibacy, lived in communities … and wore their hair in a tonsure.”[50] Pilgrimages to especially sacred places played a major part in both. In fact, pre-Conquest pilgrimage centers, such as the one at Chalma, soon became, and remain even today, Catholic pilgrimage centers.” (Roberta H. Markman and Peter T. Markman, “Masks of the Spirit: Image and Metaphor in Mesoamerica” (Berkley: University of California Press, 1989).

Dr. Coe says, “Yet long before this, (the crossing of the Bearing Strait) boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia…. The presence or absence of a land bridge from Siberia to Alaska is thus not necessarily relevant to the problem, for the first Americans may well have taken a maritime route” (Michael D. Coe, “The Maya”, 7th ed. (New York: Thames and Hudson, 2005), 41). This statement is in accord with the Book of Mormon and was ridiculed only 50 years ago. Scholarship brings to light new facts. Have you ever heard of Thor Heyderdahl and his Kon Tiki expedition? You should check it out!

The twelve tribes were scattered. Do you know where they went? If you do, you are alone! It is for this reason they are known as the “lost tribes of Israel”. Jesus spoke concerning these lost tribes when He said, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd” (John 10:16). Also Ezekiel spoke of the records left by these people descended from Joseph in Ezekiel 37:19 and in the blessings that Israel gave to his sons he said to Joseph that he was to be a persecuted tribe but would yet be fruitful and multiply and his descendants would go beyond the borders that then encompassed them (Gen 49:22). Where are the tribes of Joseph these days (Ephraim and Manasseh)?

Good research scholars take parallels in historical settings and make correlations to other civilizations all the time. Rarely is anything cut and dry – this is the reason for research. Quoting Indiana Jones in “Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade”, “X never, I repeat never, marks the spot”. Many archaeologists and scholars (Coe, Evans, Pool, Schele, Freidel and Thompson – (both of them, Edward and Sir Eric – among them) have long been under the opinion that maritime migrations in small quantities helped to populate and influence Mesoamerican culture (see above Coe citation).

Second, as you are wont to do, you read into passages what they do not say. As the quote from Knight that you gave had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Third, you, apparently a novice on Mesoamerican History, are ignorant of the work of Bishop Diego de Landa (the plunderer and destroyer of much of the History of Mesoamerica – but in the process leaving us with his own reactions and studies of the Maya of the Yucatán. As a Franciscan monk he arrived in the Yucatán around 1542. Therefore, he was one of the first Europeans to contact these people. His is a “primary source” if there ever was one. Let me post some of his comments:

“Baptism is not found anywhere in the Indies save here in Yucatán, and even with a word meaning to be born anew or a second time, the same as the Latin renascer. Thus in the language of Yucatan “sihil” means ‘to be born anew,’ or a second time, but only however in composition; thus “caput-sihil” means to be reborn. Its origin we have been unable to learn” (Diego de Landa, “Yucatán Before and After the Conquest”, trans. William Gates (1937), 42). Evidently Landa wondered where in the world the Maya could have come up with this concept.

“It (baptism) is something … they have always used and for which they have had such devotion that no one fails to receive it; they had such reverence for it that those guilty of sins, or who knew they were about to sin, were obliged to confess to the priest, in order to receive it; and they had such faith in it that in no manner did they ever take it a second time. They believed that in receiving it they acquired a predisposition to good conduct and habits, protection against being harmed by the devils in their earthly affairs, and that through it and living a good life they would attain a beatitude hereafter which, like that of Mahomet, consisted in eating and drinking” (Diego de Landa, “Yucatán Before and After the Conquest”, trans. William Gates (1937), 42-43).

“The baptism … was given between the ages of three and twelve” (Diego de Landa, “Yucatán Before and After the Conquest”, trans. William Gates (1937), 43).

“Whenever one desired to have his child baptized, he went to the priest and made his wish known to him, who then published this in the town, with the day chosen, which they took care should be of good omen. This being done, the solicitant, being thus charged with giving the fiesta, selected at his discretion some leading man of the town to assist him in the matter” (Diego de Landa, “Yucatán Before and After the Conquest”, trans. William Gates (1937), 43).

“The chacs then went to the children and placed on the heads of all white cloths which their mothers had brought for the purpose. They asked of the largest ones whether they had done any bad thing, or obscene conduct, and if any had done so, they confessed them and separated them from the others” (Diego de Landa, “Yucatán Before and After the Conquest”, trans. William Gates (1937), 44).

The mode of Baptism: “The one elected by the parents as director of the fiesta took a bone given him by the priest, went to the children and menaced each one with the bone on the forehead, nine times. After this he wet the bone in a jar of water he carried, and with it anointed them on the forehead, the face, and between the fingers of their hands and the bones of their feet, without saying a word” (Diego de Landa, “Yucatán Before and After the Conquest”, trans. William Gates (1937), 44).

Here it is interesting to note that at the end of the baptism and feast given to honor it something akin to the descent of the Holy Ghost occurred, “The fiesta then ended with long eating and drinking; and this fiesta was called em-ku, which means ‘the descent of the god.’” (Diego de Landa, “Yucatán Before and After the Conquest”, trans. William Gates (1937), 45).

Don’t you think these similarities are a little too much for coincidence. Where could they have possibly come up with this idea that is so akin to Christian teachings?

“The outline of that transformational process is suggested in the newly installed ruler’s depiction of himself as one of those who will “pronounce for thee,” that is, Tezcatlipoca, and simultaneously “pronounce for thy progenitor,” that is, Ometeotl.” (Roberta H. Markman and Peter T. Markman, “Masks of the Spirit: Image and Metaphor in Mesoamerica” (Berkley: University of California Press, 1989), 141) – sounds like He backs up the asceticism allegation of Knight as well.

“One of the most intriguing aspects in the study of prehistory is the question of contacts and influences between different cultures…(scholars arrive at their thesis) about cultural connections, based on similarities in arts and crafts and other customs” (Carl Waldman. “Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes”, 3rd ed. (New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006), 180). The author then goes on to show the similarities of the Mississippian culture of Mound builders, having their temples built upon the Mounds as well as many other similarities, with the Maya and Aztec drawing many scholars to come to the conclusion that the Mound builders of the Mississippi are descendants of the Maya and Aztec (also shown from the linguistics aspect). But wait, this also corresponds to what the Book of Mormon tells us about the people on this continent and to what Joseph Smith said concerning the Mississippian culture now known as the Hopewell.

And then we have a ton of similarities between the Christian faith that was brought over by the first Spanish settlers and conquistadors and those of the Maya religion:

“Conversion was further facilitated by the many points of ostensible similarity between Mesoamerican religion and Catholicism. Elements such as sacrifice, confession, asceticism, divine intercession (and, in Yucatán, baptism) [sic] were common to both, at least in the eyes of heterodox Indian converts” (Alan Knight, “Mexico: The Colonial Era” (Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 39).
Where would the Indians have gotten such notions as these if Christ had not come to preach them to them? Bishop Diego de Landa wrote many pages concerning this method of Baptism, which was preceded by confession and forsaking of sins and followed by the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, (what the Maya called “emku” meaning literally the “descent of the god”). (Diego de Landa, “Yucatán Before and After the Conquest”, trans. William Gates (1937), 45).

Now lets compare to the Book of Mormon:

(3 Ne. 11:23)
23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.
(3 Ne. 27:20)
20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.
(Mosiah 26:29)
…if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.
95. Dennis | April 1, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Also as far as archaeological evidence you may want to read “A Forest of Kings” by Linda Schele and David Friedel who mention a line of Kings that were found on certain stele in Palenque, Mexico that put two Jaredite rulers in the same succession and time period in which the Book of Mormon places them (Kish and Lib). There is plenty of Archaeolofical evidence for those who wish to open their eyes and look at all of the correlations.
96. Joe | April 1, 2009 at 1:24 pm

If you read the book of Moroni it states that 2 million people die in a battle near the “Hill Cumorah” where the golden plates were eventually found by Joseph Smith.

Yet, there is not one iota of evidence of any bodies, armour, skeletons of horses, weapons, food remnants, or housing for all of those people. Mormons always mention Mexico or South America and advance claims for the Jaredites or Lamanites based on Inca, Aztec or Mayan ruins. But we are talking 2 million dead people in New York that have simply vanished!!

Imagine ALL THE REMAINS of a city like San Diego simply disappearing after a thousand years. That is simply impossible. All of those people, with all of their dwelling places, and all of their needs would leave an archaelogical imprint even a thousand years later without question.

