Introduction
I often heard of the Bridgstock brothers in the early years after I joined the Mormon Church. The enthusiastic and devout twin brothers, Robert and David, were stalwarts in c Mormonism. They were role models.
This is the story of one of those brothers, Robert. It is a heart-wrenching account of his journey, dealing with personal struggles and tragedies. Acknowledging the benefits he gained from Mormonism, Robert lays bare his soul regarding the devastating harm the Mormon Church caused him, and the effect upon his family. That harm appears to be unique to Mormonism and similar fundamentalist cults parading as churches. Interlaced with his personal experiences, Robert deals expertly and accurately with some of the very troubling teachings and practices of Mormonism, such as blood atonement, “plural marriage” (polygamy), and the repugnant racist teachings of early prophets. He also deals with the tyranny of Brigham Young, and the most infamous incident that occurred under Young’s theocratic reign, the Mountain Meadows Massacre – the slaughter of 120 unarmed, innocent people, mainly women and children, by Mormon elders (priests).
Robert’s writing is both passionate and objective. He makes you feel the way he does. I and others I know have shed tears as we read parts of this book. Robert pours his very essence into telling his story. You will want to reach out and hug him—in stark contrast to the treatment he received from his leaders in the Mormon Church when he was honest enough to confess doubts and problems. The mantra of those who “helped” him appears to be “stop thinking and don’t ask questions.” (Let me just interject in my own defence, having been a leader in the Mormon Church – we were not all like that. Some of us actually cared about individuals and about truth.)
This book is well written, with passion and feeling. It’s a touching story of a sensitive, caring and loving man, one who had a desire to do good and be good, and yet was ultimately treated despicably by a church that claims it was founded by and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Robert recounts his childhood, his seeking God, becoming a Mormon at age 18, and the youngest Mormon bishop in the British Isles at age 23.
Your heart will go out to the author when you read of his deep love, respect, and devotion to his wife, who died too young of cancer, and of his emotional state, before and after her suffering and death. Earlier in his LDS life, he expressed doubts to his leaders. In reply, they asked him what was wrong with him. (Doubts and unorthodox opinions do not surface unless one has sinned!) What kind of leaders would treat a devoted crusader in such a manner? Read and find out.
Robert deals with the causes of sexual repression and the adverse effect on intimacy of Church doctrines and practices. He deals with the Mormon Church’s morbid preoccupation with sexual activity, and the consequent inappropriate, abusive interviewing of members (including children) by church leaders. Many Mormon youngsters first hear the word “masturbation” when they are interviewed by a bishop. Most decent people are horrified when they learn of this. What kind of Church, and what kind of leaders, subject children to searching, intrusive questions about their sex lives? Even married women experience fear and embarrassment because of these interviews. Robert’s wife, Norma, for instance dreaded them, even though she had never done anything wrong.
To illustrate the destructive effects of the Mormon Church’s prudish, intrusive approach to sex, Robert cites former Church President and Prophet Spencer W. Kimball’s own account of the counsel he gave to a young couple who came to him for help because of their sexual attraction. Kimball’s account is incredibly depressing—and revealing.
Lastly, Robert describes his excommunication by the Mormon Church. And for what? He did nothing immoral by any reasonable, humane standard. Not incidentally, the Church excommunicated him during the time he was grieving the early death of his wife, a time when Church leaders should have shown love and understanding. To make matters worse, various factors, including his exit from the Church, caused his devout Mormon children to partially abandon him. As bad as this was and is, it could have been worse: outright shunning of former Mormons by their still-Mormon families is fairly common. In regard to excommunication, Robert describes the way the Church uses fear to retain members. Former members alone will go to hell. Even rapists, torturers, and mass murderers will make it to the lowest level of heaven—but not apostates, “sons of perdition.” Hell is the fate the Church prescribes for those who lose their faith and are honest about it. Even Adolf Hitler will be far better off in the afterlife than they will – according to Mormonism.
Every day I receive e-mails from people expressing their gratitude upon learning that Mormonism is a false religion. They rejoice in their new found freedom, of their changed world view. However, they are concerned about family and friends who are still trapped in Mormonism. Some experience serious family divisions. Some Mormon parents refuse to speak to their own children who have left the church, and consequently have nothing to do with their grandchildren. Some still-Mormon children and grandchildren treat their parents and grandparents like lepers, as if they’d been enticed by Satan or were guilty of hidden, hideous sins. Then there are those who have suicidal tendencies due to Mormonism. And those who have actually committed suicide because they considered themselves “unworthy,” worthless, and unable to overcome their sins.
Thank you Robert for sharing your journey with us. Painful as it must have been for you, we are the beneficiaries. Your words will help those on their journey away from the tyranny of Mormonism and help others avoid falling into its trap.
Tom Phillips
(Tom Phillips was a member of the Mormon Church for 35 years, a past bishopand stake president, and part of the Europe West Area Presidency. He is currently managing editor of mormonthink.com
Foreward
The most basic and fundamental operating unit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) is the formally organized “ward” of the Church. The ward is a single congregation of members shepherded over by a Bishopric comprised of 3 High Priests; one called and set apart to serve as the Bishop; the other two called and set apart to serve as the bishop’s counsellors. I served as such a counsellor in two successive bishoprics of the Church in Southern California. Robert Bridgstock served as the Bishop in Catford Ward, England for approximately 3 years. In addition, he served some years later as the Selby Branch President in the York Stake in northern England for 3 years.
From his vantage point as Bishop, Robert Bridgstock not only observed but actually lived out the role in which the relationship between the LDS Church and its members is most typically epitomized. It is under the delegated authority of the Bishop that tithes are collected, meetings are conducted, lessons and teachers are approved, the “worthiness” of members for various levels of LDS participation is determined, baptisms are authorized and conducted, Church disciplinary courts are conducted, and, where it is deemed appropriate by the Bishop, members are disciplined or excommunicated. The Bishop is the senior ranking high priest of the Ward, the liaison between Church and the members of the ward, and the steward of the local jurisdiction of the Church, answerable to more senior High Priests at the regional or “stake” level.
Simply put, the Mormon Bishop bears an enormous mantle of trust, respect, deference, and responsibility within the Mormon Church. The related demands on his time and talents are considerable. He is not a paid clergyman, and must manage these demands within the context of all of the additional demands of life born by a father, a husband, and a responsible member of society juggling a career and other personal pursuits and interests at the same time. There is no more relevant perspective of Mormonism than that of an experienced Bishop of the Church.
The enormous social deference within the Mormon community that a Bishop will experience contributes to the dynamic that forges his continued belief and faith in the Church as a significant part of his identity within the social world that dominates his life. He is the father of the Ward. His is the resident authority on the applicable interpretations of Church doctrine and the scriptures. His continued belief in the divinity of the Church is constantly reinforced by the esteem with which he is viewed by those who trust in his guidance and leadership. To disavow the Church, is to disavow his own authority and the very basis for much of the respect that he enjoys in life. Accordingly, it is a relatively rare occurrence that the inherent integrity of a man whose quest for truth and personal harmony with that truth drives him to rise above his ego and disavow the very essence of his social prowess.
Robert Bridgstock, after years of soulful reflection, brings not only such integrity, but also his keen insight and relevant experience and education to bear on the subject of Mormonism, the “Amercan Cult” that exploited his talents and devotion for so many years only to disparage his highest virtues and declare him unworthy of continued association as the only demonstrably impotent response that could be afforded his challenging and probing questions about increasingly obvious contradictions to the Mormon claims of divinity.
I was deeply touched and impressed by the sensitivity and thoughtfulness revealed amidst Robert Bridgstock’s forthright candour and unapologetic challenge to the abusiveness of the Mormon cult from his highly qualified perspective. This contribution to the subject matter transcends Mormonism and addresses the social dynamics of the power, manipulation and deceit with which sincere hearts are exploited and deluded. Here is a worthwhile and thoughtful perspective that is both thorough and insightful in its discussion of what Mormonism anxiously seeks to obfuscate and hide about its history and doctrines.
Park B. Romney Author of ‘The Apostasy of a High Priest; The Sociology of an American Cult‘
Junk Religion – A poem by the author
Not far from my home along a farm track across open fields, old decaying farm machinery has been abandoned and left to corrode and crumble back to the earth. Each implement, entwined with grasses and trees looks strangely beautiful in the dying sun of evening. Bright shining rust set against the green shades of summer.
I stand and look at it all. Some of this junk is piled high and entangled together into twisted limbs of steel and iron. This is a graveyard of metallic bones, scattered around, like solders shot in fields – forever stranded and silent.
I too entered silence. I remembered that once – many years ago, my religion was shiny, new and had a strong and rugged relevance in my life. I used it to plough-up my heart and let God sink in to a deep and futile land.
Oh Mormonism, why did you lie to me – why did you die in me? Why did you decay in front of my eyes and become – like these metal bones – useless junk? I sustained your beautifully perfect image, but slowly and inexorably you lost your edge. They said it was me, but in the end, I knew it was you. You started to breakdown and all the fixing and mending in the world could not sustain you. If you were divine you would have had life in yourself – even if you were only human, you might have healed yourself, but you could not even do that. You were always brittle and hard, but I did not notice for so long.Then, like waking up from a deep sleep, I thought of you, ‘my dream’ and I called you to come into reality – to come out of the night and into the day…. but you would not come. I struggled with you for years, trying to revive and breathe life into you, but in the end I had to move on without you.
Oh Mormonism, why did you promise so much, yet in the end, give so little?Why did you want to stifle and control the life that was bursting out of me? Why couldn’t you trust me – why couldn’t you trust God? Slowly, and with utter amazement, I saw death crawl all over you. You changed, you grew old, ugly and colourless… or was it I who had actually grown up?….. Me, who saw you with new eyes opened – saw past all the dogma and rhetoric – saw the pride and the conceit – saw the decay beneath your shiny surface. Once, in a summer now gone, I loved you. Now, you rust and disintegrate upon the landscape of my past. As I walk away, you call me back with your dying breath, but I have a harvest to enjoy! Did you think when you helped me plough up my living soil that I would always grow the weeds you recommended?”
“When you see a religion that is preoccupied with security, fear, maintaining a positive self-image, when religion is punitive and thinks that it can lead you to God by threats and coercion, you know it is ‘junk religion’. True religion is ready to let God be in charge and to let God lead us into a new future that we do not yet understand – and no longer even need to understand”
Richard Rohr ‘Hope Against Darkness,’
I have always been accused of pride by men in Mormonism. It is always the stock answer to those who show the slightest hint of none conformity. To the Church, “conformity” is all that matters. You could be the most awful person alive, but just maintain all the right answers and keep all the regulations and you will be congratulated and supported, but spend your life battling with uncertainties, doubts, fears and struggling with God for greater wisdom and forgiveness for sinful habits… find yourself wanting to share your different, emerging ideas, but worried you will be made to feel ashamed and weak… pluck-up the courage and faith to begin to believe that what you feel in your heart, may – just may, be correct, then splutter it out in an honesty you thought you could never own… and what happens? You are accused of “Pride” – pride and arrogance.
Robert Bridgstock
Preface
Each chapter title of this book has an illustration – a small piece of a painting, which I have cropped-out from the whole canvas. It serves a purpose… you cannot see the whole picture; I have deliberately withheld it. This book is an attempt – perhaps crudely, to express what it feels like to be deceived, when the whole picture of Mormonism is deliberately hidden from view.
When people have looked at my paintings, they have often said to me: “How long did it take you to do that?” I usually reply, “about three days,” but in reality, each painting took my entire life. I developed the necessary skills over many years.
And so it is with this book. It has been coming all my life – from my first doubt till now. I’ve carried the whole long, agonizing struggle inside like a lead weight, and I became accustomed to carrying it around. It was not until many years had passed, when one day the tiredness just hit me. The mental and emotional strain was like spiritual slavery. I kept asking questions and finding no answers – at least, not from the church. Bear in mind, this was long before the Internet was invented. A sad and lonely isolation settled over me. I longed to be like so many other LDS members, who had a faith that seemed simple, who had no questions and therefore, needed no answers, but I have never been like that.
I belonged to this organization and fully trusted its autocratic leadership, which required life-long sacrificial devotion, so I inevitably faced many moments of fatigue and disharmony as I tried to balance the unrealistic expectations of others with my own natural equilibrium.
I began to see too much of my energy being consumed in the struggle to know whether the Mormon church was the ‘one and only true Church.’ They tell you that God will convey the truthfulness of this through prayer. At the beginning it seemed to be so, but how many years should it take to receive such a confirmation from the Holy Ghost, when worrying issues and questions trouble you? How many prayers must be prayed, how much obedience rendered, and how much fasting must be done to get an answer? When I was young and naive, I thought I knew with the sheer intensity of feeling that the church was true, but experience has taught me to be careful about trusting feelings. I have been wrong about many things and very wrong about the most important issues of my life.
Through the evaluation of experience, I have come to understand that ‘emotion’ can be an excellent guide to healthy and responsible moral behaviour and to wise choices in intimate relationships, yet it’s the very the worst criteria upon which to determine religious Truth! Long ago, after I joined the Church, I recall some very potent emotions when I thought I was ‘moved upon’ by the Holy Ghost. These feelings caused me to make decisions and predictions, which, through the passage of time, have proved utterly incorrect and false. In addition, just because some moral choices (Usually supported by biblical text) seemed appropriate to others, did not make them appropriate for me. In fact, my battle has been thus: to truly think and feel for myself, instead of falling back on the tenets and conditioning of Mormonism. I thought I was thinking freely, but I had so little idea of the delusion I was under. I did not know what I did not know.
The hardest inward struggle I have experienced has not only been with the legacy of a deceptive, phony culture – whatever the level of satisfaction or happiness I derived from it and sometimes miss, but with the spoken and unspoken disappointment of my six children about my decisions. When a person who has previously been solid in their religious beliefs, decides to leave that faith, there will inevitably be some isolation, some sadness and some misunderstanding – even some contempt and anger, in both the ‘apostate’ (Me) and in the remaining ‘faithful’ members of the family.
In terms of religion, most of my children and I now live in two different worlds. I believe mine is now the real one and not the illusory one. They would say exactly the same thing about me, and yet I cannot see a way to help them view things differently, except perhaps through these words, though it is doubtful they will ever read them. If I have a greater wisdom to offer, it may be in the fact that I have lived in both worlds – they have not. I refer to this vantage point as ‘double-angled vision,’ as opposed to the church member’s ‘single-angled vision.’ Single-angled vision is the only one available for those who have not yet escaped from the imprisonment of powerful conditioning and dogma. I expected wrongly, that Mormonism would work for me for the rest of my life. I did not figure on my own spiritual evolution, drawing me out of Mormonism. Sometimes, when I have expressed doubts to Mormon friends, they have said in reply: “You think too much,” in retrospect, I did not think enough.
I have never equated the struggle of ordinary human weakness with hypocrisy. It is only human to believe something with ones whole soul, yet come to realise that one is rather too weak to practise it properly. On the other hand, a hypocrite is an individual who ‘pretends’ to be something he or she is not. Despite my own weakness after leaving Mormonism, my experience of feeling consciously connected to my deepest self – to what I felt was God – has been profound and never left me. Hypocrisy never was an endemic problem within me, even when meeting and falling-in-love with another married woman. Paradoxically, I saw a moral and spiritual strength arise in me – which I had never known or thought possible to possess. I could write a book on it, but alas, I return to my experience of writing about Mormonism.
The teaching of my church inculcates the concept of us all being fallen creatures – born alienated and cut off from our Celestial parents and in need of reconciliation through the atonement. This concept breeds a sense of low self esteem, redeemed partially through rigid obedience and attention to the detailed regulations of the church. When you try to live a ‘perfect’ moral life, you soon discover just how impossible it is to feel good about the state of your soul. From their absent distance, my children saw (Like too many church leaders do) only sin and repugnance, for what seemed clear-cut immorality on my part; they knew so little of my actual experience and soul journey in the immediate years following the death of Norma, my wife.
For the first time in my life, I knew that so many of my previous values, beliefs and opinions, were delusional. Yes, they had been real to me, but their importance seemed to fade away – some of them – right out of sight. It was a bit like watching the news flash of the Japanese earthquake/tsunami in 2011. As I reflected on the horror of it, I realised that two minutes earlier, my greatest worry was whether to shop on Wednesday or Friday? The contrast of ‘relevance’ or ‘value’ shocked me. So, I have learnt, that in a state of deep connection with Self/God, all fears and earthly concerns, which had appeared important – as for instance, what others expected or dictated to me, just evaporated. This sense of connection (More powerful than any other time of my life) clearly demonstrated that the weight and emphasis Mormonism placed on the ‘credentials of worthiness’, not only for one’s standing in the church, but for eternal consequences, were utterly false.
About a year ago, I was talking to a lady I knew in my local Town and I expressed regret about my long struggle with Mormonism and she wisely said: “Don’t regret it Bob; you were meant to be there. It was an important experience you were meant to go through.”
Yes, Mormonism – despite what you read in this book and the anger filtering through my pen, has helped me come to where I am today. For instance, Mormonism inspired me to go out regularly into the wilderness to pray in solitude, and as the years passed I began to relish the power and peacefulness I discovered within silence. I slowed down my chatter and stumbled into… what felt like God. All the racing, whirling, frenetic machinery of my mind calmed and stillness gathered around me. Out there on the outer circumference – at the edges, where I lived, it could be frantically noisy, busy, or agitated, but in the centre, it felt serene.
Mormonism, with all its emphasis on obedience, endurance, faith, abstinence, study and prayer, got me into a place where I, at least, was ‘practising,’ ortrying to get connection with divinity. I did not know then, that my Real Self – that component which I believe will go on after the death of my body, lives perpetually in a state of calmness and eternal stillness – in the presence of God. I was building up to it, but it reached a crescendo after Mormonism and therefore (In my case), because of Mormonism.
I was meant to come through Mormonism and out of it, as a baby is weaned off milk. I also believe I was meant to write about Mormonism and warn others about it – though you’d think from what I’m writing here, I ought to promote it? The thing is… being merely grateful about anything does not mean mindless allegiance to it. I am ‘grateful’ for all the nurturing and care of my mother, but even she would not have wished me to remain with her all my life. Finding your own way and moving on, is part of an authentically free life. Only a selfish mother (Or religion) would want to hold you back and keep you safe in their grasp. Under indoctrination, you want what they want, but when and if your autonomy wants something different, watch out for friction…. Incidentally, I have, throughout this book, tried to spell Church with a small ‘c’ Why? Well, it’s a deviation from proper grammar I know, but it does not deserve a large ‘C.’ For the same reason, I have given the Mormon ‘God’ (In the context in which he deserves it) a small ‘g.’
You will sense my anger in this writing, it is inevitable. What is odd is that ex-Mormons like myself – who feel they have been duped all their lives – have not become more angry – more incensed. Mormons fail to see how incredibly patronizing and condescending the hierarchy is, to plead that those who have spiritual and intellectual struggles with their faith should not be ‘offended’ and return to the fold. Even today, top leaders of the LDS church cannot get it – they still think and preach sermons which erroneously describe and label doubters and ex members as people who have LOST Faith; people who have LOST integrity, endurance and moral fibre; people who are fundamentally weak or seeking easy options. President Nelson, in his April 2021 conference talk, called them “Lazy Learners and lax disciples.” If a so-called prophet of God gets it so wrong, what hope the members have in understanding the suffering, anxiety, turmoil, anger, sadness and dread, which befalls a person who discovers hidden undisclosed truth and the deception perpetrated by the very men they trusted?
Think about it: You might have spent your entire life, or many years, serving the church. Even apart from those time-consuming leadership positions, such as a member of a Bishopric or a Stake Presidency; Mormons spend at least three nights during the week and all day Sunday in church-related work… never mind their refusal or reluctance to work on the Sabbath, their ‘sacred’ Saturdays (The only time to get domestic stuff done) are often taken-up by the church too. Then you have 10% of income (Tithing) faithfully contributed over the years. And on top of that, there is conformity to every church rule, commandment and policy – including the mandatory requirement to wear the prescribed sexless temple undergarments, both night and day, in all weather conditions. And then finally – after many years of sacrifice and devotion – coming to know that it was all a fraud. My own doctrinal disputes or opinions over such issues as Creation or the Temple Endowment, never did make me angry, but the terrible suffering of women and brutalization of men under the infamous doctrine of Polygamy, instituted by Joseph Smith and scandalously enshrined by Brigham Young, did. My anger is in the betrayal of past and current leaders, who still hide the worst of history and pretend these men were holy.
When any member struggles for years with uncertainties and finally musters the courage to challenge authority, his anger is labelled and identified as stemming from pride or sin. So, if you happen to be an ex-member like myself, or perhaps on the verge of ecclesiastical conflict, you will not get far without being reprimanded. You cannot win, because your Priesthood leaders will not be able to ‘justify’ the legitimate arguments you present, nor the justifiable anger, which flows from you.
Some time ago, I spoke to two distant and life-long friends in the church, and I have since thought about the God they worship and I have thought about the God I have worshiped. Their God and my God seem quite similar. Yet in a recent letter to them I used the phrase: “the dreadful god of Mormonism,” and I have wondered if the God of my friends is ‘dreadful?’ No, He is not. I think the truth is, that religious people believe in their own anthropomorphic God, and this God may be profoundly different for each person, even within the same institutional faith. Quite possibly, when ex-Mormons (Like me) sound-off about ‘the Mormon God,’ it is not necessarily the same God in the hearts of every member, and certainly not in the hearts of my dear friends, or family, who remain true to their faith. It is a very important distinction to make.
My own twin brother David believes in a far more merciful and loving God than the harsh, punitive type advanced too often by church hierarchy. The God advanced by these leaders, is the god with a small ‘g’, which I find most dreadful. It is the god of their invention – a manifestation of who they are. Yet, as time passes and their culture evolves – so will their deity. The God of present-day Mormonism for instance, is a little kinder and little more merciful than the God of Brigham Young, though Thomas S Monson’s infamous November 2015 policy against gays, (Referred by them as ‘revelation’) was an absurd and brutal step backwards. Even the awful god I first discovered in the Mormon temple is slowly cleaning up his act. Over my lifetime, I have seen some improvement, despite Smith saying it should never be changed. The contrast between the demands of the harsh god of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, compared to the Mormon church’s increasingly sugar coated, Christianly acceptable god of today, reflects the worrying (But quite natural) evolution of a cult, which is desperately trying to bury its past sins and present a new face; hence, the staggering announcement of prophet Nelson to drop the name ‘Mormon.’ Funny really, when I grew up in the church we were all proud of being called ‘Mormon.’ We were told we were a “Royal Priesthood and a Peculiar People.” Even the Word of Wisdom was meant to set us apart. Now, Nelson wants members homogenised with all other Christian religions, in order to cast off the negative association and connotations its name has, with mainly polygamy and racism.
Gas lighting (Lies) are everywhere; disconnecting its cultural past as if it had never happened; changing Smith claimed ‘Translation’ of both the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon; changes galore in the temples; denial that teachings like becoming Gods were a part of what I knew to be fact. There are multiple teachings and doctrines it now denies were ever taught; multiple prophets thrown under the bus and disavowed.
I have grown up and witness a number of prophets come and go during my church membership, from David O McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B Lee, Spencer W Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Howard W Hunter, Gordon B Hinckley, Thomas S Monson and now… Russell M Nelson.
Pres. McKay seemed kindly, with modern ideas.
Pres. Smith was a hard-line, arrogant fundamentalist.
Pres. Lee developed and organized the ‘Correlation Programme,’ which centralized the control of all church government. It’s where I think they increased their grip on organized power over the membership.
Pres. Kimball’s paranoia over all things sexual brought a lot of pain and low self esteem.
Pres. Benson was ultra racist and during his tenor, formed the “Strengthening Church Members Committee” a secret, sinister spying organization, run by the apostles – both for external and internal trouble makers.
Pres. Hunter – did not last long
Pres. Hinckley lied repeatedly to the media in his enthusiasm to place the church in a good light.
Pres. Monson did not seem to have had a strong testimony of the restoration – at least he never shared it? He also presided over the scandalous November 2015 Policy against gays and their children. Other than that, he seemed to just like talking about his experiences of ministering to the elderly from his past.
Pres. Nelson. I feel embarrassed to even talk about him – he’s a disaster, but on the bright side, the one to follow him could well be worse.
My observation over many years supports an opinion of the Mormon Institution as comparable to that of a weak addicted person, whose personal failings disable him from really wanting personal development and is constantly pretending to be ‘good’ and ‘repentant,’ yet lies through his teeth to find as much selfish advantage as possible – through whatever dishonesty he can invent – to secure and maintain his derelict state.
Read volume 5 of Jim Whitefield’s book: ‘The Mormon Delusion’ and you will begin to see how the god of Joseph Smith within the Doctrine and Covenants, is a rather nasty Being – arbitrary, temperamental, impulsive and capricious.
One member describes how his opinion of the Mormon god changed:
“At this point, I really started to question the nature of the Mormon God(s). The righteous, benevolent, serene, friendly, approachable and caring God (the one who’s Son was represented in the Primary [children’s] picture as having that beatific, serene, kind smile while gathering numerous children around him at story telling time) seemed to take a nasty turn for the worse for me. He was becoming worse than the vicious and vindictive God of the Old Testament. He DEMANDED my faith, worship, and respect for his power. He was evidently the same God who tried Job, who asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and all of a sudden he was asking me to believe in a myriad of inconsistent, unholy, and problematic doctrines for no other reason than to test my faith. I struggled with this dilemma for months. He became to me little more than a Cosmic terrorist who, in exchange for the promise of exalted eternal life, wanted to hold hostage my intellect and sense of reason”
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft44.htm
As you read this book you will discover just how shocking the Institutional god of Mormonism really is – as presented by its leaders and some of its scripture. It has taken me over 60 years to finally sense my own fundamental beliefs about God; study, obedience and attendance at the Mormon church did not produce it – life experience did. After my disillusionment with Mormonism however, I am prepared to believe I may still be wrong about God, but it does not matter. I am less afraid of being wrong about anything.
Lastly, please bear in mind as you read my words, I will come across as someone quite spiritual and still deeply religious – despite leaving the church. What you are reading is based on my past experience and feelings – not the man I am now. That said, those experiences when I felt alone with what I perceived as God, were of such subterraneous depth, that I cannot accept it was just me, experiencing ‘me.’ I have evolved of course and I am somewhat more sceptical and cynical – to be honest, a bit more of a ‘soft atheist,’ yet, the power of my past rocked me silly and I am left with a sense of belief that something or somebody is out there?
.
CHAPTER ONE
Divine Connections
Early impressions
I have two strong memories as a baby. One was sitting in a large pram with my twin brother David opposite and my mother pushing us to the shops. Secondly, I can recollect being in my cot as a baby and crying for my mother. I know I was not neglected and have no bad memories of home life, yet I remember what was going on in my emotions as a baby whilst crying for my mother… I recall the sense of being ‘alone’ and ‘sadness’ at wanting her so much.
Another early recollection was wishing to go to school. The primary and infant school was situated behind our house and from our windows you could see the happy children skipping down the path into the playground. Through the years, there was always the sound of children playing and the familiar bell which brought them to silence. How I wanted to join them! Then one day I did, and I never wanted to go again! Teachers then were about as psychologically trained to deal with children, as guards in a concentration camp!
From birth I suffered badly with eczema and asthma. The asthma caused me to have too much time off from school and was one reason I lagged behind, but even as an infant I could not read very well. I remember struggling and stumbling over ‘Janet and Peter’ books in front of the entire class and was smacked on my bare legs repeatedly for my failure.
I never did read a book voluntarily until I was about twelve years of age and my spelling is still pretty bad. I also remember holding a tooth brush to my mouth before school and refusing to brush them. My logic being, that my mother would not allow me to go to school until I had brushed my teeth, so if I just stood there and did not do them, I would not need to go. I lost the battle, because even if I waited till the school bell had gone, she would still take me there late… and that was worse.
At the age of eleven I failed my ‘Eleven Plus’ exam, but I did not know how badly until I reached senior school, where once again, the psychology toward children was still a little like the Gestapo. The very first day after assembly, all the new recruits remained behind (There seemed to be hundreds of us) It was announced that the first class to leave the hall would be the ‘top’ class – 1A. Each boy’s name for 1A was read out and they followed their teacher out of the main hall. The next class of 1B names were read out, and so on, right down to 1D. I kept hoping my name would be called out, but it was not. In the end, just a handful of boys remained in a now empty hall. We stood around looking at each other, feeling I’m sure, rather odd and rejected. Then, our class number was read out. You would think logically it would have been 1E, but no, they classified the last class as 1X. That was a bad day and a bad start. People laugh when I tell them that all classes had French language, but not 1X, it had gardening at the school allotment instead!
I did not think too much about it at the time, but school was damaging. Like all other boys, I got on with it, but in general, I disliked school. The only qualification I received was a diploma in art – nothing else.
I remember looking at my Testimonial from school, which is a list of graded abilities from either the last year or the entire duration of schooling and noticing with horror that under ‘initiative’ I was graded with ‘E’. Apart from regularly getting ‘A’ for art (Or, at very least, a B) I felt ‘C,’ was nearly a failure, but E!!! As I look back now over my life since those days and consider the kind of tenacity and determination I have had to muster with some of the challenges of my life, with the things I have wanted to achieve or acquire – if I could have been graded again, I know I would have scored B, and sometimes A for Initiative!
How I wish an adult might have looked me in the eye in those days and said: “Young man, I can see something in you that will succeed, because…..”
The idea that I might progress on to college or university would have been a joke. A sense of feeling academic inadequacy and inferiority has followed me all my life. Maybe, because of those early times, I have hated being labelled and felt frightened or threatened by clever and authoritative individuals. I did not know, but in years to come, when I tried to voice concerns amongst a people whom I thought might discern me with much more kindness (The church) I was to be labelled once again!
My father had died suddenly when I was thirteen and there was some financial pressure to work and bring wages home for my mother, who had also worked so hard, since dad had died, to keep us fed and looked after. I was working at the age of fifteen as a junior artist in a publishing company, Associated Iliffe Press, in Waterloo, London and felt very lucky to have got the job. In those days I would literally throw my weekly wage packet on the table and say to my mother: “Mum, just take what you want and give me the change.” Apart from buying a suit once a year, I had little use of money and felt she needed it more.
Beyond the school where I lived, were woods, fields and rivers, where we played from morning till night. As I approached my teenage years I helped-out at a local riding school. One of the joys of my life was to regularly ride a horse into the Chalk Woods like a cowboy and dream of the girls who worked back at the stables.
Although my mother and I had relaxed conversations about love and romance, no adult ever spoke to me in my formative years about our sexuality – not at school, or at home. It was playground stuff. Long before I was eleven and had left primary school, ‘nude’ books were circulated and the boys who could get their hands on one were most fortunate! I would take them home and hide them beneath my bed.
I was not to know then, but as I grew older and reached the age of eighteen I would join the Mormon church and realise what an awful hell religion would bestow upon a young person’s conscience, but even more to the point – how it can twist and distort an inherently normal sexual nature, into a self loathing paranoia – a paranoia instilled by the church’s self obsessed preoccupation with our sexuality – set against the carnal atrocities of its founders.
Looking for God
I developed a love of nature very early. My first innate excitement with ‘colour’ occurred whilst playing in the fields, near the Foots Cray River. An old lady with her easel was painting with oils. I walked up slowly and watched for a moment. Even back then I thought the picture was rubbish, but something struck me and fascinated me; seeing the coloured paint – yes, the colour in particular, but also the board, the brushes, the easel – all of it, gave birth to a sensation of delight. Actually, I’m quite sure, what I saw exploded with awareness what was already inside me from birth. I was looking in a mirror at the reason I would paint. It has never changed or altered. I have always had that self same feeling when I paint, or even think about painting.
As a young boy of about nine or ten, I was drawn out into misty fields at dawn – literally drawn out of sleep by the dawn chorus at 4am and walked out to the wonder of nature. I never knew then, what the root source of this fascination was, until much later in life. It has taken me nearly fifty years beyond that time to understand the connections which has called me and beckoned me throughout my life. This deep and powerful connection could not have been possibly understood at such a young age. The connection was Beauty. Beauty is the supreme link back into the heart of God, or into our deepest self. I believe it has ancient roots – backward into my eternal past, from before I was born. I cannot know this – I can only feel it. But alas, as you will discover through reading this book – trusting ‘feelings’ can be very dangerous.
Beauty is everywhere. It is in Nature. It is in us. It does not matter how ugly something is, if you have eyes for beauty, you will see it. So, how much more in the misty fields of my youth and in the faces and figures of those pretty girls who passed through my life. The whole world is rammed and stuffed with beauty and the nearer I got to God, the greater my capacity to see beauty in the most unlikely places. In the end, beauty and innocence can be seen or sensed in the very darkest of places and in the filthiest of regions. They say that artist’s particularly, have the ability to perceive beauty where others see nothing at all. If you have the eye of the morally scrupulous, trying to summon beauty out of ugliness will make you recoil, because to equate innocence and beauty with ‘filth’ is a blasphemous contradiction.
The more I have grown, not only with the experience of suffering and darkness on the one hand, but also with love and compassion on the other – the cleaner the souls of people appeared…. including my own. It seems that the greater our ‘spiritual awareness,’ the less dirt we see; until in the end, there is no sin or evil, just endless grace and compassion. I do not mean that men have not done evil things to each other. Nor that their choice to do so, can be unimportant, whitewashed or unaccounted for. It is more about our response to evil – what happens to us because of it; how we perceive and deal with the presence of it; whether in ourselves or in others. (See my later chapter on Paradox and Contradiction) Being especially religious or morally circumspect is fine, but my observations of the highly religious, are that they are no more spiritually aware than most ordinary folk. They think they are, yet actually they are so tied-up and bound down in the prison cell of dogma, that their freedom to really feel an awareness of a wider environment, where weakness and wrong-doing can be placed into an enlightened perspective, is suffocated to death. I do not mean they cannot appreciate a star studied sky or a beautiful spring morning or feel great warmth and love, but in the inner search for the meaning of life’s messy contradictions and human frailty, they are handicapped by an ideology which is so slanted and stunted – so blindly restrictive, that they are fundamentally flawed. They are so drenched in opinionated dogma that even their compassion barely gets a look-in. This is especially noticeable in any religious fundamentalism; it’s how the Catholic Inquisition could possibly take place.
When I walked out into those misty fields of my youth, I thought I was just enjoying Nature – and so I was. Yet, there was something else on a deeper level, which even then, I could not have possibly understood or put my finger on. I was searching for Holiness. Best not make the assumption that something ‘holy,’ has to equate with ‘purity.’ I do not mean I felt ‘filthy,’ and needed to be cleansed, because up to that point in my life, I really had no ‘sense of sin’ at all. I had a belief in God, but certainly religion itself was irrelevant to me. I just had this profound and deepening desire to be unified and ONE with Nature – with the entire universe. Maybe, that was the essence of my spirituality? Everything around me in those misty fields was ‘holy’ and I wanted to be a part of it. It started with Nature – not a church.
Maybe it was God or maybe just Nature giving me a substantial and powerful awareness of the extraordinary and breathtaking Beauty of life – the early morning sun-light across fields of gold and birds singing like they will explode if they did not give vent to their joy; the intoxicating phenomena of life.
Let me ask you, have you ever been up before the dark shadows of night have gone and waited and watched for the dawn? Watched it creep slowly above the distant tree-line on a May morning? Watched until your eyes were blinded by the throbbing yellow light? Watched until the dew rose as steam from the ground in homage and every bird went crazy with delight? Watched it like it had never happened before, as if it was the first time? Watched it like you were standing upon another planet and seeing this new sun on fire – coming up over the edge of the horizon? How often does a very ordinary event, wrap your soul in wonder?
We are surface gazers. We don’t look very deep or very long upon anything or anyone. In his beautiful book, Annam Cara, John O’Donohue wrote:
“It is a strange and magical fact to be here, walking around in a body, to have a whole world within you and a world at your finger tips outside you. It is an immense privilege and it is incredible that humans manage to forget the miracle of being here…..it is uncanny how social reality can deaden and numb us so that the mystical wonder of our lives goes totally unnoticed. We are here. We are wildly and dangerously free.”
A Winter Break in Somerset
The snow and cold in the winter of 1962 was the most severe in my living memory. I was sixteen years of age at the time and on a ‘farming scheme’ located in the pretty village of Castle Cary, Somerset. It was run by the YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association).
I had been working in an art department for Associated Iliffe Press for about a year, as a Junior Artist, when David (My twin brother) and I, decided we wanted to be into farming, and so I left my job and went off to Somerset (about 130 miles away). We came home for Christmas, but went back again and got snow-bound. The snows never cleared until March. The countryside was fabulous, but this was my first time away from home and the cold was horrendous. The mansion where we boarded and where we slept was freezing. The whole regime was like boot camp. I begged to go to bed by 9pm, because we were all so cold and tired and there was nothing else to do. Home sick and asthmatic, I struggled on, not wanting to give up just yet.
We had fun there too – lots of happy memories of simple things, some of them born from suffering and some from my eye of beauty… I hasten to add, there were no girls on this scheme… in fact, for weeks on end and we never saw a single female. Perhaps because we rose at 5.30am (Shaved and washed in cold water), had eaten by 6.15 and were trudging to our farms in the dark by 6.30, so we never saw anyone. It was like walking in the North Pole - the sky was black and the stars shone like diamonds and underfoot, the snow was packed on ice. When we got to our farms the cows were waiting in the yard and milking had already started. Those udders were caked in mud and ice and I – with my cold hands – would try to reach down into a bucked of scalding hot water for the cloth, with which to wipe those udders (My first chore on arrival). We had chilblains develop on our hands, as well as our feet. The day got better as the sun came up and we started to thaw-out through work. On Sundays we rested, but had a choice between ‘chapel,’ or ‘church? Both were opportunities for sleep. In the church, the vicar did not notice us dozing off, yet it was cold, but the chapel was warmer – with big red fire bars above our heads, yet there – the minister was only feet away and we struggled to stay awake and alert! People who ran the scheme made up the rules and we were (Like school) in trouble if we disobeyed. It was very regimented.
Later, in the early spring we were sent to separate farms and I said goodbye to David. He went to a prettier place than me. He went to a farm in Wells, Somerset and I was sent to a farm at Lympsham, near Brent Knoll; not too many miles from Weston Super Mare. Occasionally we met up in that seaside town. What is it about Weston Super Mare that makes you want to hate it? I lodged in a small roadside cottage on a lonely country lane, with an elderly couple. I was not happy and in the ensuing May, called it a day and finally went home. I got back my old job at Iliffe, later to become ‘International Publishing Corporation,’ (IPC) and was reallocated to Fleet Street, London. Years later, IPC reallocated again to Sutton in Surrey, where I continued to work.
I never did go back to the horse stables, but I did pick up the interest I had in badger watching. Later the same year, David also returned and we continued at home until we found our partners in life and got married, but before that, something happened after our seventeenth birthday. We both became ‘religious’ and started to think increasingly about God. It’s strange – reading the New Testament from cover to cover – especially the letters of Paul, I felt my conscience increase; for as it says in Romans: “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” A bit like reading the Miracle of Forgiveness by Kimball, who seemed to me about as paranoid as Paul – the more you read – the worse you feel.
In Leo Booth’s book ‘When God Becomes a Drug’ Book 1, he identifies some key reasons why youth particularly, get involved in religion and I can now see how it applied to me for the following reasons:
- Religion (Which pretends to represent God) offered escape for me and punishment for those elements in society, or in my culture, which appeared as my enemy.
- A retribution for all the suffering I felt at school – for failure and inadequacy and for powerlessness in society.
- The Church offered me an identity and a sense of real belonging – a sense of acceptance.
- It offered an injection of high self-esteem, so wonderful and validating when I considered the exclusive privileges membership would afford me… total forgiveness, eternal promises of endless power and happiness… and lastly, the destruction of the corruption in the world (The second coming)
- Power and control and a sense of immediate superiority – my chosen dogma was right – all others were wrong! I had a mission and was ‘special’ in the eyes of God.
- Interpreting everything in terms of Black and White – Right and Wrong, with no middle ground or grey areas. This is typical of the way youth think and a most welcome embrace.
It is important to say of course, I did not consciously think of the above things – I just believed in the message and joined the LDS church. It has taken me a life time to fully understand that the principle tool of religion is fear, control, eternal punishments and eternal rewards – if we would just obey their exclusive dogma, rules and rituals.
Joining the Mormon Church
In my seventeenth year, there was a religious organisation called ‘The World Tomorrow,’ run by a man named Garner Ted Armstrong, and it published a monthly magazine entitled; ‘The Plain Truth.’ This was the means of its communication, as well as a regular radio broadcast. You could pick up their magazines at stands on main line stations free of charge. It was something to grab and look at whilst commuting into London. I liked what was written and what I heard on the radio. I found it fascinating and exciting for all the reasons stated previously by Leo Booth.
They preached about the second coming of Christ and the New World Order. Its concepts of the Godhead and mans salvation had (I discovered later) parallels with Mormonism, and it was why Mormonism was quickly acceptable to me. I was young, naive and impressionable. It got me seriously reading the bible and I noticed as I did so, increasing guilt about some of my conduct. Our natural sexual nature, does not mix well with a ‘born again” mentality and it caught me in the middle of my first sexual experience with my first proper girl friend. Bad timing! At seventeen, I did not know what love was. After nine months, her father discovered from reading one of my letters, that we had been having sex. She was from a strict Catholic family and he was a formidable head teacher and a rather brutal father. He beat her badly when he found out, and I walked away and finished the relationship. I was not wise enough in those days to make any connections between the probable archaic sexual perceptions of this Catholic father and the invasive paranoia over all sexuality in just about every other other religious institution – including Mormonism.
My association with the LDS faith started habits of prayer that were later in my life to become so powerfully significant. Sadly, at the time of my excommunication, when the church (And my children) judged me ‘unworthy’ and manifestly ‘unable’ to merit such spiritual connections, they reached their greatest and most astonishing climax. When I was ready, I received the most profound spiritual insights imaginable. I already felt rejected by my children (Despite being loved) as one who had – according to standard Mormon teaching – ‘lost the spirit.’ It is Mormonism’s ongoing classic blunder… that we, who have lost the spirit, are, by definition, constantly disconnected from the Holy Ghost, as opposed to what Mormons claim for themselves: That they are constantly teamed-up with the Holy Ghost, or able to enjoy the ‘constant companionship,’ of the Holy Ghost.
All ex-Mormons who have come out of their faith for a multitude of reasons, are thus labelled and defined by the church as spiritually incapacitated. It is the cross and stigma which we, who have come away, have to bear. It is more of a personal sadness than an insult and I have to remind myself that members in general are so brain soaked by controlling dogma, that they cannot help but believe such things. Yes, for reason best known to fate and my eternal evolution, I know I was meant to enter Mormonism, but also meant to COME OUT OF IT.
In 1968 I met my future wife Norma Lynn Turvey from Gravesend, Kent. I had a ‘calling’ (Unpaid job in the church) which meant I was visiting and speaking at all units in the North Kent district of the British Mission. She was lovely and we began to date each other and before long, were very serious. We were married on 22nd March 1969 at Medway chapel Kent and were later that day sealed in the London Temple. We eventually had a total of six children and were very happy as a family. Our home was like a little heaven on earth. We were the envy of many other LDS (Latter Day Saint) families. Mormonism gave me the incentive – the structure and the motivation to utilise so much of what had already been forged in me through my parents and by my upbringing… remember, I was eighteen years of age when I joined the Mormon Faith. The capacity to be who I was and to love like I have was set in me long before the church came into my life. Mormons tend to think that ‘morality’ is formed and shaped by their religion and that without the church they would lose their grip on being good. My experience tells me that even if religion did not exist, there would be a natural sense of morality, fairness, goodness and kindness; that the awareness of hurt and pain, joy and pleasure, helps to shape disciplines and controls about how we manage relationships. It is a complete misnomer and part of delusional thinking that the loss of religion necessarily equates with the loss of God and/or the degradation of our morality. The world is packed with unreligious (I did not say unspiritual) yet highly moral and decent people. As a Mormon, I did not see it, I was blind to it.
Getting Into It
So, my brother David and I were baptised at the age of 18. I immersed myself in scriptural study and various books advocated by the Church. My roots in its theology started to go down and spread. I was enthralled and excited by my new religion. It seemed to answer so many questions and solve so many mysterious. Sometimes I went to bed and simply could not sleep because of the level of zeal and excitement I was experiencing.
Not long after I was baptised I was asked to help in the work of the church. Mormonism refers to this as ‘receiving a Calling’ (They always say that each Calling comes from God) There is virtually zero evidence for this, but they still believe it. I was a little frightened of this ‘Calling,’ but I accepted it and tried hard to do as much as I could to help build the Kingdom. I gladly paid my tithing (10% of gross income) and devoted my time, energy and talents to the cause. I was eventually called to teaching positions and discovered – as months rolled into years, that I was reasonably good at teaching and public speaking; evidenced mostly by people’s compliments.
Throughout my life, the word, which has most often been used to define me, has been the description: honest. I have never claimed or cared much generally whether I was scrupulously honest or not, but in the affairs of the soul and the heart – it was difficult to be anything else. I think it was because I have always been very open and transparent with people about my feelings.
Inventing a Disease
For many years I despised myself for a sense of my own sinfulness and general weakness. This idea of our own ‘sinfulness’ is pretty normal within all religious cultures. It is taught throughout LDS scriptures and reinforced constantly. In order for the big religions of the past to sell the populous ‘a cure,’ they first needed to implant into their psyche the idea of transgression, sin and punishment – and flowing from that ‘is the cure of redemption,’ on conditions that adherents will do just as the church dictates. Nothing much has changed. Because of Mormonism’s paranoia about all things sexual, this ‘disease’ (A negative perception of one’s condition before God) was perpetuated and extended from childhood into adulthood and as I joined this society, every thought and inclination (Should you reveal them) was scrutinised, corrected or punished. I started to ‘identify” myself as impure and essentially ‘unworthy,’ because that is what I was told – that is what the church taught and still teaches. There have been extended periods where this insane and damaging self image felt like it was ‘the total me’… all that I ever was. ‘I’ was a mistake. Thankfully, I am now free from that sense of sinfulness that once pervaded my heart.
From the childhood association of our sexuality being ‘dirty’ and ‘bad,’ the church further alienates and distorts this sense of our uncleanness by its own severely inadequate and poorly defined sense of our sexuality. Basically, despite the rhetoric and seemingly fine examples from within the hierarchy of the Church… these leaders, regardless of their best efforts, were also burdened with the self same guilt and repression, which also beset their parent’s generation and these were just handed down to us to suffer too. I remember the guilt, the sweat, the fire and the raging temptations. I remember the constant failures and the ever-so-rare victories. I remember the pain and the pleading prayers, which, in the end, made no difference.
It was all, one prolonged madness. For many years I have watched and observed the youth of the church and felt such a terrible sadness, that the only people who were unwittingly allowed to guide and conceptualize their inner identity were the leaders with such brutalising and destructive views of their own sexuality. These were further distorted by association with the ‘sex is dirty’ campaign, waged by the Church.
Some members reading this, may wonder what I am talking about? I can hear them protesting: “The church does not teach that sex is dirty!” No, it will not use those precise words, nor any other formulation of words to suggest it is, but it has and does proscribe rules, admonitions, severe warnings and punishments if you so much as look at your genitals! Handbooks and teaching manuals never cease to define the pre marital experience of our sexuality as evil and defiling. Definitions and warnings of carnality (Lust) are everywhere. Endless interviews with relatively innocent youth and children (Abuse in itself) foster the idea that our bodies are inherently carnal and dirty and must, at all costs, be suppressed and controlled. It is endemic. It is also quite odd, but unsuspecting LDS live in a society that feels utterly ‘normal.’
Back in those years, I prayed like crazy and sometimes cried bitterly. Both before my marriage and at very isolated and infrequent moments during it, the same ‘sin’ (Masturbation) would call and as was my luck, it seemed that I was also to teach on those days, or administer the sacrament. I always did the best I could and never used any sense of unworthiness to prevent me from fulfilling my responsibilities. Indeed, I felt my duties in the church helped me to live-up to the best within me. Such determination to persist in my assigned teaching roll (Despite feeling dreadfully unworthy) was sincerely performed. My ‘calling,’ in the long run, helped me overcome weakness – or at least, uplifted me enough to help me try harder. And here’s the first point: On some of those days, I knew I taught with power because members would actually come up and tell me things like: “I really loved your lesson – clearly the spirit of God is with you… it was so wonderful!” (What?!!)Either they were all mad, or God was VERY merciful.
It appears then, that God can and does flirt in ‘unholy’ temples! This was to be repeated many times and I know from my research that I was not the only one to be surprised with just how wrong Mormonism has been to declare that God does not dwell in unholy places! The argument I am trying to make does not rely on whether I was delusional – just a poor wretched soul trusting a false Church and trusting a non-existent God. My life experience PROVES that Mormonism is false regardless, because I have achieved an impossible result: (Fruits of the spirit – love, joy and peace) in a strictly speaking immoral condition (Me), in which it has emphatically declared, cannot take place (God cannot dwell in unholy temples) and “I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.”
Grace can be so very shocking. If God was real, why did he appear to be with me? Was it because he knew ‘where’ my heart was – he knew how I hated myself… hated my sins? He knew I had tried like hell, but could NEVER get on top of it completely. He saw my crying – my self-loathing. I was the proverbial ‘Publican,’ of whom Jesus declared: “he went down to his house justified.” On strict moral grounds – according to Mormonism, I was ‘unworthy’ and ‘unholy.’ Their own scripture declares… “I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” This is what all Mormons have drilled into them. (I’ll deal with this awful verse in more detail later). My life’s experience proves Mormonism’s dogma about our alienation from God and how sin separates us from the Holy Ghost and this whole damn emphasis on compliance to rigid rules or risk losing the spirit, is complete bogus nonsense.
I learnt about Grace because of unworthiness, not by being good. Henry Drummond, the late scientist and Christian, also declared that our experience of God’s Grace “is in direct proportion to our experience of sin.”
I learnt over years, that tearing myself apart with low self-esteem and guilt, because of my personal sense of sin, was both destructive and a useless paranoia. Funny how it took years for me to see madness in myself and then to see what God’s mercy and grace could do. Even if there was no God and no grace, the power and peace I felt, when I should have been un-entitled, demonstrated the redundancy of Mormon teaching.
As the years passed, I slowly came to see that there existed a ‘purity’ of far more consequence and importance than the ‘moral’ variety that the church always goes on about. This is Purity of Heart. A state of being, which I never realised I had in abundance. Such a heart that was there all through those years of being taught I was ‘unworthy’ and ‘dirty. All through those years of self recrimination and useless guilt – there all the time! Those books, those teachers, those bishops and those leaders, never told me about that. No prophet, leader, preacher, teacher or manual, ever celebrated my heart or my sexuality – they only warned, embarrassed and punished. They did not see me.
And I began to sense something else… something which would have been alarming to Church leaders had I fully known its depth and liberating power. It was to see purity and innocence where it did not ostensibly exist -– where it was not so apparent, or where it would have been labelled and identified as corrupt. Perhaps this has come from having the heart and eye of an Artist?
By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them
I have mentioned how happy our home life was, but was this heaven on earth within our home an evidence that the LDS faith was the only true Church on earth – that it was the only truth that could explain such happiness? No. It must be taken into account that other couples and families who also belonged to the church and who were just as strong or as obedient as we were, had no such heaven within their four walls. So many couples were not so happy and some struggled to make their domestic lives tolerable – never mind heavenly.
Once, whilst debating with my children about my doubts, they put forward the suggested that an evidence for the church being true, was the general quality of their own character. They argued: “Dad, look at Hannah (One of my daughters – absent at the time) does not her nature and her character tell you all you need to know – she is a product of what Mormonism can do?”
You cannot ever make a judgement about the Mormon church being true or false, (Or any other religion) based on the happiness, or otherwise, of its individual members, or on the sincerity or purity of its members. Some might feel it is a fair and comfortable criterion to do just that, but it is nonsense. If proportionately as many Catholic or Jewish families were as equally happy and fulfilled as some Mormon families, (And they are) it would not prove that they had “more truth,” than any other faith. Hannah’s beauty, innocence, or sincerity, cannot define or alter the historic accuracy of the First Vision, or whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, or charlatan.
Jesus once gave the criteria that might help the world to recognise his disciples, when he said: “By this, shall all men know you are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” Do Mormons have more love than other religions? Of course not. They tend to think they do, because their monthly magazines only highlight what the church has done, either collectively or singularly to bless and help each other and the wider world. What it financially donates to natural disasters seems impressive, but if you consider what its yearly revenue is (Not including revenue from their vast business empire) you might reconsider its contribution as being decidedly miserly.
Perhaps what I am writing here will be a drop in the ocean of helping someone see its madness and to help foster the humility and courage to shake off its shackles. Unfortunately its claims are so significant and so great that it cannot be only ‘half right.’ It is either totally correct or totally false. There is no half-way land to run to or hide in; even their own leaders have said this. I am seeing a rationalization of this stance, as they blunder through half baked apologies for false doctrines and excuses for fraudulent canons of scripture. Accordingly, if the church starts to concede an inch, it will collapse into a mile. It seems to me, that Mormonism cannot even concede one millimetre, without losing all its authority and status. I see it on the run and actually feel sorry that its back is slowly against the wall. It cannot escape. Its survival rests on deception, because there is no alternative. It had for too long buried unpleasant history, so it could not be seen or studied by the average member (Until the Internet) It no longer mentions doctrines espoused by past prophets who have become untenable and embarrassing. It relies heavily on good Public Relations to keep its image clean, wholesome and acceptably. Espousing mainstream Christian principles is helping it to appear more conventional. That is where it is now.
Joining the church and being Called as Bishop
Let me just go back a little and explain quickly that my brother David and I joined the Mormon church on the 31st December 1964. We took to it like ducks to water. We were golden contacts. As I have said, we were called to positions within the Church. I remember feeling the sacrifice of giving up time in the woods and quiet places to concentrate on church life. Like David, I loved reading scripture and church books. Over the years I have read the Book of Mormon many times over. The Old Testament I have read cover to cover at least twice and the New Testament I have read a number of times from cover to cover. In addition, I have spent endless hours in deeper study of specific subjects. I have also read many times the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. My scriptures were a mess of red pencil colourings and related scriptures, written within the margins. I was called as a Local Missionary and memorised word for word four of the six missionary discussions and regularly taught them with full time missionaries. I also memorised one hundred and twenty verses that were associated with those discussions and doctrines. Apart from this, I have read all the classic books promoted by the church, like the Essentials in Church History, Marvellous Work and a Wonder, Articles of faith and Jesus the Christ. Before too long I was called to teach. I have used the last 3 books mentioned as manuals to teach Sunday school classes. I have had all the usual ‘callings’ (jobs) in the Church.
On 20th September 1970, after having been married for eighteen months and whilst serving as a counsellor in the Catford Branch Presidency (London Stake) I was called to be its Bishop when the branch was made into a Ward. At the time, I believed I was the youngest bishop in the British Isles and certainly felt a bit inadequate! In many ways, it was easy for me, because although my wife and I had one small child, my full time job was not demanding and she was very supportive. I worked hard at that Calling and over the years I have had many old friends tell me how well I did, but even so, doubts were assailing me, whether the ‘church was true?’ As I completed my third year as Bishop, I simply felt it was no longer fair for me, or for the congregation, for me to try and support them, when I myself, felt so weak in faith. In those days, Bishops were sent to at least one general Conference held in Salt Lake City, so I got to fly over and witness this event. I enjoyed some of the talks but my spirit was overshadowed by powerful doubts and disturbing doctrinal questions.
Upon my release from being bishop, the stake president, (President Cox) called me to be the Stake Clerk in the hope, I think, that his influence would inspire and help me through my crisis. President Cox was one of the Directors of British Airways – very clever, discerning and inspiring. One thing greatly impressed me about him – his decisive clarity and compassion. As I have previously explained, my academic abilities were not that good and when I was unable to understand how to do something, I felt sometimes embarrassed and awkward to ask him how, but even when he had explained and I still did not understand, he would go through the answer all over again, with the utmost simplicity, as if he had all the time in the world – yet, he did not make me feel stupid or small. I liked him.
I sent him a 16 page typed letter, dealing with all my doubts and concerns. They included the following subjects:
- Contraception (church pronouncements on the subject)
- Obedience to civil governments (The clash of conscience)
- The law of succession (After Joseph died)
- The law of Wisdom (Health code)
- Celestial marriage concept
- Personal revelation (Predictions and getting answers or direction direct from God)
- Unfulfilled promises
- Murder (unforgivable sins)
- Tithing (How it had become corrupted)
- Faith, Grace and Works
He asked his first counsellor Arch Turvey, to discuss these things with me (More about that later) I did not blame President Cox for being too busy to deal thoroughly with all my complaints or questions.
As the years passed I continued to grapple with these uncertainties beneath the surface of my life. Although less concerned in later years with some of the above points, I still had no adequate answers from the church. My brother David sent me an equally long letter at the time, trying to address every topic. I appreciated his love, and the trouble he went to in trying to help me, yet still, even his arguments did not seem to satisfy.
As the years went by I ebbed and flowed – for long periods I buried my fears, then new ones would break through my mind and I would grapple with them, but end up burying them all again. I would voice some of these concerns, usually in a class and it was not long before I realised it did not work. All you got were raised eye brows, shuffling of papers and excuses to move on. There is no time or place for people to ask genuine questions and receive answers within the general forums of the Church education system – especially Sunday school and priesthood meetings. It gradually dawned on me that there is no place in Mormonism to ever feel comfortable asking an ‘intelligent question,’ which indicates a departing difference in views. An examination or exploration of its own so-called Truth is not permitted without great awkwardness and embarrassment. It can’t deal with Truth very well at all. It is frightened of it – frightened to face rational objections. You see, it does not normally face forceful argument or opinions that confront its cosy Sunday meetings. Members all breathe the same stale air.
It has also taken my entire life to have sufficient self confidence to trust my own judgement and intuition. I wrestled with an absurd sense of my own supposed sins or inadequacy, which the culture of Mormonism breeds so well and so falsely into a person. Also, with a young family and all the demands of work and Church, one realistically has neither the time nor the inclination to delve too deeply into the religion you have already accepted – you just go with the flow. Later in life, when I had both the time and an increasing confidence, I looked at its history and teaching and received shock wave after shock of its hidden deceptions. As one year passed into another and time rolled by, I began to see more clearly that something was wrong and the church was not what it claimed to be. I began to see Beneath the Surface – behind the sanitised version of its history and the motives of Joseph Smith, who deviously promoted polygamy as a divine revelation in order to conceal his lusts. I began to notice its carefully forgotten dogmas, once lauded as ‘Mormon Doctrine,’ now played down, discarded and gathering dust. Some of its policies, attitudes and practises have frightened me. It runs and hides from truth and uses authority (Fear and control) to maintain ‘the good name of the church.’ Its own astonishing pride and hypocrisy has staggered me.
All these things gradually unfolded as my naivety slowly cleared away like a mist in summer. The more I voiced my concerns, the less they liked me and the more I was labelled with the tag of ‘Pride’… this favourite little word within Church quarters for all those who have the nerve to think for themselves and who dare to consider it ‘normal’ to ask questions. The identification and allocation of the description ‘Proud,’ or ‘Arrogant’ against your name, allows the church to dispense with the issues you present to them. This way, they do not have to deal with YOU, because suddenly YOU have the problem – not them. Once they have thus labelled you, they have no further responsibility and that is consoling and convenient, because actually, they do not have answers for your questions anyway.
During the latter part of my life before my wife died, I was all but gone from the church and merely attended for her sake and my youngest daughter’s sake – almost to keep up traditions. Pride seems to be a fitting place to commence the next chapter. If you are a dyed-in-the-wool Mormon, I do hope you can bear the heat you are about to enter. If your institutional faith really has the only truth that saves, then you should not be afraid to venture. I am not enticing you into temptation, but calling you to truly think for yourself and trust. Your God should be big enough and strong enough to hold you steady.
I could even recommend a verse to you – one which gave me hope as I set out alone from what I have called: ‘The Good Ship Mormon.’ Set out alone into a small vessel onto a sea of such mountainous waves, without what I felt was the strength or skill to survive. This unsinkable titanic Mormon ship had been steaming to a distant shore they called ‘Salvation and Exaltation’ and the captain assured us of a smooth, safe passage. After all, the ocean was such a vast, hostile environment. It was dangerous and foolhardy to venture alone. On The Good Ship Mormon, we were at least altogether, without fear and worry. We could all relax and allow the captain and his crew to get us there safely. When I got down off the deck and descended to sea level, I too was frightened. From this view, those waves seemed so damned big!
