On October 10th (2009) a new documentary will debut at the Exmormon Foundation Conference in Salt Lake City. In the Shadow of the Temple by Pepita Productions promises to provide 55 minutes of interesting and insightful glimpses into the lives of people who have chosen to leave Mormonism. From the producer’s blog site:
Documentary Film Explores the Mormon Culture of Control
“My mother wishes I was dead!”
This plaintive account of a true believing Mormon mother’s response to her 42 year-old son, the father of her six grandchildren, who doubts the validity of the LDS church, is replicated in themes of fear, rage and renewal in the documentary, In the Shadow of the Temple.
Through dozens of interviews with active Mormons, trapped non-believers and with Ex-Mormons who have left the Church and view it as an oppressive cult, this…production explores, delineates and challenges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ power to exploit the family as a weapon against those who choose to no longer accept what the Mormons believe to be “the One, True Church.”
For more than a year, we (Karen and Dennis, the film’s producers) have peeled away layers of LDS public relations to find a stone cold resistance to free will, exemplified by the Mormon Church’s ability to use the family as a weapon of control. We thought we were going to do a film about Mormon theological principles, but we found that this is a story about personal and family tragedies.
It’s understandable that those leaving the LDS Church may be angry when they discover the thing to which they have devoted their entire lives turns out to be a fable — a great hoax perpetrated (they may feel) by people they thought they could trust.
But at times deep anger and suspicions are exhibited against those who leave, these unrestrained emotions coming from Mormons who choose to remain in the Church. Parents, siblings, spouses, friends — sometimes they “wish” their loved-ones were dead. Sometimes they think those who have left the Church are the “bad guys.” Sometimes they won’t speak to ex-Mormon family members for years, or they go to their graves never reconciled, never accepting a loved-one’s decision to leave Mormonism to embrace a different faith. What drives such a response? What drives such a tragic wedge between those who really do love one another?
—
Watch the documentary’s trailer:
To see short outtakes from In the Shadow of the Temple visit the Pepita Productions You Tube Channel.
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
Josephs Myth had access to a book that outlined the basic plot of the Book of Mormon several years before the Book of Mormon was published (The View of the Hebrews). In Lucy Mack Smith’s journal, she writes about how Joseph loved to make up elaborate stories about the ancient inhabitants of the American continent. There were several hot topics while Joseph was alive. All those things made it into the Book of Mormon. Did he make it up? Who knows – but it certainly looks like he had ample opportunity.
Some things didn’t make the cut into this most correct of all books, including:
1) the God-head being 3 separate beings
2) polygamy and polyandry
3) stake presidents
The reason I had to leave is that my integrity would not allow me to stay in an organization that can not pass it’s own honesty test.
It was heart-wrenching to have all our friends drop us when we chose to follow our virtue, which lead us out of this cult.
Can you trust those who will not disclose how, and where they spend the money you donate to your Church? From a former church financial officer:
The church consists of at least 400 separate legal entities in 130 countries…all with different taxation laws. The Church itself in USA is mostly tax exempt. There are some countries that the Church pays property tax, etc., but for the most part the Church itself is tax exempt in most of the world. It doesn’t even report its financial standing to its own members, much less the US government.
The Church owns stock in many other companies that are well known like Bonneville International, Deseret Book, etc. These companies are not tax exempt because they are not the Church per se even if they are wholly owned by the Church. The Church owns or owned more secretive stock in other conglomerates or holding companies like Times Mirror or the Chandler Fund which owns many big newspapers like The LA Times, Chicago Sun, etc.
When I worked there, Ensign Peak Advisors was top secret. I heard my superiors mention it and everyone just ‘knew’ this was something you never talked about. I knew it was very controversial based on the secrecy even on the inside. Indeed many assets were transferred from the Corporation of the President to this other ‘company’. At that time Brother Clarke worked in a back
office secretly putting this all together for Hinckley. There are many reasons for this new entity. One is to remove these assets from the Church in case of lawsuits. The other is to try to separate from ‘tithing’ funds so it can be used more flexibly and the Church can defensively say that Church funds weren’t used to do this or that.
The First Presidency and 12 Apostles were at that time paid $600K a year and the 70 were paid about $120K. In addition, in the mid-1990s the members of the First Presidency each had unlimited, unaudited charge cards. Hinckley lived in a million dollar condo with servants all provided by Church funds.
GA’s have significant other benefits like vacation retreats owned by the Church down by St. George and in Oahu, free tuition in Church colleges for their families, world-wide travel pretty much any time they want.
To give you an idea of Church middle management, I earned about $100,000 per year with benefits including pension. I could travel pretty much anywhere world-wide with little justification.”
end of quote. Is there a conspiracy here? Look into the Ensign Peak Advisors, and how the Church is pouring all its funds into them as a means to invest without having to justify it with the members. Follow the money people. Follow the money.
Brodie wrote a great biography on Thomas Jefferson. Have you read it? I have. It’s excellent and has been lauded as such. Don’t be so critical of her expose on Joe Smith. It was done without bias and to put forth the truth. ONLY MORMONS do not like it because they cannot accept it.
Enki, I don’t think everyone is cut out to be a missionary, especially not a bunch of 18 and 19 year old kids who don’t really have a clue about what they believe or what they want in life. From my experience this must be what every one of them was told before going on a mission, “Here, go say this. And when you get questions that you cannot answer, or feel challenged, say, ‘I feel a spirit of contention.’ Then run out of the house as fast as your legs can carry you saying, ‘I have a testimony from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith restored the true church.’ They are hardly “Elders”. The qualifications for an elder are intricately layed on in 1 Timothy 3, and one of them is “must not be a novice”!
To be fair, though, some Christians who become missionaries are not cut out for it either and cannot answer many of the questions about Christianity, or don’t have a complete understanding of the gospel. They do it just because they feel that they have to do something to prove their dedication to Christ. Most of them have wonderful hearts and they love the Lord completely, but there are other ways to serve.
Others who truly feel called to missions work spend many years on missions, not out of compulsion, but out of love for the lost.