The Book of Mormon does not have any archaeological evidence or historicity—if it did the Jaredites and Lamanites would be mentioned in history books as a “fact”—-but they are not because they never existed.
97. Joe | April 1, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Above, when I mention 2 million people vanishing in New York, I failed to mention that the Hill Cumorah is in New York. Supposedly a HUGE civilization existed around New York and it’s environs, complete with palaces, towers, and numerous buildings and homes for the millions who existed at that time.

They are ALL gone–there is no evidence now that they ever existed. Apparently bodies in New York 1500 years ago were subject to evaporation.
98. LeoPardus | April 1, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Dennis:

OK. So the answer to my last couple questions in post 93 would be, “Yes. Mormons have different standards. They are free to be as ugly as they please.” Thank you for confirming that. So I want to follow a religion that produces thin-skinned, arrogant, sharp-tongued attack dogs? Don’t think so.

I did read through your over long post. Yes. It’s easy enough to explain the findings of christian-like rituals. But since that would only generate “hundreds of more pages”, I can’t see any reason to bother.

Here’s what you’re not getting. I don’t need hundreds of pages of “evidence” varying between lousy, easily explained, and outright wrong. I don’t even care if you have good archeology. Because, you see, my problem isn’t coming up with arguments, or “evidence”, or claims, or stories, or anecdotes, or manuscripts. My problem with theistic belief is coming up with (or rather, not coming up with) a deity.

Doesn’t matter if it’s Mormonism, Catholicism, Shamanism, Jainism, Pastafarianism, or whateverism. None of them actually have a real deity. None of them can show me the kind of power seen in the stories of Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.

I’m not interested in some made up deity that requires reams of “evidence” or armies of apologists to prop up his supposed “existence”. I would only be interested in a deity if someone could show me that they “come not just with words, but with power”. (that’s in one of Paul’s epistles); or maybe they could say, “If you don’t believe in my words, believe in the miracles I have shown you.” (That’s in the Gospels.)

So keep your “hundreds of pages”. When you come up with an actual, working deity, let me know. (Hopefully it’d be a deity that doesn’t engender shitty attitudes, anger, and rabies in its followers.)

OK now Dennis. The last word is all yours.
99. Dennis | April 1, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Leo, my unbelieving friend, I only calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. What did Jesus say to the unbelieving and those who lie about the truth of others, I believe his words were, “Pharisee, Hypocrite, Den of Vipers.” And on another occasion he turned over tables and chased the money changers out of the temple. You will find I don’t mince words and don’t play the hypocrite. I say what I think. No, I don’t turn the other cheek when someone is spouting unsubstantiated lies. I will defend my faith and what I know to the death. That is who I am – I am first and foremost an imperfect human.

Leo says: “I did read through your over long post. Yes. It’s easy enough to explain the findings of christian-like rituals. But since that would only generate “hundreds of more pages”, I can’t see any reason to bother.”

Dennis: Sure you can. Saying is one thing doing is another. I believe you are all talk and a phony. So far you have had the audacity to speak of things you know nothing about. And I will continue to rebut your misconceptions.

Leo: Here’s what you’re not getting. I don’t need hundreds of pages of “evidence” varying between lousy, easily explained, and outright wrong. I don’t even care if you have good archeology. Because, you see, my problem isn’t coming up with arguments, or “evidence”, or claims, or stories, or anecdotes, or manuscripts. My problem with theistic belief is coming up with (or rather, not coming up with) a deity.

Dennis: Leo, my brother, you are free to believe (or in your case, not to believe) in anything you choose. Just don’t infringe on my right to do so. You have just proven that you don’t care about evidence, no matter what it says because then you will have to dispute your beloved scientific rational in the face of other science. I didn’t come here to convert anyone. My sole purpose is to vanquish lies and mistruths about my faith and I am quite well versed in this arena having studied these things extensively for 5 decades.

Leo: Doesn’t matter if it’s Mormonism, Catholicism, Shamanism, Jainism, Pastafarianism, or whateverism. None of them actually have a real deity. None of them can show me the kind of power seen in the stories of Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.

Dennis: Faith precedes the miracle, my friend. I have seen that power. I was raised from my deathbed through this power and as a missionary I have utilized this same power to heal the terminally ill (this was forty years ago and she still lives). So I have seen the power that the non-believer cannot see. You might say I see with more refined vision.

Leo: I’m not interested in some made up deity that requires reams of “evidence” or armies of apologists to prop up his supposed “existence”. I would only be interested in a deity if someone could show me that they “come not just with words, but with power”. (that’s in one of Paul’s epistles); or maybe they could say, “If you don’t believe in my words, believe in the miracles I have shown you.” (That’s in the Gospels.)

Dennis: Then go back and read the journals of those associated with the founding of the Church. There were many miracles in those days – including an experience like at Pentecost in association with the Kirtland Temple. As Jesus once said, “Blessed are those that have seen and believed but more blessed are those that have not seen and yet believe.” You do as you wish, but I would suggest you at least look at the purported miracles that happen everyday.

Leo: So keep your “hundreds of pages”. When you come up with an actual, working deity, let me know. (Hopefully it’d be a deity that doesn’t engender shitty attitudes, anger, and rabies in its followers.)

Dennis: You mean like the attitude you, who have no god, have. Again, seems you can dish it but can’t take it.

Leo: OK now Dennis. The last word is all yours.

Dennis: Thanks. I just had it (assuming you have nothing else to say). I sincerely hope you find what you seek and can find happiness in your life without having to deride others for their belief in something you cannot see.
100. Dennis | April 2, 2009 at 12:15 am

Joe,

You are evidently ignorant of the two Cumorahs theory and the book of Mormon only place the plates in the Hill Cumorah in New York – not all the records. A close reading of the Book of Mormon will show you that Moroni actually only took a few records with him (The plates from whence the Book of Mormon was translated) to another location after the huge battle. There is a theory that the Cerro Vigio is the other Cummorah and this location does have all of the traits associated with that final battle. The Book of Mormon does not place the battle in New York. The majority of archaeological evidence uncovered suggests the Tehuantepec Isthmus as the location for most of the Book of Mormon happenings, although the Hopewell culture also suggests many similarities based on recent findings. I have spent many years in the Maya Peninsula in research and have had conversations with some of the greatest minds in Archaeology – even the Smithsonian has retracted its statement concerning the Book of Mormon in recent years because of new discoveries. So if you want to go against me on archaeological, anthropological and linguistic evidences I hope you have done your homework.

The linguistic evidences are even more amazing. Since linguistics is my profession and if you are interested I will be glad to submit that evidence to you as well.

As I have said before, you are free to believe or not believe in whatever you choose. I won’t try to change you – but I will defend such allegations as you have made. You want tolerance for your atheistic stance, well practice what you preach and allow others the freedom to worship and believe what they will. The problem with the godless is they have lost the great gift and power of faith.
101. Dennis | April 2, 2009 at 12:31 am

Correction: That is Cerro Vigia!
102. Joe | April 2, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Dennis—

Actually, I am not an atheist. I am a Christian. You are correct—you are free to believe what you will. But I have read the book of Mormon, along with many other Mormon documents, and it is obvious that they are the work of a very clever writer/writers.

Just the fact that the plates, found in America in 1820 in a hillside, are “translated” into 1611 English is enough to give one pause. And the fact that exact passages of King James Bible are used (many from Isaiah in the book of 1 Nephi), with all of the italic additions in place (these were added as “helps” by the 1611 translators, and were not part of the original manuscripts), shows the were “lifted” from that translation.

The Mayas, Incas and Aztecs were a separate and distinct culture, and have nothing to do with Lamanites or Jaredites. I think you need to do some more reading. Even Mormon archaeologists themselves (the ones willing to be completely honest) admit there is no evidence for millions of inhabitants, palaces, towers, elephants, horses, weapons, etc——you have a few Mayan, Inca and Aztec ruins distinct to their culture—–not Semitic in nature.
103. Joe | April 2, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Here is just one site describing the absence of Mormon archaeological proof (there are many, many more):

http://www.watchman.org/lds/bmzero.htm
104. Dennis | April 3, 2009 at 4:53 pm

Joe: Just the fact that the plates, found in America in 1820 in a hillside, are “translated” into 1611 English is enough to give one pause. And the fact that exact passages of King James Bible are used (many from Isaiah in the book of 1 Nephi), with all of the italic additions in place (these were added as “helps” by the 1611 translators, and were not part of the original manuscripts), shows the were “lifted” from that translation.