So, if you too feel a little afraid, read from Romans 14. There in verse 4, God tells those priesthood leaders who would warn you not to abandon ship:
“Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master (God) he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand”
I can’t tell you how much faith and confidence that verse gave me… “For God is able to make him stand”
CHAPTER TWO
The Denial of Who You Are
“Come on! ye persecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! For I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet… When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go. ” Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church,” v. 6, pp. 408-409
Accusations of Arrogance
I was walking down the main street of my town one sunny spring morning in May. I had lost my wife some three years earlier (2005) and although still lonely, felt pretty good generally about my life and where I was heading. I was running 6 miles a day – had a lovely car and a lovely house, with some money in the bank. More importantly, I felt a quiet peace inside. Suddenly he was beside me – an old friend from the church, still active and strong. With a hand on my shoulder and with his usual enthusiastic warmth, he asked me how I was keeping. I made the mistake of being sucked into his demonstrative welcome, which, if it could have remained so, would have been lovely, but as I proceeded to describe a genuine sense of contentment and connection with God and how wonderful it was for me, he interjected with an accusation that shocked me. I suppose I should not have been surprised, for it has been frequently used throughout my experience with church leaders. While in a state of slight animation… as I was trying to find some adjectives to describe my present positive condition, he suddenly interjected with these three words: “And arrogant too!”
I personally know many members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who would not even think this way – let alone express it, but unfortunately, far too many do. As I faced this accusation square-on, he apologized.
Arrogance, Pride, Self Will, Rebellion… I have had all these labels and accusations levelled at me throughout my church life whenever I have sat to discuss deep feelings with leaders. What has always baffled me is that those who have made such remarks had no idea how absurdly blind and utterly bankrupt their accusations were. It has sadly become an indication of their brainwashed state. All through the years of my membership, leaders have piously sat to make judgements about my motives and spiritual condition, without knowing where my heart and soul had gone, and frankly, not seeming to care much either. It has always astounded me as quite incredulous, how anyone without knowing much about the past history of a person, or their deep inner world, can make such ridiculous assertions? Even if a member was finally excommunicated and noncompliant with most of church teaching, it would say absolutely nothing about the real state of their soul and the condition of their heart. Certainly, it would tell you where they were, in relation to the church, but that’s all.
The problem arising within the culture of Mormonism, is that conditioned or indoctrinated leaders are unable to perceive that there is the remotest possibility of a disaffected member having the internal apparatus (Their own inbuilt spiritual guidance system) to remain happy and contented with their life and fulfilled as a person. To a strong orthodox Mormon, such a person’s opinions and judgements, if not in complete harmony with church teachings, remain discredited and unsustainable. A leader may know many things about a disaffected member…. things they do, or don’t do in public, things they may even confess or deny, but under the surface, where the invisible universe of complex feelings, perceptions, past experience and values exit, they (Church leaders) think they can play God and categorise people with such negative labels. What is really happening is that the leader’s impenetrable blockage is so restricted under the weight of dogmatic programming, ‘he’ (Sadly not ‘she’) can only think one way. His rationale is that God will sustain us, (If worthy) with an unassailable testimony of truth… therefore, all serious and doubtful questioning will only come upon us for two reasons: (1) unworthiness through sin, or (2) a refusal to have faith in the prophet of the church – which amounts to Pride (Trusting yourself, in preference to a prophet) All leaders in the church have no other options available to them: your divergence, must be YOUR fault.
Pride can be defined in its negative sense, as possessing a head and heart contaminated with self importance – an exaggerated sense of its own worth. An over-inflated ego and the absence of humility. But this assertion of pride or arrogance is a stereotypical label tagged onto ex Mormons and non conformists alike. In fact, all heretics – anyone who struggles against, or with the faith.
It is indicative of a false and endemic mindset, which holds a judgement of ‘unworthiness’ to all who fail to conform and obey the principles found within Mormonism. What concerns me less, are those members who struggle with perhaps some weakness and seek strength and support through ecclesiastical leaders. In general, they are happy with their membership, even though they are, in my view, deluded. No, the people I really feel sorry for and for whom this book is written, are those who may not be essentially weak at all, but just struggling with genuine doubts about the authenticity of the church – its history and its teachings, or who are impressed by Mormonism (And there are many things to be impressed with) but are new to the faith and uninformed. They stand in the same landscape that I was once lost in.
Those who have been members a long time and begin to entertain sincere and challenging doubts are usually ‘thinking’ people, who may well be obedient to all church standards but are judged badly and wrongly for holding a diverse opinion – for thinking differently. To manifest thoughts, perceptions and beliefs that are not in harmony with church views, is also regarded by the Church as failing to conform, because conformity of thinking ensures unquestioning obedience. In Mormonism, conformity and obedience is everything… I repeat everything.
The Denial of my Beautiful Souls
The problem of how a person is to be judged or valued by God (Or us if we dare) has absolutely nothing to do with conformity or obedience to any religion. The real state of a person’s soul is a complex matter, best left to God and not the men who play God. That Mormonism cultivates a view of the soul (Our inner spirit) altogether too shallow, is observed by the manner in which it seeks to control and deny the existence of that soul. It does not deny it literally – it fully believes in it, but in the way leaders talk to, admonish, advice and yes, control a member, it’s as if that spirit does not exist!
The church will not acknowledge your essence. They will acknowledge the actual existence of the spirit within your body, but refuse to appreciate, respect or understand its quintessence and manifestation through you. That alone is a fundamental rejection of who you are; that is my experience. For my present argument, it does not matter a jot whether you wish to identify your spirit with a God, or just consider it your unique individual selfhood. Either way, they totally underestimate YOU – your sanctity and presence – your preferred autonomy. It has taken me all my life to notice the tendency for all leaders to under-value and disregard the sheer beauty, sacredness and sovereignty of a human soul. It is as if we were empty and only needing to be filled with their opinions and their way of seeing things – their way of being. The Mormon church’s inability and refusal to understand the amazing capacity of the human spirit to guide us into independence from the control of others, with its inherent, inevitable connection to the transcendent things of life – regardless of obedience to any religion, is the most astonishing truth I have learnt since I was excommunicated from Mormonism.
I would say my soul does not actually need religion – it is religion. It never did need it. I was just drawn to religion because I had lost touch with my soul. It is its own spiritual compass and guidance system. Yes, religion can assist us, but not replace us. Too often people submit to religion because they have not discovered the beauty and capacity of who they are. Unfortunately, once they have discovered it by joining a church as distorted as Mormonism, then that identity becomes flawed or compromised by the dogmatism within it. Our identity is hijacked or controlled through the degree to which we ‘allow it’ to be absorbed through conformity and conditioning. In short, the soul is partly compromised, because it not only belongs to you – it belongs so much to them.
John O’Donohue book; ‘Divine Beauty’ he speaks superbly about the underestimated ability of the soul to quietly “care for itself.” Perhaps if we had more confidence in our innate ability, we would have less need for religion.
“All through your life your soul takes care of you. Despite its best brightness, your mind can never illuminate what your life is doing. You are always in a state of knowing, but that knowing, while often lucid and deep, is more often faltering and shadowed.
At times you feel immensely present in your life, rooted in what is happening to you, utterly there. At other times you are only vaguely in your life; things are blurred, confusion or distraction owns your days. In such times you remain attached to the earth by only the slightest thread. Yet through all these times, your soul is alive and awakened, gathering, sheltering and guiding your ways and days in the world. In effect, your soul is your secret shelter. Without ever surfacing or becoming explicit, your soul takes care of you. Never once while you are here does your soul lose touch with the eternal. Your soul makes sure that God’s dream for you is always edging towards fulfilment even when at times the opposite seems to be the case. At times of immense suffering or the most ecstatic joy, your life breaks through the shadowing and you come to sense that something else is minding and guiding you. This is the nature of the consolation and infinitely tender embrace your soul always provides for you”
Mormons believe that our spirit in the beginning was created by God and has ever since been pretty well left alone to make its own choices. One of the great tragedies of Christian tradition is the concept, handed down through the story of Adam and Eve, whereby men and women have ‘separated’ themselves from God, because of sin. We have been shown and taught (In Mormon scriptures and in their temples) that God became alien and exterior to us, because we became dirty and UNWORTHY. That in order to get Him back, we had to whip ourselves into obedience and beg forgiveness and reconciliation… hoping to become once more ‘worthy.’ Suddenly, divinity had gone and there was nothing left inside, but frail human nature and carnality. That is what ALL scripture teaches.
Again, in John O’Donohue’s book ‘Eternal Echoes,’ he describes the loss of our souls, due to this false ideology perpetuated by religions like Mormonism:
“Sometimes ideas hold us down; they become heavy anchors that hold the bark of identity fixated in shallow, dead water. In the Western tradition the idea of the sinfulness and selfishness of the self has trapped many people all their lives in a false inner civil war. Fearful of valuing themselves in any way, they have shunned their own light and mystery. Their inner world remained permanently off-limits. People were given to believe that they were naturally bad and sinful. They let this toxic idea into their minds and it gradually poisoned their whole way of seeing themselves. Sin was around every corner and probable damnation waited in any case at the end of the road. People were unwittingly drafted into blaspheming against their own nature. You could not let yourself go. Any longing to claim your nature or pursue your wildness would lead to ruin. This corrupted the innocence of people’s sensual life and broke the fluency of their souls. Rather than walking the path with the encouraging companionship of your protecting angel beside you and the passionate creativity of the Holy Spirit at your deepest core, you were made to feel like a convict trapped between guilt and fear. It is one of the worst sins committed against people. So many good people were internally colonized with a poisonous ideology that had nothing to do with the kind gentleness and tender sympathy of God.
Yet despite being subjugated, there remains a deep longing in every person for self-discovery. No-one can remain continually unmoved by the surprising things that rise to the surface of one’s life. It is a great moment when you break out of the prison of negative self-criticism and develop a sense of the inner adventure of the soul. Suddenly everything seems to become possible. You feel new and young. As you step through the dead threshold, you can hear the old structures of self-hate and self-torment collapsing behind you. Now you know that your life is yours and that good things are going to happen to you.”
(Bold Emphasis mine)
It is said that before the Fall, the first man and first woman were naked and totally ‘natural’ (Innocent) but Shmuley Boteach, in his book ‘Kosher Emotions,’ made the comment:
“They were also naked in another way: like innocent children, they had nothing to hide… only after eating from the tree they attained the self consciousness and intellect that taught them how not to be natural. They lost the ability to be honest with God – they wanted to hide. The deeper meaning is that, in covering themselves, the first man and woman concealed their beautiful souls – that part of them, which was most natural, most open, now became cloaked under a layer of self conscious pretence. They shut off the child within…”
The influence of Mormonism during my life (Despite its opposite rhetoric) concealed the beauty of my soul… what was individually unique and free within me. Diametrically speaking, the kind of conformity required of me by Mormonism was about sameness, not uniqueness or freedom. To use a biblical phrase: “The wind bloweth where it listeth – so is everyone born of the spirit.” Who we are, should not conform to any predictable pattern. We are wild and free. Only we can control it or tame it. No one should force order. Your own deep inner centre is not meant to be trampled over and ignored, nor is it meant to be muzzled. It is shy and illusive. By its very nature and connectivity it can be your brightest light – your guiding star. For others to assume control over it is an abuse.
When we confront another person who may have come to us for help or perhaps wants to use our advice as a sounding board, we cannot presuppose we know exactly what their spirit wants them to do. We cannot control it, standardize it, manipulate or coerce it with our own agenda, but neither can you ignore it, or treat that person as if their selfhood did not exist. That is the tendency and the inevitability of the Mormon church; once a person has joined, its entire cultural environment acts like a velvet coated sledgehammer, smashing into pieces what actually requires reverence, respect and attention, or else, talking to you as if you did not exist. You will not notice this sledgehammer, or the denial of who you are, because it is coated in genuine demonstrative care and loving fellowship!
I Am Enough
At the time my wife died (See the chapter entitled ‘My Excommunication’) my inner pain was more than I had ever experienced. As I had been taught by Mormonism to “pray at all times” – that is what I did. Praying was the way I dealt with all intense emotions. Meditation though, was not easy for me. I am not one of those people who can sit in absolute silence and concentrate on breathing or some tranquil imagery. What felt right for me, was to just sit quietly and talk with God verbally, as if he were in the room. I feel I did this in a state of humility and respectful reverence, but I nevertheless expressed or said whatever I felt – nothing held back – no holds barred. How could I hide anything from God? Why not be utterly honest – not only about my joy, but also about my darkest self too? I did not realize how deep I would drift into myself. It felt like the most sublime connection to divinity imaginable. All the words, arguments and the ordinary thinking I was used to, fell away. I felt so alive, because nothing was outside me and my ego had collapsed. Nothing I ever wanted was external. No fears could touch me, no wants or desires affect me, no known inadequacy or weakness, no past achievement or successes, no status, no materialism, no poverty, no desperation and anxiety about my propensities – my sad and embarrassing sins. Suddenly, NOTHING was enough. ‘I’ was enough. I had a sense of harmonisation with everything that is, including what I perceived to be God. There was no separation; though sitting down as I prayed, I rocked around in joy.
These moments gave me the most incredible sense of enlightenment and peace. They have eclipsed everything I have ever experienced in my life – and all this occurring as an ‘ex-Mormon’ in what the church would describe as a thoroughly UNWORTH condition. It was the opposite of all Mormonism had told me. This is the crux of the matter – the whole point of describing my particular ‘communion’ with God. It is the sharp distinction between the truth of who I really was and what Mormonism said I was. Mormonism said I was not enough. This new awareness of divine connection was the very antithesis of what Mormonism had drummed into me. I was enough! Guilt, imposed over a whole lifetime, started to drain like dirty water from a bath. Those who may think that this was purely a justification, a lie, or a license to do as I pleased, do so, because such experiences to them – for such a soul as mine, are simply not tenable.
Whilst acknowledging my gifts, the church made me feel ‘I’ was my weaknesses and sickness; ‘I’ was my sins and unworthiness; ‘I’ was the alienation that kept me from God. ‘I’ was unclean and contaminated; ‘I’ was impure and unholy. It said that in this condition I must obey, sacrifice, submit and dedicate, in order to become WORTHY – to please God and be acceptable before Him… only then would I be able to have His presence – His Holy Spirit with me always. And just to drive it home, it would punish me for any infringements, (Which will also be noticed in public) as I was instructed not to take the sacrament – doubling the shame before the people of the Church… all in the name of love. This, then, is one of the biggest lies Mormonism perpetrated upon me… that I was not enough, until I had laid myself onto the altar of their demands.
Accepting Myself
Unfortunately, Mormonism does not focus with any reverential respect upon the uniqueness of an individual, but instead gets tied up with standards, morality and sin, and in the process, advocates the suppression and denial of all so-called negative instincts. You are to purge your system of all unhealthy desires and habits by discipline and obedience. Sounds ok on the surface… a bit like the necessary discipline required when dieting. Trouble is, it so concentrates on your ‘negatives’ that you end up thinking it is all you are made of. You begin to identify who you are, with only weakness. That’s destructive and false.
Mormonism’s denial is not just about getting you to stop doing something which they deem unwholesome, or that seems wrong, but about the suppression or the denial of your selfhood. That, I can only guess, is the reason the suicide rate in Utah is the highest of any other State (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=31512090&nid=968) and that too amongst the very young (Those whose self confidence and self worth is still so delicate). Because their Being is denied, gays will always have a major problem feeling comfortable (That’s an under-statement) Straight or gay – what we are, will always include multiple dimensions of Being, which Mormonism seems unwilling to acknowledge or cope with. The paranoia of church hierarchy to any member’s sexuality is suffocatingly restrictive. Delivering your soul to be remoulded by the church is the equivalent of being put on the rack during the Inquisition in the Dark Ages. They will force you to be what you are not!
We all have, what appears to us to be a Dark Side or Shadow Self. No matter what our sexual orientation may be. We feel embarrassed to own or confess little propensities, inner contradictions, negativity or perhaps some selfish greedy aspect; these may have sometimes sparked into life – much to our surprise and disgust. These things we would hide and suppress… pretend we did not own, or at very least, have full control over. After Mormonism, I came to know that I was strong enough to carry the burden of this Shadow Self.
Those moments of experiencing my true inner self, were a paradigm shift. I began to seriously love myself, and stopped being over anxious and paranoid. I discontinued worrying about the elements which I am calling my Shadow Self. They no longer ripped-up my soul, nothing mattered anymore. I, Robert Bridgstock, together with my dark side, was enough. I was complete and worthy as I existed. I had many things in proportion now. Unfortunately, Mormonism has nothing in proportion, so far as dealing with your shadow self is concerned. It will not enable you to have grace, serenity and peace about YOU… only guilt, agitation and self disgust. In short, it will inexorably indoctrinate you to falsely believe that suppression (Denial) and performance (Proving obedience to God) is the path you must take. For those in the church (Or out of it) who have no allurement to temptation, no sense of personal sin, no struggle to feel suited and well adjusted to the expectations of others – will not have the faintest idea why I am condemning the church in the handling of our souls.
Dishonouring the Patriarch
Mormonism advocates Patriarchal order and supremacy. For all its rhetoric of equality for women, it still seems happy to carry on its misogynistic pattern of government first formed by earlier prophets. The main leadership of the Church is through the Priesthood and that is reserved for males only. All major decisions and authority rests with males. It will tell you that the man (Husband or father) is the head of the home and should be respected in that position, yet it has been a sad reflection that after I was excommunicated I was no longer permitted to take part in any baptismal services for any one of my many grandchildren. I would not claim to be a superlative grandparent, but I have attended virtually all their baptisms since excommunication and watched others in my family read verses, give little talks and offer advice to the newly baptised child, but I had to remain silent. I could not offer a prayer, read a verse, extend appreciation, give direction or express profound gratitude from the stand. This is a ‘normal’ exclusion for an excommunicated person within Mormonism. Such a person is not allowed to be thus involved. I knew this mentally as a member years before, but I had never been emotionally subjected to it previously, so I did not see the cruelty in it – especially for someone like me who did NOT want to come back, but still loved his family and wanted to be part of all they were doing. If I had been a firm believer and had just morally slipped-up, I would have jumped through every hoop to regain membership – in fact, there would have been no excommunication in the first place. I know this from private conversations with my stake president. My exit from the Church was imposed, because I could not believe, trust or recognise their authority over me. Not because I was arrogant, but because the entire structure of Mormonism had simply crumbled to dust in my mind and had no relevance.
I have since thought how odd it is that once you are excommunicated, it is as if all respect or reverence for your capacity and roll as father or grandfather is denied – as if you did not have any further usefulness or any further value. As if you did not exist. How very kind and Christ-like all this exclusion is! You would have thought that despite not being able to use the priesthood, I might have been permitted to take part in other simple ways, in order to support, encourage and inspire my grandchildren’s belief in fatherhood. The truth is, despite the church constantly saying how important the family is, its behaviour and policies absolutely separate and muzzle fathers and mothers within any given household, who have lost faith. They do the same thing in the USA, when they forbid non member parents witnessing in the temple, the only marriage their children might have. If you can’t sense the unkindness, arrogance or cruelty in this, then you are abnormal.
In excommunication, you lose the Priesthood, but that never bothered me. I never really understood this invisible authority I was repeatedly told I must magnify? Teachers and leaders would say: “use you priesthood to love your wife,” or “use your Priesthood to be gentle”… to this day it seems so ridiculous. Surely we love and are kind to others through our own heart and the natural disposition we’ve developed during our life time – not through some intangible ‘authority.’ The very concept of ‘Priesthood’ is merely another layer of control and domination… a sad pathetic need of satisfying religious males.
The church is intolerant with those whom it deems sinners – you are pretty much treated like a leper, in terms of integration and usefulness. It has not the wisdom to perceive that even those who may have sinned can have something profound to say about life – about God! In my own case, I never felt closer to Deity than after my excommunication and therefore had so much to share that might have been useful to others. At all levels, Mormonism is afraid of independent thought, speech and writings. When you are privy to their private bishopric meetings and PEC meetings (Priesthood Executive Committee meetings) as I have been all my life, you can ‘feel’ this ridiculous paranoia time after time… the fear that someone will say something from the stand or in the class room, not quite doctrinal or orthodox. The obsession is about ‘protecting’ the weaker members from doubt or disquiet. Again, this fear has been endemic throughout the church from its beginning, as you will see when you get into the heart of this book. It’s the reason why those who have always led this church resort to deception and even lies to protect members against undesirable aspects of its history and to present a clean attractive image, or narrative – not only to the world at large, but to investigators. To the men who lead the Mormon church ‘mage’ is everything. I repeat everything. It is why even a prophet like Gordon B Hinckley, was prepared to lie through his teeth on media interviews.
So, why does the LDS culture block and prevent those who have been excommunicated from participating whatsoever in Callings, short talks, remarks, prayers, or testimony? The answer: FEAR. This is the reason a church which advocates and promotes Patriarchal order, is quite is happy to abruptly dismiss the father figure from a family, should he be excommunicated. It is a continuing form of punishment and control. For me it created greater isolation and separation from my family. It emphasises one’s ‘apparent’ unworthiness in the sight of others. It is a further evidence of its cruel tendency to suppress and deny WHO we really are (Always much more than any so-called sins), as if you have suddenly become diseased and incapable of sound, loving wisdom. Again, the church is actually afraid of the slight differences inherent in the mind of someone who could potentially deviate from bland orthodoxy. I was not looking to ‘use’ my so-called priesthood and take part in any ordinance, because I had long not believed in it, but to be banned from just giving something of myself with perhaps an opportunity say, to offer a few words at my grandchild’s baptism, isolates and strains relations still further. It drives a message home to the family from the church: ‘This man no longer has the slightest thing to offer anyone – ignore him.’
Yes, I have always had a strange sense of nothingness about supposedly ‘holding’ the priesthood? I could never really grasp it. Now, as I write this book, I realise why – it never really existed.
Mormonism Could Not See Me
The life and education we have grown up in, with all its demands and expectations for success and achievement – all its desires for comfort, security, status and materialism, as well as all the useless guilt we carry, that says we are not ‘good enough’ – all of these things can distract us from seriously discovering WHO we really are? We perceive a very physical, tangible and solid world. What we see and observe – we want. What we see is health, the job, the relationship, the house, the car and so on. We want things, but in our deeper level is the spirit or soul, the essence of WHO or WHAT we really are.
Christ once talked about the possibility of ‘losing your soul’ and we tend to think he was talking about judgement day, or some final spiritual death, but I see a world in which so many good people have lost their souls already… that is, lost touch with who they are. That’s all. Their centre is there within them, but out of sight and very obscure. Lost in a way you might lose your sense of perspective for a while, or your sense of humour.
You do not know how powerful you are; neither does Mormonism. It will always treat you as if it, not you, knows best. Mormonism is obsessed by your conformity and your obedience. It tells you God is obsessed with it too. It tells you God wishes and demands it in order for you to ‘qualify,’ so that you might be blessed, but you are already blessed! Regardless of what so-called sins you may be struggling with, or what weakness you may have confessed to the Bishop. You are shining with power, strength, light and beauty, but you cannot easily see it… neither can Mormonism.
Mormons in general suffer guilt, because they are taught that they are ‘not enough.’ Consequently, it builds up layer upon layer of rules, external ritual, ordinances and covenants for you to purge your sins, prove your worthiness and merit your salvation. From the cradle or as converts, Mormons are taught that they have to arrive at full unquestioning obedience, that they must achieve spiritually desirable goals in order to ‘qualify’ in pleasing God. The church gives lip service to your beautiful spirit, but is so preoccupied with the carnality of your nature that it compound your sense of guilt, at just being human!
In Mormonism, I see a nasty god with a vindictive streak; a god who can only be approached, worshipped and accessible, via the approval of the Priesthood. Failure to adhere, support and follow that leadership, amounts to the rejection of God – for the authority of the Priesthood IS the authority of God. I have come to despise this god of Mormonism – especially the god manifest in their temples. The inscription ‘Holiness to the Lord’ carved above its main entrance becomes a travesty, after the shock of what is presented during their Endowment ceremony. In the temple, god appears much less holy. In fact, he descends to the level of a bizarre fantasy and in consideration of what we now know about the universe, from science –outdated, discarded nonsense. For those dressed in the white garments of the holy priesthood and having been tutored and conditioned to assimilate and accept its demands and sacrifices, all this must sound blasphemous indeed.
CS Lewis said that all Revelation is “iconoclastic,” which means something breaking up and destroying false images, false ideas.Of course, if you have your own Revelation and it does not correspond to the church version or sentiment – that’s ok, if you don’t talk too much about it, but God help you if it becomes something you trust so profoundly, you decide to follow it! There is no greater false image, than a Mormon temple, as I hope you will appreciate in the next chapter.
In my opinion, most active Mormons who attend the temple KNOW it is weird and creepy, but to fully acknowledge it to themselves and dare to publically affirm it, is tantamount to saying “the Church is false.”
A Calling I Rejected
One day while I was at Church, I was approached by a stake leader and interviewed to receive the calling of Stake Financial Clerk. I had been a Stake Clerk many years ago in a different place, but hesitated to accept this new job in the Church. This was the first time in my life I had ever declined to say “yes” immediately. Those who have been in the Church for as long as I have, might remember the old ward financial report, sent to the stake each month. It was a nightmare to complete accurately. I was bad with mental arithmetic and I remember struggling to get all the figures to tally-up each month. Notwithstanding my exertions, I felt proud of the way I persevered and always got it right in the end (Plus neat) Here I was being asked to become involved again in a ‘clerical’ Calling in the Church – and even worse… finances!
Firstly, despite having many doubts at this time about the church being true, I was willing to go anywhere in the stake on a regular basis, with, or without my wife and do anything the Lord required of me – including this calling. I also knew that unlike more spiritual callings (Dealing with the motivation of people) this would be something you could at least become good at…. you can make documents, reports, and finances ‘perfect,’ but you can’t make people perfect. Bits of paper and figures do not decline or argue with you – they do not let you down, like people do. So why did I hesitate? Every time I had received a Calling in the past I had felt good about it (If a little frightened) but sitting in this room, listening to this leader announce this new job, felt like a dead weight! The very feeling of depression it gave me made me question its authenticity?
The sacrament meeting was about to start and he wanted a “yes,” from me, so he could just get to the stand and include me onto the days business and have the Calling ‘sustained’ (A public vote of approval) I was worried; never in my life had I felt like this. I explained my dilemma, but did not reject the Calling. I asked if he minded me taking more time to think about it and he agreed. Later, after the meetings were over, another stake leader sounded me out on my refusal to commit straight away and I simply said I needed to ‘feel good’ about it. (An approach the Church generally approves of) I said I intended to not only pray, but fast as well. And so I did. That week I remember going to the Lord and asking if he could confirm that this Calling was what he wanted me to do? I said to Him I did not care about travelling around the stake, petrol expense or the mental challenge of this new Calling – all I needed was a ‘warm comfortable feeling’ that it was His will. (Another thing Mormonism says we were entitled to) The leader I had previously seen, had said that my intentions and request for confirmation seemed reasonable enough. Well, after many days I got nothing – just the self same ‘dead weight.’
The trouble with a prayer like this is – it puts the God of Mormonism to the test! Indeed, the God of any religion, because it requires an answer within a short space of time. In my case, one week. The brethren felt it a bit of a luxury for me to have such a long time to consider my answer, yet they were the ones who suggested it – as I recall, instead of rejecting it.
As I went from day to day and kept asking God, no confirmation came. So, at the appointed time I met with the leader and told him I could not accept the calling until I felt good about it. He was sympathetic and reported my decision to the stake president, who called me by phone, inviting me to his house for a chat.
President Thiriot was an interesting man. I’m not sure whether he was Canadian or American, but from all observations, a very quietly spoken (Almost a whisper) kind of guy, very kindly and demonstrative. After one hour’s drive, I stepped into his house at the appointed time and noticed at once his vast array of Church books. We went into his office and sat down. He wanted me to tell him everything related to this particular issue and why I had declined. I told him I had never done such a thing before and had always felt good whenever a Calling had come, but this one had left me stone cold. I made it clear that any work, effort or sacrifice entailed was not an issue or a reason for my decline…. I was not looking for an excuse to do nothing.
Pride Again
Then he went a little deeper and he probed my doubts and reservations about the church. I explained that I no longer trusted or had the faith in leaders, like I used to have. “What is it you disagree with?” he asked. I do not remember all the points I listed, but the one which does stand out was my inability to believe in Creation as taught by the church. Fundamentally, the time it takes for a planetary system and our earth to develop and become ready for life as we observe it was millions of times longer than Mormonism taught (As in a 7 day creation)
Unfortunately, General Authorities (High up Church leaders) who tell you it is ok to believe that a day in the Lords time is (a) 1000 years, or (b) An unspecified duration of time in which God made the earth, contradict the fundamental doctrines of the church, found within Doctrine & Covenants 77:6 where it says creation took 7000 years to complete. The stake president asked why I could not trust the words of the prophets and accept that the Earth took just 7 thousand years to be ready? I mentioned oil and coal deposits within the earth and how long they had taken to form, as evidence. He grew visibly cross at my refusal to believe. Lastly, he asked me (Almost pleading) to accept the Calling for his sake. “Do it for me,” he requested. I sat there and thought for a moment: ‘I don’t even go to the temple for my wife’s sake – so why on earth would I do this for his sake?… is he more important to me than my wife?’
As he began to realise I would not be persuaded against my will, he reached for a book upon his shelf and after signing it and dating it “Jan 97,” handed it to me. It was entitled ‘Meek and Lowly’ by Elder Neal A. Maxwell. A book on the importance of Humility. Clearly, he saw me as a candidate lacking this virtue. You see, I had refused a Calling. I had argued my points and expressed my true feelings. I had chosen to believe, that my opinion and resolve was more appropriate for my life, than trusting the prophet of the Church who would have wanted me to conform and accept whatever this stake president deemed ‘God’s mouth piece’ for me – might have required. I had come to a point in my life where my doubts had finally crystallized into a conviction of feeling right about the choices I was making in regard to the church.
Finally, I was taking a positive stand… I no longer could trust other men to lead my soul. Every act of rebellion in their eyes was simply the act of taking back control in mine. Mormonism always wants full control of your life. It is unhealthy and evil to demand that we relinquish our power of thought – our choice of beliefs and our values, when they no longer coincide or agree with those of Mormonism.
The connotations of the word “meekness,” as the book title he gave me conveyed, has always been fascinating to me, because it is quite hard to define its exact meaning. You ask yourself what it means, then give up and say it just means being “humble.” That is why I enjoyed reading the book – to find out more about it. Jesus Himself said: “I am meek and lowly” and in another place: “the meek shall inherit the earth,” so not a bad virtue to aspire to perhaps? I personally feel that humility is one of the greatest of all inner states of being and meekness should flow from it. Meekness is about ‘non-reaction’ to external conditions from your heart. Seen from the negative, it is the state of allowing oneself to be ‘walked-over.’ When others might have got cross or angry, a meek person would not. When others might have fumed and raged – a meek person would not. When others might have got jealous and resentful, a meek person would not. Not because a meek person would be incapable of emotions, or afraid, or wimpish, but because they would have an awareness of a wider perspective, than just THEMSELVES. When our ‘rights’ are challenged, most of us would hotly defend such an injustice against ourselves, but a meek person would not. I have to admit, that I am not very meek, but then my observations tell me that I have hardly met anyone who is… including my stake president.
I would have no argument against the principle, that if a person FULLY BELIEVES that a prophet is at the head of the Mormon Church and that one of his agents (A bishop or leader) required their complete obedience in whatever area they felt fit – then their ‘meek’ submission would be appropriate. It is absolutely inappropriate for a leader to judge a person like me to be arrogant and prideful, when I refuse to break with my own integrity. True meekness is allowing yourself to be governed, or ‘not governed,’ by forces you deem appropriate or inappropriate, without uncontrollable objection.
Esther and Jerry Hicks, in their book: ‘The Law of Attraction,’ introduce the concept of ‘Allowing,’ described by them as “the art of allowing,” which is to simply allow other people ‘to be’ Don’t be upset or troubled about other people’s ideas or behaviour… let them be whatever they want. Don’t even be upset or troubled by other people insisting you are wrong or bad – let them be. The Art of Allowing seems to me like a higher form of meekness. It is not easy to live, but a wonderful concept to try and follow. It is the very opposite condition inculcated by the LDS leadership toward its own members. They give lip service to agency and freedom, but by virtue of their fundamental beliefs, indoctrinate with intolerance.
When I say a Mormon has intolerance, I do not mean they are prejudiced or impatient, or unsympathetic – I mean their ‘thinking’ is defined and limited by their religious conditioning. They cannot help it. They are disabled from more fully ‘allowing,’ like less opinionated people. Allowing is the antithesis of conformity and sameness. As the above authors point out, even tolerance is not the same – not as good as Allowing:
“Tolerance may seem to be an advantage for others because you are not hindering them from what they want to do. But tolerance is not an advantage to YOU, because while you are being tolerant, you are still feeling negative emotion. Once you become an Allower you will no longer attract into your experience those unwanted things, and you will experience a greater freedom and joy.”
The authors go on and explain a little more:
“You will know when you have achieved the state of Allowing when you are willing to allow another, even in their not allowing of you; when you are able to be that which you are, even when the others do not approve of what you are…. and not feel negative emotion toward their thoughts about you. When you can look into this world and feel joy all of the time, you are an Allower”
Perhaps Meekness and Allowing is much the same thing? I recall working in a studio in London for many years and one day someone paid me a compliment that shocked me… they had been speaking in a derogatory fashion about another person and suddenly one of them said: “they ought to be a bit more like Bob… he never gets angry” I gasped, “who me?” “Yes,” they replied, “We have never ever seen you get angry or raise your voice” It had never occurred to me! It is generally true – I rarely get cross or angry. However, any claim I might have had to Meekness or Allowing, sadly abandoned me at one time, when I struggled with intense negative emotions during the futility of contesting a demand of payment for some inheritance money to my children, long before – in my opinion – it was ever due.
So, I was given a book by this Stake President on being Meek. A leader who thought I was too proud. In the real world it is not easy to be meek and I am still trying, but in regard to this Calling – from beginning to end, I had sought God in prayer. I had fasted and I had told God I was happy to do anything he wanted. Even my stake leaders felt confident I would receive the assurance from God I required. I know what pride feels like and I know it was not the reason for rejecting this Calling. In fact, half my problem in life was being too honest and too open about my emotions and feelings. Ironically, my honesty and open expressions have even caused pain and distress to my children around the time my wife died and I acknowledge that unreservedly too.
Once I took a counselling course and at the end of 3 terms we had a little social get-together. Our course instructor suggested we each take some time to sit and think of something precise and nice to write down about each person in the room. Pieces of paper were then stuck on each other’s back and we mingled together for a while wondering what each person was writing about us – behind our backs? As I took off these pieces of paper from my own back later, I noticed that 6 out of the 10 comments were exclusively about my Honesty, Openness, and Sincerity… what the church (In my case) defined as pride!
I wrote and thanked President Thiriot for the book and told him I had read it. I noticed while reading it, there was something which epitomised Mormonism’s erroneous and false belief that Pride always occurs when a member makes the choice of non conformity. Remember, this is elder Maxwell writing – an apostle with a devastating command of language; nevertheless, he still gets it so utterly wrong:
“Meekness is thus essential for receiving counsel from Church leaders, lest, lacking such, we find ourselves on the fringe of the Church or even outside it. What the unmeek actually do is refuse to enter the realm of their own spiritual possibilities”
What happens to those who are unable to agree with LDS dogma, yet stay regardless? Stagnation – they surrender their possibilities – not expand them. Fundamentalist dogma (Which is what Mormonism is) shuts down real autonomy. Maxwell’s statement in itself is a projection of his own captive dogma. Spiritual possibilities are readily available for those who choose, with full integrity, to walk another path outside the faith. Mormons would baulk at the idea, but to me, LDS folk in general, are spiritually stagnant. Spiritual possibilities are not centred in any religion. They are certainly not centred in the conviction of most members, who tend to repeat the phrase “I know” so regularly that it can’t be taken seriously. The desire to have something to be ‘true,’ is so powerful and so meaningful, that if you ‘confess it’ often enough, under the slightest emotional impulse – it will – in the end, become true! That is why members are told to REPEAT their so-called ‘Testimonies’ regularly – even if they do not have one! How ridiculously deceitful is that?
Real spiritual growth has so little to do with a slick American cult like Mormonism. For me, significant spiritual growth occurred beyond Mormonism – out in the dark. I can see how Maxwell’s words might be true for the believing Mormon, who happened to be lazy or dishonest about their integral beliefs, or just plain rebellious, due to an inflated ego perhaps. Trouble is, the Church and its leaders (Like Maxwell) never ever differentiate – ALL who choose not to conform are lumped together and labelled Arrogant. I’m afraid it just doesn’t wash.
We Know What is Good for You
Many years ago I remember seeing a lady on television talking about the Mormon Church. A few of us had gathered together to see this particular programme on a main channel slot. During the programme a lady who had been in the church many years and long ago had received her ‘Patriarchal Blessing,’ (A special, once in a life time blessing, given to all worthy members) which, she told us, had predicted certain events for her future; these she now explained, had not been fulfilled. As I studied her face and felt her confusion and disappointment, I also felt her unbelief and disturbing doubt for myself. All the others around me seemed totally unaffected and dismissive of her claims. I knew something in me was different – doubt (The possibility that my religion might be wrong) had opened up and was reasoning with me. Sometimes we need a mirror – someone to hold it to our face and say “This is what is wrong with you”, or conversely – “this is what is right with you.” For over 40 years I had no one to say: “Bob, I feel like you too – I think you have a point.” It is why I am writing about my life and experience of Mormonism. To half quote an LDS scripture: “If I should labour all my days and bring save it be one soul to an awareness of Mormon deception, great will be my joy….”
I had not realised that the Church had a deliberate policy of hiding truth – both literally and verbally. Of holding back historical documents because they did not compliment the simplicity and purity of things as they would have liked them to be, or wanted and believe them to be. Our rational discretion to sift through all historic detail and make an informed decision about its truthfulness was not an option they wanted to extend to potential members. Hide bits of history and no longer publish embarrassing doctrinal teachings, so that everything looks perfectly believable. After all, the church is true (They would reason) so why expose the members to doubt and confusion by having a totally transparent approach to all that has happened? The leaders only want our peace, contentment and happiness. Apparently, the withholding of truth, or what amounts to wholesale deception, is justified on the basis that they know what is best for us. They have decided what they want the truth (Narrative) to be, to save us the trouble of coming to any other conclusion. They would say their desire is to ‘protect’ us from confusing and contradictory messages and to give us only what is good for us.
Ah yes, that word ‘Protect’ again? Remember I mentioned it earlier, in relation to leaders trying to protect the congregation from someone perhaps teaching in a classroom or from the pulpit, who possibly cannot be trusted to be thoroughly orthodox and of course – more so, an excommunicated member, who still wishes to be involved. The root cause is FEAR. Devout Mormons would never concede to this phobia, but they are scared to death of anyone disturbing their cherished beliefs. So much is hanging on being correct – one’s whole life is comprehensibly surrendered – handed over and owned by the institution; that to find out, or even allow alternative ideas to be suggested, becomes aggravatingly and frighteningly worrying.
Trouble is, hiding and suppressing information, which may lead to a full and open understanding of its history, is DISHONESTY. Failure to disclose, in order to control or persuade, is to deliberately create a false impression. It is to foist a lie upon the people. What it appears to be, is a nicely packaged, sanitized and beautiful portrayal of truth as they would like it to be… not how it actually is. That is what we all know as spin. It is what we despise and loath in politicians and yet here are men who purportedly stand for truth and claimed witnesses of God, announcing their message like corrupt politicians!
From the Leaders Point of View
It is no doubt true, that many of these top church leaders, having come up through the ecclesiastical system with great dedication and commitment, have found themselves called into positions where millions now look to them for guidance and direction. Their entire life has been an investment of time, energy, money and belief. They cannot allow themselves to be wrong – to even vacillate with uncertainty would frighten them to death. Their status, self esteem and privileges, have grown upon them. They cannot afford to entertain doubt. I think that most leaders – if not all, are as vulnerable and as deceived as the rest of the church membership. I have noticed repeatedly that ordinary members, if given potentially challenging articles or books which question their faith, will not read or look at them. They may well be short on time or very reluctant to allow anything to disturb their peace, but the truth is, they are frightened to death with being wrong. I was. They are likely to see it as suspicious, or even a Satanic trap to be avoided, but it is really a deep and gut-like fear of Truth itself. Top leaders and members alike perpetuate the lie, that because the gospel ‘feels true,’ therefore it must be true. They find strength in each other. They do not want to rock the boat, which guarantees so much fulfilment and meaning in their lives. With top leaders that also includes material benefits, perks and expenses – not to mention possible legal/financial penalties if the renounce the faith. They too, do not want to battle through messy information about past leaders, history and so-called prophets. They want it to be true at all costs, because it all feels so wonderful and so fantastic – almost like a dream. The honesty or otherwise of their individual motives – what they really know or refuse to know is not easy to judge… God knows. All I can make out, is that in the heart and mind of these men, a decision has been made to control historic information. That it may be judged to be dubious or fallacious by them, does not give them the right to suppress it.
So much has been written which confronts Mormonism’s claim for truth, and it is not – as Mormonism would have us believe, the outcries of dissidents who have vented their venom on the church. These are the experiences and concerns of ordinary members who have suffered and struggled to reconcile their doubts and forebodings with church teachings and history; material, that highlights the actions, attitude and beliefs of the prime movers within Mormonism, which you may never have been exposed to, plus much of its more recent prejudice.
The church has hid behind the disguise, as truth bearers, but now the Internet begins to reveal all. The church will pay the price of lying to its members. Time will bring weakness and embarrassment to its smooth and untarnished surface. It already has. To watch the prophet President Hinckley on a TV chat show, carefully slide around awkward questions is already embarrassing. I have seen more guts and more nerve in defence of truth by ordinary journalists in newspaper editorials, than any living prophet within the Mormon church.
Single Angled Vision
So, on that sunny day in the street of my Town of Selby, North Yorkshire, England, I stood my ground whilst being accused of arrogance out of no where?. Arrogance for feeling close to God; for feeling happy inside; for feeling more love for others than I ever remember feeling in my whole life – arrogant for having ideas and thoughts different to this old friend from the church and different to a small, insignificant cult. Back at the time of writing this, it boasted over the media of being “15,000,000 strong.” That is a lie. Wherever I have lived, the ‘active’ membership that actually keep attending, was always in the region of 30% – sometimes less. 5,000,000 strong would be more accurate, with 10,000,000 weak (Those who no longer bother to keep the faith or attend)
I stared at him…. if I was not a little offended I probably should have been. In my heart, no offence was taken, yet my head told me and most certainly should have told him, that his remarks were insensitive and insulting. This attitude, though rather pronounced in him, is nonetheless indicative of Mormonism’s attitude in general. It successfully breeds narrowness incapable of flexibility and generosity toward the spiritual possibilities of those who have deserted the faith. It cannot view unrepentant members with anything but sadness and distain. They will be viewed as incapable of significant spiritual growth outside Mormonism. Deepening communion with God is seen as insufficient, unless it comes from involvement and obedience to Church teachings and requirements. It is unable to view things any other way… it just can’t. To call Mormonism a “cult” seems most appropriate. The dictionary defines the word cult in the following way:
“… A belief system regarded by others (the majority) as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader…. a self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective”
In her defining book, ‘Bounded Choice’ by Janja Lalich, we are given four fundamental similarities present in all cults (1) Charismatic Authority (2) Transcendent Belief (3) Systems of Control and (4) Systems of Influence. As I read her well researched book, I realised all these elements are very much present in Mormonism.
There are literally thousands of cults in America today and some common themes are ‘claimed revelation’ from God, sexual abuse and mind control.
Everyone who has successfully debriefed themselves can see how stupid it all is, but Mormons can’t. They have never come to the ‘outside’ to look back in. They have no experience of ‘outside perspective’. Many converts will have been outside before they came in, but that is without the experience of Mormonism to look back on. It is not the same. Without the collapse of indoctrination, a person is simply unable to truly see outside the system. Glimpses come during periods of doubt, but we usually fight to remain in our ideological comfort zone. In the tribe or bubble.
I am not suggesting that every person who has found a new and vibrating faith should get out, or leave it, in order to experience whether it is correct or worthwhile. If you absolutely love it – good luck to you, but I am saying this: if you ‘happen’ to lose that faith or come away from it, you will have a distinct advantage over those who remain orthodox. You will see things from two angles, instead of just one. That can be very valuable indeed. If you wish to remain comfortable – don’t do it, but if you are in the position I have described, your vulnerability to error is less and your objectivity heightened. The mistake of the single angled viewer, is that they consider all those who have lost the faith, to have also lost their and all their memory feelings too. That’s what Mormonism will have members believe about ex Mormons… you have forfeited God’s spirit upon your exit. You have lost the capacity to think and feel the way you used to, or that you were once entitled to, but you have not! Your experience is not lost! Your emotional memories are still there. Your power to recall all your deep spirituality under the influence of that faith remains, not only in your memory, but also, the memory has shaped who you have become… nothing is lost, except perhaps one critical thing; you are experiencing your very own 9/11. All the suppositions that were so strong, meaningful and true, start to collapse before your very eyes. It is still occurring… what seemed to you so real and enduring has come crashing down; the collapse or deconstruction of your old ideas and your delusions. Your Revelation of how false Mormonism really is, brings that ‘iconoclastic.’ brokenness and destruction of all you had cherished and trusted. Before the new can arrive, the old must die. That’s what you have lost, and it is no joke. It is a grief of pain.
You may now have the advantage of scrutinising that experience and reconsidering it under a new light, from which you may now draw different conclusions. The ‘why’ of your spiritual or emotional journey will change. Mormonism teaches that those who leave the faith – particularly those who leave through sin, lose the spirit. That is, they have become ‘incapable,’ by the withdrawal of Gods spirit to remembering what they once felt and what they are meant to feel in the future, unless they change and rejoin the faith. They see it as some malignant satanic spell, depriving you of common sense and numbing you into a spiritual sleep. Do you know what? I remember ALL my emotions. I remember what it felt like to be thoroughly convinced of the Church being true. The positive emotional recollection of my experience within Mormonism – all the conviction, testimony, and spiritual experiences still remain in me as a memory, except that I now draw different conclusions from those experiences.
So there I was on the street, with the experience of two worlds or two angles of view, talking to a devout member who is trying to help me see more clearly from his one world perspective. He has never been where I have been… but I have been where he has been. I hope that does not make me conceited or arrogant, but it sure as hell should give me the confidence to trust my own experience and withstand an ignorant spiritual bully.
Sorry… God has Deserted You
This idea that those that lose faith, or for whatever reason, have exited Mormonism, cannot enjoy the Holy Spirit (Referred to as having lost the ‘constant companionship of the Holy Ghost’) because they must have inevitably become less connected to God – they must be less susceptible to heavenly influence and communion. The principle point being, God is less available to you. You are lacking constant companionship. God will not dwell in unholy temples – that’s YOU. Inevitably, Mormonism will now consider you blind – unable to see the truth, due to sin, deterioration of testimony and a refusal to conform to church standards and teachings.
Mormon culture perceives someone like you, who is now on the outside, as a lost soul. To have any other view of you (Love and compassion accepted) is impossible.
You are considered lost, otherwise, all its teachings have no meaning at all. Until you return to the fold by baptism and receive a ‘restoration of blessings,’ (Literally the laying on of hands by a leader, in order to restore all previously recognised ordinances and benefits of membership) you will not be seen to be in a repentant state and therefore, unworthy of the ‘constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. You are not eligible. Mormonism is condescending enough to allow you a quick ‘visit’ from the Holy Ghost, to help you see your errant ways, but you are unworthy of its prolonged attendance! At very least they will allow what they call, ‘the light of Christ’ (Defined as your conscience) to speak to your soul. Your current views, opinions, convictions, experiences and perceptions in relation to God, will – in Mormon eyes – be less trustworthy, believable or credible… particularly so if they challenge orthodoxy.
Congratulations – you have become spiritually dysfunctional. In other words, if you make no positive decision to change your life and return to the church, then no substantial spiritual advancement is possible – it is all tinkering at the edges and all claims to ‘God’s presence’ in your life, will remain perpetually suspect. It is an unenviable position to be forever untenable or suffering from chronic spiritual abnormalities. It is what I have been through.
The trouble is (And it is very frustrating) this is how I also see the church or its members… blind and handicapped. Simply incapacitated and unable to see and embrace truth from any other source than their own. To them, everything else is false, if it conflicts with their doctrine. Mormons believe unreservedly in the basic purity of their source. I now have the opposite view, which is, that the source was and still is, erroneous. Its willingness to examine and question its own established truth and encourage enquiry is none existent. Its own fear is enormous. Its suppression of uncomfortable history and embarrassing dogma indicates an institution mainly concerned with self-image and self preservation and not with Truth at all. If you are there already, you are most definitely in a cult, because that is what a cult does and that is how cults behave.
Disobedience, transgression and a refusal to repent is viewed as unworthiness. The further – they say – you drift from Mormonism, the more out of touch you will be with God. Mormonism will not concede that reaching God through some other method of worship is capable of saving you. That any divine influence upon a person outside church involvement, is highly suspect and certainly not a proper substitute for what God requires. It believes it is the only organisation fully authorised to speak for God. All forms of worship, whether exclusively alone in your heart, or other institutional faiths, which exclude Mormonism, are inevitably analysed with suspicion, or labelled as satanic. What do you expect when the Book of Mormon itself still describes the Catholic Church as: “The Mother of Harlots, The Great and Abominable Church, The Church of the Devil, and ‘The Whore of All the Earth”? (1Nephi chapters 13 & 14)
Mormonism is changing… in some ways it is softening. As I may have mentioned, the church back in 1964 was consistently declaring we had to be ‘perfect.’ No leader or manual ever qualified this with the least flexibility. For instance, ‘Grace’ was a word, which was never used or understood, though certainly mentioned in their modern scripture. ‘Trying,’ or ‘doing the best you can – phrases frequently used by the late prophet President Hinckley, were never heard. We were told we had to be perfect… so we tried, and could not. It was also declared that the Church itself was Perfect – a Perfect organisation – a Perfect God and a Perfect kingdom, requiring a Perfect people. In those days, meetings were much more frequent and programmes many and intense. Many people struggled with fatigue for having too many ‘Callings.’ They also struggled to remain sane and guilt free, never mind Perfected. Even now in the great Mormon valley of Utah, Prozac is more highly proscribed than any other State in the US. The Book of Mormon teaches that blessings come by obedience. Its entire narrative illustrates this point. Self discipline, obedience and conformity bring blessings. Repeatedly in the Book of Mormon and its history, we have illustrations how ‘righteousness’ brings material success and peace, but failure in spiritual things, brings material loss and war. It is a law. God is therefore unable to bless you. Law requires that every blessing comes by obedience.
I think most people would agree that there are certain laws in life, which if utilised, would bring great benefits. Unfortunately, Mormon law is about Mormon conformity. So, the natural extension or outcome of spirituality is materialism. If you are obedient, God will bless you materially. You become ‘happy’ and ‘successful’ if you are obedient. Consequently, those who have little materially can be too frequently seen as failures. In some countries of the world, poverty is a mark of greater spirituality, but not in the West and certainly not within the Mormon culture. I repeat, in the Book of Mormon prosperity is not only spiritual, it is Material. It is therefore a tendency for many who suffer phases or many years of austerity, to question whether God has failed to ‘bless them’ through some fault of their own?
Extended confusion, doubt and uncertainty about ones faith – what I have earlier described as ‘uncomfortable feelings,’ will also be seen through Mormon eyes as a form of failure – an evidence of Gods absence, instead of what it is… the beginning of change and development. All great men and great women pass through such periods. Through uncertainty and doubt, something is calling us to analyse or review. It may even be the final realization that we do not need religion.
With all this emphasis on perfection and obedience, the psyche of the average member sees God as someone distant and unavailable. Back then, we in the church remained unworthy or imperfect. In those days ‘trying’ was not a merciful option. All church procedure – interviews, recommends for the temple, worthiness enquiries and the extension of Callings emphasised the great fixation on obedience. That I happened to find the worship of God intensify after my excommunication and a sense of his presence increase powerfully, negates the notion that God would NOT make Himself available to someone like me – an ex-member who did not keep or obey just about all of the standard worthiness interview questions.
For many years I have believed God to be nearer to us than Mormonism ever declared, but just how close and how near, I never knew until it happened. My own experience alone proves the biggest and most awful lie of Mormonism; that God’s spirit can only dwell with us, if we are worthy. They would object of course and say, “Yes He is!” and concede the Holy Ghost might have influence upon me, but not be able to ‘remain’ with me. They would have to admit that the Holy Spirit may only remain with you upon conditions – upon their narrow and esoteric conditions. My experience proves them wrong. There is a possibility of course that I have always been mad and totally deluded about my spiritual assertions, both during my years in the Church and those out of it… right up till now, but either way, my argument stands – Mormonism still remains a delusion. But unlike the church, I would at least, have the humility to confess I may have been mislead about everything!
Our stake leaders were once made aware of a Church of England Minister who had ‘abandoned’ his previous faith and had come over to join Mormonism, and of course -–instead of perceiving him as a man of pride, sin, or failure, as all ex members are labelled who ‘abandon’ their faith, he was celebrated, admired and paraded around for his discerning courage! Indeed, their perception and enthusiasm was correct. But their inconsistency was to deny the same for their own departing members – what hypocrisy!
I wrote a letter to my stake president, trying to help him understand this inconsistency by promoting this Church of England Minister. He had been invited to speak around the stake about his new conversion. I made the following points to him:
Question: Would we consider him to be a ‘follower of Truth’ when he began to feel and to act on the belief that the Mormon faith was true? YES.
Question: Would we consider him to be a man of considerable courage to make such a change? YES.
Question: Would we consider him a man of no principle and no integrity because he forsook previous beliefs? NO We celebrate him, ask him to speak everywhere and would never dream of accusing him of betraying God, even mocking God (As I was accused) and of pride. CORRECT.
It is ok in your eyes for people to forsake any ‘other’ religion, but when I decide – with full integrity, after years of worry, prayer and regret, that I can no longer hold these once precious truths with any conviction… that this Church has no longer enough credibility to hold me with sufficient faith to worship and endure. When I do exactly the same as this minister, I am branded as a covenant breaker and as a man who is wilful and proud! A man of rebellion!
Will you open your eyes to the absurdity of your assertions about what I am and what exactly I am guilty of? Would you let me speak around the stake about the life and power I’ve found in God? Not likely! My sins might unexpectedly slip out… I might say something wrong… and of course, I’m no longer ‘worthy’ to speak. We had better leave it to the dead to inspire the dead… at least the dead are safely predictable – no risks, no fears and the ‘good name’ of the church will not be sullied. Leaders are so frightened of real spiritual power, because they are paranoid about imperfections or perceptions of unworthiness. The incapacity to see beyond strangeness and even sinfulness, handicaps the capacity of trust. The inability to trust comes from fear. It is endemic in the church” (No reply)
Horrible Little god…
It is of course, a generalisation, but the god of Mormonism is rather small and shrivelled. In theory and in absolute terms they declare a very majestic and glorious Being, but through my own observations and the experience of a lifetime within the LDS culture, their god has become small, prejudiced and ruthless. He is as shrunken as those who declare his name. They will use appropriate loving phraseology, yet underneath it all – Beneath the Surface, their god is not at all creature friendly – not a Being you would ever wish to meet on some dark and lonely judgement day! He is portrayed and betrayed as a demanding and distant god. (Sorry about the small ‘g’ he is not worthy of a big one) Mormonism does not produce a Personal God. That does not mean that members are devoid of any loving emotional yearning toward God or any sense of gratitude toward him, but it will always be embedded in the belief that God has to be placated, pleased and satisfied with a prescribed level of ‘worthiness’ and that worthiness is imposed by local church leadership, as dictated by church dogma. Too many ordinary Mormons are fearful they will ever make the grade to the Celestial Kingdom (Their promised ultimate Heaven) and as total obedience to prophets and local priesthood leaders is required, it is easy to imagine how anxious many Mormons can become about stretching their level of performance to meet church requirements as well as the sometimes fickle authoritative demands of sometimes, self important local leaders.
Mormons in general are not full of God, they are full of Church. I remember one exception – a man named Paul. He came to our Ward with his lovely wife Dorothy. Paul was older than me by perhaps some ten years. When Paul got up to teach or preach I felt God inside him. He said the same things that I was feeling… God was written all over his face – all over his heart. As he stood up, he could not speak for choking emotions. When he spoke, I too cried inside. I wish to God there had been many more Paul’s, but sadly, if you listen carefully to speakers, testimonies and lessons, it is rare to hear feelings expressed about God, it is invariably about everything except God. It is about the temple, or the prophet, or the church as an institution, or some programme related to their Calling. Rarely will you hear anyone stand up and say how lovely God is. Within the culture of Mormonism transcendence with God is virtually nonexistent. It just does not happen. That is a very sad indictment and a confirmation of a rather shallow spirituality.
God is not heard of in terms of dynamic relationship. It is so strange to me that an institution, which so clearly believes so literally and substantially in divinity, should feel God so distant from their hearts. Consequently, lessons and talks are insufferably boring, because there is no fire in their bones, except of course, about the institution of the church. If your physical life depended on the possibility that some teacher or preacher might convey some significant sense of the transcendence of God, you would die of starvation whilst waiting to hear it! Indeed, you’d be so long waiting, you’d be dried up and turned to dust and blown away in the mean time. All curriculum material has that vacuous, facile and impersonal feel about it. It is as if they have searched the entire world to form a committee of the most boring ‘yes’ men – the dullest and the most conservatively lifeless Mormons imaginable, to formulate lesson curriculums. To sit in most lessons is to hear the dead talking to the dead. Members drone on about programmes and targets. They incessantly reprimand each other in kindly tones for not pulling their weight. Devoid of spiritual vitality, my soul had moved on from those dry, tedious and soul deadening days. If you love it, thrive on it and find it wonderful, that is fine, but I could not.
I have said that Mormonism allows you a god on their terms – strictly regulated… access only by obedience. To them, all else is a fraud. All claims of people like me to divine companionship or increased spirituality are bogus, unless that person repents and returns. So then all such assertions to vibrant, transcendent experience with God, is not trusted or believed. It is a strange fact, but I never realised how conditioned and indoctrinated I was, until some years after my departure I stood right back and took a hard stare at Mormonism.
Around the time of my excommunication from the Church I had been enjoying significant warmth and closeness to God and this experience, or the way it felt, was identical to what I had experienced as a ‘temple worthy’ member. However, now it was more intense and deeper. I related aspects of this to my Stake President, and after my exit from the church he sent me formal notice of the same and then proceeded to reinforce through repeated appeals to fear, my lost and fallen state. It was a letter couched in all the correct caring terminology, yet a letter designed to frighten me to death with the consequences of not returning to the fold. It was one of the most appalling letters I have ever received. Attached to it were reams of quotations about God’s view on sin and the eternal repercussions of failing to repent. I had read much of this stuff years before and after a cursory glance, binned it, but what he had to say about my new or changing relationship with God was very interesting. I have told you the church will not acknowledge meaningful spiritual growth outside its own influence. Therefore, claims of ‘closeness’ with God cannot be accepted as real because inevitably, the axed member is classified as Unworthy. Therefore, the Stake President’s explanation as to the source of my increasing closeness with God was attributed to Satan. These are his very words to me:
“One thing that Satan will do to good people who wish to worship the Lord is create counterfeits. He persuades them to leave the mainstream of the Church and tells them they can still worship God in their own way. Indeed, he convinces them that they are actually moving closer to God and becoming a more complete spiritual being. It is not uncommon for those who go down this path to say they are feeling more intense emotions and achieving greater spiritual unity with God than ever before. They say their prayers are more acute, they feel energised and zealous in their new found faith.”
He says it is ‘common’ for those who have left the Church to feel closer to God. I do not think so. Most will likely stop praying, but not all. An escalation of spirituality is not common. He is just quoting back to me what I told him days or weeks before. My particular experience of greater and more intense relationship was attributed to the influence of satanic power. The very least he could have done was to say something like: “That’s great Bob, I am so pleased you have found such comfort.” Itamazed me beyond belief, that a person who had claimed to represent God at the trial of my life, should think I might swallow such a gormless explanation about the source of my spiritual comfort? How could I ever trust such a leader again? It is quite possible that all my experience was from a deluded mind… I would stake my life it was not, but one cannot be certain. However, his insinuation that my spiritual life was a satanic counterfeit closes the door on church credibility. More than ever before, I knew that inspirational and authoritative leadership from within the church was a laughable fantasy.
I invite the reader to make a judgement about me. I would like you to read the words below written nearly a year after my excommunication (2007), but which adequately describes my heart and soul around that time and beyond. (I kept an emotional diary) Actually, that is not correct – nothing can be expressed or written that can possibly describe where my soul had gone when God came close. Nevertheless, after you read it, ask yourself this very simple question:
In what, or in whom, should I place my trust: In a man who says this feeling or sense of worship is purely satanic, or in the living witness of my own experience? Even if I eventually come to believe that all my experiences with God were purely delusional – a sort of wishful self suggestion for comfort and meaning – even so, consider if you were me… does the following sound satanic? Be honest, who would you believe – him or me?
“As I travelled to work by car this morning, something flashed gold and reflected into my eyes from off the mirror or windscreen. I had been gazing at the full moon ahead of me, hanging low on the western horizon. An ever-so-pale tint of yellow, set against a cool, blue grey sky. But on noticing the reflection, I immediately glanced backward to see the most staggering sunrise ever.
