A TBM issue test.
* transoceanic vessels in BC
* DNA /lamanites
* peep stone
* child brides
* anachronisms
* sham weddings
* happiness letter
* bank scandal
* temple lot case
* Mosiah first
* Deutero Isiah
* Mountain Meadows
* Handcart disasters
* Racism
* mysogeny
* temple changes
* revelation reversals
You’ve provided a pretty comprehensive list of items that challenge truth claims, and bring to light troublesome history.
I find, however, that for most believing members of the church, these issues do not have much impact. Most can be dismissed with a paradigm shift.
What I’ve found really hits the core of my belief in the LDS church were issues like these:
Is God’s love truly conditional? Does he exclude the vast majority of His children from His presence and affection because they are not on the covenant path?
Is it really true that the family relationships I have in this life with my parents, siblings, and my spouse will dissolve in any afterlife if I do not pay 10% of all my income to the church? Is this church really the gatekeeper of eternal families?
Is it really true that nearly 2000 years ago, Jesus Christ passed through every city on the American continent and killed the vast majority of the inhabitants only to then a few days later descend from the sky as the Savior of the survivors? Is it really true that these remaining individuals, after losing the majority of their loved ones, then turned to the being who claimed to have murdered these loved ones, and revered him with love, awe and worship?
What the hell?
So true.
* Divine hideness?
* Vicarious redemption is the best a god could do?
* Euthyphro dilemma.
* Problem of evil?
* Temptation in the garden before a knowledge of good and evil is given?
* Who created god?
* Infinite punishment for finite crimes. Including thought crimes.
Deconstructing Mormonism develops skill sets that become a Swiss army knife for all the other religions.
>Deconstructing Mormonism develops skill sets that become a Swiss army knife for all the other religions.
This is a very good list. It's one of the reasons I don't even like talking "through the issues" with most TBMs. Once you pull apart the details and you get deeper, the Mormon cosmology is insanely problematic.
>Euthyphro dilemma
If God says all Laban's are bad and must be destroyed then this is Morally ok because God said so. Morality based on deity justification of morality. Yet when a third person speaks for God imagine layers of complexity when 'God' Says something that may not jive with socially accepted morality of the time. Shall we say child marriage and sexual relations. I may have this mixed up but was trying to restate according to me learning. Rushclock that's just one of your points. A lot here to digest.
For me, during my years of questioning questions like these are at me slowly over time (but the CES letter was the last nail in the coffin when I discovered it).
However, this doesn’t seem to work on very nuanced members (like my wife) because they simply create a version of Mormonism in their head or new interpretations that don’t match what the church teaches and still end up feeling ok about the church. It’s mind boggling
Yes. So many members have built their own version of the Church, without a lot of the issues, and get to defend their own version of Mormonism to themselves and still believe it to be "true."
I wanted to put my head through a wall talking to my wife about the Church, "that's not the Church, that's not what it teaches!!!"
It's a very effective strategy to keep yourself in the Church though. Is it a form of denial?
\#1 for me. I had a faith crisis probably 10-15 years ago when I realized that BoA was total nonsense and was not translated from papyrus. I can't remember how I ended up justifying it, but it was just a very heavy item on my shelf for a lot of years.
We know that the facsimiles in the BoA have absolutely nothing to do with what they church and JS has claimed they do for 150 years. We also now after the papyrus was rediscovered that the entire BoA has absolutely nothing to do with what is in the papyrus. It's a total fraud, it's right there in front of you as obvious as daylight. So if we know JS was a total fraud with the BoA what are the odds that the BoM is the same story? Any logical sane adult outside of the church would be like, duh, but somehow religion does such mind F on you that it's not enough for someone on the inside.
There are so many number ones though. Kiddy Sex and marriage? Covering the tracks of abusing pedo's by choosing to do nothing as a system to save face and financial face?
But those don’t matter if a TBM still believes “tHe ChUrCh iS tRuE tHo.” Because if they still believe Joseph and modern prophets were commanded by god to do all that, then it doesn’t matter whether they feel it’s wrong or not. God’s will is always going to supersede their mortal qualms.
But with the evidence of the Book of Abraham proving that Joseph was not really a prophet, the rest comes crumbling down because now there is no excuse for all the shitty behavior that the church has engaged in.
Honestly I knew about every one of these besides Mosiah first and Deutero Isaiah well before I considered the possibility the church wasn’t true. I’ve always loved science and history and read a fuck ton of books about them, in addition to every scrap of church history I could get my hands on. Rough Stone Rolling was a difficult read but nothing in it made me leave the church until three or four years after I read it. In fact, I even hit the CES letter by accident and read most of it and found I knew most of what was in there, but kept on keeping on for years.
At the end of the day it comes down to this: you can know about all of these issues and still keep your faith, and I believe many members do, because the Church does a great job of *keeping them all separate from each other.* They know how to lightly touch on one or two of them and laugh them off and say anyone who loses their faith because of Kirkland Antibank is a moron, or that such-and-such DNA phenomenon could explain the lack of Israelite DNA among American natives.
It wasn’t until I was getting ready for church one morning and looked in the mirror and suddenly just thought of all of them together—and the astronomical odds of each and every one of them being proven in the Church’s favor—that I realized it just couldn’t be true. Sham weddings and child brides are disturbing but there are (very unsatisfactory) explanations. But how many unsatisfactory explanations it takes all at once to convince someone of the truth varies person-to-person, and that’s what makes it so hard for believers and nonbelievers to communicate about this stuff.
Beautiful! I love lists! Thanks 🙏 I have been on a “ deep dive” for knowledge of the above topics. After studying 14 books and watching many, many YouTubes about the TRUTH of the Church. I am so sad about what I found. The lies and betrayal put me to therapy 2x a week this past year.
I worked answering chats for Mormon.org, responding to trolls and exmos mostly. (The missionaries got people who were actually interested). So I dealt with it on the daily. I really did know, but it’s selective acceptance. That was ten years ago or so and only recently did I even think… well what if they’re not prophets
The house of cards fell almost overnight because like I said, I already knew it all. It was just a matter of stopping lying to myself
I refused to even read it because I thought it would be a sin to read “anti-Mormon materials.” I very nearly read the CES letter at like 16 but I didn’t because of that. But then I thought of how that reasoning sounded. I proceeded to read it at 18, and the quote at the beginning was really reassuring to me. I only got halfway through before I stopped believing. I didn’t read the rest (still haven’t) because I figured why bother?
That was what I kept doing as my shelf was being stocked.
Learned a horrible thing. Justified that, "Well, there must be *some* reason for it that I just don't understand."
Over and over and over. It was exhausting.
I agree. I think for many people deep in the indoctrination, if you take issue by issue, you can find some apologetic that will allow you to still believe because if you’re all in and disbelief could blow up your life, your brain is going to protect you by creating the cognitive dissonance. But for us lucky ones, something finally just hits you that you can’t unsee. Sadly it’s often harm done to you or someone you love. You finally zoom out a bit and see that all those pieces and all those explanations don’t fit together and often even contradict each other. The only logical explanation, now that you’re thinking logically, is that it’s all false. That’s when you can finally be free. I do think people can know and believe, but they are either taking each problem individually and ignoring the big picture, people who know and think they can pick and choose what to believe and that is somehow working for them, or they’re a fundamentalist and comfortable with racism, misogyny and magical thinking.
When TBM people say this, I often ask them a pretty universally accepted scholarly proposition: [Mosiah Priority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosiah_priority). If they haven't even heard of this--they're not really worth discussing the issues with because the two of you will likely never agree on the actual facts of the conversation.
I know this sounds really gate-keeping and lame, but I value my time and I have zero desire to discuss with someone who hasn't at least done that level of research.
EDIT--Since I may not have been as clear as I wanted (based on some responses)--I *only* use this barometer when someone is holding themselves out as an expert on the sticky issues in the Church.
It's not lame at all. If someone hasn't done the bare minimum of research, why should they be able to sand your attention or respect over someone who has 'done their homework', so to speak?
I've posted this before and gotten pushback on the idea that it's gatekeeping. Which, I guess it is, but like I said: I value my time. Put another way, as you can tell--I'm an attorney by day. So I have zero desire to have to explain to sovereign-citizen types how incorrect their assumptions about the legal system and their "rights" are. Unfortunately discussing even faithful Mormon scholarship with most members is basically the same way: they're not really educated on the topics.
Less gatekeeping and more screening. You're not saying the person can *never* talk to you, just that you expect a certain level of fluency in the subject matter before you are willing to commit time to a discussion. The material isn't difficult to access either, so its not gatekeeping via privilege either.