Dennis: Actually the plates were shown to Joseph in 1823. The plates were not delivered to Joseph for translation until September 22, 1827. This may be a small point but it shows that you are sloppy in your research and know not what you are talking about. Furthermore, a quick review of Isaiah and Nephi will show you substantial differences in some of the texts, many of which are much closer to translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which Joseph, of course, had no access to since they had not yet been discovered). As for the 17th century English vernacular being used – the Book of Mormon is a text of scripture and was written as such. Scripture in Joseph’s day was written in this mode and so the translation was done in this mode. As a professional linguist and translator I can tell you this would have been common practice and still is today with many modern translations of the Bible that continue to use the same vernacular. Scripture would have been translated as scripture complete with all of the “thees” and “thous”. When I pray I use the same style of English in my prayers as a sign of respect to my Father in Heaven. If this is your stumbling block I don’t see how you could possibly believe in the Bible either – frankly it has many more credibility problems than does the Book of Mormon but I am able to take those things on faith (the parting of the Red Sea, The sun and moon standing still in the heavens while Joshua led the assault upon the Amorites, a Virgin birth that resulted in a super being that could beat death). And yet on these points I exercise the faith necessary to believe them. The Book of Mormon’s clams are simple compared to these. Therefore, your stumbling block is small indeed.

Joe: The Mayas, Incas and Aztecs were a separate and distinct culture, and have nothing to do with Lamanites or Jaredites. I think you need to do some more reading. Even Mormon archaeologists themselves (the ones willing to be completely honest) admit there is no evidence for millions of inhabitants, palaces, towers, elephants, horses, weapons, etc——you have a few Mayan, Inca and Aztec ruins distinct to their culture—–not Semitic in nature.

Dennis: Again I would suggest you do a little homework. The following articles in Academic tomes may enlighten you understanding:

A 1971 paper showed that there exists a large, detailed body of parallels between the civilizations of the Near East and Mesoamerica in sacred architecture and practices, astronomy, calendar, writing, beliefs, symbolism, and other aspects of culture (Sorenson, John L. (1971). The Significance of an Apparent Relationship between the Ancient Near East and Mesoamerica. In C.L. Riley, J.C. Kelley, C.W. Pennington, and R.L. Rands (Ed.), “Man Across the Sea:Problems of Pre-Colombian Contacts” (pp.219-41). Austin: University of Texas Press). Also see my above post to Leo on the findings of Diego de Landa and certain cultural anthropologists.

Cyrus H. Gordon, a Jewish scholar, and other renowned academics have compiled interesting data on that point, as well (Gordon, C.H. et al (1971) “Before Columbus: Links Between the Old World and Ancient America” New York: Crown).

Alexander von Wathenau published images of ceramic figurines from Mesoamerica that definitely show Jewish faces (v. Wathenau, A. (1965), “Altamerikanische Tonplastik: Das Menschenbild der Nuen Welt” Baden-Baden: Holle).

And we linguists have some evidence for possible connections between Semitic languages and Mesoamerican Zapotec and related tongues on one hand and Uto-Aztecan on another (Agrinier P. (1969). Linguistic Evidences for the Presence of Israelites in Mexico. “Society for Early Historic Archaeology, Newsletter and Proceedings”. 112, 4-5.

Brian Stubbs in his paper “Elements of Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan: A Summary of the Data” released by FARMS points to at least 1000 (one thousand) roots with phonological and other linguistic patterns consistent with creolization involving a Semitic language and Uto-Aztecan.
Mary L. Foster, a linguist at the University of California, has shown evidence of a connection between :Afro-Asiatic” languages, especially Egyptian, and old Mesoamerican languages such as Mixe-Zoquean (Foster M.L. (1998) The Transoceanic Trail: The Proto-Pelegian Language Phylum. “Pre-Columbiana 1”. Boulder: Westview Press).
I also refer you to the stele of Palenque in which were sculpted the names of Jaredite Kings, Lib and Kish, in the same chronological order and time period in which the Book of Mormon places them (see Schele, L and Freidel, D. (1990) “A Forest of Kings” New York: Harper).
Now Joe, do you see the fallacy of your argument. Above you attributed something to the Book of Mormon that it does not claim i.e., a great battle on and around the Hill Cumorah in upper New York State. If you had indeed read the Book of Mormon as you had claimed then you would know the fallacy in that argument as well – but allow me to educate you anyway. Around 385 AD there was a great battle around the Hill Cumorah (not the Cumorah in New York, which naming had its genesis in 1829 among Joseph Smith’s restorationist movement) but at another hill that was called Cumorah by the Nephites (it was known as Ramah by the Jaredites). In this battle hundreds of thousand were slain. Now to what the Book of Mormon actually says concerning the incidents and burial of the records.
On this occasion the prophet Mormon said: “Knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, SAVE IT WERE THESE FEW PLATES WHICH I GAVE UNTO MY SOM MORONI” (Moroni 6:6).
So Mormon gave his son, Moroni, a few plates (the ones from whence were translated the Book of Mormon). Moroni, then being the sole survivor, wandered many years and over much distance. Sixteen years later Moroni writes: “After the great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites that had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed. And my father also was killed by them, and I even remain alone to write the sad tale of the destruction of my people. … Therefore I will write and hide up the records (that he held) in the earth” (Mormon 8: 1-5). Moroni wandered for 36 years after this final battle and fled far from the pursuing Lamanites. He hid the records “in the earth” around 421 AD a long distance from the hill then known as Cumorah. The book of Mormon does not give the name of the hill where Moroni hid his few records. We now know it was in the hill that is now known as Cumorah in New York – but that was not the name of this hill until 1829. All indications today point to the Cerro Vigia in the Yucatan as being the original hill Cumorah and archaeological findings and terrain back up this hypothesis.
Hugh Nibley, the greatest of the LDS apologists once wrote: “The normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon ‘scientifically’ has been first to attribute to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, and then to refute the claim by scientific statements that have not been proven.” It looks like this is still the modus operandi that anti-Mormons like to attempt. It doesn’t work!
105. Dennis | April 3, 2009 at 5:02 pm

With that being said I will now turn my attention to exposing the Watchman Expositor!

The first portion of this diatribe is nothing more then the description of finding the walls of Jericho. How long have they been looking for them? They even had a fixed location since the earliest of times. They knew where Jericho was. We are given place names and cities by the names as the Ancient inhabitants of this land had known them. Archaeology has only begun in this area and is barely 100 years old when dealing with Ancient America. In fact, more and more evidences are being found every day. Please see my list above. Those who say there is no archaeological evidence are blind or ignorant or both. But I digress. Allow me to continue.

The Watchman says the following: “”The massive fortification of the site dating around AD 825 surpass anything found in Maya archaeology to date. The Book of Mormon description in Mormon 4:10 is being confirmed,” (Zarahemla Record, August 1989 p. 7). However, the Mormon 4:10 passage is dated, by the LDS Church itself, to be AD 364-375! A difference of 450 years.”

Funny how they give no reference to their information so let me clarify the dates given by the church. These dates were the dates attributed to that site by archaeologists of that time (the time of this publication – and, be it known that this is not an official publication of the Church). They were not given by revelation! This site, Teotihuacan, has since been shown by archaeologists to pre-date Christ and is known to have already existed when the inhabitants of 825 AD stumbled upon it and made it their own. It is now dated between 500-200 BC (See Evans, S.T. (2004) “Ancient Mexico & Central America: Archaeology and Culture History”. London: Thames & Hudson).

Therefore, we see again that the only statement that this site made concerning a supposed lack of evidence is proven false. You’ll have to try harder than that Joe if you want to make an impression. As stated before, you better come with your guns blazing because so far everything you have alleged has been proven false by non-LDS scholars in the realms of archaeology, DNA, anthropology, and linguistics.

Your argument so far has been non-existent!
106. Joe | April 7, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Dennis—-

I appreciate the fact that you are a Mormon so you want everything to “fit” badly. If I were a Mormon I would be looking for ways to make things “fit” the Book also. The fact is though, no reputable college will reference the book of Mormon as reliable archaeologically, or historically, because nothing has ever been PROVEN to actually exist.

