Why I left the LDS Church (Warning: *LONG*)

[_Dr. Shades]

A Facebook friend of mine, who's also a former missionary companion, asked me why I left the LDS Church. Once I got typing, I couldn't stop.

Although I've given brief overviews from time to time, I don't think I've ever made a single overarching post detailing all the reasons. Since I have it there on Facebook, why not post it here too and have it permanently archived?

In the following message, all names have been deleted to protect the guilty. This is going to be VERY long, so I recommend not bothering with it unless you're REALLY bored and have nothing else to do. Otherwise, enjoy:

-----[BEGIN MESSAGE]-----

Hi __W__,

Here are the ins and outs of my apostasy.

Although they wouldn't bear fruit until mid- to late-1998, some seeds of doubt were sown on my mission itself. Specifically:

When __X__ took over, I was in Meito-Kita, which of course is right next to the [mission home]. I was there often enough to make copies, pick up more Books of Mormon, or whatever, that I got to know President __X__ rather well.

Remember how some of us mentioned his "reign of terror" on Facebook? Well, as fate would have it, I was one of the very first ones to see it in action. You see, my second junior companion was a green bean. Elder __Y__--did you ever know him? He was having a hard time adjusting to Japan and to mission life. I took it in stride, since we all climatize at our own pace. Anyway, due to a mix-up in the mission home, he became my companion a second time (the first time, __Z__ assigned him to me; the second time, __X__ did). This didn't bother me, since we got along well.

Just before I picked him up, though, __X__ subjected him to "the test." This was a psychological evaluation where you answer some questions and then the mission president forwards the results to one or more psychologists in the church's employ who then determine whether you should remain on your mission or be brought back stateside, medicated, and reassigned to some place back in the States.

Anyhow, the phone call came the next day, and sure enough, he was getting sent back to the States for "treatment."

This devastated him. Everyone else could [do missionary work] in Japan, why couldn't he? His self-esteem took a MAJOR hit. He was on our balcony, literally sobbing. What on earth could I do? As you can imagine, the next couple of days before he went into the mission home were pure hell. How could he effectively [do missionary work] knowing he couldn't "make the cut?" And I was powerless to do anything about it.

__X__ told him that there was a possibility that he could return to Japan after his treatment. This made him feel a lot better. Needless to say, that never happened.

Later on, another person was brought in to take "the test." Then another. Then another. Soon we were all running scared. Yet a pattern emerged: Sure enough, the only ones who had to take the test were either those who weren't adapting too well or didn't have great stats. We were all blown away when Sister __A__-with whom you, me, and __D__ corresponded on Facebook about Elder __B__, which I'm sure you remember--was given the test, too, even though she was a super high-producer. Was __X__ starting to give the test to people he simply disliked, or was he targeting a high producer to throw the rest of us off the scent?

Talking to __Y__ on the phone after our missions, he revealed that when he was in __X__'s office, __X__ had to leave the room for some reason. __Y__ looked at __X__'s day planner, and there in big letters it said "__Y__ Out." And as recently as a few months ago, when I re-connected with him on Facebook, he explained that when he got back to America, he asked the doctor about his chances of returning to Japan. The doctor gave him a funny look and said, "that's never been how it works." So all that talk about possibilities of staying around was just that--talk. Probably to pacify him so it'd be easier for __X__ to send him off, who knows.

But back to the mission. At the time, I had a moral conundrum: All those many years of Ensign articles and General Conference talks about missionaries being so unconditionally loved and thoroughly cared for stood in stark contrast to what I saw __X__ doing with his dreaded "test." I had to shift my paradigm: I thought to myself, "I suppose God really values numbers above all else after all, and missionaries are expendable, regardless of what the church taught me." THE LESSON I LEARNED WAS THIS: What the church *says* vs. what's actually *true* might be 180 degrees different. There was no way of knowing.

