Letter from TBM friend... Prepare to be converted

[_AlandDeb]

I posted this on postmormon.org, but wanted to see if anyone has anything to counter his "amazing arguments."

I called one of my closest friends yesterday and told him I was leaving the church. He was excommunicated a couple of years back but is now a TBM. I knew he would understand. I am going to post his letter as well as my response. I omitted personal stuff, which is paragraph upon paragraph of him attacking my integrity,morals, throwing past sins in my face;he devoted much of his letter telling me why I should leave my husband who he refers to as "poison."

----,


I wanted to write to you in response to our conversation today. I am very, very sorry to hear your decision. I have no doubt that you have thought a great deal about this decision, but it still makes me sad. You mentioned that you would expect me to understand because of my own experience, but the reality is that I can’t understand your decision precisely because of my own experiences. I’ll explain.

I was excommunicated because of choices I made. Despite the things I knew to be true, I committed serious sins that resulted in my excommunication. I had serious problems with several people involved with the church as well as a processed I viewed to be inherently sexist. These experiences fueled anger against the church that enabled me, and even encouraged me, to reject the gospel for a time. It became increasingly easy to find fault with members and leaders of the church, and without a doubt, the more I looked for dirt on the church, the more I could find. I am well familiar with the majority of “alternative” Mormon sites, each promoting their own view of LDS beliefs. These sites further fueled my anger and mistrust, but as I did further research I realized that the majority of stuff I was reading was deceptive and fueled by the contributor’s own anger. I realized that I couldn’t trust anything I read on the web and was forced to turn to legitimate, primary resource research material to find answers.

What I found was that although there are plenty of instances of people who abused their authority, the majority of the material on websites attacking legitimate doctrine or the character of specific individuals was incomplete and inaccurate. You know me well enough to know that I would/could never return to a religion that I believed was abusive or manipulative. But that was not what I found. Instead, legitimate research and studying the truth helped me to better understand and embrace the gospel and the Lord’s servants, not reject them.

And ultimately, in the end, I could not deny the truthfulness of the gospel – not whether or not members or leaders of the church were perfect or made mistakes, but whether or not the principles and ordinances of the gospel were true.

I am also sad because I know exactly what you are doing; I went through it myself. When I started falling away from the church, I found that I had quit reading my scriptures, I had quit praying, or attending church or the temple. If I had to guess, I would say that you have done the same thing. But much worse, you replaced those positive things that build you testimony with garbage that has made you question your testimony. Essentially, you have poisoned your testimony with that garbage and the worst part is that the issues that have you questioning are truly garbage. I’ll demonstrate:

You, and *hubby*, keep talking about Joseph Smith and polygamy. This issue pisses me off more than anything. The church has done a great dis-service to itself and its members by not setting the record straight. I have studied this subject, not the garbage blogs on the internet, but the actual first hand testimonies and primary sources, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. I REPEAT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

All the claims are based off of second or third hand stories. Actually, if you read the historical record, Joseph Smith actually publicly condemned the practice of polygamy 13 times before his death, including 1 month before he died and an official declaration which was included in the original book of commandments (Doctrine and Covenants). During that time he sternly stated that he had never practiced polygamy and that he had only one wife (recorded in the Journal of discourses.) Additionally, Todd Compton, the foremost authority and chronicler of Joseph Smith’s so-called polygamy, documented 17 instances where Joseph Smith was sealed to other women, but was very clear that there was absolutely no evidence that Joseph Smith ever had a sexual relationship with any of them. Instead, evidence indicated that Joseph Smith’s understanding of the sealing ceremony had to do with uniting their eternal fate, not a sexual or marriage union. We see a perfect example of this in the fact that hundreds of people were sealed to Joseph after his death…it had nothing to do with marriage or sex, it was uniting their eternal fate with his.

This is a far cry from the many, many anti-Mormons who use Compton’s own research but twist it to support their own biased opinions or beliefs. (If you want to check this look for the reference for anyone who talks about Joseph Smith and polygamy and either they won’t document it or they refer to Compton, despite the fact that he was clear that it was not a marriage and sex was not involved!)