The Bible can be studied as History due to archaeological finds, historical figures proven to exist, etc. etc. The writers of the Bible were very careful to mention exact dates, ocations, names of Kings or other persons in their oratory. Most of these can be proven to have existed. Unfortunately,
this is not the case with the book of Mormon. Nothing has been proven to exist, or verified historically as “true”. At this point the “reality” of the Book of Mormon is in the same league as Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, Atlantis, Santa’s workshop and UFO’s. There is just no evidence that any of it
ever happened.

Of course, those who believe in Sasquatch or UFO’s will say there is an “overwhelming amount of evidence” for their existence. But that is because they WANT to believe in them. But even those who DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE are still faced with the fact that most of the places, and people spoken of in it did once exist. Whether they believe in Jesus, Herod, and Pilate did exist in the same time frame as the Bible states they did. You need faith to believe in Jesus, but you do not need faith to believe there was a Jerusalem,
or a King Herod—–these are proven facts. You may believe the God of the Bible is just a “Spaghetti Monster”, but you can’t deny that the locales, and people mentioned historically in the same book are not accurate.

With the book of Mormon however, not only do you need faith to believe in Christ—–you need faith to believe any of the sites or people mentioned were even real. This actually goes completely against the grain of scripture. In the Bible, first an accurately historical place or person is mentioned, and then an event that may take faith to believe. It is “fact” as a back-drop for faith one needs to believe the event.

The Book of Mormon does not do this. The “facts” it gives cannot be proven–so there is no historical or archaelogical back-drop. Without this verification the whole book then becomes a fairy tale—which is exactly what it is.
107. Joe | April 7, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Dennis—

Perhaps it would be better to discuss these things elsewhere–it can become a long and engaging conversation,but not really meant for a “deconversion” Blog. Do you blog elsewhere regarding Mormon doctrine? Perhaps I could join you there to continue the conversation.
108. Dennis | April 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Joe: The fact is though, no reputable college will reference the book of Mormon as reliable archaeologically, or historically, because nothing has ever been PROVEN to actually exist.

Dennis: I don’t have to make them fit. They just do. The linguistic, archaeological, anthroplogical and scientific proofs are there. And they have been confirmed by the nations top scientists, whether or not they adhere to the Book of Mormon there findings go with it hand in hand. I have shown the proofs that you are evidently too blind to see. I have hundreds of pages of these “proofs” and more than that I have the sure knowledge of tyhe spirit.

Also, if you haven’t noticed BYU is a reputable University and their graduates are usually placed at the head of the line when it comes to applicants for a job. Their academic reputation challenges any of the ivy league schools.

Joe: The Bible can be studied as History due to archaeological finds, historical figures proven to exist, etc. etc. The writers of the Bible were very careful to mention exact dates, ocations, names of Kings or other persons in their oratory. Most of these can be proven to have existed.

Dennis: Are you sure about this statement? Has there been archaeological proof and sure evidence of Abraham (or has it just been a story passed down through the generations of Jewish folklore, how about Moses and the Exodus – no archaeological proof there either.) The problem is that there has been a constant knowledge of the Old World since the beginning. The New World is quite a different story. The natives of this land called thing by quite different names than those who came later did. You are not being very logical and are not thinking the situation through.

Joe, the evidence is there for those willing to actually read the Book of Mormon (which it is obvious from your statements that you have not done, contrary to your affirmtion) and compare it to what we know. You have nothing on the Book of Mormon.

Joe: and people mentioned historically in the same book are not accurate.

Dennis: Okay show me proof that Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Methusaleh, Enoch, Job, etc. ever existed? We do have books that, through tradition, are attributed to Moses but there has never been one iota of proof from the scientific world that he ever existed.

Joe: The Book of Mormon does not do this. The “facts” it gives cannot be proven–so there is no historical or archaelogical back-drop. Without this verification the whole book then becomes a fairy tale—which is exactly what it is.

Dennis: You mean like Moses leading the tribes of Israel in a mass exodus out of Egypt or Johan being swallowed by a whale? Your logic here is fallacy and you if you were to apply the same logic the Book of Mormon that you apply to the Bible – just maybe your eyes would be opened.

If you would like to further discuss the Book of Mormon or any other point of Mormonism I invite you to my personal blogsite – at http://logicalsanity.com. But I promise you that the Book of Mormon will wera you out long before you even begin to put a dent in it.
109. Crill | April 22, 2009 at 2:48 pm

If you have the Spirit (Holy Ghost) you will know the truth by the Spirit. People, persons, scientists, Phds, know so little. Every year we find scientists argue between them about truths, and many dont agree with each other. Dont put your trust in the arm of flesh, because you will be lost. Believe in God, obey his will, be humble, and if you do this it is more probably that you will get the Spirit. without the Spirit mankind will be lost and just trusting in their own wisdom and understanding. The book of Mormon is the Word of God, I know that by the Spirit, and that the Church is the true Church of the living God.
110. BigHouse | April 22, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Interesting sentiment, Crill. Completely inactionable, but interesting.
111. LeoPardus | April 22, 2009 at 5:01 pm

Let’s see:
-Writes in run-on sentences
-Can’t capitalize consistently
-Can’t punctuate correctly
-Doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of syntax

And for all that he belittles Phds (sic).

Yessirree Bobarino. We got a real genius here folks.

Really makes me want to believe whatever he says.
112. SnugglyBuffalo | April 22, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Indeed, if that’s “God’s wisdom,” I think I’m better off…
113. Dennis | April 23, 2009 at 2:37 am

Unbelief is such a sad thing. It must be an awful burden to believe that you are the greatest beings in the Universe and there is none above you. A bit egotistical, don’t you think?
114. BigHouse | April 23, 2009 at 9:06 am

A bit egotistical, don’t you think?

The irony dripping from this statement is astounding.
115. Joe | April 23, 2009 at 12:15 pm

Actually, I get Dennis’s point. There is an old Preacher on the radio named J. Vernon McGee. His defintion of an atheist is someone who says to God on his throne (in a very southern drawl):

“Move over Gawd, there’s two of us now”.
116. Franco | May 5, 2009 at 9:28 pm

To all the Mormons/LDS reading this web. Here is something that you should think about…the first miracle of Jesus Christ was turning water into wine (John. 2: 11). Wine as in NOT fresh squeezed grape juice as often said during Gospel Doctrine classes in your church. Real bonafide wine with alcohol. Jesus probably enjoyed a few cups of wine during his mortal existence even during the last supper. Yes, according to the bible Jesus’ occupation was that of a wine maker. There’s no other written proof he was a carpenter as assumed and later formed his own religion at age 30 and claimed t be the son of god. At least Jesus performed miracles and Joseph Smith did not during his time. Apparently no LDS prophet performed any miracles not one. Let’s not mention this Priesthood power for it hasn’t healed anyone at all. If it is believed it can heal then the Mormon church can tell the world the power of Jesus is with them and doctors would be obsolete. But no we’re still researching cures for illnesses and the human body has the ability to heal on its own sometimes. the only truth I see in the Mormon church is this…It manipulates its members to be good people and submissive to its whim.
117. Dennis | May 6, 2009 at 2:35 am

Franco,

Joeseph was a prophet. Jesus was the son og God. Joseph Smith did however perform many miracles and all you have to do is read the journals of those that witnessed them. He, through the power of Christ healed many sick and even raised the dead on the Banks of the Mississippi during the building of Nauvoo. There was a pentecost experience in the Kirtland temple just like those during the days of the apostles.