I also got to know __X__ well enough to hear him talking smack about other missionaries behind their backs. This, too, stood in contrast to all the Ensign articles and Conference talks about God only choosing high-caliber, totally honest men to serve in such delicate callings. I again learned the lesson that what the church *says* vs. what's actually *true* might be 180 degrees different. There was no way of knowing.

Then there was the whole mission experience itself. The Ensign and Conference routinely describe a mission as the best two years of one's life. But once I was actually ON the mission, I found out that the "best two years" mantra wasn't automatically true. It all depended on the sort of mission president you had and the sort(s) of companion(s) you have. Let's face it: Wouldn't the MTC have been a whole lot better if we hadn't been tripled up with __C__? Once more, I learned the lesson that what the church *says* vs. what's actually *true* might be 180 degrees different. There was no way of knowing.

Not only that, but the church repeats the standard formula about how "all you have to do is keep the rules, and you'll have lots of baptisms." There was no shortage of variations on this theme during our missions, either, of course. But again, once I was actually ON the mission, I found out that this wasn't true at all. The ones with the most baptisms were the ones who were the most charismatic (or, in a few cases, the most manipulative), NOTHING MORE. Keeping rules had, quite literally, NOTHING to do with the number of baptisms you saw. Wasn't it also your experience that the elders who did the most playing also saw the most baptisms? Yet again I learned learned the lesson that what the church *says* vs. what's actually *true* might be 180 degrees different. There was no way of knowing.

Anyway, that was the mission. Even after all that, the lessons went dormant. Life went on, business as usual.

A major shock came in late August 1997. TIME magazine did a piece about the church, you might recall. In it, Gordon B. Hinckley was interviewed and asked whether the Mormons believe that God was once a man. This was his response, AND I QUOTE: "I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. . . I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it."

What the Hell? *I* certainly knew that we teach it. Even if we don't necessarily emphasize it, *I* certainly understood the philosophical background behind it ("the Lord's course is one eternal round," etc.), I knew a lot about it, and I knew that others knew a lot about it too: God followed His own father's plan of salvation to achieve exaltation, just like we're doing now.

Why not just answer, "yes?" I've heard the excuses that his audience wasn't prepared for deep doctrine like that, or perhaps he didn't want to cast his pearls before swine. I didn't buy either excuse. Anything short of a flat "yes" is deception to some degree. What happened to the Abinadis of old who boldly declared the truth of God, to "swine" or otherwise, and chose death rather than refrain from testifying of what they knew?

Once more, that shock went on the shelf as well. Life went on.

About this time [. . .] I determined to be the best Mormon I could possibly be, so I decided to use that time for scripture study and church research.

I read a book by a professor affiliated with FARMS, which stands for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. At the time they were an independent body, but later they became an official department of BYU on Gordon B. Hinckley's invitation.

Anyway, the name of the book was (and still is) "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon." The book was the magnum opus of the guy's life's work, that of identifying likely geographical candidates for Book of Mormon place names based on the book's internal statements, the lay of the actual land, true-to-life ruins, etc.

He made such a good case that I saw no reason to disbelieve his conclusions. In short, he convinced me that the "narrow neck of land" was indeed the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and the Hill Cumorah was a large hill (I forget its name) some miles north of there, but nevertheless still in Southern Mexico.

Not long after this, early in 1998, I was walking through a bookstore and passed by "No Man Knows My History" by Fawn M. Brodie (niece of David O. McKay). That's widely-known as an anti-Mormon book. I decided, on a lark, to open to a random page.

I opened to the story of Zelph the White Lamanite. If you're unfamiliar with this, then here's the scoop: During the march of Zion's Camp, they came across an indian burial mound, climbed to the summit, and dug down a ways. They uncovered a human skeleton, then asked Joseph to inquire of the Lord just who this person was. Joseph received revelation that the man's name was "Zelph," that through obedience to the gospel had become white and had the curse lifted from him, that he had been killed in the final battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites, and that "he served under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the eastern seaboard, or the Hill Cumorah, to the Rocky Mountains."