I want to be clear, members of the early church practiced polygamy. The first legitimately recorded instance of its acceptance was with Brigham Young in 1846. Polygamy was practiced by early members and was a doctrine of the church from 1865 to 1890. I personally find the practice of polygamy a disgusting system. As Pres. Hinckley stated in regards to polygamy in the early church, “All we know is that some members of the church practiced polygamy, then in 1890 the Lord commanded it to be stopped. It then became against the laws of God.”

I don’t know why Brigham Young and his followers did it…I find it repulsive, but he did. But do not confuse his behavior with Joseph Smith. And as Hinckley stated, we have no public revelation where God commanded polygamy to be practiced, but we know that He commanded it to be stopped.

I make no excuses for the early polygamist! No other issue has caused so much controversy nor done so much damage to the church and its members. And the women involved, as can be confirmed by their own journals, were in hell during that time. I have my own theories regarding Brigham Young and why the Lord would allow him to misuse his authority, if that is indeed what happened, and I won’t go into details about that here. What I do know if that he may have been the only person strong enough to lead the Mormons west during that time. Let’s also not forget that he was a fallible person, and all of God’s servants have been such. In addition, the life saving principles and ordinances of the gospel had already previously been established and were not change by Brigham Young.

Also keep in mind that Joseph Smith was not perfect. He was sometimes arrogant and I believe that he, at times, made claims or comments that he ultimately couldn’t back up. When he was inspired he was truly inspired, but when he was arrogant he made big mistakes. The Doctrine and Covenants is full of instances where he was chastised for his mistakes and/or disobedience. It is important to know what issues he was in error and which he wasn’t, and the majority of allegations against him that I found in the blogs turned out to be fallacious or misconstrued.

Legitimate research into things such as the translation of the Book of Mormon or the inspiration for the Pearl of Great Price is absolutely astounding! The fact that Joseph Smith restored temple ordinances and doctrines (the belief in deification and the pre-mortal existence for instance) that existed in the primitive church, but which were lost, speaks volumes about his ability to receive revelation. In fact, documentation confirming the temple ceremonies that were practiced up till 300 AD were lost but were recovered less than 3 decades ago. Those ancient records described the sacred temple anointing ceremony, the garments and the prayer circle literally word for word as Joseph Smith restored it. That’s because when he was truly inspired to restore the gospel in its fullness.

You also made a reference to his seer stones, as if they were some dark secret. They are not and have never been. Joseph speaks in detail about first the Urim and Thummim and then the seer stones, two of which he claimed were given to him from an angel, similar to individuals in the Old Testament. In fact, the use of seer stones is ancient and a core component in the Hebrew belief system. But more importantly, I have seen one of them. I have held it and touched it. I have read the report from the Princeton Museum of American History declaring it an “invaluable” piece of American History. I have also read the FOUR independent geological reports each stating that the stone was composed of an unknown element not found on this earth. It was about the size and shape of an egg, green and rough on the outside and as smooth as glass on the inside, which was yellow and could be seen through a hole in the top or three small holes in the shape of a perfect triangle on the bottom. I have seen it! Scientists have no explanation for where it came from or what it is, perfectly supporting Joseph Smith’s claim and consistent with descriptions found in the Book of Mormon, the Old Testament and ancient Hebrew scriptures.
There was nothing secretive or shady about those stones, but instead they are consistent with the behavior of the ancient prophets in the Old Testament.

I also want to address and clarify your statement that President Hinckley lied about God’s origin. In an interview with Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1), the following conversation occurred:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about. [emphasis added]

Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. ...that's one thing that's different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it. [emphasis added]

It has been interpreted that Hinckley denied the Mormon belief that God the Father was once a man like us. That is an incorrect interpretation. First of all, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph F. Smith and many others have stated that God the Father was once a man. Hinckley did not deny that: He stated that he “understands the philosophical background behind it,” but didn’t know a lot about it. “I don’t know” he said. He made clear that it is a belief but that he didn’t understand or know much about it.

Secondly, despite the quotes of former church leaders, that doctrine is not a part of any gospel instruction manual, and I would encourage you to try to find it among official church study material, because you won’t. He was absolutely right in saying that the church doesn’t teach it, doesn’t emphasize it and that most people don’t know a lot about it. Truth is, most members, though this belief might sound familiar or logical to them, know very little of who taught it nor the details of it. It is simply not taught or emphasized in the church or in any doctrinal course book. Hinckley did not lie and that interpretation is a very poor one.