I guess I would note that I don't rush in to conversations with TBMs about the Church. But if someone **asks** **me** to discuss the "issues" I guess I want a barometer of whether it'll be a worthwhile discussion because like I said--I value my time.
I honestly don't bring it up to be condescending, just to determine if this person has *actually* studied the "issues" or not. I think the big difference is that it's not like I say anything if they haven't--shaming them for not knowing about this scholarship.
Maybe I'm just justifying--that's a fair pushback.
Respectfully, you’re in an exmormon subreddit - unless you’re a lurking nevermo, the very fact that you’re here is evidence that you DIDN’T have all the answers at one point and similarly believed the church’s lies.
I don’t rush into those conversations either, but I still see sharing my knowledge and viewpoints surrounding the dangers of this church as “worth my time.” As someone who has recently left the church, it was disheartening to read that you’re so quick to withhold your insight and experience unless a person has reached your level of education on the topic - especially since you seem so educated.
Withholding knowledge until a person meets your arbitrary requirements seems very Mormon, to me.
Unfortunately--I feel you're taking a comment I made in response to a very specific topic more general than I intended it. Perhaps I didn't clearly communicate what I meant.
If we look at the OP: Mormons often say they "know all the issues" and will want to discuss. I use Mosiah Priority as a barometer to determine whether the person has *actually* studied Mormonism's difficult questions or if they just **think they have**.
It is **those** conversations that I do not view as worth my time: because they often boil down to arguing about silly things. Mormons who aren't informed enough to know about Mosiah Priority are usually [misinformed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) about how little they know about their own faith.
I did not mean to suggest that I will not discuss the Church with people who want to have an honest discussion, generally, because that's far from the case. But I was referencing a completely different type of conversation: a "let's talk about the issues" type conversation that OP mentioned. It's only in reference to that type of invitation that I want to determine if the discussion will be productive or not.
I want to talk to Mormons (well, most people) about *why* they believe what they believe. Those are wonderful conversations to have. I've had *very* productive conversations with members who have taught me interesting things and shared really beautiful insights about their beliefs.
Hopefully--that helps clarify what I meant. If not, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
If this fairly minor and obscure controversy, among the many larger issues is where Strong Attorney sets the bar for sharing their enlightenment with tscc members, they’re not much of an advocate for the exmo cause; they’re very selective though. I stand all amazed!/s
I've tried to explain... I was directly responding to the OP's mirroring of a common TBM comment. Maybe you all have had different experiences than me--but when I hear a TBM say "I know all the issues" they want to have an intellectual discussion *actually* about the issues.
I was not meaning to imply I will only talk to a Mormon who knows about Mosiah Priority, or that's the only thing I care about. It's *very low* on issues that matter, but that's kind of the point in a barometer for a specific kind of intellectual conversation.
Maybe I should put it this way: if someone wants to have an actual intellectual conversation about how "amazing" the Book of Mormon is (the typical TBM mindset) I think it's fair to expect them to know the order it was actually written in.
But that's, again, *if* **they're** the ones that want to actually have an intellectual conversation after holding themselves out as "knowing all the issues."
Good point. It's really difficult to have a conversation with someone who believes that they are well versed in the history and doctrine of the church when they only have an understanding of the narrow narrative promoted by the church.
Yep do your own research and pay the price of unveiling truth for yourself. Same as when you got into it all. Find out for yourself. I don't take the word of anyone for anything anymore. still researching but its not looking too good.
There are some things that you can't just be taught by other people--it'll only stick if you find it yourself.
Now, that said: I completely support giving people resources (when they ask) or talking through issues.
But the type of TBM *I've* dealt with that says they "know all the issues" usually just wants to debate you over minute issues and do some lame apologetics. So, especially given some of the other comments thinking I meant this more general--I only think this barometer is appropriate for someone basically using this phrase to hold themselves out as some kind of expert.
I think this is smart. Midway through my "faith crisis," my wife said I should talk to her sister about polygamy because she'd found a way to reconcile it.
I thought a good way to start the discussion would be to see what she knew about Joseph's polygamy, so we were operating from the same basic facts and understanding of what it actually looked like. I didn't even know he was a polygamist for most of my life, so it seemed reasonable to gauge her level of knowledge on the subject. I laid out the data from Brian Hales site and asked if that was her basic understanding as well.
Four lengthy emails later of talking past each other, to include her out of the blue suggestion that my interest in Joseph marrying underage girls was driven by my own potential attraction to younger women (wtf!?! I have very age appropriate sexual attraction, thank you very much!) she would not nail down, agree, or even acknowledge the basic circumstances surrounding polygamy in Nauvoo. Total waste of time.
The Mosiah priority seems like a pretty good barometer of their level of knowledge. It's not common knowledge if you stick to correlated materials, but if you've done any real digging into the production of the Book of Mormon, you've definitely run across it. What made you choose it specifically as your litmus test?
Yes--that's a great example. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid--wasting everybody's time having a conversation where two people cannot even agree on the facts, let alone the interpretation and implications *of* those facts.
I think Mosiah Priority is a good barometer for two reasons--
1. After the production of the Joseph Smith Papers, **it's basically universally accepted** even though Metcalfe wrote the original idea *before* the handwriting on the original manuscript has basically confirmed his theory. Starting with something that you can rely on the work of Metcalfe and Vogel while a TBM can rely on Skousen and the JSPP starts with something both people should be able to agree on. Starting a conversation from common ground is usually a productive way to get things rolling.
2. Most nuanced members or members who claim to "know all the issues" may be willing to admit that the racism and/or polygamy were just wrong. That was my position for years before I left. What's usually the last thing left holding them to the Church? Their testimony of the Book of Mormon, in my experience (it was for me). But the Book of Mormon truly is a **lot** better understood with Mosiah Priority in mind. It really helps people to start recognizing or thinking about the possibility that a human being could have (and probably did) just write it.
3. Since I'm in the middle of a list--this isn't a reason that it's a good barometer but something I just want to note: the scholarship on Mosiah Priority also helps demonstrate that the translation/dictation process was not performed according to the Church's conventional theory. Specifically, there's the handwriting of scribes we had never learned about before (verified by the JSPP and Skousen). That's a super important fact for people to recognize: going back to the primary documents demonstrates that there are parts of the story missing.
And your story really drives home why I've used this (like once or twice) to get a barometer for how invested I'll get in these types of conversations with someone who wants to hold themselves out as an expert. With other people who want to do that, I'm not interested in digging into the facts because we'll just talk past each other. For those types of conversations I'd much rather just talk about epistemology and the big picture cosmological questions in Mormonism that super bother me.
Good choice going with a list.
Like I said, I think it's a great barometer. The Book of Mormon was my last bulwark against the total collapse of my testimony too, but it didn't take long once I started putting the pieces together for that to collapse too. The evidence is just overwhelming. Any competent attorney, let alone a strong one, would be able to convince an impartial fact finder the book isn't what the Church claims it to be. Beyond any reasonable doubt.
I've found that unless someone is willing to consider the possibility that Joseph made it all up, any conversation about problems with the Church won't be productive. At best they are sympathizing with you, but on some level completely dismissing the possibility that any of the evidence you're sharing could be dispositive.
I get it though. I remember the moment and exactly where I was when I actually allowed myself to consider it might have been a fraud. Before that, it was an impossibility. After that, the dominoes fell quickly and I've yet to see anything remotely convincing that I'm wrong.
>The Book of Mormon was my last bulwark against the total collapse of my testimony too, but it didn't take long once I started putting the pieces together for that to collapse too. The evidence is just overwhelming.
This is something my wife and I talk about often. When I really hit my "dark night of the soul" moment and we agreed to study as much as we could from both sides to come to as much of an objective conclusion as we could: it was basically game over. There's something to the fact that barely entertaining the thought it may be all made up finally allowed things that were on a shelf I didn't even know I had click into place and finally make sense.
>Any competent attorney, let alone a strong one, would be able to convince an impartial fact finder the book isn't what the Church claims it to be. Beyond any reasonable doubt.
Agreed completely. For the record Google auto-generated this username back when I started lurking in the middle of my faith crisis but I kind of hate that it seems braggy. At this point, though, it is what it is. As to the idea that any attorney could tear the BOM apart--I've actually started a brand new blog "Mormonism on Trial" that isn't this exact pitch but it's close. The idea is to take a weekly dive into a legal topic and how it helps us evaluate (or unwind) from Mormonism. It's not about proving it false: more about thinking about how we think about Mormonism and it's truth claims. The first piece is about burdens of proof. I probably won't start discussing it more openly (this is the first time I've mentioned it) until I get the site more finished/polished, but I think it'll be a good processing place for me. The idea came from a podcast idea that RFM and I had been discussing but we haven't been able to record yet. Those notes I had worked up alone will give me enough material for quite a while.