I have honestly never been witnessed to by a Smithian who was not on a mission. My best friend is a former missionary and whenever I bring up the gospel or BoM difficulties he tells me that he doesn’t want to argue about religion, then tells me to pray and ask if the BoM is true. That’s hardly preaching the gospel of the restored Church. As a trained missioanary I would think he would his gospel presentation down pat. But honestly, I think he sees my love for Christ. He complains non-stop about going to church, tithing, and his callings. I love church and I get excited when I get a chance to give the gospel or preach. It’s quite a contrast.
liv4jc,
Your experience is very close to mine.
Like you, I look for opportunities to share my faith. I love talking about the Bible even if the conversation starts off with something very negative. At work, in particular, I’m really pleased that my colleagues have some understanding of my “religious” life, and we’ve had some very cordial and honest conversations.
In a previous job, I worked in a small company with nothing by Mormons. I got increasingly frustrated that they would shut down the conversation any time it went anywhere near Jesus, or the Bible, or what the Mormon Church teaches. I was not a “hostile” to start with (hey, talk to me, convert me even!), but I increasingly became hostile to the LDS movement. Partly, this was because I became more aware of what they actually taught; partly it was their apparent culture of refusing to yield to any kind of scrutiny. (Has anyone else noticed this?)
It seems to me that the LDS missionary effort is less about Gospel-telling, and more an initiation for its young men, or a rite of passage. In other words, its not for my benefit, its for theirs.
Anyway, I’m rambling.
On the “missionary” topic, I did so much want to become a “proper” missionary in my teens, but it never happened. Maybe there will be a time in my later years when I will “full time” the work. Who knows? But I’ve come to learn a very important lesson; God calls every believer to be a missionary where he or she is, and some people get to take this to foreign places under a “special” mandate.
I call it “incarnational theology”, but it gives me great satisfaction to know that, even though I’m not a “salaried full-timer”, I am a “full-timer” with a mandate to join God’s mission to “make the Word become flesh in the world” (John 1:14) in my current situation. In this sense, every believer has a “special mandate”, and we would do well not to underestimate or undervalue it, or guilt-trip someone into believing that it means they are not “fully committed”
The interesting thing about missionaries serving so young is that it serves two purposes: one, they are out converting before their zealot nature tones itself down through the wisdom of age, and it also help to solidify their own testimonies.
“Combatting Cult Mind Control” talks about how one of the ways to get someone to believe is to first get them to go through the actions. The brain doesn’t like to have contradictions, so it naturally drifts into believing the actions you are doing.
“The best way to gain a testimony is to bear it” serves to convince yourself that what you are saying is true, while simultaneously convincing others that their doubts are invalid.
grindael on September 26th, 2009
Nice story. No name, no source, no references. Nice STORY. 🙂
Richard.
I sit here and laugh at our Mormon poster’s attempts to discredit the work of those who have researched Mormonism and exposed not only its history but culture, doctrines and practices. I remember being in eighth grade and in Catholic school when John Kennedy was elected president. We were all extremely proud that he was the first Catholic elected president. As the years passed, I was shocked, disappointed and felt betrayed when all of the information regarding his personal life began to trickle out. A person goes from denial, to anger and finally some sort of resolution.
Mormons have their backs up against the wall when it comes to their heroes especially the man they want to claim as a prophet. It’s not a matter of interpreting the information about Smith, it’s a matter of dealing with the truth. I see where at least one of our Mormon posters is stuck in the state of denial. Next will come rationalization with the prophet getting a stamp of approval and a free pass regarding not only his personal failings but his fraudulent work. That’s the problem with Mormonism. The whole program rests on this very flawed man who claimed things that never happened and did things that would have him expelled from his own church today. It takes a lot to keep the Mormon myth protected for a True Believer to continue living the fantasy. Denying realty is the primary technique. Some do reach the level of rationalization, but for those who can grasp it, reality can be liberating and eventually lead to true salvation.
HankSaint,
Enki stated, “That is so absolutely ridiculous! Why does there have to be only one alternative solution to criticize something? How are you coming up with 10 or more theories? What are these, can you name these ten seperate theories, and then debunk why they are false?”
View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith, The Spalding Manuscript, Mercy Otis Warren’s History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution, David Ramsay’s History of the American Revolution, The Book of Mormon: Historical Influences, Samuel Adams delivered his American Independence speech to the State House in Philadelphia on August 1, 1776. There are further similarities between the Book of Mormon and Jefferson’s first inaugural address (March 4, 1801) Samuel McClintock’s sermon on the New Hampshire constitution, given June 3, 1784.3. Jonathan Edwards Sermons, Reverend George Whitefield Sermons, Jonathan Edwards, Jr. “The Salvation of All Men,” Swedenborg’s writtings.
Then we have, Joseph Smith was a good story teller, also that many other were involved in the production of the BOM, and last is the Bible it self.
Yep Ridiculous, you asked for ten, I gave you more then ten. Then we have you own scholars, Mosser and Owns state the following:
What Needs to be Done: Some Proposals
The evangelical world needs to wake up and respond to contemporary Mormon scholarship. If not, we will lose the battle without ever knowing it. Our suggestions are as follows: First, evangelicals need to overcome inaccurate presuppositions about Mormonism. Second, evangelical counter-cultists need to refer LDS scholarship that is beyond their ability to rebut, to qualified persons. Third, evangelical academians need to make Mormonism, or some aspects of it, an area of professional interest. Fourth, evangelical publishers need to cease publishing works that are uninformed, misleading or otherwise inadequate.
Here is another poor attempt at answering the who, what, and why of the Book of Mormon, “Josephs Myth had access to a book that outlined the basic plot of the Book of Mormon several years before the Book of Mormon was published (The View of the Hebrews).
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_plagerize_view.htm
“An examination of the two books shows that the similarities are far fewer and less significant than the differences. In fact, the Book of Mormon contradicts the View of the Hebrews on almost every major issue that the latter considers (who were the Indians, how did they get to the New World, when did they arrive, what names did they use, how did they live, etc., etc.)
There is nothing in View of the Hebrews that provides the kind of evidences for authenticity that we see in the Book of Mormon – including the regular occurrence of chiasmus, an ancient form of parallelism (only recently recognized and appreciated) that is a hallmark of Semitic poetry, and correctly and precisely identifying the places Nahom and Bountiful (almost certainly Wadi Sayq) on the Arabian Peninsula, which no Western scholar could have done in the nineteenth century.”