I am alive today because as a child I was raised from my death bed by the Power of the Priesthood. I have been an instrument in God’s hands to heal a woman with a Brain tumor. So, yes, miracles did occur and still do in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
118. Magnet | May 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm

The biggest miracle Joseph Smith ever did was writing a really good “story”, and then getting over 10 million people to believe it’s true!! That is one heck of a miracle!
119. LeoPardus | May 6, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Hilarity!
120. Joe | May 6, 2009 at 4:49 pm

http://www.moroni10.com/General_Conference/Joseph_Smith_Final_Talk.html

Interestingly enough, Dennis deleted the above “sermon” from his blog and called it “unsubtantiated drivel”—yet the link above is to a Mormon site, and the very sermon comes from “History of the Church”. I found his deletion and comments to be interesting as it is part of Mormon history itself. I am posting in case any mormons have not read the sermon. It is actually very interesting and gives insight into what Smith actually taught when he was alive.
121. Joe | May 6, 2009 at 4:56 pm

By the way, I post the above because it always amazes me when ANY CHURCH finds the need to “hide” what their original leaders taught. In this case this sermon and one called “King Follett” can be found on LDS and non-LDS sites—-but there are Mormons who still feel the need to “hide” what has been taught because it is an embarrassment to them. Whenever something like that happens you can be assured there is a lot more hidden crap where that came from. LOL
122. Joe | May 6, 2009 at 5:52 pm

Well, I checked back in, and due to “posting” an actual sermon of the Prophet Joseph Smith, taken from an LDS website, I was “banned” for being “hostile” from Dennis’s site. LOL That is a first for me—-being “banned” for using LDS history on an LDS site. :>) But I guess, what did I expect? :>)

It’s actually good—this is the last post I will make concerning Mormonism. They not only revise their own history, they revise their own revisions concerning revisions. :>)

Can anyone tell me where a Jehovah’s Witness blog is? They don’t like their own history either–but maybe I’ll give it a shot.

see ya!!
123. Dennis | May 7, 2009 at 8:51 pm

I informed Joe, by email, that this was not the reason that he was banned from the website. He was applying “bait and switch tactics” and attempting to run from the original topic, which is expresely forbidden, as posted in the rules of conduct. The site is for intellectual discussion with substantiated fact. I set it up this way to avoid strictly opinon peices. One is not to jump topic midstream and launch into another theme, He was warned and then he came back and posted anyway.

I informed him on the blog that I would be more than happy to discuss his topic concerning the “plurality of gods” after we bedded down the other and he refused. This was the reason he was banned, if anyone cares.

What Joe is expressing here is sour grapes at being barred from a site where he repeatedly broke the rules of discussion and conduct – not for the content he posted. But if Joe wishes to play this game so be it. It is just the case of another Evangelical that can’t support his claims and turns into a ravening wolf when backed into a corner, I’ve met far too many like this. Oh well, God bless the child!
124. Dennis | May 7, 2009 at 9:06 pm

Oh. and you can bet Joe will be back. He never leaves when he says he is. He ran off in huff and said the same four different times on my website each time to return with more venom and still refusing to substantiate his allegations.

One can discuss any historical facet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that they would like on the site as long as they stay with the topic until an impasse is declared, as long as they substantiate their allegations with scholarly resources and citations. These are the rules and if one can not abide by them they should not enter in.
125. Joe | May 8, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Dear Administrator—

The two posts from Dennis are actually the reason I had asked that you go ahead and delete what I had originally posted. I was not “banned” for the reasons he gives, and I had not “left in a huff”. I was banned from the site after posting the link that appears in #120.

Please read post #107 if one thinks I leave places in a “huff”. I had asked to move the discussion elsewhere. But since he “banned” me I thought I would share the link here. It doesn’t really matter any more now anyway—but I do have to defend myself in saying there was never any “venom” or “anger” involved. I was asking questions that irritate Mormons :>) and that is all. I’ve decided to irritate Jehovah’s Witnesses for a while. Sorry I got the dude so riled up by using sermons made by his own prophet. Oh well. LOL
126. Joe | May 8, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Oh by the way, after experiencing this, can we change the title of the topic to 34 reasons?

LOL
127. Joe | May 8, 2009 at 3:37 pm

From 124:

“One can discuss any historical facet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that they would like on the site as long as they stay with the topic until an impasse is declared”

Impasse: Anything from church Mormon church history that is embarrassing, resulting in a ban of the person presenting said inormation.

Sorry—couldn’t resist. LOL From now on whatever happens in Utah stays in Utah.
128. Dennis | May 13, 2009 at 12:49 am

¡Olé! ¡El toro pasa! y ésta herido con la espada de la lógica. Se cree que es peligroso, pero en verdad es simplemente un necio.

He just couldn’t resist! I told you he’d be back! He never keeps his word.

And he is back with lies. Anyone interested can just click my name and be transported to my blog to affirm his lies.

For those who have visited the site from here, thanks.

And I repeat:

“One can discuss any historical facet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that they would like on the site as long as they stay with the topic until an impasse is declared, as long as they substantiate their allegations with scholarly resources and citations. These are the rules and if one can not abide by them they should not enter in.”

However, unlike Joe, I am a man of my word and I will no longer post here. We have disagreements about faith and I realize this and respect anyone’s right to worship (or not worship) as they choose and only ask that they do the same.

You are all free to now bash me and slander me to your hearts content. I will not reciprocate. May you all find peace and happiness in your lives!
129. ubi dubium | May 13, 2009 at 6:59 am

We have disagreements about faith and I realize this and respect anyone’s right to worship (or not worship) as they choose and only ask that they do the same.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! That’s one of my favorite things I have heard a theist say. The feeling is quite mutual.
130. Joe | May 13, 2009 at 11:18 am

One only need read Post #91 from Leo above, and then Dennis’ reply in #94 to see who this guy really is. He freely calls people “liars” etc. –which he has called me ad nausem. Oh well (sigh)– I see no need to continue with a ridiculous reply to that kind of nonsense any more.
–Joe
131. Joe | May 13, 2009 at 11:23 am

I meant to say read post #91 through #94 consecutively for a good feel of how Dennis accepts criticism–especially of his novel sized posts. Don’t want to be accused of comparing to different posts to try to make a point—read them consecutively to really get the “feel” of it. LOL
132. Franco | May 15, 2009 at 2:27 am

“I have been an instrument in God’s hands to heal a woman with a Brain tumor. So, yes, miracles did occur and still do in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Fantastic Dennis. I hope you make a crusade to heal those who are sick and dying. Life is so precious. Encourage your Mormon Prophet to practice the Power of the Priesthood by every Mormon to heal and bring about world peace. BTW– The Placebo effect is a miracle in itself. The human mind can do amazing things. The brain is the control center that influences the body. Change the thought pattern of the mind and the body reacts to it neither positive or negative. Adding medicinal substances helps too. Did the woman you have healed receive medical assistance or was it purely without medical intervention and solely on faith?
133. Franco | May 15, 2009 at 2:58 am

One more thing that always puzzled me. Being a non-Jew why would I believe in the Jewish God or Jesus Christ who claims to be the Son of the Jewish God? I don’t know why most Christians who are non-Jewish believe in the Jewish God who practices punishment and taking the life he has created by blood. Anyone care to explain?
134. Davidius | May 15, 2009 at 8:30 am

#18 (David V)
“I notice that John doesn’t tell us which church is the “true church” of Jesus Christ, if not the “Mormon” Church. Which church has all of the perfect traits of Christ’s primitive Church that John feels are lacking in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Which has the true authority of the priesthood?”

You assume that christ exists and that there is a One True Church.

Frankly, I left the mormon church because of problems with christianity on the whole and then later (some of this is new to me) learned all the dirt on mormonism.
135. Gab | May 28, 2009 at 10:42 pm

You forgot to mention the Mark Hoffman Affair. That is a blow to the Mormon CHurch
136. Tina | June 3, 2009 at 10:32 pm

I am concerned about my daughter. We just moved to a southern town where I THOUGHT my biggest problem would be bible belt baptism… NOPE…. lots o mormons here and now she’s entrenched with several. I don’t mind believing in what one wants to believe in… it’s just if she becomes enamored by the “family” story they sell and she chooses to convert, does she really understand how exclusionary this religion will be to HER PARENTS? We’re loving, involved, parents — very supportive of her endeavors– open minded and willing to discuss all sides of a topic–but this group scares me.

Again, logic only goes so far with a teen.

My only hope is to keep reminding her that if she converts, what’s the point of educating herself beyond highschool? she’s extremely bright and wants to go to Princeton.
137. Tina | June 3, 2009 at 10:35 pm

BTW, as long as she is a minor, we will say NO to this idea. And we’ll actively work on deprogramming her.
138. LeoPardus | June 4, 2009 at 10:53 am

does she really understand how exclusionary this religion will be to HER PARENTS?

You’ll have to try telling her that. And tell her education will not be very valuable. You might see if she’ll look in on this site or our community site.

Keep close to her. Make sure she knows that you truly love her. Even if she “converts”, parents who love her will mean more than “friends” who want a notch in their “gospel gun” in the long run.
139. Ubi Dubium | June 4, 2009 at 4:51 pm

We’ve worked hard to “vaccinate” our kids against being sucked in by all the happy-clappiness. Mostly, we’ve worked hard to educate them about as many religions and mythologies as possible. They know the Greek myths, and we read a bunch of the Norse ones together. I’ve encouraged them to read sections of the bible, especially stories like Lot, or Joshua or Jephtha. We’ve talked about karma, and reincarnation, and how setting aside your own common sense infavor of what somebody tells you some god wants is really really dangerous. We’ve discussed pattern recognition, false positives and confirmation bias.

