DiscussMormonism.com

Dear Mr. Monson

.

I just noticed in the newspaper that recently you extended an invitation to Mormons who have "strayed" to return to church. This is a reply to your invitation.

.

Four years ago, at the direct recommendation of Dallin Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve, I sent a letter to you regarding an item of LDS doctrine. I sent this letter to you in good faith as a believer, father of seven, public church defender and advocate, and holder of two callings (Gospel Doctrine teacher and branch counselor).

.

Because I had devoted my life to being the best Mormon I could be, it was important for me to understand Mormon doctrine. The doctrinal point I wrote about confused me, however: it seemed to comprise a contradiction-in-terms. Moreover, its provenance as a "doctrine" was highly dubious. I wrote seeking clarification, along with a question about whether the status of this point of doctrine - repeated in manuals and the endowment ceremony, but not present in any scriptures or official doctrinal statements - might be re-assessed by "the brethren".

.

My letter, which I never would have sent had an apostle not instructed me to, was clearly marked "Personal and Confidential". Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered that you had your staff make a copy of my "personal and confidential" letter, and send it to my immediate ecclesiastical superior (my branch president). I was also surprised when my branch president informed me that he had been strictly instructed by your office not to give me a copy of the response sent to me by your secretary, Michael Watson. He could, he said, only read it to me from across his desk.

.

Needless to say, your response was a non-response. It addressed none of the points in my letter. The only thing that following Oaks's suggestion accomplished was to have a copy of my "private and confidential" letter to you mailed to my branch president, something which couldn't help but dissuade me from asking any further questions - which, in retrospect, I presume was the point of Oaks's suggestion in the first place. Nice trick.

.

In your recent talk, you mentioned those who have left Mormonism because they have been "offended". As it happens, I left only because I found out that Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth about his experiences; but the behaviour of church officials in toto, and even in limited personal areas such as the experience I had with you, helped provide corroborating evidence (not that any was really needed) that, whatever else it was, Joseph Smith's religion isn't what it claims to be. There is no sign, that is, that the behaviour of LDS church officials is any better than the behaviour of officials in any other entirely man-made organization.

.

Members seek to explain this away with thought-terminating cliches like "no one said the prophets were perfect" or "the church is true, not the members"; but at some point, the external fruits of an organization must be taken as some indication of the nature of that organization itself. How long, for example, could someone believe that a tree was an apple tree, when it produced only lemons? Likewise, what does it say about an organization, that it demands that its members do things like keep the church's confidences (like the endowment ceremonies oaths of consecration), when its leaders violate the confidence of church members whenever they feel like it? (I say this, because I have since learned that there was nothing unique about my little experience: anyone who sends in a letter to the First Presidency, no matter how clearly it is marked "private", also ends up discovering that a copy has been sent to their bishop, or stake president, or whoever else "the brethren" select). The truth is that the Mormon church, and its leaders, act like any other man-made organization; and therefore, it could be justifiably inferred from that alone, that it only is a man-made organization.

.

So, your description of disaffected Mormons is partly right, in that many disaffected Mormons have at some point been upset by boorish, insensitive, and disrespectful behavior toward them by church officials (like you) at all levels. But, speaking for myself, not even this behavior could have convinced me to leave a religion which I sincerely thought was all it claimed to be; and it is ultimately this point which I suggest you really will have to address.

.

I am referring to the point that Joseph Smith did not tell the truth about his experiences, and that the religion he started is not - cannot be - what it claims. Take the Book of Mormon, for example. Notwithstanding the increasingly desperate, ad hoc rescue attempts launched by salaried church defenders at BYU, a perfect avalanche of evidences from disciplines as diverse as zoology, metallurgy, botany, anthropology, linguistics, molecular biology, and ethnology explodes virtually every uniquely Mormon claim about the ancient peoples of the Americas. There is just no way around this.

.