In the mind of a Mormon, the only acceptable reason someone would leave Mormonism is because: a) someone in the church offended them or b)they have some sort of moral failing. The answer can never be that the person that left figured out that the whole program is a fraud. A TBM cannot process that possibility. It’s like when someone reads the BoM and concludes it’s false. That’s not an acceptable response or even a possibility to a TBM. The person didn’t pray, or they weren’t humble or honest or some such Mormon mind bending rationalization. Mormons also tell themselves that when people leave, they end-up destitute, miserable, drunks, drug addicts etc. The only thing that kept them happy and straight was being in the Morg. This runs contrary of course to all the stories about miserable people inside the Morg.
I love the way our Mormon posters try to discredit the work of legitimate scholars and writers who expose Mormonism for what it is. The facts exposed are just not a possibility for our TBMs. To a TBM, either the authors are telling lies or the facts that have been exposed really don’t mean what they do in fact mean. Mormons have to create an alternative universe in order to protect a testimony that can survive only in a world of denial and make-believe.
Hanks said, “Here is another poor attempt at answering the who, what, and why of the Book of Mormon,…”
Poor attempt? This is your answer? to attack someones approach and answer to an obviously fabled story?
Hank on numerous accounts you use the phrases, Poor attempt, fail at, your lack of understanding. I sense a hyper active defensive approach to challenging aspects of you organization, why are you so defensive? When you use terms as I pointed out, you loss creditability. Does Mormonism not teach you that each and every member represents the Church, your actions, appearance, and writings , are all things that people will use to judge the church. If so, your hostility and what I would call condescending attitude (I use these words because that is how I feel about your posts) is a poor representation of the church, I say that because I know members who have a lot of class and character and are a joy to talk to about the LDS organization.
And here’s the kicker, it seems apparent that you have not read the Book of the Hebrews. So your best defense is to Google terms and dig for an article that supports your view. When in fact the article you referenced only outlines a portion of the two books. Your article does not address the similarity, for those who are interested, here is an article that shows the likeness between BOM and Book of the Hebrews.
http://www.trialsofascension.net/mormon/plagiarism.html
Hank if you do decide to respond please abide by Sharon’s request.
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
Martin, the contrast between the followers of Smith and the followers of Christ really is striking when it comes to giving the gospel. As Christians we are commanded to preach the “evangel”, the good news that although we were all formerly dead in our trespasses and sins, at enmity with God, and under His wrath, hating God and one another…
Smithians teach that although you had a debt to pay to God for your sins, Jesus paid the debt. Now you must repay Jesus, and attempt to keep the commandments (Which Jesus showed the Pharisees in Matthew 5 are much harder to keep than they thought) that you couldn’t keep with the Father, plus a few earthly works that you can keep if you try really hard (think Pharisees and washing of hands, cookware, etc: the Mishna). This is not good news. This is like saying, “You owed $100k to BOFA, but Wells Fargo paid the debt. Now you owe Wells Fargo the $100k and they added a few conditions that must be kept before the debt is truly paid. Oh, and you are still incurring debt every day you live. Have a nice day!”
What Smithian can truly say, “I have good news for you! Confess your sins, repent, and believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God come in the flesh who died on the cross to pay the debt for your sins. If you repent and believe he will make you righteous before God and you will inherit the Kingdom of God and eternal life because of His grace and mercy.” They can’t, but this is what Jesus clearly taught. Smith taught the other “gospel”. This is why they don’t evangelize.
I was perusing an exMormon site and I thought one of the writers there really had an observation that is applicable to what Sharon’s article referenced. The title is: “Mormonism: Cult of the 3 C’s: Conformance, Compliance and Control”. As we can see from the title, the author is talking about the lack of independent thinking for Mormons trapped in the Morg. The writer says, “At some point you probably need to ‘throw the switch’, and inform the mobots that your thoughts and decisions about what church to belong to are yours alone.” He goes on to say that a fundamental tenet of mormonism is that “your business is everyone’s business”. This seems to be a constant theme I read in testimonies of exMormons. The writer says that the exMo needs to “defend your right to be the steward of your own life. Inevitably that entails putting officious Mormons in their place. Once you get comfortable with the notion, you can find fullfillment in its exercise, because you are actually performing a public service: disempowering self-congratulatory narcissists is good for society and good for the delusional as well.”
This is excellent advice for you folks that have reached the tipping point and are on your way out of the program.
So when we examine the testimonies of exMormons a pattern evolves concerning their experiences within the religion. The picture they paint is not flattering to neither the culture of Mormonism or the doctrines, teachings and practices that drive the organization. All that current Mormons can do in response is to either deny the experiences of these exmembers or in some way impugn their character. John Dehlin of Mormon stories, has made an attempt to warn active Mormons that the tactics that are used to attack the real life experiences of exMormons are not helpful.
There are just too many exMormons to contain the flood of stories that emerge regarding life within the morg. In fact, their are many more ex or inactive Mormons than their are Mormons. Just that fact alone ought to lend some credence to the stories that the leavers tell. This is especially so since there is a consistency to the reports. Although numbers don’t make something true or false a pattern emerges with the large numbers that is more than just a few isolated incidences would present.
When asked why he didn’t leave the Mormon church after being disfellowshipped for the book he wrote, Grant Palmer said that he loved the Mormon people and that there was something of the reformer in him. His hope was that the leadership of the Mormon church would make efforts to change the organization. I don’t see it happening because the power brokers within the Mormon church have too much to lose if changes were made. The money and the rock star status are enough to motivate them to keep the status quo.
So…. that someone could be a Mormon, discover that the Mormon church is not true, and that Joseph Smith is not a prophet; is not a possibility within the mind of a TBM. There has to be another reason. Also, it is not possible, within the mind of a TBM, that someone could leave the Mormon church and have a happy, fulfilling and productive life. It is also not possible, within the mindset of the TBMs that someone could conclude that the BoM is not true. There has to be another reason for their conclusion.