Furthermore, President Hinckley has always been very clear in his speaking and has tried very hard not to speak on subjects he doesn’t know. When questioned whether God the Father was once a man, he said, “I wouldn’t say that….” Meaning that he would not commit to that interpretation. He then follows but saying, almost a dozen times, that he didn’t understand the details of that doctrine. This is consistent with his past behaviors and in no way should be construed as a lie.

Finally, regarding to the Adam/God theory, I won’t go into its specifics. First off, although Brigham Young made that claim, no other prophet has embraced it. In fact, Hinckley, when asked about it, declared that he had no idea what Brigham Young was talking about. Second, it is not a theory that has ever been taught or emphasized by official church teaching materials and the only place you will find it is in Brigham Young’s personal discourses, not church doctrine.

Please don’t fall into the Theological/naturalistic fallacy: Just because something was said by a leader of the church does not make it doctrine, or even that the speaker was correct in that statement. Prophets of God are simply men, at times inspired men, but still men.. They are fallible, they are not all-knowing. They make mistakes and they don’t always understand deep doctrine. Hinckley was right in saying that the life-saving principles of the gospel have never changed, and never will.

Just look at history:


Joseph Smith was admonished continually for his imperfections (how else can God make you better except to correct you?).
Peter, the head apostle after the death of Christ had denied Christ not just once but three times. What kind of scrutiny would he get in today’s media? How could you believe him when he denied Christ when it was convenient?
The prophet Moses wasn’t allowed to enter the promised land because of his own pride and disobedience, despite having conversed with God face to face, leading the people out of Egypt and establishing the Levitical order.
The prophet Jonah tried to flee from God and traveled across several countries before God had him returned to fulfill his calling.
The apostle Paul persecuted the saints and may have been involved in condemning and even killing some of them. He later flip-flopped (if you will) and later became the greatest missionary of the New Testament. Again, what would you think of him today? What would the blogs say about him?



I know that ultimately you probably don’t want to hear this and that it probably won’t make any difference. You have most likely made up your mind and that’s that. What I don’t understand though is that last year you had a strong testimony You believed the gospel was true and you were committed to it. You even told me that being a member of the church was the happiest you had ever been in your life. In fact, the biggest problem you had was that your husband had left the church and how badly that had hurt you.



----, I love you dearly, and will always but your friend, but I can’t understand or support your decision. You had the truth, and the fire of testimony, but you let yourself be poisoned first by your selfish husband who is only ever concerned about what is best for him, and then by the garbage you have been reading. I’m sorry for you. I am sad for you.


The reality is that you probably won’t listen to this, or you might even take offence to this, but I can’t just sit back and say nothing when you throw away so much. So this is me saying that you need to back away from the poison in your life and return to those things you know to be true and which brought you true happiness: The gospel, the scriptures, the temple. Stop focusing on the garbage. If you are looking for real answers you need to go to the source, or at least primary sources, but the garbage blogs are poisoning you, and so is your husband. It’s time to decide who you are and what you stand for and actually have the courage to stand for it. I hope you understand my intention and need to speak up. But now that I have, as long as you don’t bring it up in the future, I won’t either.

I truly wish you the best ----. I will still be here for you, I will still love you, and I will still help you in anyway that I can, but I cannot understand or support your decision.


AND MY RESPONSE:


Congrats. You sent me my first love bomb, something I plan on showing my children when I explain the cult checklist. I am not going to sit here and defend my beliefs to you. In fact, I'm not going to explain why I believe you are so disallusioned. I believe you are happy in the church...and no matter what I said, you would twist things. I'm not going to waste our time.
I am not going to attack your morals or integrity. I am not going to throw things you did in your face. that's really not my style. I am going to take the higher road.
I am, however, going to request that this be the end of the road for us. I am taking your advice and getting rid of the poison in my life.
I appreciate the eye opener!
--------------------------------------
is this a typical respose? What do you think of his reasoning that the church is true? He is such a smart, successful man.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Interesting letter. This person does not believe Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and finds polygamy to be a disgusting system.

[_The Dude]

Hi AlandDeb,

Lots of intellectual issues here. Your friend doesn't have his story straight, especially about polygamy.