It was coming up behind the power station cooling towers in a display of dazzling brightness that took my breath away. The distant clouds through which it shone were a blast of pure liquid gold and the light from the sun’s centre shone with a brilliance of blinding white light. I literally gasped with awe. I wanted to keep looking back but was negotiating a roundabout. I twisted to look and was just staggered by this fire in the sky. Within seconds the clouds eclipsed this naked glory and covered its glittering beauty as if ashamed of its harsh, radiant splendour.
I turned forward to the moon – this sacred soft light of night – how totally dreamy and incredible it looked too. This quiet gentle light, which fills the soul with a mysterious stillness, now recedes as the source of its luminosity – powered-up on the opposite horizon, was bursting into my day.
God, you are so like this sun… You shine! – Oh how you shine! You explode into my life and break through my deep and darkened fears! You come and I, in awe, glimpse your glory. You overwhelm me with unspeakable happiness. And suddenly, as if aware that divinity can be over-exposed, you become like the moon and infuse my heart with a whispering peace that hangs and remains throughout my night. I keep seeing and feeling this inner presence – a light that is constant. I see you from every angle. I see You everywhere. Emotions surge up to the surface from a region beyond my knowledge and flow out as tears – a flood of joy. They water my bed and fall to the ground – drops of my soul falling into you…. falling in love with you. Suddenly there is no light outside at all, it is all gathered inside and my love for you is exploding. I have never felt such a love as this before – never!
The light which lights up every morning has been raging in me and He is exploding in every direction. I can’t hold it in. My heart ruptures into praises I have never dreamed of – never imagined. Falling from my lips are praises which echo the reason I was born – the reason I’m alive. All longing, beauty and desire is locked into God. Nothing is seen, nothing is wanted, nothing is felt, that is not in Him. He is everything. In Him all beauty is centred. It all begins and ends in Him.
Every morning and every night you arise, and I, seeing something, turn to feel my world catch fire. Oh God, How you shine. How beautifully you shine”
I have to say this with all the authority that authentic experience can bring.… when I read the words of my stake president, who, I was reminded in court, was the mouthpiece of God at my excommunication, I asked myself the question; ‘Where is the truth here?’…. I knew he had lost it – so utterly lost it! I have always lacked confidence and have been uncertain whether I have been correct for so many years, but in life, some experiences are so bone-shakingly powerful, that one can draw unwavering distinctions and confidently declare with absolute certitude, that although you may not KNOW the source (For certain) – you KNOW what it is NOT… and it was not satanic.
The feelings I repeatedly had in prayer, both for God and from God was so incredibly beautiful and sustaining, that I knew this man did not know what holy ground he was treading on. He, in his own delusions, may have believed it, but my personal experience towered above his delusions.
It was Richard Wurmbrand who wisely said: “Sweep with a broom everything that is not of your own experience.”
My trust in the church had now faded like a threadbare garment burnt in a Furness. To believe him, would be as mad as saying I didn’t have a mother or I had never slept in a bed – just ridiculous. To accept his counsel and trust his words would have been an impossible denial of all that I believed and was learning to make sense of. That the most sacred and personal experiences of my life were suggested to be satanic, was not only incredulous but an affront to the possibility and capacity of an individual soul to receive God. That he could think it, let alone write it, astonished me.
That is the kind of denial and disbelief you will find from leadership in the Church – a lack of respect and reverence for your own sacred experiences – that you could not possibly have such authentic communion if it did not come through the route of ‘conformity’ and ‘obedience’ to all church teaching, together with thorough and total repentance.
In Too Close
Pride – the accusation reserved for all those who have the nerve or courage to declare the differences they feel, is a mistaken stupidity within Mormonism – a corporate lack of humility. Of course, there will be ordinary members whose egos cause them to take offence too easily. We as LDS had all met them and have struggled to help them. But if you are an ordinary member, who has received answers which do not satisfy or help you – and you are still puzzled and unable to agree with main stream thinking, then it would not matter how humble you actually were, how utterly honest and Christian you were – you will be accused of pride, because you persistently refuse to comply in thought and argument with the church. Sorry, that’s how it is.
As long as you are happy and contented with your beliefs you WILL NOT encounter major problems, or have reasons to doubt their authentic Priesthood role. Even if you have crippling weaknesses and go to the Priesthood leadership for help or confession, you will feel generally supported and cared for, because you trust and believe in the church, you will therefore trust the inspiration and the revelation claimed by such leaders – no matter how harshly or softly they may deal with you.
You see, you are in too close – you are part of its mindset… so close, you won’t see it. You have learnt to see, interpret and perceive things exactly as they do and as they wish. You – your beliefs, your commitment, your time, your money and your energy, are helping to oil and run the machinery of Mormonism. You are co-dependent. Your very thinking is in harmony and therefore unsuspecting and blind. In fact, you don’t and can’t think ‘outside’ the box of Mormonism.
Things run really smoothly when you do not contest principles – in fact, things run really smoothly when you don’t think at all. The Church does not want people who can think or question or probe – it wants conformity and uniformity. Yet, if you had reason to step back a little, or if you started to perceive something differently… something you felt quite strongly about… something that really and honestly troubled you…. something your integrity forbade you to sweep under the carpet any longer… develop such a genuine issue that has nothing to do with pride, but everything to do with where your whole heart and soul was… develop this, and you would be drawn out of your comfort zone into conflict with authority. ‘Stepping back’ is a form of new perception – a possible paradigm. A new and different angle not experienced before, which you did not seek, yet they happened. Do these things and you will begin to notice a change in the attitude of the church you once loved.
Top Down Pollution
Control, fear, authority, coercion – it goes on and wears the camouflage of caring priesthood smiles and solicitous overtones of concern and love. The trouble is – it is genuine. I don’t know if I have ever sat with a priesthood leader with whom I did not believe was totally sincere. They really believe what they are telling you. Their motives are not the problem – their blindness is. They too are part of the system, part of the ethos and subculture of Mormonism, which thinks it knows what is good for you. Are you now beginning to wonder whether you have surrendered too much of yourself into the control of others – into an institution that begins to feel uncomfortably more like a cult?
If you asked a Mormon what goes through their mind when they specifically think about their church, they will feel enormous attachment, reverence and allegiance. Without exception, all General Authorities, (High-up ecclesiastical leaders) which will include Area Authorities, Apostles and the First Presidency (The prophet and his two counsellors) are almost, but not quite, ‘worshiped.’ Denied or not, you cannot remain within Mormonism for long without feeling the astounding regard and awe, in which these men are held. Consequently, the teachings, talks, admonitions and council which falls from the lips of these men, is as if God had spoken. They deliberately play this down if confronted, but it’s a fact. Anyone who insists LDS members do not regard these leaders with such reverence, awe and committed devotion, are lying or brain dead.
There will always be some dissimilarity in the kindness, the harshness, the stupidity, or the good common sense of individual leaders at all levels of church government and this will indeed make a difference to those members who come to them for counselling. Trouble is, what difference does it make, and does it really matter, if the directions, admonitions or warnings from any or all these leaders, is from a religion that has a totally deceptive history – a corrupt lying hierarchy – some absurdly immoral teachings – dumped doctrines – and utterly fraudulent at its inception…. does it really matter if the management skills of its Bishops and Stake Presidents are good, bad or ugly? At the end of the day, the whole thing boils down to a scam, a con and a fantasy. The pollution of what they say God really is and what He really wants, does not start at the local level – at the grass roots, it starts at the top – from the First Presidency downward. I cannot overstate this; what a local leader does, is, in general, a perfect reflection of what is required of him from headquarters.
Somewhere beneath the surface of kindly faces, white shirts and dark suits, is a harder line – a harsh uncompromising dogmatism, which, if crossed, or provoked, will rise to judge you. Then you see the other face; the face that is soulless. The Church is bogged down with procedure, rules, conditions, rigidity, dogmatism, compliance and morbid guilt. They talk of Christ and then proceed to deal with you as if He did not exist. Sometimes their God can feel so beautiful and you really want to believe. Sometimes you so desperately want to return to that soft cotton wool emotion of thinking you ‘know’ it is true, because that feeling is so reassuringly peaceful. I came to realise I could not trust those kind of emotional whisperings, without becoming fundamentally dishonest inside. I am a man who found huge poetic beauty in Mormon scripture. On this basis alone, my divergence proves something is seriously wrong. It is rather like being in love and adoring a woman, yet leaving her regardless. I should have found every justification for staying – not deserting.
Dogma always precedes people. That is, they do not actually see YOU; they do not actually listen to YOU. Always their agenda is to steer you back to compliance – back into living all the teachings and believing all the dogma (That drip fed absorption) You need fixing, but if they listened to you properly and allowed their heart to shift across the void and sense things as you do, it would become too dangerous and risky. Why, they might end up feeling just like you! In this interaction, real heartfelt love is abandoned. Leaders are conditioned to respond with appropriate priesthood responsibility, which can, and does, compromise love – the love of Christ. The way He dealt with people was beautiful – what a pity His example is lost on so many leaders. The Church which bears his name has lost His heart, or never had it at all.
CHAPTER THREE
A Whited Sepulchre
When you adapt to a dysfunctional system, the system doesn’t get healthier. You just get sick enough to tolerate it. (Anonymous)
The institution of Mormonism demands that each member submits to two separate and searching interviews, to ascertain moral worthiness and compliance to church standards in order to obtain a piece of paper called a ‘Temple Recommend.’ Thus armed, they are then permitted to enter a sacred temple and receive their Endowments. The word Endowment means being given a gift, or a blessing, or power from on high. For me, the temple was acutely and wretchedly disappointing. My real endowment came alone and in darkness. It came under suffering and many tears. It came despite and without the satanic threats in the temple. It came and broke my heart with joy. In the temple, there was nothing I ever experienced that could hold a candle to the power and transcendent beauty of what I experienced after I began to abandon faith in Mormonism.
If you are unfamiliar with the bible, you may not know what is meant by ‘Whited Sepulchre’ Let me explain. Close your eyes for one moment: Imagine yourself in some large department store selling women’s perfume – beautiful female staff poised to introduce you to a seemingly endless choice of fragrances… thousands of bottles, each with their particular essence and aroma. It is worth going in – just for the smell! Think of it – manufacturers all over the world, spending millions on the origination, production and marketing of smells for pleasure.
Now think of this: what if those same manufacturers decided to come up with the worst smell imaginable? What might win the magic formula for the world’s worst smell?
As an employee in the funeral industry for some years, I can tell you with unreserved and indisputable confidence, that it already exists. The worst odour in the world is a human being in a state of decomposition. Maybe it is no coincidence that the smell of death (The state of anti life) has associated with it, the ugliest and most obscene stench imaginable. It seems to seep through closed doors and solid walls to find you. I discovered it almost impossible to tolerate. Indeed, it was partly the reason I left my job as a funeral arranger.
It is this image of putrefaction, which Christ used to describe the Pharisees of his day and which I also wish to use in depicting the Mormon Temple. The exterior stonework of a Temple is ‘white’ in pretence of purity and holiness. Its architecture, landscaping, furnishings and fittings, all scream of quality and luxury. Visually, it once held for me a mysterious and sacred reverence, which more than anything else, greatly attracted me to investigate and join the church. As the years passed and as you will see from the remainder of this book, it has now become a horror and an obscenity.
When Jesus Christ was confronted by the religious elite of his day – the Pharisees, he was not fooled by their outward appearance – their immaculate clothes, their meticulous learning, their knowledge of the law and their unrivalled religious scrupulosity, because he knew what was in their hearts. He saw a monumental arrogance. An arrogance and pride so entrenched, he used the same sickening metaphor, which I now also borrow, to describe the Mormon Temple. He used this most insulting comparison of all. He said that the exterior of the Pharisees was ‘whited’ (Clean, fresh, pure and inviting… how I felt about the church and particularly the temple) yet inside… in their secret hearts, they were as rotten as a grave, or as corrupt as a stinking corpse! Fancy Christ using such awful language to describe people – being compared to decomposing flesh! Not a nice way to have your disposition described. The LDS hierarchy know the real reasons and real history of the Mormon endowment. What it is now made out to be from those corrupt beginnings, is nothing more than a farce and an everlasting sham. If Mormons could begin to see how they have been hoodwinked and deceived, they would spit blood!
My Real Endowment
I had been a Mormon all my adult life. I was converted at the age of 18 and remained an active member till about 58 years of age. In 1970 at the age of 23, I was ordained a Bishop – the youngest Bishop (I believe) in the British Isles.
Perhaps the hardest thing for some to understand is my own ambivalence, because I can think of both wonderful and awful things to say about the church – wonderful, because I met my wife in the church and have had a 36-year honeymoon until she died in 2005. Wonderful, because I took strength from the church and used it as a structure on which to establish needed disciplines and values. (At least I thought so for many years, but now I appreciate better than ever that my virtues were already in place and much that is credited to LDS influence, is innately present) Family life was a dream of bliss and yet doubts about the church’s claims started to formulate very early on in my membership. In a way I am trying to say that doubts and struggles about the authenticity of the Church did not descend on me because I was unhappy in my domestic circle. In fact, the happiness of my marriage and the peace of my children was partly a tribute to the influence of the church and I suppose, to us as their parents. I had no boat to rock and no reason to kick against my life in Mormonism, yet I knew something was not right.
I have gone out to wild and lonely places wherever I have lived and I have struggled with many tears to know what I was doing wrong and whether, in His mercy, He could reveal the truth of what was happening inside me. I wanted to know if my state of mind and disbelief were ok with Him? All I ever got was a sense of complete and utter peace…. as if I had just fallen into His arms and all He wanted to do was just hold me. I did not know it then, but since my wife died and I came out of the church, I discovered more of God than I ever had, or probably could have done, inside the church. Please do not misunderstand me (And this is where that ambivalence kicks in) the Church gave me the incentive to ‘connect’ with God in early years. What I felt from God since my wife died (Unlike my temple Endowment) was the greatest, the most sublime, the most profound, and the most beautiful endowment imaginable. As I have already told you – when I considered for one moment, the possibility (According to the stake president who excommunicated me) that this Endowment of mine was purely a counterfeit of the devil – literally from Satan, I knew he was off his trolley.
I never felt an ‘endowment’ in the temple – it was a charade of madness. My real endowment came with intensity as I travelled through a night of darkness and grief. It came alone with God. It came not just once but many times and it came with such power and love, I might as well have been lifted up into heaven. By Mormon standards and by Mormon teaching – never had I been so unworthy and so disobedient… therefore, such an endowment as I claim, could not, (According to Mormon teaching) be possible, or acceptable. God could not have granted it. I have had clear evidence that most, if not all my own children, could not accept it either. I didn’t have a ‘recommend’ of worthiness to receive my real endowment – I just had a sick note – which is another way of saying that grace was poured out all over me.
Sometimes it has been difficult to keep the fire in. I had expressed to one of my children how wonderful I had felt and how God had helped me, comforted me and blessed me, and even here, I was told that I was proud (Because I was not living the teachings of the church and was, by my admission, trying to make myself ‘superior.’) All I can say is the condition of my heart apparently allowed me full access to the greatest doctor, surgeon and healer in the universe. It is because I have been unwell and in desperate need, that He came.
Is it a sign of arrogance to feel so alive with God, you try to share that emotion with your family? Apparently, if you are a member of the Mormon Church in good standing and get up in a Testimony meeting of the church and express or share some heartfelt emotion – that’s ok – that’s wonderful, but if you are deemed decidedly ‘unworthy’ in their eyes and have been kicked out of the church, yet declare heartfelt emotion about a sense of God’s presence – you are told you are claiming to be superior? The real problem is actually on the other foot: religions in general, tend to breed unconscious arrogance – individuals are blithely unaware that they are looking down on unbelievers. It is because they are totally adamant their values, convictions, world view and church dogma, is the absolute and uncompromising truth.
The real problem here, is with the mind of the conditioned Mormon – they are totally unable to accept the possibility that God could, or would, be so available and so close to a person in my apparent condition (Excommunicated and in a state of un-repentance) Indeed, to side with me, or rejoice with me, or celebrate with me, would dispense and unravel one of Mormonism’s ugliest little tenants, which members cling to with constant and unremitting tenacity… that God will NOT be with a disobedient and unworthy heretic in any significant manner. Only worthy and pure Latter Day Saints, who have remained obedient, are qualified as ‘holy temples’ in which the Holy Ghost may be ‘constantly’ available. So, when members hear you talk about experiencing a joy (Which perhaps they seem not to have had?) they feel indignant and suspicious. Rather like my friend in the street – they immediately suppose arrogance. For me to say that God had been with me intensely is like kicking down their house of cards… it does not go down too well.
Oh yes, there have been moments when I have screamed with grief and pain and God was nowhere, and seemed deaf and dumb to me, but for some blessed reason, His absence has been the exception. It is a strange thing – literally over those few dark years following my wife’s death, whenever I prayed to God in earnest (Between once and three times a day as well as in the night) I could not stop crying for the entire duration. This would happen as soon as I focused on God… before even speaking. The very thought of God made me start to cry. The cold trace of those tears kept falling until they trickled down my neck and onto my chest. Whether for 5 minutes or an hour, my tears would not stop flowing and they would continue not only for a few months, but for a few years. I did not know it was possible to cry for so long. In those days I ran 6 miles a day and would cry on and off, most of the way.
Many times I had also gone to bed in a state of prayer and had worshiped God in my sleep – as if the entire night was one drawn out longing for Him. I remember waking a few times from a deep sleep and without thinking, my mouth would start uttering praises into the dark! Over the first year when my grief was bad with choking emotion, I would try to talk with God and cry at the same time – with a sort of spluttering strain to my throat and neck. This seemed to cause a worrying enlargement of my throat. I went to see my doctor and was admitted to York District hospital. As I lay horizontal in the specialist doctor’s examination room, he confirmed it was a burst cist – the blood from which was causing the swelling. He asked… (As he was explaining how dangerous it was to have a swelling in this area of my body)… “Have you had any strain on this part of the body?” My mind went back to crying and talking with God. All I could think was… ‘I really don’t want to die yet, but at least I would ascend into heaven and have the assurance of knowing that I had died as a consequence of talking to God for too long and too deeply. That surely would warrant some recognition and reward?… or perhaps it might even save me from dying?’
My apologies, I was still prone to think as a Mormon – expecting some ‘reward’ for obedience, or some blessing for my spiritual exercises. I remained in hospital about a week and the surgeon who removed the blood with a syringe, stated he had never taken so much blood from a swelling in the neck before.
Just Checking My Pulse
I looked at these accusations of pride against me… not just about my ego, of which it is easy for most of us to fall foul of at times, but serious pride, which alienates a man from God. I looked at my past, right up to the present and then considered what actually happens as I have always attempted to pray. I have asked myself an honest question: “Robbie, where has your heart gone… what are you feeling?” I used to think that every good thing came from the light, but now I have experienced the dark and it is in the dark where life is conceived. It is in the darkness of the earth where real growth ascends upward. People who have a paper ‘recommend’ for the temple, which indicates ‘worthiness,’ will hardly need an emergency call in the middle of the night. I don’t claim goodness, I claim suffering, and He has come whilst I have been in great pain. Actually, the real truth about my darkness is defined by only one drop of sin… and that felt bad enough – most of it was an ocean of grief, isolation, rejection, longing and loneliness. God knows my heart and God has been in it. People in the church who claim my arrogance, ought to go back to their book of Mormon and study the claim of Ammon and the experience of ‘Alma the younger,’ who could only come into the light by first passing through the most ‘exquisite darkness.’ Whatever drop of pride or ego I ‘might have’ possessed, fell through the cracks of an abyss, whenever I talked with God. Not only the church, but my very own children never really knew me.
A Hell of a Place
So, that was my Real Endowment.
The following is my experience of my endowment in the temple. It is primarily an emotional response, and was never meant to ‘prove’ anything. It was first written decades ago when I was ‘worthy’ and had gathered dust in my files all that time. Then, one day, after my wife died, I got it out and was astonished to find little reason to change much at all. I have sandwiched it with quotations about changes in the temple. The real reason Joseph Smith built temples and why they became so secret, are explained briefly as the book progresses. This is what I wrote decades ago…
“The temple is claimed by Mormonism to be the holiest place on earth – a place where the mysterious of God are revealed. It is extremely difficult for me to believe that such things as symbolic gestures, key words, tokens and penalties could ever guarantee exaltation, or conversely, that their absence from my life would deny me a place in heaven.
I sit there going through this absurd travesty called an “endowment,” forcing myself to believe God is behind it. Come on – who has not got memories of “prayer circles” when you could have fallen on the floor with uncontrollable laughter at the madness of what we all looked like and what we were all doing?
I don’t think I ever really got over the initial shock of my own endowment. What was my first impression? Confusion and fear. I did not understand it then, but now I do. The whole point of the endowment is to place the fear of God upon you. Well actually, not the fear of God, but the fear of Satan, because he used to get so much air time in there; it is a wonder the house is not called after his name! Instead of reading “Holiness to the Lord” inscribed above the doors of the temple, it would be more honest if it read, “Sanctuary of Satan”
All I have are memories of his face on the screen telling us that if we did not do as we had been commanded we would be in his power. I wonder if the Brethren are proud to promote obedience through fear? As I advanced through the years I began to see this appeal to fear all over the place within the Church. Of course, you are told it is all so very sacred, so that it renders every member completely terrified of conveying any sense of their own aversion or even indifference about the temple ceremony to anyone else in the Church. Indeed, if my gut instinct is not wrong, there exists an undercurrent of fear and paranoia that prevents anyone from expressing and divulging objections or observations about the temple, which may be derogatory to any other member – it would cast them in a very poor light indeed amongst their peers. This is reinforced by declarations of General Authorities. One of which I remember saying:
“If the temple is a problem to you, guess who has the problem?”
The average members goes away from such a crass statement (as I did) feeling guilty of possessing negative feelings about the temple… and certainly not able to express them – not having the confidence (notice I did not say pride) to believe that the temple is the problem. No wonder they make you wait a year to be doubly sure you are fully convinced, obedient and integrated before they allow all that crap to be thrown at you! The “secret combinations,” so well articulated in the Book of Mormon, have come close to home. Indeed, you are even shrouded in it. The garment is white, but it has turned into a rather sad and dirty grey, from where I’m looking. Do you know what is so funny? When you finally have the balls to splutter out to various stake leaders what you really feel about the temple, they start to confess to have had similar feelings! Why don’t people talk about these true feelings in a classroom or even privately to one another? Because they either feel shame, or are frightened – just like I was. It is what the Church does to you… it controls you. It manipulates the whole of your life to serve its ends. You stifle and suppress all this negative stuff until you either learn to live in denial or break free in rebellion…. Or, maybe you love it and simply don’t see what I see? Wish I could have been like you. Wish I never had a mind and a heart that was troubled by questions. Wish I had a simple childlike faith like my wife, but I did not. I do however, have an honest heart.
I adored my wife and would have given the world to have a simple faith like she had and would have been so happy to have pleased her by pretending the Church was true and just acting-out the orthodox roll. Don’t you know that she would have secretly cried for me and prayed for me to be different, but in the end, I could not go to the temple without being completely dishonourably to my own integrity? Of all the people in the world, I would love to have pleased and to have been in the temple with – it was her. I could have qualified easily because weakness or worthiness was not my problem. Truth was my problem. To live the life of an orthodox Mormon and do all those things which they would have expected of me (in order to receive a temple recommend) would have been an intellectual lie. I was tired, so very tired of the endless internal struggles over the years – tired of pretending to believe something, which had largely sunk into the category of pointless tradition. To force yourself to live this kind of lie is the worst hypocrisy of all and quite unfair.
Anyway, in those early days – even before my children were born, I kept going back to the temple regularly. People said the more you attend, the more you will understand and appreciate it, but this did not seem to work for me. I simply found the repetition hard to stomach. I pictured God in so much majesty, so much grandeur and splendour. To me, the awesomeness of God did not lie in His power to control, but in His love, mercy and kindness. (That’s why I used to cry at the thought of Him) Pure love has the power to manipulate the consequences of evil, and from it, fashion goodness and beauty, but pure love does not manipulate freedom and agency – does not coerce, constrain or impose its will upon others. In the temple, one is asked if one wishes to withdraw of one’s own free will and choice, but one is asked not in private – not after having seen or understood what is involved, but in a hushed auditorium where everyone is ready to start and you have not a clue as to what you are getting into! To stand up at this point and walk out, would take great courage – I’ve never seen it happen. What a stupid time and place to ask such a question. Frankly, nothing prepares you for what you are in for, so it is unfair to ask if you wish to leave. In my experience you either love it, or hate it. I hated it. Most Mormons can’t stand going; they are just bullied into attending to reach targets. They have given up “thinking” about what they are doing. Whilst in there, they either think about everything they are going to do when they get out, or are fighting off waves of sleep. We all became temple zombies.
When I went for the first time I anticipated something different. I don’t know quite what, but something deeply spiritual – something that would touch both mind and soul, something creating warmth and strength. After all, when you think about the endless preparation classes and all the sweet buttery descriptions of how wonderful it was going to be, one should be forgiven for its anticlimax! Endowment means “receiving power” and it is deeply confusing that I, a creative person who loves imagery, should find these temple rites so depressingly dreary.
I said earlier that God does not manipulate, yet however you dress it up, that is what goes on within the endowment. I sense exclusionism and narrow mindedness – the despicable appeal to obedience through fear – this is manipulation. “That if we did not walk up to every covenant we made, we would be in Satan’s power.” What a shocking burden to place on people! Strange that God should want to give Satan so much coverage and exposure in a house that does not belong to him? To sense within myself the temptation toward bigotry, intolerance or coercion is bad enough, but to experience this going on in a so-called holy sanctuary after one year’s preparation, is pretty shocking!
No wonder some elements of the endowment, which coincidently, I happened to remember being the most bigoted, were cynically dropped during renovation of the temple in 1993-94, never to appear again. How odd? Not just bits from the film where Satan is using vociferous language in talking about the Catholic Church, but actual parts of the endowment itself, where the “execution of the penalties” (the gesture of running the thumb of one hand across the width of the stomach as a symbolic representation of allowing one’s life to be taken… suicide) was performed. A throw-back to the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who believed in, and practiced “blood atonement”…. and you innocently thought this was just about the principle of Christ’s blood being shed on the cross? (As you will see later, “Blood Atonement” as practised and taught by the LDS Church under Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, was perhaps the greatest BLASPHEMY against Christ and all Christian traditions, because it claims that God’s blood was NOT good enough).
Why were these previously integral aspects of the “mysterious of godliness,” just dropped? Just scrapped – with no explanation? It is because the Church in the modern era is increasingly and inexorably more embarrassed at the spiritual thuggery of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. I had always felt the original film, where both Satan, the dog-collared minister, plus the true disciples, were stuffed with bigotry and intolerance. No wonder it was eliminated. If the endowment is the means by which God bestows power and reveals “mysteries” then every part of it ought to be godly and sacred, but it isn’t. It was always a disgusting mess, and still is. I simply cannot identify the awesomeness of God and the perfectness of God, with this crass, esoteric pantomime. The whole show is alien and hostile to any intuitive impulse to worship.”
Temple Ordinances Shall Never Change
The following statements are taken off the internet and demonstrate clearly that changes to temple ordinances MUST NOT occur (According to Mormon teaching)
When the endowment was first introduced it was different to what it is now. It was incredibly long – between 6 to 9 hours. In 1927, Apostle George F. Richards sent a letter to all temple presidents (which) directed that they “omit from the prayer circle all reference to avenging the blood of the Prophet,” (p. 55). This reference was known as the ‘Oath of Vengeance’
The “graphic penalties, all of which closely follow Masonic penalties’ wording, were moderated.”
Yet in the August 2001 Ensign (page 22), in big bold print above a large colourful portrait of Joseph Smith, it reads:
“The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.”
To back up the Joseph Smith quote used in the August 2001 issue of the Ensign Magazine:
“Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations…. He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.”
The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208
“…the endowments have never changed and can never change; as I understand it; it has been so testified, and that Joseph Smith Jr., himself was the founder of the endowments.”
Senator Reed Smoot, Reed Smoot Case, vol. 3, p. 185
“…God is unchangeable, the same yesterday, today and forever… The great mistake made down through the ages by teachers of Christianity, is that they have supposed they could place their own private interpretation upon scriptures, allow their own personal convenience to become a controlling factor, and change the basis of Christian law and practice to suit themselves. This is apostasy.”
The Prophet’s Message, Church News, June 5, 1965
“As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering.”
W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982
“No jot, iota, or tittle of the temple rites is otherwise than uplifting and sanctifying. In every detail the endowment ceremony contributes to covenants of morality of life, consecration of person to high ideals, devotion to truth, patriotism to nation, and allegiance to God.”
Apostle James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord, 1968, p. 84
“…build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein. For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fullness of the priesthood…. And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein… For I design to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fullness of times. And I will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof, and the place whereon it shall be built.”
Jesus Christ Himself, Doctrine and Covenants 124:27-28, 40-42
“The Gospel cannot possibly be changed…. the saving principles must ever be the same. They can never change…. the Gospel must always be the same in all of its parts…. no one can change the Gospel… if they attempt to do so, they only set up a man-made system which is not the Gospel, but is merely a reflection of their own views…. if we substitute ‘any other Gospel,’ there is no salvation in it…. the Lord and His Gospel remain the same–always.”
The Prophet’s Message, Church News, June 5, 1965
But have the temple ordinances changed since they were “revealed” in perfect form to Joseph Smith? In 1987, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, carried an outstanding article by David John Buerger. In this article, Buerger charted the history of the changing world of LDS Temple ceremonies as follows:
As early as October 1835, Joseph (Smith) told his apostles of an awaited ‘endowment’ which would grant them ‘power from on high,’ (p. 35).
In 1836, “…Joseph Smith declared that he had now completed the organization of the Church, and we had passed through all the necessary ceremonies,” (pp. 35-36).
Five years later in Nauvoo, on 19 January 1841, a new revelation… (concerning) `your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead….’ Thus, the Saints who had been previously anointed in Kirtland learned that those rituals were a precursor to new ceremonies, (p. 36).
During the Nauvoo Period, a ceremony called the second anointing was introduced. It was in two parts. “First, an officiator anointed the heads of a husband and wife with oil, then conferred upon them the `fullness of the priesthood…. The second part was a private ceremony between the couple in which the wife washed the feet of the husband… (p. 47).
In 1877, the theological influence of Brigham Young could be observed in the Temple Ceremony. In the St. George Temple, “…a revised thirty-minute `lecture at the veil’ which summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and also contained references to the Adam-God doctrine” was given (p. 50-51).
In General Conference of April 1894, President Wilford Woodruff “…stopped the practice of sealing people to General Authorities and other Church members outside their family lineage and instead directed that they be sealed to their own parents,” (p. 52).
The Word of Wisdom became a central issue in 1921. “For the first time, adherence to the Word of Wisdom became an official requirement for admission to the temple. Apparently this had been encouraged prior to 1921, but exceptions had been made,” (p. 56).
In addition to the Oath of Vengeance, several other important changes were made at this time. The ceremony was shortened from “six to nine hours in length to roughly three hours.” The “graphic penalties, all of which closely follow Masonic penalties’ wording, were moderated.” The Temple garment style was “altered,” (p. 55).
My emotional response to the Endowment continued….
“Changes, changes, changes… I should not really complain about these deletions and modifications, because it seems at last, the First Presidency are becoming more sensitive, if not embarrassed, by a more cultured and enlightened society – just like they did with polygamy – except now, public pressure has succeeded, where previously, legislation forced them, or statehood would have been denied Utah. One wonders in the process of time whether the whole damn thing will evolve into something more edifying, even funny… perhaps a Punch and Judy show? At least I would have come away with a lovely sense of God’s humour. From beginning to end, it left me with a gut-like revulsion.
Once, before I had ever entered the temple, I looked at it from the outside and thought how beautiful the whole concept was. Rather like a woman with a pretty dress on, or a man with a sharp, immaculate suit…. then, a year or two later, the clothes come off (I went inside) and what I thought was going to be a stunning body (the deepest and most sacred part of Mormonism) turns out to be an ulcerated mess; camouflaged of course, by the striking exterior of granite stonework and inside by the cosmetic surgery of lavish furnishings – pleasing architectural design and landscaping. It is a very sad reflection that over time, the temple endowment has not only become totally irrelevant to me, but a sick and corrupt skeleton in the closet of Mormonism – a shocking revelation of its true colours. If I ever had doubts about my doubts – thoughts of the temple revive me! What I thought was its strength and beauty, turned out to be its greatest weakness and an insight into its corruption. That is simply terrifying! The externals… the landscaping, the quality architecture and the furnishings, the white clothes and of course – the “recommend,” help to side-track the mind from the real madness of what is going on.
Reassurance from Elder Packer!
Once, many years ago, in a public meeting I attended as a leader, I asked elder Packer “why the changes in the temple?” Please remember this was a big leadership meeting in the York chapel, England and he was answering any questions we might have. It took me a lot of nerve to put up my hand, because I was truly confused about this issue, yet frightened to draw attention to myself; in answer, he said something like: ”The brethren felt it was appropriate.” That was it. Even half way through this one line answer, his eyes roamed away from my direction and quickly picked up another question. I used to love elder Packer, but suddenly in that one answer, I felt I was beginning to understand the control, the bloody arrogance… and yes, even the rudeness of general authorities. Today, I still can’t fit God into the temple – He’s too big. This endowment describes a God who is very small – narrow to be precise; a god who is miniaturized to our level; reduced by our prejudice. Of all the things God might have said to a long lost soul like mine… waiting and hoping for refreshment and a new life, I get a belly full of “do or die,” or “we’re right and they’re wrong.” “I went to find God, but instead I found men playing and abusing God. He wasn’t there. The star was absent. This fullness was too empty – this house so strange. Such beautiful carpets, such beautiful walls, so tastefully furnished, so lavishly adorned, yet it was empty and stone cold. If my own house was so luxuriously furnished and I asked everyone who came to speak in whispers – they too would find a measure of “peace.” You can’t create or generate the presence of God through lavishly expensive temples set in beautifully landscaped gardens… I don’t blame them for trying, because precious else in the endowment is going to do it!
The whole thing did not work for me – it just did not fit. It constantly jarred – crashing like a heavy blunt instrument through the strings of my heart. It felt like I was caught in a trap – like spiritual claustrophobia – so narrow and confining. It grinded and militated against my soul – my inner blue print of God and all I have ever learnt and felt about God… ironically, even from the teachings within the Church, where such a beautiful image is painted. What a strange thing – that I, a man who can sense a continuous variety of symbolism and imagery of God’s presence all around me, cannot feel a thing in the temple? I used to sit there, fighting and struggling… telling myself I was not going mad and feeling so relieved to step out into the fresh air of the real world when it was over. Why do I feel alive to God at every turn outside, yet when inside, I feel trapped, suffocated and yes – even a little embarrassed by the naiveté of the entire show?
Apparently, I was told the weariness of repetition can be overcome by seeing the same old thing with new eyes. Jesus said to his disciples: “Blessed are your eyes for they see.” We can achieve this by conscious thought, by looking at things from alternative angles – by allowing a sense of awareness to steal over a relaxed and prayerful heart. Maybe it is the artist in me that can sometimes see something solid or physical – like a brick or a rock and – thinking about it – see through it, or beyond it, to a more ethereal reality. I’m not bad at this. I am creative. I am good with stories, speeches and with my imagination. It should – I assumed, be possible to do this in the temple, but I did not seem able to learn the trick?
I understand its social value as a centre point for old friends to meet and mingle and when all are dressed in white a sense of equality is achieved (despite the unflattering appearance of the clothing… but even here I suppose, we see at least a uniform drabness) But as for meeting or sensing God – nothing! Objectively and subjectively He seemed so remote and the ceremony so removed from what I think God would have wanted for anyone.”
Let’s Just Pretend We Like It
It is really quite a remarkable achievement, that the leadership of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has managed over the years to perpetuate the myth of the temple. First of all they spend a minimum of one year telling you how beautiful the experience will be for you – how privileged and fortunate you are to be scheduled to attend one day – how the entire temple ethos is doctrinally sound – how holy it all is – how worthiness and purity are essential requirements to enter and how a piece of paper called a ‘recommend’ will become your very own exclusive right to the club.
By the time you get there and the bubble finally bursts, it is too late. You have already become a devout and conditioned Mormon – all your best friends are around you and those who have taught you and to whom you have looked for an example are there too, smiling at you. There, in the celestial room, they come around and greet you with whispering hugs. Somewhere on a deeper level, alarms bells are ringing… alarm bells of confusion, astonishment, shock and fear. But you suppress all these human reactions, because you were taught the temple is sacred and holy and you start to think… ‘I need to get used to this… it is all so strange!’ You do get used to it – in time you become numb to it and you may not have the honesty and nerve to confess or declare that you never did like it or feel good about it. Congratulations… you have become a temple zombie.
An even greater fear would be to ‘protest’ or ask searching questions about it. You have been so conditioned and accepted by the society that has nurtured you, that intense embarrassment and guilt will assault you, once you open your mouth. The position you find yourself in is exactly where they wanted you to be – where we have all been and where the majority stay.
It is rather like the idea of being prepared for a marriage without seeing the bride. Imagine being nurtured and told repeatedly how beautiful she is and how worthy you needed to be to have her in your life, and imagine all this building up to a fever pitch and you are eventually taken to be married. Suddenly, when you are finally alone with her and your own thoughts, you know she is not the right one for you. Fortunately (like the temple) you are taken away from her for a few weeks, so you don’t feel so bad. Every time you do return however, you really try to make an effort, yet you know something is not quite right?
Because of the way you have been conditioned within the culture of your life and all your connections, you feel bad about not loving her and guilty that you might let her down. It would be difficult to tell everyone or anyone… especially those lovely people who prepared you. You simply cannot let them down. You want to appear happy and grateful – after all, they have spent so much time and effort getting you ready. Then, a tiny doubt enters your head… surely they were not wrong? They all seem so intelligent – so clever? Surely they knew what they were doing? They are such nice people and have been so caring toward you. So you end up making the best of it and trying harder… perhaps you say to yourself, “it must be ME that is the problem and not her?” “Perhaps if I just had a better attitude and more resolve… perhaps if I tried harder… perhaps if I set a goal… perhaps… perhaps…. perhaps?”
Any system of religion, which wittingly or unwittingly, causes people to suppress their real fears, their honest questions, and their disturbing doubts, is a religion that needs to wake up and shake up! It is here, in this worrying position, where one is tempted once more to use the word ‘Cult’ and not ‘church’ any longer. You cannot see the cult from within Mormonism, but you can from the outside. The above parallel of a planned marriage with all its attendant pressures, loyalties, fears, contradictions and obligations, best describe the conditioning, pressures and manipulation Mormonism brings to bear. Of course, your friends in the faith who ‘celebrate’ your temple trip, certainly are not trying to manipulate you. They are also caught up in the system and are co-dependent with you. It is no easy task to walk away and those who have never been inside a cult cannot see or understand just how difficult it is to stand up and be counted, or extricate themselves without damage. When all your social and personal associations – your very own self esteem, self respect and values, come from your religion, walking away can feel very damaging and very scary. How sad, when members of the Church and active family relations consider you weak for failing to endure, when in fact the courage and faith to walk away and change your life, takes colossal strength of character.
To leave the Church and hold on to a belief that God is still able to “Make You Stand” is wonderful, but frankly, my greatest admiration, is for those who feel so betrayed by Mormonism, that even God can no longer be trusted or believed – and yet… they still move on, pick up the broken pieces and create a new life. I salute the courage and power of a person, who, not only loses the cradle of their religious culture, but even lose God. I take my hat off to those who go on living with real humanity and love, despite such loss and betrayal!
I believe a high proportion of saints are troubled by the endowment but feel embarrassed and even ashamed to admit it. They would extrapolate, as I did, that to take their doubts to an extreme conclusion and say that if the endowment is not of God, then the church (By deduction) can’t be true – is a step too far. That is too enormous and too frightening to contemplate. They do what we have all done – just get on with it and suspect that it is they, themselves, who have the problem.
Because the entire session is mind numbingly boring and stultifyingly repetitious, one becomes kind of desensitised and blasé to the ludicrousness of what is going on. We dismiss our disquiet by saying, “one day God will show us the deeper meaning that we cannot comprehend here” and our eyes slowly close into passive acceptance. From every angle, saints are induced to believe that the temple is God’s house and the ordinances are sacred and essential to salvation – the more it is heard, the more they believe that if there is a problem – it is in them. Thus the trick of infallibility is enforced and their minds become sealed against the sheer lunacy and unreserved madness of it all.
It is strange how docile Mormons become, after their conversion and conditioning for the temple. Put anyone else through the endowment who is not programmed and you risk them rolling down the steps of the temple in side splitting laughter, or being sick in a bucket…. no, probably not sick in a bucket – that is reserved for those (Like me) who look back after a life time of commitment and see the entire outrageous deception, which has been foisted upon them.
CHAPTER FOUR
Something is Wrong with You
The Church is Always Right
“Sadly, part of the structure of a spiritually dead religion is a belief system that implies that if the system isn’t working for you, it’s because something is wrong with YOU. You haven’t prayed, meditated, or practiced correctly, or you have some inherent flaw that you’ve not given to God in whatever context that means. Perhaps you are a woman, trying to claim inner power and retain a sense of spiritual heritage not easily found in a patriarchal system. Maybe you are gay, or a survivor of abuse, or you simply want the freedom to create dialogue and be yourself – be real. For many of us, being told that we are ‘unacceptable’ only fuels the deep spiritual yearning for acceptance – to really know that when we say to God, ‘this is me,’ we will be accepted and embraced” (Capital letters mine)
‘The God Game: It’s Your Move’ Leo Booth
Leaders persuade saints (Ordinary members of the LDS church) that when they don’t feel right about some sacred obligation, the fault is in them (And sometimes it might be) that they need to make some improvement – some serious repentance. Leaders cannot possibly see it any other way. If the church is true, then it follows, as night follows day, that when anyone is out of harmony with church teaching, they have to be out of harmony with God’s will. So the guilt trip begins. The church is infallible – infallible that is, until some prophet, or even local leader, makes an embarrassing mistake, then they put that down to just being human. Otherwise – “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over.” (Never mind that this has now been conclusively proven to be incorrect) Your personal guilt has to be the only consequence. You either acquiesce with the leader or face a rather daunting, supposedly arrogant stance of believing – and even more courageously saying… you think YOU are right!
Don’t be silly, you can’t be – The Church is always right. That’s its nauseating arrogance. Every single member who does not share the orthodox Mormon view of things is out of step – is at fault. The member’s aberration has blocked the guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore, God. You will not hear a Mormon leader worth his salt, say to one of his flock: “Well, perhaps the path we follow is not for you – perhaps God is calling you into an equally good but different direction. I love you and will always be here for you. What is important is to listen to that inner voice you have always trusted and if it beckons you away, then search inside and if you examine yourself in all honesty and integrity before God, follow that voice… even away from us. In the end, trusting your conscience is not about comfort, security or tradition, it is about faith and courage to do what you feel is right for you… even if that should take you to a place where even God no longer seems to exist” Not only not likely, but worse – impossible.
If leaders dare to even believe this kind of response may be appropriate, they confess that the truth they have embraced is not necessarily absolute, but has become a set of principles, which might be used or dispensed with, according to one’s preference or values. It cannot occur to an orthodox leader that no other way of life, except achieved through Mormonism, can truly bless an individual. They are locked into a cult prison mentality, with no escape to the outside reality.
I so well remember a young man about the age of nineteen who joined the Mormon faith when I was bishop. He was a really nice young man and very devout. For some reasons I cannot recall, he did not feel comfortable in our church and it certainly was not through any sin or weakness on his part that I remember. He eventually went inactive and a year or two later phoned me to ask if he could come and see me. When I welcomed him into my home the first thing I noticed was his face – it was beaming with happiness! He was so radiant and relaxed. There was a peace about him that he never had in our Church. He told me he had become a Jehovah Witness and with the respect he deserved, I told him how pleased I was for him… really pleased! He shared his feelings with me and told me how happy and absolutely contented he had become. Even though I could not believe or join such a sect, I nevertheless felt so happy for him and I celebrated his joy, because he had found his soul and his heart. It was wonderful. In my opinion now, he had merely swapped one cult for another, but what was important for me then, was to thoroughly respect and sustain his freedom and choice.
Sadly, if such a man came to most leaders in the Mormon faith, they would have verbally bludgeoned him with warnings and admonitions, which would have created guilt if he were weak, or if he were strong – confusion and hostility. What a dangerous role we play when we lose respect for an individual’s personal preferences and unique aspirations – when their inner soul is disregarded. In the LDS church, leaders tend to throw sledge-hammering blows, when a gentle touch is all that is needed. It is authority gone mad. Having seen it happen to others and having felt it myself, I shiver with dread at the thought of it.
It is so anti-Christ, so abusive and contrary to the dignity of the human spirit and the respect due to it. It is a terrible exposure to the arrogance of our beliefs, when we presuppose there could be no other answers to someone else’s confusion or doubts – except our own. The sin of the Church is its refusal to acknowledge that it just might be wrong. It may see no reason to believe it is wrong – it may sense no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, yet it ought to have the humility it so rudely strips from others, to confess that there may be a possibility… just a possibility that it does not have all the answers and that many members would thrive better outside of Mormonism.
It is an odd situation, that a church which has given so much lip service to ‘agency’ covertly forces members to comply or else. An avalanche of fear is continuously falling from head quarters within curriculum, talks and magazines, in which they manipulate and control the lives of the members. Interestingly, as I have already hinted, the church no longer uses the phrase ‘free agency’ – perhaps the prefix is just a little too risky to keep on repeating…. might give members ideas? It’s like a stealthily ever-so-gentle, yet pious police state. Yes, I was once a Mormon and it enabled me to be free in some areas in which others on the outside were not. I think it helped bless my marriage, helped me focus on good core values. I do not even regret being a Mormon – it has helped me in so many ways. I am not saying it is all evil – though it may sound like that, yet most certainly, it is NOT the true church. It is not all good and those areas which are not good can bereally bad. It may suit some people very well as a way of life – that’s if they don’t mind waking up with a shock after dying, or perhaps, not waking up at all. In this sense, it is like all other man-made institutions – full of error and full of truth and most assuredly, not as it claims. The point is, the church can and does present to the world all the eternal promises of exaltation and everlasting heavenly kingdoms, but the peace, contentment and assurances these engender are based on falsehoods. This book is an exposure of what is wrong and how fraudulent it has really been with its teachings and history. Other authors have written many things that I have either just touched on, or not even mentioned, such as the DNA proof against the Book of Mormon, disturbing differences in various early First Vision stories, the embarrassment of The Pearl of Great Price – now proved false. The destination of the vast amounts of tithing paid into the Church, the Salamander letters, Masonic rituals and temples, Staggering monotheism throughout all standard works (Their scriptures), Endless changes to scripture in a shameful and deceitful manner, Verbal and historic lies which defy belief, Doctrines moth-balled or confessed as false … and so on and so forth. The list is huge and keeps expanding.
If it had not claimed to be the One and Only True Church on earth, it would not have so far to fall, but it has claimed to be, and altogether does not have the fruits to prove it. It is fallible and it ought to own its sins and weakness. If it could just stop always going on about how great it is – if it faced its terrible arrogance and its real history, I for one, would be pretty impressed. It is so frightened of losing its authority and its credibility to the world, that it hides weakness – hides its true history and its corruption. That is its shameful hypocrisy.
Despite slowly losing my testimony over the years, due to rather abstract reasons involving dogma, teachings and policies, I might have been tempted to hold on if there had been the love coming from those I looked to and had hoped for strength. It was Christ himself who identified how we would know if the true Disciples of Christ were present… “If ye have love one to another.” Somewhere on the edge of my Church life as I felt I was falling, I saw no heart in the leaders to cling to – to grasp and hold. I saw fear, ugliness, smallness and arrogance. Christ was miles away from those men – so far away. I have never claimed innocence or worthiness, but sadly, the grace, compassion and love of God, which should have come through His church, came instead directly through prayer. The saddest and most painful memory (Apart from watching my wife die) is the absence of these qualities within the judgement of leaders at a time I was drowning. That is my indictment.
Speaking of drowning, I once had a private interview with President Hinckley when he was a mere apostle. I was travelling to Wandsworth chapel, London, to be interviewed by Gordon B Hinckley whilst I was bishop. He was looking for a new Stake president and all us bishops, plus the high council, were to make ourselves available (Another bloody Saturday gone). We each had a few minutes assigned. When it came to my turn, I was ushered in and sat down and with no preliminaries he asked: “What job do you do for a living brother Bridgstock?” I replied: “President, I am a Graphic Designer… I design leaflets small catalogues, brochures, letter-headings, etc.” With a look of slight alarm, he quickly came back with: “You don’t get involved in any kind of pornography do you?” “No president,” was my reply. With that, I was asked to leave – the interview was over.
At the time of this interview I was experiencing a number of disturbing doubts and uncertainties, but had little information or support, and though at the time I thought little of it, years later, as I have grown and matured, I have come to look with incredulity at the mind of GBH. I ask the question now, to all who may read this: What would you ask of a brother you had never met, if you wished to ascertain a sense of his inner spirit? How about some of these:
“Tell me about your belief in God – how strong is it – what do you feel about God? Tell me plainly and simply brother Bridgstock… how is your soul; is it still on fire with the gospel of Christ? Do you feel strong or weak in testimony? Or even: “Bro. Bridgstock, thank you for all you do for the Church… tell me, are you and your dear wife happy and still in love – do you feel strong and happy in the gospel?”
Years later, when I was a branch president of Selby, in North Yorkshire, I remember dragging myself one evening to yet another leadership-type meeting in York chapel, and as I sat there with my eyes closed before the meeting started, I felt emotionally tired (I was not only the BP, I was the father of six children and owned a 4 acre Small Holding)….’please God, let someone say tonight how great we are… or let someone talk about how beautiful God is and how much he loves us… I don’t want to hear about another programme, or the same old programmes… I just need feeding! Suddenly the presiding officer rises to greet us: “Tonight brethren, we are going to concentrate on how we can improve our home teaching performance!!!!”
Of all the things in the world apostle Hinckley might have asked, or done in that short interview, he starts by virtually DOUBTING my integrity. Two minutes in, and his head is alerted to ‘pornography.’ Why did he not take my hand across the table, and holding it for a moment, thank me for all I was doing, or tell me how much he loved Christ? Of all the things this mighty man of God could have revealed about his thinking, he left me out and exposed his somewhat empty, soulless, agenda
What Have You Been Doing Wrong?
Into my third year as bishop I felt unable to sustain and support others like I was meant to. People were coming to me for strength and guidance and I felt a terrible conflict and dishonesty inside. It was becoming impossible to remain in my position with real integrity.
My stake President was President Cox, a kind and dynamic leader. He wanted me to join him on the stake presidency as a clerk. No doubt, in the hope that their influence might help support me, but nothing seemed to alter the ever so gradual decline in my testimony.
My first taste of how the church generally – and almost without exception, deals with someone like me, occurred whilst I travelled to a stake meeting with one of the Stake President’s counsellors. A solicitor by the name of John Dodd. I managed to pluck up sufficient courage to admit serious doubts about the Church to him. He only had one question:
“What have you been doing wrong?”
I did not know what to say, so I said nothing. At a later date I was alone with the other counsellor, Arch Turvey, who, later in his life, became the London England Temple President; a man old enough to be my father, and therefore, I thought, much wiser than me. This gentleman was asked, or volunteered to deal with my problems, because the Stake President seemed too busy to answer my detailed letter.
We sat facing each other across a table in Wandsworth chapel, South East of London. I spluttered out some of my basic problems (The list of things mentioned in the 1st chapter) and was waiting for any suggestions he might have. Remember, I was very young here and had little confidence. After what began to feel like an embarrassingly long pause, he just smiled knowingly and said slowly….. “Come on…. you know why you are doing this?” and just kept on staring and smiling.
It struck me as bizarre, that he was treating me with such cynical contempt. He had not been close enough, or informed enough of my life to even begin to hazard a guess about my inner integrity or honesty. I said, “Sorry… what do you mean… I don’t understand?” To which he just continued to smile, but never said another word. I had a sense of being insulted and hurt because he had not taken me seriously. I have unfortunately carried a sense of his utter stupidity through the years whenever I have reflected back on it (Though I rarely think of it now) It was odd indeed, that a man twice my age should have used his doubtless ability to be so presumptuously dismissive.
Both these counsellors typified something so worrying: the Church has a problem believing in its members, when its members have a problem believing in the church. I should have had such a shallow soul indeed, just to “pretend’ doubts…. that is what he made me feel – rejection and dishonesty.
The other comment: “What have you done wrong?” just about sums up the idiotically stupid and entrenched mind-set of Mormonism. The church cannot be wrong, false, or untrue. So if a previously strong member has doubts, then he or she must be at fault or have sinned. It cannot be the other way round. You see the church is ALWAYS correct – no exceptions. The hypothesis is that the principles taught by the church are of divine origin and will bless your life – if you live them, and if you suddenly find yourself unable to even believe, then God’s spirit must have left you. If it has left you, then you must have forfeited your right to that spirit (Through some form of neglect or wrong doing) YOU must have sinned. It means you have inevitably failed to be a good Mormon. You have perhaps not been paying your tithing (10% of your income) to the Church. Perhaps you have slackened off in your prayers, or you have found yourself tempted by some sexual activity not sanctioned by the Church. When you ‘lose the spirit,’ (as they put it) you have transgressed or neglected some duty or some basic requirement. The premise is, the Church has to be vindicated, so YOU have to be in error … YOU must be the one with the problem.
Black and White Syndrome
This tendency to hang on to rigid, dogmatic views with little or no flexibility or openness, is referred to as simplistic thinking, according to Leo Booth, in his book, ‘When God Becomes a Drug. Book 1’ Leo Booth has some authority in this area. He had, by his own confession, been a thoroughly orthodox, bigoted and arrogant priest, who worshipped and practiced his priest-craft for all the wrong reasons. He explains:
“This is one of the predominant symptoms of religious addiction. You see life in terms of right or wrong, good or bad, saved or sinner. You never see the grey areas. Your need for order, perfection, or control is so strong that anything that is not clearly black or white confuses or perhaps frightens you. Those who turn to religion as a means to avoid error are no doubt attracted to the black-and-white aspects of a rigid dogmatism.
The chief danger of this type of thinking is that real life is seldom black or white. Life constantly presents us with situations or choices that are ambiguous or problems that require complex solutions. If you are unable to cope with these gray areas, with complexities, your life is likely to feel forever out of control.
People who think only in terms of black or white have difficulty making decisions. You frantically try to fit a difficult issue into a neat, tidy solution, and it just doesn’t work. You frequently feel you have no choices, or that God has not heard you because the answers aren’t simple. You are forever at the mercy of those who will give you the simple, black-or-white answer.
Spiritually, thinking in terms of such absolutes paralyzes you, for people who think this way are always waiting for the right answer – the clear signal, the burning bush. You sit and wait for the solution that fits your simplistic dogma, even though the answer is often right in front of you. Black-and-white thinking prevents you from being able to find effective solutions to problems and to see when you are being abused.
You limit and stunt your life by rejecting anyone or anything that does not fit into your narrow frame of reference. You become abusive of others who do not share your views because difference, variety, and change all fall into the ambiguous grey areas, with which you cannot cope. Such shades of grey become the uncontrollable elements in life that Nakken says all addicts are trying to master. You increase your pain, he says, by becoming more rigid, harsh, and dogmatic, the more you are confronted with situations that fall outside your simplistic views.”
We Will Think for You
The above statement so well describes the condition of Mormons in general. It is not always so blatant, but it is there – just under the surface, like a chronic sickness it was born with, and therefore, ‘feels normal.’ I have always been accused of pride by ‘black and white thinkers. It is always the stock answer to those who show the slightest hint of none conformity. To the church, compliance is all that matters. You could be the most awful person alive, but just maintain all the right answers and keep all the regulations and you will get by, but spend your life battling with uncertainties, doubts, fears and struggling with God for greater wisdom and forgiveness for sinful habits, then find yourself wanting to share your different, emerging ideas, but worried you will be made to feel ashamed and weak; pluck-up the courage and faith to begin to believe that what you feel in your heart may, just may, be right, then splutter it out in an honesty you thought you could never own… and what happens? You are accused of Pride – pride and arrogance. Black and White people are out of touch with the realism of the universe – and they can’t damn well see it.
My general experience of Church leaders who have interviewed me about my doubts in the past, amplifies the shallow and superficial regard in which they handle the souls of people. And sadly this is not the problem of an isolated leader but endemic throughout the Church. It is the way it deals with none conformity – to suggest you lack faith, to create a sense of shame. It will tell you about the importance of ‘personal’ revelation, but why bother, because if your revelation conflicts with theirs – you have got to be wrong and too proud – should you try to own it. You don’t actually need a ‘personal’ God in the Mormon faith – the church will be your God. It is another way of saying: we will think for you… just be obedient, because we know what God wants you to believe and we know what he wants you to think and we know how he wants you to act… Now that is what I would call Arrogance. And it is an arrogance that has abused and insulted me all my life and all the more damming because it was levelled at me when I was afraid, confused and lacked confidence.
Mormons are conditioned by the culture and the very ethos of their Church, so they identify all their own individual perplexing failure or unanswered prayers with their own personal “weakness,” or “not being worthy enough”…. this is also a convenient cop-out for leaders to validate the Church, instead of its members. Otherwise, the Church – with all its predictive blessings and claims, will be the one that has to take some of the blame, or explain itself. Better to dump it on the members and keep the image of the Church untarnished.
You see what is happening, when there is dialogue between leader and member? The member’s unique spirit or soul is dismissed – in a sense, denied. False assumptions about their character are attached to them. Any rational or sustainable argument of the member will always be dismissed out of hand, if it is in direct conflict with the establishment and not even listened to with serious consideration. The member has to be wrong – has to be out of touch – has to be conceited or arrogant. What makes it difficult for the member to doubt the church is wrong, in this regard, is the loving way it is all communicated to them. Leaders are sincere. Outsiders should be careful not to extrapolate the notion that church leaders at any level of church government have no integrity about their work – that they are cynical, calculating and corrupt. As far as I can see, they believe they are doing the right thing. However, I remember my own soul feeling troubled at times by my own arguments, as I tried to act in the capacity of a church leader… just how honest or dishonest they really are at their deepest level, is for God to judge.
Grieving for a Lost Faith
Members who experiences doubts or differences will either sweep them under the carpet in order to remain comfortable, or they will work out satisfactory answers, which will continue to sustain their faith. If they have the courage to face the nightmare possibility that everything they have embraced could be phony, they will not come through and out of Mormonism, without passing through sadness, guilt, anger, anxiety and fear. This is the ‘death’ of your faith in the church as a vehicle, or structure of Truth. You will grieve. If that is not enough, those who watch you from the inside of the Church will associate your grief (Especially your anger) as a direct consequence of your sins, or as evidence of Gods disapproval and absence in your life. Although this attitude will exacerbate your already saddened heart, be assured from one who knows… your soul does have the strength to carry and transform all your emotional pain.
Yes, the church will believe that your disassociation with its institution will always happen as a consequence of your evil – in one form or another. How’s that for sensitive, discerning wisdom? From beginning to end, the member will not be taken seriously, will have their distinctive capability and rooted spirituality denied… will be accused and will not be sustained or celebrated within the minds of other members. Again, this is less about their lack of compassion, but much more about their utter blindness.
The stance the church takes with members who have the courage to face their deepest, innermost concerns, is denial. It is the only real rudeness and arrogance that is alive and kicking, yet the very condition of brainwashed sightlessness, disables the church from ever truly understanding the madness of their position. It is indescribably sad.
CHAPTER FIVE
Failed Patriarchal Blessings
“…. Subject to Your Faithfulness”
Joseph Smith once instructed his followers with these words:
“There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated – and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:20-21)
If one could detach this statement from Mormonism and examine its intrinsic value, one could say how true it is. For instance, dreaming of an ideal body weight will never be delivered if you pig-out and never exercise. It operates in every area of life. If you refuse to take time to meditate or pray, don’t expect a significant spiritual life.
Yet the trouble with this statement is that it was given to reinforce obedience to Mormonism and if it was not originally meant to be so, it sure as hell has been ever since. I doubt if any verse of Mormon scripture has been more calculated to inject a sense of fear, guilt, failure and unhappiness into the lives of members, than this one. Any area in which you have not yet succeeded, or perhaps have so far failed to achieve – whether it be financial, secular, relational, occupational, or personal, this verse will come crashing down around you with unsympathetic harshness, screaming: YOU HAVE FAILED. It has always been used to bludgeon members. Please do not misunderstand me – teachers or priesthood leaders do not go around deliberately trying to scare or frighten people. They genuinely care about their members, but are still stuck with scriptural verses that paint God in the harshest terms.
You have not been obedient enough, no matter how tired you are of trying; no matter how weak… you are a failure. It has become, in fact, an ideal scripture in which to place blame for any failure, squarely on the shoulders of the members, instead of the church.
Any member or investigator who cannot get a testimony of Mormonism, or who is struggling to find answers in prayer, or who is unsure of themselves and confused, will be told sooner or later, the need to be more obedient and more dedicated, or the fault is theirs… otherwise, God would have blessed you already. Inexorably, with verses like this, God becomes synonymous with an arbitrary force, which will not tolerate weakness, and a god who is devoid of grace and mercy…. an invention of Joseph Smith.