Well, well! I suddenly remembered learning about this "Zelph" guy in seminary, so I knew this wasn't some anti-Mormon lie. This presented a dilemma, since the final battles took place in Southern Mexico, not far from the narrow neck of land. As we all know, there's no "narrow neck of land" anywhere NEAR Illinois! Now, what was a true prophet doing receiving false revelation? Or, if the Zelph thing was true and the Book of Mormon false, at least regarding its own internal geography, then how could a true prophet bring forth false scripture?

I might've been able to find a way to deal with or "shelve" that problem, too. Far more problematic, however, was my sudden realization: I'd read through Professor Sorenson's entire book, and NOWHERE did he mention Zelph. I had heard about Zelph in seminary, so it stands to reason that it's IMPOSSIBLE that a BYU professor of anthropology who spent his life's work on the Book of Mormon would NOT have heard of Zelph.

I then put two and two together: If I happened to uncover ONE instance of a BYU professor ignoring contrary evidence in order to push his pet theory, what OTHER instances of contrary evidence are out there that the church itself simply ignores? This brought back the old lesson that I learned four times over on my mission: What the church *says* vs. what's actually *true* might be 180 degrees different. There was no way of knowing.

Obviously, the church isn't going to reveal anything about itself that would cause its members--or anyone else in the world--to look at it in a bad light. This is why the church's vaults are sealed and even a lot of its archives are strictly off-limits (a fact that bothered the heck out of me since before my mission: If the church is true, then what's there to hide? Since when can the truth NOT withstand scrutiny?) Since it stood to reason that I couldn't discover whether any other inconvenient truths had been swept under the rug, then I would have to do the unthinkable: Look to anti-Mormon sources.

So, with great fear and trepidation, I went out and bought my first anti-Mormon book. Trembling, I began to read. . . and that was the beginning of my odyssey. It wouldn't be until over six months of hard reading, internal struggling, and severe depression later--late summer or so of 1998--that I finally allowed myself to conclude that the church probably wasn't true.

Nevertheless, that struggle fostered a deep interest in Mormon history and doctrine that continues to this day. As such, I've kept on studying Mormonism, regardless of my beliefs about it. In the process, I discovered that there are two types of anti-Mormon literature: Stuff produced by Evangelical Christians who attack Mormonism due only to alternately-interpreted Bible verses, and stuff produced by secular critics (who aren't interested in converting Mormons to anything) who merely focus on the church's own documents and history. I had mistakenly assumed that ALL anti-Mormon stuff was the former. I was amazed to discover the sheer volume of the latter, and the latter is, of course, what I focused on.

As for those hypothetical inconvenient truths that the church may or may not have swept under the rug, I discovered that, yes, there were lots of them aside from Zelph. In fact, Zelph was only a very, very minor issue. It didn't even appear on the radar. Some of these "swept-under-the-rug" things were utterly damning to the church's claims to have anything whatsoever to do with a restoration of anything. Not only that, but there were LOTS and LOTS of such things. I was literally unprepared for the sheer volume of items from the church's own history that all but proved the whole thing to be false.

For example, you know the story of how Joseph asked Heber C. Kimball for his wife, Vilate, and how Heber agonized for days before finally acquiescing and giving her to Joseph, upon which Joseph said it was only a test. Well, the detail that the church doesn't bother to include is that Heber gave him his 14 year-old daughter Helen as a "consolation prize" so that he could keep Vilate.

The church doesn't do anything to prevent the spreading of the rumor that the papyrii from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham was lost in the Great Chicago Fire. Few members nowadays realize that the lion's share of the papyrii were rediscovered in New York's Metropolitan Museum in 1967, re-translated, and found to be nothing other than common funerary documents having nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham or his religion. It's too bad Joseph left behind his notes on how he derived his translation and wrote Egyptian characters next to the corresponding text, because we now know that he was 100% wrong--he made the whole thing up. Just look in your own Pearl of Great Price at Facsimile #2 and Facsimile #3. His interpretations are right there in the book, and precisely 0 Egyptologists have agreed in any conceivable way with his translations. At the bottom of Facsimile #2, some of the sections say that they will be given in the own due time of the Lord. Unfortunately, modern-day Egyptologists can read them all with ease.