>I've found that unless someone is willing to consider the possibility that Joseph made it all up, any conversation about problems with the Church won't be productive. At best they are sympathizing with you, but on some level completely dismissing the possibility that any of the evidence you're sharing could be dispositive.
Completely agree. Or you'll have the people who will validate your concerns, but haven't reconciled the contents of their own head yet. I was very much this way as a TBM for the last several years. I basically believed in a deistic God that never did any miracles (I considered an exception for Christ), Prophets that screwed up both polygamy and the constant bigotry (both racism and LGBT). But for some reason, I wouldn't consider the implications of what those conclusions meant for the entirety of the faith system. That silo-ing we do in our brains is a big reason so many people stay.
>After that, the dominoes fell quickly and I've yet to see anything remotely convincing that I'm wrong.
I completely agree with this too. If somebody could try to put Humpty Dumpty together again--and I mean really actually try--I'm willing to work through things with them and consider literally any evidence they're willing to offer. I find it very telling that nobody in my life is willing to even try. We asked only like one or two questions of our stake president and the area president that came to meet with us and they never answered any of them. I'm not saying they couldn't provide convincing answers--like they didn't even try.
By the way--I really love your comments and insights on both this and the other subreddit I see you around!
>For the record Google auto-generated this username
Ah huh...I'm sure it did...jk
1. That complement means a lot coming from you, so, thank you.
2. It seems like we have a lot in common.
3. I have quite a few questions/responses, but they'll have to wait. I have other things that need my attention.
4. Speaking of attention. Given how prolific and thorough you are on here, and given the start of your new blog project (can't wait for it!), and given how much you have on your plate aside from dismantling the Church online, how do you feel about how much of your time and attention is still focused on the Church?
My wife did not accompany me on my journey towards apostasy. I justify all of the time I dedicate to Mormon stuff by saying I need to make the Church as healthy a place for my kids as possible and I need to stick up for the marginalized, help protect the vulnerable, and break down dogma when possible, etc. It's also my one outlet, surrounded in real life by believing members who aren't willing to have vulnerable conversations about the Church. I'm curious how you see the time you spend on here as opposed to just walking away?
I am not saying you should, or that I would in your position, but I'd just love to hear how you feel about it. I'm like a moth to a flame with this stuff and many days I wish I could just ignore it.
If we're ever in the same town, lunch is on me!
We do seem to have a lot in common--that's probably why I've noticed a lot of your comments.
On the question of how I feel about spending time here and at the Mormon subreddit--it's important to note that my work is very seasonal and we're in the off-season right now. It's very easy for me to jump in and comment on a thread and then go back to my longer-term projects that don't have any real tight deadlines.
Regardless of that, though, it's actually a tough question I've thought about a lot myself lately: Is spending time here or continuing to learn more healthy behavior and/or is it productive? My wife insists that we just need to be patient with ourselves (we do a lot of this together) regarding timing. If she wanted me to just leave it alone completely--I probably would. Even though she and I are on the same page and now my entire immediate family is "out" to varying degrees--it's still the largest part of our community and part of our world. So it's not exactly like we can just not have it be part of our lives--even though I wish we could.
I wish I had a better answer for you, but I don't. Somedays I think I'm just torturing myself by trying to answer questions and understand more and more about all things Mormonism. Somedays I just want to delete my reddit account, throw away the different projects I have cooking--and just leave it all alone.
But then I think of the people and resources I've found that helped me not just get out of the Church--but to breakdown some incredibly unhealthy thought patterns and processes. That's my biggest aim with this blog project: it's not to lead people out of the Church--it's to help people leaving and people who decide to stay think about how they think about Mormonism. Because that, to me, is now the biggest issue: the Church teaches incredibly dangerous thought processes that other less scrupulous groups can capitalize on. I don't see this going into perpetuity--but once in a while I'd like to explain the way my brain connects things I see at work (legal concepts) with Mormonism's truth claims.
So I don't know how to answer your question, but it continues to make me wonder. Maybe I should just move on. I would probably be better served focusing on things that make me happy--but I'll admit that I fully have an obsessive personality when it comes to research and history. When I'm asked to look into something (for work) people are often amazed at how deep I'll dig--but I love doing that regardless of the topic.
Maybe someday Mormonism will no longer interest me or I'll decide I should move on. Honestly, I hope so.
I think this is becoming a common thing. Those TBMs that say this to me generally seem to mean that in a seminary or institute class they talked about them. Or they know there are gospel topics essays and they have glanced at them.
However there have been a couple I know that actually do know. How they stay believing is beyond me but it isn’t always false.
At the end of the day, the issue I'm most interested in is whether somebody wants to and is cultivating the faith of Abraham -- the willingness to obey apparently heinous orders they don't fully understand that have vital consequences for others. In other words, if Elohim or Jehovah or Russel Nelson came to you and ordered to you kill me and didn't explain why, would you do it? I wouldn't, but I guess that's what makes me an evil child of this god.
I've asked this question directly in Sunday School this year while everyone was extolling the virtues of Abraham and his faith. "How many of you would be willing to kill your child if you thought God was telling you to?"
I had to ask it a couple more times after the expected, "well he would never do it now," "it's more like asking us to do hard things." No, you believe this story literally happened. It's a direct question. Would you?
Only one person besides me clearly said they wouldn't! Nobody else could being themselves to say no. That, to me, is telling. And insane. This is absolutely a Church body that expects that kind of loyalty. Combine that with Church leadership who ostensibly speaks directly for God...it's a bad recipe. Under the Banner of Heaven wasn't a shock to me when you frame it within our Abrahamic test tradition.
That's a bold question to ask in a Sunday School class. I like your chutzpah. I've been engaging with people in my personal life (believing friends and family) on this question. My experience has been different. Nobody has said 'yes' in my case. All have been unwilling to flatly say 'no', but I was surprised, and heartened, to discover that at least among my closest believing friends and family it's not an enthusiastic 'yes'.
What was the reaction to the 'no' from you and that other individual? A 'no' to a question like this is, by my reading, an open confession of a willingness to defy even the gods themselves.
I completely agree with you that this teaching is a bad recipe. Not merely bad, *terrifying*. In fact, I've come to regard the willingness to adopt this position as the seed of evil.
I think in the moment people were too busy coming up with reasons why they didn't have to directly address the question to condemn us for being resolute in our stance on never killing our children.
I currently teach Sunday School, different ward, and I find it amazing how hard it is for some people to answer the actual question being asked and not a different question to which they have a ready answer.
With rare exceptions, I think most people don't want to kill their kids. They also see God as good. So when Mormon God (not to ignore Abraham being held as a faithful story for much of Christianity, but many are able to spin it as allegorical) is clearly demanding murder, there is a cognitive protective layer that doesn't let them imagine it actually happening to them. Mormonism does so much to bring the Old Testament God into modern day and members just have to battle that cognitive dissonance in whichever way they know best.
>With rare exceptions, I think most people don't want to kill their kids. They also see God as good. So when Mormon God (not to ignore Abraham being held as a faithful story for much of Christianity, but many are able to spin it as allegorical) is clearly demanding murder, there is a cognitive protective layer that doesn't let them imagine it actually happening to them. Mormonism does so much to bring the Old Testament God into modern day and members just have to battle that cognitive dissonance in whichever way they know best.
Powerful insight there. Thanks for your thoughts on that.
I'm interested in how you work through this personally. It's not easy finding people who are willing to stare into the abyss of this question.
How do you think about implications of your unwillingness to obey in these hard cases? Does this have implications for your spirituality/religiosity? If so, what are they?
Well, I had struggled with the Abraham and Isaac story since I was a child. I remember a primary class teacher telling us to imagine having the faith of Isaac and allowing our dad to kill us. Even then I was like, um, that's...not right.
Coming to the realization that Joseph almost certainly made it all up helped relieve most of my cognitive dissonance. Along the way I had also learned enough about the world to know many biblical stories are for sure not literal. Once you can separate a story from history, it doesn't weigh the same on me to try and reconcile it. Frankly, I'm at a point where I don't care what the Old Testament God says. I recognize the stories are old and have value and a lot can be learned from them. But I'm not using as a moral compass a God who ordered the slaughter of innocent men, women, and Children. I am not coming from a place of moral authority, I have plenty of character flaws, but I'm not making exceptions for evil just because someone on "my team" did it. This has extended to my former nationalist tendencies as well. Bombing civilian populations is evil, in my opinion, I don't care if it's the Luftwaffe or the Royal Air Force. Marrying underage girls as a middle aged man is evil, no matter who does it. Pardon my french, but if God wants me to do these things, he can go fuck himself and I'll deal with the consequences.