From little on, Mormons are conditioned by repetition to see only one possibility and that is that the Mormon chant reflects reality.
So when a Mormon begins to do some discovery on his or her own and they figure out that the mantra they have repeated endlessly from the time they were toddlers is indeed not true, they are left with what is known as shaken faith syndrome. At that point it’s decision time. Do they keep repeating something they don’t believe in in the hope that it will somehow become true, or do they go with what they know to be true and leave the organization. For some leaving is easy because they don’t have the fear of losing their families, their standing in the community or their means of making a living. For those for whom their personal integrity means more than living a lie, they take the brave step of moving forward into the unknown. The exit for some takes years but it all starts with a single step.
To be fair…
I had Wow problems before I asked to be excommunicated. Wow problems, marital problems, selfishness problems, faith problems… my life was a total mess.
The thing is, rather than give me the tools to fix my crappy life, Mormonism made me feel isolated. I couldn’t tell even my own family that my spouse was cheating on me. I couldn’t tell them that I was drowning my problems in Rum and Coke. I avoided any and all “good” Mormons, because of the large “guilty” stamped on my forehead.
I certainly didn’t want anything to do with God… He was just out to judge me, criticize the job I was doing.
Thank God for the Bible, for people who love it and love the Jesus of the Bible.
My life changed, is still changing, for the better, just because Jesus found me and made me His own. The LDS church may not have driven me into my problems, but it certainly did not give me what I needed to not get into them, keep me out of them, or help me overcome them.
Jesus, all by Himself, did.
You know… the LDS church is hardly at all about Christ. That is their problem. In my opinion, that is the biggest problem there is with being a believing member of the church. It’s not even about Him. You’re the hero. You’re the divine-one-in-progress. You’re to blame if you have problems, if you don’t believe. You and your neighbors… that’s who the church is about.
What a contrast, indeed.
Jesus saves us from our SELF (ves).
God bless, you guys.
This discussion seems a little one sided to me. Can I add a few words of contrast for the sake of debate?
There is a portion of the church going Mormon population that tends to take a different view.
Their perspective is:
The church is a hospital for sinners, not a showcase for saints.
Central to their church attendance is the sacrament, where they renew their commitments to keep the commandments, and to seek forgiveness for sin. To them, that is what it is all about.
The forgiveness they seek is made possible by none other than Christ himself. How can you say “hardly all about Christ”? Christ is an essential part of this kind of religious activity.
A bit warped? a skewed perspective? Yes I think so. (No, not this one, the one above)
Setfree,
You stated “to be fair” and then you go on to say you asked for a excommunication. Now the question I have for you is the following, did you already have a sense the Church was not true? Did your martial problems involve alcohol? What was the reason for feeling selfish? You than say your life was a mess, and it was right after this you asked to be excommunicated. I guess it must have been for all the above reason, am I right or was there issues that kept you from being involved with the doctrine of the church as you saw it?
If your wife or ex- wife were stating the reasons for your excommunication, what would she have to reveal about you.
You then go on to blame the Church for not fixing your life, how were they suppose to do that? What is the full story of your guilt to the point you could not even face other Mormons? You even blamed God. What grand revelation did you receive from the Bible that took all the guilt away that you could not find in Mormonism?
Again you say that Mormonism did not create your problems, but also it could not help you solve them either. Well, I know that it surely changed my life from one who was a drinker, not a good father or husband, and a life that was pretty well mixed up and full of guilt. So my friend, it is not the doctrine so much as it is our Lord and Saviour, and our commitment to him and his commandments that turn our lives around and give us comfort, love and peace.
Again you state that Mormons are not about Christ, which I find hard to believe, when in fact all I do is based on what Christ taught about love and charity. I worship God the Father and his literal Son Jesus the Christ. Evangelicals claim we do not believe in the same Christ, maybe so since we acknowledge him as the Literal Son of God.
Regards, Richard.
Hanksaint,
That is an interesting list, thank you for providing them. However, that sounds like just one theory, the theory of plagiarism from various sources. Different people see different sources for inspiration. Please note that plagiarism does not have to be complete, and quite often it is altered. The theory of plagiarism could be sub-divided into J.S. acting alone, or with others.
Another theory could be that he was a great story teller, and made most of it up,writing in language that had a similiar feel to the bible, and peppering it with portions of the Bible.
I have heard of the theory that the BOM was supernaturally inspired by what he saw in his seer stone, using a hat. Thats some spirtual power if it gave him entire chapters of Isaiah. That it came out in the KJV makes that theory pretty suspect. In this theory, the spiritual source is a bad one.
Of course there is the LDS theory that it was divinely inspired by characters in the book, and translated by tools given by god.
So, at this point I see only 5 real theories. There could be more, but they probably would fall under variations of the 5 above.
In science ideas get tested. There could be 999 criticisms of an idea, and if they all fail that would make that a idea a pretty good one. But then ther
The thing that amazed me was that when I was active in the LDS faith, I gave a copy to a female friend of mine to read. I was so suprised that she quickly picked out criticisms of the book that so many other people have pointed out. She did so without refering to works by critics, some of these were just so immediately apparent. Shes a smart girl, and also was not about to buy into anything to make me or anyone else happy. She also noticed many of the other things posters here have mentioned about LDS culture, she didn’t think they were healthy or spiritual. At the time my responce was ‘what are you talking about?’ This was because I really didn’t have much knowledge of anything else.
Hank saint cont…
There could be 999 criticisms, if they fail to refute an idea, that would make an idea a pretty good one. But the 1,000th criticism could then finally crush that idea. That there are many criticisms of an idea doesn’t necessarily mean that the has no fault.
Critics clearly see many problems with the BOM, that there isn’t one unified approach doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a faulty reasoning behind these criticisms.
GRCluff,
“Central to their church attendance is the sacrament, where they renew their commitments to keep the commandments, and to seek forgiveness for sin.”
There are some restrictions per LDS doctrine, one that one should not partake “unworthily”.(3 Nephi 18:28,29) And also (1 Cor 11;27,28). I attended a non-LDS church service where the preacher addressed this, and man was it such a different understanding of ‘unworthy’. I think that was a more correct understanding. In theory LDS people should never be partaking of the sacrament if one has to be ‘worthy’. Non-LDS christians have a different understanding of baptism and the lords supper. I would be interested in reading some commentary on this, as to if partaking of the sacrament has anything to do with obtaining forgiveness of sins.