Well, let me use this loathsome little verse to vindicate my wife. Here, at least, I will not find a single soul who knew her – either friend or close family member, who will disagree with what I am about to say. My wife was a TBM (True Blue Mormon, or True Believing Mormon) Even I, who knew most of her weaknesses, lived with an absolute adoration of her dedicated obedience to the requirements of Mormonism! She lived with total integrity – or at very least, as good as it is possible to be, in honouring and remaining faithful to her beliefs. I have personally not known another human being who had more personal integrity than my wife. Her outward honesty was scrupulous and her word was her bond.
She was baptised at the age of 12 and at the age of 14 received her ‘Patriarchal Blessing’ – a much heralded and vital mile stone within Mormonism – something which is spoken about as thee most essential guide in life. It is the moment a specially ordained priesthood holder, called a ‘Patriarch,’ who is ordained for this purpose, lays his hands upon your head and tells you your lineage (Ancestry) This special once in a lifetime blessing, is performed usually at the Patriarchs house by appointment, and requires an interview of ‘worthiness’ with the bishop, who issues a piece of paper, recommending you to visit the Patriarch.
It is usual to receive admonitions, instruction and predictions at this time. This blessing is recorded and subsequently typed out and sent to the recipient as a comfort and as a guide throughout their life. A Patriarchal Blessing is something you are told about very early on in life and has unparalleled significance for your future. A Mormon child, or adult convert, is told she or he will be able to read it regularly and contemplate its meaning whenever they feel in need of reassurance or direction. It is the word of God to you… it doesn’t get much better does it? (Or frightening)
At the time of this special blessing, my wife was living with her parents. Her mother had joined the Church years previously, but dad was not convinced, even though he told me personally he had read the entire Book of Mormon. As a soldier in the last world war, he saw the aftermath of one of the concentration camps and lost whatever faith he may have had in God. They both quarrelled frequently. I remember these quarrels when I was first dating my wife. Her childhood memory was to sit on the stairs waiting for their argument to finish and then go to comfort one, or the other of them. I remember her telling me that when she went to the Patriarch, she was hoping he would tell her that dad would eventually join the church and that their family would be united forever and stop arguing and have more happiness in the home. Apart from this, her main wish was to be happily married herself one day, with children of her own.
It is normal for a Patriarch to ask questions of the person who is to receive his or her blessing, to ascertain the ‘spirit’ or ‘testimony’ of the person (The strength of their belief in Mormonism) She may indeed have voiced her concerns about mum and dad and her hope for their unity within the Church, but I am not sure.
Every patriarchal blessing ends with a phraseology which goes something like: “I pronounce all these blessings upon your head according to your faithfulness…” Which is another way of saying don’t blame the church or me, if this does not work. If your blessing fails to come to pass, it will be because YOU have NOT been obedient or faithful enough. Basically, you are responsible for your own actions and choices and the consequence of poor choices is the possibility that God will be unable to ‘bless’ you in the way your blessing indicates. Every angle is covered – the church must always be exonerated and correct.
For the record, this blessing was given to Norma on the 3rd May 1963 in the London Stake, by Lewis W. Moore and was his 378th blessing – you would think by now he would get things right….
The first paragraph of this blessing says: “. . . . the way will be opened up unto you whereby you might realise the fondest ambitions and desires of your heart.” This may have reference to her later marriage with me, or may have alluded to the future unity of her parents – or both?
It goes on to tell her she shall be married to a priesthood holder and have a family and this would bring great joy – both now and in eternity. So, that would seem to take care of the desire to be married in the temple and have her own little husband and family. Interestingly he says: “Now the time will come when you shall truly be a mother in Zion and great will be your joy, not only in this life, but in the life hereafter, as a result of this blessing.” I might confirm that Norma’s greatest joy down here on earth was her family (Me and the kids), but now that I have become excommunicated and my eternal sealing with her is broken – and there exists about as much likelihood of me returning back into full fellowship, as becoming a member the Flat Earth Society – how is Norma going to continue in heaven ‘with great joy’ when the main man (Me) is banished from her?
Near the end, he definitely seems to deal with what I believe is her divided parents and her hope that dad and mum would be closer and more unified, by dad joining the Church: He goes on:
“Now through your diligence in serving the Lord, you shall be an influence in the lives of those about you, and your loved ones shall benefit by your experiences with you, and through the efforts of yourself and your loved ones (mum and dad) the time will come when you shall be united as a family forever” That has to be about her immediate family of which she was so worried about as a young girl, because he has already dealt with her own marriage to me and his emphasis on her “efforts” is about the persuasion and her good example, to get dad interested in joining the church and into the temple to be sealed. “The efforts of your loved ones” cannot be referring to Norma’s own future children, because once she and I were ‘sealed’ in the temple, future children become ‘automatically’ sealed to us and are known, or classified as “Born under the Covenant.” It does not require ‘effort’ to make it happen – it automatically happens.
As I write these words, her parents are divorced. Her mother married a further two husbands, but the same jealousy that destroyed the first, destroyed the others and she has since passed away. My wife’s father – having had a stroke, lived in a nursing home until his death in 2010. He never joined the church. Her mother too, was also ‘inactive’ from church life years before her death.
Norma’s patriarchal blessing also stated: “For the time will come when you shall proselyte this gospel around about the land and many shall hear your voice…..and you shall do a great and marvellous work in the sight of the lord” The word “proselyte” is always associated with missionary work or going on a full time mission.
Her blessing contains a total of 3 predictions: (1) Her own marriage and family within the church (2) The unity, or ‘sealing’ in the temple of her parents with herself (United forever) and (3) a full time proselyting mission. It has failed utterly and completely to deliver on two out of three promises. For Patriarchs to predict a marriage for anyone who is young, is always going to be about 95% accurate each time, so no big risk of failure there.
But hang on a minute… am I saying God failed her on 2 out of the only 3 predictions in her blessing? Is it possible that God let her down… gave false promises? Surely not!
But under Mormonism, the church is always correct and vindicated; therefore, it means she MUST have been disobedient somewhere, or at sometime, otherwise how did these promises fail? (Remember what I quoted earlier from Leo Booth’s book, ‘When God Becomes a Drug’ about simplistic forms of black and white thinking and all or nothing solutions) If my wife’s level of ‘disobedience’ invalidated her predicted blessings…. God help the rest of you!!!
Perhaps she failed at some point to pay her tithing to the church? No, she always paid it. Perhaps she did not always remember to pray each day? That’s true… I remember now a few isolated incidents I could count on one hand over 36 years – when she crawled into bed so tired she was crying… Yes, so damned exhausted she was crying – then after a few moment she would exclaim out loud (As if someone had just died) “Oh no, I’ve forgotten to say my prayers!” I would reply: “I’m sure God will not mind if you just lay there and whisper them.” A minute or two would pass and suddenly, the bed clothes would be flung back and she would go off to another room and go down on her knees and take ten minutes to say goodnight to God. She would sometimes say to me, “I wish I could pray like you – so meaningful and deep” Her prayser were just simple. But in my heart, I so admired her persistent regularity and her constancy… these things I lacked. Even now, as I write of her simple dedicated faith, I feel such reverence – as if she were an Angel.
Well, perhaps she had wicked thoughts about other men? I defy anyone to lay that upon her… she was the purest woman I ever knew… she was virtually holy. If I were God, I would have cast her as Mary’s understudy. Well, perhaps she failed to attend all her meetings? Afraid not.
She died a strong, active and faithful temple recommend holding member, as anyone who knew her would attest. She was always and consistently ‘worthy,’ as far as the Mormon definition goes. Yet, beyond Mormonism’s narrow designation of worthiness, she shone brightly as the most modest, virtuous and Godlike women I have ever had the privilege of knowing.
Her impeccable credentials are beyond dispute or doubt. It cannot even be argued that in some way, my casual approach and less dedication in later years jeopardised her promised blessings. Patriarchal blessings are contingent on the faithfulness of the one who is receiving the blessing, not on every other Tom Dick and Harry – husband included.
It has always amazed me how Mormons strain every conceivable interpretation about the predictions in Patriarchal Blessings when they fail to materialize. They usually say “it applies to another life or fulfilment in eternity,” and so spiritualising it away, so as not to be disturbed by its obvious failure.
The reason her blessing failed is the same reason that ALL fail. Despite a Patriarch doing the best he can and doing it so sincerely, God is not obliged to honour it, because God had nothing to do with it. Men can postulate something is from God and formulate a creed and make promises for obedience, but if in fact, it is a false claim – if it is a fraud, why should we expect God to make it work – why should we expect God to honour it? Because Mormonism is not true, invested ‘authority’ to give a blessing from God does not really exist either, except in the minds of Mormons. However, the power of faith alone (Hope, positive self belief and confidence) can be a significant force, when a recipient believes in such a blessing. That has worked in many religions, as well as Mormonism.
Failure will be common because neither the deepest faith nor the most compassionate love, can guarantee that our earnest desires and our most passionate dreams will be realised. I insist, that according to Mormon doctrine, if a patriarch is in good standing and worthy and the recipient (In this case my wife) has always continued worthy and has ‘endured to the end,’ then its failure to deliver is proof that the blessing is as worthless as toilet paper. Mormonism is adamant that their God is absolute and keeps his promises. Indeed, they would use the common phrase uttered by God to the prophet Joseph in D&C 82:10: “I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise” The god of Mormonism needs to do a whole lot better. He failed my wife miserably – failed and betrayed her.
I myself have received predictions from clairvoyants who have been 100% accurate in their fulfilment, but some have not. Likewise, some predictions from an official church Patriarch will not necessarily find fulfilment as they just spill out from desire or imagination. Some may be naturally more ‘psychic’ than others and intuitively ‘sense’ the future, but the problem remains with Mormonism, it asserts that where a member stays faithful throughout their life a Patriarchal blessing MUST come true. We might sadly conclude then, that these predicted blessings were a failure, because she, most certainly was not!
My own Patriarchal blessing also stated that I would be “called to the ministry” (Full time proselyting mission) and it would: “bring me many choice experiences and many would be receptive to my message – if I would lift my voice in power” At the time of my blessing, my brother and I were both working and helping to support our widowed mother and yet we both wanted to go on a mission, but felt we could not do this at the same time and leave our mother alone and un-provided for. So we tossed a coin and he went first. Whilst he was away I met and fell in love with my wife to be and asked my Church leaders what I should do? All of them said the same thing, “take her to the temple – it is more important” Hard to believe these days, when there is a crushing pressure for every young man to go on a mission before marriage. Church leadership encouraged young men like me to marry in the temple if we met the right girl – because then, that was more important than a mission.
I am trying to say I was faithful and willing, and only followed church policy and counsel at the time. The next opportunity to go on a mission and fulfil this predicted blessing would have been with my wife as we became a mature couple, but that chance has been denied me, due to her death.
Perhaps the church might argue that if I had remained a faithful member after Norma died and married another Latter Day Saint lady, we might have gone on a mission at some future point, thus fulfilling my Patriarchal Blessing. It is a strange irony, in which the church would love to sustain and vindicate its authority and authenticity, by saying to someone like me: “If you had not doubted, had remained strong and endured and kept all the commandments and sustained all your leaders, you would have seen the fulfilment of all God had promised in your Patriarchal Blessing, but because you did not remain faithful, God could not honour you” (Like he honoured my faithful wife!)
My reply would have to be the following: I was a worthy temple recommend holding bishop when I first started to doubt. Doubt is not a disease. It is a healthy state of enquiry when the mind seeks to harmonise disorder and conflict. In order to begin to have faith in a new order of things, one is compelled to have ‘doubts’ about the old order of things.
CS Lewis said he was an atheist, then, one day in London, he got on a red bus and got off a Christian! On that bus, ‘doubts’ about atheism breached through his defences and allowed God to shine through. Unfortunately, when you become a Mormon, ‘doubts’ about Mormonism are not allowed. Doubt becomes a nasty little word that God is displeased with and should you entertain its persistent presence, it would be indicative of some likely act of unworthiness? Mormons would say that having doubts about any ‘former convictions’ (Before Mormonism) is healthy and God inspired… as in the example of the minister who converted over to the LDS Church after being Anglican, whom the church paraded around to speak to members. It does not see its own stupid hypocrisy. Once into this new found religion called Mormonism, you are not allowed to question or think.
My doubts came when I was classified by Mormonism as worthy. They came from an honest, truth seeking heart that would have so much preferred to keep the Mormon dream alive. When you begin to truly doubt and when these doubts have been examined and fail to sustain the very foundation upon which you have settled, it starts to crumble beneath you. Remaining faithful begins to feel like a fraud – a dishonest pretence. Oh yes, I spent my entire life trying to believe it was my fault, my inadequacy, my sins, my weaknesses. I tried to faithfully carry on. Mormonism tends to define an increasingly radical, casual and none committed member as one who is ‘unfaithful.’ This state of being did not come from rebellion, perverseness or sin. It came from a head and heart that could not reconcile inner dilemmas and conflicts of doctrines with rational thought.
As I grew older, my greater awareness of God (Through prayer) and the gradual unfolding of the mystery of who I was, allowed a confidence to break through – a confidence described by Mormonism as Pride. As the years passed, my inner conflict and doubts only deepened. It is indeed very difficult – even impossible for Mormonism to actually believe a man can be truly ‘honest’ in his heart and still leave the Church? That is stretching credibility to breaking point.
As I have previously said, real disobedience and sin (According to Romans 14) is about living ‘outside’ your inner faith – in other words: ‘outside of what you know you should do or parting from your integrity”- what you truly believe. If you believe in Mormonism, then that is your faith; if you believe in no religion at all and see no point in it, that is also ‘your faith’ and when we refuse or fail to live in harmony with our conscience, either in, or out of religion, we live (In the biblical language of Romans) ‘in sin.’ That is, we have fragmented ourselves into two. We shatter and divide our integrity. We cannot live and be who we are not (With or without religion – with or without a belief in God) if we truly and sincerely follow an honest conscience. If we are true to our basic integrity we remain innocence… and innocence is synonymous with PURITY and purity with WORTHINESS. Purity of heart is a worthiness Mormonism is generally reluctant to celebrate – or frankly even notice, because it is too busy looking for the ‘moral’ kind.
Like a child, our innocence may be full of ignorance and error, but it is still innocence. It is about a heart uncovered, exposed, accessible and free. To say that a heart is innocent when it might also be morally impure, is not to state a contradiction. Innocence at its deepest level is not adherence to codes but about being, or becoming artless, credulous, guileless – even naive. An uncorrupted heart is one that is unsuspicious, devoid of malevolence and generally venerable.
I claim this innocence in the same way that I also insist on the innocence for the position of any given church Patriarch, who gives his so-called Patriarchal Blessings ‘sincerely.’ He lives ‘within his faith’ and not ‘outside.’ He lives in harmony with what he truly believes. So, we are the same; we are both ‘obedient and faithful.’ We both follow the light that calls us and therefore are both worthy. If one of us has got it wrong, it does not change the integrity of our heads and our hearts, because we are both living ‘within’ our faith on a level that really matters. In the deepest place possible we are equal. All dispersions about unworthiness or unfaithfulness are irrelevant and absurd, because they do not touch the real issue of where we stand. Our position of guilessness (Purity of heart) before God or no God, is all that matters. If all our considerations, enquiries, intellectual deliberations, decisions and actions, stem from a heart that is HONEST with itself, it cannot be labelled ‘unfaithful,’ except by dogma… and dogma does not matter.
Therefore I can attack the argument that I have intrinsically invalidated my Patriarchal Blessing through disobedience and unfaithfulness, because my worthiness and obedience ascends to a high form than mere Mormon dogma. It is the only form that really matters. On this soul level, I am innocent and worthy. Yet I acknowledge that in their narrow, ridiculously confined and esoteric definition of unfaithfulness; I have no leg to stand on.
The point is – my ‘predicted blessings’ are invalidated in the same way as my wife’s… precisely because Mormonism itself is invalidated – because however sincere its leaders might be, it is false and will just as likely fail as come true, in its unauthorised predictions. These have nothing to do with faithfulness or unfaithfulness, purity or worthiness, but everything to do with chance. Patriarchal Blessings – like every other ordinance or teaching from Mormonism, has evolved from a fake beginning.
CHAPTER SIX
Out of Date Creation
Science and Religion
Since Emperor Constantine 1 established Christianity as a state religion in AD 380 and right through the Middle Ages to the present day, the established church has been at odds with scientific thought. With scriptural authority, the early church taught that the universe was Geocentric – meaning: the Earth was the centre of the universe. Both the Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus – around 1500, and the German mathematician and astronomer Johannes Kepler – around 1600, observed a Heliocentric universe – meaning: the Sun was the centre of the universe. Both came into conflict with the church. Back in those days, the ‘universe’ was thought to be our Solar System. For these reasons too, Galileo was told by the church in 1633 that he was: “vehemently suspect of heresy.” Challenging, or defying the church, could lead to restrictions, persecution, torture, or even death. All leading-edge scientists’ had to manage their fear and the risk of persecution if they published their work.
It is not that the church has always been wrong and Science has always been right, it’s just that Science has been at the frontiers of new discoveries, for which religion has struggled to accept, yet has eventually caught up.
Another big advancement in the truth of our planetary Creation came in the 20th Century, with Edwin Powell Hubble. This American astronomer profoundly changed our understanding of the universe, by demonstrating the existence of galaxies other than our own. Not only was the Earth not the centre of our universe, neither was our Sun. We were located in the suburbs of a very ordinary galaxy, in a cosmos of unimaginable beauty and size. From Hubble, came the discovery of ‘Redshift,’ which calculated the universe to be bigger and older than ever imagined before. This sent shock waves throughout the established church, because now, the teachings of a six day, or six thousand year creation, were looking decidedly redundant.
We should not be surprised that even in our own day the Pope reminded Stephen Hawkins that his latest cosmological theories may not be ‘rustworthy.’ Geneticists seem to have established to everyone’s satisfaction that the DNA of Native Americans can be traced back to Africa, and not Jerusalem. This proves that the Book the Mormon is false in its basic claim of their Israelite ancestry, but as always – the book of Mormon has been recently altered to make it appear no less validated.
Today, the Mormon church uses the same tyrannical attitude in dealing with its intellectual offenders. It chooses stigmatization, isolation, exclusion, accusations, punishment, persecution and excommunication, to deal with perfectly good, upright members, who – like gifted scientists in past centuries, have something to say, which threatens church teachings and dogma. All over the world, thousands of members will have become subject to disciplinary action for voicing or publishing their views, except they are not well known. Some of the more prominent to be excommunicated in recent years have been:
· Michael Quinn – A professor of history at Brigham young University
· Lavina Fielding Anderson – Editor and writer of the Ensign Magazine
· Maxine Hanks – author of ‘Women and Authority,’ published in 1992
· Lynne Kanavel Whitesides – President of the “Mormon Women’s Forum,” founded in 1988
· David Wright – for articles questioning the historicity of Mormonism.
· Michael Barrett – for letters correcting erroneous historic articles on Mormonism.
· Brent Metcalf – for new approaches to the Book of Mormon
· Jamie Allred – for theological papers
· Paul and Margaret Torcano – for books and articles questioning the truth of the Church
· Lyndon Lamborn – for too many questions and for sharing his findings
· A Hebrew professor fired from BYU for expressing his private views on the Book of Mormon.
One could also mention other great members who have been dumped by the church: Sam Young, John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Jeremy Runnells, Kate Kelly and Natasha Helfer – amongst scores of others.
This then, is a backdrop to the same stubborn, obstinate and fundamentalist views of the LDS church on the subject of Creation. These out-of-date Creationist dogmas still remain in their new scriptures, introduced by so-called revelation to Joseph Smith. If General Authorities of the LDS church have occasionally indicated some level of agreement with modern ideas on Creation – and they have, why then don’t they delete the out-of-date Sections found in The Doctrine and Covenants, whichI will focus on below, as well as those in the fabricated Pearl of Great Price?
A Day with the Lord is as a Thousand Years
Roughly between the years 1960 and 1990, the prominence and influence of Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith within the church was significant. Here were two of the greatest minds the church had ever produced – in terms of their doctrinal knowledge and insight. Bruce R. McConkie was an apostle in the Church and produced the classic book: ‘Mormon Doctrine,’ which was very, very popular in my day. In fact, all serious students–young and old, had a copy. Joseph Fielding Smith became president of the church and was best known for his three volumes titled: ‘Doctrines of Salvation.’ If anyone could understand and articulate Mormon doctrine clearly and precisely, these two could.
Elder McConkie, in a preface to Volume 1 of Doctrines of Salvation, wrote:
“Joseph Fielding Smith is a leading gospel scholar and THE GREATEST DOCTRINAL TEACHER OF THIS GENERATION. Few men in this dispensation have approached him in gospel knowledge or surpassed him in spiritual insight.” (Emphasis mine)
Joseph Fielding Smith was ordained an Apostle in 1910 and has been the longest serving member of the ‘Quorum of the 12’ until he became President in 1970. A true fundamentalist and dogmatist on church teaching and what we must believe. There is a chapter in his book on the creation, and a chapter on evolution. He unequivocally rejects evolution in favour of a 7–day creation. He says he is referring not to a twenty-four-hour day, but 7 ‘Celestial’ days.
What does this mean? How long is a day in Celestial time? In his book, Smith simply uses the current Mormon scriptures The Pearl of Great Price (Abraham 5:13), and The Doctrine and Covenants (Sections 77 and 88), to explain ‘time duration’ is different where God resides than it is upon Earth. According to Mormon doctrine ‘Kolob’ is a star, or planet, at the centre of our universe, and is “nigh unto the throne of God.” Kolob is the chief celestial planet where time is at its slowest. So when Mormon scripture uses the term “day,” in describing Creation, it is using ‘Kolob’s’ time. One day on the planet of Kolob, is equivalent to “one thousand years” on Earth.
This information – gleaned from the above two scriptural sources, is sacred to Mormons. The Book of Abraham in The Pearl of Great Price is claimed to be a translation by Joseph Smith, from parchments he claimed dating back to the time of Abraham (Now becoming an increasing embarrassment to the Church). The Doctrine and Covenants is God’s revelation and His law to his people, through Joseph Smith, the first prophet of the Church.
It clearly states in Section 77, verse 6, that the Earth will only exist for 7,000 years after the fall of Adam. It refers to “this Earth, during the 7,000 years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.” (Seven days in God’s time) Here is how Joseph Fielding Smith put it, on page 79 of his book: ”We have evidence beyond dispute that Adam was driven out of the Garden of Eden about 6,000 years ago.” (When he says “evidence beyond dispute,” he means scriptural evidence – not real evidence)
Smith goes on to comment at the top of the next page (And remember, you are about to hear the church’s greatest scholar and scriptorian expound the meaning of Mormon scripture):
“Here is a definite statement by Revelation to tell us that this earth will go through 7,000 years of temporal existence.” Then lower down on the same page: “Here we have the prophet comparing the days of creation with seven periods of 1,000 years each . . . the earth’s temporal existence, according to this, is to endure for just one week, or seven days of 1000 years each”
That was Joseph Fielding Smith reiterating what God was teaching or revealing through Joseph Smith the prophet, who founded the Church. I do not think it is possible that any person (Never mind a scientifically minded person) could read Section 77 of The Doctrine and Covenants and believe that Joseph was a prophet. So, in this revelation from God in Section 77 of The Doctrine and Covenants, given in March 1832, Joseph Smith declares in Verses 6 and 7 that the age of the Earth in its limited “temporal” state – that is, since the fall of Adam and after its Creation was complete, will be 7000 years.
Now let us try and understand this properly. In Mormonism, the word “Temporal” means the opposite of “Eternal.” Temporal means mortal or purely physical. It is referring to the age, or length of the earth’s existence after the curse … after Adam partook of the fruit. Before that (According to Mormonism) the Earth was in a paradisiacal state without death – so, no fossils or ancient skeletons allowed, because there is no form of decay. Everything – including Adam and Eve, would have remained forever in that state. Once they ate that apple (According to both the Bible and Mormonism) everything got corrupted and death entered the world. Adam became mortal, instead of immortal, or temporal, instead of eternal.
According to Mormonism, if you add 4,000 years (Before Christ) to 2009 years since Christ’s birth (The year I am writing these words), you get a total of 6009 years since death entered the world. Accordingly, we are just edging into the last one thousand years of this earth’s “temporal” existence, or 7000 years. Scripturally speaking, we are now in the final 1000 year Millennium. (According to Mormonism, Christ should have returned by now to start this 1000 year reign). There is no dispute about this, according to LDS teaching, death and decay only started to affect our planet about 6,000 years ago. Contrast that with the undisputable, substantial and overwhelming evidence of scientific discovery. It blows this absurd dogma out of the water. This preposterous and laughable teaching is given as ‘God’s word.’ It is odd indeed, that The Doctrine and Covenant, with itsSection 77, remains in print today and is accepted as a true and sacred revelation from God, yet scientific evidence conclusively proves its naiveté and complete lunacy.
Scientific Evidence Obliterates Mormon Theology
In his book, Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie completely sustains this 6,000 year existence since the fall of Adam, as taught by Joseph Smith and his successors. Think of the vast range of fossil and animal skeletal remains that have been carbon dated. The evidence is in layered rock and ice formations and in coal and oil deposits. The sand on every coastal area in the world was once rock, which has been gradually eroded, crumbled and pulverised by the sea, tide and wind. Geologists agree that this could not happen in 6,000 years! It had to have taken billions of years. Even today as I write these words (May 19th, 2009) the national news highlighted the discovery of various fossils found in a pit in Messel, Germany, which have been beautifully preserved, showing bone structure, as well as fir, fins and feathers, dating back 47 million years. Also, recently on BBC2, a program entitled: ‘The Incredible Human story,’ portrays Alice Roberts, a doctor and anthropologist, taking us to a place called Omo, near the Great Rift Valley in Ethiopia, where a human-like skull was discovered. Its estimated age was 195,000 years. Outside of Africa, the oldest remains of 10 human beings date back 100,000 years. Some of the remains are on show in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.
On February 20th 2010, an English television channel featured an hour long documentary following a team of experts as they investigated the carcass of a baby mammoth discovered in the snowy waste lands of Siberia, in the hope of discovering more about the creature’s life. They found things never yet known or proved about the mammoth – about its ‘brown fat’ reserves, its diet, its condition when alive, its age at death, and even how it might have died. Painstaking care was used to drill, cut and extract sample fragments for analysis. Their conclusion?… It died 34,000 years BEFORE The Doctrine and Covenants and official Mormon doctrine was to declare death possible!
The oldest known skeletal remains in the United Kingdom dates back nearly 30,000 years and were discovered in 1823, in limestone caves at the Gower peninsula in South Wales. It is called: “The Red Lady” because it was first thought to be female, but is actually a young male. It is now kept in the University Museum at Oxford. In Australia, the oldest human skeleton found, dates back from between 40 to 60 thousand years. To discover our common primate ancestry you need to go back over 12 million years. Tool-making hominoids (Australopithecus) lived at least 5 million years ago. Their tools have been found, as well as more sophisticated ones, from 1 – 130,000 million years ago. The Earth itself is not thousands, but billions of years old. Most certainly, death and decay have been going on ever since life first started.
The theories and facts of evolution do not rule out the existence of God. In fact, they can just as easily rule Him in. Only the hard-line atheists insist on no creator. It does not have to be black and white – science on the one hand, or the myth of a magical apple tree in an eternal garden, on the other. Personally, I cannot believe in the non existence of God. I cannot see why a slow, gradually evolving creation, needs to leave out God, though it may refute original sin and the need for the atonement. We need not always be confronted by two extremes. Perhaps God both desired and allowed a long, unhurried creation, to develop and evolve, just like it has? I am not, however, phased about the possibility of there being NO God.
The myth of a 6,000 year Earth existence (7,000, if you add the present ongoing millennium) is based upon the idiosyncrasies of a charismatic American preacher who lived 200 years ago. The earth has been turning around with life and death cycles for a few billion years.
On the frontiers of knowledge scientists cannot know everything, but at least the majority have the humility to jettison prevailing paradigms when new evidence comes to light, unlike religious fanatics, whose very world would either be in denial, or shattered by fresh discoveries, if solid evidence threatened their creeds. Scientists utilise methods based on experimental evidence and are prepared to discard old ideas – refining and adjusting prevailing theories until they consolidate into facts. Imagine what little progress would have been made if those in the more science related fields, decided generations ago, that their then present beliefs and knowledge, were sacrosanct and should not be superseded by any ‘new ideas?’ We would still be using leeches for bloodletting!
In my opinion, the credibility, honesty and sanity of LDS leaders, in refusing to take off their blinkers is incredulous.
How can anyone not reject Joseph Smith’s entire Doctrine and Covenants – the scriptural governing revelations from God for the establishment of His church? It is because of what I have called the “absolutism” of Mormonism (Supposedly unchanging dogmas and doctrines cast in concrete) Trouble is, Mormonism keeps having to change its unchanging dogmas. A good few have been dumped that have been previously claimed as doctrinal and absolute. In addition, apostles and prophets are always saying or writing things, which later turn out to appear erroneous or ridiculous. So, typically, when a prophet (From Joseph Smith onward) gets some specific teaching, prophecy or doctrine wrong, the membership will excuse them for ‘having a bad day.’ When some prediction has failed, or more generally, when some point of doctrine is finally seen as incorrect or stupid, they will rush to the defence of the church in case someone gets the impression that too many mistakes render the church and its prophet fake!
Devout Mormons will say: “Well, you see, at that moment, that leader was not actually speaking as a prophet – just as a man.” Then they start debating his status when he said it – was he a prophet at the time, or just an apostle? Was he putting forth his ‘own views, or was he truly ‘inspired’? I have heard these arguments a thousand times and every leader falls back on them to wriggle out of these awkward situations. In this way, a prophet is always right. They just shift the goal posts in the light of new understanding, changing values or new research. For instance, on May 14th 1961, the apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announced the following to a stake conference in Honolulu:
“We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.”
Smith, who at the time was president of the Twelve Apostles and next in succession as the Church’s President, added:
“The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.”
In May 1962, Smith privately said that this view should be taught to “the boys and girls in the Seminary System.”
Seven years later, on July 20th 1969, U.S. astronauts were the first men to walk on moon and many since have orbited in space. Interestingly, six months later, Joseph Fielding Smith became the church president and prophet. He was very adamant about the moon in 1962, and he was pretty adamant about the world being 6,000 years old since the Fall of Adam, or since creation was completed. To declare this strong statement about the moon at that conference in front of thousands of members and ask that it to be taught in a worldwide Seminary program of education throughout the entire church sounds pretty official.
These are rather amusing, though very ignorant things to say, but other bigger issues, like the Blacks being denied the priesthood and temple rites, are – in light of all subsequent and absurd statements and excuses by the Church – the most evil, the most hateful, the most prejudiced. These are some of the most disgusting beliefs and practises that any so-called church of God could have thought up!
Smith was probably the greatest scholar of Church teachings and doctrine of my generation. To vindicate a prophet or leader by saying that when he gets his facts wrong he was not speaking for God, is a bit like blaming all your vices on your parents and all your virtues upon your own merit and discipline! You can’t keep rationalizing forever; we are not perfect, and our leaders are no exception.
The same nonsense was proffered about Brigham Young in his teaching that both the sun and the moon are inhabited by people (Yes, you read that right).
“Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? . . . when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 271)
Mormons will say, “We know our leaders aren’t perfect – no one is” Really? Then why is everyone in the Church made to feel guilty and ashamed to question the veracity of any statement made by a Mormon prophet and even a sense of worship and awe at every word he utters? Why are members afraid to voice an opinion in public or even in private, which criticizes the prophet; why are they made to feel stigmatized and isolated? Why is there a fanatical, a fundamentalist fervour to stand in defence of a man and trust his teachings, when they have been proven to be no more trustworthy than those of any other man? LDS members know, as I did, that the prophet’s word is sacrosanct. This church aphorism sums it up: “When the prophet speaks… the debate is over”
When you come up against teachings about the age of the earth, as I have described and revealed through Joseph Smith, how can any sane, rational person say: “Oh well, he got that bit wrong, but just look at the beauty of other scriptures he has given!” Yes, I understand … so many stories and teachings within Mormonism can feel so good – so right. Characters and principles found in The Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures are often inspiring and highly spiritual, but so are many other famous works of fiction. I remember reading The Lord of the Rings and thinking ‘It feels like this really has happened, or like it should have happened.’
I remember years ago reading Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 1. This embarrassingly forgotten book reveals the mind of an unequivocal Mormon fundamentalist. I once had some talks with a young man who belonged to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. His method of assessing and paying his tithe was far closer to the instructions given in The Doctrine and Covenants than anything practiced in my mainstream church. At first I was very impressed with his arguments and his sincerity. Then he mentioned an exchange of letters between his church president and my church President (Joseph Fielding Smith). He often noted their differences in teachings, he remarked about how sadly intolerant and angry were President Smith’s letters to his prophet. When I heard him say that, it just clicked. Yes, I thought, I can see why he might be right about President Smith, after reading his books.
Bruce R McConkie, the author of the famous book: Mormon Doctrine (No longer printed) and no less a fundamentalist as Smith, was probably the greatest Mormon scholar alive in his time. I remember another “Elder McConkie,” a young relative of his, who came on a mission to our area. He was a mind-blowing young man. His gospel knowledge, his ability to speak and memorize scripture, was astonishing. He was sought after everywhere to give presentations. He was like a walking doctrinal dictionary… and was much the same calibre of man that made possible a book like Mormon Doctrine. Bruce R. McConkie, had also applauded Joseph Fielding Smith as the greatest scriptorian within the Church. But today, Smith’s rigid and obstinate views on a 6,000 year creation period (Plus 1,000 years for when God “rested” then another 6,000 years since the fall of Adam till now – making approximately 13,000 years total. All this should be an embarrassment to the mainstream church and a total contradiction to known science and common sense.
So When Did Death First Occur?
A major trouble with Mormonism is that it is stuck with the fundamentalist belief that death began to occur no later than 4000 BC. It is stuck with it, because it has committed itself to sacred texts or scriptures, in Section 77 of The Doctrine and Covenants, as well as The Pearl of Great Price. If it changed its mind it would have to rip out these scriptural pages and confess that Joseph Smith the prophet was talking nonsense when he gave to the world a supposed revelation from God about Creation. Again, the absolutism of Mormonism – the idea that its doctrines are always right and have always been right – forces it into a corner of no escape. Hence, its tendency to mothball old ideas and hope that everyone will forget about its shady history and discredited dogmas. It has been argued by some in the LDS faith (To get them off the hook), that Creation might have taken ‘six periods of time,’ instead of six celestial days (6000 years). Each ‘period of time’ being of unspecified time duration, lasting possibly millions or billions of years.
Unfortunately, this period of time idea, runs straight into trouble, because Mormonism believes in a doctrine of a death-free paradisiacal planet, until after Adam sinned…. when that happened, in 4,000 BC, all Creation – they believe – fell into a ‘mortal or ‘temporal’ state. So, from that moment, all living organisms underwent a catastrophic change and became subject to decay and eventually death. But what then of all the billions of fossil remains, including man and other creatures, that have been unearthed and dated so much earlier – going back millions of years? All are a prove that death has been around for as long as life, and each piece of evidence crucifies the absurd claims of Joseph Smith and his so-called ‘Revelations.’ When you realize how false this is, it is not difficult to look at other ‘Revelations’ and ‘Translations,’ when Smith asserted the Book of Mormon, Kinderhook Plates and Book of Abraham were not as he described.Then we look at the infamous Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants where he invented the command to practice polygamy, we become highly suspicious of this man, who claimed to speak for God?
So, what is the usual Mormon answer to fossil remains pre-dating the age of the earth? How do they hope to reconcile the initial 6,000 year creation period with the scientific fact that death has been on the earth for billions of years? The only two arguments I have heard are about as stupid as each other. One is that the Garden of Eden was only a ‘small part’ of the Earth – the only part that was immortal or paradisiacal and that it remained that way till Adam fell, then that too became like the rest – mortal, corrupted and subject to death.
Certainly I cannot think of any scriptural support for this defence, neither have I ever heard it espoused by the General Authorities of the church. In fact, only one man ever suggested it to me. This theory does not take into account the earliest human remains already mentioned which date back roughly 160,000 years before 4000 BC. Besides, Joseph Fielding Smith declared the following in his book Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, Page 92: “Adam brought mortality to all things. After Adam’s fall, the Lord declared that he placed a ‘curse’ upon the earth, and this mortal condition then passed upon the earth and all upon its face.” He then quotes Brigham Young, saying, “It is very true, had not sin (the Fall) entered into the world … death would not have entered.”
Smith continues on page 108: “… there was no death in the earth before the fall of Adam. I do not care what the scientists say in regard to dinosaurs and other creatures upon the earth millions of years ago … all life in the sea, the air, on the earth, was without death. Animals were not dying.” On page 110: “Adam had power to bring death into the world. By revelation we are well informed that Adam was not subject to death when he was placed in the Garden of Eden, nor was there any death upon the earth” Then on page 112: “I cannot think that the Lord created death in any creature, plant, animal, or even the earth on which we dwell, at the time of its creation.” He then says death came by the transgression of Adam (The Fall). Lastly, he quotes the teachings of Parley P Pratt and President John Taylor: “First, man fell from his standing before God, by giving heed to temptation; and this fall affected the whole creation, as well as man.”
So this idea that somehow the Garden of Eden was especially cocooned or hermetically sealed off from death until Adam fell, and that meanwhile, outside the Garden of Eden, the entire Earth had suffered the ravages of decay and death, and hence all the fossil remains, is NOT official Mormon doctrine. Mormonism position is that death was absent from the entire Earth until after the fall of Adam.
So much for the feeble attempts to reconcile Mormonism with science. Mormonism absolutely believes that Adam was the ‘first man’ upon the earth. On page 92, the Doctrines of Salvation, it declares: “He (Adam) was of course, the first man on the earth, contrary to the teachings of evolutionists” And on page 93 it further states: “Many revelations attest the truth that Adam was the first man. The First Presidency has given the doctrine of the Church in these words: “It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human was a development from lower orders of men. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was the first man of all men, and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of the race.”
So according to Joseph Fielding Smith, there is no doubt about it – Adam was the first person created some 4,000 years BC, and there was NO DEATH anywhere before Adam fell. If you consult Bruce R McConkie – that other master of Mormon theology, in Mormon Doctrine under “Earth,” you will find he refers you back to Vol. 1 of Doctrines of Salvation, which is what I have been quoting above in regard to the age of the earth and celestial time. That President Smith could have been so blinkered and obstinate as to disregard what scientists had proven, as well as what the Earth itself declares about its own history, is to see a man unable – or unwilling, to value REAL truth. President Smith’s pig-headed dogmatism was like the ancient Catholic hierarchy, soaked in delusion, ignorance and arrogance.
Unlike most scientists, who are at least willing to forego prevailing paradigms when new truth becomes evident, Smith remained inside a delusional, yet secure, fluffy ball of comfort. To doubt or seriously question ones religion is to begin the process of unravelling one’s faith; feeling one’s belief edifice start to collapse inside. This is very painful. Joseph Fielding Smith did what Mormonism does in general – he clings to unsustainable ideas and dogmas. He perpetuates illusions, because anything else is too distressing.
The other argument I have heard from hard-pressed Mormons, trying to strain at salvaging this age of the Earth argument (As they are doing with the DNA/Book of Mormon bombshell), is that when the Earth was made, “the God’s” took material from other creations with which to form the Earth, and that this material, or debris,” contained bone and fossil relics from those other worlds. LDS doctrine teaches that ‘matter’ has always existed, and can be reorganised or changed, but not created from nothing. Here we have the ultimate ‘recycling’ of old material into something new!
Of course, this is totally impossible. Cosmologists and physicists tell us that planets like ours start off as either accretion discs (Swirling clouds of gas, dust and particles) orbiting around a sun, or they are condensing, gaseous clouds from a Supernova (Exploded star) formulating slowly into planetary systems. That every planet is round is no coincidence. Rotational speed, gravity and density pull all matter inward, and what later becomes a cold hard surface started off – billions of years ago, as indescribably hot and molten. The idea that ‘bones’ and ‘fossils’ from another planet could survive such a process, and were then scattered around the ‘surface’ of the early Earth, is a laughable fairy tale. It is so unscientific and unnatural, that the Mormon church would be wise to immediately dispense with it.
At present, the First Presidency of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not issuing any official statement about the organic evolution of the earth. When pressed in the past to give an opinion, they prevaricated by saying that: “Science is still in the process of evaluating and modifying its conclusions . . . . giving an official statement at this point would not be helpful” What a farcical statement. A cop out. When will science finish evaluating and modifying its conclusions? Never. It’s a systematic method and the way it gets eventually to the truth. Science does what religious dogmatists don’t have the humility to do – experiment, test, prove, modify, adapt, doubt and discard. I am reminded again of politicians who will not give an answer, because they do not have one. Frankly, the Mormon church is bankrupt of truth on this matter; they refuse to allow themselves to be embarrassed, because they know they teach members the opposite of science.
I might add, although I have concentrated on Smith and McConkie in this book, to show the church position on this subject of Adam, the Fall and the advent of death in the world, I could have quoted many dozens of other statements from a whole succession of prophets and apostles since Joseph Smith, who have sustained the same argument.
http://www.mormonchronicle.com/did-dinosaurs-die-before-the-fall-of-adam/
The church believes categorically in the past existence of Adam, as the first man and that death came into the world through the Fall approximately 6,000 years ago. That has been taught all through my experience and life in Mormonism. To acknowledge advances in science concerning the history of life and death on this planet would be to deny scriptural doctrine. It would shatter and break into smithereens some of their most fundamental tenets. So they are caught between a rock and a hard place. That is the problem of their stupid absolutes – they can’t U-turn without considerable embarrassment. Look far and wide in the Mormon church – look in their teaching manuals, their sacrament talks, their official magazines, and their conference addresses, and you will hardly ever, or rarely ever, hear a serious adult debate, discussion or presentation on Creation. Why is this? Because their currently approved scriptural views on this matter are unquestionably delusional – yet cannot be discarded.
Lastly, I would also say this: it is simply not good enough to dispense with old precepts and writings from the LDS Church, written by Joseph Smith and other early prophets or apostles, with the excuse that it does not matter, because the ‘current’ prophet knows best. If the Mormon movement had been started by a man who simply wanted to have a go at starting a churche, without claiming divine revelation or authority, I would say fine, ditch all the old writings and stay up to date. But the LDS church’s claims to absolute authority and revelations from God forever forbid it from doing this. They really can’t win. If God were really behind Joseph Smith and all successive prophets, then they would not have the fiasco of absurd, outdated teachings to deal with. They have the embarrassing problem of explaining away writings and precepts of men who have always claimed to have been God’s mouthpiece, but have been proven wrong. Don’t tell me to trust the ‘current’ prophet, or that his judgment on how I should live my life is going to be better than mine… if you (The official church) cannot sustain the past ‘revelations’ of dead prophets – now proved false? It took some humility, or shall we say, ‘humiliation’ for the church at Rome to confess it was wrong about the Earth and the universe; now the Mormon church squirms under the same arrogance. It is not the ex Mormons who deny the words of past prophets of the LDS church – we simply use them to highlight the sham and deception that went on under our noises. The church, on the other hand, unceremoniously dumps and denies what their own prophets have taught in the past. It beggars belief!
CHAPTER SEVEN:
In the Mouth of 2 or 3 Delusions
Marriage in Heaven
Despite the disease and scar of plural marriage, modern day Mormonism hopes to attract more converts by its appeal to family life, particularly the idea presented of everlasting and eternal marriage. This has always been an ongoing favourite and an attractive invitation by missionaries who knock on your door and tell you how you can extend all your family relationships beyond the grave by the authority of God’s priesthood in their sacred temples. The uncertainty in most people’s minds about marriage and relationships after death is a worrying question for caring people who are concerned about loved ones. “Till death do us part,” is an excellent fear based statement, when considering what will become of us in the after-life? It places anxiety to the forefront and makes people just a little bit afraid of just what they will be left with after death and whether their marriage will still be legitimate, or dissolved in heaven?
Mormonism’s answers will pacify your fears and enlarge your dreams, even if you do have some disturbing questions about polygamy. Fortunately for the church, young naive missionaries will not have made an in-depth study of this doctrine and will only impart to you the same spin that they themselves have received from their mission leaders, the General Authorities of the church and any books they may have read. Indeed, not only young missionaries, but the entire adult membership of the church will have been given the same disinfected version as to the background, purpose and teaching of polygamy.… and are pacified (Well, the men at least)
The belief that families can all be joined together (Sealed) in a holy temple, by special priesthood authority, to enable the exclusive marriage and family relationships to continue forever beyond the grave, is so attractive to ordinary people, that the church uses this carrot as one of its main door approaches (Back in the proselyting days) to entice people to be taught the discussions by missionaries and be baptized.
Certainly its approach to the maintenance of family life and to the husband and wife relationship is excellent – that is not disputed. What is disputed is the much celebrated Mormon teaching that ‘exaltation’ (The highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom – heaven) for which the temple is claimed to exist, and for which the sealing of husband and wife is essential, has no biblical basis whatsoever.
The only substantive reason, or evidence for it, is found in their own scriptures. It is found in the same section and same verses, which also deal with the infamous doctrine of polygamy, or plurality of wives. It is the same book of scripture teaching the ‘6 Celestial day’ creation, which I have just dealt with. The eternal marriage concept comes under the same banner, entitled: ‘The New and Everlasting Covenant.’ Perhaps it is my tendency for either lateral thinking, or my wicked sense of humour, but after the horrendous law of polygamy, given by Joseph Smith the prophet in Section 132 of The Doctrine and Covenants – to trust anything else found within that Section, or any other section – as coming from God, is rather like seeing a known and respected woman leaving a brothel, or like an honoured politician, caught with his pants down.
Nevertheless, I would suggest to you that there is probably nothing more fundamental in Mormon theology than the teaching of celestial exaltation in the Kingdom of Heaven and of a couple being married (Sealed) in a temple. Nothing is more celebrated, talked about, dreamed about and written about, than this. It is claimed that whenever the church of God has been established on the earth, this teaching and practise would exist. If so, it would be the subject of talks, lectures and writings. Many times in my earlier life in the Church I have read books, heard talks and sat in classes, where it has been declared that temples existed in the early church (After the death of Christ) and that these principles were well understood and taught… so how come there is not one word about it in the bible? Of course, as one might expect, the teaching that marriage is honourable, respectable and instituted by God is a given. As such, it is echoed in various places throughout the bible, but being sealed in a temple forever after the death do us part bit, is nowhere to be seen and yet it is claimed to be an essential ordinance of salvation? Within Mormonism, it has so much emphasis that for it to be known, but not written or talked about during the era of the early church, is pretty incredulous!
How odd, that not one letter, not one epistle, not one word in regard to ‘eternal’ marriage, or ‘sealings,’ which you might say is the flagship of Mormonism – certainly the most beautiful concept it can offer to the world and one which they should be proud to own, yet it is not spoken or written about in the Old or New Testament? In the epistles a whole variety of concepts, teachings and precepts are explained and encouraged, even on husband and wife relationships, but not one single word about temples, or eternal marriage. Not only does the bible not contain any information, but its silence is disturbing evidence that the early Church knew nothing of this dogma. Only Mormons seem deaf to the silence on this issue.
After the death of Christ, epistles and letters sent out by leaders of the early church encouraged some equality of roles between men and women as they sought to serve in the ministry. Nevertheless, a reading of the New Testament reveals a prejudice against women in general and what we find is an encouragement for devout men to even avoid marriage altogether, in order for them to devote themselves exclusively to the Lord – a very odd thing to neglect when eternal salvation and exaltation required a marriage partner? In the New Testament, marriage is even sometimes placed in a negative context. For instance, Paul said: “It is better to marry than burn.” meaning; it is better to get married than burn with uncontrollable passion. So marriage, under such language, is for the avoidance of sin, rather than for the positive reasons of love.
Mormonism will tell you, that in the minds of the early members of the church, it was believed the time was short before the second coming of Christ and so it was not a time to be considering marriage or any other major project. Yes, they did think the time was short, but this is no reason for them to be silent and totally passive about ‘getting things done.’ It is nonsense. If the time was short, all the more reason to rush off to a temple and get sealed quickly! The second coming was to be accompanied by destruction and loss of life and as Mormonism will tell you – temple ordinances (One of them being the marriage sealing) is an ‘earthly’ ordinance and can only be performed on earth in a temple and not in heaven… if you don’t do it down here on earth, while you are here, you’ll not be able to get it done in heaven. Like people who rush to the supermarket to clear the shelves if food is in short supply – so you would run to the temple and get sealed before it was too late. But no such advice is given in the bible.
When my wife and I were married civilly, if we had not got to the temple that same day to be sealed, we would have had to wait one year. That would be the church punishing us for failing to do it the same day. Why is that a punishment? Because there is a chance – however improbably, that one of us might die in that first year, and then our exaltation in heaven is put at risk, because naturally, that death will stop one of us joining the other to be sealed in the temple. How much greater the risk of death – even the sheer inconvenience, or turbulence associated with Christ’s return, to encourage you to get married and sealed quickly. The argument, that in the early New Testament Church there was no time to be sealed and therefore, no reason to mention it either, does not stand and is a grossly inadequate explanation.
In the bible we have not one word about temples being associated with eternal marriage, apart from Old Testament sacrifices and even the reference to ‘baptisms for the dead’ in Corinthians 15:29 (Practised in Mormon temples) are strained and distorted by missionaries, to suggest the church actually practised this ordinance anciently, but an honest consideration of this verse reveals it is an argument about ‘life after death’ and merely refers to the ‘practise’ of this ordinance by other sects, as an evidence of the resurrection to come. That verse has always been a total fabrication to suggest it was practised in the early church – and we knew it at the time, but still used it! Eternal marriage should also have been such an incredibly weighty teaching, yet not mentioned once. It is just not credible. It is just not plausible.
I have only ever read one defence of celestial marriage and that was by Mark E. Peterson, an apostle who was popular around the time I first joined the Church. I loved his oratory… what a powerful and superb speaker. I so admired and respected him. (But not know – he was an awful racist) He did a pamphlet justifying marriage in heaven, by citing the words of Christ when he addressed a question thrown at him by the Sadducees. There existed a religious group who did not belief in the resurrection. Therefore their question about marriage in heaven was used to show how absurd the idea of life after death was. They said, if one man who had seven brothers, married a wife and then he died and subsequently all the other brothers in turn married her (An ancient custom in Israel) and each one died in turn, and then finally, she died also – which husband would she have?
“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:23-30)
If you take this verse at face value, it says there is NO marriage in heaven, but Peterson reverses this simple straightforward answer and tells us it means the exact opposite to what it says. At the time I just accepted his word, because I believed he knew the truth better than me and I trusted him. His interpretation was that marriage – like all other ordinances within Mormonism – was an ‘earthly’ ordinance, meaning: the sealing must be performed on earth in a temple, which will then enable it to be ratified in heaven. So a couple CANNOT be married at, or after the resurrection. That is why Mormonism does vicarious work for the dead in their temples, because they believe it CANNOT be done in heaven, if it has failed to be done on earth. So Peterson was saying in so many words: ‘yes, Jesus was correct, there is no marriage in heaven… unless they are first sealed on earth within a temple’ Sounds plausible, despite being the total opposite of what Jesus said! Unfortunately, the LDS church has never been concerned about honesty and has consequently wrested scriptures at the drop of a hat.
I once saw a television documentary about the Ku Klux Clan. It showed a Christian church where they held their services and the camera panned around to show the sacred religious icons such as the virgin Mary, the alter, the crucifix, and then hanging next to these, a giant swastika flag. I immediately wondered which verses from the bible would they use to justify their prejudice and which verses would they twist and distort to ‘force it’ to fit their belief system? That is what the apostle Mark E Peterson did with Matthew 22. Now I see his interpretation as strained beyond belief.
If eternal marriage was so significant, why didn’t Jesus answer them by taking the opportunity to teach us about sealings and temples? Actually, the point of the Sadducees is a valid one – if there is marriage in heaven, what will you do and how would you function with several spouses? Unless you belief in polygamy, we have a difficult conception of how it could work? Indeed, the consequences of polygamy practised on earth, clearly show us how bad it would be, if practiced in heaven! As the Book of Mormon ironically says, and as the LDS are prone to quote: “Wickedness, never was happiness”
When Jesus said to the Sadducees: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” perhaps he meant they did not yet understand and could not possibly imagine how different it is up in heaven. In other words, you are so fixated on marriage, sex, etc., you cannot image anything better or equally beautiful, but different. Then he says: “There is no marriage in heaven.”
Mormons are taught in the temple that eternal marriage is our destiny and our failure to achieve this means we will end up demoted to a bog standard ‘Angel.’ A sort of sexless creature that just floats around, serving those who are much more ‘worthy,’ who are becoming Gods in their own right. In Mormon theology, to just be an Angel is a form of damnation and damnation does not mean hell, but literally ‘halted’ in progress.
If you happen to be a Mormon reading this, you will indeed have a hard time conceiving of any other possibility, than that of remaining together with your partner after death… but that is true of all of us – we all want love to continue after death. I remember a church of England lady who came to a fireside meeting at my house, where we proceeded to paint the picture of eternal marriage and that consequently, all those not sealed in OUR temple could not remain together beyond the grave, but she – thinking of her husband, stared at me steadily and convincingly stated: “But love goes on forever and we will always be one” At that moment, I suddenly saw the stupidity of our claims… of course love goes on!
Cults tend to make you feel uncomfortable about exploring other ideas. They make you feel guilty just looking at other options… such activities might throw you off balance – they might disable your commitment. Mormonism successfully places that virus within you, as do many religious cultures. It comes from fear. Being part of what has felt so special for so long, with attached friends and family; with commitment and complete investment – so much to lose and so many to disappoint. You will be seen as having a weak and insubstantial faith, which may make you feel too embarrassed to examine and re-evaluate the veracity of what you currently believe.
Geographic Gathering….
What Ezekiel chapter 37 is not about
In my day, a very close 2nd read to the Book of Mormon was the classic LDS book: ‘A Marvellous Work and a Wonder.’ You will be forgiven for believing that Ezekiel 37 deals with a prophecy that the Book of Mormon will be joined together with the Bible to become one in God’s hand. The author tells you that Ezekiel takes two sticks in his hand, one of them symbolises the words of Ephraim (Book of Mormon) and the other, the words of Judah (the Bible)I just believed the way it was interpreted by LeGrand Richards. He says absolutely nothing about the geographic gathering of Israel in his interpretation – which is the only solid interpretation you can get from it.
Then, many years later, I happened to be reading the Bible from cover to cover and discovered a disturbing truth. I had been reading Ezekiel in context and here was a prophet who had been raised up and sent to Israel to warn them of their sins and their impending captivity. This he did by means of verbal warnings, but also by literal physical demonstrations before their very eyes. For instance, starting in chapter 4 and right up to chapter 37, Ezekiel is asked to perform certain rituals “before their very eyes,” to demonstrate aspects of their doom, captivity, suffering and eventual gathering.
I may have missed one or two but here are most of them:
- He makes a model of Jerusalem and pretends to lay siege against it
- He is asked to lay on his left side and then on his right side for many days in public
- He goes on a particular diet with all food cooked with human excrement!
- He literally moves house and digs a hole through the city wall and carries all his belongings through on his shoulders
- Cooks joints of meat in a big pot then upturns the pot and scatters the meat onto hot coals to burn
- God makes his wife die and asks Ezekiel not to cry during his mourning!
- He is asked to write some words on two sticks
I emphasise that Ezekiel is asked to do these things ‘there and then’ and not at some future point, although each thing he does, is symbolic of some future occurrence.
A reoccurring statement by God all through the book of Ezekiel is: “When the people ask you what are you doing and what do these things mean, tell them….” In other words, each thing he did was physical and literal in front of their eyes. Consequently, when God says: “take thee one stick and write upon it…” he did just that. He picked up two sticks and wrote words on them, then he joined them together into one of his hands – signifying the physical gathering of the lost ten tribes with Judah. Immediately after asking Ezekiel to join them together in verse 20, He describes in verse 21 its meaning. It is about the gathering of Israel into one nation. In no place does it say, or is it implied, that this has anything to do with a book or books. To say that a stick represents a particular book, or parchment, is not justified from these verses within their context.
The impression you have from this Mormon belief, which has been reiterated countless times through my church life at conferences, classrooms and from the pulpit; although it is never mentioned these days, this false evidence was one of the main arguments to justify the Book of Mormons existence. Read in proper context, Ezekiel 37 says Ezekiel wrote some words on two sticks of wood, which represented two divisions of one family – Israel, and this is followed by an explanation of geographic gathering. That’s all! Anything else is a dishonest distortion of scripture.
Back in those days, this discovery was quite a shock to me. I thought these great leaders in the church knew what they were talking about? This book was used throughout the church like the scriptures. For instance – as a manual for tuition in classes, so it was highly regarded.
This is just one relatively small error, but for me at the time, it became one of many things, which would surprise and disturb me. I thought I could trust these key leaders who ran the church to interpret scripture correctly and yet here was I, just an ordinary guy in the Church, getting it more accurate, more honest and more discerning than these Apostles and Prophets? How was I meant to trust them, when I, so uneducated and believing myself to be pretty stupid, saw through their error? My disturbance and worry came because I did not want them to be wrong. I wanted to hold on and believe in my faith – I wanted to be lead by this great and amazing church.
When you seriously start to doubt the church, the first sensation is depression and sadness. You will use every means to argue the church is true. You will safeguard it with a grip of iron. You will employ all sorts of brain tactics to justify your beliefs. You will be frightened and determined not to examine alternative possibilities. Although some things might disturb you, so much seems so wonderful, meaningful and true, that you can’t let go, so you press on in the same old way. It has become the way you think and the way you live. It is all absorbing.
Baptism or being Born Again…. which is it?
I wanted to conclude here with a dispute I have had in my head over a frequently used verse by Mormons – one they have gone on interpreting wrongly till this very day. These verses, found in the gospel of John are used endlessly in children’s teaching manuals and regularly in talks and other lessons. In fact, it supports their 3rd most important gospel principle – that of Baptism.
Despite there being some crystal clear teaching within chapter 5 of Alma in The Book of Mormon, upon the subject and need for inner transformation, or spiritual rebirth, it has always staggered me just how few Mormons have experienced such inner change; if they had done so, they could not have held it in. It would have been – as the Old Testament says… “A fire in their bones,” but as previously mentioned, there is a deadness within Mormons generally about personal experience with God. Ask an adult group what they feel about God or inner spirituality and connection with the divine? It will be met with an embarrassing silence. They will talk all day about the church, the programmes, their callings, the priesthood, or their favourite prophet, but about transcendent experience with God? Not a hope in hell.
Any talk or lesson about being ‘born again’ will inevitably contain much reference to striving, self mastery, greater effort and a determined discipline to acquire a rebirth or change. If you make enough effort, God will reward you. Everything boils down to meritocracy – getting, or not getting what you deserve. Finding the inner submission to receive gratuity from God is as uncomfortable for Latter Day Saints, as it is unacceptable. Even ‘grace’ comes with a price and Mormons sadly think that every bit of it has to be paid for, or earned by us – not Christ.
Within Mormonism, the most frequent reference to being ‘Born Again,’ is sighted in the gospel of John, chapter 3, where Jesus says: “Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.” It may be rare, but just about all of us have had the experience of a sudden flash of insight; a paradigm shift, where we see clearly for the first time. A new and powerful inner comprehension allows the scales to fall from our eyes and we see. With Christ it was always about this… about ‘seeing.’ It’s why he included precepts and parables to do with ‘finding,’ ‘looking’ and ‘vision,’ not about sheer dogged obedience, but Mormons define verse 5 as being impossible to get into Gods Kingdom without being born of ‘Water’ (Immersion in water) and of the Spirit (The Gift of the Holy Ghost given by the laying on of hands)
Though I would accept that Baptism was practiced in the New Testament church and the principle of baptismal rebirth is clearly understood in Romans 6. However, when John 3 is read in context, it says nothing about baptism and everything about spiritual rebirth. I think their whole interpretation and emphasis is false here. Mormons are given interpretations by prophets and just tend to accept them for years on end, without probing or searching for themselves. False prophets give false interpretations. When these verses are read without prejudice, they reveal no direct reference to baptism at all. Instead, they are an answer to Nicodemus’s question “how can a man be born a second time from his mother’s womb when he is old?” And Jesus replied: “Except a man be born of the water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”… and the next verse is the key: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit…” It is about two types of birth… one in water at our first physical birth (flesh) and one when God is born inside us spiritually. This ‘second birth’ usually comes much later in life and not in a baptismal font or back in the chapel. I watched all my six children being born in the flesh… ‘born of water’ I saw them come into the world as their mother’s waters broke.
Hence His words “except a man is born of water,” which does not mean baptism, but physical birth (That which is born of the flesh is flesh) Christ’s emphasis is totally on a spiritual transformation, not baptism, yet Mormon’s think differently and have never ceased to bang-on with these verses as a doctrine of baptism – or entrance into the church. It is so clear in these verses and the only reason I can imagine why members would hang on to their erroneous definition, is because they believe the prophet must be correct? To them being born of the spirit means the ordinance of conferring the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands after baptism, which is not a true rebirth at all, but merely a formal ordinance bestowed upon the baptized person regardless of any level of inner conversion with God.