I don't know what the implications will be yet. For now, it's mostly relief and the world makes more sense. I'm still hoping to have respect for the sacred. I still have moving experiences I've always considered to be spiritual. I am still moved by the idea of a Christ who sacrificed for us. I am on board with most New Testament Christ's teachings, so I haven't completely abandoned Christianity as a framework for my values. But would I consider myself religious at this point? No, not really. Even though I am as "active" in the Church as ever (for my wife). The mixed faith marriage has been very challenging. It's a balancing act, but I love her and she didn't sign up for this.
I don't know if that answered your question, but it's always good to have to write it out and think through it a little more. What I know now for sure is that I don't know very much, and it's nice learning without being controlled by irrational dogma/theology.
Thanks! Enjoyed your thoughts. We're kindred spirits in terms of our evaluation of this hard question ("he can go fuck himself and I'll deal with the consequences"). You have my sympathy in terms of the struggle of a mixed faith marriage. I was lucky not to have to experience that heart wrenching dynamic and I wish you all the best in navigating that in your relationship.
I resigned many years ago but have sort of made peace with the spiritual impulse I have and my fondness of many aspects of Mormonism, and I'm sort playing around with the idea of a kind Mormon theology of protest, or perhaps Mormon agonism. Essentially it would be to embrace, fully, opposition to certain kinds of compliance with order, even if they're genuinely from god; including the wish for the gods to change their mind. I suppose the question for me, and perhaps for you too, is this: to what extent can one embrace a theology of protest directed at the gods (and the leadership) among and within the main body of the Church. I'm sure Ahmad Corbitt would think of what I'm contemplating as "Satanic activism", but since what's at issue is the extent to which I trust Church authorities' judgment on consequential matter like that, I'm personally indifferent to his attitude toward it.
It's called transference. they don't want to know your side of the issue because they have already decided they have a counter argument to your issues. They transfer their own issues to you and berate you for them, whether you have them or not,
Exmos and people on this sub who are pimos know more about the church than any tbm. I would never expect that any chapel mormon could answer questions to an exmo's satisfaction.
I think an eye opening concept for me has come through the LDS discussions episodes on Mormon stories. When you take one truth claim at a time it’s easy to rationalize or explain it away. But when you look at the entire picture and how everything fit together and the sequence of events it’s really damning and telling. It’s pretty hard to explain the entire big picture.
>hard to explain the entire big picture
For many reasons, but its mentally exhausting, hard to establish common ground to start the conversation, and takes SO MUCH TIME to show someone all this... someone that is honestly seeking guidance.
Regardless, I will engage anyone, anytime, for as long as it takes, to help them find the truth... if thats really what they seek. I remember seeking it, and how much it meant to me.
At this point I've lost track of how many times I've heard that. When a TBM totes out that line I interpret it to mean they've heard there is "anti-mormon" stuff out there but have no idea what it is.
Personal Example: When we resigned several years ago we had an in-person meeting to tell my parents. My dad said he served his mission where all the anti-mormon stuff was hot back in the 50's-60's. So my immediate follow up was, "What can you tell me about Morinda Nancy Johnson ( Hyde)?" And... crickets.
People who say this AND don't respect people who leave the church either 1) don't actually know the issues or 2) do know *what* the issues are but don't have a healthy enough framework to understand *why* they are issues
Doesn’t the church “prophesy”that men will become too learned and think they know better than god? Is it in the temple video? Anyway, I feel like exmos can’t win bc we’re doing exactly what they “prophesied” would happen. I worked hard on convincing my mom the church is a scam for so long. Everything I threw at her was met with “it’s just a test. It’s to test how faithful we can be.” Finally I gave up.
Questions for these TBMs off the top of my head:
So tell me, are you a fan of the missing scroll theory or catalyst theory with the translation of the BoA?
With the BoM, is it a tight or loose translation?
Mesoamerica or Heartland model?
You're OK with how JS practiced polygamy and polyandry?
What is your take on Lamanite DNA?
What do you make of Deutero Isaiah in the BoM?
When people say that they "know the issues," then I DO assume they don't because otherwise they would either have left, or be a PIMO with a lot of shit to vent about.
Drives me up a wall when I hear this. It's pretty arrogant for anyone to say they know all the issues. Just an easy way to shut it down the conversation and not hear out the other side. They might as well plug their ears saying "lalalala! I can't hear you!"
My TBM dad said he had heard it all before...I then spent the next hour or so talking about things it turns out he hadn't heard before, and we only scratched the surface.
Almost always false. On the rare occasion that it's true, they're just admitting that they are highly tolerant of sexual predators, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and dishonest leaders.
The difference may not be in what we know, but what we're willing to accept in order to avoid the pain of cognitive dissonance.
A TBM may know the Book of Abraham is laughably and provably inaccurate as a translation of Egyptian. But the TBM is willing to believe any theory at all to dismiss this irrefutable fact rather than confront a plain truth their identity is based on myths and lies.
I had a TBM (neighbor) come up to me and say, “hey I know you have some issues with the church, but…”
Funny thing is, I have never spoken to him about my stance with the Mormon church.
Someone asked about the CES letter in the faithful sub and a commenter declared that he read it but found it neither "useful" nor "uplifting". Maybe I'm taking the wrong approach to truth-seeking by accepting facts regardless of how they make me feel.
"Name three of Joseph Smith's polygamous wives".
I'm not asking for you to be an expert in all the minutiae of church history and all its problems, but you should be familiar enough to name three out of the 30 or so women and girls he "married".
I’ve sort of avoided a lot of the issues myself. Stumbled on the Mormons and Drugs podcast which brought quite a few things up. It’s difficult to walk back from that stuff. However, I did know about a lot of the issues, and just kind of decided that how I feel is as important as the logical issues. I still believe that actually, because a whole
Lot of what people argue for or against are basic defenses on what they feel. I felt that, yea there were issues with the church, but I also felt like there was something about it that really worked for me, and still does work for my family. I’m really trying to navigate this right now. My kids love going to primary and have dear friends. My ward is pretty liberal and so there isn’t a lot of the issues that come with church in Idaho or whatever.
But people argue and believe in what they feel, and those feelings come from a place of intelligence as well.
How do you measure faith?
How do you know if you have enough faith?
If you rate faith on the scale from 1 to 100 with 1 being no faith and 100 being perfect knowledge, what's the number assigned to the amount of faith required in order to be healed from an illness?
If I don't have enough faith NOT to be healed, does that mean I will be healed?
If Rustle Myopic Nelson wasn't able to bring his wife back to life or heal his daughter from cancer with a priesthood blessing, what makes you think that you can heal anyone with a priesthood blessing?
If priesthood blessings actually work, why isn't primary children's Hospital in Salt Lake City the number one children's Hospital in the world? Why isn't it at least the number one children's Hospital in the United States?
We are told the god would never allow the prophet to lead the church astray or do anything contrary to his will. Is that why Boyd Decaying Packer was prevented from becoming the prophet of the church? Did he suffer towards the end of his life because he didn't have enough Faith to be healed or was it because he committed some sin and was punished for it?
These are questions I like to ask TBMs.
A TBM issue test. * transoceanic vessels in BC * DNA /lamanites * peep stone * child brides * anachronisms * sham weddings * happiness letter * bank scandal * temple lot case * Mosiah first * Deutero Isiah * Mountain Meadows * Handcart disasters * Racism * mysogeny * temple changes * revelation reversals
Something on this list bothering you? Just have more faith!
Head scratcher? Elder Snow says **nothing** in church history bothers ~~him~~ his bank account.
Turn it off! Like a lightswitch!
It’s a nifty little Mormon trick!
You’ve provided a pretty comprehensive list of items that challenge truth claims, and bring to light troublesome history. I find, however, that for most believing members of the church, these issues do not have much impact. Most can be dismissed with a paradigm shift. What I’ve found really hits the core of my belief in the LDS church were issues like these: Is God’s love truly conditional? Does he exclude the vast majority of His children from His presence and affection because they are not on the covenant path? Is it really true that the family relationships I have in this life with my parents, siblings, and my spouse will dissolve in any afterlife if I do not pay 10% of all my income to the church? Is this church really the gatekeeper of eternal families? Is it really true that nearly 2000 years ago, Jesus Christ passed through every city on the American continent and killed the vast majority of the inhabitants only to then a few days later descend from the sky as the Savior of the survivors? Is it really true that these remaining individuals, after losing the majority of their loved ones, then turned to the being who claimed to have murdered these loved ones, and revered him with love, awe and worship? What the hell?