Had a nice relaxing Saturday yesterday, and church today was great. But I missed much in conversations on here.
Falcon – you cannot paint all LDS with the one brush as you did with your comment about ‘TBMs’ not accepting any reason for people to leave the church except for the 2 reasons you gave. I know many ‘TBMs’ here where I live that do not think that because a person has left the church it has to be for those 2 reasons. I for one know that some people just decide not to believe anymore. A couple of my friends did just that and had their names removed. Frankly, I couldn’t care less what their reason for being an ex-member is, it does not concern me.
To all,
As far as this article goes, it is a big misrepresentation of the LDS church. All those who have really looked at what we teach will know that we teach that we need to fellowship with the ex-members to try and bring them back into the fold, especially family members. We do not teach to forsake them and have nothing to do with them. Even those who are excommunicated for apostacy and teaching apostate doctrines are still welcome to attend church and associate with members (know this from experience and already mentioned it a number of times). It is the members who take it upon themselves to ostracise the ex-members. This is because the members are imperfect – not the organisation, as the organisation teaches to go and be friends with them.
And as I said above, it happens in the Traditional Christian churches too (regardless of denomination), but I don’t see many (if any) that acknowledge this here. It has nothing to do with JUST the LDS church – and it does not prove the church to be true or false.
I spoke with a person who recently left the LDS church. He told me that his close LDS friends who said it didn’t make a difference are no longer communicating with him. The people who leave or go inactive, out number those who stay or are active by a wide margin. Those who leave each have their own story and their personal reality. My point has been that these folks who leave are a threat to those who believe the Joseph Smith story. Why are they a threat? Because it calls into question what those who stay believe. There has to be another reason other than the Mormon church is not true or that it’s defective.
As most of you who have been around here for any length of time know, I don’t belong to a church having left the Catholic church decades ago. My not being Catholic doesn’t upset my family. I was helping my wife usher in her church a week ago. There was a young professional couple there with their two kids. She had been raised Catholic, he Lutheran. Do either of their families or anyone in the community care where they have chosen to go to church. No! It’s not a threat to anyone’s emotional or spiritual equilibrium.
I thought the comments by two of our Mormon posters to the above video was quite telling. One felt the need to comment on the physical appearance of the women, the other commented on one of the women’s speech patterns making a link to a possible moral failing (of the woman).
In the minds’ of our TBMs, the testimonies of the people in the video had to be diminished, impugned and dismissed. The conclusion that the Mormon church has major problems and that it isn’t “true” is unacceptable to TBMs.
Interesting comments by some of our dear and loved friends here at WM. It’s seem interesting that when someone leaves the Church for whatever reasons, the enmity between those who leave and those who are still active LDS is usually categorized as a characteristic of bad feeling towards those who leave by those who stay. Who’s to say since it usually stays within the family, and only those who we see on the video are giving there one sided version. As a Hight Priest Group Leader and also many years of Home Teaching, I can easily state that this is not always so and there are many who eventually leave for a variety of reasons, but the animosity is usually coming from those who quit towards those who remain active. Point being, why is the membership actively engaged in reuniting in-actives and those who leave or quit,
again with the Gospel and Doctrines of the Church. I never gave up once of trying to reactivate my own Brother and his family. I spent 25 years working everyday with him and never once gave up on supporting him and his family even when they chose another Religion. Now he is dying from a brain tumor, possibly in as little as a few weeks he will pass away. I have been invited over to give blessing and prayers, I have blessed my own Brother and he has responded with thanks and love as has his wife. You see it was never an issue between us, I continued to love my Brother and his family.
Regards, Richard.
Can someone explain the following snippet, “The people who leave or go inactive, out number those who stay or are active by a wide margin.”
What does this mean? a confused LDS poster trying to understand the mind set of a MC poster.
R.
Enki, thats for making my point. You have described exactly what I was trying to state about the many different criticisms of the Book of Mormon and you did not come to terms with anyone of them as being the hard evidence needed to show to the world that it is a book of fiction.
I still challenge anyone to bring on the proof, where is the meat of your theories. Even Tom Donofrio admits, “plagiarism is hard to prove”. interesting indeed.
R.
setfree,
What a great story! Not that you were mired in sin but that you found the solution wasn’t in religion but in Jesus Christ. Coming to know Christ as your personal Savior provided for you what no religious group or set of rules could; forgiveness and a changed life. I applaud you for being so open and honest. I’m sure your testimony will serve as inspiration and motivation for others who find themselves in what seems a hopeless situation.
The apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Phillipians about how his religiousity couldn’t get him right with God. It’s a typical story of someone striving and always falling short of the mark. He held the coats of the people who were stoning Stephen to death. He was basically an accomplice to murder. But in Christ he found the forgiveness and the restoration that can’t be found in a form of religion that is void of the Spirit of God.
Although he hasn’t posted here for a while, jackg-also an exMormon, tells a fascinating story of how he found relief in Christ. I told him that he should write a book and title it “Sinning My Way to Salvation”. I thought the title was provocative and that it would let people see that before coming to Christ many folks are lost in a hopeless cycle of recurring sin. But in an odd sort of way, that mired in sin hopeless situation brings people to the realization that they need a solution and that the solution is Jesus.
Bless you and your new life in Christ.
Enki, in Corinthians 11 Paul was mainly warning those who were not Christians, those who had never come to Christ for forgiveness of sin, and those who had made a profession of faith in Christ, but were still living an intentionally immoral lifestyle, which apparently was a problem in that church.
This should be taken as a stern warning also to the followers of Smith, who taught the insufficiency of Jesus’s sacrifice for sins. And like the Roman Catholics, when they impute power to the elements to cleanse from sin, they sacrifice Christ again, denying his perfect sacrifice once for all. Hebrews 9:11-15 tells us
and further in verses 25-27
They even dare to confer upon themselves the Mechizedek priesthood that only he holds. Scary stuff.