Right now, their reaction to preachers is to laugh at the very notion of believing wholeheartedly in any of it. And they’d probably try to tell the preacher all about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Education is the best defense.
140. orDover | June 4, 2009 at 5:13 pm

I agree with Ubi that education can be helpful, but you have to keep in mind the lure of rebellion. Doesn’t it always seem that the more a parent tells their teen not to do something, the more attractive it becomes? This can be especially damaging for a religion. If you push against her converting, her Mormon friends could use that as “proof” that she has discovered the truth, that she is being persecuted for trusting in the truth that everyone else, including her parents, are trying to suppress. That kind of attitude will only drive her deeper into the church.

It seems to me that the best thing to do in this situation is just to let her convert, but be open with her about the drawbacks. Explain how you two will now be alienated from each other. Explain why you personally reject Mormonism. Keep in mind she’s doing this because of the pull of her friends, which means it could be a phase that she will outgrow once she moves on to college and is around a different set of people.

But honestly, I think that keeping her from converting will only make the religion more alluring. As teens, we all struggled to form an autonomous identity. Let her form hers, even if you fundamentally disagree with it. Give her the right to disagree with you. If my parents would do that, maybe we’d actually have a real relationship, instead of this one built on lies.
141. SnugglyBuffalo | June 4, 2009 at 7:16 pm

Frankly, there’s no way to absolutely prevent her from converting; you can’t control what she believes, whether she lives under your roof or not. Next thing you know, she’s going to “hang out with friends,” when in reality she’s sneaking off to Mormon church services (ah, I remember my days of playing DnD without my parents’ knowledge well).

The moment you become forceful about this, she’ll probably just become even more entrenched.
142. Joe | June 4, 2009 at 7:49 pm

“Right now, their reaction to preachers is to laugh at the very notion of believing wholeheartedly in any of it. And they’d probably try to tell the preacher all about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Education is the best defense”.

Ubi—

You may want to read the testimony of William J. Murray, son of Madlyn Murray O’Hair, who used to be the President of a large atheistic organization and was later killed. I think you probably recall the name. He was ‘used’ by her in her famous case in the courts which overturned prayer in schools. He later became a born-again christian. Your children may laugh now, but one never knows what will happen in the future.

http://www.missionresources.com/atheist.html
143. Joe | June 4, 2009 at 7:50 pm

The above is an old link. I’m sure there are newer ones. I just grabbed a link which references him. He is still a Christian in 2009.
144. Frreal | June 4, 2009 at 8:54 pm

Also could say, you are welcome to choose your own path but you might want to make an informed decision then inform her of this atrocity and that. That God had Moses kill all the little boys and pregnant women but let the soldiers keep the virgins for themselves as prizes. Or if she wouldn’t mind be considered unclean for one week every month and asked to leave town. Or if she wouldn’t mind if her husband had a concubine or 700. Not necessarily Mormon doctrine but it’s in the “good” book so it must be “good” no?
145. Rover | June 4, 2009 at 9:42 pm

The unfortunate thing about Mormonism is that it is not usually the theology that attracts a person it is the strong social aspect of the religion. Mormons are very “pack” oriented. Unfortunatley you will have to keep her from the pack, but that could result in rebellion and have the opposite affect. Makes you appreciate a good old wishy washy evangelical like myself.
146. Franco | June 13, 2009 at 8:46 pm

Tina,

If your daughter has a crush on a a mormon boy then you could be in for a struggle of wills. She doesn’t ‘see’ the mormon doctrine but if she does then there’s no real problem. One thing you should know is that mormons rely on ‘feelings’ and the feeling of the holy ghost. That feeling is simple to explain…its the same kind of feeling of the fight or flight response and its base on one’s fear. Imagine a strong feeling of warning but when missionaries talk about hope and salvation and the good idea of families together forever after life it sounds appealing. But in actuality it is a feeling of danger but its sugar coated with positive reinforcement. Its a cult device. If your daughter is believing the doctrine then you have to ask her to look on both sides of the coin. The simple way is to find a copy of the PBS Nova documentary titled Mormons. It’s full of actual facts and what happened in mormon history. The thing that amazes me about the show it shows Joseph Smith ordering a newspaper printing press to be destroyed and the kinderhook plates fiasco. good luck.
147. Jared | June 16, 2009 at 10:20 pm

I was born mormon but do not pratice it. Are you kidding me this 33 reasons why are false and go against what I was taught. Why dont you pick on a church that rapes there youth.
148. Franco | June 20, 2009 at 7:20 pm

Hey Jared what’s worst physical or spiritual rape?
149. joe | June 21, 2009 at 5:12 am

we tend to think that god did not favor people. in the old testament we see that only levites were able positions in the church. We learn that the dark skin was passed upon cain and his decendants. the gospel was not even openly accepted to go to the gentiles until christ died. in church history we learn that the apostles struggled with leadership, even christ with his apostles. they lacked in a lot of areas. are we to assume that the apostles were not men of god becuase they were not perfect. heck peter denied him three times, judas gave him up, thomas did not have enough faith, im not for the mormons but i sense hypocrasy in a lot of what is being said. Its not the people that are perfect but the church.
150. Franco | June 24, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Joe,

The church is perfect? Fact: it is not. I don’t want a god who created me as a failed experiment and punishes me for its mistake. Yes, I did write ‘it’ because I don’t know if god has a gender. All assumes god is a him when in fact life is created in a womb of the female. So religion is based on feelings and ideas and not fact. Religion was formed out of the bureaucracy of slavery. I know I am created just as I was meant to be and so is everyone else. Religion distorts that reality by making humans think they’re inferior and imperfect enough to have needs for repentance. Repent for what– being a human being who can think??? If you have chosen to be in religion you have chosen to be a spiritual slave. I for one is not a slave and the god that created me (if it exist) allows me to be human. The new human evolution is coming and it’s not physical or spiritual but mental. Get ready.
151. Don Hislop | June 26, 2009 at 4:08 am

The Shepherding movement is well in Yucapa, with love brother, with love, Don Hislop, from Lower Lake High, ’75
152. R | June 28, 2009 at 3:30 am

Hello Mr. Mrlucidity!

I am very much interested in getting to know your take on my situation, as a very much rooted Mormon growing up, as well serving a full time mission such as yourself; funny thing or rather relation to our stories, I almost went to Germany/Deutschland myself, but the church shouldn’t include a “where would you like/love to go section, if they pay no heed to it man!”

My take is that MORMONISM, is a way to use/attempt to use it as a racism excuse, teaching your kids racism and instilling fear in them to raise them; as well a massive problem as you so well put it, is that the church is most definitively in POLITICS! Also, they never go by the phrase we all know very well, which is: “Judge Not That Ye Be Not Judged, Hate The Sin Not the Sinner…”

This deserves it’s own section! They are the most racist, homophobic, banefully abhorrent Judgmental sect of any in existance throughout the world…

Please, MrLucidity, if you see this I’d love very much to hear from you my friend, maybe we can set up a decent and friendly online chat amongst us, then see about doing some good in the way of getting Mormonism eradicated truly as it’s horrible… I can relate to much of what your story was, it’s as if I was looking in the mirror bro! So please it’d help me much to hear from you and likely help me and strengthen me, as I live amongst so many members of the church it’s redicoulous man…

Take care, all best and keep on keepin’ on my friend Lucidity and all in similar positions and keep up the fight…

Much Peace,
Rich
153. Fred | July 15, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Would someone please explain to me why Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in the 1830s in the tone, vocabulary and style of 16th Century England and not in the language of his day? Was it just to make it seem more like the King James Bible and therefore somehow more “godly”? Or was it because if he wrote it in the language of his day, people would have laughed at it? To me, the BoM is a “knock off”.
154. Fred | July 15, 2009 at 4:46 pm

Oops, I’m sorry. I realize that my question was dealt with in reason 1. I still strikes me as perhaps the most ludicrious thing in all Mormonism.
155. Fred | July 15, 2009 at 10:40 pm

I’m sorry to “hog” the posts, but I have wondered why would a “God” even need to have a gender? Does God have sex? I don’t mean to be funny, but really this is one of the hundreds of reasons why I woke up and realized I was a true atheist. “God” didn’t create humans, humans created “God” in their own image.
156. Loren | July 16, 2009 at 7:21 am

I just read the main article and found it very good.