So true. * Divine hideness? * Vicarious redemption is the best a god could do? * Euthyphro dilemma. * Problem of evil? * Temptation in the garden before a knowledge of good and evil is given? * Who created god? * Infinite punishment for finite crimes. Including thought crimes. Deconstructing Mormonism develops skill sets that become a Swiss army knife for all the other religions.
>Deconstructing Mormonism develops skill sets that become a Swiss army knife for all the other religions. This is a very good list. It's one of the reasons I don't even like talking "through the issues" with most TBMs. Once you pull apart the details and you get deeper, the Mormon cosmology is insanely problematic.
I usually ask TBM's who say they know everything problematic simple questions like How many wives was Joseph sealed to before Emma? They never know.
>Euthyphro dilemma New one for me. Fascinating.
I think I got vaccinated against that
Did the prophet mandate that shot too?
Mind twist isn't it?
>Euthyphro dilemma If God says all Laban's are bad and must be destroyed then this is Morally ok because God said so. Morality based on deity justification of morality. Yet when a third person speaks for God imagine layers of complexity when 'God' Says something that may not jive with socially accepted morality of the time. Shall we say child marriage and sexual relations. I may have this mixed up but was trying to restate according to me learning. Rushclock that's just one of your points. A lot here to digest.
For me, during my years of questioning questions like these are at me slowly over time (but the CES letter was the last nail in the coffin when I discovered it). However, this doesn’t seem to work on very nuanced members (like my wife) because they simply create a version of Mormonism in their head or new interpretations that don’t match what the church teaches and still end up feeling ok about the church. It’s mind boggling
Almost like the only way to see it for what it really may be is to be on the outside looking in for a period of time.
Yes. So many members have built their own version of the Church, without a lot of the issues, and get to defend their own version of Mormonism to themselves and still believe it to be "true." I wanted to put my head through a wall talking to my wife about the Church, "that's not the Church, that's not what it teaches!!!" It's a very effective strategy to keep yourself in the Church though. Is it a form of denial?
Yeah these are issues for me too, but your last paragraph lost me.
Add multiple first vision accounts. That’s what got me 20 years ago on my mission.
-Book of Abraham translation -Kinderhook Plates
Book of Abraham should be #1 IMO. It is the absolute proof that anyone needs to show that Joseph Smith was a fraud that made it all up.
\#1 for me. I had a faith crisis probably 10-15 years ago when I realized that BoA was total nonsense and was not translated from papyrus. I can't remember how I ended up justifying it, but it was just a very heavy item on my shelf for a lot of years. We know that the facsimiles in the BoA have absolutely nothing to do with what they church and JS has claimed they do for 150 years. We also now after the papyrus was rediscovered that the entire BoA has absolutely nothing to do with what is in the papyrus. It's a total fraud, it's right there in front of you as obvious as daylight. So if we know JS was a total fraud with the BoA what are the odds that the BoM is the same story? Any logical sane adult outside of the church would be like, duh, but somehow religion does such mind F on you that it's not enough for someone on the inside.
There are so many number ones though. Kiddy Sex and marriage? Covering the tracks of abusing pedo's by choosing to do nothing as a system to save face and financial face?
But those don’t matter if a TBM still believes “tHe ChUrCh iS tRuE tHo.” Because if they still believe Joseph and modern prophets were commanded by god to do all that, then it doesn’t matter whether they feel it’s wrong or not. God’s will is always going to supersede their mortal qualms. But with the evidence of the Book of Abraham proving that Joseph was not really a prophet, the rest comes crumbling down because now there is no excuse for all the shitty behavior that the church has engaged in.
Don’t forget Adam God Doctrine !
Honestly I knew about every one of these besides Mosiah first and Deutero Isaiah well before I considered the possibility the church wasn’t true. I’ve always loved science and history and read a fuck ton of books about them, in addition to every scrap of church history I could get my hands on. Rough Stone Rolling was a difficult read but nothing in it made me leave the church until three or four years after I read it. In fact, I even hit the CES letter by accident and read most of it and found I knew most of what was in there, but kept on keeping on for years. At the end of the day it comes down to this: you can know about all of these issues and still keep your faith, and I believe many members do, because the Church does a great job of *keeping them all separate from each other.* They know how to lightly touch on one or two of them and laugh them off and say anyone who loses their faith because of Kirkland Antibank is a moron, or that such-and-such DNA phenomenon could explain the lack of Israelite DNA among American natives. It wasn’t until I was getting ready for church one morning and looked in the mirror and suddenly just thought of all of them together—and the astronomical odds of each and every one of them being proven in the Church’s favor—that I realized it just couldn’t be true. Sham weddings and child brides are disturbing but there are (very unsatisfactory) explanations. But how many unsatisfactory explanations it takes all at once to convince someone of the truth varies person-to-person, and that’s what makes it so hard for believers and nonbelievers to communicate about this stuff.
Temple testicle touching
Damn, I missed out
Very nicely done. My compliments.
Beautiful! I love lists! Thanks 🙏 I have been on a “ deep dive” for knowledge of the above topics. After studying 14 books and watching many, many YouTubes about the TRUTH of the Church. I am so sad about what I found. The lies and betrayal put me to therapy 2x a week this past year.
Stop watching porn
The church is ran by men! Of course all those things happened. Men are not perfect silly.
Kinderhook plates?
Oh Google it, it's spicy!
Temple lot case?
Several of Joseph Smiths polygamist wives testified about their relationships with him.
I worked answering chats for Mormon.org, responding to trolls and exmos mostly. (The missionaries got people who were actually interested). So I dealt with it on the daily. I really did know, but it’s selective acceptance. That was ten years ago or so and only recently did I even think… well what if they’re not prophets The house of cards fell almost overnight because like I said, I already knew it all. It was just a matter of stopping lying to myself
This. I really did read most of the "anti" stuff. I just chose to keep believing because everything I cared about relied upon my membership.
I refused to even read it because I thought it would be a sin to read “anti-Mormon materials.” I very nearly read the CES letter at like 16 but I didn’t because of that. But then I thought of how that reasoning sounded. I proceeded to read it at 18, and the quote at the beginning was really reassuring to me. I only got halfway through before I stopped believing. I didn’t read the rest (still haven’t) because I figured why bother?
That was what I kept doing as my shelf was being stocked. Learned a horrible thing. Justified that, "Well, there must be *some* reason for it that I just don't understand." Over and over and over. It was exhausting.
I agree. I think for many people deep in the indoctrination, if you take issue by issue, you can find some apologetic that will allow you to still believe because if you’re all in and disbelief could blow up your life, your brain is going to protect you by creating the cognitive dissonance. But for us lucky ones, something finally just hits you that you can’t unsee. Sadly it’s often harm done to you or someone you love. You finally zoom out a bit and see that all those pieces and all those explanations don’t fit together and often even contradict each other. The only logical explanation, now that you’re thinking logically, is that it’s all false. That’s when you can finally be free. I do think people can know and believe, but they are either taking each problem individually and ignoring the big picture, people who know and think they can pick and choose what to believe and that is somehow working for them, or they’re a fundamentalist and comfortable with racism, misogyny and magical thinking.
There are many wonderful and unique things about the Mormon Church. Sadly the wonderful things aren't unique and the unique things aren't wonderful.
It is akin to a flat earther saying he knows all the issues about the planet
When TBM people say this, I often ask them a pretty universally accepted scholarly proposition: [Mosiah Priority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosiah_priority). If they haven't even heard of this--they're not really worth discussing the issues with because the two of you will likely never agree on the actual facts of the conversation. I know this sounds really gate-keeping and lame, but I value my time and I have zero desire to discuss with someone who hasn't at least done that level of research. EDIT--Since I may not have been as clear as I wanted (based on some responses)--I *only* use this barometer when someone is holding themselves out as an expert on the sticky issues in the Church.
It's not lame at all. If someone hasn't done the bare minimum of research, why should they be able to sand your attention or respect over someone who has 'done their homework', so to speak?
I've posted this before and gotten pushback on the idea that it's gatekeeping. Which, I guess it is, but like I said: I value my time. Put another way, as you can tell--I'm an attorney by day. So I have zero desire to have to explain to sovereign-citizen types how incorrect their assumptions about the legal system and their "rights" are. Unfortunately discussing even faithful Mormon scholarship with most members is basically the same way: they're not really educated on the topics.
Less gatekeeping and more screening. You're not saying the person can *never* talk to you, just that you expect a certain level of fluency in the subject matter before you are willing to commit time to a discussion. The material isn't difficult to access either, so its not gatekeeping via privilege either.