Some Mormons know that Joseph Smith had plural wives--which sort of destroys the old excuse that so many men died crossing the plains that men in Utah needed to take extra wives to care for them all. Anyway, what the church fails to mention is how many of Joseph's wives were already married to other men. He taught them that the Lord only recognized priesthood sealings, so civil marriages were null and void. Poor Orson Hyde: Joseph called him on a mission to Palestine to dedicate the Holy Land for the return of Israel, and came back to find his wife sealed to Joseph and pregnant with Joseph's kid!

We all celebrate the Pioneers and their spirit and sacrifice, yet we hardly ever hear about the Mormon Battalion, even though they *walked*--not rode in covered wagons, but *walked*--nearly three times as far. This is because over half of them apostatized after returning home to Winter Quarters. They by-and-large had directed that their pay should be given to Brigham Young so he could care for their families in their absence. They found, instead, that Brigham had kept all their money for himself, absconded to Utah, and left their families destitute and in squalor. The outrage caused the majority of them to apostatize--who can blame them? But the mass apostasy is why, compared to the pioneers, they're barely more than a footnote in church history books, even though their journey was far longer and their privations far greater.

We hear all the time about the persecution the Mormons endured in Missouri. What we don't hear is that the Mormons traded, bought, and sold only among themselves. In addition, they constantly told their non-Mormon neighbors that the Lord would soon drive them, the wicked, from their farms and give it to the Mormons to build Zion. Mormons also voted as a bloc at the direction of Joseph Smith, which meant that any politician hoping to be elected had to bend over backwards to please the Mormons--the votes and opinions of politically divided Missourians didn't count. Not only that, but after the Danite skirmish at the election booth, the Mormons marched on the towns of Millport and Gallatin, caused the inhabitants to flee, pillaged all the livestock and household goods from the farms, and then burned both towns to the ground. The looted material was called "the spoils of the gentiles" and the Lord had, according to Smith, given it to the Mormons. To make matters worse, they opened fire on a state militia, wounded one young man, and then hacked his face almost to pieces. THAT last incident is what sparked the "extermination order."

What of the Kirtland Bank? The one that was prophesied to swallow up all other banks? Well, after Joseph and Sidney failed to obtain a lawful banking charter, they simply stamped the bills with "anti-" and "ing co." around the word "Bank" and renamed it the Kirtland anti-Banking Company. Presto! Unfortunately, after declaring by revelation that all his followers must deposit their savings into this new bank, he used the money as security as he printed off lots of bank notes in order to pay off his debts. Once word got out, companies stopped accepting the bills as currency, there was a run on the bank, and many of Smith's followers lost everything. He didn't flee Kirtland because of any "persecution," he fled Kirtland to escape charges of bank fraud and lawsuits from his creditors!

Some time before he was assassinated, some men in Kinderhook, Illinois decided to play a joke on Joseph Smith. They had their blacksmith friend cut out some copper plates, etched into them some chinese characters that they haphazardly copied off a box of tea, dipped them in some sort of acid solution to make them appear old, then buried them in another mound. They made up a story about having a dream that some plates were there, hired a local Mormon (among others) to dig into the mound, and lo and behold! More metal plates were retrieved from the earth (along with a human skeleton). The Mormon guy begged them to let him take the plates to Joseph Smith, and of course he was given permission. Joseph's personal secretary, William Clayton, had this to say, AND I QUOTE: "Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth." Not a bad translation for some completely bogus plates, right? Thus proving, along with the Book of Abraham, that Joseph was perfectly willing and able to cook up fake translations when the need arose.

The Book of Mormon itself presents problems. The Brass Plates should've carried some Old Testament scriptures in their purity, since the early apostate Christian church wasn't around to corrupt them. Unfortunately, Smith's "Inspired Translation" of the Bible varies with the Book of Mormon in some parts of their Isaiah portions, both of which should've been pristine. Plus, with the discovery of earlier manuscripts, we now know that the Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon carried over some King James version translation errors, which of course couldn't have been penned by Isaiah.