Richard,
I think it can be said with all certainty that we are (all of us) born with a selfishness problem.
Trying not to be selfish doesn’t make one not selfish, just like trying to be humble doesn’t make one humble, nor does trying to be righteous in any other way make one righteous.
Righteousness comes from losing yourself, your life, to Christ. God gives you His own Righteousness.
A couple of verses to show what I read that convinced me of forgiveness?
John 3:15-17 For God so loved Richard…
John 5:23-25
John 6:40,44,47
John 7:16-19
Here’s an important quote from Jesus:
John 8:23-24 “And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I AM (He), you shall die in your sins”
John 8:36
Another great one:
Luke 7:47-48
Is it ironic that you said what you did about the church not being as important as Christ? More on that later…
My dad has been building a greenhouse.
Step after step, God has beat him to the punch, so to speak. My dad just sorta started going, and trusted God to supply His need. From the very first, God has brought him everything. From labor to dig a big hole in the ground, to materials for much cheaper than he should have been able to get them, to perfect fits where he didn’t make a plan or know what was going to happen, etc.
An LDS woman that has remained a friend to my family (the community quit being friendly when my folks asked to be excommunicated – in fact, the higher-ups told people not to talk to my parents), came by to see the greenhouse. Over and over as my dad told her the story of how God has built the greenhouse, she just kept saying “oh, you’re so smart”, “what you’ve done is phenomenal”. My dad kept insisting on giving credit to God, and the good Mormon lady kept trying to give the credit to my dad.
When someone LDS has something good happen to them, do they say “God is so good!”, or do they first (at least think to themselves) “I must be doing a good job”
HS/R said that his cleanup came because of Jesus, but also his commandment keeping.
God’s blessings on us have nothing to do with how good we are, Richard.
It’s all a matter of His Grace… unmerited, unearned favor. He blesses us because that’s the way He is.
However, if you do insist on trusting your commandment keeping, He will judge you by the law at the last day, and you will be found guilty.
Pick one, or the other. It’s either all about Jesus, or not about Him at all.
PS While my mom was considering leaving the church, she listened very carefully. Her findings were that other than the “in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen” stamped on the end of speeches and prayers, there was no talk of Jesus in sacrament meeting at all.
How can you be His true church, and leave Him mostly out of the equation?
Oh.. has anyone looked at the LDS plan of salvation bookmark lately? you should give it a l
Hey Falcon,
“In the minds’ of our TBMs, the testimonies of the people in the video had to be diminished, impugned and dismissed. The conclusion that the Mormon church has major problems and that it isn’t “true” is unacceptable to TBMs.”
Which ‘TBMs’? All of them? Do you count me as a ‘TBM’? Would you count my active LDS friends and family where I live ‘TBMs’? Why did you ignore or discount my last post? Or are you trying to push your agendum with blinkers on?
As for your story about the ex-LDS who said his friends do not keep in contact with him even though they said they had no problems with why he left, there is another explanation for that. Since I have gotten married an became employed and moved away from my home city, I have very little time to socialise outside of the circle of things I do – eg family, work and church. Also I am not a very avid letter writer and phone calls are expensive when its long distance. So I have ‘lost’ contact with many of my friends both in and out of the church, not because I have purposefully done it, but because of happenstance. Even with my friends that I have now in church and at work, I hardly get out of the house to go and see them because family and work are very demanding on my time. And my old friends that I have contacted both in and out of the church, are facing the same problems and they also do not contact me very often if at all unless something throws us together. So it goes both ways and neither side is put out or blaming the other for purposefully not making contact.
So basically life gets more responsibility and hectic as one gets older and keeping in contact with friends (and family) who are not in your immediate sphere of wanderings gets difficult and sometimes impossible regardless of how much you want to keep in contact. I have not seen or heard from an old childhood friend (active “TBM”) for 15 years now, but I keep getting updates from his parents who are in my ward.
Ralph,
I consider you a buddy but your explanations tend to be pretty thin. I don’t know if that’s part of being Mormon or you’re just reaching for some sort of reason.
There’s a problem in SLC Mormonism a part from what we Christians see as the bogus claims of Joseph Smith and the heretical doctrines and faulty view of Christian history. The other problems really don’t have anything to do with us but are more systemic to the organization. I’ve mentioned these things several times in the past but I’ll hit them again.
First of all I’ve been told that there used to be four people processing resignations for people formally exiting SLC Mormonism and today there are ten. Two thirds of those on the rolls are inactive. Half of returning missionaries go inactive. We hear a consistent theme from those who have left Mormonism regarding the Mormon culture and the functioning apparatus of the church.
Now I could go on but my point is that if I were running an organization and my members were bailing out, I’d do some real soul searching regarding the climate within the (organization) and what could be done to change the culture. On the other hand, what do I care, really? The church will diminish and wither and dry-up and the leadership will run around and rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking ship.
Falcon,
I don’t care if you see my explanations/experiences/thoughts about my faith as being ‘thin’ – I’d hazard to guess that a hard core athiest or a skeptic would say the same about your faith (and mine) if you try to defend it against their science and proof against your faith. As I keep saying, faith is a choice and once we choose what we want to believe in we will find the evidence for it, especially since there is no real tangible evidence for it.
As far as people leaving the LDS church in droves or a high level of non-active LDS, all I can say about the statistics is “So what?” It is neither here nor there to prove that the LDS church incorrect. Jesus had a number of disciples leave Him because of something He said that they disagreed with. If people left the truth even when Jesus taught them, then does that mean Jesus and His teachings are incorrect? Of course not. There are other things in the scriptures, like the parable of the sower which teaches that some are going to accept the truth, but then because lack of true faith they will leave. There is the parable of the wheat and tares. The parable of the 10 virgins, and the list goes on about people joining the truth, only to turn from it later or being in the truth but not getting to heaven. It neither proves the LDS true or false, just shows that some of the prophecies from the Bible are being fulfilled if the LDS church is true (just putting the ‘if’ in there to stop arguments about is it or not).
What does worry/concern me about the statistics is that it represents real people who have decided for one reason or another to leave the truth. Their eternal welfare is at stake because of this decision. And contrary to what this blog is saying, the LDs church/organisation teaches that we need to go out there and keep being their friends and try and encourage them to come back to the truth – it does not teach ostracisism, that comes from the imperfections of the members. Or can you prove me false?