As if this wasn't enough, the evidence that Joseph Smith was not a reliable source of information about his personal experiences is also overwhelming. There are a number of good summaries of this evidence out there. A few I can recommend to you are: "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Re-Examined", by Roger Anderson, "Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon" by David Persuitte, and "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" by Grant Palmer. I daresay it would be extremely difficult for any member to read over all the evidence presented in these volumes, even after considering the desperate spinjobs put out by salaried church defenders at BYU/FARMS, and continue to think that Smith was trustworthy.

.

But maybe this is not so surprising...because even believing members who have read Mormon history know that Mr. Smith was a talented liar, because they know that he repeatedly lied about his "polygamy", or sexual liasons, to his friends, his brother, his mother, his wife, his children, and most spectacularly, to the entire church in church meetings. He even went so far as to label those who accused him of polygamy "perjurers", when it was only he who was perjuring himself, as he well knew.

.

You may respond that Smith had to lie about polygamy in order to avoid being killed, but that would be to change the subject: the point is that regardless of his motivations, he - very obviously - was a very talented liar. The evidence is in how many of his followers continued to believe claims that we know, even as believers, were false.

.

So I suggest to you that given Smith's prolific, convincing lying about his sex life, it shouldn't be a surprise that a large body of evidence now shows that he also lied about chatting with back-from-the-dead Palestinian Jews, "translating" Egyptian hieratic, visiting with "angels" who waft in and out of our dimension, finding language decoding spectacles, or being forced to have sex with his teenaged foster daughters, his teenaged maids, and the wives and daughters of his friends, by a sword-wielding angel. Joseph Smith may have been many wonderful things; but one thing he was not, was trustworthy. He simply didn't tell the truth.

.

And that's why I, and my wife and seven children, left. That's why my cousin (serving as elder's quorum president), his wife, and their children left. That's why my dad left. That's why my formerly devout mother-in-law and her husband left. That's why dozens upon dozens of people I know personally, who were totally devout, active members, have left with their families. It's not because church leaders "offended us", though quite a number seem to have tried quite hard to do so. It's that Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth, and his church is not what it claims. That being the case, most of us see no point in ever attending again.

.

See, Mr. Monson, many of us aren't like you. Throughout a lifetime of reading your talks, I can't remember a single one that really focused on pure doctrine. You have done an excellent imitation at least, of someone who values the church for the "lifestyle" it encourages, the status it can give us, the friendships we have within it, or the opportunities it gives for service. And that's fine, for you.

.

But not eveyone is like that. Some of us really, truly, believed that Mormonism was God's ONLY true religion - that it was the ONLY true way. Some of us yearned, craved to learn all "the doctrine". Some of us were convinced that Smith's religion was worth living for, just as much as it was worthy dying for. The truth - the doctrine - the claims - everything - it all really mattered to us.

.

I don't know how to describe that feeling to someone who doesn't appear to be capable of it. All I can tell you is, it is the kind of feeling that makes you decide to give your all for the church (like going on a full-time mission instead of, like you, skipping a mission to study business the University of Utah) once you believe it is all it claims, but also makes you walk away when you know it's a fraud.

.

Now perhaps I have misjudged you, and if so, I apologize. Here is an easy way to tell what kind of person you are. Simply consider and answer this question:

.

If, by some chance, Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth about his experiences, and his church wasn't what it claimed to be, would you want to know? Knowing how much that would change your life...would you really want to know?

.

If you answer "yes", then I suggest you read through some of the summaries I mentioned above, and then we can discuss things from there.

.

But if the answer is anything else, then...

.

Well then, I guess Joseph Smith's church has just the kind of president it deserves.

.

Good luck,

.

Talmage Bachman

.

Former member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Dear Mr. Monson

.

In your recent LDS General Conference address, you issued an invitation to those, like me, who have left the Mormon church to "come back". My question is: why, when the Mormon church isn't what it claims?

.

Talmage Bachman

.