At the same time Smith was running for President of the United States, he had organized his "Council of 50," which was meant to be the political arm of the Kingdom of God (the church proper was merely the religious arm). As head of the Council of 50, he had himself crowned "King of the Kingdom of God on Earth." To make matters worse, he sent ambassadors to England, France, and the Republic of Texas to form alliances against the United States--the very nation for whose presidency he was running!

It also turns out that there is more than one version of the First Vision. Smith contradicted himself each time on his age and on who exactly he saw. In one version he saw Christ, in another version he saw an angel, in another version he saw many angels, and in the final version he saw God *and* Christ. In fact, for the first few decades of the church's existence, the visit of the angel Nephi (name later changed to Moroni, then back to Nephi, then to Moroni again) *was* the First Vision.

The Manifesto of 1890, which overturned polygamy, was said by Wilford Woodruff to be merely a way to "beat the devil at his own game." Most of the apostles took plural wives after this. Heck, Wilford Woodruff himself took at least one more plural wife after the Manifesto. It wasn't until 1904 that President Lorenzo Snow had to issue a "second manifesto" declaring that he was serious about ending plural marriage for real. Nevertheless, it wouldn't be until 1906 that anyone was actually excommunicated for entering into new plural marriages.

Toward the end of his life, in a fireside in Utah, Martin Harris said that he and the rest of the Three Witnesses saw the golden plates with their "spiritual eyes." He also said that the eight witnesses hesitated to sign their names to the pre-written "testimony of the eight witnesses" since they merely hefted the plates that were under a cloth, they didn't actually lay eyes on them.

Anyway, that's just off the top of my head. I could EASILY list many, many more unsavory skeletons in the Mormon closet, but I'm getting tired of typing. Trust me, *the list goes ON and ON.* Not only that, but the things I wrote above are the EASY STUFF. I've avoided giving any of the harder-to-swallow items. I run a website critical of the church--no, not the message board you're familiar with, but another one at http://www.mormoninformation.com --and I've been told some things in strict confidence that even I struggle to wrap my mind around. In other words, everything I typed above is just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

Of course, there are plenty of ways to rationalize and justify each the things I listed above (and probably the mountain of other things I *didn't* list above). I myself can probably come up with excuses for why any of those items don't prove that Joseph wasn't a prophet. Sure, that works for each item *individually,* but *as a whole* those things are much, much harder to dismiss. Taken all together, the church looks PRECISELY like any other man-made church, either before or since.

Now, if I was to come up with ways to give Joseph Smith a free pass, wouldn't that *exact same* free pass also apply to, say, David Koresh? Or maybe Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification Church (the "Moonies")? Or L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology? To properly evaluate Mormonism's claims, one must NOT cut Joseph Smith ANY MORE SLACK than one would cut any other religious leader for the same moral lapse.

This led me to devise "The Jehovah's Witness Test:" For example, let's say you're seeking to explain away the falsehood of the Book of Abraham in order to salvage Joseph Smith. Now, let's say that the Book of Abraham was the problem of the Jehovah's Witnesses, not the Mormons. Would you be as willing to apply the same excuses for Pastor Russell (the founder of the Watchtower) as you wish to apply to Joseph Smith? Ergo, when evaluating all the "hits" against Joseph Smith, you are NOT ALLOWED to make any more excuses for Joseph Smith than you would for any other leader of any other religion.

Whew! So, that's why I left Mormonism. Any questions? :-)

-----[END MESSAGE]-----

.

[_thews]

A great read. Having had some experience debating Mormons, I can read what you're writing and hear the scripted responses echo in my head. Mormons will only seek information from LDS approved sites, and what they miss in limiting their sources creates an opinion that isn't objective. This is the objective though in my opinion, and that would be to find some way, some crack in the wall to crawl into, to keep the truth from them and appease their cognitive dissonance.