I was active LDS for 30 years, until i got tired of it and then a few yrs later I came out and was glad my beliefs had changed… I didnt have to let myself hate who i am and refused any counseling…

I have always been independent and freethinking, a reader with interest in other spiritual ways… now i just like the golden rule with no organization to be brainwashed or controled by…

recently I read of a new Reform Mormonism philosophy, which allows you to think and believe what is good for YOU and there is no group to join or to pay $$ to. It is a liberal outlook deal that welcomes gays and teaches equality for all classes They have a very good webpage, just google it by name.
157. Al | July 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm

I was born into Mormonism, read the Book
of Mormon many times, prayed about it.
Still don’t believe it’s a book from God, Cities in the BOM have never been found, and what about the Older JD, and what Mormons prophets said, and then changed many times up untill modern day, to meet the standard. You can’t change history. You can’t say that a person is a prophet of God, if the change prophicy, to fit the times.
Read a JD around 1953, and the one that is one line today, hardly the same book.
but supposed to be the words of the prophits? To many questions, not enough
truthful answers?
158. Kennit Barban | September 8, 2009 at 6:12 pm

mormons are phony and this ex-morm is telling it like it is. Joe Smith was as phony as a sixteen dollar bill and after he joined the Masons suddenly this “church” had all of the Masonic rituals. How convenient! Pay lay ale? BWAAAHAHAHA!….Not even close phonies. And look at them try to distance themselves from Mountain Meadows and polygamy and the rest of their wrongs. This so-called “church” is as phony as Bill and Hiliary Klowntoon!
159. Joe | September 8, 2009 at 7:45 pm

So then what you are saying is that the $16.00 bill I’ve been saving all of these years isn’t genuine? What about the $3.00 bill in my safety deposit box? Geez—what a letdown.
160. Renegade | September 9, 2009 at 1:37 am

I have been a Mormon for 27 years (born into the “covenant”, indoctrinated and baptized at 8, served a mission to South America, married in the temple, held leadership positions from teaching in Sunday school to leadership within the Elder’s quorum, to assistant in Branch presidencies . . .), but the last several months, the whole structure I have built my system of beliefs upon has come crashing down on me, as I have gradually come to realize the imaginary elements of Mormonism are comparable to those of the story of the Emperor’s new clothes.

“You can’t reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.” And so I won’t try. I only want to throw out my thoughts on Joseph Smith.

Mormons love to talk about how Joseph Smith was such an “unlearned” man, with the equivalent of a third grade education. Neither of his parents were particularly educated, and being raised on a farm, he probably never had much chance to pursue education himself. Mormons flash these statements like facts and then compare them to the Book of Mormon and ask, “If Joseph Smith supposedly wrote the Book of Mormon, then how could an unlearned man like him have created such a work?”

To those, I would suggest they think about their premises. I’m not sure if everyone here has seen the movie, “The Prestige”, but in that movie an important concept is put forth: For some people, their illusion is so important that they are willing to live their entire lives disguised as something they are not. For them, the illusion IS their life, and any sacrifice they must make to keep up the illusion is worth it. When you look at it in this light, it’s not really that big of a deal to think about how an “unlearned” man could have written a book like the book of Mormon (with all of it’s accuracies and contradictions). Joseph Smith was an intelligent bastard, and knew exactly what he was doing. He organized the “saints” in a very effective manner, and was quite sly at his governing of the church. And with all of that, we’re supposed to believe that this man was actually “unlearned”? All because it seemed like he had a hard time even doing simple tasks like dictating letters?

That’s why it’s a Prestige. It’s the coup de grace of an illusion, the crowning moment when everyone suspends their disbelief. They put their skepticism on the back burner and allow themselves to believe in the illusion.

Along these lines, I would be interested to see what a Mormon Apologist who refutes this suggestion and holds fast to the idea that Joesph Smith translated the Book of Mormon because it is just too “complicated” for an unlearned man to do such a thing, would say about Muhammad and his “revelation” of the Qu’ran. Revelation or Brilliant bullshit?

The tricky thing about all of this is that it is more important to keep our minds focused on the evidence we can see before we throw ourselves into the hook of any belief system.

And here’s a quote from a man who Mormons believe appeared (along with the other founding fathers) in the Saint George UT temple to the (then) current Mormon prophet, claiming that they all wanted to be baptized (vicariously) into the Mormon Faith so they could get out of the Spirit Prison and finally get into the Spirit Paradise to await the resurrection:

“He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.”
-Thomas Jefferson
161. Joe | September 9, 2009 at 11:50 am

Renegade—-

One interesting fact. The Mormon faith is based on the premise that an angel named “Moroni” pointed to a hill called “Cumorah” where some plates were buried.

Interestingly enough, Joe Smith was into pirate treasure, and Captain Kidd supposedly buried a large cache in the Comoros Islands. What is the capitol of the Comoros Islands (in place BEFORE the book of Mormon was written)? Moroni. Yes—Moroni was a name in existence before the book was written, and just happens to be the capitol of an Island that Captain Kidd buried treasure upon. :>)

Moroni, Comoros. Moroni—Cumorah.

Just coincidence? LOL
162. LeoPardus | September 9, 2009 at 2:10 pm

Renegade:

Glad you’ve found your way free. Hope you do OK with the family and friends when they find out. Keep dealing with TRUTH; it’s worth it to be an honest person.
163. Anonymous | October 12, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Almost every comment I have read misses the point, and that is that the commentators believe that there is a better church out there that more\b closely conforms to the New Testament. I was a member of the LDS church for forty years and I enjoyed it very much. I have no chip on my shoulders concerning it. I often think back of my Mormon years with nostalgia.
My reason for leaving is simply because the Mormon church and also the Book of Mormon are based on the premise that the New Testament is the true and inspired work of the Holy Ghoist inspiring the authors to write the true gospel. How wrong I was! The New Testament is a conglomeration of 27 books, all except a handfukl of them are forgeries, yes FORGERIES. It is a battlefield of changes and corruption of texts amounting to some 30,000 of them between the oldest and the latest manuscripts available to us (including spelling errors of course). The oldest text avilable to us are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanis, both dating from about the middle of the fourth century. Interestingly enough, there are about 3,000 textual differences between these two codices. These codices are preceded by some 150 years of textual changes. There is no way of knowing to what extent changes were made to the gospels alone, but there are indications that the number is huge. It is unfortunate that no original copies are available to us today. Iit has been establihed beyond any doubt that the four gospels were not written by the men whose names are attached to them. They are plainly forgeries. Only a handful of Paul’s letters are authentic, but goodness knows to what extent they were edited by the developing Christianity in the third century, i.e., the Orthodoxy, which developed into the Roman Catholic church in the fourth century. It turned from a religion into an instrument of power, and became the cause of millions upon millions of killings.
The above is the reason why I left the Mormon church. I studied not only the scriptures, but also well beyond them. The Mormon church is a wonderful church that does more good for humanity than any other church I know of. If you are a member and are thinking of leaving for the trivial reasons put forth by the various apostates or would-be apostates, and if you believe in God, stay where you are. It is the best church on earth. It is my belief that all churches as well as the Bible are man-made. You need companionship as we all do. You can find no better source than the Mormon church.
Anonymous humanist.
164. JLee | November 9, 2009 at 9:52 pm

This is very interesting reading. The Lord God said any creed or writings in addition to the Bible is more than we need. The last words of the Bible warn of such “additions” and since Mormons believe in the Bible, I’ve often wondered how they could read that make God’s word jive with “another testament.”
165. Quester | November 10, 2009 at 1:05 am

Those last words are only referring to the Book of Revelations, not the whole Bible.
166. Shelama | December 15, 2009 at 12:55 pm

I finally left the Mormon church after I finally actually studied the Bible and left Christianity.