Interestingly, the word “baptism” is not used in any of these verses. John 3 is simply Christ saying we must undergo deep inner change, or inner conversion, to inherit the Kingdom of God. It does not occur to Mormons that it means anything other than what they are told. I have no dispute about the gospels symbolic importance of baptism and of its apparent compliance by early Christians, but interpreting these verses as a teaching about baptism, is totally flawed. Like Ezekiel 37 and the two sticks – they just make things fit their doctrines.
CHAPTER EIGHT
Mormon Sexuality
“I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (Romans 14:14)
Uncleanness
The church has a problem with any member who self abuses, or who indulges in any form of sexual activity outside of marriage. In general, it cannot view such things as ‘normal,’ or ‘healthy,’ or ‘natural,’ but only as unclean. It will not like the label, but it thinks dirty… it sees only dirt… only filth. It will make sure your conscience is as big as its paranoia. Later in this chapter I attempt to show how Spencer W Kimball was such a man. Indeed, he seems to be the author of paranoia. It is not at all inconsistent to understand that President Kimball, a past prophet of the church when I was a bishop, was a kindly, humorous and gifted leader, yet seemed also obsessed and thoroughly distorted about sexuality. A person cannot say and write the stuff he did, without having a troubled sensuality. I can imagine Mormons unwilling to digest such a possibility, but the evidence is there in black and white. You will also discover when you read my chapter ‘Divine Adultery’ that despite Joseph Smith being highly religious, charismatic and authoritative, he was also a shameful seducer of women and especially young girls. Indeed, those religious characteristics gave him the cloak to deceive the very naive. That will be astonishing to devout Mormons, as it was to me. So, should we need sensible and sane advice about our sexual nature, would it be wise to consult a Mormon Bishop or look to scripture? Neither.
I can’t trust the Bible like I used to and I especially cannot trust modern day scripture and claimed revelation from within the Mormon faith. There is so much stuff, whether doctrinally or historically, where I sense not God speaking, but man’s prejudice and opinion. I now believe that good men – even devout men, like Paul, Moses, and Joshua – all of them, including so-called modern day prophets from within the Mormon Faith, have a tendency to project their misguided perceptions, based on their own conditioning, culture, traditions and fears, into the mix of so-called ‘truth,’ and in some cases, even their desire for dominance and control over others. Therefore, I cannot be appealed to through scripture or dogma. It is hard enough accepting and understanding my own sexuality, let alone trusting and being controlled on these matters by others. Heaven help us, we all need to trust in order to learn, but for me – no longer the Mormon church.
There is no area more difficult to define with the correct balance, than our sexuality. In the church it is unfortunately perceived and managed with a sanctimoniously frenzied negativity. The Catholics were worse, but the church suffers still from the ‘sex is dirty’ and ‘sexuality is to be denied’ phobia. Oh yes, they could point to a particular talk or article and say: “There you are – our church’s view on sexuality is healthy and divine,” but every Mormon knows that platitudes abound, but beneath the surface in the bishops office, as well as in the various forum’s of instruction, the true face of Mormonism’s hysteria emerges.
Clearly, I am not disputing it’s stand for fidelity and strong family and individual values, but I know what my eyes have seen and my ears have heard and the manner in which all matters related to sexuality are perceived, handled and controlled… and I do not like it or agree with it. It treats our sexuality as a disease or as a sickness. One is made to feel unworthy just to have a sexual nature. There is a real sense that you are made to feel your sexual make-up (Let alone our little lapses) are to be equated with a God hating – God loathing depravity. It entertains about as much guilt as any person wants to deal with. Indeed, a person is made to feel he or she is only a sexual being, rather than a person to be celebrated with many gifts and many other splendid human attributes. You feel the depravity of who you are so profoundly, that you become depravity in your own head. You become dirt – you become filth. It is what you are made to feel about yourself, and your sexuality must be suppressed or eradicated. Mormonism’s crazed obsession with your sexuality will distort and twist your brain into continuous self loathing – unless of course you happen to be as passionless as a dead dog or have a discipline of cast iron!
Mormonism’s insistence on ‘purity’ makes you feel ashamed and guilty. I would not disagree with fidelity and faithfulness to a spouse and the avoidance of a temptation to either flirt or stray, but Mormonism demands far more than most people can deliver. It must have purity or you will be in deep trouble… if you happen to have been blessed with a shed-load of self-restraint, then you might manage to achieve real progress in the abstinence programme. If, however, your level of difficulty prevents you from achieving the required self-denial (Or whatever requirement is given to you by your bishop or stake president) then you will live under a sense of sin, self loathing and a definite belief that God is displeased with you.Mormonism aggravates, inflames and worsens the manner in which your head perceives and manages this already thorny and complex area within yourself.
Dumping blame and guilt upon you, reminds me of something Richard Rohr pointed out. He said that in ancient Israel ‘scapegoating’ was a practise of placing all the sins of the people upon the head of a goat on the Day of Atonement, which was then cast out into the wilderness. We think of that word now as meaning someone on whom we may place ‘blame’… usually unfairly. To quote Richard Rohr:
“Scapegoating depends upon a rather sophisticated, but easily learned ability to compartmentalize, to separate, to divide the world into pure and the impure. Anthropologically, all religion begins with the creation of the ‘impure’ and very soon an entire moral system of taboos, punishments, fears, guilt’s and even priesthood to enforce it emerges. It gives us a sense of order, control and superiority, which is exactly what the ego wants and the small self demands. The absolute religious genius of Jesus is that he utterly refuses all debt codes, purity codes, religious quarantines and the searching for sinners. He refuses the very starting point of historical religions. He refuses to divide the world into the pure and the impure, much to the chagrin of almost everybody – then and now.”
That’s what Mormonism does – it separates, divides and punishes… the very opposite of Christ.
Sexual Repression
From a young age my wife was more exposed to Mormonism’s influence. Nothing is ever one sided and some of that influence was good, wholesome and positive. But she also had some unhealthy inhibitions which remained throughout her life. These were deep in her from parenting and Mormonism’s damaging paranoia about our sexuality. This revealed itself in our private life. Nothing was ever catastrophic, indeed our relations were good, but if either of us had been less sensitive and less kind, it might not have been. Perhaps back then, when I loved her so much, I accepted everything as wonderful and pretty normal – its only now, by the contrast of experience that I can see more clearly – with much more perspective.
I’m not an expert, but I am convinced that Mormonism’s relentless paranoia about our sexual behaviour, contributed to her inability to be fully relaxed with intimacy. If you were to ask my wife why she did well at school, her answer would be: “Because I was terrified of my teachers!” She was almost destructively shy and timid when I met her. This same fear of not fully trusting either her body or her natural impulses, was successfully implanted by the culture of her life, which will have included her mother and most certainly, Mormonism.
In the Church, the indoctrination and invasive scrutiny over one’s private conduct and even the thought processes of young teenagers – right into adulthood, with regular interviews, questions and warnings – is relentless. It starts very early in life. For various reasons, priesthood leaders will regularly interview children and adults to ascertain progress and worthiness. For instance, when a child reaches eight years of age, a leader will thoroughly examine whether he or she is ready for baptism. That will include their understanding of fundamental Mormon gospel principles that are involved with baptism, but it will also be a chance to speak with the child about ‘moral’ worthiness.
I have read cases of leaders questioning such children about masturbation, sexual perversion and even oral sex… all at the age of eight! In these cases, parents have been livid. I suspect such inappropriate interviewing at that age is rare, but it is not rare for leaders, who have no formal training and no police checks, to interview either a young teenage boy or girl in a private office at least twice a year. It is carried out constantly in every chapel throughout the world. This will occur from the age of 12 till they are 18. In addition, every time a person receives a new Calling, or wishes to receive an ordination to the priesthood (For a young man this will be when he is 12, 14, 16 and 18) attend the temple, or even to seek advice because of some weakness – a priesthood leader can and does ask ‘moral worthiness’ questions, such as:
Are you morally clean?
Do you masturbate?
Have you had sexual relations with anyone?
Do you have any past sins you have not resolved?
Once again, saying “yes” requires you to give exact details of your sins. It really is quite irrelevant whether a young person or adult feels highly embarrassed and uncomfortable… they just submit to it because they believe that the priesthood leader is doing God’s work.
My wife was frightened of seeing certain leaders who were more probing and invasive, when she needed to renew her temple recommend. Just imagine how frightened a young person would be – especially if they had even a small personal weakness. I have heard a few people tell me that they were ‘economical’ with the truth when interviewed about moral worthiness. The problem is this: when they have come clean and disclosed a moral sin (Petting, masturbation or fornication) the leader invariable causes so much distress, embarrassment and anger, that he or she resolves never to confide again in such an interview. They tell them what they want to hear. They may be uncomfortable about lying, but not as uncomfortable as telling the truth! Some poor souls who are particularly weak (Yet honest) will suffer such scrutiny for years.
If a youngster is asked a very personal question on sexual matters and does not understand the question, the leader will explain the meaning of various sexual activities. Should the person confess to any misdemeanour, the leader will want to know details, such as frequency, strength of habit, their attitude and their efforts to overcome? Consequences of immorality will be stressed and a possible programme of abstinence embarked on. This will inevitably involve even more frequent interviews and check-ups. You can begin to imagine the damage a child receives when it is told that its conduct is “offensive to God.” Without question, all children will be nervous, embarrassed, and deeply ashamed to talk about their private life in front of a relative stranger and you can imagine how some priesthood leaders will relish the idea of interviewing a pretty teenage girl about intimate affairs.
I have had a total of six years experience in the position of both Bishop and Branch President in interviewing countless people of all ages in the manner the church prescribes. I have also been on the receiving end of attending many interviews where my own worthiness and allegiance to the Church has been checked and scrutinised. So many priesthood leaders are not only unskilled but clearly undiscerning as they enforce their distorted agendas – thinking all the while, that God’s words are flowing through them. So often, their supposed ‘authority’ is the only claim to their stupid and insensitive judgements. Some, by the luck of the draw, will be kinder and more loving, but after so many years around the corridors of endless Mormon meetings, councils and courts, you come to realise that they are all contaminated with the self same inclination to indoctrinate the hearts and souls of others into a subjugation and compliance to Mormonism.
I have talked to many women who have been either embarrassed or offended by questions from male leaders behind closed doors. I think the kind of mind control exerted over vulnerable youngster in private interviews to do with their sexual nature, is sad and awful. It is abuse, yet it feels ‘normal’ if you are a Mormon. Most youngsters are vulnerable and really trust their priesthood leaders. They lack the experience and confidence to stand up for themselves. I now think it should be a criminal offence for such an adult to interview a young person without a thorough police check. I also have to say that I now believe it is wholly inappropriate to even ask personal or intimate questions of anyone – especially young vulnerable people. It is a complete invasion of privacy.
Yes, when you are a member – involved and acclimatized within the Mormon culture, you think all these things ‘are normal,’ just as young women who were held within the polygamist church in Colorado, thinks ‘it is normal’ – even godly, to be scrutinized, groomed, controlled and married off at a young age to much older men. The abuse of such youngster in certain locations in America is so widespread and so difficult to control, that a blind eye is turned toward its practises by the government. Even the Mormon church, which was responsible in the first place for starting this heinous practice through Joseph Smith, pumps billions into its own corporation, but does nothing as far as I am aware, in putting pressure on government, law enforcement or campaigners, to end what they established. It vehemently denies association with the practise of polygamy and skulks away embarrassed (Despite still believing in the principle) It is so paranoid about its own insufferable self image and the need to maintain a popular clean face to the world, that it keeps as much distance and denial about its historic connection with plural marriage as possible. It is shameful – even sickening. It is remarkable that a young groom and a young bride, who have passed through this type of education and purification system should actually end up on their wedding night without their God-given sexuality being rather screwed up?
My wife was terrified of displeasing the Mormon God – of doing anything ‘good leaders’ would not do. Trouble is – her puritanical perception of what pious and righteous leaders would, or would not do, was an illusion. What she thought the Mormon God did not want her to do was like all religions – given to her by men who were from the ‘sex is dirty’ generation and were convinced they knew. It’s the same old second hand god (With that small ‘g’) they want you to believe in. Not the one you truly discover yourself, but the one handed down to you. They appeal to the bible as well as their more modern scriptures and tell you: “This is what God wants from you,” but both they – and the authors of their stupid scriptures, are not God, but self opinionated men who seem bent on controlling everyone to believe and do as they say. All they really know is how to screw you up so deeply and so thoroughly, that it takes the rest of your life to shake-off the false and useless guilt. The sub-culture inculcated into your mind so valiantly resists departure. So much scripture is utterly sexist, racist, prejudiced, and extreme, because it is merely men – men claiming to be prophets, giving us ‘their god.’ Their god is what ‘they’ are like, not what ‘God’ is like. I was not to know until I became much, much older, just how beautiful and different God really was.
Whatever light may have come to these leaders concerning God’s divine will, it has had to pass through the prism of they own human condition and is therefore, fractured into polluted colours. It is so with all of us. Consequently, we end up with vicious gods, demanding gods and fearful gods. The kind of gods no rational, loving and balanced person would want or care for, unless of course you were conditioned and indoctrinated from birth – then you will belief in a second hand god – the proscribed, invented god, which you may well struggle with all your life.
I both love Mormonism for enabling me to meet my wife and giving me an incentive to develop a relationship with the God, yet I hate it for all the reasons I am describing in this book. I am altogether contemptuous of its appalling arrogance and its nauseating hypocrisy. I simply cannot sit here and claim that I myself have never been arrogant or hypocritical. I feel sure, even my reader would confess that they too, on occasions, have been ashamed of their own conduct, yet the Church is NOT ashamed of its own conduct. That is what is so nauseating. That is why so many people are angry with the church…. and I want to pause and say something here, because it is important: I originally finished writing this book back in 2013 and I am now finally bringing it up to date in July 2021. So, in this interim – the last eight years – the church has gone so rapidly downhill, in terms of its lack of integrity, honesty and humility. As I write, I am unreservedly disgusted by the level of its unkindness and stupidity – by it unashamed arrogance and greed. The church is merely ‘a front’ to it its real Corporate empire.
At last, I think I am beginning to know what Jesus might have felt in his diabolical rage at the Pharisees, or was the rage of Christ a symptom ofHis pride? (Shock horror) The same stereotypical offensive shunning by almost all orthodox Mormons against angered ex-Mormons who feel badly betrayed – as having too much PRIDE and of ‘losing the spirit,’ places them in the self same category as Jesus Himself. His persecution, ill treatment and final crucifixion, was as a result of the ruling elite (Equivalent to prophets and apostles today) who could not cope with his searing white-hot honesty and rebellion from their sacred traditions.
The big curse of religion in general, is that everything becomes ‘ought or ought not.’ Its proscribed rules, regulations and dogma’s emasculate the mind and the heart from searching for love’s solutions – for trusting love.
Coming back to my wife for one moment; fortunately, her inhibitions mellowed and subsided toward the end of her life. Indeed, the last few years before her death, were at times like being married to a different woman. That may have been as much to do with the absence of dependent children as they left home, as it was to do with time, experience and confidence, beginning to equip her with the self-assurance to take back control from perhaps an upbringing and an organisation which had taught her to suppress it for so long. It is interesting, that for different reasons Time, Experience and Confidence were also the exact same requirement that enabled me to take back control from Mormonism.
Spencer W Kimball’s Unhealthy Outlook
Anyone who has been around the sub-culture of Mormonism for as long as I have knows full well the example of the prophet Spencer W. Kimball epitomises the stance and attitude of the church about our sexuality. As Bishop, I have sat in the High Council room of the London Hyde Park chapel and listened to him talk about the so-called ‘Courts of Love’ for an hour. I sat just ten feet away from him. I know by all accounts he was a decent and compassionate man, but when I have read his classic book: ‘Miracle of Forgiveness’ which, as you may know, is essentially about how to find forgiveness from sexual misconduct – I felt the same self-loathing and self-disgust for myself, as millions of others have done.
This is not an isolated criticism, but the opinion of thousands, that his book ranks as probably the most depressing – the coldest and the harshest book ever written about YOU. Many years ago my son told me that at the MTC (Missionary Training Centre) in America, missionaries were not even allowed to read it, because of the depression it gave them. Years later, I’ve read the self same comments from others and you begin to ask yourself the question “why is this?” Is it because fornication and adultery can be wrong, and we simply don’t want to hear it and so when someone has the courage to spell out our sins, we feel bad about ourselves? No, sometimes it is good for us to be disturbed in order to discover the truth of what we have done, but in the case of his book, something else is actually happening. The book is certainly able to convict us of sin and to suggest Christ as the person who can forgive us, but you really do have to believe that forgiveness is indeed a ‘Miracle,’ in order to escape the awful self loathing and self condemnation that descends upon you whilst reading it. So many scriptures he sites (Written by men of the same spirit) also make you feel bad just having a sexuality.
Like it or not, in his book, you are forced to enter what you might perceive, as your own evil or dark side (Though our sexual nature is neither) and there is not a shred of celebration of your sexuality, nor joy, nor mercy, nor grace. One feels so far gone into whatever perversion we stupidly think we are, that even grace seems unobtainable and forgiveness out of the question. The book title is misleading – it should have reflected its content. May I suggest that a better title might have been: “Our Unredeemable Depravity?”The whole wonder and beauty of our sexuality is absent. It is grossly depressing, totally joyless and as heavy as hell. It depicts a deep and disturbing negativity in the man who wrote it. You simply cannot write a book like that, without having a fractured or divided nature.
But let me get to the point. I have much smaller book by him called, ‘Love verses Lust.’ It is a horrible, nasty little booklet, which again, fills one with fear and guilt. It is erroneous and absurd the way he deals with such a delicate and powerful reality. Why is this? Why does a nice, decent and gifted man, produce such literature? I can only conclude that Spencer W Kimball is (Like the rest of us) more than what he appears to be. Obviously he was not at home in his own sexuality and perhaps may have suffered greatly from misguided guilt and a sense (Wrongly in my opinion) of his own distorted depravity. Perhaps for him, self control and Christ, offered peace from some inner torment. The problem is, in the church we are asked to TRUST such people for our direction, on handling our own sexuality?
Let me tell you what I think of President Kimball lecture, by looking at his attitude on sexuality from within his own booklet – from his own words.
Love Verses Lust….
sI have at home a devotional address, which President Kimball gave to the Young Adults, (18–26 year olds) at Manti, Utah, on July 10th 1974 entitled ‘Love verses Lust’ Please read it. It is available on the Internet as a free PDF (that awfully scary place where we may encounter distorted truth, so be careful!) Full text of “Kimball Love Vs Lust” (archive.org)
If you are a member of the church and have read or heard this talk when you were about that age, you will be forgiven for believing that every word was appropriate and the remarks in keeping with a mouthpiece of God – a man trying to teach us true principles of moral integrity and purity of heart. For myself, I came upon it with utter amazement and astonishment, after the wisdom and experience of a long and wonderful marriage.
If I had not known who had written that previously mentioned ‘The Miracle of Forgiveness,’ and had needed a few clues – this awful address would have indeed disclosed the personality and dysfunction of the man who wrote it.
The scene he sets forth is of a young single couple who had come into his office, because they had committed fornication a few times. He started very carefully to remind his audience about the importance of words. Indeed, he takes an inordinate amount of time and attention to emphasize how the ‘correct’ use of words enables a communicator to convey a precise meaning, so that those who we may be communicating with (In this case, his audience) will not misunderstand the message. He then embarks on a demoralising rant and an unjustified demolition of the character of these two single people. He infers that they too (The audience) by the time he would finish, would completely understand the ‘precise’ meaning of the words Lust and Love.
Let me take you through his crude and blunt analysis of their character and his incredibly naive and superficial judgement of their feelings for each other. Firstly, this couple, from his description, were in-love. He says they were nervous, embarrassed – even a little terrified.
Surprise, surprise… even at their age, these young Mormons would have known full well how strict the church was and how leaders would sniff out every detail of their unchastity and forgive or punish accordingly. The possibility of their conduct becoming public to the congregation, for reasons I have previously explained, would be really worrying to them. Apparently they came (According to Kimball) with a ‘defensive’ attitude. They loved each other and felt their sexual union was a reflection of that love.
Even before Spencer W. Kimball launches into his bullish attack on these two youngsters, he summarises to the BYU audience his definition of Love and Lust, by equating each word respectively with ‘Life and Death.’ That was his first fundamental mistake; always, or at very least, far too frequently, Mormonism swings crudely between two extremes – black or white, good or evil. It rarely ever deals with, acknowledges or appreciates the greys areas – where most of us live and struggle. Mormonism is blind and remains in denial of the Real world.
Just for a moment, we can forget about the word Love, because we all agree, it is good and desirable, even though it has also been ill used and misunderstood. No, we will look at the word ‘Lust,’ which Kimball defines as ‘evil’ (Death). What I found reprehensible about this nasty address was his unforgivable character assassination of this couple. He ascribes ALL their motives – ALL their feelings and ALL their sentiments to be cheap and selfish. They are to be completely characterised ‘BY LUST.’ That, in itself, is an assault on what they were not. It is what I have said the church always does to you – it makes you feel like you ARE your sins.
Apparently, they could do nothing right, nor have any justification, because ‘everything’ stemmed from their lust. All black and no white – not even a smidge of grey. Even grey, by comparison to jet black, can look so mercifully like ‘white’ (If we had but the eyes and purity of heart to notice it). Kimball does not notice – he is totally blinded by his own inner distortions and scrupulosity. He allows nothing to pierce his dull and lifeless generosity, except Black. No couple in their situation are that dark – that loveless and that selfish. Why could not even Kimball acknowledge that love contains complex feelings that will include not only lust (Desire) but selfless devotion, sacrifice, commitment, loyalty and profound aspirations – all mixed up together!
Like too many people with his type of disgust and abhorrence of all matters sexual – he is taken over by his unassailable scrupulosity. And I do not mean he was screaming and shouting and out of control. No, he was cool and measured, but he manifests a repeatedly dysfunctional failure to see the real picture – the whole picture. How much better it would have been for him to try instead, to stand back from the rush and clamour to throw stones—so common in all of us, where we level judgements and criticism based on an ever so correct assumption of what we judge to be right or wrong. Kimball’s blindness to the ‘greys’… the realities of life (The light within the darkness) is a sad reflection of all Mormons – even within my own family. When you have exacting views about the standards of morality or what God expects and what ultimate salvation demands – then you start to see too much repugnance in those with whom you should see less. Ingrained Mormonism should engender tolerance, understanding and compassion – leading to rapid acceptance. That is what you would hope for, but I’m afraid the prejudice against an ex-member, or in this case, an unrepentant couple, will show itself. This does not mean that the likes of President Kimball have no kindness, compassion, or love…. they do, but it is constrained, or can I say ‘hampered’ under the influence of indoctrination, which places extraordinary and over-weighted gravity upon the importance of virtue, purity, endurance, and obedience, etc., etc.
Kimball’s attitude and response to this couple, reminds me of something the late Reverend Jessop, said in his book: ‘Law and Love’…
“Concern for the perfect cleanliness of one’s soul is the bridge that leads from Puritanism at its best to Puritanism at its worst. The righteousness of duty is never further than an inch from self-righteousness.”
Kimball uses a verse from Titus in the bible, to describe the hearts of these two lovers as “defiled”… “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure…”
How stupid. He, himself, fulfils that verse, because he appears ill equipped or incapable of noticing the slightest vision of where their hearts, on a deeper level, resided. He cannot, or will not see them, because he is concerned with precept not people – he just sees their sin… and its repugnance! Apparently, what these two youngsters say and what they feel, is sin. With key figures like this to lead the church and instruct it on how to understand and deal with our own sexuality, no wonder we all get messed up. He was the one who was “defiled” for his utter failure to see them as ‘whole’ people and his utter failure to discern any form of purity, goodness or beauty within their character – despite their fornication. He saw only filth and sin and this booklet is a testament to the state of Kimball’s mind and the deficiency of the church.
Jessop further described a strange contradiction, which he refers to as: “the badness of goodness.” It is the very thing that the Christ hated in the Pharisee’s and is personified in the very mind-set and methods inculcated in men like Spencer W Kimball. His kind of ‘goodness’ becomes ‘badness,’ because its harshness goes into hypocritical overkill. This is how Jessop put it:
“Is there anything so implacable as moral rigour? In its secular form it is harsh enough, but when it is part of a religious life, deriving its sanctions from God, it can be inexorable to the point of fiendishness. It was goodness combined with godliness, construing its absolute moral laws as divine commandments, and thereby rousing the most tremendous emotions we are capable of to sustain obedience, that enabled the Inquisitors to send their victims to the stake with the inhumanly pious formula, “We burn their bodies to save their souls“, and that led Calvin also to procure the execution of fellow-citizens. I do not think that all the Inquisitors and Calvin had no human affections. They found high reasons for suspending them. They had a view of life that made particular affection often wrong and general duty always right. In them moral rigorism showed its perfect fruit, goodness consistently leading to badness.” (Emphasis mine)
Kimball starts with a monumental failure to appreciate the context of Love and how it also contains lust. Church people may not like that word – it will sound uncomfortable in their ears, but we need to be less prosaic and sanctimonious. The Collins dictionary defines “lust” as follows: (1) A strong sexual desire (2) A strong desire or drive and (2) To have a passionate desire. I ask the reader some straight forward questions… “Why you are here? Why are you alive? Why do you exist?” Answer: you are here, because a man had a ‘strong sexual desire’ toward your mother. CS Lewis once expounded the New Testament verse where Jesus said:
“Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them Male and Female, And said, for THIS CAUSE shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cling to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matthew 19:4-5)
He then asks the question: What was ‘the cause’ of a man leaving his parents to become married to a wife? His answer was; ‘sexual attraction.’ It is the reason we all leave our home to find a partner. If you say the reason is love, you would also be correct, yet sexual attraction is at the core of it and is part of that love. Sexual attraction is about ‘strong desire.’
Unfortunately, everywhere the word Lust is used in scripture, it has negative connotations. For instance: “the Lusts of the flesh . . . the Lust of the eyes,” are all made out to be bad. Generally speaking, the bible has a negative and unhealthy view of desire when it is related to our carnality or sexual expression. It is disparaged and warned against. It is seen as an opposite to the attainment of spirituality. This obsession in scripture about our carnality is frankly excessive too. That is why the Catholic faith for centuries has believed sexual pleasure to be ‘morally wrong and dirty.’ That’s the problem of ‘men’ writing scripture and telling us it came from their god. Read the New Testament letters and I defy anyone to not get a sense of this paranoia? If there is a God, it is a distortion of what He or She would have intended. It is also why Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had the exact same attitude or conditioning about sensuality. They too were exposed to the prevailing Christian culture of their day, except hypocritically, both gave full vent to their lusts by legitimising polygamy with supposed divine approval.
Once again I ask a question: “Is a strong passionate desire for your spouse wrong?” By definition, a strong passionate desire must be Lust – it is what you experience when you really fancy your partner or spouse. That is why you were made male and female. (According to CS Lewis) We can play with words and get deeply into semantics, but the essence of what I am saying should be apparent. If at least once in any given week you have a very strong sexual desire, then you have lust. If you don’t like the word, then call it by another name, but please do not do what Kimball does – call your desire ‘love’ and somebody else’s ‘lust,’ – just because they have found it harder than you to control it, or because yours is felt inside a marriage and theirs is experienced outside a marriage. It is the same desire.
“But hang on a minute,” I hear you say… “this interview was not with a mature married couple who were worthy and respectful of each other’s deep love, but with two young people who did not know the meaning of love and who were committing fornication?” Yes, but how could they be expected to know the deep meaning of love – they had not been through life yet! They would in time know so much more. Only a harsh and ruthless person would disparage whatever level of love they were capable of feeling. Right now they knew sure enough that they were crazy about each other and wanted to be together… every contented middle aged couple started off like that – with beautiful dreams and the willingness to give everything to each other – including passionate physical desire (Lust).
We are all the same. Even Kimball in his appalling and bigoted remarks, once had such feelings for his young wife. The fact that he might have managed to control himself before he was married was lucky for him. How fortunate he had the strength (Or lack of passion) to keep himself (And her) intact. But the ‘passion’ he presumably had after he was married (Strong sexual desire – lust), did that become ok because he was married? Does marriage make lust ok? If this desire is really strong, we might be justified in defining it as Lust. Given that you are still attracted to your spouse or partner – if you say you have ‘desire’ in your marriage, but not lust, then why do you differentiate? Is it because you define lust as a force which always functions and proceeds selfishly, without regard to another? Ok, have it your own way – I do not like that form of desire either… it will indeed ruin a relationship before long and should be avoided and controlled. Trouble is Kimball’s accusation is that they were full of this type of selfish desire and nothing else! According to him, they had not a shred of decency. How well Jessop said that Christ attacked the moral aristocracy and protected bad men from good men. “Christianity,” he said, “is less an exposure of obvious badness than an indictment of obvious goodness”
The real truth is this: their desire at the moment of fornication was the same as Kimball’s desire on his wedding night. It is the same in all of us and Kimball makes an enormous and fundamental error to label theirs’ as evil and lustful. To say that the desire in a couple who have found it very difficult, or even impossible to control themselves, is only lust and is the very opposite to a couple who did control themselves, is palpable nonsense and cannot be taken seriously. Here we probably have the biggest church leader in Mormonism’s history, (At least in my lifetime) betraying the very Nature and capacity of a young couple in a blistering attack and further – in a denial of their deeper integrity. If there exists a sin in their fornication (And I do not believe there is) it did not give him the right to tar every EMOTION, every DESIRE and every MOTIVATION within this couple, with the same brush. His crass inability to sense, celebrate and encourage their innate goodness was totally wiped out in his vicious attack.
Why is that… why would he do that? It is because men like Kimball can only see immorality as utter defilement or repugnance. (In Mormonism it has always been defined as next to murder) He could only see depravity. His terrible description of all their motives indicates clearly he did not believe in them… could not believe one shred in their love… could not see, salvage or acknowledge even a small drop of their vast unknown reservoir of love. Ironically, I remind you of the scripture he quoted them, which seems so much more apt for him… “but unto them that are defiled and UNBELIEVING is nothing pure…” Kimball could not BELIEVE IN their love, because he was blinded by the glare of their defilement. It was nothing more than a projection of himself.
Ok, suppose this lust was tempered and controlled with common sense, compassion and sensitivity – does it equate nearer to Love… might it then be called love? If lust was always selfish and indifferent to a spouse, I would hate it too. It is absurd for Kimball to accuse this couple of that kind of lust, just because it was difficult for them to control that particular desire before marriage.
If I powerfully desire my wife or partner the day before we are due to be married – as opposed to the day after… is that lust and therefore bad? Kimball says it is. I can understand a churchman saying their actions were wrong, but he defines their motives and desires as EVIL. So then we must ALL be evil – all our sexual desires are bad? Strong or weak, sexual desire is a normal biological urge whether before or after a wedding. If it is to be classified as intrinsically evil and selfish before marriage, then it must be intrinsically evil after marriage. For Kimball to go on about their corrupt desires (Lust) is like saying the urge to eat, sleep or drink, is evil. It is not evil – it is normal and healthy.
For some to capitulate before their wedding has nothing to do with selfishness, but much more to do with weakness, or indeed, a determined free choice, which contains no weakness at all – and no guilt! Weakness does not make a person evil and it most certainly does not contaminate their entire outlook and character. That is what the church did to me – it screwed me up inside and made me feel depraved – unloved and unworthy of God. It still does it today to the unlucky souls it is supposed to care for. Unfortunately, Kimball makes himself perfectly clear in this booklet that biological urges and pleasures should not be the substantive reason or justifications for sex. He bangs the drum of procreation like the earlier polygamists of the church – an old worn out view from the ‘sex is dirty’ generation.
Fundamentally, what is the difference between a strong sexual desire the day before a couple is married and the day after? None. That fornication (Sex before marriage) may be inappropriate in a biblical sense, did not sully the motives, intentions and the feelings of that couple. They may, or may not have guilt, but their very real hearts and the love they share, may be no different to the couple who manage (According to Kimball) to have complete selflessness and no lust in their relationship before marriage. Indeed, their level of devotion may, or may not, be greater. Weakness or strength is not a barometer of goodness or depth of love.
Most couples in the church who experience such overwhelming desires, just about manage to keep a lid on it. They do not want to spoil the prospect of their wedding day being postponed because they have confessed some sin to their bishop, as they go to him for a temple recommend, without which you cannot enter the temple. If a couple do have some moral problems before their wedding day, does that mean they are ‘selfish’ or ‘depraved’? According to Kimball – yes it does. In fact, the language he uses to describe them and those who do such things and have such feelings, are a shuddering disgrace to the church he represented. His language and attitude alone is an affront to love. It is a paranoid madness. I can barely stomach the defiling words printed in his address! This man has been nowhere and learnt nothing. He was born in the wrong dispensation. I repeat, he would have been a perfect choice for a judge in the medieval courts of the Inquisition – as Jessop said: “goodness consistently leading to badness.”
I cannot, and would not argue that for members of the church to have sex before marriage is not to break a biblical commandment and church law. I would not dispute Present Kimball’s right to inform the couple they had violated hurch teaching and one of Gods commandments… they knew that anyway, but what Kimball did was to alienate or separate the qualities of this couple and portray them as individuals devoid of true love, because they were having a sexual relationship. What madness. He describes them as beings of negative and destructive energies, because of their lust. Love was impossible. In his mind, they could not possibly have possessed a deep loving regard for each other, or possessed self control in many other important areas, or selflessness, or appreciation, or tenderness, or respect, because they had too much passion!
They have to be demonised. It is always extremes – black or white – completely pure or utterly depraved – righteous or wicked. On page 14 of this booklet he contrasts their lust with the virtues of love and its many attributes – as if this young couple had never experienced such attributes and feelings. He forces this couple to view their lust as a poison, which has corroded and corrupted all their other virtues, or as if they never had them to start with! He accomplished in this interview and with the BYU audience, what he did in the Miracle of Forgiveness – he makes people feel totally and thoroughly bad about themselves.
I think back to the time when I went with my wife-to-be and had our interview with our Mormon Branch President and subsequently, our stake leaders, in order to obtain our worthiness ‘recommend’ to enter the temple to be sealed. We got through by the skin of our teeth. I could not say “yes” to the question: “Are you morally clean?” yet neither were we guilty of fornication.
I do not genuinely remember what I said, but I do remember the Branch President was new and seemed inept and embarrassed with our confessions. He said “it did not matter – we are all human.” We got our recommends. Whether I lied to my stake leaders I simple cannot remember – and that’s the truth. As painful and as awful as it would have been – I would have lied to anyone to protect my fiancée from the devastation of not being able to be sealed on the appointed day, because the whole world knew and were invited to the wedding! As I have already said, being barred from the temple sends a message to everyone ‘you are unworthy’ – ‘you have been naughty.’ Everyone knows. I think I could have hacked it, but the love and regard I felt for my fiancée made me so worried about her and the impact it would have upon her. She did not deserve it. Actually, neither of us did, but I could not see it at the time. The guilt you feel is loaded and magnified beyond all proportions. Indoctrination always makes you feel that way – makes you feel dirty.
People like Kimball tell you that this crime is ‘next to murder,’ as did elder Packer at April 2011 conference. They tell you it will eat you up all your life and leave a scar that will never heal. At the time of our temptations I remember thinking with a sense of terrible regret… ‘I just want us to be 6 months ahead of where we are now.’ Mixed with the guilt was tremendous aspirations, hopes, dreams and worthy intentions. Not only was I passionate, I was also selfless, devoted and prepared to sacrifice anything to make her happy. I had lust and genuine love. I KNOW what that couple felt like.
Would we live and feel this scar all ours days? Would our conduct haunt our future and bring many tears and bitter regrets? According to everything I have ever read or heard from conferences and from the pulpit, it would. What fools they were! Now I look back with the advantage of time and experience…. Where did these people come from who scared the pants off us and drugged us with obsessions of self loathing and near despair? What idiots they all were! How stupid I was to trust them with my life and soul.
Love is so powerful and life is so wonderful, you don’t stay in one place – or any place – you move forward and upward without looking back and enjoy the entire experience ahead of you. Being with my wife was so astounding and so exciting that this past episode seemed like mere teething. If you want scars and bitter regrets you will have them. If you don’t, they just fly away! Those men, who spoke for God at the Salt Lake conferences and at our local chapels, regularly warned us of the regret, the scars, and the burden of guilt we would drag down the years of our lives. They were totally false – the fear-mongers and gloom-merchants, and we were dim-witted enough to believe them!
You don’t have to believe and trust everything they tell you. Your own heart and soul will be a better guidance system for you than the rubbish you will hear at Church. Conscience is not intrinsically pure; it can be twisted and distorted into guilt by anyone at any time. Looking into your heart is not looking for what is evil and shunning it, it is looking for goodness and love – looking for what feels lovely and choosing it. The fact that it might offend a church leader, a relative or even scripture, is irrelevant.
In the next chapter I explain what has shocked and sickened me about the conduct of Joseph Smith in relation to women, in his pursuit of the doctrine of Plural Marriage.
CHAPTER NINE
Divine Adultery
Forbidden to acknowledge their true feelings, they smothered their own agony and wrenching pain, just as I’d so emphatically been instructed to do. I’ve personally known hundreds of plural wives. Their smiles are a façade required of them by their husbands and spiritual leaders. It’s up to the women to make plural marriage appear to be the superior mode of marriage. It’s demanded that the wives present themselves as united with one another, with their husbands, and with their religious communities. The success of plural marriage depends entirely on their willingness to play the sacrificial role and play it well.
‘Shattered Dreams’ Irene Spencer.
False information
From the beginning of my Church membership and throughout the years, I was told the following:
- Only 2% or 3% of members practised Polygamy.
- It was strictly controlled
- There was a shortage of men
- God commanded it in the Old Testament
- It was introduced to help support single or spinster women
- Joseph Smith did not want to practise it but was forced to by an angel.
- It was mainly dynastic – an eternal sealing only, with no sexual union.
- It was sometimes used by God to ‘raise up seed’ (increase the number of children)
- A man could only take a new wife if the last one agreed
Some of the above excuses are still taught whenever a member chooses to search for answers, but generally, the church evades the subject altogether. During the height of polygamy in the Utah valley, roughly 25% actually practised it. 50% of Mormons either practised it, or had a relation or family member who did. It was not strictly controlled, though it was true that the prophet had the power to split a relationship up and (For instance) place a wife with another husband (And it was done). There was no shortage of men – if anything, there were slightly more men. Just because it was practised in the Old Testament does not mean that ancient patriarchs were commanded to – it does mean however, that LDS leaders today have followed the age-old traditions of the misogynistic use of women. There was not a shortage of men and monogamy is a far better system for the support of both sexes.
Smith claimed that an angel with a drawn sword said he would be destroyed unless women obeyed him. That’s pretty much the same as an immature and self-centred person forcing his wishes upon another with the threat of suicide, or a self inflicted wound. It’s a sign of abusive self pity – an obsessive self love, which endeavours to hold others hostage unless their demands are met. It is a childish selfish indulgence, which most adolescence usually grow out of, except Smith of course. It is a rather ridiculous ploy, which un-indoctrinated people would see straight through. As to dynastic or purely ‘eternal’ marriages only, the real evidence is quite clear (Except to apologists), that a sexual union was the purpose and point of the law – as found in Section 132 of the D&C and also shown by statements and confessions of some of the women involved. Ironically, Smith flouted and ignored most of the rules and laws established by his God in the running of this awful regime. Why would he marry at least 11 women who were already happily married to other men? You can ‘raise up’ more children by each man having one wife, than by one man having a few, so that reason is nonsense. And if any of those 11 wives ’happened’ to be unhappy in their marriages – what business was that of Smith? And why should they be ‘sealed’ to Smith for eternity – it would mean their real husband could not be, or would be in competition for her? The whole polyandry thing is illogical and meaningless – unless of course you accept the obvious – Smith fancied other men’s wives. Full stop. Lastly, Smith failed to ask permission of his wife, in order to take other wives and so did many other polygamous men… it was just easier that way, thus breaking God’s rule. There was also – in Smith’s box of tricks – something called: ‘The Law of Sarah.’ This, in effect, meant that if a wife refused, you could disregard her and go ahead anyway. It begs the question: why ask in the first place, or have a law about it?
The above answers are very brief and could be greatly enlarged on and supported with evidence, but are only intended to outline the ‘spin’ associated with a defence of plural marriage.
Contraception and Women
When we were first married my wife and I were living in rented accommodation. We had an unusual arrangement with the landlord. His arthritic mother lived in the downstairs part of this large house and we lived in the upstairs. Part of the arrangement was that my wife would cook her one meal a day. The whole set-up was not ideal for starting a family and we were saving for a deposit for a house of our own. The church taught that couples should not postpone the birth of children and yet I felt it unwise to start a family until we had found our own place. Once again, I felt the Church views on contraception were akin to the manner in which the Catholic Church meddled in peoples’ private lives. Their disapproval of ‘artificial’ means of contraception was completely irrational to me.
I read the First Presidency statement from my church on contraception until I was blue in the face. You have to understand the principle here. Mormonism teaches that we have all existed in a pre-earth life as spirits and that coming to earth to gain a body is essential. When couples place materialism in front of having children – when they postpone the birth of children, they seem to be working against God’s plan to allow his spirit children to come to earth to gain a body as quickly as possible. So anything that prohibits the birth of children in a healthy woman is seen as unwise, selfish or evil. This statement said that any ‘artificial’ means of curtailing the birth of children was wrong. Presumably therefore, any ‘natural’ means of stopping the birth of children would be more in keeping with the laws of nature, and more acceptable with God? I never saw the difference – both natural and artificial are stopping the conception of a child? Why was it suddenly ok to do it naturally? I used to think about President Kimball (The prophet at the time) and his battle against lung cancer and the major surgery he underwent in order to save his life…. I do hope no ‘artificial’ means were employed to keep his arteries open? The first Presidency statement was their attempt to discourage the ‘artificial’ use of contraception. To this day, I have never really understood their meddling in private and intimate affairs. As you will read below, the grand and amazing doctrine of our pre-existence and the urgent need for us all to gain a body, spawned a dark misogynistic attitude and much misery. It still goes on.
Back in the early days of Mormonism, polygamy was practised and women were told by the prophets that it was their responsibility to have as many children as possible, so that their spirits could get down to earth. Their infamous scripture on plural marriage found in Doctrine and Covenants, section 132, says that the main function of plural marriage was for God to “raise up seed (children) unto me.”
And in D&C 132: 63 “ . . . . for they (women) are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment.”
Brigham Young himself said: “This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles (bodies) might be brought forth” (Discourses of Brigham Young, page 197)
Notice all these quotes promote procreation. From what is taught, Joseph Smith would have been breaking God’s revelatory commandment, if he had refused to have a sexual relationship with his sealed wives. This then is one major reason why polygamy was introduced. I am not sure therefore, why the official Church would like us to believe Joseph Smith did not have sex with his sealed wives, because the God of Mormonism said it was his ‘responsibility’ to do so! They would like us to believe that Joseph’s sealings (Another name for marriage) to other women (40 or more), were purely for the next life only and did not involve sexual union. Mormonism believes that a marriage in heaven (A sealing) has to be performed on earth in a temple, so that it is ratified or in force after death. Part of the cover-up by the early prophets of the Mormon Church was to spin the lie that men were in short supply and so when women were sealed to Joseph, they were somehow being ‘taken care of,’ and that’s all.
Joseph Smith managed, by virtue of his charismatic, authoritative and persuasive nature, to manipulate and convince young women to be sealed to him. In effect he said: “Look at me, I am a prophet… if you play your cards right and marry me, I promise to get you and your entire family into heaven.” It is the equivalent of the Catholic Church once ‘selling indulgences.’
On theInternet, the following link:http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Roman_Catholic_Church_in_1500.htm
Explains a Catholic History Learning site as follows:
“Its power had been built up over the centuries and relied on ignorance and superstition on the part of the populace. It had been indoctrinated into the people that they could only get to heaven via the church.
This gave a priest enormous power at a local level on behalf of the Catholic Church. The local population viewed the local priest as their ‘passport’ to heaven as they knew no different and had been taught this from birth by the local priest. Such a message was constantly being repeated to ignorant people in church service after church service. Hence keeping your priest happy was seen as a prerequisite to going to heaven.”
I’m sure all LDS would agree, that having sins forgiven, or having some eternal benefits purchased with money, to be horrendously corrupt and far from valid, and yet they believe Smith doing such similar things to be totally justified. I find it a shocking blasphemy.
Smith sold eternal life for sex – in essence and in reality that is what Joseph did in order to have access to conjugal rights. Hard to believe, but that is what he did… and I thought he could do no wrong? Think about the sheer lust and arrogance of going round and promising entire families eternal life on conditions of getting his leg over! It is the argument of the church that he did not make sexual approaches to these women (A number of whom were already married) This illogical, in view of God’s command to ‘procreate’ as a divine reason for introducing plural marriage in the first place.
One child a year, without stopping and without contraception was their slavery. So the idea of men having as many wives as possible and of fathering as many children as possible was in keeping with getting those spirit children from the pre-existence into this world, thereby, pleasing and obeying God. There is no requirement in section 132 for men’s ability to provide for extra wives, or their general church status (Leader or not) It was simply a commandment to the entire Church – obey or be damned was the command.
Indeed, it was taught by the leaders that the more wives and children you had, the greater your glory in the celestial kingdom. It’s beginning to get darker… women were taught from birth the importance of unselfishly living the ‘Principle’ (As polygamy came to be known) and honouring the priesthood of their husbands by bearing as many children as they could physically conceive and to accept with ‘obedience’ and ‘cheerfulness,’ the right of their husband to seek ever younger wives, as they, themselves, grew ever older. Trouble was, every time a man married another woman, his earning power was once again divided to support more and more wives and children, so their poverty increased dramatically. The poverty of many polygamous families was appalling. But apparently they were meant to suffer in silent agonising obedience. You see, all their hardships were a test (They were repeatedly told) of their faith. If they would endure, God would reward them in the celestial kingdom after this life. Their regime was harsh, neglectful, and lonely. Women were told that sex was purely for procreation. One can only imagine the nastiness of the ‘Mormon god’ who would want all this from women!
Of course, in July 2021, under the inspirational leadership of President Nelson – in his efforts to popularize the church, or to re-create, or re-invent the church, as less Mormon and more ‘Mainstream,’ he audaciously and arrogantly dumped the entire concept of ‘Becoming God’s,’ together with the previously entrenched doctrine of having our own eternal worlds, or planets, in which to populate with endless seed (Spirit children) as becomes Kings and Queens of Celestial worthiness (Glorified Human beings no less).
Think of it, many thousands of women – particularly back in the pioneer days; forced and obliged to follow the law of polygamy; living broken and lonely lives – having only one hope and one dream – that one day, beyond this world, they would be a Queen to their husband and have eternal and endless seed…. Then, Nelson comes along and says in affect to all those deceased souls who struggled with the neglect, sadness and poverty of polygamy, but also to millions since, who have consecrated their lives upon a dream of everlasting families and endless creations of eternal Godhood (As promised in the temple and taught by previous prophets for as long as I can remember) That the whole damn thing never was taught and never was a doctrine! My God – you could not make it up!
(Advice to Mormon sisters: if the entire concept of giving birth to spirit children who need to come down to an Earth to live, is false – why bother in feeling obliged or pressured into motherhood – get a career – if you’d rather!)
After I had described the history and abuse of women under Mormon polygamy to my present non LDS partner, she commented: “You can tell it is the men who are in charge!” Unknowingly, she echoed the blunt description of a woman named Rowenna, whose sorrowful story as a victim of polygamy can be found in the book: “God’s Brothel” by Andrea Moore-Emmett. She said:
“You can tell a man dreamed all this up. Polygamy is one big eternal f**k.” She also made this sad comment: “Everything felt wrong, and yet I was constantly being told it was right and godly. So I was overwhelmed with a feeling of guilt. After a while, living a lie gets on your nerves”
The above gives some insights into why the church advances the importance of childbirth before other considerations and the scriptural principle of Mormon polygamy and why I shall come back to this disgusting doctrine with much more detail in a moment.
Once, some wise General Authority advised church leaders: “Brethren, don’t go into the bedroom.” Meaning: don’t lecture or poke your nose into couples intimate lives, but they do. I have thought for years, how invasive and controlling it is that couples are forced to wear Temple Garments day and night! Forced, in that they have been commanded to do so and would feel guilty beyond belief should they resolve not to. Since leaving the Church I no longer wear garments and apart from the very obvious relief of not needing to wear them in hot weather, the greatest contrast came as I experienced the complete opposite with a partner who always slept naked. I never before realised how beautiful and how wonderful such a simple freedom was… a freedom the church denies a young wedded couple from their wedding day onwards! It still feels wonderful and it’s equally staggering to me, that I lived so long under a denial of this simple pleasure and rarely wished it were different, because again – what you do under indoctrination feels quite ‘normal.’ The same could be said of the Muslim Burqa or Hijab. A women may free ‘free’ in her choice to wear it, but that so-called freedom is an obligatory choice through her religious culture, which only acknowledges those within that culture, who conform to regulations. Like it or not, she will be penalised if she fails to conform. Thus the person is possibly happy to suffer it; to endure inconvenience, discomfort, heat and restrictions, but would find a freedom and a wider experience if she could just cast it off. It all boils down to people imposing upon others to make choices that bow to misogynistic and abusive attitudes within men. I can imagine an LDS woman who thinks it is such a shame Muslim women are so restricted, yet she herself lives under the exact same interference. Both Mormon and Muslim women, I’m sure, could relate how ‘blessed’ they felt to have such a privilege but it is only the sickness of religious conditioning speaking in both cases. I am not disputing the possibility that if all rules and expectations were dropped, many would still continue the free choice to dress the same way. That’s fine. My gripe is with an attitude or religion that says ‘you have to cover up, or else.’
This feeling about the Mormon ‘garment’ is so insidious and ingrained that even ex Mormons struggle to let go of the fear, so successfully inculcated through the scare-mongering absurdity of the temple endowment. They cannot easily switch off the fear and just throw them away, or use them as rags to clean the car. I hung on to mine some months after my excommunication. To finally get shot is like victory over an addiction, because that is what it is – a religion that has become an addiction. The guilt is only our conditioning. As I have previously said, our conscience can be ‘seared’ (According to the bible) “with as with a hot iron.” Mormonism conditions, or distorts your conscience, but it is possible to gradually wakeup and come to your senses.
Yes, Mormonism filtrates right down into every corner of your private life and you will never be allowed to forget who controls how you act, even in the bedroom at the most intimate moments of all. I have thought about young brides being told by matrons within temples on the eve of their wedding night, that they must never remove their garments night or day, except to see a doctor, swim or have a bath. Normal, decent people outside the church on hearing such things as this, are able to give us a clue as to how Mormons ‘should respond,’ but – for their brainwashed state, are unable to! And what is the spontaneous reaction of normal decent people to the controlling and invasive nature of Mormonism as I have just described? It is anger and disbelief. Be careful not to dismiss it.
As time has passed and I have researched what is beneath the surface of Joseph Smith’s character, I have realised once again, the extent of my own, life-long naiveté. It all makes sense now. At the time of the Nauvoo temple, before polygamy got going, letters to Emma (Joseph Smith’s first wife) indicated clearly that he did not believe in eternal marriage. He thought (Like we all do) that marriage ended at death. Marriages performed at the previous Kirtland temple were even open to the public to watch and be witnesses. It was only when Joseph knew that ‘secrecy’ was required to hide, not only his polygamous, but his polyandrous activities (Being sealed to other men’s wives in order to have sexual access) that he introduced ‘closed’ marriages and a new concept of ‘Sealings.’ The endowment (Copied from Masonry) with all the secret oaths of symbolic death (Cutting of the throat and disembowelment) as well as the wearing of garments, which helped formulise exclusiveness, were his means of creating a controlling theology, respectfully veneered with godly principle in order to maintain discipline and conformity by all members.
The expression or term ‘marriage’ was changed to ‘sealing,’ to considerably soften the entire concept, which enabled Joseph to better prevent accusations of adultery. His various ‘sealings’ to young girls and even other men’s wives (Usually while they were sent away on missions by him) could now be construed to merely imply he was gracing them with his futuristic life after death alliance – not to be confused with anything unlawful or any ungodly intention here and now. It was a very crucial distinction. Nevertheless, as their writings reveal, these women were to discover it meant far more to them than a post operative guarantee of salvation with no strings attached. For Joseph, it was a manipulation to get into their pants.
The term ‘Celestial,’ as in ‘Celestial Marriage,’ or ‘Celestial Kingdom,’ always had reference to plurality of wives, or polygamy – as described in section 132. The invention of the ‘Celestial Room,’ – the room of splendour in the temple, which you walk into as you finish your endowment session, was to symbolize the eventual Celestial Kingdom of Heaven. You cannot get there (Heaven) without being ‘sealed’ in the temple, and although these days the ‘practise’ of plurality of wives outside of the temple is banned, it is still within Mormonism, and recognised as the LAW of the celestial Kingdom in Heaven. Sorry ladies, like it or not – cry or not, it operates up there! So keep getting used to the idea and please put on a cheerful face! Ladies, if you suppose that polygamy will not be practised in heaven, or if you further think that having been sealed to one husband, (As my wife was to me) you will never become a ‘second’ wife,’ then read this:
“Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing [blessing] promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfilment of the celestial law of marriage in part and is good so far as it goes and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.”
Joseph Fielding Smith from the Journal of Discourses, Volume 20 Page 29: [Emphasis Added]
“Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,’ he will perhaps be saved in the Celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all… it [the talent of one wife] will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever”
Brigham Young, Deseret News, September 17, 1873.
When you have been under the culture of Mormonism for as long as I have, and you suddenly become aware of how damaging Joseph Smith’s delusionary idea of plural marriage or polygamy really was – you start to feel sick inside for the poor souls who are still, to this day, caught up in its legacy.
In an article entitled: ‘Inside Polygamy’ from the United States, it says:
“. . . . although 30,000 to 50,000 people are involved in polygamy (Rooted in 19th-century Mormonism) the actual number may be much higher. One of the women interviewed said she knew of at least 20 polygamous families in which sexual abuse had occurred. Here in British Columbia, the Attorney General, like his counterparts in Utah, Arizona, and other U.S. states, has been struggling to find ways to deal with the polygamous community in Bountiful. He ordered the RCMP to investigate various allegations of sexual abuse of young women. The investigation is ongoing”
Joseph and Polygamy
Joseph Smith, the first self proclaimed prophet of the Mormon Church, took at least 40 wives’ in total (Though the number does seem to keep rising) 3 of which were 17, two were 16 and 2 were 14 years of age. Of all these women, 11 were already married to other men at the time he also married them. Many of these existing husbands were conveniently sent on missions to enable him to do so. Many writings exist which attest to the fact that Joseph had sex with his wives – including the 14 year olds. 13 of his wives swore court affidavits that they had had sexual relations with Joseph. Mormon scripture clearly states that the essential purpose of polygamy was to ‘produce’ more children (Thus bringing those spirits down into mortality) and this could be accomplished more speedily than would be possible under monogamous marriages. When asked, twelve of Joseph’s wives admitted a sexual relation with him. One of Joseph’s own sons denied his father had sexual relations with his other wives, but changed his opinion and statement, once he had taken the trouble to question them.
More modern cult leaders like Jim Jones and David Koresh have claimed similar ‘revelations’ like Section 132 and have also messed about with young teenage girls. Joseph is not alone.
Those who were unsure or reluctant to marry Joseph were clearly informed they would be damned if they did not obey. I was both depressed and appalled after reading the accounts of women who tried to live the law of polygamy and sacrificed for years under this principle of exaltation, with the profound belief that God had commanded them to surrender to it. Their inner emotions ripped apart by neglect, loneliness and abject poverty – all a consequence of only one husband, trying to provide for an ever increasing number of wives and many children, with a wage that would not go around. Not only would some of these elusive husbands have to take work wherever they could, which sometimes meant weeks, even months, away from home, but once they returned, each wife would have to wait her turn for him to sleep with her, and as the ‘Principle’ taught by Brigham Young and other leading brethren forbade sexual relations except for the purposes of procreation. Abstinence was therefore continuous after pregnancy and natural sexual expression denied.
In May 1843 when Joseph Smith was 37 years old, he proposed (If you can call it that) to Helen Mar Kimball, who was only 14. As an incentive, he promised that she, her family and all her relatives, would be saved and exalted if she agreed to marry him. Interestingly, most Mormons know this story but do not question Joseph’s motives because of their ‘absolute’ conditioned trust in his credentials as a true prophet of God…. I was the same. The parents of Helen were also totally convinced Joseph was a prophet and ‘gave up’ their daughter to him. She, trusting the judgement of her dear parents, finally agreed to be married (Sealed) to Joseph, but did not bargain for a sexual relationship afterwards. Helen thought her marriage to Joseph Smith was only dynastic (Reserved for heaven – not to be consummated on earth) but to her surprise, it was more. Helen confided to a close friend in Nauvoo: “I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it.”
(Mormon Polygamy: A History by LDS member Richard S. Van Wagoner, p. 53.)
Let’s be generous for a moment and take the view that Joseph was thoroughly motivated by Godly revelation and correct principles and behaved himself impeccably about polygamy, as well as Brigham Young and subsequent prophets. Then I would ask: What has section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants brought to the Church and to the world? The doctrine of being sealed forever to an eternal companion, feels nice to all of us, but as I have tried to point out in my chapter ‘In the Mouth of 2 or 3 Delusions,’ there is no biblical basis for the doctrine of marriage in heaven. So what has polygamy or plural marriage given to the world? Having read many case studies from polygamous women, I have become revolted by it. As introduced and practised by the prophets of this dispensation, it has increased the following:
(1) Child abuse – very young girls being given to older men (By arrangement).
(2) Incest.
(3) Poverty… I mean real sickening, grinding poverty.
(4) The degradation of women. They were expected to become breeding machines – sex was considered by our enlightened prophets (Who had God’s ear) as evil and yet essential for procreation to bring down all those spirits… thus women were told to bear their afflictions and thus became slaves to sex and child bearing, for the sake of an everlasting kingdom and their husband’s glory. To never show to the world anything other than a valiant smile. ‘Suffering’ was taught at an early age to be part of their lot, in order to inherit glory.
(5) The degradation of young men also, because although they became the perpetrators, they were also the victims of what polygamy did to a person – harsh insensitivity.
(6) The right to a proper education – young girls held under the life style of polygamy had poor educational opportunities and were generally married off after they were twelve years of age. They were deliberately taken out of school and entered drudgery.
(7) Human rights to the freedoms we all take for granted were denied youngsters. That is because all polygamous leaders set up their own communities, well away from society (Wherever possible) so that this segregation and ignorance of the outside world – together with indoctrination, held them within. All their support systems: their friends, relatives and respected leaders, were within the culture. Guilt is often their biggest reason to remain, or go back. Plural marriage is still believed-in by Mormonism is an absolute disgrace and an ulcerous stain that will not heal or wash away.
Suffering Women
One polygamous wife: Irene Spencer, in her book ‘Shattered Dreams,’ remembered going without sexual relations for one year, when she was one of her husband’s three wives. He married up to 8 more before he died. He would sleep alternately with each wife when at home. When it was their turn, he would do no more than peck them on the cheek and roll over – unless of course she was not yet pregnant. In which case, he could further his kingdom in eternity by having sex, until she conceived again. Then, because contraception was strictly out of bounds and was considered a crime against God and because sex – as I have said – was purely for reproduction; she would not be made loved to again until the child was born. The author repeatedly cried herself to sleep over many years, as did her sisters in faith, who were married to the same man. He of course was devout, disciplined and totally dedicated to Mormon gospel principles, or the doctrines as taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and yet ironically, totally insensitive to the basic needs, or even finer feelings of women. That’s what polygamy does to its perpetrators. The men were taught by the philosophy and attitude of men like Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, who saw women as chattels – merely a means to an end. Yes, the self-same Kimball who cynically said: “I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow.”
The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.
As I read the authors account of the manner and means whereby he found and secured extra wives, I could have willingly killed him myself and wondered why she had not! Her sufferings were immense and the cruel and unforgivable indignities she underwent to sustain his quest for a ‘greater kingdom’ or the mandatory requirement of plural marriage to achieve exaltation, made my blood boil. All the actual ‘principles’ of plural marriage, as taught by the Mormon Church in Doctrine and Covenants, section 132, though not allowed to be practised today, are still believed in and practised inside the Mormon temples. Frankly, that is just as bad.
Irene Spencer tells us that the manner of his courtship and romance was zero; it would be rushed and clandestine. The permission from the other wives, together with their attendance was a suppressed emotional nightmare. The only two people excited would be the bride, who was under the illusion she would be favoured and cherished and the groom, who could once again increase the size of his eternal kingdom and have a God given, cast iron legitimate excuse to commit adultery.