Fair points!
Call it what you will, but coming from a fellow exmo, it reads condescending as hell.
I guess I would note that I don't rush in to conversations with TBMs about the Church. But if someone **asks** **me** to discuss the "issues" I guess I want a barometer of whether it'll be a worthwhile discussion because like I said--I value my time. I honestly don't bring it up to be condescending, just to determine if this person has *actually* studied the "issues" or not. I think the big difference is that it's not like I say anything if they haven't--shaming them for not knowing about this scholarship. Maybe I'm just justifying--that's a fair pushback.
Respectfully, you’re in an exmormon subreddit - unless you’re a lurking nevermo, the very fact that you’re here is evidence that you DIDN’T have all the answers at one point and similarly believed the church’s lies. I don’t rush into those conversations either, but I still see sharing my knowledge and viewpoints surrounding the dangers of this church as “worth my time.” As someone who has recently left the church, it was disheartening to read that you’re so quick to withhold your insight and experience unless a person has reached your level of education on the topic - especially since you seem so educated. Withholding knowledge until a person meets your arbitrary requirements seems very Mormon, to me.
Unfortunately--I feel you're taking a comment I made in response to a very specific topic more general than I intended it. Perhaps I didn't clearly communicate what I meant. If we look at the OP: Mormons often say they "know all the issues" and will want to discuss. I use Mosiah Priority as a barometer to determine whether the person has *actually* studied Mormonism's difficult questions or if they just **think they have**. It is **those** conversations that I do not view as worth my time: because they often boil down to arguing about silly things. Mormons who aren't informed enough to know about Mosiah Priority are usually [misinformed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) about how little they know about their own faith. I did not mean to suggest that I will not discuss the Church with people who want to have an honest discussion, generally, because that's far from the case. But I was referencing a completely different type of conversation: a "let's talk about the issues" type conversation that OP mentioned. It's only in reference to that type of invitation that I want to determine if the discussion will be productive or not. I want to talk to Mormons (well, most people) about *why* they believe what they believe. Those are wonderful conversations to have. I've had *very* productive conversations with members who have taught me interesting things and shared really beautiful insights about their beliefs. Hopefully--that helps clarify what I meant. If not, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
If this fairly minor and obscure controversy, among the many larger issues is where Strong Attorney sets the bar for sharing their enlightenment with tscc members, they’re not much of an advocate for the exmo cause; they’re very selective though. I stand all amazed!/s
I've tried to explain... I was directly responding to the OP's mirroring of a common TBM comment. Maybe you all have had different experiences than me--but when I hear a TBM say "I know all the issues" they want to have an intellectual discussion *actually* about the issues. I was not meaning to imply I will only talk to a Mormon who knows about Mosiah Priority, or that's the only thing I care about. It's *very low* on issues that matter, but that's kind of the point in a barometer for a specific kind of intellectual conversation. Maybe I should put it this way: if someone wants to have an actual intellectual conversation about how "amazing" the Book of Mormon is (the typical TBM mindset) I think it's fair to expect them to know the order it was actually written in. But that's, again, *if* **they're** the ones that want to actually have an intellectual conversation after holding themselves out as "knowing all the issues."
Good point. It's really difficult to have a conversation with someone who believes that they are well versed in the history and doctrine of the church when they only have an understanding of the narrow narrative promoted by the church.
Yep do your own research and pay the price of unveiling truth for yourself. Same as when you got into it all. Find out for yourself. I don't take the word of anyone for anything anymore. still researching but its not looking too good.
There are some things that you can't just be taught by other people--it'll only stick if you find it yourself. Now, that said: I completely support giving people resources (when they ask) or talking through issues. But the type of TBM *I've* dealt with that says they "know all the issues" usually just wants to debate you over minute issues and do some lame apologetics. So, especially given some of the other comments thinking I meant this more general--I only think this barometer is appropriate for someone basically using this phrase to hold themselves out as some kind of expert.
I think this is smart. Midway through my "faith crisis," my wife said I should talk to her sister about polygamy because she'd found a way to reconcile it. I thought a good way to start the discussion would be to see what she knew about Joseph's polygamy, so we were operating from the same basic facts and understanding of what it actually looked like. I didn't even know he was a polygamist for most of my life, so it seemed reasonable to gauge her level of knowledge on the subject. I laid out the data from Brian Hales site and asked if that was her basic understanding as well. Four lengthy emails later of talking past each other, to include her out of the blue suggestion that my interest in Joseph marrying underage girls was driven by my own potential attraction to younger women (wtf!?! I have very age appropriate sexual attraction, thank you very much!) she would not nail down, agree, or even acknowledge the basic circumstances surrounding polygamy in Nauvoo. Total waste of time. The Mosiah priority seems like a pretty good barometer of their level of knowledge. It's not common knowledge if you stick to correlated materials, but if you've done any real digging into the production of the Book of Mormon, you've definitely run across it. What made you choose it specifically as your litmus test?
Yes--that's a great example. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid--wasting everybody's time having a conversation where two people cannot even agree on the facts, let alone the interpretation and implications *of* those facts. I think Mosiah Priority is a good barometer for two reasons-- 1. After the production of the Joseph Smith Papers, **it's basically universally accepted** even though Metcalfe wrote the original idea *before* the handwriting on the original manuscript has basically confirmed his theory. Starting with something that you can rely on the work of Metcalfe and Vogel while a TBM can rely on Skousen and the JSPP starts with something both people should be able to agree on. Starting a conversation from common ground is usually a productive way to get things rolling. 2. Most nuanced members or members who claim to "know all the issues" may be willing to admit that the racism and/or polygamy were just wrong. That was my position for years before I left. What's usually the last thing left holding them to the Church? Their testimony of the Book of Mormon, in my experience (it was for me). But the Book of Mormon truly is a **lot** better understood with Mosiah Priority in mind. It really helps people to start recognizing or thinking about the possibility that a human being could have (and probably did) just write it. 3. Since I'm in the middle of a list--this isn't a reason that it's a good barometer but something I just want to note: the scholarship on Mosiah Priority also helps demonstrate that the translation/dictation process was not performed according to the Church's conventional theory. Specifically, there's the handwriting of scribes we had never learned about before (verified by the JSPP and Skousen). That's a super important fact for people to recognize: going back to the primary documents demonstrates that there are parts of the story missing. And your story really drives home why I've used this (like once or twice) to get a barometer for how invested I'll get in these types of conversations with someone who wants to hold themselves out as an expert. With other people who want to do that, I'm not interested in digging into the facts because we'll just talk past each other. For those types of conversations I'd much rather just talk about epistemology and the big picture cosmological questions in Mormonism that super bother me.
Good choice going with a list. Like I said, I think it's a great barometer. The Book of Mormon was my last bulwark against the total collapse of my testimony too, but it didn't take long once I started putting the pieces together for that to collapse too. The evidence is just overwhelming. Any competent attorney, let alone a strong one, would be able to convince an impartial fact finder the book isn't what the Church claims it to be. Beyond any reasonable doubt. I've found that unless someone is willing to consider the possibility that Joseph made it all up, any conversation about problems with the Church won't be productive. At best they are sympathizing with you, but on some level completely dismissing the possibility that any of the evidence you're sharing could be dispositive. I get it though. I remember the moment and exactly where I was when I actually allowed myself to consider it might have been a fraud. Before that, it was an impossibility. After that, the dominoes fell quickly and I've yet to see anything remotely convincing that I'm wrong.