You mentioned you were depressed after finding out the Mormon church was false. For a lot of ex-Mormons I've talked to, they experience the same thing (my exit was at age 11, so it's been a long time). The first emotion to hit home is one of being lied to by people that you trusted. The part I think isn't understood is they weren't lying... they believed it, but what they believed wasn't true. What advice would you have for members who do decide to leave the LDS church? Mormons are very mean to people who decide to think for themselves and are often ostracized by friends and family members. It's part of the deal in choosing to leave, and while the truth is worth it in the end, it isn't an easy transition.

Thank for sharing this.

[_Nightlion]

Whew! So, that's why I left Mormonism. Any questions? :-)
.

Yeah. What is :-) ? he he he he he

I think you listed Gerald and Sandra Tanner's reasons.

I will tell you why you left the Church, I can do this because....well, you know. You left because the culture and leadership of the LDS Church today fails to teach you how to repent. They fail to teach you how to come unto Christ acceptably and be born of him. This is the virtue of the gospel that you NEED to withstand the opposition of the world. The entire Church is every bit as vulnerable as you were.

If you were given the opportunity to get the gospel right, who knows, perhaps you might have. Then you would know God. And you would know salvation which is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ. You would then SEE the kingdom of God.

You would realize that Joseph Smith did receive the gospel in power and that would make all the difference in how you look at Joseph Smith. The new creation that God would wrought upon your heart, might, mind and strength would make you a prophet in stark contrast to our day and set you at odds with your community (yes, even the church) and you would know first hand the cowardly mischief that is taken out at your expense (by all that is evil) to set you up to fail at every turn just to convince the craven and fearful faithless curses that there is no power in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Your affinity with Joseph Smith and great affection for someone who suffered as you suffer would know no bounds.

The charity that would fill your heart, which is the love of God, would abound in you and be able to stand against all the fiery darts of doubt. Heck, we could have been buds.

Your mission stories got nothing on mine. I was betrayed by both of my mission presidents. I was betrayed big time by three bishops of my home ward and two stake presidents. These were friends that I admired.

I was cast out headlong by strangers in a strange land, Provo, Utah, :-( after I returned to a stake where previously attempts were made on my life!

[_MsJack]

Dr. Shades ~ I read it. Guess I'm bored.

When were you in Japan and where did you serve? I have another friend online who served in the Japan Fukuoka Mission from 1994-1996.

I think your story would be a little clearer if you assigned pseudonyms to the parties in your mission story rather than blank lines all around.

[_Scottie]

Kind of went a little non-mainstream there, Shades. Interesting approach.

Poor Orson Hyde: Joseph called him on a mission to Palestine to dedicate the Holy Land for the return of Israel, and came back to find his wife sealed to Joseph and pregnant with Joseph's kid!

This one was new to me. I thought there wasn't any conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith ever impregnated a woman.

[_Pokatator]

Whew! So, that's why I left Mormonism. Any questions? :-)
.

Yeah. What is :-) ? he he he he he

I think you listed Gerald and Sandra Tanner's reasons.

I will tell you why you left the Church, I can do this because....well, you know. You left because the culture and leadership of the LDS Church today fails to teach you how to repent. They fail to teach you how to come unto Christ acceptably and be born of him. This is the virtue of the gospel that you NEED to withstand the opposition of the world. The entire Church is every bit as vulnerable as you were.

If you were given the opportunity to get the gospel right, who knows, perhaps you might have. Then you would know God. And you would know salvation which is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ. You would then SEE the kingdom of God.

You would realize that Joseph Smith did receive the gospel in power and that would make all the difference in how you look at Joseph Smith. The new creation that God would wrought upon your heart, might, mind and strength would make you a prophet in stark contrast to our day and set you at odds with your community (yes, even the church) and you would know first hand the cowardly mischief that is taken out at your expense (by all that is evil) to set you up to fail at every turn just to convince the craven and fearful faithless curses that there is no power in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Your affinity with Joseph Smith and great affection for someone who suffered as you suffer would know no bounds.