So inevitably, the ceremony was rather rushed and secret – devoid of warmth and meaning and utterly joyless. The other wives would smile politely through clenched teeth and broken hearts. He believed what he had been told all through his life, which had come down from Joseph Smith the prophet – that God required it as a principle of exaltation and eternal advancement, if they were to establish their own kingdom in the hereafter. In his enthusiasm and tenacity to obey the doctrines and live the ‘Principle,’ hearts were smashed to pieces and these women’s emotions dried up and their long lost dreams, just died. Aspirations of love and fulfilment were replaced by fear and a grim determination to please the Mormon god -–clinging to the promise of an eternal reward. I conclude, that any polygamous husband, who practices this principle in the same manner as Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets, has fragrantly furthered the abuse of women and children. Furthermore, the legacy continues today in the abuse of women and children in the Fundamentalist LDS Church (FLDS).
One female victim accurately described her thoughts on polygamy with just two words: ‘Soul Murder.’ This is a very appropriate description. The church will tell you they were well cared for and generally happy, etc., etc. Some, like Brigham may have had the means to finance their care, (Which he might have done much better if he had not been so mean) but the majority lived in virtual squalor, due to one husband not having the resources to provide for all adequately. Marriages to new wives were usually arranged, set up and performed with only a few hours notice and in secret. Don’t even bother to ask about romance or proper expressions of love before the wedding! Existing wives, who gave their consent, did so with bitter suppressed heart ache. They were obliged by priesthood persuasion and Gods law, to give their consent. I have already told you, I have read cases that have horrified me. It was not unusual (Though not common) for some women to go insane. The lack of ‘exclusive’ love, romance, the absence of spouse, fear of priesthood male authorities, neglect, virtual slavery to child bearing, violence and sexual abuse from males… these come from misogynistic tendencies (Both a cause and consequence of polygamy) They all brought increasing ‘loss of identity,’ hence the phrase, “Soul Murder.” I now know too much to take any comfort from the sanitized, chocolate coated church version of how plural marriage was supposed to have worked. The pretended happiness and contentment of LDS women, was pretence – a ‘sacred responsibility.’ As you will read further down, Brigham Young declared that when taking another wife: “It is the duty of the woman (Existing wives) to submit cheerfully” Please remember, this is a cult and members were caught up in total commitment to the proclamations of these prophets – as if from God Himself. Being an example to the world in suffering, self denial, endurance and obedience, was their daily bread. As Irene Spencer said, the real truth of their misery was Beneath the Surface of their lives. She was in it – she saw it.
Many of these men may have been sincere in following the instructions and tenets of plural marriage – but so sincerely wrong. I imagine many men may have been more sensitive and considerate to their wives than the author’s husband I have quoted, but he, like all the other brethren of whatever character disposition, were also – in their own way, victims of a cult (The original Mormon Church and its splinter groups) which practised polygamy. In its own level of fanaticism, not only the victim, but also the perpetrator became dehumanised and degraded. They believed that God had commanded this principle, so that no matter what, it must be obeyed – despite any reluctance on their part or the deprivation of their wives. To repeat myself – it forced men to try and provide in an ever futile manner, for the basic needs of their families. The living conditions, compared to gentiles or monogamous relationships around them, were utterly appalling.
Brigham Young knew very well the ‘fruit’ of polygamy. Using his own wives as an example, he took it upon himself, on one occasion, to rebuke the women of the Church for their dissatisfaction. (Please remember what I have previously said about square pegs in round holes and the Church is always right and you are always wrong) He said:
“My wives have got to do one of two things, either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world and live the religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me”
(Journal of Discourses 4:55)
On another occasion he said:
“You sisters may say that plural marriage is very hard for you to bear. It is no such thing. If it is the duty of a husband to take a wife, it is the duty of the woman to submit cheerfully” (Journal of Discourses 17:159)
What an awful misogynist he was – no wonder Emma Smith fell-out with him after Joseph’s death and refused to go to the Salt Lake Valley.
Eliza Ann Young, the 19th wife of Brigham Young said: “Never can polygamy cease to be anything but a series of cruel stings”
Another of his wives; Zina D. Jacobs Smith Young, said: “A successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy”
Such unbelievable statements as these, tell you volumes that the official Mormon church would never have you know. They sum up the crazed madness of this foul and despicable dogma and the deception of Joseph Smith. Can anyone seriously believe it came from God?
Reading the account of Irene Spencer’s life and the sheer neglect, loneliness and poverty both she and all other wives suffered, makes ‘ordinary adultery’ of a husband in a monogamous marriage, seem like a blessed virtue! At least in adultery, the pain is a one-off blow! In polygamy the pain never ends! The more wives and children you could get, the greater your kingdom and the greater the broken loneliness; suppressed desperation and despair of the women! Their role was to administer to their husbands lust and to sustain them in the quest for eventual glory – to become a breeding machine. I order to share a kingdom with him, they would have to remain in hell until death, whilst putting on a facade of contentment and a resolute ‘sweet’ spirit.
Some polygamist women gave up this practice after years of suffering and left their husbands. Most put on a brave face to endure it and suffer it, because they had been taught to. Guilt and deception had a stronger resistance than their courage to leave. Also, it was terrifying to walk away, because they would be totally alone and frightened. They would have battled with physical and emotional suffering, which they were taught to expect and endure, and yet their instinct for survival, relief and life, would also assail them. The ebb and flow of their mental and emotional conflict, involving guilt, sadness, anger and doubt, would have brought confusion and uncertainty about their desire and need to get away. All their social supports – their entire life was wrapped up in the church and the polygamous families around them. They had little or no knowledge of the gentile world beyond them and they would be leaving some, if not all, their children behind.
Poor Joseph Had To Do It!
What a farce. Apparently we are told by apologists, that Joseph Smith didn’t want to obey God in the matter of plural marriage when he first received the revelation, and only did what he was told to do. Indeed, he often spoke of an angel with a drawn sword warning him to obey, or else! Interestingly, many deranged souls in institutions will tell you much the same tale – “god told me to kill him,” or, “god told me to stab her!” If the revelation was truly from God, then I suppose God is the one we should blame…. a god (The small ‘g’ depicts a god I find loathsome) which delights in making women a mere commodity – chattels and slaves to child bearing, to poverty, to neglect, to emotional, mental and sexual abuse – to depression and in some cases insanity. A god who delights in a woman’s deprivation…. in her lack of exclusive affection for love and intimacy… a god who gets a kick out of witnessing the slow corrosion of a woman’s identity and dignity, in short: a god who loves to see women unhappy in a system which promotes and panders exclusively to men and their so called ‘holy’ Priesthood. Yes, a god who wants to see the soul murder of women.
Clearly, no loving God would ever communicate such a degrading and repulsive system of marriage as found in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Unsuspecting and naive members of the church wonder why ex Mormons get so angry and so cross at hearing and finally understanding what these pioneer leaders were really like, well now you know.
One is left with no other alternative than to place the responsibility at the feet of Joseph Smith. Somewhere in the secrets of his own soul, he wanted something he could not get any other way, accept through a fear based religion, where control and manipulation were paramount. What kind of madness and deception is going on, when a so-called prophet tells his own wife she will be “destroyed” by god, unless she obeys?
The charismatic imaginations of this false prophet, Joseph Smith, was an authority gone mad… a self deluding, self serving mechanism to ‘sanctify’ and ‘cloak’ the lust for adultery with Godly approval and religious obligation. Even if I was to be generous with Joseph and believe it all started so innocently. He would have ‘looked’ and would have ‘wanted’ and would have made that easy connection between ‘beauty’ and ‘divinity.’ Seeing, wanting and believing…. became God’s will. Not because God willed it at all, but because Joseph took those first perilous steps in ‘imagining,’ ‘connecting’ and then ‘believing’ it was meant to be.
The reason I know this could happen, or be possible, is because it happened to me. CS Lewis quite rightly said that all earthly ‘longings’ (Including love) are really innate longings for God. Quite probably, a woman (To a man) is the most perfect manifestation of God on earth (Almost absolute beauty) and in the absence of God, men unconsciously seek such a substitute to worship. (See John Eldredge’s book: ‘Wild at Heart,’ page 116)
The beauty of a woman can appear so gorgeously desirable, that an unfettered imagination will appoint her as ordained for personal association. The connection in the head can feel divine and very spiritual. The voices in Joseph’s head, telling him that the women he longed for were made for him, was the biggest blunder of his life… and almost certainly cost him his life, because the persecution, which ended in his murder, was primarily due to his insistence on polygamous affairs.
To quote from an article in the Mormon Curtain:
“More evidence of Joseph Smith’s sexual predation is the heart-wrenching story of Lucy Walker. The Walker family arrived in Nauvoo in the spring of 1841 and by January 1842, Lucy’s mother had contracted and died of malaria, leaving her husband, John, with 10 children to care for. In the family’s time of grief and need for each other, what did JS do? He broke up the Walker family by sending John away on a two-year mission to the eastern states and Lucy’s siblings to live in different members’ homes. He saved 15-year-old Lucy for his house and subsequently informed the lonely and vulnerable girl, “I have a message for you, I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.” Lucy recorded, “My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me.” To coax Lucy to agree to become his plural wife, he told her that doing so “would prove an everlasting blessing to my father’s house.” (Ibid.) What Mormon girl grieving for her deceased mother, longing for her father, and from her siblings would deny “an everlasting blessing” to her father and his family?
The psychological trauma that JS put Lucy through was made clear by her words of prayer: “Oh that the grave would kindly receive me that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear mother…Why – Why Should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father I am only a child in years and experience. No mother to council; no father near to tell me what to do, in this trying hour. Oh let this bitter cup pass. And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul.” (Ibid.)
JS told Lucy that the marriage would have to be secret. He then intensified the psychological pressure by giving her an ultimatum: “It is a command of God to you. I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you.” (Ibid.)
Lonely and wounded psychologically and emotionally, Lucy agreed to marry JS. She recalled, “Emma Smith was not present and she did not consent to the marriage; she did not know anything about it at all.” (Ibid.) Lucy did not know that JS was violating a direct commandment from the Lord – “and the first give her consent” – by secretly marrying her.
Of all the females in Nauvoo that JS could have approached about becoming his latest plural wife, he targeted, isolated and manipulated an inexperienced and highly vulnerable teenage girl, young enough to be his daughter. What kind of Church leader would treat girls and women in such a manipulative and abusive manner? One drunk on his own ecclesiastical power”
If Joseph Smith was alive today and employing such tactics, we would consider him a predatory paedophile! He started what Warren Jeffs – leader of the breakaway Mormon Fundamentalist Church (FLDS) did and is currently serving a life sentence in prison.
I have read accounts of so-called ‘Revelation’ received by leaders in such polygamous factions, which have broken off from the main stream Latter Day Saint (Mormon) church and the manner in which it affected the body and the mind of their leaders as these ‘Revelations’ were being received. Joseph Smith has not been the only one who has claimed ‘authentic’ communications from a God.
On the 25th February 2011 an edition of ‘The Vancouver Sun’ newspaper, ran an article about Warren Jeffs – the accused fundamentalist paedophile, which was headed:
“12-year-old girls delivered for marriage – parents transported two girls from Bountiful, smuggled them into U.S. to wed Warren Jeffs”
The sickening thing is, when you read the religiously pious phraseology of Warren Jeffs’s language, as he testifies to the parents that he had prayerfully besought the Lord and gives instructions on how the girls are to be secretly delivered to him, one thinks of the equally unforgiveable and degrading manner in which Joseph Smith seduced very young women with his pious tones of “God’s will,” and how these hapless parents also trusted him to be a prophet!
The very kindest thing I could say is that Joseph was wholly deluded. In the case of polygamy, a perception of his ‘groin’ and ‘eye’ became a deception of ‘spirit’ – Joseph’s spirit. Many of us have also felt that spirit, when our eyes have strayed, but we were not so deluded into believing our lust was anything other than just that. Most of us have done no more than stare – Joseph made the mistake of believing God had arranged it – ordained it. He was charismatic and influential and once he had got it into his head that it was God’s will, it would be hard for his followers to reject his proclamations about polygamy. Adultery will bring pain to a handful of people, but thanks to Joseph Smith, catastrophic misery has occurred to many thousands of women and children – not to mention the dehumanising effect upon the male priesthood holders, who were not only perpetrators, but also the victims of an abusive regime.
Even today, the legacy of abuse goes on for thousands of children and young women in America… thanks to Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants – the present day scriptures of the Mormon Church. Fundamentally, Smith cobbled together section 132 of the Doctrine abd Covenants, in order to get his leg over. The church still continues to print that infamous section, because (A) They still believe in it and yet paradoxically (B) They are embarrassed to delete it because that would admit they are ashamed of it.
The self styled leader of the Fundamentalist church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints (Known as FLDS) is 55 year old Warren Jeffs. His sect of 10,000 members still perpetuates the now banned practice of polygamy. Jeffs is currently serving a life sentence for bigamy and sexual assault on a 12 year old girl, plus other charges. Authorities raided the sects ‘Yearning for Zion’ ranch in Texas – removing and later returning 400 children. 7 men were later convicted of sexually assaulting children.
Some years back, when I watched the ‘Big Love’ series, about a breakaway polygamous Mormon family, I felt depressed enough, but the accounts I have read books, depressed my heart with sadness, so that I could read no more. How does a husband tell his latest wife, he is about to marry a much younger, more beautiful woman? Beyond that, how does she deal with the added poverty and overcrowding, on top of an even greater loneliness? How could I ever have taken this doctrine as inspired or believable, when the actual effects upon women who have tried to live its principle has been disgusting, damaging and degrading? In ancient biblical times perhaps, women were kept as chattels – subservient and used, but Joseph Smith and Brigham Young should have known better. How could they seriously believe in such a god? I repeat, when ex members such as myself, start to uncover a web of lies, is it any wonder why we feel so angry?
I Must Have Been So Naive
Whatever was I thinking, spending my life in Mormonism and never really looking into polygamy? I thought it was respectable because I was told it was only practised by a very small percentage of Mormons and there was a shortage of husbands to care for the women and it was certainly practised in the days of the ancient patriarchs and Joseph was a godly man who hated what God wanted him to do and yet was commanded to do it. I believed in Joseph and in Mormonism – therefore it must be a commandment of God. We would all one day learn to become unselfish and generous and far less exclusive (‘One’ special spouse) and therefore, more capable of living this ‘higher law’ and one day it would be practised again…. What nonsense. What nauseating Madness. How naive and stupid I have been. How false and deceptive the above justifications for polygamy have been. Every single Mormon I have known throughout my life has swallowed hook, line and sinker the above sanitized explanation. Again, if the church was more concerned with Truth, than spin, it would NOT have given such a glossy coated, sterile and respectable view of this ghastly practise… but of course, if it had told the real truth, few of us, if any, would have been willing to join the church!
Section 132 ought to be ripped out of the Doctrine and Covenants and burnt, because it has no authenticity or connection to anything remotely Godly. Although the LDS Church practiced this doctrine for many years, it does not do so now, despite many others braking off and forming their own cult with their own leaders. Now, it is punishable by excommunication. Nevertheless, it still believes in the principle and still ‘practises,’ in the sense that any Mormon male can still be sealed to any number of wives in their temples (So long as the last one has died) This enables him to continue in heaven with all of his wives, when he finally dies too. To its everlasting shame, Mormonism still believes in polygamy, but you will never find them talking much about that. To their great relief, journalist seem not to think of asking them questions about that point. Yes, the church still believes in the principle of polygamy, which ought to be an indictment of dishonour, even if it hides behind the denial of its practice, but it would look decidedly nervous if someone should ever ask the question: “Yes, I know it is no longer practiced, but what is your fundamental belief in it, as a principle?” If it were said: “we do not believe in it,” it would be a lie. If it said: “we do believe in it,” that would be an affirming belief in a sin against women and the degrading of marriage. It would be caught between a rock and a very hard place.
It is strange how long it took for their god to realise he had made a mistake and decided to outlaw polygamy with what became known as the ‘Manifesto’ in 1890. Even if god had not made a mistake, but merely instructed his servants to suspend the practise due to government pressure – more shame to the church for not stopping before they felt forced to. What’s more, their god seemed happy for top leaders to continue the practise of polygamy right up till 1904 whilst pretending to many Saints, the public and the government, they had stopped – thus lying once again and breaking their own Articles of Faith in failing to obey the law.
The church would like to be accepted as Christian and goes to great lengths to put its best foot forward, but think about this idea of believing-in something, without actually ‘practising’ it. For instance, how would you feel about being associated with a man, who, in his heart and mind was a dedicated believer in the systematic abuse of women and children, yet declared his present position of ‘suspending’ his intentions, until an opportune time and condition arose? This is the precise position the Mormon church is currently in, so far as polygamy is concerned.
I’m afraid this is one doctrine it cannot riddle out of, like it tries to with others. It is a skeleton in its cupboard, which it believes will come back to life again. Even the late President Gordon B Hinckley (Past prophet) conveniently wormed his way around it, when questioned in the Larry King show in September 1998, by saying that the Church has no doctrine that supports polygamy. ‘A technical lie,’ but a clever answer for a prophet who sounded more like an embarrassed politician, than a mouth piece of God!
The church’s ‘ideal’ of polygamy has been routinely declared as: “a state achieved by one or more women who have arrived at an ability or desire to live under an air of affable generosity, kindness, charity and sisterhood, with a devoted, caring patriarch.”
How sweet! The real truth is that it does not work, because it works against love and against all that God intended in real love. Women – both in and out of the church instinctively feel its evil, because for generations they have been much more in tune with their own spirits than men. Even in our present age where women of the church are no longer threatened by its re-introduction (At least, probably not in their lifetime) and where they have neither read anything, or have understood anything, other than the sanitised versions of plural marriage given by the Church – yet listen to them speak about it together!… the air of repugnance, anger and dislike is palpable! Over the last few decades I have heard them talk about plural marriage in small social gatherings with intense dislike… Oh dear sisters, you would have something to worry about, if you knew its real history!
Of course, the Church does not want you to dig too deeply and to find out what plural marriage really entailed, nor does it want potential new members being put off by this presently suspended doctrine, so it avoids reference to it in the presentations of its historic sites. Only an organisation with fear and trepidation of its shameful past would give such scant information on its web site concerning polygamy. You would think that teaching manuals, tours and articles dealing with church history, would just be honest enough to deal with it fair and square, but they do not. They are scared to death of raising the subject.
On my shelf is a recently published book about ‘The Smith Family,’ written by a Mormon. It mentions nothing about polygamy. Why is that? Well, in one form or another, the following answer proves my point. This book has so much detail about Joseph’s life – his family, his trials, his enemies and his death – a virtual chronology of all that befell him, yet nothing about even one extra wife? Nothing about the impact of polygamy on Emma’s life – how it created enemies and persecution, resulting in Joseph’s death? Why is that? A few possibilities may have occurred – either the author did not know, or had never read about Joseph’s polygamous activities, or he was pressured by his publishers to white-wash the subject? Either way, it is a regrettable omission. It is easy therefore, to see how new members will come into the Church with impressive portrayals of Joseph’s unblemished and innocent character. The only way the church has been able to achieve deception, has been to hide or sanitize the sordid messy bits of his predatory appetite for women and his sexual activities with a ‘reluctant’ claim that Polygamy or Plural marriage was a revelatory command forced upon him by God. Given a choice, they would so much prefer to white-wash it out of their history.
Despite Joseph Smith’s real conduct with women, it is ironic that the entire manner in which the church deals with morality is cumbersome, wicked and stupid. It gives lip service with platitudes and generalities to the divine function of sex within marriage, but utterly fails to recognise its diverse manifestation, its naturalness and its function, without constantly spying, controlling, warning, punishing, ostracising, and humiliating members.
Thinking of Mormonism’s attitude toward our bodies, I am reminded of a beautiful admission by the Catholic Priest, Daniel J. O’Leary, in his book ‘Travelling Light.’ He is describing how the Catholic church had got it so wrong about our sexuality (Likewise Mormonism)
“ . . . . Through the re-direction of sexual energy and anger to support religious and cultural convention, we have closed down on the intimate rapport between the mind and the body. Small wonder that we have become strangers to our bodies; that we often hate them. Many of us who were brought up in a Catholic environment some decades ago, were subject to terrible stories and explanations about original sin and about our bodies, with their devilish tricks for leading us into sin. I have long since come to see this indoctrination, this castration of pleasure, as a kind of blasphemy against the awesome Artist of our exquisitely beautiful bodies.”
Elder Packer gives me that same impression whenever he talks about our bodies. It is a paradox indeed that so much abstinence, self control and ‘purity’ is required from members of a church, when the original founder (Joseph Smith) handled every woman he could legitimately get his hands on through the ‘divine’ institution of polygamy. What an infamous achievement, that something so sick, can be so successfully sanitised and sterilized – can be so brilliantly clothed in righteousness and truth.
Now, everything makes sense; the suppression of historical data about Smith’s philandering conduct; accusations of adultery against him by men who have been made out to be ‘enemies’ of God’s work – men such as William Law, who immediately brought into my head the perception of ‘badness,’ because of the infamous things said about him when I first read church history decades ago… and yet, when I studied this man recently and read some of his answers to an interview he once gave, I realised suddenly how ‘decent’ and ‘normal’ and how ‘morally sound’ were his views and answers. So who is lying? It all makes sense why William Law’s attempts to reveal and expose the truth about Joseph in the Nauvoo Expositor, after his failed attempt to remonstrate and ‘plead’ with Joseph not to introduce polygamy, because of the damage it would do. And about Joseph being held at Kirtland before his murder, for ordering the destruction of William Law’s printing shop, in a futile and criminal resolve to cover his adulterous affairs and secret sealings – all about to be put to print by the Nauvoo Expositor. The intense persecution, and even his martyrdom – all because he could no longer keep a lid on his extra marital conduct under the guise of celestial, or plural marriage.
LeGrand Richards says in his book ‘A Marvellous Work and a Wonder’ that the law of polygamy was only revealed in section 132, one year before his martyrdom, so that previous persecution had nothing to do with plural marriage. He does not tell you that a chronology of Joseph’s wives and the date of each marriage, reveals he had already married 17 women before the year of this revelation. What he wrote in section 132 to persuade the members to accept, was already in full flow in his life.
No wonder the endowment was borrowed from Masonry in order to instigate total secrecy at the pain of death (Symbolic ritual now discarded in the endowment) so that sealings (Marriages) could be kept from the world and only known by the ‘in-crowd.’ If you seriously want to know what Polygamy is really about, go on line and search it out, or read the many books available by those who have forsaken the kind of polygamy practised by Joseph Smith. Please remember, those break-away Mormon groups, or societies who presently practise this principle in America today, follow ‘meticulously’ the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and all the writings of Joseph Smith. They are not – in principle, doing anything other than what Joseph introduced and commanded them to do, so that its general effect and consequence (Its fruit) is the same as in the early days of the Church.
How Would You Deal With Such a Dilemma?
From ‘ex-mormon stories’ I picked up this story of an ordinary, dedicated member of the LDS church, who had ‘stumbled’ into polygamy, or plural marriage, yet had never (Like me) thought much about it before. His name is Mr Price. I think his life and his commitment to the church and his investigations in June 2004, make his story very thought provoking:
“Recently, my family has been contacted by several caring members from the Ward, who have demonstrated a genuine concern for our well-being. The bewilderment that has been expressed, regarding our absence from church, has prompted a desire in me to relate the story of my personal search for truth and subsequent journey out of Mormonism. Hopefully, this account will provide you with some meaningful insight into our current status with the Church.
What I am about to relate is my story only, as I cannot speak for my entire family. Faced with the explicit threat of church disciplinary action, I have remained silent regarding my historical findings, until now. Since I have recently resigned my membership in the LDS Church, thus removing the humiliating prospect of excommunication, I am now at liberty to speak openly of my journey out of the Church. Though my investigation is over, I fully recognize that, presented with the exact same set of facts, others may come to a different conclusion than my own. That is ok. My intent is not to convince, but rather to convey an accurate account of my departure from Mormonism.
First and foremost, I want to make it clear that my separation from the Church had nothing to do with unworthiness or transgression. For 38 years I was 100% devoted to the LDS Church. During those years, I never once questioned the truthfulness of the gospel. My faithfulness was clearly demonstrated by my service in the Church, and anyone who has ever served with me (in the mission field, in Priesthood Quorum/Young Men’s presidencies, Scouting, Bishopric, etc.) can attest to my wholehearted dedication and commitment. Indeed, I entered into my doubts at a time when I was diligently striving to live my life in accordance with every aspect of the gospel – weekly family home evening, daily personal/family prayer and scripture study, regular church attendance, temple attendance, generous tithes and offerings, faithful home teaching, faithful fulfilment of calling as Scout Master, unwavering support for my wife in her calling as Primary President, etc.
My doubts began as I drove to work one day, listening to Living Scriptures’ Dramatized Church History on CD. I can’t begin to describe the shock and disappointment I felt as I heard, for the first time, the re-enactment of Joseph Smith taking Helen Mar Kimball as his polygamous wife at the tender age of 14. The account outlined the involvement of Helen’s father, Heber C. Kimball, in brokering the deal, as well as Joseph’s promise to Helen that this step would virtually guarantee the exaltation of herself and her father’s family in the Celestial Kingdom. Helen concluded that her sacrifice was a small price to “purchase” such a glorious reward.
Upon hearing this, my heart sank, and I wept openly.
That very day, with my sensibilities still smarting from what I had heard, I resolved to discover for myself the correctness of the principle of polygamy. I immediately commenced a humble regime of prayer, fasting, and meditation, in search of an understanding of polygamy. I attended the temple for the express purpose of gaining some small insight into the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage, including the plurality of wives”. I eventually modified my supplications to the Lord, asking for a simple feeling of peace to confirm that polygamy was acceptable in His sight, as I had given up on ever being able to understand it. I approached the Lord with as much faith as I could possibly muster, but my sincere and honest pleas for comfort and confirmation went unanswered. After three long months of silence, I concluded it was time to embark on a new search for truth – a search that would take me beyond the priesthood and Sunday school lesson material and beyond the faith promoting articles in the Ensign.
[Later, when I shared this frustrating experience with Bishop W., he informed me that, “asking God for a confirmation as to whether or not something is true, without first believing, is tantamount to asking for a sign. God does not often give signs”. This response surprised me. Even though I had believed (and at times defended) the principle of plural marriage my entire adult life, when I expressed a fervent desire to obtain divine confirmation regarding its more troubling aspects, I was told that I was asking for a sign. The only sign I was looking for was the peaceful confirmation of the Holy Ghost, speaking truth to my soul, providing me with a spiritual witness concerning the correctness of the principle of plural marriage. That witness never came.]
As I began my new quest, I discussed my concerns with Bishop A. (my then current bishop) and asked him for assistance in locating suitable reference material. In response to my request, he recommended a book he found on Deseretbook.com entitled, “Mormon Polygamy, and A History”. I immediately secured a copy of the book and began my study. This book confirmed the accounts I had heard on the Church History CD’s and unfolded, in a very factual manner, the disturbing origins and practice of polygamy in the Mormon Church. But the most devastating blow to me (even more alarming than the tender age at which Joseph Smith took Helen Mar Kimball as his polygamous wife) was the revelation of the fact that Joseph married 11 women who were already married to other men.
Confused and sickened by what I had learned, I became unable to sleep, eat, or concentrate at work. As more information came to light, the shock took a severe toll on my physical and emotional well-being. Continuing my investigation, I searched for church sources that could further corroborate the newly revealed facts surrounding Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage. My efforts led me to a May 1887 publication of an official Church periodical, “The Historical Record”. Contained in volume VI of this periodical is an article written by President Joseph F. Smith and Andrew Jenson (Assistant Church Historian), which documents the plural marriages of Joseph Smith, listing twenty-seven plural wives who were sealed to Joseph during the last three years of his life. This list includes Joseph’s polyandrous unions (marriages to other men’s wives), as well as his numerous sealings to teenage brides. A search of the Family History Archives on lds.org enabled me to obtain the ancestral files for many of Joseph’s polygamous wives. Two of the ancestral files I retrieved from the Family History Archives are those for Helen Mar Kimball and Zina Diantha Huntington. One need only look at the dates to determine that Helen was married to Joseph at the age of 14 (the current age of my oldest daughter), and Zina was already married to Henry Jacobs at the time of her sealing to Joseph. Zina’s journal makes it clear that she and Henry were living together as husband and wife when Joseph secretly took her as his own plural wife. The extant diaries, autobiographical sketches, journals, and correspondences, of some of Joseph’s polygamous wives, further demonstrate the undeniable fact that there was a sexual dimension to their relationship with the Prophet.
Canonized as Holy Scripture in the 132nd section of the Doctrine & Covenants, the principle of plural marriage is clearly delineated as a sacred tenant of the Mormon faith. The central nature of this tenant is demonstrated by the current practice of Mormon men being sealed for time and all eternity to a second wife, in cases where the first wife has passed away. Furthermore, Bruce R. McConkie succinctly confirmed this belief in his authoritative volume, Mormon Doctrine, wherein he stated: “Obviously the holy practice [of plural marriage] will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.” In light of these facts, I found the statement that, “it [polygamy] is not doctrinal”, made by President Hinckley in a nationally televised interview with Larry King, to be very baffling.
Joseph Smith stated on numerous occasions that he entered into the practice of polygamy, only after being threatened with death, by an angel with a drawn sword. After learning the true nature of Joseph’s involvement in polygamy, I had to ask myself the following questions: “Is it reasonable to assume that a kind, just, loving, moral God has such blatant disregard for the sanctity of marriage (and life itself) that He would have his humble servant slain for refusing to take another man’s wife as his own? Or, is it more likely that a mortal man lied?”
I view the institution of marriage as a sacred trust, and consequently, I am fiercely loyal to my dear wife and absolutely devoted to my kids. For me, morality and goodness are absolutes – not fluid, ever-changing attributes, wholly dependent on time and circumstance. My conscience cries out in opposition to a married man marrying and having sex with other women (especially married women and young teenagers). That Joseph Smith, himself, engaged in this very conduct is virtually indisputable, and I believe his behaviour is inexcusable.
Shouldn’t moral individuals possess a healthy degree of scepticism towards anyone professing a revelation from God as authorization to commit adultery? Joseph’s justification for his actions was clearly delineated in a written marriage proposal to Nancy Rigdon (daughter of Sydney Rigdon), wherein he stated, “Whatever God requires, is right, no matter what it is . . . even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.” Nancy courageously rejected Joseph’s proposition, despite his Godly justification”
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon351.htm
A Victim and Survivor of Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:21
Irene Spencer gives us an astonishingly sad but defiant proclamation against Joseph Smith from the concluding pages of her book; ‘Shattered Dreams,’ Joseph Smith gave us Polygamy from section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants and successfully passed it off as God’s will for his Church. Her kind of polygamy, though lived later, is identical to that given by Joseph Smith, which both then and now is still ruining lives in the USA and remains an obscene scandal. She writes:
“Never again would I have to jump through strange, agonizing hoops in order to cajole God into accepting me. In fact, the god I’d been taught all my life to worship and obey didn’t really exist at all. That god was not very powerful, not very good, and he required us to completely reject some of the most beautiful things the true God had for us. The deep human desire to unite exclusively with one person of the opposite sex is not evil and is not to be shunned. God set it up that way before the Fall, and he never changed it. He certainly never declared it a sin. My belief in what the Mormon fundamentalists taught about God and salvation had been so sincere, I embraced their miserable prescription for life and marriage. One can be sincere and at the same time be sincerely wrong.
Mormonism adopted polygamy from an ancient social custom from biblical times and made it into an essential principle for exaltation in heaven. Along the way, polygamy became a means of controlling believers and turning them into submissive pawns. Through it, prophets controlled believers and men controlled women, all allegedly in accordance with God’s will. No one seemed to acknowledge how terrible it was for everyone to live it – women, children, and men as well.
I decided it was finally time for someone to tell it like it is. All the books I’d read on Mormon polygamy were vivid accounts of sacrificing women who upheld and emphatically stated they loved the Principle. I was convinced that these committed women simply did as I’d been taught to do – doggedly affirm the truth and righteousness of plural marriage and stubbornly maintain its advantages over monogamy. Forbidden to acknowledge their true feelings, they smothered their own agony and wrenching pain, just as I’d so emphatically been instructed to do.
I’ve personally known hundreds of plural wives. Their smiles are a façade required of them by their husbands and spiritual leaders. It’s up to the women to make plural marriage appear to be the superior mode of marriage. It’s demanded that the wives present themselves as united with one another, with their husbands, and with their religious communities. The success of plural marriage depends entirely on their willingness to play the sacrificial role and play it well.
At one time or another, when their tender hearts were bursting, many of these women broke the rules by revealing to me the strain and sorrow they experienced every day. I’ve seen polygamous wives stamp their feet in defence of their lifestyle, even while the truth is engraved on their faces. I’ve seen wives who have no light left in their eyes, who have relinquished all their rights and dreams. I’ve seen many manic – depressive wives who succumb to complete emotional/nervous breakdowns and many neglected ones who succumb to the tantalizing lure of adultery. Almost all the faithful polygamous women I’ve known have been resigned to lives of bare existence, their joys, hopes, and dreams forfeited until the next life.
Like them, I’d vehemently defended polygamy for decades. It was my only sense of identity I sacrificed everything else for it, so I desperately needed it to be true. I remember parroting the inane arguments of early Mormon prophets who claimed that polygamy would do away with all of society’s ills.
A product of four generations of polygamy, I’d been trapped in that closed society, believing we were God’s chosen people. I’d been taught to dread intermingling with the “wicked gentiles” outside our sect. God commanded that we become a “peculiar people,” keeping ourselves from the vile customs of society. But my distrust diminished with each outsider I met. Their warm acceptance, which I thought I’d have to beg for, was freely given. People “outside” esteemed me as an individual, not because of my religious beliefs.”
Irene Spencer ‘Shattered Dreams’
CHAPTER TEN
My Excommunication
“ . . . . it is amazing that institutional Christianity ever created the very concept of excommunication. Only the individual can do that to himself, and we had best not make it our corporate concern. Hinduism, the oldest religion in the world, has never excommunicated anybody”
Richard Rohr Hope Against Darkness
Disciplinary Councils or church courts consist of a Stake President, his two councillors, another 12 men (Known as ‘high councillors’) and perhaps a clerk. Courts are for the most serious offences involving members who have infringed church laws. Unbeknown to virtually all members, it is also used to silence voices and get rid of members who never were morally unsound, but whose only sin has been to write or speak of what they honestly believe. As mentioned previously, some very prominent, clever and good Church members have been eradicated by excommunication, just as it happened in the Dark Ages, because they have ‘embarrassed’ the church by their integrity and honesty. The use of Church courts can be scandalous.
Members of the church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints know that excommunications take place. Every unit of the Church will have at least one and possibly a few, each year. Inevitably and most commonly, it will be someone who has breached the moral code. Perhaps a man has committed adultery or a woman is pregnant out of wed-lock. One may also be excommunicated for Apostasy. These disciplinary councils are for all age groups and many youngsters will find themselves appearing before these so called ‘Courts of Love,’ due to fornication.
I dare say that the Priesthood, which presided over the Holy Catholic Inquisition thought that torturing a person’s body was wholly justified, on the grounds that it would save their souls. Ordinary rank and file Mormons and most of its leaders, will, if reading this comparison, respond with indignant protest, yet the vast majority of members have never stepped foot in a court and naively trust what their leaders tell them about it. As I discovered, there is an emotional pain inflicted on individuals in this Mormon Inquisition, which has nothing to do with appropriate guilt, but everything to do with abuse.
I can only begin to imagine the screaming horrors of the ancient Inquisition and those spiritual directors, who, with a deep and sincere sadness, mistakenly tried to love their victim’s eternal soul into salvation – despite the pain they inflicted on their bodies. I’m sure, like present day Mormon priesthood leaders, their entire conviction and ethos was drenched in a sincere, yet deluded uncompromising dogma, in which god thoroughly approved of their methods and holy orders.
In principle, the comparison is absolutely identical. In the case of the Catholic Inquisition, all of us can now see its cruelty and madness. In the case of a Mormon Disciplinary Council or Court, almost all active members without exception, will take the line fed to them by their leaders – that it is ‘a court of love.’ Their understanding of it, or their concept of it, will be like the rest of their faith – accepted without question as part of god’s method of dealing with transgression. For them to have a diametrically opposite concept of this court – that it could be (Depending on the compassion of its presiding officer) the very antithesis of what God would do, is like asking a baby in the womb to comment on the outside world. Those caught up in their ‘single angled’ vision – live, breathe and see, only on the ‘inside’ of their belief system, because part of their capacity for critical judgement is obsolete, suspended or dysfunctional. I was the same as them – I remember my blindness. I‘m not trying to be conceited for stating what is blindingly obvious or trying to be clever by discrediting others. I was once ‘over there’ in Mormonism. I was once looking from the inside out – in a brain-washed state.
Richard Rohr explained in his book ‘Hope Against Darkness,’ that the real sin lies in those who expel – in those who make judgements, in these so called Courts of Love…
“Jesus is shockingly not upset with sinners, a shock so total that most Christians to this day refuse to see it. He is only upset with people who do not think they are sinners: These denying, fearful and illusory ones are the blockage. They are much more likely to hate and feel no compunction. Formally, religion thought its mission was to expel sin and evil. After Jesus we find out that sin lies in the very act of expelling. There is no place to expel it to. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us. We either carry and transform the evil of human history as our own problem, or we only increase its efficiency and power by hating and punishing it ‘over there.”
My Wife’s Cancer
Placing my excommunication in context, I need to go back a few years to seemingly unrelated events. Roundabout the time my wife discovered a lump in her right breast, she had become an agent for Neways International, a Utah based Company which sold potions and pills to improve health and cure diseases. An investigative journalist by the name of Phillip Day was giving lectures about his book ‘Health Wars,’ in our area and seemed to be indirectly promoting Neways products. We attended a few of his talks and my wife was very keen to try out these products, and later became an agent. I was sceptical. His message was simple: health care in the West was failing patients and more people were leaving hospitals worse than when they went in. He had endless statistics and testimonials of folk who had regained health after being pronounced terminal ill, just by using Neway products. Due to his influence, my wife refused to allow the hospital to intervene with a needle biopsy. Instead, she sought a more holistic approach with healthy eating remedies and Newway products. That was in April 2001.
One year later in May 2002 she complained with tears in her eyes, that her breast was hurting her (So much for faith) Now she was willing to undergo medical intervention and cancer was confirmed – except by now, it had spread to the Lymph Nodes. Some of these were removed as well as her right breast. For some weeks afterwards she attended a Leeds based hospital for radio therapy and slowly regained health and strength.
More Time at Home
In August 2002 I took a part time job locally, because I wanting to spend more time at home to assist my wife. While in this job I noticed a woman I shall call Diane. I want to emphasize here, I was 56 years of age and my wife was 54. I was still very happily married and my wife’s operation in no way changed or affected the way I felt about her. The love I had for her was as deep as any man could wish for. Nevertheless, Diane was there every day and every day I noticed her. Every day she grew on me, until I was constantly thinking about her smile. I had been married for 33 years and my wife, like Diane, was very beautiful too. The really scary thing for me was the pain it might cause my wife if she knew I had feelings for another woman. It terrified me.
I look back now and considering how this all happened and what betrayal means. I think that falling in love with another woman when you are already married is not ‘bad’ or ‘wrong,’ quite the opposite. It is just something that can happen under particular circumstances. Intrinsically speaking, it is a magnetically exhilarating experience and you cannot help the feelings from forming (If you remain in that environment) To say it is not dangerous or potentially damaging, is madness, but if there is a ‘sin,’ or ‘immorality,’ it is somewhere in the choice of how you deal with it – NOT in the feelings. To indulge it and to hold on to it necessitates hiding a secret… THAT seems to me, to be the betrayal – not falling, or being in love. It seems to me that some things that happen in life, just creep up to you and suddenly you notice it. A couple of simple examples of what I mean: {1) Age does it – you look in the mirror daily, yet it seems it never really hits you until decades have passed. (2) You’ve always been a slim lady, then, it seems one day, you can’t believe how much weight you have gained “How the hell did I get this heavy?” The answer: very slowly and very, very gradually – over a few years, but you never saw it coming. I consider myself a reasonably decent person, but I sure as hell never saw it coming till it had arrived!
I should have got out of that job once I knew how badly she was affecting me, but I was naive and inexperienced. This had never happened before and I had no history of womanising. Because I loved my wife so much and I was frightened of losing control, I prayed and begged God to help me. In as much as these things were initially ‘just in my head,’ leaving my job seemed rather a drastic measure, but in the luxury of hindsight, I wish I had done so.
One Sunday I had made an appointment to take all this stuff to my Bishop for advice. I waited outside his office at the appointed time, but it looked like he had forgotten, or was too busy – so many people with too many problems crowding around the corridor near his office for unscheduled needs to be met. I left without seeing him with a weight of sadness in my heart. I resolved to go back to the only One who really cared about me – God. I went out to meet Him in the dark… I drove to a quiet spot and just talked it through. I was a wreck of contradictory impulses. How could I go on without telling this woman how I was feeling? I wondered if I did so, maybe her indifference would release me from the spell I was under, yet I worried sick about the temptations if she felt the same way.
In this special moment of prayer, I took some time and searched backwards into my past life. I thought about my wife – what she was like, why I loved her and all that God had given me. After about 45 minutes it seemed God took hold of what I have since described as ‘these crazy dreams – these drowning, jangling raving screams’ of inner turmoil. He seemed to tell me, I must not speak to this woman. He completely enveloped me in what I felt was His love and kindness. I came away as if He had actually anointed my head and blessed me. For the next year, this ‘one prayer’ saved me from declaring my feelings to Diane, but nothing could stop me thinking about her. It was now over 2 years since the operation and other than just thoughts, I had done nothing wrong – no flirting or conveying my attraction to her in any way – nothing. The strange truth is: like an adolescent boy, thinking of a princess – I cannot remember having one ‘adulterous’ thought about her before my wife died!
Struggling Together
Late in 2004, my wife overheard part of a phone call I was making to my brother whilst I was talking about this woman and she questioned me – I could not fabricate lies – I never had, so confessed all that was troubling me. She took it so well and I was amazed how much she wanted to help ‘sort me out.’ We cried, we talked and because we were Mormons, we prayed and we fasted. We agreed on a plan to move forward – the beginning of which meant I was to leave my employment immediately.
I had underestimated the pain that she was to pass through because of my distracting love for another woman. Remember, I had never touched Diane or talked with her about my feelings and yet to my wife, I might just as well have slept with her for the last six months. It broke her heart. I have never in my life seen a person cry as deeply as she did. Her emotional suffering was so intense, so deep.
The cancer which was obviously in her body seemed to kick-in at the shock of my revelations and in May of the following year she died of a vicious form of liver cancer. By comparison, I think her short ordeal with secondary cancer seemed like a tea party compared to the distress she felt at my love for another woman. I do not know how long she would have lived if I had not given her this bad news; would she have died anyway – almost certainly. My gut feeling is that this time-bomb was on its way and nothing would stop it. It is impossible to know whether I triggered it. Quite apart from my grief in general, I have cried so many bitter tears about this one possibility – so many tears for so long.
My one pathetic consolation was that eight years earlier, I had been ‘given’ a vision of her early death. I had been sitting in one of those General Conference broadcasts – in the days before we could ‘see it,’ so just the audio. Richard G Scott was speaking and as I really never much liked his style, I sat only half listening, somewhat glazed over with no thoughts at all. Suddenly, without ‘thinking,’ (I did not have it as a developing thought) I saw Norma’s name written across a blue sky, followed by the word ‘death.’ It looked like this: ‘NORMA – DEATH.’ I emphasize, I did not think it – it came into me from the outside. I was shocked. I felt absolutely no emotion – probably because I did not manufacture it. But there and then I knew something VERY odd had just happened – I KNEW she would die early in life.
I saw it was an unquestioning premonition, which I only confided in her at the last week of her mortality. I never knew how deeply I loved my wife until I saw her losing her grip on life. My sense of awareness and sensitivity to her needs multiplied (It was never bad in the first place) She came to know once again, how much she was loved and she forgave me. Not knowing if she could have lived long enough to fully trust me, was not an option she was given. Within me, if not yet in her, I KNEW I could trust myself to remain by her side and love her, if she had lived on. My sadness, on reflection, was that she could not be expected to believe this, in the short time she had left.
I turned much more to Spiritualism than I could ever have imagined. They at least, allow a person to be who they are, without worthless promises of salvation or threatened punishments. I remained much more of a ‘free thinker,’ than a Spiritualist and did not feel able to fully trust or immerse myself in any form of religion again. I nevertheless have had enough communication from my wife since she has died, to leave me in no doubt whatsoever of her undying love and of her happiness in the world of spirits. Her relaxed, loving and even humorous communications (Via Mediums) revealed a woman no longer bogged down with heavy religious opinions. She seemed so ‘freed-up’ and ‘unburdened.’ Speaking after her death of her own dying, she told me: “Robbie, nothing could have saved me… I was so, so tired!” About my thoughts of Diane, she has also communicated these words: “One mistake does not spoil a life time of love – I still love you” Many other things have been communicated, which have made me laugh and rejoice – so much so, that I can now enjoy complete peace of mind about our love and her continuing existence in spirit form and of both seeing each other again. I cannot prove these things, there is only my belief to rely on and I fully understand how others – upon leaving the faith – no longer believe in the spirit world.
While alive, she had long insisted that I marry someone quickly if she died first. Even years before, she would take hold of me by my arms and look squarely into my eyes and say: “Robbie, you are a passionate man, you will need someone – promise me you will marry again if I die first and don’t leave it too long?” The poignant demonstration of her gracious generosity and her caring heart came about a week before she died. She took hold of both my hands, looked me again in the eyes and said: “Robbie, I don’t mind who you marry – I don’t even mind if you marry Diane”
Then she approached her death with praise, serenity and courage. When people came from church to visit her at home, shortly before she died, they would cry and she would ask: “Why are you crying? I have had an incredible life. I have 20 grandchildren and a lovely husband – God has been so good to me. I am ready to die”
I watched my wife pass through what I considered to be, the greatest test of her life and I saw her refined and shine like pure gold. If she had died without forgiving me, my life now would be hell. In hindsight, I would have done anything to prevent her from suffering. I would have given my life – I most certainly would have unravelled my experience of Diane, so that it might never have happened.
Out in the Open
I had been carrying this woman around with me for over two and a half years and only my brother knew. When my wife was in great distress after first hearing my admission, she confided in two of my sons and then later, after she had died, the whole thing came out. I am too honest with my emotions and wanted my children to understand not just what their mother had gone through, but what I had gone through and how it had all happened. Naturally, it was the worse time for them to hear me talk about another woman. A thing I deeply regret. In hindsight, the worse two things my wife did, was the refusal not to have a needle biopsy and not keeping our private life between us two only.
Diane was in a stagnant relationship and unhappily married. After my wife died I managed to meet her and communicated my feelings to her so that whenever, or if ever, she wanted to move on, she would know how I felt and would know how to contact me. Many months passed without communication and then, as agreed by her, she contacted me again and I discovered she felt the same way and although we had some brief moments together, she would not leave her husband and had a number of personal and domestic reasons that prevented her from changing her life.
I respected her as a person – her judgement, her feelings, her worry and guilt if she took things too far, so I did not violate that trust. We never did have a ‘proper affair.’ I had always felt myself to be very weak in terms of self control. I now realised this strong love and this deep respect for another woman was disclosing a strength I honestly thought I never had. That was a big revelation to me.
Moving On
As 2005 passed into 2006 and 2007 also, I knew by the sheer merciless experience of loneliness, that I had to move on. I had seen Diane so rarely, yet her image hung in my heart like a ghost – I was crucified by longing and was literally suffering two griefs. Not only this, but I had fallen out with some of my children over this whole thing. It was bad enough bringing a betrayal upon their mother, but communicating with another man’s wife was repugnant to them. I was seen as falling from grace and dishonouring my family and my role as a father within Mormonism. That is how they saw me.
Of course, in the eyes of many, this moral decline was seen as the cause of my lapse – my inactivity and demise from Mormonism, but Diane was not a reason for me to exit Mormonism – only technically for those who kicked me out. Those who might believe this know little about me. Blaming my attraction to Diane; immorality or whatever, was just a red herring. As described in earlier chapters, I was troubled by Mormonism way back when I was 23 and it took me a lifetime to escape! This woman happened to be the catalyst which literally ‘birthed it’ – that’s all. Even before I knew her, I was seriously troubled about my membership and felt an ‘outsider,’ or ‘onlooker’ at meetings. I rarely stayed for the full 3 hours (Crazy masochists) and many times chose not to go at all. All the arguments of this book were in my head long before I knew Diane, though my excommunication added further to my experience of how ignorant church leaders can be.
As I have said, in retrospect, the only reason to go back and unravel or obliterate the association I had with Diane would have been to prevent my wife from suffering. I would have given my life for that, but beyond that one reason, I would not have swapped the experience of loving Diane for anything in the world and do not regret one moment of it. There is much that I have not said, or written about in this book. The way I saw my heart and my conduct was quite different to my children. There have been unforgettable moments, where grief and beauty gripped me and took me into heaven – no, not into the arms of this lady – but into prayer. Packed into the last four years have been numerous experiences where I have struggled to understand the darkness (I did not say sin) and, at my most desperate moments, feeling shock wave after shock wave of profound closeness to God.
I remember while I lived at Barlow, near Selby, Joseph (My youngest son – who lived in Leeds), invited me over for a meal. It takes about 40 minutes to drive there and whilst chatting about my feelings over our meal, I happen to say I felt the church was a ‘cult.’ (Not the most discreet definition for a TBM (True Believing Mormon) to hear! He reacted with a rant about my moral conduct and used a word, which I too have never forgotten – he called me ‘Repugnant.’
Let me pause a moment to reflect backward. All my life, I believed those Book of Mormon words and carried the idea that I was cut-off from Deity and had to obey the will of God (The church) in order to become acceptable with Him. I prayed deeply and devoutly throughout my life, in my own places of wilderness (Literally) and began to slowly feel a different God to Mormonism. For a few years after my wife died, I now consider I entered a form of death myself. Like no other time, I felt rejected, dishonoured, unloved and misunderstood by most who had previously respected me. As always, under strain (Which was daily) I prayed… I had no one else to talk to who could soak up all the sadness, grief and pain I felt inside. After a while, people get tired of hearing you say the same old things and I did not want to keep burdening them.
So, as Joseph ripped into me, I did the same thing as usual and took-off in my car to a remote local area to sit and talk with God in the dark and I did this the same evening after getting home from his house.
I recognise now – if not then – I may indeed have been ‘talking to myself in the dark,’ and I am prepared to acknowledge that this may have been a possibility, but at that time and at that moment, I was in a state of such sadness and emptiness, I seemed to collapse inwardly as if all goodness, beauty, certainty and self love, had gone. I asked the question of God: “What is left?” It was as if my interior – my inner self – the real me, was just an empty shell… like a house in which ALL furniture and contents had been stripped bare – NOTHING left….
I was in a mental/spiritual agony and falling toward the gear stick and the left hand seat, when out of nowhere, something started to happen deep inside this empty shell. Totally involuntarily (I did not think it, or snap myself back into shape with a positive thought) an explosion of JOY started to cascade out of my mouth like a volcano. Suddenly, I was being filled with what felt like God and I was on fire and totally enveloped! The message at the time seemed to be simply and if I could write here the meaning of what I experienced, it would be this:
‘You thought you were empty, but I’ve come to teach you, that YOU are ENOUGH. You don’t need to prove anything, be anything, or do anything – especially to please others. All your achievements, successes, gifts and talents – all your so-called sins, weaknesses, fears and failures – all your ego trips and your search for approval and your efforts to impress, do not define you. YOU, uncluttered by goodness or badness, guilt or shame, are ENOUGH, just by yourself.’
Maybe it was God? Maybe it was a universal spirit which binds all things? Maybe it was simply the very depth of just ‘ME.’ Me, coming to my own rescue and revealing the power of the human spirit? In the end I may never know and it does not matter much anyhow. Suddenly, everything I was ever taught about being ‘WORTHY,’ or God will not be with you, was proved utterly false and I proved it many times over – day after day, years after year. Before I go any further with some details of my disciplinary hearing, I would like to insert here some perspective….
What I have said so far in this book about my feelings toward God, i.e. my sense of his presence, my poem about the sun rising, my praise and closeness to God during prayer, as well as in my sleep, I totally, and sincerely believe. But unlike virtually every Mormon I have ever known, I can still say I may have been mistaken – I may well be wrong. It may be that all the love, all the imagination, all the joy, all the beauty and power I have experienced inside me, is exactly that – just inside me. It may be possible that the fire in my bones was the experience of feeling and touching my own soul – seeing, as if in a mirror, what I was really made of. What I felt inside was far MORE beautiful than anything outside….the stars at night; a moon hanging low; meadows; vales and mountains, or peaceful woodlands at sunrise. Could it be that I was – in my loneliness and isolation – coming face to face with just WHO I REALLY AM?
Remember, I went out at 18 years of age looking for God. Mormon missionaries came to my house because I had requested them to do so by letter to the Mission Home, without any previous association from them. Yet I still say, despite all, I may be wrong about the existence of God. When I finally come to realise that something I have tried to trust all my life (Mormonism) turns out to be a complete delusion, it is hard not to wonder whether the baby I thought I had rescued from the bath water, is not, in the end, merely a lifeless plastic doll.
I’m not sure whether knowing I’ve had the courage and confidence to face the Truth about my delusions of Mormonism will also give me the maturity to look down at this very beautiful, allegorical baby, and notice it is dead? Who knows what the future holds and where my head and heart will be in years to come? But now I return to where I was in this book….
Everything Belongs
I have always believed that God could not only use my ‘goodness’ to fit me for heaven, but my ‘badness’ too. This is where the self righteous prigs get all flustered and indignant. I believe God used not only the very best in me, but the very worst. Indeed, real solid transformation, where God really seemed to make some serious changes in me, occurred most effectively and most frequently when I was at my worst—when I was not worthy, and when I was lost—when I was weak, empty, useless, probably sinful, desperate and under immense sadness… the exact conditions in which Mormonism declares I had forfeited my right to the kind of closeness and comfort that only the obedient and worthy can merit. God is so much bigger than Mormonism declares, so much more magnificent and so much more loving than the men in that court understood in their paralysed and rigid mentality. I experienced a God who was not afraid to embrace the darkness in me—the very opposite to what Mormonism told me… a complete and utter paradox.
John Ortberg in his book: ‘Love beyond reason’ says:
“When the worst happens, or almost happens, a kind of peace comes. I had passed beyond grief, beyond terror, all but beyond hope, and it was there, in that wilderness, that for the first time in my life I caught sight of something of what it must be like to love God truly. It was only a glimpse, but it was like stumbling on fresh water in the desert . . . I loved him because there was nothing else left. I loved him because he seemed to have made himself as helpless in his might as I was in my helplessness. I loved him not so much in spite of there being nothing in it for me but almost because there was nothing in it for me. For the first time in my life, there in that wilderness, I caught what it must be like to love God truly, for his own sake, to love him no matter what”
Finding God in the Dark
I have found over a life time of prayer and particularly in my recent struggles that I have gone out into the wilderness to ‘find God’ and a strange thing has happened; I struggled through the debris of myself – through my own personal conviction of sin. I fought my way through my pain, my longings, my disappointments, my distant dreams, my own sense of isolation…. then I reached it – the still-point of my turning world – God had come. Suddenly, nothing mattered anymore. I was enveloped and saturated with His love and joy was my experience.
In the discovery of God I had simply discovered myself. At the centre point of my soul – at the core of me – it was calm. Total stillness. It’s where God had always been. It’s almost eerie… like standing in the eye of the storm and I become aware that I was no longer a victim but an observer of my raging world.
This sensation or revelation of God’s presence was not like a spectacular visitation, where for a few moments He comforted me, but is monumentally more significant. I once thought God was a divine force only external from me. Suddenly, as if waking from a dream, I saw clearly that He was not only a visitor, but a permanent tenant of my soul. The two became one – the two always were one, but till then, I was blind to this reality.
This business of finding my True Self was never the original reason for prayer but became its natural outcome; a by-product of wanting things from God. There I was, asking and talking about money, the house, people and the shabby state of my own soul, and He slowed me down to a crawl and silence ensued…. and in the silence the ache to just say to Him: “I love you,” and it began to feel like my requests didn’t matter anymore… nothing mattered anymore, because He was here. He had come.
You remember when you first fell in love? You could not dispel their presence… it haunted you. No matter what might have happened—lost job, broken bones or your house on fire—nothing mattered anymore, because you knew someone out-there adored you. It was the same in my prayer. Questions and anxieties melt away as mere absurdities, because I had found Him and this union became the answer to every plea I had ever made. My real self had been touched by God and no pain occurred, no self loathing, no embarrassment, no shame, no repugnance, no fear – only joy, peace and love. To see my own soul in its relation to God was to enter a silence in which all self loathing, self doubt and self condemnation vanished away.
Mugged in the Night
Every member of the Church is free to go on the Internet and log-on to any ex Mormon Recovery Site and read the heart rending stories of ordinary members who have been abused by so called, ‘Courts of Love,’ or by what leaders have told them. They are free to do so, but they won’t, because they are afraid of what they might read. When I first logged on, I had been excommunicated and felt spiritually mugged, shocked and devastated and yet ironically, I did not at the time believe in Mormonism, so in some ways I gave up very little. How anyone with a strong testimony of this religion would feel at excommunication, I do not know? It was bad enough for me, yet I was on the very edge of Mormonism anyway. To be honest, it was the shock of what they did. It was all very dignified (So were the inquisition trials) but I remember the day before my trial…
As I have repeatedly told you, I had been in a state of grief, isolation and severe loneliness and had got drawn into prayer since my wife died in a manner and intensity I could scarcely have imagined. It is a strange and beautiful contradiction to know, that when I was not behaving as the church would have me behave, I felt on-fire in relationship with God! To the indoctrinated member lacking real life experience, all this must seem like pure madness, arrogance and twaddle.
As I have previously said, the church cannot imagine or conceive of such a paradox existing, so they inevitably label it ‘satanic,’ as they do with all things disagreeably strange. This attitude, as I have also previously explained, was substantiated by a letter sent to me by my stake president after my excommunication. A day or two before my trial, I sat in prayerful consideration of what I believed my merciful God would do with me at this ‘court of love?’ Would this God who had come to me since my wife died in such a powerful manner… would He inspire the Stake President to excommunicate me? If He truly was the God of the Mormon church, how would he cause the leaders to deal with me? I do not know what it was, but I had been carrying a feeling about God around with me for so long – this feeling was indescribably tender and beautiful – hence some of the strange ‘closeness’ I have previously described.
The strangest experience I ever had was one week after my wife had died. I had – Like so many others before me – felt rather numb and tearless for days. I had gone to bed but could not sleep; then, close to midnight, I finally broke… broke into pieces, but the strangest thing was to follow…. Without thought, consideration or the slightest mental strain, I fell into God with praise and adoration – as if He had given me twenty wives, the lottery and a perfect body, instead of taking away my only wife!
This praise came out like a mountain exploding and blasted back into God. Then, I felt peace and went straight into a deep sleep.
The crying, the praises and the total sense of being held by God, continued for a few years – right into and past my excommunication. I still have a profound memory of that connection, or the kingdom within. It never really leaves me.
“Grace is divine life coursing through history and creation and us.” (Matthew Fox)
So, as I sat to consider how He would deal with me, or to be more precise – how He would NOT deal with me!
I was summoned to appear in a church court. I was in two minds whether to bother and go, but the Stake President kept phoning me and encouraging me to attend.
I received an invitation from my Stake President to meet with him and discuss these allegations. The letter below is my reply to him. It was much longer, but I have deleted parts here. It does contain however, the essence of my concerns:
19 March 2006
86 Park Lane, Barlow
Near Selby, North Yorkshire
YO8 8JQ England
Dear President Tunnicliffe,
I am writing to cancel, or at least postpone our scheduled interview for this coming Thursday. I have thought about it over the last few days while away in the South and I feel at present no advantage or point would be gained for me to speak with you. Although my testimony of the church has declined over the years and my trust in its leadership from top to bottom has grown seriously weak, yet my faith and trust in God has not declined but improves. Even without the moral dilemma of communicating with a married woman, my fear and defensiveness of meeting in an interview environment with any church leader, frightens me to death. Not because of guilt but because of the manner in which too many people are treated by leaders. The experiences I have observed in others plus some of my own, demonstrate that the spirit or soul of an individual is not always safe in their hands. Bad judgment, insensitivity, arrogance, bullying and sheer spiritual incapacity to see, deal and reach individual souls is so common, that in my present state of mind, it would only serve to damage this vulnerable heart even further.
My children have suffered a tragic loss and some of my insensitive remarks to them have not helped much either and although they can’t fully understand or appreciate it; some of their conduct toward me has isolated and hurt me also.
Is this a time to be talking to someone who does not even know me—someone who has no knowledge of my history—who could never know the kind of relationship I have always had with God and still do—the kind of grief I have been through? It is impossible for you to know what these experiences have been like and how they have connected me to God in a manner I could never have believed possible, despite the sin involved in corresponding with married woman. How could you ever judge me morally, when you can never know nor even begin to imagine what it is like to be me and to have gone through these changes? Perhaps you feel, either in or out of my presence, you will have to make some moral judgment but with the best will in the world toward me, you will act for the church and unfortunately, that always seems to be blunter and harder than Christ would ever do.