I recall when I faced my father with an offhand list of reasons why I had lost belief in Mormonism. Let's see, there was evolution, LDS temple worship, Lamanite identity, patriarchal blessing bull sh!t, and Book of Mormon anachronisms. These were the biggies for me (polygamy wasn't one of them). It is interesting how there are situations where the intellectual and rational issues come to the fore, and then there are situations where the softer issues are more appropriate. My mother called me afterwards and asked me (crying) not to give up on faith. *Wow* I told her that faith is the real problem. I didn't believe in the usefulness of faith anymore, because my heart was no longer in it. If it was, then I could continue being like her. That was about it.... 12 years ago.

You have to do loose the will to believe before the intellectual issues crystallize like they have for you and the rest of us. So it doesn't help anything to face down your TBM friends and family with a point by point list of reasons why you think the LDS religion is false. In my opinion, it's better to just be cool about it, and see if they come to you. (Maybe, though, the cold truth is best for dealing with a TBM spouse. I'm still not sure about that in all cases, but it worked very well for me.)

Anyway, it's a very exciting time, and you want to share it. I know.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Hi you two,

I think you should use your temple names instead of your real first names... yeah like Lidia and I :)

I REPEAT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

OMFG! Please send them to FairLDS.

[_Dr. Shades]

In fact, the use of seer stones is ancient and a core component in the Hebrew belief system. But more importantly, I have seen one of them. I have held it and touched it.

B.S. He neither held nor touched one. It/they are locked deep within "Vault F" of the First Presidency's Vault, strictly off-limits to all.

I have read the report from the Princeton Museum of American History declaring it an “invaluable” piece of American History. I have also read the FOUR independent geological reports each stating that the stone was composed of an unknown element not found on this earth.

Again, B.S. There is no such geological report, much less FOUR of them.

[_gramps]

Hi!

She (?) seems really scared, doesn't she?

There are two things right off the bat: this won't be the last letter you get and they will all be basically the same.

I would definitely write a letter as a response. I probably wouldn't send it however.

Use this as a time to organise your thoughts and organise your research. Keep the letter for your history. It is fun to go back and watch everything crystallize over time.

Take care of yourselves.

[_Ray A]

I stopped reading here:

You, and *hubby*, keep talking about Joseph Smith and polygamy. This issue pisses me off more than anything. The church has done a great dis-service to itself and its members by not setting the record straight. I have studied this subject, not the garbage blogs on the internet, but the actual first hand testimonies and primary sources, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. I REPEAT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

All the claims are based off of second or third hand stories. Actually, if you read the historical record, Joseph Smith actually publicly condemned the practice of polygamy 13 times before his death, including 1 month before he died and an official declaration which was included in the original book of commandments (Doctrine and Covenants). During that time he sternly stated that he had never practiced polygamy and that he had only one wife (recorded in the Journal of discourses.) Additionally, Todd Compton, the foremost authority and chronicler of Joseph Smith’s so-called polygamy, documented 17 instances where Joseph Smith was sealed to other women, but was very clear that there was absolutely no evidence that Joseph Smith ever had a sexual relationship with any of them. Instead, evidence indicated that Joseph Smith’s understanding of the sealing ceremony had to do with uniting their eternal fate, not a sexual or marriage union. We see a perfect example of this in the fact that hundreds of people were sealed to Joseph after his death…it had nothing to do with marriage or sex, it was uniting their eternal fate with his.

Did I miss anything?

[_Inconceivable]

Hi Al and Deb,

Welcome to MD.

Please excuse the long reply:

I just had a similar conversation with one of my life long friends a couple of evenings ago. He always knew the church was true even while he lived his rebelious lifestyle. He is now a well intentioned, fully active, humble on fire proselyte. He believes our journeys run parallel and that I need to repent and take responsibility for what I know is true - just as he finally did after 30+ years of weed.

To justify his behavior, your friend sought out faults in the church to deflect attention from what he ought to have taken responsibility for in his own life. He also avoided material that would remind him that he was sinning against the Mormon God (like prayer, scripture study, temple attendance) to avoid the feelings of guilt & discomfort. He has admitted this to you so you would think he understands the principle of accountability. However, his departure from the church's teachings has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the church. Your friend came out in open disobedience/rebellion - the church then acted upon him. Is that primarily what you have done? If not, your leaving has few, if any, parallels.