The charity that would fill your heart, which is the love of God, would abound in you and be able to stand against all the fiery darts of doubt. Heck, we could have been buds.

Your mission stories got nothing on mine. I was betrayed by both of my mission presidents. I was betrayed big time by three bishops of my home ward and two stake presidents. These were friends that I admired.

I was cast out headlong by strangers in a strange land, Provo, Utah, :-( after I returned to a stake where previously attempts were made on my life!

Thanx for the comic relief.

[_MsJack]

Dr. Shades ~ Whoops, I just checked your mission journal and see that you were there from 1990-1992. Too early to have known my friend.

He's a liberal-but-believing Mormon and he's done a few posts on missionary life in Japan and how it wasn't perfect that you might appreciate:

The Tower of Babel, The Book of Mormon and the Pointy-Haired Boss

[_Ray A]

I opened to the story of Zelph the White Lamanite. If you're unfamiliar with this, then here's the scoop: During the march of Zion's Camp, they came across an indian burial mound, climbed to the summit, and dug down a ways. They uncovered a human skeleton, then asked Joseph to inquire of the Lord just who this person was. Joseph received revelation that the man's name was "Zelph," that through obedience to the gospel had become white and had the curse lifted from him, that he had been killed in the final battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites, and that "he served under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the eastern seaboard, or the Hill Cumorah, to the Rocky Mountains."

L. Ron Hubbard couldn't have done a better job.

[_Wayneman]

Mormons will only seek information from LDS approved sites, and what they miss in limiting their sources creates an opinion that isn't objective. This is the objective though in my opinion, and that would be to find some way, some crack in the wall to crawl into, to keep the truth from them and appease their cognitive dissonance.

Wrong. Unfair generalization.

Mormons are very mean to people who decide to think for themselves...

Wrong again. Another unfair generalization. :)

To be fair, though, I do not doubt that these things happen, and they ought not to.

In fact, I am the friend of Dr. Shades who asked the question on Facebook (thanks for making it anonymous, Shades ;). I don't judge him or anyone else. His decisions are his own. He knows that I agree to disagree on many issues. Yet we're still friends.

Imagine that.

Have a great one, Shades.

Later :)

[_Ray A]

Superficial doubts also began on my mission, though nothing in the doctrinal area. These were more "authority" issues, and the so-called "inspiration" of mission presidents. By the end of my mission I viewed most of it as a big corporation run by white-collar businessmen, and my second MP was a millionaire and former manager of Bookcraft.

I clashed with both of them (anything new there?), and wrote my first MP a long letter criticising the emphasis on tracting hours and getting baptisms (though I was a senior at the time I ended up as a junior in the country after this). We even had a competition with another nearby mission to see who could get the most converts in a year. What was this? Mission Olympics? Sorry Pres., but I didn't come here to compete; I came here to teach people. Rumour initially had it that I was "Assistant material". Well it didn't take long for all of that to go down faster than the Titanic.


I did, however, manage to make it as zone leader under the second MP (he didn't know me too well), and was assigned to a country area, based in Mildura. Mildura is farming country, particularly grape farming, and I happened to be there during the harvest. The farmers were upset at our tracting, visibly so, during this time, so I told the missionaries to leave them alone and concentrate on city areas. Tracting hours dropped awfully, and I was virtually ordered back to Adelaide to give a "please explain". So I did, in the presence of the MP, the Assistants, and the new replacement zone leader. It was like a kangaroo court. I asked the MP if he wanted to give the Church a good name, or a bad name with the farmers. No comprehende. Your job is to keep the work (hours/tracting) up, not bring it down. Needless to say, I never saw another leadership position apart from senior. Common sense took a back seat to figures and stats, and looking impressive on the surface. None of this seemed to me to be harmonious with the teachings of Jesus who, rather than worrying about bureaucratic figures, actually spent time eating with publicans and sinners.

When that big jet took off from Adelaide, I felt like I had my first heroin hit.