If you cannot allow time, but insist on immediate repentance or positive change, then there will be no cooperation from me. I will not force this issue too fast. There exists a very strong possibility with time, that a powerful change will occur, but if you give me none, then you will inevitably lose me.
It is a strange thing, that the people who seem to understand what I am going through most, are nonmembers.
Sincerely,
Bob Bridgstock
Almost by return of post he sent another letter with much encouragement to attend. He also phoned to check I had received it and once more encouraged my attendance. I started to imagine 16 men sitting around a room talking about me. I then thought, ‘if any dirty washing was going to be aired, I’d rather be there to set the record straight.’ So, on the 5th April 2006 at about 7pm I arrived at York chapel, England and was sitting in the Stake Presidents office 30 minutes before I was due to appear in his disciplinary “court of love.” I had been asked to bring another priesthood holder with me — presumably for support? I wanted to drive up alone, but felt obliged to pick someone, so chose Adam, my son-in-law. I think this preamble (Before the court started) was to ascertain any last minute repentant attitude I might have. I remember he asked me: “Do you think your present state of grief has caused you to act the way you have?” I gave an emphatic no. It was a bit like saying I was mentally sane to plead guilty. As I look back now, I realize how much I really was affected by grief and loneliness. How do I know this? Because I made some decisions even after that time, which presently make me shudder with astonishment and embarrassment? One simply does not act normally. All self pity to one side, it’s just another illustration of how insanely harsh church can be. After this short interview, I joined Adam in a waiting room, whilst the Stake Presidency joined the High Council members to get ready for the court.
At 7.30pm I was ushered in to this eminent body of priesthood holders — six down one side of a long table and six down the other side, with the Stake Presidency seated at the far end. Years ago, when I was a Clerk in the London Stake, I had sat on such a body as this—saying nothing—but writing like a madman. Now I was the one on trial.
After the Stake President had opened proceedings and described how the court would work, he read out, or stated the allegation of my communications with a married woman, which I did not deny. I was then permitted to read my own statement of some six pages, which took 20 minutes. It would bore readers to print it here. It was largely a description of my life at that time and my perceived spiritual state with God, as well as my general doubts and inability to trust the Church anymore. I was aware that my ‘crimes’ were a violation of church teaching, yet my statement made it quite clear that I was not willing to abide by their conditions—whatever they might do.
All this happened years ago now and I cannot remember all the words spoken or questions asked, neither those assigned to speak for me and those assigned to speak for the church, but I do remember some things well enough. One brother asked me: Do you consider yourself to be like King David of old, who allowed his thoughts to lead him into sin? I cannot recollect how I answered, but much later I pondered the question again and thought, ‘King David saw a woman he desired, so arranged the death of her husband and ordered her to his palace where—like it or not—she remained as his sexual partner. Unlike King David, I had not had a sexual relationship; I had not so much as touched her, nor had I arranged the murder of her husband. Further, even if I had King David’s power, I could never have done what he did!’
There must have been many things said and many things asked, in order for the council to ascertain the facts. Time was geting on and I was feeling tired. Then a brother from way down the table on the right hand side seemed to be a little more impatient and posed a question: “Brother Bridgstock, when are you going to change and repent?” I replied: “As I have explained, I see no reason to do what this council wants of me. People don’t change when they are forced to, but when they are ready to. You can’t force change in a time scale that suits you.” With a sweeping motion of one arm he points to where the Stake President was sitting and whilst looking directly at me–and with a little more contempt in his voice, made the following remark: “But brother Bridgstock . . . this is the Lords anointed – His mouthpiece – and what he is asking you to do IS the will of God.” For me, there was only one answer and looking at the Stake President, I said . . . “but I don’t trust him!” There was a pause, where I think he knew his cause was lost on me. Next, I was graciously asked to leave with Adam and await their deliberations. In that waiting room I asked Adam how he thought I was doing? He said I was very honest. I mused: “Do you think I am digging my own grave?” “Yes,” he concluded.
It was getting very late when I walked back into the court room to hear my fate. Papers were shuffled as the room went silent to hear the Stake President’s decision. No doubt he had talked with the entire High Council as well as separately with his own two counselors. He would have also prayed. (Bear in mind what I said about so-called revelation). Now he was ready. I had expected a slap on the wrist, quite possibly disfellowshipment (Retaining membership, but having some restrictions imposed, which are lifted as proper repentance is adhered to). As he summed up the entire proceedings he came to the point of judgment:
“Bother Bridgstock – after prayerful deliberation and consideration, this court has come to its verdict. It is the will of the Lord that you should be excommunicated . . . God will not be mocked!”
Somewhere here I felt shock waves pass over me and a sense of abandonment. It was now close to midnight and we were all tired, but the Stake President did not want me to go home without a short private interview with him and his counselors.
I remember a small, though significant thought, which occurred to me when I was given one reason why I was to be excommunicated…. “To protect the purity and good name of the church.” It was strange…. I kept thinking, amidst the whirl of other emotions which had overwhelmed me at that moment… ‘Why are they so concerned about The “GOOD NAME” of the church?’ It was said of Christ: “. . . . He made Himself of no reputation.” In the haze of rejection, I kept thinking, ‘how can someone as insignificant as I be such a threat to the GOOD NAME of the church? What GOOD NAME does my rejection protect?’ Now I see ever more clearly, that their fixation on ‘how’ the church appears to look—its image—its reputation, is all that matters to them, or, at very least, their biggest consideration. To me, even before there was ever a reason to summon me before a court, it had LOST its good name. On the surface, all seems well with the Church, but I had already noticed the rot that had finally broken its hold on me. The sad thing is, that in the face of the real truth finally coming to the surface, Mormonism has an uphill battle whatever it does – either in the continuing suppression of facts, or in coming clean and revealing the truth of its real history.
I think he was concerned about my psychological state. I could tell they would be glad to be finished and get back to their families, but duty compelled them to try a little harder to make sure I was ok. In this late interview, the burden of their remarks was intent on helping me understand that what they had done this night was the will of God. President Munser related a story from his own past where he sought ‘confirmation’ from the Lord, about something he was agonizing over. Looking directly in my eyes, he testified that if I would do the same, I would receive the same confirmation that my excommunication was the will of God. The other two indorsed his words. I looked at my watch – it was now midnight and I went home to a cold dark house.
Despite my unbelief, I followed President Munser’s advice and over the next few days prayed for a confirmation as he had directed. I did so without cynicism. Unlike the arrogance within the LDS membership generally, which is a smugness of feeling so correct – an arrogance they may be completely unaware of, or would strenuously deny – I was not bankrupt of the humility of believing that perhaps there was still the remotest possibility I might be wrong? An answer to such a prayer might be the last chance to perceive my own stupidity and deception, yet despite repeated attempts to supplicate God, nothing ever came. They had not said that such a confirmation would only come when I returned to full activity, or had fully repented. No, they said absolutely nothing of such conditions, just go home and seek confirmation. These little but important things, show how very derelict the Mormon god is. If he really loved and cared about me as they kept saying he did—why then did he fail me and fail to honor President Munser? There was no failure, because there is no God of Mormonism – only men playing god.
Sadly, everything I thought Christ would do, they did NOT do. On 5th April 2006 from 7.30 till midnight I was judged. I should never have gone in hindsight. I had a liaison with this unhappily married woman, between September 2005, till this April of 2006, consisting of very infrequent contact by phone, text messages, and some romantic poems, I had met up with her perhaps 3 times for just minutes in our local High Street. At no time during this period did I ever have close physical contact with her whatsoever.
It is now roughly 15 years since my excommunication and I still retain sadness about that night, which will not go away. The sadness has nothing to do with my personal morality or about any supposed sense of guilt, or actually being out of the church – far from it, I am happily living without the church. No, it is to do with being cut off from love during that evening and the sheer absence of it in that court. I was bold, honest and defiant. I was not willing to conform to their wishes – yet did so later that summer as I had previously told the stake president I would do. I had previously asked if he could give me more time, but he refused to be gracious enough to allow more time. He said (In so many words) the policies and doctrines about how transgressor should be dealt with in God’s church were clearly laid down in handbooks and scripture and these were God’s will. Delay or procrastination was not a luxury either he or I could indulge in… God demanded obedience and repentance NOW!
I repeat, without any fear of him and for my own reasons already foreseen (For I had already been excommunicated) I fulfilled what I told him I would do and the time frame I said I would do it. If he had been gracious and just waited, there would have been no need for a court at all. So my real objection had nothing to do with my accused immorality, but this Stake leader’s insistence on ‘instant’ obedience.
The issue was less to do with my disagreeing with his request to refrain from contacting this woman (Thus eliminating the need to hold a court at all), but the ‘timing’ of my conformity to his wishes. They demanded immediate repentance and change; I was not quite ready and would not do so just to please them. To them, that was my defiance. Under the surface I was lonely, so lonely it was frightening.
Somewhere on an emotional level, I wanted, and so badly needed them to become like God. Perhaps I had been given what I might describe as an unconscious blueprint of how ‘my’ God would deal with me and wanted and hoped these leaders would have the same instincts about deity. I wanted arms around me. I wanted acceptance as a human being. I needed to somehow ‘identify Christ’ with the church I had loved and served so long. Some form of punishment might have been understandable (Indeed, expected) so long as I felt loved. When the sentence was pronounced upon me, the sadness inside felt as bad as the moment I watched my wife die. It was a profound moment of ‘love being lost.’ It was like suddenly learning that the person who said she was my mother, was not my mother. I felt left alone at the very moment I needed not less love, but more. Unfortunately, church courts deal with ‘sin,’ not people. The Mormon church rarely deals with ‘people’ – its entire ethos, dogma, approach and policy is to administer and deal with church rules, and somewhere in all the good intentions, people get left behind or unnoticed. If they could really get their heads around this problem, most courts would dissolve not long after they started, or not be held at all.
Fanaticism always deals with a ‘principle,’ a ‘law,’ an ‘ideal,’ a ‘sin,’ very well – very efficiently, but in doing so, it breaks more hearts and abuses more souls than its blind eyes will ever know. When you have the example of the first prophet – Joseph Smith, using his so-called priesthood to ‘force’ marriage upon vulnerable girls at the risk of them either losing or gaining salvation – is it any wonder that the church still continues to abuse its members in the exercise of its priesthood? When I first started to sense these things I was shocked. It was like a revelation of ‘what Mormonism really was – what it really is.’ Indeed, it was also a revelation of what I also had become under Mormonism. The sudden knowledge that I was part of an organisation, which bred an undesirable level of extremism into me, was disturbing. By the time I was excommunicated, the mountain of doubt – carried and struggled with all my life, was thankfully dumped and left behind.
No one comes in or out of deconstruction without feeling lost. Members of the church hold the view that the ‘anger’ and ‘resentment’ of ex Mormons is about satanic influence, which has unfortunately been self absorbed into themselves through their disobedience, rebellion and pride. The truth is, losing one’s faith becomes a grief, because a death has occurred. Mormonism simply does not think this way – I know, I was there – I also thought this way. Anger, resentment and blame, is not the loss of the spirit, it is part of the GRIEVING process. It is what happens after betrayal. How unfortunate, that even the greatest minds of the LDS Faith deliberately perpetuate the myth that such people have simply become ‘offended,’ or ‘disaffected.’ They are victims of their own proclivity toward pride or disobedience. How insensitive a judgement is that? How totally out of touch with reality is that? Somewhere, sometime, the anger and sense of betrayal most ex Mormons feel will subside as a new life begins. If transformation or change is taking place, then we will be able to reconstruct our lives and move on. I have been through this grief on many fronts. It amazes me that Mormonism cannot make the correct connection between its own conduct, attitude and past history with the resentment and vehemence of ex members? The active membership of the church is utterly and completely blind to the REAL cause of anger in ex-Mormons.
On this night I finally lost the church. The last nail was finally hammered into its coffin, not through excommunication itself, but in a sense, through the manner of its entire proceedings. These things reinforced what I dreaded – that God was absent; I just saw men playing god. I saw a system which was once ‘my mother’ turned into a mechanical apparatus – a machine. I heard words in dignified tones and assurances of love, but I felt abandoned. The church does not deal comfortably with contradiction and paradox. It cannot look upon what it thinks is sin or a mess and still embrace its perpetrator. Unlike Christ, it does not forgive, touch or embrace – it punishes, purges, and excludes. It is too rigid and afraid to love on a Christ-like level. It is afraid of contamination and risk. I was told: “It does not want its good name polluted!” Yes, I was to discover it is very afraid of that and goes to very deceptive and fraudulent lengths to protect its own supposedly ‘good’ image.
Consequently, no one reached across to me. I can never forget the Stake President’s words, as he looked at me from the far end of the room, after considering his verdict…. before he pronounced my excommunication; he said in solemn tones: “God shall not be mocked.” His attitude and this remark seemed to contain that final nail in the coffin of Mormonism. At that moment I knew he knew nothing about me, or the God who was so real and so close to me. Those words revealed everything I HATED about the Mormon god – his stupid harshness and his utter irrelevance to my life. I saw the sharp contrast between what was in my heart and this absurd statement. Now I knew this leader had another god. Yes, the one with the small ‘g’… a god that was his illusion, in whom I had no fear. It was strange – it was rather like someone telling me a falsehood about my wife, whom I had been with for 1000 years and had come to know inside out! I knew he did not know her! Have you ever had that happen?…. a person tells you a secret about someone you know so much better than they do and you know they are ignorant or just plain malicious!
This man in whom I had submitted myself for judgement, might just as well have had a one legged dead duck for his god. He was a thousand miles away from me. Yet still, the humanity in me was screaming to be embraced and accepted. Instead I felt dumped, deserted and misunderstood. They dealt with my apparent ‘conduct,’ not me. Sometimes you know things so powerfully. I knew how I had struggled with temptation and how I had taken this to God with so many tears and pleadings, and how I had managed, at very least, to have nothing to do with this woman until my wife died. So Diane knew nothing of my feelings until after.
Bitter loneliness, isolation and longing took hold of me, and in that emptiness, God came to dwell. Mormonism has never been able to understand the sheer immensity of Gods generosity and graciousness. It gives lip service to it, but is out of its depths to accept it in operation. It refuses to believe in Christ’s disturbing and scandalous propensity to embrace sinners. The harsh god of Mormonism will not touch lepers, forgive murderers’, or ever comfort an adulterer, and I was none of these. The church talks about Gods love but demands the very opposite of what Christ demonstrated on earth – it blames, punishes, excludes, and demands conformity and absolute purity. It fails to recognise goodness in people because it becomes too preoccupied with their so-called ‘sins.’ What is incredibly to me, is that it actually does the very opposite of what Jesus would do! In the sanctity of my own conscience and heart, I had never ‘mocked’ God. I knew with unqualified certainty, that the moment he said that, he did not know me and a terrible inner sadness gripped me. Their ‘revelation’ to exclude me was unconnected to any divine source and had ignorance and prejudice written all over it.
A person may be a terrible sinner – even riddled with weakness, but that need not have any association with “mocking” God. Mocking God is about a certain attitude or disregard, not about inherent weakness or disobedience. I have often wondered what it would feel like to try and relate, on a personal level, to a person who had previously tortured me? Now I knew. The pain of my spiritual Inquisition still remains.
On the 26th April 2006 I sent this letter to President Tunnicliffe:
“What incentive do I have now to return? How can I violate my conscience and become a devout Mormon again, when my real heart and soul can no longer accept it. My soul has moved beyond the dry, monotonous tones that induced a dull, lifeless nothingness, each week in Church. Being “out-side” my faith nevercame from sin or weakness; it has come from re-evaluation of who I am and who God is, in relation to me. It is about coming of age and casting off external props and clutter. It is about finding God so close and so immediate, it takes my breath away. You talk about “fruits” as if my one moral misdemeanour summed up my entire ethos or character. That because of one sin all future decisions taken outside the Mormon faith must lead to hell – as if one sin would poison the entire structure (me) that God sustains?
Richard Wurmbrand once asked: “Against what are you righteously indignant, one or all of my sins? Sins of what gravity and what number? Are they more and heavier than yours?” How many sins have cluttered your life and how would you weigh them against mine? What in-roads might Satan have made into your future, based on the number or type you have committed?
You talk of fruits…. why is it that when I mix with Saints generally, they seem as “dead” people? Devoid of spiritual vitality, who endlessly drone on about programmes and targets and incessantly reprimand all who have not pulled their weight. What did Jesus say? …”Let the dead bury the dead” I wish to heaven that the fruits of Mormonism were not so shrivelled and dried in the average Church classroom. Certainly it would have been such a powerful help to me if someone – somewhere, had had some bread to give away. The last time I was at Church I remembered feeling so choked inside, because I knew there was no one there to strengthen me – no one.”
In a battered old book by Henry Drummond: ‘The Ideal Life,’ under the chapter on Penitence, he wrote something about our spirit or soul (page 208) in words wholly opposite to the manner in which Mormonism values or regards the spirit within people. Yes, this quotation is a shuddering antithesis of the method and practise I experienced in this “court of love.”
“There is nothing more sensitive in all the world, than a human soul, which has once been quickened into its delicate life by the touch of the divine. Men seldom estimate aright the exquisite beauty and tenderness of a sinner’s heart. We apply coarse words to move it, and coarse, harsh stimulants to rouse it into life. And if no answer comes we make the bludgeon heavier and the language coarser still, as if the soul were not too fine to respond to weapons so blunt as these. There is a coarseness in the fibres of the body, and these may be moved by blows; and there is coarseness in human nature, and that may be roused with threats; but the soul is fine as a breath, and will preserve, through misery and cruelty and sin, the marvellous delicacy which tells how near it lies to the spirit of God who gave it birth”
When will the Mormon church have the humility in its leadership and begin to acknowledge its own corruption and the pollution of the god they perpetrate on people? When will they grow up and start to live as if they had walked with Christ?
Sometimes I thought my confusion, my doubts, my questions and my feelings, were peculiar to me. Perhaps I was an ‘odd ball’ within the Church? Then I started to read case after case of Mormons – some who had been members all their lives, who were devoted to its principles; they were just like me. So many of these people were telling me the same thing I had experienced… the self same problems, attitudes, abuse and arrogance that I had experienced. I was no longer alone. Suddenly, I was no longer a minority, but part of the greater majority. In reality, Mormonism is the real minority, with all the hallmarks of a cult.
Firstly, let me get one red herring out the way. The accusation that these courts make people feel “offended” and terrible because they have been found out, or have confessed to some sin which is affecting them, is not what I am saying or complaining about. I am not talking about legitimate guilt or shame for some unbecoming conduct. I am talking about the whole principle and reason the church wants to hold a court in the first place…. the attitude and rigidness that forces an organisation to exclude rather than embrace. The compulsion to humiliate, embarrass, punish and believe God approves, is the very antithesis of Christ. ‘Courts of love’ is a relatively recent description, perpetuated by General Authorities in the hope of portraying the church with a more caring and loving approach to human frailty – once again, it is a deception.
Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest, an international speaker and author, wrote the following in his book ‘Hope Against Darkness’:
“ . . . . is amazing that institutional Christianity ever created the very concept of excommunication. Only the individual can do that to himself, and we had best not make it our corporate concern. Hinduism, the oldest religion in the world, has never excommunicated anybody”
In his book ‘Everything Belongs’, he also says:
“All other systems exclude, expel, punish and protect to find identity for their members in ideological perfection, or some kind of ‘purity.’ The contaminating element always has to be searched out and scolded”
A Bishop’s Last Stand
When someone is excommunicated, they are no longer a member of the Church. If male, they will have lost the priesthood and any temple ordinances performed previously for themselves, will be null and void. They should not take the sacrament. They cannot pay tithing – though they are encouraged to ‘save it up’ in order to pay it all back, once re-baptised, (A gesture of commitment you understand!) They cannot go to the temple, receive a calling, pray at church, or generally be involved in any ‘official’ capacity. I had been a member all my adult life and it suited the church to use me for teaching and preaching almost without ceasing, up and down the years since Suddenly it was all over. After my excommunication, I had not the heart to return to church much longer, yet all my social acquaintances were there. In my soul was a desire to say one more thing to those that new me and respected me in my ward. Perhaps this was simply a desire to say goodbye? But of course it was impossible – I was not allowed to address the people…. or was I?
A thought occurred to me… ‘I could just get up in the next fast and testimony meeting and say farewell? No I can’t, it would be embarrassing! I’m not allowed.’ But the thought remained and consolidated. Something inside me started to say: ‘don’t be weak any longer, don’t be afraid of being courageous and bold. Don’t look down the years from some future point, wishing you had been stronger.’ I have spent my whole life pussy-footing around with my doubts, trying to raise uncertainties which did not make me feel a fool or stupid. A great part of my ability to communicate as a teacher had been my ‘passion’ for life – my passion for spirituality. Why should I let a rule prevent me from sharing – once and for all – my last testimony?
In all probability, this might be my last chance to express an explanation for my departure. I was not prepared to leave it to chance and wrote the whole thing out. I timed it – it was pretty average for a testimony. I reviewed it. At the beginning it included an apology and a thank you to the Bishop for allowing me to take a few moments to express myself (I knew he would be ok about it – we got on well) The next paragraph was straight to the point and brief… that I had been excommunicated for having contact with a married woman and that this would probably be my last testimony. The remaining 90% (No exaggeration) was exclusively my express feelings about God, which contained praise and gratitude. At no point did I offer any negative thoughts or criticism of the church, nor anyone in it. It was essentially my personal emotions about God.
The next Sunday I sat slightly nervously. Looking to the front and sitting on the stand (If my eyes did nor deceive me?) was the 1st counsellor to the Stake President who had excommunicated me!…. It made no difference, I did not care. Not because I felt like a rebel, I did not. I felt sad and reconciled to whatever fate awaited me outside and beyond that moment. In my heart was just a simple last wish to praise God. That is the absolute truth.
The moment came and I walked those lonely footsteps to the stand. A look of distain from the visiting counsellor did not go unnoticed as I placed my papers down on the pulpit. I commenced reading and had hardly started when this man came across to me saying, for all to hear: “This is not in keeping with the spirit… I request that you stop immediately” and he moved his hand across, as if to take my papers to prevent me from continuing. I gathered them up quickly and turning to him, saying: “On the contrary, I think it is within the spirit to proceed and I will not sit down unless I am dragged” Whereupon he seated himself and allowed me to continue. I had only just got going again when I noticed out of the corner of my eye that my daughter Beth (Now a mother) was leaving the chapel in tears, followed close behind by her husband Adam, who paused and spoke into my ear (He was on the stand – a counsellor in the bishopric) Something like: “I hope you are happy?” or “Can you see what you have done?” Meaning, I had embarrassed his wife and my daughter. This was a distress to me – I had never wanted to embarrass her. In retrospect though, I have wondered why she did not stop to listen? Most certainly, the absolute majority of my written words contained more praises of God than she would likely hear for the rest of her year in this church. Yes it might have been difficult for her, but I thought that’s what love did—endured.
I finished and sat down in my usual seat. Around me were many empty chairs and I felt terribly alone. I seemed to be in another place, because the rest of the meeting was a blur in my memory, except for one thing. Donna, a lady who seldom came to Selby ward, had turned up today. I knew her well and my wife used to ‘visiting teach’ her. Suddenly she was sitting next to me. She just squeezed my hand and said in my ear: “Thought you might need some company” She would not have known what that small gesture meant to me. Of all the people who could have come, it took a person who is rarely ever at Church, to love me when I needed it most. How very odd?
I received a very curt letter, delivered by hand from some stake leaders, telling me that if I tried to enter the meeting house again, without first consulting, or having an interview with a member of the Stake Presidency, I would be escorted off the property. Time passed and I went back from time to time to visit friends, without ever seeing a leader. I broke a rule of the church. I do not believe the members of my ward were babies to be pampered or children to be protected from the authenticity of the real world. They are not weak. Leaders think so and that is why they are nervous and frightened of honesty, and why – over much bigger issues than whether I should be allowed to speak, they have hidden incriminating evidence, in case the membership is weakened by ‘inactivity’ (Another word for absence from church) and the fear that the convert ratio will drastically decline.
As I have said previously, it is simply not true that member’s who leave the church, do so because they are fundamentally weak, proud, rebellious, or perhaps have lost the spirit of the Lord through sin of neglect. The last chapter of this book contains a true story of an older couple who remained sweet and kind, despite their devastating loss of faith in Mormonism. To me they seemed typically solid and wonderful members. Their explicit faith, sacrifice, commitment, as well as their guilt, was so representative of many LDS. They reminded me so much of those beautifully mature older missionary couples, who beam with that well grounded contentment and very sunny disposition.
When all is said and done and the arguments are considered, one of the most difficult things for members to remember is that happy, well adjusted people will be members of the church and it can still be false! Their presence may seem like living proof that this church must have something wonderful and successful about it? I can only repeat that every religion will have both happy, clever, well balanced people at one end of the spectrum, to the dysfunctional needy misfits, at the other end. I believe if a person fully accepts and lives their religion (or no religion) they are (as I have said earlier) ‘living within their faith.’ However, that says absolutely nothing about the Truth of anything they happen to believe?
I’m not sure the atheist will like my suggestion that they too can “live within their faith.” I don’t wish to suggest that they may do this in the same way as many religious people do. In religion – and this includes the LDS church, there is a great play on seeking truth through church related processes, i.e. scripture, prayer, obedience – always ‘inside’ the LDS faith, but in each case they keep coming back to faith, as if it sets them apart from those who leave, as if they had “lost faith.” Yes, they may have lost their faith, but only in Mormonism. The principle of faith however, is not need to be abandoned at all.
So, on behalf of those atheists and humanists who used to be LDS, I ask the true blue Mormons: what about the very real faith, trust, confidence, hope and expectation it takes to leave such a treasured belief system behind? All those who doubt and are searching beyond or behind the facade of Mormonism are still actually living-out, or will be enabling themselves – yes, even actualizing the principle of faith. To me, it is the self same principle in operation whatever we believe. It’s about trusting self, trusting science, trusting others, or still trusting God to lead them back, or out of Mormonism. To me, this is a real dynamic and cogent faith no matter what we dump or retain. This is what I mean by ‘living within our faith.”’It involves listening to our reasoning faculty and our conscience. In this sense, ‘faith’ can take us away from prophets and religion and perhaps for the first time in our lives, really trust ourselves and other possibilities. The idea that to allow ourselves to leave Mormonism is an abandonment of our personal faith is totally ridiculous. It can happen, but not in my case. We need a form of faith in so many areas and endeavors in life.
The people who come out of the church vary so widely. Every conceivable story and so many, that if you sat 24/7, you would not possibly have the time to read them all. What’s more, 99.9% have not left the church for moral indiscretions, but have had to work through their intellectual and heartfelt conflicts. All these thousands of stories share so many common factors and suddenly you realise you are not mad, or alone.
I have to tell you honestly, if I had had no argument with the teachings and policies of the church at all, except for polygamy, or the plurality of wives; that alone would sink me with disgust. It is a proof beyond question that Joseph Smith was, at worst; a sexual deviant and power seeking con merchant, who possessed the very best disguise – a charismatic air of religious authority. At very least, Joseph Smith was a power hungry, sexually driven, religiously deluded predator, obsessed with a sense of his own self importance. If that alone was not enough; the temple endowment pantomime, seals its doom! I thank God my marriage was a happy one and that by default, Mormonism enabled me to grow toward spiritual autonomy and liberation – else the years would have been more pointless.
Son of Perdition
A good Mormon will not make a judgement as to whether a particular sister or a particular brother has crossed the line and committed the unpardonable sin, or has become (According their teachings) a ‘Son of Perdition.’ (An unredeemable soul that is shut out forever from Gods presence – locked forever in a proverbial hell) No, a good Mormon will not make that assessment, because he or she knows that the level of light (Knowledge, conviction, testimony, understanding) a person receives, can only be fully understood by God, so they tend to leave that accusation or judgement to Him. Nevertheless, they are taught that to totally reject Mormonism after having received a testimony of it, would take them to the very brink of spiritual catastrophe. As a Son of Perdition, (According to Mormon doctrine) you have no hope whatsoever of receiving any degree of Salvation. All that is left is hell…. such a comforting dogma.
Ask those outside Mormonism if I seem like a Son of Perdition? Ask my sister – ask my two brothers – ask my true friends… those who really knew me. And when you have finished, let your soul ask my soul. Ask the wind, the trees and the mountains – ask the universe. Consult your brain and intuition. It will tell you what I already know…. but do not ask some of my children, for despite loving me, they will hesitate and will not be quite sure? Why? Because their church teaches that those who deny the faith and altogether turn from it (As I most certainly have) after having once been enlightened by receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost that the church is true, and having received their endowments in the temple, will NOT have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.
I thought I knew many things, but it was all false. The only reality has been my sincerity. Doctrinally, my children think I am lost, I think I have been found. They think I am dead, I think I am alive. They think I have failed, I think I have triumphed. We live on the same planet, but as far as theology goes, we are actually in different worlds and on different plains.
I have presently 6 children and many grandchildren and have perpetuated a legacy of delusion in the generations that may proceed after me, as they continue in Mormonism. However difficult it might be in this mortal state to discern the truth about religion, I believe it will be possible to understand and disregard many of our mortal delusions after death. If a Spirit World exists – and I believe it does – all those who profess to communicate with it, tell us that religion is entirely man-made.
I Cannot Ultimately Fail
I have no fear anymore – not of Mormonism, or of the awful aspects of its god, so I do not need to ask questions about Perdition, or about the denial of the Holy Ghost. Fears of exclusion, separateness, segregation and isolation, are simply impossible when my head and my heart knows that my soul is more balanced. Mormonism successfully persuaded me that their god was already gone from me and I was unlikely to ever get him back without a lorry load of good works, obedience, sacrifice, endurance and a Masters degree in worthiness. The actual truth is, I never was disconnected from God – I was always wired-in, but did not know it. To say I was not intrinsically from God, or of God, is like suggesting infinity is isolated from endless space – it is part of the same thing. My religion – my Kingdom, was carried around within me. There is no such thing, place or person, as ‘Perdition.’ If there is a God, I will spiritually evolve and grow toward the divine light (However badly I may have acted) Hell, if it exists at all, is much more about what I’ve suffered down here, than up there. I cannot ultimately fail. In the end I will reach the shore of my destiny, or if all this is false, sleep peacefully in oblivion. I believe there are yet further dreams and destinies that will beckon me ever onward and upward. Every nuance of progression is a slight shift toward joy, toward peace and toward serenity.
I am so very slowly learning to choose goodness. Learning through the contrast of experience… and such experience may include the very worst and the very best of what I am capable, as well as the darkness and light I pass through. What simply will not happen, is the kind of encounter or prediction made up in the Book of Mormon – where I am forced to appear before the Judgement Seat of Christ in all my filth and sin and to tremble and shrink with unbelievable fear from His presence. The kindness, mercy and patience of God toward me, is so much greater than Mormonism will allow. My judgement day commences every morning, when I decide what I want to be.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
The Tyranny of Brigham Young
“There are no righteous societies; there are simply different degrees of depravity”
Howard Bloom, ‘The Lucifer principle’
Smoke and Mirrors
Brigham Young said: “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture”(Journal of Discourses) Well, that’s a help. Now, no one can say he was not speaking as a prophet whenever he uttered any nasty or self opinionated speeches from the stand. This chapter is about his violent, misogynistic and prejudiced nature – especially so, in the areas of Race, Polygamy and the doctrine and practise of Blood Atonement. Modern Church leaders today argue that Brigham and Joseph only talked about Blood Atonement – it was just rhetoric – a means of ‘scaring’ the Saints to behave and act obediently. What an odd explanation? Why would someone teach a principle if they never intended to implement it? I’m afraid there is far too much evidence available to make those kinds of excuses.
Many years ago, my perception of Brigham Young was much the same as all other leaders of the church; he was the second prophet of this dispensation, to give decisive direction to the church at a time of great change and transition. I had always thought that his abiding strengths were his firm and authoritative leadership, as he led the Latter Day Saints to the Salt Lake Valley and there built a city as a sanctuary and refuge from the world – a place of gathering. I have visited Salt Lake City and toured both the Beehive and Lion House. I noticed all the home made furniture and was left with an impression of industry, work and collective order.
However, the air-brushed character of Brigham Young, which the Church wishes you to perceive, has always been that of a strong, dynamic and inspiring pioneer leader and essentially he was, but the church would NOT want you to know – and would most certainly not want to shout about – is the flip-side to this man. No one is without their faults – their delusions and their hypocrisy. Consider for a brief moment the qualities of a man I learnt about many years ago; he received a bravery award in the 1st world war. He was kindly and affectionate toward children and animals; he loved to draw, paint and adored classical music. While still young, he contemplated the idea of a monastic life and was drawn to the vocation of entering ‘Priesthood.’ As it turned out, he became a gifted speaker and brilliant leader. That’s the flip-side to one of the most evil men who has ever lived – Adolf Hitler.
The church has a continuing policy to portray Brigham Young (As well as all other prophets) in their very best colours. For instance: The Priesthood manual, published in 1997, called “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young,” says nothing about his polygamous marriages. He is simply portrayed as a monogamist and doctrines like Blood Atonement – for which Young said so much – there’s not a single word? The Church refuses to be honest with its members, so only the good side of President Young is depicted (The same with Joseph Smith) and if the bad side were just normal human weakness, then we should not need to trouble ourselves too much, but unfortunately, because the worst of Brigham Young was pretty vile for a self proclaimed prophet supposedly in touch with God…. he was a disgrace.
It is true of course, the church has put out some ‘Topical Guide Essays’ or statements (Always anomalous and dateless) which have endeavoured to explain some troubling aspects, such as: Race and the Priesthood, Plurality Marriage, Translation of the Book of Mormon and Translation of the Book of Abraham, etc.) Though these are a welcome transparency, they have only been published on church websites as damage limitation to the avalanche of historicity already out there on the Internet. Without such an information technology, the church would still have remained silent! I have read most of these ‘Essays’ thoroughly and find them patronisingly obscure, superficial and inadequate.
As I have tried to show in my chapter on ‘Paradox and Contradictions’, we all have a shadow-side, or dark-side. Luckily, for most of us, our dark or shadow side will not have destroyed thousands or millions of people (As Hitler’s did), because (1) the extensions of our power and authority are limited and (2) our shadow side is really not that bad!
The difference between these large historic figures, compared to you and I, is that their charismatic influence – their power and authority – extended eventually over many hundreds, if not thousands of individuals in their lifetime and beyond. People have been willing enough to follow them without question – to follow their every wish and command, as if from God. The problem was, that Brigham Young – who started off so sincerely at the time of his conversion – became slowly corrupted by the authority bestowed upon him, though doubtless, his innate misogynistic and prejudicial nature was there before he even met Joseph. Most people do not pretend to be anything special, so have no significant reputation to live up to. But you would expect and want ‘a prophet’ to pretty much act like a prophet, just as we notice that Jesus acts like the Son of God. That’s where Brigham Young falls on his face and into the gutter. Notwithstanding all his other qualities, I believe he was a thug and I believe his rhetoric and his behaviour demonstrates this. The previous quotations of Young in regard to a wife’s responsibility to endure polygamy are shocking enough – coming from any man, but from a prophet?
As this chapter continues, it will cover such issues as: Blood Atonement, Adam/God teaching, the Mountain Meadow Massacre and Racism. I had wondered at the time of writing this book, whether referring to Brigham Young as “athug”was being a little severe? After all, like every convert who has joined the church, I was told such wonderful things about these inspiring early leaders. Indeed, the idea that any of these prophets could be corrupt was simply not tenable or credible. Though he endeavoured to disguise it, through feigning godliness and a pretentious air of charm, President Young was indeed a first rate thug, a murderer and a selfish man, as well as a strong, formidable leader. It seems however, that many forms of help, friendship, and cooperation he offered to others, were undertaken for his personal gain.
Brigham Young is simply not what he is portrayed to be by the church. Teaching manuals depicting his life and teachings over recent years, simply white-wash all his now controversial statements and say virtually nothing at all about his Polygamous life (His most favourite indulgence) His real life to LDS members is none existent. What the elite portray is a complete lie, and quite understandably. Apart from obvious truths, like becoming the second prophet, pioneering across the plains, settling Salt Lake City, and building a temple – to know more detailed truth about Brigham Young would devastate all trust in Mormonism. Despite having been ‘softened up’ by the dismantling of my past belief structure and a real exposure to Mormon history; I have still been utterly shocked and disgusted by what I have learnt about Brigham Young. Reading books of those who lived in that era and knew him intimately, such as John D Lee, Ann Eliza Young and Fanny Stenhouse, has horrified me beyond belief, concerning his real character and his pathetically miserable ethical standards. But Mormonism does this; it makes all their prophets shiny white, clean and wonderful…. until they too are ready to sling them under the bus.
As always, when reading about the fruits of Polygamy and the law of Blood Atonement, I have been sickened at heart by Young’s outright hypocrisy, arrogance, cruelty, malevolence, greed, dishonesty and indifference. Everything that you would expect in the very vilest of dictators is optimised in President Young – his murders, his duplicity, his conceit, his lust and his power hungry grasp on money and empire. Add to that, his vanity and his despicable manipulation of members for gain (Upon those who obeyed his every command and sacrificed so much for him directly – not to mention his obnoxious contemporaries, like, Wilfred Woodruff, John Taylor, Heber C Kimball and George Q Cannon). John Taylor for instance – a later prophet of the church – whose image I still remember seeing embellished on some teaching manual, looked so nice, so righteous, with artistically softened features, yet on his mission across Europe he deliberately betrayed and misled converts into believing that no such practise as polygamy existed in Utah, or could be justified under God, yet all the while he had a number of wives back in the Salt Lake Valley. This lie he accomplished with eloquent passion and undetected pretention, using both the Book of Mormon and the Bible as evidence against the claim of polygamy in Utah. That’s pure immoral and unforgivable deceit. Through these founders: Smith, Young, Taylor and the rest, contempt for Truth entered the church. Not only that, but deceit, lies, dishonesty and this cynical contempt to cover up, avoid and hide whatever Truth ill suited them, in order to deceive and attract innocent people to join the church and remain, has been and still is, a hideous evil within the core of the Mormon Institution. Some of their recent, half baked and still inadequate attempts to rectify this systemic lies (Essays on Blacks, Polygamy, Book of Mormon Translation, DNA, First Vision, etc.) move in the right direction in the wrong spirit! They pretend it to be the right spirit, but it can be classified under the New Testament phrase: “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2 Cor. 7:10) What the church itself would term ‘Worldly repentance’…. a repentance without true sorrow or a determined desire to put things right. It was very fond of using this verse to define how members should live, but is guilty of the same pathetic pretence.
Thanks to the lies about polygamy, deliberately promoted by the LDS leadership, people came from across the seas, including many fine devout women with their daughters. Most, if not all converts or migrants to the church from Europe, would NOT have joined, or left their country of origin, if the TRUTH had been told! Having sacrificed a former life and upon the completion of their long and exhausting journey, found they were faced with a harsh theocracy where women were debased, neglected and degraded. A system of marriage and control which was the very antithesis of all they had ever dreamed of, or had ever hoped possible. Some turned back, some went on to California, but so many felt helpless, powerless, alone and afraid. They embraced Brigham Young’s polygamy, because by that time and at that point, they had already invested and had suffered so much for the ‘the Gospel’ and had been sufficiently indoctrinated to their new faith (Despite their betrayal by men like John Taylor) that they could do nothing else. Those affected by polygamy, entered drudgery where the light in their eyes went out and by and by, their souls were murdered. The author is starting to stray into the next part of this chapter, which is Brigham’s awful perpetuation of polygamy, but for a moment I must continue with the character of Young.
Mormons will understand what I mean when I say Brigham Young was a ‘Natural Man.’Aterm used in The Book of Mormon to describe a man in his carnal state – an enemy to God. Young was a man still spiritually unborn, a man driven by greed, lust, ego, vanity, spitefulness, anger and general selfishness. His gross hypocrisy was that all his demands and precepts upon others were frequently absent within his own personal life. For me, I would not want him as a father, a brother, an uncle or a friend. I would not want him as a son-in-law, or as my accountant, teacher, adviser or judge. I would not want him anywhere near me and least of all, a man I could trust to lead me back to God. All successors of Brigham Young – right down to the current prophet, inherit the corruption of their predecessors; they are part of the deception – part of a great and continuing delusion.
Brigham Young was a man who was corrupted by his position of complete control over his people. He was an illiterate convert with nothing to his name, who fraudulently offered to act as ‘caretaker leader’ to the Church after Joseph’s murder, until the anointed successor (Joseph Smith’s son) was old enough to take authorised control of the church. Years later, when Joseph Smith Junior came to Salt Lake to assume that authority, Brigham Young refused to let go of power. His greediness and dishonourable dealings with both Saint and Gentile was common. His personal use of tithing funds to support and sustain his own life style was normal. His wives (Excluding any latest favourite) were materially and financially neglected. His emotional care and consideration for his wives was zero. How did Brigham Young, who had nothing and (In reality) did nothing – end up with lands, many homes, assets, businesses, and bulging bank accounts, except by extortion and corruption? The church today is one of the biggest land owners in America and has many dozens of business’s, which have nothing to do with saving souls. Its approximate daily revenue from tithing is around 19 million dollars! Not a great deal has changed really.
A Word about the Reformation
In the early days under the polygamous tyrant Brigham Young, it was a cauldron of religious fanaticism and authoritarian control. He instituted what became known as a period of ‘Reformation.’ This was a time of terrorising rededication, or obedience without question to the Priesthood. It was truly a period of authority and control gone mad. This is Brigham at his worst; a time of utter lunacy, where the church resembled a police state. Timid male members were made to feel obliged to find a second wife, in case they lost their eternal Kingdom. Those who already had many wives,’ sought more. There was pressure on all males to embrace polygamy. Public confessions to minor or major infractions were required and noted. Saints were encouraged to confess other peoples’ sins to leaders in public. The Danites (Private police) increased their punishment and the disposal of apostates. People just went missing – dispatched with approval and under the direction of President Young. In some cases, members would have ‘co-operated’ with the Brethren in the deluded belief that the forfeit of their lives was essential for their own forgiveness. They would appear in a High Council Court and after the semblance of a trial, had their throats cut in a darkened room. Tell this to any LDS member today and they will have a look of incredulity across their face, because they have been taught a wholly different history. Does all this sound like an institution or society which has the stamp of divine authorization written all over it? Is this the manner in which the light of Christ shines through His chosen servants? It’s a bloody joke!
Condemned by his Own Mouth
So, what about Brigham Young? Does his life and words demonstrate the actions of a prophet? Was he ultimately, a good or a bad person? Was he a hypocrite? Well, we have some help here, as this prophet described his own infamous character completely unaided – through his own speeches. He has no need of anti Mormons or historians to make things up about him, because as you will see, he does it very well himself! In Utah, under this dreadful and God-forsaken regime of Plural Marriage, older wives of equally older polygamous men were virtually dumped into oblivion and neglected. They were widows before their time, as their husbands continued to prey on ever younger women. What should have been a dignified, much loved, respected and cherished companion in the sunset of life, became instead, a discarded, lonely and unattractive commodity. Economically, it made sense to bring new wives back to the marital home to join an ever increasing household of women. As the pressure of space increased, so did negative emotions. A husband would be forced to provide increasingly extra accommodation and so would split his wives as necessary. Thus, despite toil and work of all the females to help provide and support each other, poverty amongst polygamous families was bad, even appalling. An older priesthood man was both attracted to, and distracted by, the needs of ever younger brides, so his time, desire and support for his oldest wives would diminish, until they were left alone in some scanty, perhaps squalid accommodation to look after themselves and to eventually die of old age with probably a broken heart. Their only hope (If not already extinguished) was the belief that they would enter their future Heavenly Kingdom as a Queen to their once youthful husband – the reason they had endured all the suffering and heartache. The male population under polygamy not only used and degraded women they became themselves more insensitive, contemptuous and heartless – all thanks to Brigham and Smith’s fine example.
With that background, is it any wonder why Mormonism in Utah was such an appalling environment, when their prime leader and prophet taught the following: (And don’t forget, we should be justified in calling this scripture, based on his own previous admission).
“The old women come snivelling around me, saying, “I have lived with my husband thirty years, and it is hard to give him up now.” If you had your husband that length of time, it is long enough, and you ought to be willing to give them to other women, or give other women to them; you have no business with your husbands, and you are disobeying God’s commands to live with them when you are old.”
How nice. Try and find that in any current teaching manual of the Church – anywhere!
Perhaps President Young must have had this first polygamous wife in mind, as he addressed his audience with those incredulous admonitions… this elderly lady, described by his 19th wife as living alone in poor accommodation and never visited or properly cared for – a women possessing the only dignity that suffering and sadness will allow.
What can you say about a man, let alone a self confessed spokesman for God, having such dreadful sentiments and opinions about women?
John D. Lee, the formal confidant and body guard to Young, said of women under a polygamous life style:
“But the darkest side of Mormonism is seen when one considers the stamp of moral and mental degradation it sets upon these men and women who comprise what one might term the peasantry of the church . . . . Instead of being uplifted she is beaten down. She must not think; she must not feel; she must not know; she must not love. Her only safety lies in being blind and deaf and dull and senseless to every better sentiment of womanhood. She is to divide her husband with one or two, or ten or twenty; she is not to be a wife, but a fraction of a wife. The moment she looks upon herself as anything other than a bearer of children, she is lost. Should she rebel–and in her helplessness she does not know how to enter upon practical revolt–she becomes an outcast; a creature of no shelter, no food, no friend, no home.” http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23519/23519-pdf.pdf
It is not difficult to understand the use of that term: soul murder, when you read such things. What a wonderful blessing and credit Joseph Smith and Brigham Young have been to Women.
Lying to Get Their Own Way
Avoiding the truth is just another form of “lying for the Lord” as began in the days of Joseph Smith and continued in the church ever since. All the early prophets lied brazenly in denial of polygamy. They have continually lied to government officials and church members alike, right up to, and long after the famous Polygamy Manifesto – that they had stopped it completely, yet secretly they continued to practise it. Parley P. Pratt advocated lying for the Lord whenever circumstance required it. It is a well known fact that Joseph lied about polygamy from the pulpit to all the Saints with great pretentious conviction, while he secretly had a number of wives. Even his wife Emma, did not know of all the extra wives he took, nor was she allowed to give her permission – as the Law of polygamy (found in D&C 132) said she should. Joseph lied continually to Emma to hide the truth from her.
Most of all, the indisputable facts surrounding Joseph’s methods in securing women for sexual access, has given me the biggest jolt. His forceful demands and ultimatums’ on innocent, believing and unsuspecting women, were intolerable. Brigham Young learnt the same tactics, whenever his patience ran out. After endless refusals from the next prospective bride, he would employ the same threats that Joseph had used so successfully. The carrot was offered first, then the stick. To persuade his next victim, he claimed revelation – including:
The certainty that his proposal was ‘God’s will’
Guaranteed eternal salvation for the prospective bride’s entire family
He was ordained to take the prospective bride into the Celestial Kingdom as a queen·
Failure to agree or comply meant the destruction in body and spirit of the prospective bride–Smith’s wife Emma was threatened with this.
When a woman is fundamentally unloved, neglected and taken for granted – when all her life is filled with poverty, struggle, sacrifice and bitterness – where she feels powerless and afraid, or too guilt ridden to change and escape, she is still expected to depict a positive image before the outside world and to appear “sweet.” She was exactly where the leaders wanted her to be – subjugated. The inspired doctrine of Plural Marriage as found in section 132 of The Doctrine and Covenants, instituted by Joseph Smith and still incorporated as scripture today, under this religious fanaticism, remains the vilest and most despicable form of human relationships imaginable. That it should claim to be the Celestial form of Marriage that exists in eternity, is a total farce and joke, which no sensitive person will laugh at. Its real horror, under any so called prophet, is a stench and stain under the all seeing eye of any God. That Mormonism once practised it and still believes in it, indicates the real credentials of Joseph Smith. Nothing else he could ever say about God can be taken seriously – nothing! To do so, is rather like listening to the head of the Ku Klux Klan, on how to deal with racial prejudice!
Christ’s Blood is Inadequate
Naturally enough, Blood Atonement is a Christian concept, in the sense that Christ shed His blood to save us. However, Mormonism’s support and practice of this principle, blasphemously abandons the comprehensive coverage of Christ’s atoning blood, as being inadequate for all men. Then, unfortunately, they go further – they extend Blood Atonement beyond the idea of a belief in the principle of Capital Punishment–set by the State, they primarily incorporate the principle that some sins cannot be redeemed by the blood of Christ. Biblically, I am at a loss to find the slightest shred of evidence to support this. If you are an informed Mormon, don’t get hung-up on verses which talk about “no forgiveness for the denial of the holy Ghost,”because, even if it were true,no one knows for sure who is truly and undeniably to be judged for that – except God Himself! However, the murder of another human being is a little more tangible, or measureable, than assuming to accurately judge the interior complexities of some poor Mormon soul. Mormonism says there is no forgiveness for a murderer, except by the shedding of his own (Not Christ’s) blood. Tragically, many confused and indoctrinated LDS under Brigham Young, passively submitted to having their own throats cut, in the deluded belief that this was the only way to save their soul eternally.
Indisputably, the teachings of the New Testament conclusively prove that the blood of Christ does cover the sin ofmurder. What more precious and innocent person throughout all history could have been murdered, than Christ himself? Yet both He (Christ) and the apostles taught there was NO forgiveness through that same blood, even for those who were also responsible for the death of Christ. Mormonism begs to differ and thereby insults the universal redeeming application of His atonement.
If you had lived at the time of Brigham Young or even Joseph Smith, and had became an apostate, there was a possibility your own blood might have been required of you. Not only did the church feel obliged and duty bound to implement this practice against those who might commit the so-called unpardonable sin of murder, or other sins of apostasy, they also went further – they did what all controlling and dictatorial institutions seem to end up doing – they distorted and abused their own dogma. They took, what was in the first place, an unbiblical and Christ-shaming practice and used it to literally dispose of any irritating, annoying, or threatening person. You could make a film out of every sad case-study I have read about. It is sickening stuff.
Brigham’s murdering police force, known as the Danites (First organised under Joseph Smith for his personal protection) was also used to insure conformity, control and absolute obedience – as if the Saints needed it? They were already virtually mindless believers in Brigham Young’s infallibility as a prophet of God, with an unqualified resolve to be subservient to his every whim and command. That should have been enough, but terror was Brigham’s reinforcement and backup plan – his means of ensuring total subjection, or removal. You have to remember that these members were taught they were living in ‘he last days.’ They were, in theory, at war with the American people (The gentiles) and the government. Innocent Gentiles travelling through, or staying a while, were too easily seen as government spies and disposed of. Mormons were taught that God’s Kingdom had come and not only the American government, but the entire world would be overcome and swallowed up by this Kingdom on earth. They still essentially believe this, though never talk about it. If you think they have ever seriously complied with the 12th article of faith, which is ‘obeying civil law,’ then read Lee Baker’s book: ‘Mormonism, A Life Under False Pretences.’ Within their temple ceremonies members literally vowed “An Oath of Vengeance,” calling for the death and destruction of the US government and the Gentile world – all those elements who they felt were responsible for the murder their beloved prophet Joseph Smith, as well as Parley P. Pratt. Cleansing the earth of the wicked was part of God’s imminent plan anyway. Even in my day, the legacy or remnants of those self-imposing, suicidal, or self-inflicting Blood Atonement rituals – existed in the temples when I joined the church back in 1964, continued right up to the 1990’s, when the Brethren ‘quietly’ dropped them from the endowment, without a word of explanation. So, because the members believed whole heartedly that the destruction of the wicked and the cleansing of evil was imminent – what better person to trust this job, than a prophet of the Most High?
Blood Atonement Was Practised
Michael Quinn is a renowned historian and former BYU (Brigham Young University) Professor. Over many years he has seen and handled more secret church documents than anyone is ever likely to do again. He has written at least six articles for the Church’s Ensign Magazine and specialised in the subject of post Manifesto Polygamy. In his book, ‘The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power,’ he offers stark evidence that Blood Atonement was, in fact, both advocated and acted on by Mormon leaders:
” . . . Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders . . . repeatedly preached about specific sins for which it was necessary to shed the blood of men and women . . .
“Some LDS historians have claimed that blood-atonement sermons were simply Brigham Young’s use of ‘rhetorical devices designed to frighten wayward individuals into conformity with Latter-day Saint principles’ and to bluff anti-Mormons . . .
Writers often describe these sermons as limited to the religious enthusiasm and frenzy of the Utah Reformation up to 1857 . . . The first problem with such explanations is that official LDS sources show that as early as 1843 Joseph Smith and his counsellor Sidney Rigdon advocated decapitation or throat-cutting as punishment for various crimes and sins . . . Moreover, a decade before Utah’s reformation, Brigham Young’s private instructions show that he fully expected his trusted associates to kill various persons for violating religious obligations . . . . “
“The LDS church’s official history still quotes Young’s words to ‘the brethren’ in February 1846:
“I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut.’”
“The following December he instructed bishops, ‘when a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro’ him in the River,’ and Young did not instruct them to ask his permission . . . A week later the church president explained to a Winter Quarters meeting that cutting off the heads of repeated sinners “is the law of God & it shall be executed . . .” A rephrase of Young’s words later appeared in Hosea Stout’s reference to a specific sinner, ‘to cut him off–behind the ears–according to the law of God in such cases . . . “
“When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed “if they were far away from the Gentiles.”
“As late as 1868 the ‘Deseret News’ encouraged rank-and-file Mormons to kill anyone who engaged in sexual relations outside marriage . . . . “
“Under such circumstances the Mormon hierarchy bore full responsibility for the violent acts of zealous Mormon[s] who accepted their instructions literally and carried out various forms of blood atonement.”
Quinn then notes another example of Blood Atonement: “5 Apr. [1902], ‘Clyde Felt has confessed to cutting the throat of old man Collins, at his request. The old man was a moral degenerate. The boy is a son of David P. Felt.’ Grandson of former general authority, Clyde Felt is fourteen. Despite this blood atonement murder, LDS leaders allo’ [the] young man to be endowed and married in temple eight years later.’ (D.Micael Quinn, ‘The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power’ [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1997], pp. 241-261, 251-53, 256-57, 60, 804-05)
The following are a handful of quotations amongst so many, which could be used. They give evidence to this ridiculous and pointless doctrine of Blood Atonement both in principle and in actual practise:
“Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their bloodshed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church.”
Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 1, pp. 135-136, 1954
“I [am] opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so.”
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 296, 1949
“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in the world which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world… I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God….It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit…”
(President Brigham Young, Sept. 21, 1856, Deseret News, page 235; very similar to Journal of Discourses 4:53-54).
“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands”
(President Brigham Young, March 16, 1856, Journal of Discourses, 3:247).
“I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up – conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them”
(President Brigham Young, February 8, 1857, Journal of Discourses, 4:220)
“Accordingly, the doctrine asserts that those who commit certain grievous sins such as murder and covenant-breaking place themselves beyond the atoning blood of Christ, and their only hope for salvation is to have their own bloodshed as an atoning sacrifice. In his writings, Joseph Smith only hinted at the doctrine, Brigham Young successively denied and asserted it, Joseph F. Smith ardently defended it, and in more recent years, Hugh B. Brown repudiated it and Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie both have vigorously defended it in principle while staunchly denying that the Church has ever put it into actual practice, whereas most other General Authorities have prudently preferred to remain silent on the subject. It should be noted that the whole notion of blood atonement is so obviously linked to the Mormon literal mind-set that it does not seem to admit of a mitigated, symbolic interpretation and is either accepted or rejected outright, depending on one’s level of literalistic belief.”
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, v. 15, no. 3, p. 9
“To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced action it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his step-daughter by a bishop’s court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the means of this doctrine and the emotional extremes of the [Mormon] reformation.”
Dr. Gustive O. Larson, BYU Professor, Utah Historical Quarterly, Jan. 1958, p. 62, note 39
“I married Jesse Hartly, knowing he was a ‘Gentile’ in fact, but he passed for a Mormon, but that made no difference with me, although I was a Mormon, because he was a noble man, and sought only the right. By being my husband, he was brought into closer contact with the members of the Church, and was thus soon enabled to learn many things about us, and about the Heads of the Church, that he did not approve, and of which I was ignorant, although I had been brought up among the Saints; and which, if known among the Gentiles, would have greatly damaged us. I do not understand all he discovered, or all he did; but they found he had written against the Church, and he was cut off, and the Prophet required as an atonement for his sins, that he should lay down his life. That he should be sacrificed in the endowment rooms; where human sacrifices are sometimes made in this way. This I never knew until my husband told me, but it is true. They kill those there who have committed sins too great to be atoned for in any other way. The Prophet says, if they submit to this he can save them; otherwise they are lost. Oh! that is horrible. But my husband refused to be sacrificed, and so set out alone for the United States: thinking there might be at least a hope of success. I told him when he left me, and left his child, that he would be killed, and so he was. William Hickman and another Danite, shot him in the canyons; and I have often since been obliged to cook for this man, when he passed this way, knowing all the while, he had killed my husband. My child soon followed after its father, and I hope to die also; for why should I live? They have brought me here, where I wish to remain, rather than to return to Salt Lake where the murderers of my husband curse the earth, and roll in affluence unpunished.”
Miss Bullock of Provo, Utah, quoted by Mary Ettie V. Smith, in Nelson Winch Green, Mormonism: its rise, progress, and present condition…, 1858, 1870 ed., p. 273
“In the excavations made within the limits of Salt Lake City during the time I have resided there, many human skeletons have been exhumed in various parts of the city…. I have never heard that it was ever the custom to bury the dead promiscuously throughout the city; and as no coffins were ever found in connection with any of these skeletons, it is evident that the death of the persons to whom they once belonged did not result from natural causes, but from the use of criminal means.”
R.N. Baskin, Reminiscences of Early Utah, 1914, pp. 154-155
“We all kneeled down, and with our right hands uplifted towards heaven, we took the solemn oath of obedience and secrecy. We sore that by every means in our power we would seek to avenge the death of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, upon the Gentiles who had caused his murder, and that we would teach our children to do so; – we swore, that without murmuring or questioning, we would implicitly obey the commands of the priesthood in everything …”
Mrs. Stenhouse’s book, “Tell It All: The Story of a Life’s Experience in Mormonism.”
The ideology of Plurality Marriage and Blood Atonement is still sacrosanct within Mormon doctrine and will be restored whenever the Brethren can get away with it. It is merely held in abeyance – yet even this they lie about and pretend they have no such belief or doctrine. As the gentile population slowly increased in Salt Lake City and around Utah generally, it became eventually too risky to butcher members at will, and so gradually, Blood Atonement had to discontinue. Now they pretended it never happened – just rhetoric.
Mountain Meadows Massacre (MMM)
“The massacre at Mountain Meadows on September 11,1857, was the single most violent act to occur on the overland trails, yet it has been all but forgotten. Will Bagley’s Blood of the Prophets is the most extensive investigation of the events surrounding the mass killings since Juanita Brooks published her study, The Mountain Meadows Massacre, in 1950.”
Contra Costa County Library – CARL•Connect Discovery – Blood of the prophets : Brigham Young and the massacre at Mountain Meadows / Bagley, Will (carlconnect.com)
At Mountain Meadows, local settlers and Southern Paiute warriors waylaid the Fancher party, a wagon train bound from Arkansas to California. Pinned down in acircle of wagons in a remote corner of south-western Utah, some forty men, thirty women, and seventy children fought for their lives for five days before surrendering under a promise of safe conduct. As the Mormon militia and their Indian allies escorted the emigrants away from their wagons, they killed all of them except seventeen children below the age of seven.
“Bagley draws on unpublished journals, letters, and documents from Mormon archives as well as from accounts by Mormons who opposed subsequent efforts to cover up or expunge the record. He explains how the murders occurred, reveals the involvement of territorial governor Brigham Young, and explores the subsequent suppression and distortion of the events surrounding the massacre. Also included here are maps and photographs never before published.”
Title: ‘Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows’. Author: Will Bagley. Publisher: University of Oklahoma Press”
The following are statements taken from off the Internet of what Brigham Young said about the MMM:
“In 1859, U. S. Army Brevet Major M.H. Carleton led the first official investigation into the MMM. Upon visiting the site, his soldiers built a crude memorial to the victims out of stones, with a wooden cross atop it, inscribed with the saying “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.”
In 1861, Brigham Young visited southern Utah, including the MMM site. The following statements were recorded of Young’s reaction upon viewing the memorial:
“We visited the Mt. Meadows Monument put up at the burial place of 120 persons killed by Indians in 1857. The pile of stone was about twelve feet high but beginning to tumble down. A wooden cross is placed on top with the following words, Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. Pres. Young said it should be Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little.” (Wilford Woodruff’s journal, May 25, 1861.)
“My grandfather, Dudley Leavitt, was present, and he told the incident repeatedly, so that it has been verified by three of his sons. One preserved it in these words, quoting his father: ‘I was with the group of elders that went out with President Young to visit the spot in the spring of ’61. The soldiers had put up a monument, and on top of that a wooden cross with words burned into it, Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay. Brother Brigham read that to himself and studied it for a while and then he read it out loud, Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I HAVE repaid. He didn’t say another word. He didn’t give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square, and in five minutes there wasn’t one stone left upon another. He didn’t have to tell us what he wanted done. We understood.”