In my own experience, I had no intention of being disobedient to a kind and loving Father in Heaven. I didn’t leave in order to sin or justify sin - or any other kind of lifestyle contrary to the church’s teachings. I didn’t realize this scenario were possible until I witnessed it in my own disaffection.

Your friend does make a valid point that there are many sights that will inflate allegations against the church. However, the deceitful behaviors of certain apostates do not in any way justify the actual lies/evils committed by the church's founders and perpetuated by those that followed. Notice that he is attempting to deflect/diminish accountability from the responsible party - the church.

As you know, his research is incredibly shallow and he has lied to you about the extent to which he has studied. Your friend most likely has never read anything more than a few quoted chapters of Compton and a handful of blogs (unless he has a poor memory). Some of his Faith-Promoting Rumor’s (faith promoting rumors) are new ones to me. Particularly about Smith’s seer stone and the mineral unknownium that it is composed of.

Inc.'s Evaluation:

1) When he was rebellious, he blamed the church to deflect the light of scrutiny from his behavior.

2) When the church or it’s leaders committed evil, he blamed the apostates for spreading lies beyond the actual unpleasant truths to deflect the light of scrutiny upon the church's behavior.

3) If you were to attempt to explain to him the truth of the lies he conveyed to you concerning the history/doctrine of the church, little doubt he will accuse you of a lying spirit to deflect the light of scrutiny upon his currupted sense of accountability.

[_JonasS]

Hey, For a TBM, that guy swore!!!!!!!! My bishop told me off for saying piss.

Josephe Smith DID practice polygamy. It is official. On the Church family history website, where you can find the family records, you will find Joseph Smith and his family INCLUDING his many wives.

They were sealed before his death and the dates are on their too, some women sealed even whilst their husbands were still alive. There are primary sources and journal extracts of some of those wives.

God never changes. How can it BECOME against the laws of God. This person writing this, did not specify sources of his claims and he is not quoting directly, he is paraphrasing.

“All we know is that some members of the church practiced polygamy, then in 1890 the Lord commanded it to be stopped. It then became against the laws of God.” -- the dude.

Where is the source of this? The date said, one can see that this guy paraphrased it out of his head.

This man is speaking Blasphemy against the church. He is speaking as though he knows for a surety as though he is speaking prophetically, but his words are his own personal doctrine combined with his own understanding of church history and it is speaking crap basically.

He is also breaking his temple covenants.

He speaks sorta like I do when i can't be assed. Or I have no strong defence. Lay on a little of everything, but don't allow for discussion or questioning, and only say the parts that are relevent to my views. And not go into detail. If he trully believed, he would have bore you his testimony, I saw no testimony and his points would more likely lead me away from church than towards it. He never clarified anything, he merely pointed out some stuff and made it look as though the church is great.

But think of this,

Is this person DENYING the power of the priesthood? Is this person DISCREDITING the Prophets ability as a seer and revelator?

I don't think he would have swayed my decision at all. He repeated himself in regards to not supporting your decision...

Here is a psychoanalysis...

This man is in denial, he has no firm testimony, he definetly has no testimony of the Prophets. He wants to believe, but he doesn't, it can be seen in his wrting, there is no feeling. He has searched but not searched enough and like most unsure, searching for the truth members, he has turned towards primary sources, because the outside sources aren't filling the void he is feeling and isn't providing comfort and is in fact providing more doubt, but his unconscous desire to hold on to church stops him from accepting what he has read, so he goes to church sources because they will tell him what he wants to hear, but is he really satisfied, or has he rationalised his fears and made church doctrine mold to suit his life.

He really doesn't believe, read it again and read between the lines. This man is holding on and he isn't all that sure.

[_JonasS]

Hi!

She (?) seems really scared, doesn't she?

There are two things right off the bat: this won't be the last letter you get and they will all be basically the same.

I would definitely write a letter as a response. I probably wouldn't send it however.

Use this as a time to organise your thoughts and organise your research. Keep the letter for your history. It is fun to go back and watch everything crystallize over time.

Take care of yourselves.

HE, she said in the first line "Him"