Ralph,
There is a huge difference between who and who, though.
The LDS church tries to “reactivate” inactive members, but they surely cut ties with people like me, who left for the cause of Christ, and rejected Mormonism based on the conflict it has with the Bible.
I know the train may have left the station on this issue, but I thought it worth posting a response to grindael’s defense of Brodie’s works (quoted below):
“Brodie wrote a great biography on Thomas Jefferson. Have you read it? I have. It’s excellent and has been lauded as such. Don’t be so critical of her expose on Joe Smith. It was done without bias and to put forth the truth. ONLY MORMONS do not like it because they cannot accept it.”
Below are a few reviews/tidbits of interest regarding some of her works, which grindael (and others) might find of interest. These are simply a smattering pulled from wikipedia.org, and, as such, are pretty easy to find. Any fair-minded person on this thread can see from the following tidbits that the objectivity and authoritativeness of Brodie’s works are far from conclusively established.
Joseph Smith:
“Non-Mormon reviewers praised either the author’s research, the excellence of her literary style, or both. Newsweek called Brodie’s book ‘a definitive biography in the finest sense of the word,’ and Time praised the author for her ‘skill and scholarship and admirable detachment.’ Other reviews were less positive. Brodie was especially annoyed by the review of novelist Vardis Fisher, who accused her of stating ‘as indisputable facts what can only be regarded as conjectures supported by doubtful evidence.’”
Thomas Jefferson:
“By 1971 Brodie had a $15,000 advance from her publisher and had presented a summary of her arguments at the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians. One commentator, Merrill Peterson, ‘blasted’ the paper. Author and publisher alike understood that the biography would be controversial. An in-house editor at W. W. Norton was especially critical: ‘Doesn’t [Brodie] know about making the theory fit the facts instead of trying to explain the facts to fit the theory? It’s pretty fascinating, like working out a detective story, but she doesn’t play fair.’
“Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History was published in February 1974, and it became the main spring selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club. Brodie did her best to ensure that the three foremost Jefferson scholars, Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson, and Julian Boyd, would not be invited to review the book.”
“Academic reviews were mixed. Literary reviews were generally positive while historians were often critical of Brodie’s undue speculations.”
“Like many previous Jefferson biographers, Brodie developed an intense affection for her protagonist. She even claimed that in dreams, she and Jefferson became ‘man and wife.'”
Richard Nixon:
“Though she could find no evidence, Brodie became obsessed with the notion that Nixon had engaged in a homosexual relationship with his good friend Bebe Rebozo. Even her psychoanalyst friends tried to warn her off.”
“Writing in The New Republic, Godfrey Hodgson questioned both her psychoanalytic approach and her motives: ‘[W]e are in danger of having the insights of psychotherapy used as a tool for character destruction, certainly for libel, potentially for revenge.’ Sales of the book were disappointing, in part because of the reviews, in part because memoirs by Nixon associates such as Henry Kissinger, John Ehrlichman, and John Dean had recently flooded the market.”
Setfree,
I am not trying to belittle anyone’s experience. I am also not saying it does not happen. What I am saying is that this blog is incorrect to state or imply that ostracism is the only response to people leaving the LDS church whatever the reason (eg joining another religion, becoming athiest, etc) and that the LDS church teaches or encourages this manner of behaviour.
I have given some personal examples of how these arguments are incorrect and made the comment that because I have not seen/heard of many cases like this in Australia, it could be a cultural thing (ie Aussie vs Yank cultures) that makes this seem more of an occurrance in America. I have also said that the church actively encourages the members to keep being friends with all who leave (inactive or excommunicated), especially family mambers and try and bring them back to the fold. And again, I have mentioned one personal experience of this, but can give a few more experiences from other people I know if you wish.
I can also give experiences from some friends of mine that prove this happens within the Traditional Christian society. My friends have changed religion from Traditional Christianity to LDS, Muslim and JW and have been ostracised by friends and family. Why is this not being mentioned/acknowledged on this site as well? Because of the agendum being pushed against the LDS church.
I am sorry for your experience in this manner, and although you wish to blame the organisation (ie the church) I can assure you it is not the church but the members only that do this.
Ralph,
Honestly, you can’t assure me that it’s the members only.
But I don’t care about that. The point is that your church declares itself to be THE true church.
Because it does this, shouldn’t it be held to a higher standard than other churches?
My point, liv4jc made the same point above… the true church is not one created and maintained by men, it was created and is maintained by Jesus, through Jesus, for Jesus. It’s those people He chooses to take their life and make it His to use.
Those people, regardless of where they are, in a religious organization or not, are HIS TRUE CHURCH.
Setfree,
You never answered how the Church was suppose to help with your personal crisis. You claimed that your marriage was rocky, and that drinking was a problem. As one who has studied the LDS doctrine and read all the LDS scriptures over and over and not have a personal relationship with my Saviour is plain ridiculous. Your in denial, but it is for a much different reason then finding Christ in the Bible and not in The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.
I must confess that your story is lacking in important ingredients that your not allowing yourself to admit.
Richard.
A Note on F. M. Brodie*
Almost thirty years ago, Mrs. F. M. Brodie wrote what purported to be a biography of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
It was instantly proclaimed to be the one definitive, authoritative book on Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Reviewers vied in heaping praises on it. Schools and libraries accepted it as the true and official account of Mormonism. Ministers and priests went into ecstasies about it and invariably placed it in the hands of any of their flock who wondered about the Mormons.
Mrs. Brodie went on to produce other biographies, receiving mostly favorable but not enthusiastic reviews, but nothing like the attention and acclaim accorded the Joseph Smith epic.
Then she wrote a long biography of Thomas Jefferson, and promptly the roof fell in. “Two vast things” wrote an eminent reviewer, “make this book a prodigy — the author’s industry, and her ignorance. . . . She regularly treats us to sub-freshman absurdity. . . . Error on this scale, and in this detail, does not come easily. There is a skill involved. And much nerve. . . . As usual, Ms. Brodie has her facts wrong, even before she loads them with unsustainable surmise.”1 Can this be the same Mrs. B. who wrote about Joseph Smith; is it her vaunted scholarship of which we now read, “the same appetites can be more readily gratified by those Hollywood fan magazines, with their wealth of unfounded conjecture on the sex lives of others, from which Ms. Brodie has borrowed her scholarly methods”?