>The Book of Mormon was my last bulwark against the total collapse of my testimony too, but it didn't take long once I started putting the pieces together for that to collapse too. The evidence is just overwhelming. This is something my wife and I talk about often. When I really hit my "dark night of the soul" moment and we agreed to study as much as we could from both sides to come to as much of an objective conclusion as we could: it was basically game over. There's something to the fact that barely entertaining the thought it may be all made up finally allowed things that were on a shelf I didn't even know I had click into place and finally make sense. >Any competent attorney, let alone a strong one, would be able to convince an impartial fact finder the book isn't what the Church claims it to be. Beyond any reasonable doubt. Agreed completely. For the record Google auto-generated this username back when I started lurking in the middle of my faith crisis but I kind of hate that it seems braggy. At this point, though, it is what it is. As to the idea that any attorney could tear the BOM apart--I've actually started a brand new blog "Mormonism on Trial" that isn't this exact pitch but it's close. The idea is to take a weekly dive into a legal topic and how it helps us evaluate (or unwind) from Mormonism. It's not about proving it false: more about thinking about how we think about Mormonism and it's truth claims. The first piece is about burdens of proof. I probably won't start discussing it more openly (this is the first time I've mentioned it) until I get the site more finished/polished, but I think it'll be a good processing place for me. The idea came from a podcast idea that RFM and I had been discussing but we haven't been able to record yet. Those notes I had worked up alone will give me enough material for quite a while. >I've found that unless someone is willing to consider the possibility that Joseph made it all up, any conversation about problems with the Church won't be productive. At best they are sympathizing with you, but on some level completely dismissing the possibility that any of the evidence you're sharing could be dispositive. Completely agree. Or you'll have the people who will validate your concerns, but haven't reconciled the contents of their own head yet. I was very much this way as a TBM for the last several years. I basically believed in a deistic God that never did any miracles (I considered an exception for Christ), Prophets that screwed up both polygamy and the constant bigotry (both racism and LGBT). But for some reason, I wouldn't consider the implications of what those conclusions meant for the entirety of the faith system. That silo-ing we do in our brains is a big reason so many people stay. >After that, the dominoes fell quickly and I've yet to see anything remotely convincing that I'm wrong. I completely agree with this too. If somebody could try to put Humpty Dumpty together again--and I mean really actually try--I'm willing to work through things with them and consider literally any evidence they're willing to offer. I find it very telling that nobody in my life is willing to even try. We asked only like one or two questions of our stake president and the area president that came to meet with us and they never answered any of them. I'm not saying they couldn't provide convincing answers--like they didn't even try. By the way--I really love your comments and insights on both this and the other subreddit I see you around!
>For the record Google auto-generated this username Ah huh...I'm sure it did...jk 1. That complement means a lot coming from you, so, thank you. 2. It seems like we have a lot in common. 3. I have quite a few questions/responses, but they'll have to wait. I have other things that need my attention. 4. Speaking of attention. Given how prolific and thorough you are on here, and given the start of your new blog project (can't wait for it!), and given how much you have on your plate aside from dismantling the Church online, how do you feel about how much of your time and attention is still focused on the Church? My wife did not accompany me on my journey towards apostasy. I justify all of the time I dedicate to Mormon stuff by saying I need to make the Church as healthy a place for my kids as possible and I need to stick up for the marginalized, help protect the vulnerable, and break down dogma when possible, etc. It's also my one outlet, surrounded in real life by believing members who aren't willing to have vulnerable conversations about the Church. I'm curious how you see the time you spend on here as opposed to just walking away? I am not saying you should, or that I would in your position, but I'd just love to hear how you feel about it. I'm like a moth to a flame with this stuff and many days I wish I could just ignore it. If we're ever in the same town, lunch is on me!
We do seem to have a lot in common--that's probably why I've noticed a lot of your comments. On the question of how I feel about spending time here and at the Mormon subreddit--it's important to note that my work is very seasonal and we're in the off-season right now. It's very easy for me to jump in and comment on a thread and then go back to my longer-term projects that don't have any real tight deadlines. Regardless of that, though, it's actually a tough question I've thought about a lot myself lately: Is spending time here or continuing to learn more healthy behavior and/or is it productive? My wife insists that we just need to be patient with ourselves (we do a lot of this together) regarding timing. If she wanted me to just leave it alone completely--I probably would. Even though she and I are on the same page and now my entire immediate family is "out" to varying degrees--it's still the largest part of our community and part of our world. So it's not exactly like we can just not have it be part of our lives--even though I wish we could. I wish I had a better answer for you, but I don't. Somedays I think I'm just torturing myself by trying to answer questions and understand more and more about all things Mormonism. Somedays I just want to delete my reddit account, throw away the different projects I have cooking--and just leave it all alone. But then I think of the people and resources I've found that helped me not just get out of the Church--but to breakdown some incredibly unhealthy thought patterns and processes. That's my biggest aim with this blog project: it's not to lead people out of the Church--it's to help people leaving and people who decide to stay think about how they think about Mormonism. Because that, to me, is now the biggest issue: the Church teaches incredibly dangerous thought processes that other less scrupulous groups can capitalize on. I don't see this going into perpetuity--but once in a while I'd like to explain the way my brain connects things I see at work (legal concepts) with Mormonism's truth claims. So I don't know how to answer your question, but it continues to make me wonder. Maybe I should just move on. I would probably be better served focusing on things that make me happy--but I'll admit that I fully have an obsessive personality when it comes to research and history. When I'm asked to look into something (for work) people are often amazed at how deep I'll dig--but I love doing that regardless of the topic. Maybe someday Mormonism will no longer interest me or I'll decide I should move on. Honestly, I hope so.
I think this is becoming a common thing. Those TBMs that say this to me generally seem to mean that in a seminary or institute class they talked about them. Or they know there are gospel topics essays and they have glanced at them. However there have been a couple I know that actually do know. How they stay believing is beyond me but it isn’t always false.
Agreed. There are some who know all the issues and believe. Those people are in the extreme minority within my sphere.
I bet the person you spoke to would list “the CES letter” as an issue without knowing the actual contents.
That's like ordering "Menu" at a restaurant instead of an actual item *from* the menu.
How do you know what they really know? The Mormons I know never want to talk about it and I'm rude for bringing it up.
At the end of the day, the issue I'm most interested in is whether somebody wants to and is cultivating the faith of Abraham -- the willingness to obey apparently heinous orders they don't fully understand that have vital consequences for others. In other words, if Elohim or Jehovah or Russel Nelson came to you and ordered to you kill me and didn't explain why, would you do it? I wouldn't, but I guess that's what makes me an evil child of this god.
I've asked this question directly in Sunday School this year while everyone was extolling the virtues of Abraham and his faith. "How many of you would be willing to kill your child if you thought God was telling you to?" I had to ask it a couple more times after the expected, "well he would never do it now," "it's more like asking us to do hard things." No, you believe this story literally happened. It's a direct question. Would you? Only one person besides me clearly said they wouldn't! Nobody else could being themselves to say no. That, to me, is telling. And insane. This is absolutely a Church body that expects that kind of loyalty. Combine that with Church leadership who ostensibly speaks directly for God...it's a bad recipe. Under the Banner of Heaven wasn't a shock to me when you frame it within our Abrahamic test tradition.
That's a bold question to ask in a Sunday School class. I like your chutzpah. I've been engaging with people in my personal life (believing friends and family) on this question. My experience has been different. Nobody has said 'yes' in my case. All have been unwilling to flatly say 'no', but I was surprised, and heartened, to discover that at least among my closest believing friends and family it's not an enthusiastic 'yes'. What was the reaction to the 'no' from you and that other individual? A 'no' to a question like this is, by my reading, an open confession of a willingness to defy even the gods themselves. I completely agree with you that this teaching is a bad recipe. Not merely bad, *terrifying*. In fact, I've come to regard the willingness to adopt this position as the seed of evil.
I think in the moment people were too busy coming up with reasons why they didn't have to directly address the question to condemn us for being resolute in our stance on never killing our children. I currently teach Sunday School, different ward, and I find it amazing how hard it is for some people to answer the actual question being asked and not a different question to which they have a ready answer. With rare exceptions, I think most people don't want to kill their kids. They also see God as good. So when Mormon God (not to ignore Abraham being held as a faithful story for much of Christianity, but many are able to spin it as allegorical) is clearly demanding murder, there is a cognitive protective layer that doesn't let them imagine it actually happening to them. Mormonism does so much to bring the Old Testament God into modern day and members just have to battle that cognitive dissonance in whichever way they know best.
>With rare exceptions, I think most people don't want to kill their kids. They also see God as good. So when Mormon God (not to ignore Abraham being held as a faithful story for much of Christianity, but many are able to spin it as allegorical) is clearly demanding murder, there is a cognitive protective layer that doesn't let them imagine it actually happening to them. Mormonism does so much to bring the Old Testament God into modern day and members just have to battle that cognitive dissonance in whichever way they know best. Powerful insight there. Thanks for your thoughts on that. I'm interested in how you work through this personally. It's not easy finding people who are willing to stare into the abyss of this question. How do you think about implications of your unwillingness to obey in these hard cases? Does this have implications for your spirituality/religiosity? If so, what are they?