More than anything, Mormonism goes to show that anyone who can believe in a literal Adam & Eve, Garden of Eden, talking donkey, virginal conception of Jesus, walking on water, raising the dead, an “empty tomb,” and bloody human Jesus sacrifice for sin, can believe anything.
167. Joe | December 15, 2009 at 1:33 pm

(#166)

I saw this internet add for a robotic “monk” who will do your praying and believing for you. You program it and it will say your prays for you while you sit in your LAZY boy with a glass of Iced Tea. The add said:

“It will believe things for you that they wouldn’t even believe in Salt Lake City!”
168. keith | February 10, 2010 at 5:31 am

There are millions who can easily refute everything you have stated (33 reason why to left the Mormon church) by unpaid members/scholars, who have investigated these very issues far more than you have. Your claims must make you feel very important and intelligent man, (the devil does that well) and your right and the 13 million LDS members all mislead. You must have a 200 IQ, and a different faith indeed.
Sad to see another member fallen by the wayside, and used as a tool of the devil– another Korhor indeed. Best of luck when you stand before God and explain this persecution, then again you have little a little season to do some real study and soul searching if you can humble yourself? Better yet bring your attitude to court and see how your views stand up verses what the church actually teaches. Many tried and failed with the same issues you are struggling with in your ignorance, then again with your greater intellectualism and faith maybe you can gain the fame of finally proving the BOM wrong, in court.
I’m sure BYU would take you up on it if your game. Go ahead bring Beckley type legal students/ professors, the greatest Korhor’s you can solicit (both paid and unpaid) to prove the Book of Mormon false in a simulated court of law, taped on line. Then we can see who has the real intellectual honesty, and whose really being bamboozle! Ultimately we will have court before God and the person whose wrong will stand before God wishing they were never born if their works and life was about damning others with falsehoods.
169. Shelama | February 10, 2010 at 11:07 am

BYU professors were brainwashed as children to BELIEVE before they could think. Such childhood brainwashing can be durable, even life-long. BYU professors have an extraordinarily profound psycho-emotional investment in Mormonism. That a BYU-professor can find an apologetic that satisfies him/herself is not surprising given Mormon childhood brainwashing that began, 24/7, in the crib. There’s a good reason why such brainwashing doesn’t wait even for the ‘age of accountability.’
170. Jake | February 10, 2010 at 3:05 pm

I agree with your decision 100% and hope that you continue to share your story and reasoning with more people – especially the young. So often people are afraid that they’ve spent such a large part of their life believing the wrong thing, that their minds will rationalize every little bit of evidence against the actual truth. It is no surprise that it is often when people are desperate that they turn to the church.

- Jake
171. slandy candy | February 28, 2010 at 5:47 pm

you have some good facts but have interperated them rong and are missing alot of the meaning behind why thigs have happened the way they have and some stuff is twisted out of contact. theres more to every thing then just phisical facts.
172. Get A. | May 12, 2010 at 6:04 am

HAHAHA! Get a life nerd. You must have gotten butt-hurt over something and you have no balls and are pathetic. Scouttroops are an actual reason you left a church?? Go change your diapers crybaby. You are pathetic!
173. portwes | May 21, 2010 at 1:08 am

To John, and others doubting their faith (even though this is a couple of years on!):

Please realize the “GetA” (previous comment) is a gold-plated jerk, the kind which exists in every hue and variation of belief and non-belief.

Why people like him need to be so vicious, is something that a psychiatrist could tell us, so that maybe we could exercise compassion towards his stunted ego. I experienced something similar when I posted my new de-conversion story on ex-christian.com a couple of years back.

I’m sure that John is further on in his journey out of the church by now. Maybe he has even come to see that belief in a personal god is equally as vacuous as a belief in a sectarian god. What really matters, though, is that we all are continuously curious and searching for rational thinking, not afraid to open our minds to new and broader perspectives of life and the universe.
174. | Miguel Lomelino | May 21, 2010 at 8:07 am

[...] 33 reasons why I left the mormon church [...]
175. Richard Osborne | May 22, 2010 at 12:16 am

You and Steve Benson have something in common: you both hate the Church because its not Liberal enough! Yet, its the Liberal meatheads that are ruining the Church!

I agree with most of what you say but not the part about race. Its Kimball and Hinkley that are wrong about race, not Brigham Young, Mark E. Peterson, or Bruce R. McConkie. What is it about colored people that you find so attractive? Ugh! I wish they would all leave.

And the reason the DNA doesn’t match is because skin color is NOT the only difference in the races! The Lamanites were changed into a different race of people. Injuns today are a different race of people. Different. Not the same. And, yes, we Nordics are a superior race.
176. Robin Black | July 11, 2010 at 5:42 pm

I found this site interesting. I am an disenchanted LDS member.
Through my own study of the history of the church I have found stories that were never told to me, such as Joseph Smith being arrested for detroying a printing press, I was led to believe he was martyred for his faith and mention of a press was never brought up. So many other things to talk about but hey, this alone bothers me very much. I feel saddened about the “truth” now.
177. Rose | July 30, 2010 at 6:39 pm

“Also, where are the bones, swords and armor from the epic battles that took place at the Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon”
Um, I’m not Mormon, but my family is, from what I gather the Hill Cumorah where the great battle took place were in either Central or South America. I believe any lack of archelogical evidence is due to the fact that the jungle “eats” things. Anything made of wood would have been moistened by the air and molded away; anything made of rock would have been slowly eroded by roots, wind, and rain, the same end for bones; anything made of metal would have been rusted within twenty years from humidity. It’s amazing that the pyramids and temples that were constructed are still standing, but even they are being devoured by the surrounding fauna.

Also, I must say, you should go to church to love God, not be “promoted” in a lateral calling system, and not to gain social superiority over your peers.
178. Adrienne Potter | August 7, 2010 at 12:00 pm

De-Conversion is not an appropriate name for this website. People who are “de-converted” were never truly converted. All of the reasons people give above for leaving the church boil down to one thing: They don’t have a testimony of Jesus Christ. He taught tolerance. I don’t see that here. He taught forgiveness. I don’t see that here. He taught humility, obedience, respect for others, being a team-player, faith, and charity. Try criticising that.

Is the church perfect? Of course not, because it is run by imperfect men. But the doctrine is perfect, and as we come to understand the doctrine the church becomes better. I saw many things above that were called “doctrine” but were actually false traditions. For example, no where in the D&C does it advocate plural marriage. It advocates celestial marriage. The church was allowed to practice plural marriage for a time, but then discontinued it. Many of the excellent leaders of today descend from these polygamous families.

It is innappropriate and un-American to blame the church for the actions of those who chose to disobey the manifesto that abolished polygamy. Eveyone is responsible for their own actions. It is innapropriate to blame the church if someone hurt your feelings or sinned against you. These offenders will have their just reward when the time is right. What is appropriate is to study the life of the Savior and follow him.

Adrienne Potter
Founder, Kids In Danger (K.I.D.)
http://www.kidsindanger.net
Director, http://www.kidsread.net
179. Ubi Dubium | August 7, 2010 at 12:09 pm

Oh, goody. Another drive-by who didn’t bother to READ THE POSTS NEXT TO THE BIG RED EXCLAMATION POINT. Shake the dust off your sandals, Adrienne, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
180. BigHouse | August 7, 2010 at 12:27 pm

The kids under your care are in danger alright…
181. Rexburg Idaho | August 14, 2010 at 6:20 pm

Mormons are the most Obnoxious, Big time wannabes, shit talking, mother fuckers I have ever lived around.
182. Joseph Smith | August 17, 2010 at 6:57 pm

I agree and I founded the dang thing.
183. Brian | August 21, 2010 at 9:13 pm

You are so right about everything you are saying, I have had these same feeling as well. I’m sick of these FAKE members that live behind closed doors also. I really see these members true faces when there not inside the walls of church. This really is a punch in the heart, and kind of plays on the real sincere individual who is in tuned.
184. Joe Namath | August 30, 2010 at 8:44 pm

This is the Gayest thing i have read in a long while. For a Mathematician you sure have no evidence or references to back up all your ¨claims.¨ You sound like all the other gay ex-mormon crybabies on the internet. (pun intended) Admit it, you just feel unhappy and rejected because the church won´t accept your sinful behavior. Even if you do feel that way, don´t you think its childish to lash out like you are doing. Dude after having read all your 33 points, its obvious you have a self image problem. Newsflash..it´s not the church´s fault!! Get over it, decide to be happy and go to a psychologist if you have a self image problem. I can guarantee you that the church is not the source of your personal problems. And sheesh..if it´s that hard being a fag and gay..is it really worth it??

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

de-conversion

33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church

184 Comments Add your own

Leave a Comment

Today’s Featured Link

Most Recent Discussions

Navigation

Attention Christian Readers

Most Recent Posts

Today's Most Read Posts

de-conversion wager

Contributors

Twitter

Atheism Central

Archives

Blog Stats