Former member of the CJCLDS

"However, if you use the longer version that has some points and other issues in it then perhaps normal people will think more about it."

mentalgymnast wrote:As a modern day Korihor you could get a lot of mileage publishing this in a forum such as the SL Tribune. Many of those on postmormon.org were of the same opinion. Have you sent this letter to the Tribune yet? If not, why?

So far you're on the sidelines making your gripes. Very few, comparatively speaking, are witnessing your prolific diatribes against the church. Wouldn't publishing your letter in the Tribune or some other syndicated newspaper give you and your anti-church cause a real kick start?

mentalgymnast wrote:As a modern day Korihor ...

As a modern day Korihor you could get a lot of mileage publishing this in a forum such as the SL Tribune. Many of those on postmormon.org were of the same opinion. Have you sent this letter to the Tribune yet? If not, why?

So far you're on the sidelines making your gripes. Very few, comparatively speaking, are witnessing your prolific diatribes against the church. Wouldn't publishing your letter in the Tribune or some other syndicated newspaper give you and your anti-church cause a real kick start?

After all, your endgame, I'm sure, is the demise of the church that you so despise.

If you don't publish your letter through a major media outlet, you will remain sitting on the sidelines shouting out your critical remarks, but be heard by relatively few. Is that what you want? Is it worth all the time and effort you devote to your cause? Why not go for big time exposure and bring all your angst to the forefront of possible discussion? You have the support of your brethren behind you.

Recently on a newer thread (having published the longer letter to Monson a week or two ago on an older thread) over at postmormon.org called: I need help with my NEW open letter to Monson, you published a much shorter version of your letter:

Dear Mr. Monson

In your recent LDS General Conference address, you issued an invitation to those, like me, who have left the Mormon church to "come back". My question is: why, when the Mormon church isn't what it claims?

Talmage Bachman

Former member of the CJCLDS

"However, if you use the longer version that has some points and other issues in it then perhaps normal people will think more about it."

I'm in agreement with that sentiment.

Don't be a wimp! Get your name and your cause out there for all to see!

You're not afraid of anything...are you?

Dr. Shades wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:As a modern day Korihor you could get a lot of mileage publishing this in a forum such as the SL Tribune. Many of those on postmormon.org were of the same opinion. Have you sent this letter to the Tribune yet? If not, why?

So far you're on the sidelines making your gripes. Very few, comparatively speaking, are witnessing your prolific diatribes against the church. Wouldn't publishing your letter in the Tribune or some other syndicated newspaper give you and your anti-church cause a real kick start?

I get the feeling that, in your opinion, there are one or more inaccuracies in what Tal has written.

If so, will you please point them out for us? What portions of Tal's letter, specifically, are in error?

Thanks in advance.

Joseph Smith may have been many wonderful things; but one thing he was not, was trustworthy. He simply didn't tell the truth.

Tal Bachman wrote:

As a modern day Korihor you could get a lot of mileage publishing this in a forum such as the SL Tribune. Many of those on postmormon.org were of the same opinion. Have you sent this letter to the Tribune yet? If not, why?

---I thought I would revise it.

mentalgymnast wrote:As a modern day Korihor you could get a lot of mileage publishing this in a forum such as the SL Tribune. Many of those on postmormon.org were of the same opinion. Have you sent this letter to the Tribune yet? If not, why?
So far you're on the sidelines making your gripes. Very few, comparatively speaking, are witnessing your prolific diatribes against the church. Wouldn't publishing your letter in the Tribune or some other syndicated newspaper give you and your anti-church cause a real kick start?
Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:
I don't know what he's afraid of. For some reason he seems to be evasive about going public.

I think he's painting with broad strokes in making this comment. A bit too black and white. Just as in many things in this life, it is difficult to come across making blanket statements and then expect the blanket to adequately cover everything

Tal Bachman wrote:I've been ... in the recent PBS documentary "The Mormons".