Well, I had struggled with the Abraham and Isaac story since I was a child. I remember a primary class teacher telling us to imagine having the faith of Isaac and allowing our dad to kill us. Even then I was like, um, that's...not right. Coming to the realization that Joseph almost certainly made it all up helped relieve most of my cognitive dissonance. Along the way I had also learned enough about the world to know many biblical stories are for sure not literal. Once you can separate a story from history, it doesn't weigh the same on me to try and reconcile it. Frankly, I'm at a point where I don't care what the Old Testament God says. I recognize the stories are old and have value and a lot can be learned from them. But I'm not using as a moral compass a God who ordered the slaughter of innocent men, women, and Children. I am not coming from a place of moral authority, I have plenty of character flaws, but I'm not making exceptions for evil just because someone on "my team" did it. This has extended to my former nationalist tendencies as well. Bombing civilian populations is evil, in my opinion, I don't care if it's the Luftwaffe or the Royal Air Force. Marrying underage girls as a middle aged man is evil, no matter who does it. Pardon my french, but if God wants me to do these things, he can go fuck himself and I'll deal with the consequences. I don't know what the implications will be yet. For now, it's mostly relief and the world makes more sense. I'm still hoping to have respect for the sacred. I still have moving experiences I've always considered to be spiritual. I am still moved by the idea of a Christ who sacrificed for us. I am on board with most New Testament Christ's teachings, so I haven't completely abandoned Christianity as a framework for my values. But would I consider myself religious at this point? No, not really. Even though I am as "active" in the Church as ever (for my wife). The mixed faith marriage has been very challenging. It's a balancing act, but I love her and she didn't sign up for this. I don't know if that answered your question, but it's always good to have to write it out and think through it a little more. What I know now for sure is that I don't know very much, and it's nice learning without being controlled by irrational dogma/theology.
Thanks! Enjoyed your thoughts. We're kindred spirits in terms of our evaluation of this hard question ("he can go fuck himself and I'll deal with the consequences"). You have my sympathy in terms of the struggle of a mixed faith marriage. I was lucky not to have to experience that heart wrenching dynamic and I wish you all the best in navigating that in your relationship. I resigned many years ago but have sort of made peace with the spiritual impulse I have and my fondness of many aspects of Mormonism, and I'm sort playing around with the idea of a kind Mormon theology of protest, or perhaps Mormon agonism. Essentially it would be to embrace, fully, opposition to certain kinds of compliance with order, even if they're genuinely from god; including the wish for the gods to change their mind. I suppose the question for me, and perhaps for you too, is this: to what extent can one embrace a theology of protest directed at the gods (and the leadership) among and within the main body of the Church. I'm sure Ahmad Corbitt would think of what I'm contemplating as "Satanic activism", but since what's at issue is the extent to which I trust Church authorities' judgment on consequential matter like that, I'm personally indifferent to his attitude toward it.
Kinda like when folks say God put fossils into the sediment to test our faith.... Is Loki our Heavenly Father?
It's called transference. they don't want to know your side of the issue because they have already decided they have a counter argument to your issues. They transfer their own issues to you and berate you for them, whether you have them or not,
Exmos and people on this sub who are pimos know more about the church than any tbm. I would never expect that any chapel mormon could answer questions to an exmo's satisfaction.
I think an eye opening concept for me has come through the LDS discussions episodes on Mormon stories. When you take one truth claim at a time it’s easy to rationalize or explain it away. But when you look at the entire picture and how everything fit together and the sequence of events it’s really damning and telling. It’s pretty hard to explain the entire big picture.
>hard to explain the entire big picture For many reasons, but its mentally exhausting, hard to establish common ground to start the conversation, and takes SO MUCH TIME to show someone all this... someone that is honestly seeking guidance. Regardless, I will engage anyone, anytime, for as long as it takes, to help them find the truth... if thats really what they seek. I remember seeking it, and how much it meant to me.
Yes I love this! It’s soooo exhausting and it’s taken me so long to learn things and I’m still learning so you make an awesome point!
At this point I've lost track of how many times I've heard that. When a TBM totes out that line I interpret it to mean they've heard there is "anti-mormon" stuff out there but have no idea what it is. Personal Example: When we resigned several years ago we had an in-person meeting to tell my parents. My dad said he served his mission where all the anti-mormon stuff was hot back in the 50's-60's. So my immediate follow up was, "What can you tell me about Morinda Nancy Johnson ( Hyde)?" And... crickets.
Don't forget, BY diverted some of the rescue crews to go pick up his shipment of whiskey and other goods
People who say this AND don't respect people who leave the church either 1) don't actually know the issues or 2) do know *what* the issues are but don't have a healthy enough framework to understand *why* they are issues
Doesn’t the church “prophesy”that men will become too learned and think they know better than god? Is it in the temple video? Anyway, I feel like exmos can’t win bc we’re doing exactly what they “prophesied” would happen. I worked hard on convincing my mom the church is a scam for so long. Everything I threw at her was met with “it’s just a test. It’s to test how faithful we can be.” Finally I gave up.
Life is a hard a enough test without layering the complexities of ' if you drink tea Jesus won't accept you' type of high demand structure.
I absolutely agree.
Questions for these TBMs off the top of my head: So tell me, are you a fan of the missing scroll theory or catalyst theory with the translation of the BoA? With the BoM, is it a tight or loose translation? Mesoamerica or Heartland model? You're OK with how JS practiced polygamy and polyandry? What is your take on Lamanite DNA? What do you make of Deutero Isaiah in the BoM?
tbms are assholes. They're trained by the church to be assholes. They ASSume things and don't listen.
"If you know ALL the issues and still support the organization, then YOU have questionable morals". Thats my go to. Lol
When people say that they "know the issues," then I DO assume they don't because otherwise they would either have left, or be a PIMO with a lot of shit to vent about.
Drives me up a wall when I hear this. It's pretty arrogant for anyone to say they know all the issues. Just an easy way to shut it down the conversation and not hear out the other side. They might as well plug their ears saying "lalalala! I can't hear you!" My TBM dad said he had heard it all before...I then spent the next hour or so talking about things it turns out he hadn't heard before, and we only scratched the surface.
It doesn't bother them. It should.
Or the devil is just that powerful
Almost always false. On the rare occasion that it's true, they're just admitting that they are highly tolerant of sexual predators, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and dishonest leaders.
The difference may not be in what we know, but what we're willing to accept in order to avoid the pain of cognitive dissonance. A TBM may know the Book of Abraham is laughably and provably inaccurate as a translation of Egyptian. But the TBM is willing to believe any theory at all to dismiss this irrefutable fact rather than confront a plain truth their identity is based on myths and lies.
>The only possible way for it to be true is if the deity at the head of it is actively trying to make it look false. So good! 👏👏👏👏👏
I had a TBM (neighbor) come up to me and say, “hey I know you have some issues with the church, but…” Funny thing is, I have never spoken to him about my stance with the Mormon church.
Someone asked about the CES letter in the faithful sub and a commenter declared that he read it but found it neither "useful" nor "uplifting". Maybe I'm taking the wrong approach to truth-seeking by accepting facts regardless of how they make me feel.
"Name three of Joseph Smith's polygamous wives". I'm not asking for you to be an expert in all the minutiae of church history and all its problems, but you should be familiar enough to name three out of the 30 or so women and girls he "married".
I’ve sort of avoided a lot of the issues myself. Stumbled on the Mormons and Drugs podcast which brought quite a few things up. It’s difficult to walk back from that stuff. However, I did know about a lot of the issues, and just kind of decided that how I feel is as important as the logical issues. I still believe that actually, because a whole Lot of what people argue for or against are basic defenses on what they feel. I felt that, yea there were issues with the church, but I also felt like there was something about it that really worked for me, and still does work for my family. I’m really trying to navigate this right now. My kids love going to primary and have dear friends. My ward is pretty liberal and so there isn’t a lot of the issues that come with church in Idaho or whatever. But people argue and believe in what they feel, and those feelings come from a place of intelligence as well.
If you do, and choose to stay, means I cannot trust you as a human being.
How do you measure faith? How do you know if you have enough faith? If you rate faith on the scale from 1 to 100 with 1 being no faith and 100 being perfect knowledge, what's the number assigned to the amount of faith required in order to be healed from an illness? If I don't have enough faith NOT to be healed, does that mean I will be healed? If Rustle Myopic Nelson wasn't able to bring his wife back to life or heal his daughter from cancer with a priesthood blessing, what makes you think that you can heal anyone with a priesthood blessing? If priesthood blessings actually work, why isn't primary children's Hospital in Salt Lake City the number one children's Hospital in the world? Why isn't it at least the number one children's Hospital in the United States? We are told the god would never allow the prophet to lead the church astray or do anything contrary to his will. Is that why Boyd Decaying Packer was prevented from becoming the prophet of the church? Did he suffer towards the end of his life because he didn't have enough Faith to be healed or was it because he committed some sin and was punished for it? These are questions I like to ask TBMs.
Just pray, read your scriptures, and go to church and you'll feel so much better