Gary Wills, “Uncle Thomas’s Cabin,” New York Review of Books 21 (18 April 1974): 26-27.
Richard, please, since you know everything, do tell…
Hanksaint,
“plagiarism is hard to prove”. Whats difficult to understand here? The BOM has an incredible amount of material taken out of the Bible, with complete chapters of Isaiah taken from the KJV, which was translated in 1611.
If the book was authentic, if would have had this in another langauge, and if smith was really translating it would have come out in language used around 1820-1830. The portions which were NOT plagiarized from the Bible however was in language of around 1820-1830. Its not difficult to see that is lifted material. Maybe this is the real reason LDS members prefer the use of the KJV, it matches so much of the lifted material.
There is a problem with the word ‘lucifer’ as it appears in the BOM, and also the LDS D&C. Its also a problem for christians, but more of a minor one. But its a major problem for mormons, because it reveals that its not divinely inspired or divinely translated.
“The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? ”
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/luciferaproblemforchristianity.html
Ralph,
I just read an article based on Hebrews 6:4-6, written by an atheist. Its pretty strange, but according to this, a person has only one chance to believe and obtain salvation. I don’t ever recall ever having that understanding, but this article makes it appear as such. That sure doesn’t give much hope or purpose for reactivation of members, if there is any truth to the scripture, in the light its presented.
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/savedaslongasyoucontinuetobelieve.html
Setfree,
Because we claim to the the one and only true church, should we be held to a higher standard than others? The answer is yes we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than others, but it should not be with a haughty, or high and mighty attitude, which some members do have. We should be at a higher level to assist others to come up to our level, not to look down on others. It’s like mountain climbing, it’s easier to pull someone up to your level rather than push them up in front of you.
But then we should not be held to the standards that non-LDS on this blog are trying to hold us to. We are human and imperfect, thus we make mistakes.
As far as your comment about the true church being created and maintained by Jesus, well I believe that the LDS church was created and is being maintained by Jesus – so it’s a moot point.
With your comment “Honestly, you can’t assure me that it’s the members only.”, does that mean my friends I mentioned that converted from Traditional Christianity to other religions and are being cut-off by their family and friends, are being persecuted by the Traditional Christian church? That it is the religion/faith of these friends and family teaching them to ostracise these people? If the LDS church teaches to actively go out and be friends with those who leave the church, but the members do the opposite I can assure you it is the members and not the church that is doing it. Otherwise you have to admit that it is your church that is ostracising my friends who have joined the LDS, JW or Muslim religions and not the members of your church regardless of whether it is an organisation or not.
Ralph,
“…I believe that the LDS church was created and is being maintained by Jesus – so it’s a moot point.”
I recenly read an article about the LDS churches political activities. My impression was that it was definately the work of humans, and not divinely inspired by any means. It appeared to me that LDS people as an organization are not as politically savy as they think they are, and are not as careful as they should be.
“Plagiarism Is hard to prove”.
Although the Book of Mormon generally agrees with the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible both in its acceptable scriptural idiom of translation and in its direct quotations from Isaiah, Joseph Smith’s translation of the Isaiah texts in the Book of Mormon sometimes differs. At 2 Nephi 20:29, for example, Joseph dictated Ramath instead of the usual “Ramah” of the parallel King James Isaiah 10:29. Indeed, there is no “t” in the Hebrew text, the Greek Septuagint, or even in the Syropalestinian Aramaic version. The “t” appears, however, in the later Jewish Aramaic translation known as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, as well as in the Christian Syriac P e s h i t t a version. The words there are Ramata and Rameta, respectively (as is also evident in the Old Syriac Rametha for New Testament Arimathea in Matthew 27:57). Neither source was available to Joseph.
Author Robert F. Smith
Plagiarism is hard to Prove.
Another difference from the KJV came when Joseph was dictating from Isaiah 48:11 in 1 Nephi 20:11. Among other things, Joseph added an “it” that does not appear in the Greek or Hebrew texts. However, the “it” is in one Syriac manuscript, in one Jewish Aramaic Targum manuscript, and in a scribal correction to the large Isaiah Scroll from Qumran Cave One (the latter being the earliest Hebrew text of Isaiah).
King James “Ariel,” a poetic term for Jerusalem, is not to be found in the 2 Nephi 27:3 quotation of Isaiah 29:7. However, it is also absent from the Jewish Aramaic Targum—which replaces it with “the City.” The Book of Mormon reads Zion instead. This fits well, however, since “Mount Zion” appears at the end of the verse (Isaiah 29:8), and “Zion” and “Mount Zion” parallel each other here.
As noted long ago by the late Professor Sidney B. Sperry, the Jewish Targum and Greek Septuagint texts of Isaiah 2:16 confirm the authenticity of the reading “and upon all the ships of the sea” in 2 Nephi 12:16, even though the line is lacking in the Hebrew and King James texts.
Same reference.
The Problem of Plagiarism
Geisler only includes one paragraph on this subject, noting that the Book of Mormon has thousands of words taken from the 1611 version of the KJV Bible. He is wrong. The words are actually taken from the 1769 Oxford edition of the King James Translation. But these passages are quotations of the Bible. Why should Joseph Smith translate anew passages that were already extant and in a prose style far superior to his own? More important, has Geisler leveled the same charge against the authors of the New Testament, who copied verbatim from the Greek Bible available to them? Is he at all concerned about the angel of Revelation 2:27, who “plagiarized” the Septuagint version of Psalm 2:9? Perhaps he feels there should be one standard for Joseph Smith and another for himself? The irony of this claim in this section of this particular book is rich indeed.
Author Alma Allred
Hank, you have been told before (8/27/09) that wholesale copying and pasting of LDS apologetic material is not what we’re looking for here at Mormon Coffee. Please stop. Summarize the arguments you wish to use in your own words or you will be carded.