(‘Mountain Meadows Massacre,’ Juanita Brooks, p. 183.) (Journal of Lorenzo Brown, as quoted in ibid, p. 183.)
“Brigham Young’s attitude and remarks clearly indicate that he was not sorry that the MMM had occurred, and that the massacre was an appropriate act of “vengeance.” On that same visit to southern Utah, Young spoke in a church meeting. Many Mormons in attendance had been among the murderers at Mountain Meadows four years prior, including Bishop John D. Lee, who recorded Young’s comments in that church meeting:
“Pres. Young said that the company that was ‘used up’ at the Mountain Meadows were the Fathers, Mothers, Bros., sisters & connections of those that murdered the Prophets; they merited their fate, & the only thing that ever troubled him was the lives of the women & children, but that under the circumstances this could not be avoided.”
John D. Lee’s diary entry of May 30th, 1861, as published in ‘A Mormon Chronicle: The Diaries of John D. Lee, 1848-1876’, edited by Robert G. Cleland and Juanita Brooks.
“Several southern Utah Mormons had alleged that some members of the Fancher emigrant train had boasted of being among the murderers of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in 1844. Also, LDS apostle Parley P. Pratt had been murdered in Arkansas a couple of months before the Fancher train, which had originated in Arkansas, passed through South Western Utah. Some Mormons stated that it was Pratt’s murder, in Arkansas, that enraged them to massacre the party, on the spurious grounds that they had something to do with Pratt’s murder.”
“The reason Mormons would kill people whom they believed, or were told, had murdered Joseph or Hyrum Smith, or Parley P. Pratt, is that Brigham Young had implemented an “oath of vengeance” into the temple endowment ceremony, in which patrons swore to “avenge the blood of the prophets unto the third and fourth generation.”
“Since the doctrine of “blood atonement” was promoted by the institutional LDS church, and specifically by Brigham Young and the “Oath of Vengeance” against the killers of Mormon leaders which Mormons swore allegiance to in the temple endowment ceremony was instituted by Brigham Young–and participants in the MMM referred to that oath as being their “authority” to commit the massacre–and Brigham Young spoke approvingly of the MMM as an act of justifiable “vengeance”, and that the victims (except for the women and children) “merited their fate”–then it is obvious that the man ultimately responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre was Brigham Young.” Randy J. ‘The Oath of Vengeance’
“Parley P. Pratt was sent to explore a Southern route from Utah to California in 1849. He reached San Francisco from Los Angeles in the summer of 1851, remaining there until June, 1855. He was a fanatical defender of polygamy after its open proclamation, challenging debate on the subject in San Francisco, and issuing circulars calling on the people to repent as “the Kingdom of God has come nigh unto you.”
While in San Francisco, Pratt induced the wife of Hector H. McLean, a custom-house official, the mother of three children, to accept the Mormon faith and to elope with him to Utah as his ninth wife. This she was willing to do because her relationship with her husband was poor. What kind of persuasion or pressure Pratt placed upon her is not certain? What is certain is that she was already married and Pratt should not have encouraged her to become his ninth wife! The children were sent to her parents in Louisiana by their father, and there she sometime later obtained them, after pretending that she had abandoned the Mormon belief.
When McLean learned of this he went East and traced his wife and Pratt to Houston, Texas, and thence to Fort Gibson, near Van Buren, Arkansas. There he had Pratt arrested, but there seemed to be no law under which he could be held. As soon as Pratt was released, he left the place on horseback. McLean, who had found letters from Pratt to his wife at Fort Gibson which increased his feeling against the man, followed him on horseback for eight miles, and then, overtaking him, shot him so that he died in two hours.”
I twice read the autobiography of Parley P. Pratt many years ago and can understand how his loss created great sadness for the leaders of the church at that time. As the ‘Oath of Vengeance’ and ‘Blood Atonement’ was part of Mormon doctrine and very much enacted within the temple, it is not hard to see why this fundamentalist hard-liner Brigham Young, with his highly prejudiced opinionated views, incited and inflamed this single worst atrocity of the Mountain Meadow Massacre upon the American soil; ironically on 9/11, in the year of 1887.
Assisted by Indians, whose chiefs had met only a few days before with Brigham Young – Mormon men, acting under the brain washed and deluded ideas of their fanatical leaders, murdered those men, women and children in cold blood, believing this ‘blood atoning’ was God’s will. Brigham Young, in my opinion, was a violent thug, a murderer, a spiritual bully, a misogynist, a bigoted, a prejudiced, racist fanatic.
As already mentioned, the relics of the days when Oaths of Vengeance and blood atonement were practised, are still found in the Mormon temple ceremonies, though increasingly watered down to the point where they will eventually disappear altogether and like many other ‘messy’ things within Mormon history, be denied, buried, or even confessed. I have told you that some of these changes occurred back in 1993. I am a witness to these changes to do with blood atonement at the London England temple. I remember going back to the temple after it had been closed for some considerable time for ‘renovation.’ Once opened again, I went through an endowment session and was amazed to notice the nasty bigoted bits from the film were deleted and what I understood to be ‘essential’ parts of the endowment ceremony were dropped – as if they had never been there!
A Confession of Sorts
Shock of shocks, the MMM is now finally admitted as a Mormon atrocity by current church leaders, though the LDS membership will not have seen or heard much about it, unless they went looking on the Internet. The hierarchy have always known it was committed by Mormons and not – as we were always told – by Indians. Continuing pressure from descendants of that massacre (Babies at the time) as well as the church’s pending embarrassment with the onset of the film: ‘September Dawn’(An exposé on the MMM). They cooperated with those descendants in helping to organise an official memorial site and to quietly wring their blood-stained hands in admittance of responsibility.
The Church issued a statement, because they began to see damage limitation might best be achieved through liaison, rather than ignoring the descendants for decades (As they had been doing). It should have been blazoned across International news channels. Nevertheless, the church for once, had admitted something, but could you imagine President Monson announcing culpability at the last general Conference of the church – telling the Saints the truth of the entire blood curdling episode? I don’t think so. We would not want the ‘good name’ of the Church to be doubted or stained. Like all bad news or disturbing facts within Mormonism, it is better for the members NOT to hear about it … they might get the wrong end of the stick (Actually, the right end of the stick). The leaders always knew what was best to leave out; they do all the thinking for the members.
Up to the explosion of the Internet, they have had much success with this policy of suppression, but now the genie is out the box for all who want to know the truth. President Monson was always too busy telling funny stories about old ladies to report that 120 men, women and children were shot or hacked to death under the express direction of Brigham Young in a single day on 9th September 1857, and this too in fulfilment of frighteningly graphic temple oaths repeated daily by those murderers in their ‘sacred’ temples. These fanatic oaths swore Vengeance against the government and those who killed their prophet.
Of course, in their official apology, church leaders have exonerated Brigham Young of any involvement in this massacre. What else would you expect? They did what they’ve always done – dumped the blame on the members. It is palpable nonsense of course. Brigham Young gave direction as to how it was to be carried out and who should take part and as usual, he made it quite certain that no one would trace it back to his door.
Right up to the time John D Lee was executed for these murders (As a scapegoat for Brigham Young), he gave his last, solemn, yet deluded testimony of the church. He told us quite clearly in his book that Brigham Young gave church leaders instructions on how the massacre was to take place. The clerk in his office, who was the only other person who heard and typed-up the written instructions on how the massacre was to proceed, was found mysteriously drowned in a ditch of 2 or 3 inches of water some weeks later.
John D Lee was a valuable employee of Young and executed any assignment with total loyalty and obedience. On one assignment, Lee was going to be away from home for a long time and asked Brigham to make sure his wife was looked after? He promised to do so, but failed miserably to keep his word. Brigham lied at the drop of a hat, much more so when some serious business threatened his position.
This Danite, John D Lee, also noted the following disposition in his personal journal:
“Most of my journals, written up to 1860, were called for by Brigham Young, under the plea that he wished the church historian to write up the Church history, and wished my journal to aid him in making the history perfect. As these journals contained many things not intended for the public eye, and especially very much concerning the crimes of Mormon leaders in Southern Utah and elsewhere, and all I knew of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and what led to it, they were never returned to me. I suppose they were put out of the way, perhaps burned, for these journals gave an account of many dark deeds.”
The Unpardonable Sin and Sons of Perdition
As previously explained, according to Mormon doctrine, a person who has committed the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost, is probably someone like me – a person who has come away from the church and altogether refuses to return, after having received an emotional feeling it was true and having been a Melchizedek priesthood holder and a bishop – having broken his sealing, endowment and priesthood covenants. According to Satan’s announcement in god’s temple, I must now be in his hands? If I had lived in the days of Brigham Young I might have felt obliged and encouraged to act out – literally – what I symbolically promised in the temple and allow my throat to be cut or be disembowelled, thus satisfying the Law of Blood Atonement.
Richard Rohr said in ‘Hope Against Darkness’:
“In one sense or another, all ancient religions felt we had to spill our blood to get to God. God was distant, demanding and dangerous. God couldn’t possibly love me in my radical unworthiness. What we have in the mystery of the crucified Jesus is the turning around of all primal religion. No more human sacrifice, No more animal sacrifice, no more Jansenism (beating yourself so you can be worthy of this God who basically doesn’t like you). Instead of our spilling blood to get to God, we have a God spilling blood to get to us! Pray on that for a week. It’s enough to transform you!”
Thou Shalt Not Judge
According to Mormonism, if the murder of an ordinary human being requires the perpetrators blood to be spilt, how much more those who killed the Christian God, who created the universe! If the pleadings of Christ might cause the Father to forgive the murderers of His only Son, how much more would Christ’s blood forgive the murderers of lesser mortals? Strange then, that Mormonism states categorically that a murderer has no forgiveness.
In D&C 42:18 (The Doctrine and Covenants) it reads: “ . . . . he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.” If murderers are required to have their own blood spilt, in addition to Christ’s, why then was Paul not killed by the true Disciples of Christ – if not God himself? Before his conversion, Paul confesses himself to be a murderer. He says in Acts 26:10 “ . . . . many of the saints did I shut up in prison . . . . and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.” Paul also admonished those who killed Christ with these words: “repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out . . . . “ (Acts3:10,19) nothing here about no forgiveness, nor “suffer our lives to be taken” (words used in the temple).
Christ Himself said to even ‘want’ or ‘think’ murderously, is to be guilty of the same. Just as He also said that to think or want adultery, is as bad as committing it. On this basis, Christ’s blood is not enough for any of us. Thus, we must all be in need of having our own throats cut?
It may be important to remind ourselves, as the founders of Quakerism have correctly said, that “the seeds of war” are inside each one of us – never mind blaming and calling for retribution or ‘blood atonement,’ because we are ALL guilty. The seeds of all the sins we place on others are inside us also. Far better people than I have suggested that we are participants of each other’s sins, in the sense that we tend to place blame ‘over there,’ or ‘out there,’ when it is actually ‘in us.’ Christ Himself reminded those who were quick to execute judgement: “Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Mormonism, in its continuing frenetic and paranoid impulse to blame, condemn, control and punish moral sins, has wandered so far from the spirit and atonement of Christ. The fanaticism or extremism of men like Brigham Young still gives a stilted, stunted and crippling attitude to the church – best exhibited in men like Joseph Fielding Smith, Spencer W. Kimball, Boyd K Packer , Nelson, Oaks and sadly, too many of the Black and White thinkers within the Mormon faith, still thriving in the church today.
I would like to emphasise here, what Jesus stated upon the cross – rather than what he requested – is important. He said: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” The sin of murder is the same as all sins, in that it occurs in a moment of madness. Shmuley Boteach, in his book: ‘Kosher Emotions,’ said on page 76: “You can only sin with your eyes shut.” Like any addiction – you want something so badly you go against your better judgement. The apostle Paul said of himself: “It is not I that sins, but sin that dwelleth in me.” He talks as if his real self – his essential self, is not responsible. Some authors have defined sin as: “missing the mark,” which is more like saying we have wandered off course, or taken the wrong path. Missing the mark is far more about being ‘lost.’ About not knowing where we are going, or, as Christ said from the cross: “they know not what they do.” It is more accurate and a much kinder analysis, than defining our sinfulness as a consequence of our outright evil, which Mormonism is supremely good at.
Richard Wurmbrand said: “we are full of the muck of generations.” I believe it is another way of saying that we inherit the deluded complexities of past generations – their crippling incapacity to “see” clearly. So we are back to Blindness, back to being Lost and back to “they know not what they do.” I would use Wurmbrand’s following questions about our tendency to judge other people badly (As we all do periodically) and as Mormonism ends up doing by official default as described earlier in this book, and by their past barbaric treatment of members of their own faith.
“Against what are you righteously indignant? Against the sins of men? Sins of what gravity and what number? Are they more and heavier than yours?”
Richard Wurmbrand, ‘Little Notes Which Like each other.’
Real Prejudice – Not Just Politically Incorrect
First and foremost, Brigham Young was an outright misogynist and racially prejudiced. His continuation and enthusiastic involvement with the legacy of Joseph Smith in the continuation of the disgusting practise of Polygamy, plus his public statements showing blatant contempt for the feelings and rights of woman, are sufficient alone to disqualify him from claims of Godly authority, or presiding over any church. His belief and pig-headedness upon the subject of Blacks being ‘cursed” and his equally stubborn conviction that slavery was acceptable, due to this curse, are wholly obnoxious, unchristian and discrediting. People with strong prejudice always claim ‘legitimate’ reasons for holding such views – this prophet was no different. Of course,Young got these ideas from Joseph Smith. The curse (Their black skin and the reason they could not hold the priesthood) goes back to Cain, who slew Abel and then continued after the biblical flood through the lineage of Ham, a son of Noah. Smith said:
“I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall…. the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible…. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it [slavery] remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude.”
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 2, p. 438
Brigham Young said: “You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be and the Lord put a mark on him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race – that they would be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.”
Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, pages 290 291
The above quotation – apart from anything else – simply reek of prejudice, which he conveniently blames on his equally prejudiced Mormon god, for cursing Cain. In my life time this doctrine and its prejudice continued under that famous Mormon scholar and prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, when he said:
“Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures . . . . they have been made to feel their INFERIORITY and have been from the rest of mankind from the beginning.” (capitals mine)
Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 101, 1935
What wonderful men of God have led the Mormon church.
Adam God Doctrine
It is odd, all my life I have heard rumours about the controversial Adam-God theory and thought it was no more than the idea conceptualised in an oft repeated aphorism: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.” I did not realise it was more than this. But as I researched this subject after my excommunication, I discovered what has happened. What I did not know is that Brigham Young taught that Adam IS the ‘Father’ of our spirits (God the Father) and came to Earth with one of his wives in their resurrected state (Bodily immortal) and were enabled to acclimatise themselves sufficiently, to produce ‘mortal’ children. Also, that Mary (Jesus’s mother) was conceived by this same Adam.
There is no doubt that he taught this; there are too many quotations of his to have it denied, yet at other times he also taught the more traditional Christian views about Adam, as simply our great first progenitor.
Apostle McConkie said in a letter to a BYU professor, Eugene England, who was teaching some questionable doctrine, that Brigham Young did indeed teach the above ideas, though he does not admit it in his own book Mormon Doctrine. But he also says that Brigham Young taught things about Adam, in keeping with the ‘Standard Works” (Mormon scripture) So, was there contradictions in the mind of Brigham about who exactly God was? “Brigham Young,” McConkie says, “was not sure about Brigham Young.” In other words, this second prophet who led the modern children of Israel to the promised land of the Salt Lake Valley, did not know which God he worshipped and swung between contradictory ideas. He thought and taught that Adam was the Father of our spirits. There is no doubt about this – there are so many statements. Orson Pratt even strongly disapproved of what Brigham taught, so it is not a view conjured up by anti Mormons.
It is staggering that a Mormon prophet and leader should have been so deluded and misguided. These are a few statements on this subject, which are now gathering dust and largely forgotten about:
“Adam is the great Archangel of this creation. He is Michael. He is the Ancient of Days. He is the father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ – the father of him who shall also come as Messiah to reign. He is the father of the spirits as well as the tabernacles of the sons and daughters of man-Adam!”
“Michael is one of the grand mystical names in the works of creations; redemptions and resurrections.” “Michael was a celestial, resurrected being, of another world.”
“I think these two quotations from such a reliable authority fully solve the question as to the relationship existing between Father Adam and the Saviour of the world, and prove beyond question the power that Adam possessed in regard to taking his body again after laying it down – which power he never could have attained unless he had received first a resurrection from the grave to a condition of immortality. We further say that this power was not forfeited when as a celestial being he voluntarily partook of the forbidden fruit, and thereby rendered his body mortal in order that he might become the father of mortal tabernacles, as he was already the father of immortal spirits–thus giving opportunity to the offspring of his own begetting to pass through the ordeals necessary to prepare them for a resurrection from the dead, a celestial glory.”
Elder Joseph E. Taylor, Collected Discourses, v. 1, June 2, 1888
“After men have got their exaltations and their crowns – have become Gods, even the sons of God – are made Kings of kings and Lord of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children. This is a key for you”
(Journal of Discourses 6:275).
Until after my excommunication, I never knew the things taught above and would never have reconciled Adam as the Father of my Spirit … in other words, God the Father of Jesus Christ – the Father of us all. The more you read the worse it gets.
CHAPTER TWELVE
Dealing with Truth
“Many things have been intentionally ignored and sometimes concealed or have been taken to have religious meanings or implications which, in my opinion, have no religious connections whatsoever. I believe that the Church has intentionally distorted its own history by dealing fast and loose with historical data and imposing theological and religious interpretations on the data that are entirely unwarranted.”
Sterling McMurrin, Mormon scholar, “7EP Interview: Sterling M. McMurrin,” by Blake Ostler, Seventh East Press, January 11, 1983, p. 1
Evolving Wisdom
Unfortunately, whilst Mormonism is still growing up, it tends to strut around saying to the world: “Look at us, see what we are doing and how good we are; please join us.” Mormonism is pretentious and self obsessed with how it looks to the outside world. Sadly, so much of its goodwill toward others, comes from its frenetic obsession with missionary work. Its principle motivation has not been about love, but about gaining new converts. This will not be a fair accusation to make upon the rank and file members generally. In my opinion, the church hierarchy uses the caring nature of its members to publicize and promote its visibility in the world.
My statement in the last paragraph aboutMormonism still growing upmight also be applied to other organisations and to individuals. We don’t mature in a day, but over many years. If all a person’s egocentricities were slowly ironed out, then so would all their hidden agendas and pretentious motives. We need time and experience to evolve and grow, so does the Mormon church.
Its most enormous problem though, is its claims to be ‘The One True Church.’ It has claimed to be the voice of God through its prophets and to have the absolute truth, from its very beginning. In effect, it has been saying it has been perfect from the start. That is why it is so hard for it to confess it makes mistakes. People outside this faith, have no real conception of what it feels like to spend years sitting in Sacrament and Sunday School, Priesthood and the sister’s Relief Society meetings… and in those meetings, being frowned on and made to feel embarrassed for even hinting that past prophets had got it wrong. To even suggest that the present prophet is not communicating every word of God, or to question his teachings or directives, is virtually blasphemous! Everything was so ‘absolute’ – no grey areas. You do not question the prophet or an apostle. As I might have said elsewhere, a constant quote within the church, was: “When the prophet speaks, the debate is over” For the church to come right out and confess that its past leaders were gravely wrong, and with some teachings, like Blood Atonement and Polygamy, were damn evil, is to ask them to acknowledge a complete breakdown and corruption of their ‘Revelatory’ powers from God. Suddenly they are alone – just men, pretending or deluded into believing they were divinely elected to lead others. Trouble is, you cannot trust the current living prophet, when all the dead ones had got things so wrong!
The LDS institution KNOWS its past has been deceptive and corrupt. It has made some admissions about past problems, yet still fails to properly acknowledge and own these failings as THEIR own fault. They shift accountability to past prophets and too often, to member’s themselves, but never the current leadership.
A mixture of Truth and Error is in all of us, but trying to acknowledge we have mistaken beliefs, can be too much truth, to bear in one go. Clearly my departure from Mormonism has been coming all my life. Doubtless, some of my own ideas within this book – my perceptions and arguments, will have flaws and errors. Over time, even my ideas about God may change drastically. I’m hoping my view of Reality is becoming less and less distorted. It seems to me we learn new things quite slowly. The first new truth we perceive starts with simply becoming aware that the ‘old’ truth we once thought was right becomes false. We evolve to see Reality more clearly. Mormons believe in the principle of going from ‘truth to truth,’ or from ‘grace to grace,’ as the D&C tells them, but they have never applied it to their own church as an institution, only to individual members and yet it is time they did. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is full of both error and truth. It has not yet grown up. However, its assertion that it ‘started off’ grown up, is now their problem! Yes, right from the start it believed it was the Only True Church on earth and all its teachings were, and still are, correct and divinely given! That is a very dangerous place to start. How can you back-peddle when you privately know what you can’t publically admit?
Dogma Turned into Prejudice
Truth, in the form of doubts and an awakening awareness of falsehood, may come like death itself. You may not want it and may fear it, but it will come nonetheless. When you begin to have uncertainties about a faith upon which you have invested so much of yourself – so much of your time, money and hopes; it makes you feel frightened, as the real possibility of its falsity confronts you. A little doubt won’t do much damage, but as the years pass, or as you sweep so much of it under the carpet, you will know in the end, you simply have to face it – that credibility can only be strained so far.
The Mormon church will tell you it has the Truth. That is, a specific catalogue of events, commencing with Joseph Smith and his claims of revelation. These reveal ‘absolutes’ about the eternal nature of God – His designs and purposes and our relationship to Him. All this could be summed up into one word: ‘dogma.’ Whether the church was true or false has been the big debate going on in my mind all my life. When I suspected something might be wrong (I think I can smell a rat, or a whiff of smoke?) I was quickly ushered away and told I was just dreaming. Trouble is, my suspicions then would deepen, not evaporate.
It claims to know the truth and to have the truth, but the way it holds the truth, makes me suspicious. It acts like it is frightened. All of us have things in life – a car, a job, a house, etc. We could even prove our ownership of these things, but that says nothing about our ‘attitude’ toward these things. How we hold these things is our attitude. Mormonism says it has the truth, but it does not act like it loves the truth. If you had a very possessive attitude toward your husband you would experience jealousy. You would, if you could, limit his freedom, worry about where he is and who he is meeting. You would tend to suffocate him with your presence. You would panic at the thought of losing him and yet your grip on him would be a manifestation of a distorted love. Your possessiveness would come from your insecurity. On the other hand, when you really love someone, you would even be prepared to let them go. The Mormon church has this sort of problem. It can’t bear to lose its own truth. It wants to smother and protect it. It should try to have the same relationship with Truth, as suggested by Leslie Dewart:
“A genuine and lived concern for truth means a hypothetical willingness to disbelieve should the truth require one to do so”
Charles Davis, in his book: ‘A question of Conscience,’ found himself leaving the Catholic church because he could no longer accept that it contained the embodiment of Truth. He explains well this point of how we may ‘hold’ truth. Michael Quinn – a past church historian, was shocked at how paranoid and repressive the church can be with our freedom of expression. Charles Davis writes of the importance of that freedom to enquire, but also how so-called Truth can be distorted by refusing to abandon it:
“ . . . questioning is the dynamism of the human mind in its relation to truth. When held by suppression of relevant and genuine questions, doctrine is turned into prejudice. It may by coincidence be true, but it is not held as truth. It has been removed from the dynamic context in which alone truth can be attained as truth by the human mind. A statement may happen to be true while existing for a social group not according to its quality as truth but as degraded into prejudice and held as the result of unreasoning bias. When this occurs, the statement itself is almost inevitably distorted in its content and implication”
John Stuart Mill also wrote:
“Even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds” (Bold emphasis mine)
Jan Shipps describes how our relationship to religious truth can be unhealthy:
“In sacred history, the divine is an actor in the drama, a direct participant, not a supernatural presence. Because the divine is a natural part of the process, sacred history inevitably takes on a mythic character, which makes it ‘truer than true,’ if by truth one means that which is established and verified according to the canons of historical scholarship. Sacred history has other characteristics as well. It is stripped down – in artistic terms, stylized – so that the story is told in blacks and whites, with no greys. The persecuted and persecutors, the people of God and the people of Satan, good and evil are locked in mortal combat in which compromise is out of the question. All the ambiguity and complexity of human existence is shorn away. Moreover, the context is left ambiguous enough to keep the narrative from being either time bound or culture bound; it functions as scripture…. Mormonism’s sacred history, like all sacred history, is a part of the mythological dimension of this religion. By its very nature it can only be retold and defended; not reinvestigated, researched.”
Jan Shipps, religious scholar, “The Mormon Past: Revealed or Revisited?”, Sunstone, v. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1981), p. 57
Mormons are proud of their faith – proud of what they believe, and they will hang on to it at all costs – even at the cost of Truth itself. A love of Truth or a sense of the sacredness of Truth is shallow in the Church. They don’t care about it, even though they say they do. Indeed, they would be offended to have it suggested they don’t care, but they only care about their version of truth, because, like the example of the possessive wife, they hold it too tightly. They just want what they want and cannot bear the thought of losing it. As Charles Davies continues to say below, it is easier to comply and settle down in a comfortable faith where your personal autonomy is not challenged:
“Every reflective Christian finds himself today in a confused and problematic situation. To think with honesty he has to face doubts and questionings that go deep and affect fundamentals. The Christian faith as a living, intelligent commitment no longer fits easily into the patterns that have been used to shape and define it. The temptation in this situation is just to drift – to renounce a deliberate, personal choice and allow oneself to be carried along by what others are thinking, doing and saying. Such drifting leads many outside the Churches; (to leave their church) not (through a) personal decision, but the tide of opinion is the cause of their moving away. But a similar lack of self-determination keeps some within the churches. People are afraid of freedom. They soon want to give it up when it becomes demanding. Continued submission to external authority is more comfortable than making personally a radical decision and obedience can provide a respectable cover for the avoidance of personal autonomy, while verbal rebellion releases some of the tension caused by the failure to confront one’s inner convictions. But the inability or refusal to be free eventually brings weariness of life, and it excludes genuine happiness”
Charles Davis, ‘A question of Conscience.’
Judgment of Credibility
You cannot thoroughly internalize a theology without genuine inquiry and questions. If these questions seek answers beneath the surface – just a little too far below the surface – you will quickly notice blank uncertainty for answers, or an attempt to repress or neutralize information. LDS classes are not geared for real examination, just promotion. Whether talking to ordinary members or leaders, you will feel awkward and out of place, if you are persistent with a particular subject. It does not matter how earnest or sincere your questions and feelings may be. The only forum to seriously examine truth is in the Bishops office, but then you begin to get much of the same, plus a lecture on the importance of faith and trusting leaders… and dare I repeat it: the risk of being labelled arrogant, for refusing to trust the better judgment of the prophet who guides the Church.
You can only have faith in something if you first find that which makes it credible. You don’t start with faith, you start with credibility. I got baptised because the Joseph Smith story seemed plausible and believable. However naive I might have been at the time, it was still a judgement of credibility. When you have an accumulation of doubt, contradiction and absurdity – not just because of a difference in the interpretation of scripture or dogma, but also by evaluating things afresh after years of living experience – then credibility might well change, or even collapse, and when credibility collapses – goodbye to your faith. No one has blind faith. Blind faith is not really blind at all. Faith is only possible when you can trust, and trust comes with either experience or examination. If either of these gives you no grounds for bedrock faith, then you will not step out into the dark. I have come to a judgement of credibility. A point at which I can no longer sustain faith or active membership in an institution, which has more evidence stacked up against it, than for it.
Even if Mormonism were true – they would still hold it as a prejudice, because despite verbal protestations, reverence for ‘Truth’ has been lost and what has become imperative is just clinging to a narrative, which has given them so much reason to rejoice and so much comfort along the way. These opinions or storylines are what they have staked their life and reputation on.
On an individual level, I do not imply that all good Mormons run around ‘frightened to death’ of seeing or hearing something which might dislodge their faith, because almost all the time they will be too busy and (I hope) too happy to think about it. But then one day a strong discussion or challenging remark will throw-up every conceivable defence mechanism, to safeguard their very precious beliefs. It is then that anxiety may rise like the night itself and run a chill of apprehension through their heart. This is when intellectual honesty may hopefully have a slim chance of emerging, or sadly, being reburied.
Stop Thinking and Don’t Ask Questions
When I first joined the church back in 1964, free agency was frequently emphasised and stated as an unassailable right we were all entitled to. Now the word ‘free’ has been dropped. You don’t read about it anywhere. It is not used or printed in any lesson material or articles when ‘agency’ (freedom to choose) is being presented.
Why is that? It is because Mormonism spouts off about freedom, but wants you not to think too much about it, so it has dropped the word. You don’t go on about freedom when you want obedience. In the church, there is no room for misfits, for novelty, for true diversity of spirit. Spontaneity, radical or wild ideas are not welcome. Even genuine questions of enquiry from quiet and humble members are suppressed or frowned on. It cannot easily handle difference. It does not know what to do with it. Instead of being gentle and accommodating or as the church itself often advocates: ‘Christ like,’ it does the opposite – it becomes increasingly vociferous until you comply, or you’ll be made to feel embarrassed. At any rate, you will feel obliged to quieten down. The mind is to be strictly attuned to one view only – to their particular narrow, blinkered perception. If you begin to express reservations, other possibilities or preferences for living and believing, you will notice a disturbing worry on the faces of those around you. You are not meant to think too much. In fact, any information, knowledge or wisdom, which does not sustain Mormonism, is discouraged. Truth is the casualty, because like all other opinionated institutions or faiths, they are only interested in ‘their’ truth.
To Mormons, the possibility their faith is not the true faith is absurd and utterly impossible. So far, I have not met one who is able to concede that such a possibility could exist… except my twin brother David. He is still a believing Mormon and is a rare exception. I do not think it is just down to certainty, which prevents most LDS from admitting the possibility of being wrong. I think it is a lack of humility. Even if you reason with them by saying: “Is there not perhaps just one chance in multiple billions, that you might be wrong and that the church might not be true?” They answer: “No, it is not possible!” How astounding. That alone tells you volumes about mind control and conditioning, as well as the fear of being wrong – about a mind that refuses to think or admit possibilities, however remote. Doubtless, suicide bombers must have the same insufferable sense of certainty and infallibility. Their faith is unquestionably right to them, but not to the rest of us!
Cognitive Dissonance
Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps it is beyond arrogance; perhaps beyond obstinacy that cannot, nor will not allow itself to face the fear of its own delusion? There is a condition called Cognitive Dissonance and it causes people with very strong beliefs to be disabled from entertaining other ways of believing or living. It is a state of opposition between cognitions.
The definition of cognition is the mental process of thinking and understanding and the understanding that comes from this mental process. The way our attitudes, emotions, beliefs or values are defined. In brief, the theory of Cognitive Dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognition. In other words, if the discomfort, painfulness or distress of being proved wrong, is so great when examining one’s beliefs, that the mind will invent, or find new ways to support its own arguments of long held convictions, which feels rational and honest, but strictly speaking, are not.
I believe I have done this many times in my past and have observed others doing so. Instinctively, it feels like a fundamental dishonesty that is difficult – almost impossible for the individual to own, or detect, because the brain has latched-on to a rational and believable excuse. Failure to acknowledge and examine genuine doubt is an indication of how badly we may hold and value truth.
What staggers me, is not that someone should have a very strong conviction, but the actual inability to concede even the mere possibility of being mistaken; it screams of delusion, madness and conditioning. It is quite strange, but such impregnable certitude scares me to death. It is so false and absurd. It discredits the cause that it so valiantly upholds. I would have more respect and curiosity about the beliefs of a person who has entertained fears that they might be wrong, because then I could sense some humility – some normal, healthy perspective.
Quite often, I feel like gently shaking Mormons whom I occasionally still meet and saying to them: “wake up, it is not normal to think like you do!” They simply would not see it, because to them, it is normal. That is the essential problem and inertia, which still confronts women, trapped in polygamous Mormon Fundamentalists societies in the United States; they have grown up indoctrinated to accept and believe that their circumstances, environment and religion are normal. They have known nothing else. The self same thing exists with some abused children; they have never known any other environment. You only tend to challenge, fight back or question something, when it becomes apparent it is abnormal or weird.
Mormons believe so emphatically and so obdurately in their particular religion, that if you challenge their faith, it is synonymous with challenging God and that brings immediate fear and anger toward you. As Adel Dawish once wrote in ‘Inside the mind of the Muslim Fanatic’:
“Because Muslim leaders over the centuries have claimed to be ruled by divine authority, they cannot easily be challenged . . . any attack on them becomes an attack on God and is therefore sacrilegious. It is no wonder then, that so many Muslim societies are both theocratic and autocratic, with no room for freedom and debate . . . ”
Cognitive Dissonance is the blindness of an institution or its individual members, to perceive truth, unless that truth conforms to their very own model. I am no different. This same principle may apply to me. God is all I have left and if reasons for trust slowly disintegrate, will my faith hold? Will God die in me? Instead of claiming that I still have the baby after the bath water is gone, will I acknowledge that I only ever had a lifeless doll? Will Cognitive Dissonance shut my eyes and cause me to believe (pretend) God is still there? Will my psyche push me into denial, because the cost to my cosy world of consolation and meaning is too high a price to pay? It’s possible.
The same principle applies to everyone with very strong beliefs – even hardened atheists who may refuse to see evidence about God’s existence. The position I now find myself in is that I have broken through this Cognitive Dissonance so far as the church is concerned. I have been through the fear and it has taken me all my life, but I have finally faced the truth; instead of running or pretending the church is ok. The difference now, is that I have no fear about being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in relation to the church, or whatever the Truth may be, but the average member (If challenged) has fear stacked to the sky. I know – I remember.
Virtually all members are simply not aware of real Mormon history, because they have never been told. Its highest leaders have lied and manipulated this truth for years. This is pretty shocking, because unlike the general membership of the church, who have real integrity about defending their delusory faith; Joseph Smith (Contrary to their beliefs) was a liar from the start. It started the day he first told the world about supposed gold plates, which no one has actually seen with their physical eyes. We have now been made aware that the Witnesses did not actually see them either, despite the false and misleading wording used in their testimonies. It started with the back-dated story of the Godhead appearing in the grove. I had no idea there were many changing versions of the First Vision, nor the evolution in the story of how initially, it was just angels appearing and later changed into God instead of angels. I did not know other people of his era claimed the same type of experience of God appearing, with no connection to Mormonism. I do not doubt that Joseph may have had visionary experiences or that he saw, heard or felt some things. This does not impress me at all; it worries me!
Many of his so called visionary ideas, proved futile – even stupid in hindsight. People who constantly claim God is speaking through them are on medication, or in institutions. Warren Jeffs still claims regular Revelation from God, which he sends out from prison, as he serves his life sentence for child abuse. The claimed revelations and magic translations for additional scriptures are fabrications or delusions from Joseph Smith. He even publically lied and declared in a church meeting that he only had ‘one’ wife and had not practised polygamy, when he had already secretly married many! He was always lying about his affairs with women – particularly so with other men’s wives. The entire temple charade was one of his ways to cover his behaviour with a sense of holy secrecy, with punishments for violation or discloser. Likewise, when the Manifesto was announced (Stopping polygamy at the pain of excommunication) the prophet of the time and the highest leaders still practised and secretly encouraged its continuation amongst their closest friends, whilst telling the general membership and the world at large, it had stopped. Think of the sheer hypocrisy of excommunicating general members for violation, yet practising the same thing themselves?
Ken Clark – a resigned member of the Church, made some interesting observations about the problem of leaders resorting to lying in order to hide Truth. It may be helpful to know who Ken Clark is and why his words should carry some weight. He and his wife left the LDS church on August 7th, 2002, the same day that he resigned as Institute Director of the Pullman Washington Institute of Religion, and the LDS Church Education System (CES). He had worked full-time for CES for 27 years. He was also a former bishop, high councilman, stake young men’s president, high priest’s group leader, ward mission leader, ward young men’s president, and more. He declared himself to be no casual Mormon who lived on the fringes. This is a short piece from his ‘Shooting the Messenger,’ Ken says:
“It’s my opinion that the leaders of the church encourage the use of devious tactics. Unwittingly or otherwise they have taught CES employees and some PH (priesthood) leaders that it’s okay to exaggerate or minimize to protect the church and its leaders. Joseph Smith made it a time-honoured tradition in Mormonism to “beat the devil at his own game” – lie. Many Mormons believe that it’s okay to compromise the truth in order to protect the church, because you’re accomplishing a greater good. God’s laws trump the laws and rules of man. Interviews by Church president Gordon B. Hinckley to various media in the past decade prove my point. He has denied that the church teaches that God was once a man and that Mormons can become gods and goddesses. He knows that’s blatantly false. He has declared that only a small percentage of Mormons ever practiced polygamy (2-3%) when he knows (he’s an amateur church historian and has authored at least one book on church history) it was ten times that number. He denied that DNA evidence exists which contradicts the Book of Mormon teaching that Native Americans are descended from Israelites. The DNA evidence is clear and undercuts the Book of Mormon thesis that colonies of Hebrews are the direct ancestors of American Indians. He denied that Mormons led and carried out the Mountain Meadows Massacre though he knows differently. Members watch the Mike Wallace and Larry King interviews and learn that prevarication and deception is alive and well in the highest echelons of the church—all for a good reason—to create a pure image of the church and its people, and protect the church from embarrassing criticism. When President Hinckley acknowledges his deception publicly with a wink and a nod, members laugh approvingly”
(See Richard and Joan Ostling, Mormon America, p. 296)
Slowly Maturing Truth
Getting back to Truth and how we might discover it, handle it and live with it; truth is not available to either an individual or a church as a one-time package and total set of absolutes with no error. It’s not difficult to understand this. We grow and mature in body and mind over many years, not in one instant. As individuals, we cannot handle, nor are we ready, to inculcate all truth in one go. The same is true for any church or religion. Charles Davis compared it to travelling from one mountain peak to another through life. As we reach each peak, we suddenly see a ‘new view’ and a ‘new vista.’ With the duration of time and the evaluation of experience, we gradually grow in wisdom and understanding. Ideally, old ideas fall away as we progress. We see how the world slowly coincides with how it actually is. Once again, the Truth has not changed – especially not the absolutes, we have. We keep arriving at points where we can see it more clearly, because we have climbed to the next peak.
Knowing more truth, may only mean we simply have come to realise how little we thought we knew, or how much we have got wrong. So it may not mean we have all the answers in the affirmative, because coming out of a life-long indoctrination will involve the deconstruction of old ideas; the collapse of our past beliefs, and all that remains may simply be awareness that we now know nothing and are confused about what to trust. That is a greater wisdom!
Once we thought our ‘knowing’ was impregnable. Mormons are so cock-sure they KNOW things. They are always saying they KNOW. They know their church is true and they know their prophet is God’s mouthpiece. I used to say I know, but it was false. You so want it to be true and being taught repeatedly that your feelings on this matter are from God, that pretty soon – after hearing it so often from others and saying it yourself all the time, you become convinced. Even little children begin to repeat the same phraseology during Testimony meetings. I repeat, much, if not all their knowing, comes from ‘nice feelings’ about their faith. They are told that nice feelings are the Holy Ghost telling them it is true, so you can say you KNOW. Nice feelings can be dangerous.
A few times in my life I have been wrought upon with tremendously strong spiritual feelings and have made predictions with absolute certainty. It happened once, whilst teaching a family and twice whilst counselling a member, when I was a Bishop. These involved predictions and had the same strength of feeling that occasionally attends any Mormon at infrequent moments dotted throughout their lives – what we called ‘spiritual experiences.’ All of these have since proven false. I have learnt by these experiences and many others, that thinking you know something, ought to be attended with much more caution and scepticism.
The church started off back in 1820 proclaiming ‘absolutes.’ Just about every doctrine has been proclaimed as the ‘unchangeable’ truth, but unfortunately, it has had to retract, dump, deny and change the unchangeable on a number of doctrines and interpretations of its own history. It still though obstinately insists on having had the absolute truth and still being the ONLY true Church. It simply mothballs flawed, fallacious doctrines and corrupt history, in the hope that no one will really notice. This will go on for generations, but if it refuses to come clean with its false teachings and hidden history, it will dam its own progress. It reminds me of an increasingly anxious man who has been held for questioning by police – sooner or later, it might be much better to just tell the truth.
Just Trust my Feelings?
“What sets these refugees from religion on their exodus? What makes religion seem unsafe? Why does religion no longer make sense? As we have discussed, spirituality is an activated, positive involvement that allows us to experience God in the choices and actions that we take to improve our personal lives and society. When spirituality is not active in religion, it is extremely difficult to create any kind of meaningful relationship or connection with God. People become refugees from this kind of spiritually-deadened religion. One of the best descriptions of the emptiness of this kind of non-spiritual religion comes from former Catholic priest Arthur Melville. In his book, “With Eyes To See” (Stillpoint Publishing, 1991), he describes what happens to our spirituality and our relationship with God when religion is missing the Spiritual Values…..
“My religious experience has taught me the importance of distinguishing between religion and spirituality, the former basically believed in or adhered to, and the latter primarily experienced. Not to make the distinction can lead to a repetitious, stifled, irresponsible life confused easily with service to God. Many religions with the original intent of leading to spiritual growth or harmony with Divine consciousness have come to make their structure, ritual, tradition and authority, more important than the people whose consciousness they intended to influence. In doing so, they incite to conformity with a doctrine based on sin and fear and of punishment—an unfortunate approach that, once believed, is eradicated only with difficulty. Such negative motivation inhibits creativity and freedom, qualities essential for harmony with the Divine.”
Leo booth ‘The God Game: It’s Your Move,’ Book2 p.65
The internet has finally undone the history of the church and decimated all its claims to integrity. Its messy contradictions and darker side is finally exposed for the world to see. The cover-up of historic truth, which I believe Elder Packer himself declared as “Unhelpful,” is now available for all to read, which reveals Mormonism in its true colours. On the Internet, you will always get some distortions, but essentially, it is there.
From its members, Mormonism demands purity and the appearance of perfection. No black, no grey, no messy shades – just white. It wants complete thought allegiance, fidelity of opinion and belief. It wants sameness. It has a huge problem acknowledging the actual reality of people – that their lives are largely lived in shades of grey – not perfectly white or dreadfully evil. They are stuffed with contradiction, questions, variation, sexuality and autonomy. In the church’s ideal ‘programmed’ state, a member is an automaton – either in denial of, or in repression of, the shades of their own personal grey. At least the church is consistent – it is unwilling to fully acknowledge its own shades of grey too and so portrays harmony, cleanness, integrity, consistency and authenticity, even in the grip of arrogance, deceit and hypocrisy.
The vast majority of Mormons will not turn to view those darker shades revealed on the Internet. They are afraid. I can’t say I blame them; it is a painful business to feel for the first time that everything you ever truly believed is shaking to pieces. LDS are advised through church warnings, that looking at such material will adversely affect their testimony and weaken their faith. They are advised that it is satanic. Incidentally, Mormons use the word ‘Testimony’ a great deal. It simply means the level or strength of a member’s belief in Mormonism and not a verbal statement you might hear in court, though they do ‘bare’ this testimony to each other, regularly at church.
They are told they have a responsibility to be careful about any material likely to damage their faith (As if their truth was so weak and fragile it could not possibly stand scrutiny). They have been so conditioned as to associate nice feelings as God’s way of confirming truth, so, any material that does not give ‘nice feelings’ is false, or not to be trusted or accepted.
It does not take much intelligence to realise, that this is a dangerously insane and stupid criteria with which to ascertain truth or error; the proof of this absurdity is found in the results, because back in the real world, God seems to bestow ‘warm cosy feelings’ of confirmation, on millions of individuals who possess widely differing doctrinal beliefs – from equally diverse religions, cults and faiths, as being correct! Think about it – people all over the world with different dogmas and contradictory beliefs – all being told by God, THEY are correct. I don’t care how strong such feeling may be, trusting them to be from God is madness. A God would not deliberately create such utter confusion.
Unfortunately, there will always be writings, voices and experiences, which will make us feel unpleasant and uncomfortable. Any so-called information which confronts an erroneous a programmed belief will make you feel uncomfortable. It should do – it needs to! At such moments, ‘nice feelings’ will disappear. The church wants conformity, and it may lose this if you start to think for yourself, so it tells you to judge truth by ‘feeling,’ not by empirical evidence – thinking. Nice comfortable feelings will always hold you firm in the faith, because you have been told to remain in this comfort zone and never question your faith, as if it was God’s will for you. So, uncomfortable feelings will make you suspicious and too frightened to look further, thus preventing satanic influences to invade you. It’s the same old game of control by fear and it paralyses the courage to face big questions that might just threaten the comfortable beliefs of an entrenched culture. And it works – the failure to really exercise autonomy.
Leo Booth said: “There is an insidious quality about religious addiction and the abuse it spawns. The denial of religious addicts is the most delusional denial of all addiction. Delusion means “sincere denial.” Religious addicts are generally rigid. They live with a barrage of thought-terminating clichés. Lionel Trilling called this the language of non-thought. The simple, easily memorized and oft-repeated phrases create mental restrictions, a shrivelling of awareness”
(When God Becomes a Drug. Book 1)
Where there is Doubt there is Freedom
Mormons would do well to re-consider their own Book of Mormon and the story of ‘Alma the Younger,’ who went through a kind of Road to Damascus experience. When Truth was calling him in the shape and sound of an angel of God – he had such uncomfortable feelings, which were so painful that he declared them to be “exquisite” in the negative? Based on Mormonism’s past and continuing criteria for avoiding apostasy, Alma the Younger should have abandoned and ignored the message from the angel as a satanic intervention, but he did not! He went through the pain and ended up enlightened.
As previously described by Charles Davis, uncomfortable feelings can save people if they are received and embraced, but if a person is too obedient and too afraid to look, he or she may remain comfortably safe in nice soft delusions. It is quite possible indeed, to research the opposite view and discover it holds no threat to present beliefs, but Mormonism won’t allow you to do even that. It teaches you to avoid such an autonomous encounter and examination, even though their scriptures show the opposite. It wants to hold on to you and would rather you remain warm and safe. In fact, don’t think at all. This is yet another example of how they ‘hold’ their so-called sacred Truth as a prejudice.
As to their curriculum materials: their magazines, books and articles, they all give the same ‘sanitised’ version of history and doctrine. The church News is the same. I had the identical impression whilst on holiday in China, when reading the China Daily newspaper; not one word of dissension by journalists or editors. All is sweet and clean – so clean, you could smell a rat. No mess, no corruption, no negative realism; nothing to worry about or question, just comfortable and safe. It is sycophantic and carries that same sense of fundamental dishonesty. Mormonism is a theocracy, which the dictionary defines as being ruled by God or Priests. So it is a ‘priestly dictatorship,’ (A cult)
Mormonism is government by priesthood and a government quite willing to wield autocratic influence and pressure, whenever it pleases. The church truly does compare with the Chinese government. When I first wrote this book, it was the 20th anniversary of the suppression of the pro-democracy demonstrations in Beijing. Most of those leading dissidents just disappeared. No one knows where they have gone and according to Kate Adie, who took those famous pictures of that student challenging an army tank – although the government has facilitated economic growth and materialism amongst a percentage of its citizens, it is still as repressive and as backward as it ever was in terms of human rights, freedom of speech and its tenacious pursuit of anyone who even whispers revolt. Yet, read their daily paper and you would think its government was divinely appointed to serve its citizens with altruistic fervour and unsullied motives! Article after article praises its leaders with sycophantic devotion and every page highlights their achievements.
Like the paranoia of LDS hierarchy on its own appearance, in the portrayal of the Chinese public image – their last Olympic Games certainly impressed the whole world, yet Beneath the Surface, China hides its repressive and tyrannical disregard for the freedom of its people and organisations. After a lifetime in the in Mormonism, it feels the same. In a way, it is worse than a dictatorial state or country, because it purports to speak for a loving God, yet it still covers up its own unpleasant history and acts repressively toward anyone who asks too many questions, or too many of the wrong questions. It punishes and excommunicates those who feel and share diverging views, or even those who are trying to understand Mormonism’s hypocrisy and contradictions. You may spend a life time in the church and should you believe and follow all its principles without searching too deeply or contesting its claims, you may never know or have reason to give any credit to what I have told you above!
The church Asks You To Be Afraid of Doubts
That is what my experience and observations amount to. It is a pity that Mormonism does not rather support and acknowledge the existence of doubt as a healthy sign of human exploration. The church treats doubt like it treats sex – by pretending it does not exist, or being ashamed to own it, or allowing it to surface – as if it was a disease. Philip Yancey, in his book: ‘Reaching for the Invisible God,’ wrote about doubt:
“Doubt is the skeleton in the closet of faith, and I know of no better way to treat a skeleton than to bring it into the open and expose it for what it is: not something to hide or fear, but a hard structure on which living tissue may grow. If I asked every person to stop reading whose faith has wavered as a result of a tragedy or a confidence–shaking encounter with science or with another religion, or disillusionment with the church or individual Christians – I might as well end the book with this sentence. Why, then, does the church treat doubt as an enemy? I was once asked to sign ‘Christian Today’ magazine’s statement of faith “without doubt or equivocation.” I had to tell them I can barely sign my own name without doubt and equivocation!” (Bold emphasis mine)
It would be better for a church leader to start with having faith in a member’s integrity, and work from creating confidence and acceptance. The person with the doubts can then begin to relax and reveal their true feelings. If the member clearly has thoughts and beliefs, which are becoming very radically different, then should not the leader firstly support and sustain that person’s integrity and courage – helping them to face those doubts and come to whatever conclusions and changes are necessary? Should he not trust and support the final decisions of that person? Generally speaking, Mormonism is abysmally and pathetically unwilling to do just that. Tragically you will (a) be blamed for sin, or arrogance and (b) experience the sensation of being denied. That is – feeling your very essence unacceptable and rejected, as if the real ‘you’ does not exist.
It may be a subtle point, but it amounts to the corrosion of your identity – what makes you, YOU. The autonomy and individual dignity within all of us demands, at very least, respect. The institution of Mormonism literally functions in a manner to deny that right within you – that identity in you. If it could, it would have you and keep you, against your better judgement and instinct, because it arrogantly thinks it knows what is good for you. If parents are strongly opinionated, they are likely to be the same, even with their own children, but as we all know, what parents do with their own children can sometimes be detrimental and damaging.
If a leader had substantial connections with God, he should nevertheless, encourage and support the very withdrawal of an individual from the church – possibly even celebrate it. It should have nothing to do with the leader’s own beliefs and preferences. He should just be instrumental in enabling a person to truly find their true self, even if that meant the loss of Mormonism, or the loss of belief in God. At that moment, it is where their soul is. It takes unbiased faith, restraint, detachment and a great and powerful love, to help set a person free into the opposite direction from that which you have chosen. It is about worshipping the very ‘soul space’ and the very dignity of an individual person. Mormonism is so stuffed with fear – so jam-packed with a sense of its own necessity and self importance, that it is literally and sadly blind to its own controlling influence. It is addicted to abuse without knowing it! That’s terrifying.
It has been said a number of times in this book that when we begin to believe in a very tight, strict and narrow interpretation of scripture, which leaves no room for flexibility, but becomes a dogmatic absolutism – we have lost it – probably never even had it in the first place? The Truth is always the casualty. This well established fraternity of brotherhood and sisterhood, in what I have called ‘The Good Ship Mormon.’ It does seem like a safe, trustworthy repository for Truth, but it is not. It’s safe – so safe, you will not be allowed to let it go, or radically modify it, or discard it. There is stagnation about Mormon truth, because you are not allowed to develop beyond it. Try to voice concern or declare a deviation and you will be asked to refrain. Being sincere and humble about it will score you no points. Persistence in trusting your own spiritual instincts will bring the usual accusation of pride upon you. It’s rather sick and unhealthy.
Craig Paxton said: “Mormon apologists must start with the answer fixed and immovable and work backwards from that premise BEFORE the question is even asked. They cannot use standard methods usually utilized in truth discovery, such as rigorous examination, questioning, testing and scrutiny to come to a conclusion. No, they must begin all arguments with their conclusion first (that the church, no matter the argument, no matter how absurd the logic used, no matter how painful the mental gymnastics applied … IS TRUE). The Church requires one uncompromisable rule, start with the desired conclusion (the church is true) and work backwards. The problem with starting any search for truth using the straight jacket approach employed by Mormon apologists is that it requires them to come up with all kinds of bizarre, unbelievable explanations to defend beliefs that if subjected to any other standard method of examination would simply come to the conclusion that the belief is false… or simply put, Mormonism is not what it claims to be.”
Could this accusation be levelled at LDS apostates too? No. Exmormons are so shattered, humiliated and deluded in discovering they have been SO WRONG, that clinging to highly opinionated ideas, matters far less. To need, or want to replace our lost theology with some other equally entrenched dogma, is not where we are any more. We are relieved at being able to put down our weight of fear. We are learning to trust ourselves, but having lost so much, our trust can never again carry the self-importance and overconfidence characterized by our Mormon days. In short, we have abandoned the ‘nice feeling’ method of ascertaining truth, in favour of the empirical method. We now have reached a point where we are prepared to be wrong a thousand times – if the facts demand it.
When Mormonism finally collapses inside the head of an LDS member, that edge of arrogance – so often noticeable in highly opinionated people – is lost. We lost it in our tears and in our broken and destroyed lives. Truth will continue to remain the worst causality of this church, because it refuses to face its real history and declare it. The only thing that an ex Mormon is really sure about is feeling so good at being free! It is such a traumatic and heart breaking affair, that God may be dumped too. Who can blame a person for ever trusting in the existence of a divine Being, when their entire religion, with all its false promises, crumbles to dust before their very eyes? I profoundly respect the growing atheism of some disillusioned Mormons. If you had gone through your very own 9/11 experience, whilst dwelling in the empire of Mormonism – with all those solid floors right up to heaven, only to find yourself running for your life? Would you trust again… believe again?
It is worth being reminded of what C S Lewis had to say about the challenge of deciphering truth:
“Five senses; an incurably abstract intellect; a haphazardly selective memory; a set of preconceptions and assumptions so numerous that I can never examine more than a minority of them – never become even conscious of them all. How much of total reality can such an apparatus let through?”
Perhaps one of the most profound indicators of where to find Truth is found in Eckhart Tolle’s ‘A New Earth’:
“ . . . laws, commandments, rules, and regulations are necessary for those who are cut off from who they are – the Truth within. They prevent the worst excesses of the ego, and often they don’t even do that. “Love and do what you will,” said St. Augustine. Words cannot get much closer to the Truth than that”
Being True to Myself
During the years of my struggle, Romans chapter 14 from the New Testament gave me a sense of balance and perspective. This verse in particular, meant a lot to me:
“Everything that is not of faith is sin”
When a person truly believes something, that is where their soul is. All our actions are inevitably influenced by our beliefs – all our actions follow our beliefs. To live outside of our beliefs, or to live outside what we truly have trust in – including a Godless universe, is wrong. It is – in biblical language – a sin. To remain an active member of a church or institution, when your very soul knows it is not what you are, or what you need, is to live a lie – to live contrary to your true self. It is to live outside your faith. This verse is not talking about ‘faith’ as our belief in some institutional creed, but in ANYTHING that defines the limits of your integrity and to stay within them.
Let me explain it this way. I now totally refute and do not believe in Mormonism, but if one of my children came to me and was not sure whether he or she should quit the faith, I would ask enough questions to ascertain the level of their beliefs in the Church?If it was totally positive, I would encourage them to continue faithful and endure – regardless of what I believed.
It would not be about Mormonism, or about me getting them to see their world as I see it. It would be about them being true to whatever they believed. To live ‘outside’ everything that is not of your faith or integrity, is to live in wretchedness. Unfortunately, Mormonism tends not to support such an attitude, even though the bible does. Instead, it interferes, constrains and punishes. It persuades people to enter moulds ill suited to their unique shape. It fails to respect and support difference, preference and conscience. It does not ‘see’ a person. It is interested only in conformity. It thinks it loves you by drawing you into obedience, yet sadly it has missed YOU – not even seen YOU.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Paradox and Contradiction
“Remember, the cross tells us that there is a cruciform pattern to all reality, a collision of cross-purposes… our world is filled with contradictions needing to be reconciled, inconsistencies within us and between us. Life is neither perfectly consistent and rational, nor is it a chaotic mess. It does contain, however, constant paradoxes, exceptions and flaws. That is the shocking and disappointing revelation of the cross. It is also a great weight off our backs. It leads to patience, humility, non-judgemental, and suffering love. Now we have the right sense of proportion, limits, expectations and no room for utopianism, ideologies, any ‘final solutions’ cynicism or needless discouragement. The shape of things is finally honest and humble. Here we can live with ‘faith’ that God is in the contradictions!”
Richard Rohr ‘Hope Against Darkness’
By definition: ‘Paradox’ is an absurdity, an anomaly and a mystery. The early Roman Church insisted that scientists give us an ordered and consistent universe, but it is not. If such a theory as the ‘big bang’ has any truth, then somewhere in the massive central Black Holes that power every galaxy, all laws – as we know them, brake down and Contradictions occur. Even at the point of the so called ‘Singularity’ where Quantum Mechanics takes us into the microscopic and infinitesimal – lawlessness prevails.
The universe and the earth are stuffed with Paradox. We, as human beings, are riddled with contradictions and ambiguity, which religion has always tried to eradicate or suppress. The bible has some interesting messages about Paradox – even if you cannot trust that it is any longer God’s word, at least, some ideas and lessons may come from it. Some messages and principles advocated by Christ (for instance) are saturated with Paradox. Simple invitations like: “He that would save his life, must lose it,” is a paradox. He also told us that: “unless a corn of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it cannot live” (bear fruit)… another paradox.
In the Old Testament, Joseph was sold into Egypt by his murderous brothers. His entire life seemingly ruined by their great sin against him; when they cast him into a pit, hoping that wild beasts would eat him – then later, getting him out in order to sell him as a slave to the Egyptians, then going home to tell his parents he was killed by wild animals, causing them to mourn for him for years on end. The story goes that God enabled Joseph to be in the ‘right place’ by the ‘wrong means,’ which enabled him to help his entire family (Including his brothers) to survive as a race in a famine to come.
Years later when this Joseph is in control of Egypt, his brothers come down to buy corn and are recognised. They think he will enact vengeance. They are frightened and sad, but he says:
“…. But don’t be angry with yourselves that you did this to me, for God did it. He sent me here ahead of you to preserve your lives” (Gen 45:5 New Living Bible) A verse in Genesis 50:20 is probably nearer the truth when it says: “God turned into good what you meant for evil”.
This is a little bit disturbing. Could God be involved in the planning or engineering of circumstances and even actions, which were immoral (The youngest brother being sold into Egypt) in order to preserve this boy’s entire family later in life? God seems at very least, ‘pleased to allow’ this evil, in order to preserve a chosen family from extinction? The narrative explains the manipulation of evil and extraction of goodness from a bad situation – out of a deliberate sin. Even Mormons believe that Adam’s sin – of partaking of the forbidden fruit – was planned, or meant to happen – in order to bring ‘mortality’ upon creation and allow the birth of spirit children from heaven to earth.
There is a sense of ‘fate’ here – God involved in the mess and reality of life. Tolerant to the degree that He thoroughly understands it and is willing to work with it – embrace it. The bible is stuffed with such stories of life in its rawness and God working with the frailties of His children. God is in life – within all its contradictions and inconsistencies.
How odd that despite scriptural examples of God not only having remarkable patience with our own darker side and some of our grey areas, Mormonism cannot get its head around contradictions and anomalous in general? We learn to choose wisely through the contrast of experience and our experience may include the very worst and the very best of what we are capable.
I don’t see a God who gets mad, angry or impatient with our worst moral choices, only the church does! He waits and waits. He allows us to mess things up if we wish – even ruin other people’s lives in the process. Sometimes, the only way we will truly learn the greatest lesson is to selfishly choose the bad for our own pleasure and satisfaction and within the context of all we have done… to notice the consequences to ourselves and to others… to access whether we feel good about our behaviour and make adjustments accordingly – or not? Thus some people (And you may know someone like this) seem to remain ‘rotten’ all their damned life – always cheating others – always using others for their own ends. God does not judge them now and will probably never need to – they will! He just waits. Beyond constitutional law, which is essential for safety and order in society, we have been asked by Christ to “judge no man” in our hearts.
Those who know about spiritual things understand the mystery of living with Paradox and Contradiction. We are beings of inconsistency and ragged ends. We feel intimately and terribly our brokenness and if we do not, then we either do not think at all, or we have not passed through serious temptations or suffering. We all live rather badly with our Shadow Self – much more so when bullied and cajoled by a given Priesthood, to eradicate and purge our human nature.
One of the greatest motivations I ever had when I was young was to want to be ‘holy.’ In the early days of Mormonism I beat myself up, wrestled, agonised and pleaded with God to be better – to be more like Jesus. My insinuation within this chapter, that Mormonism is paranoid about purging our evil tendencies, may sound like I am advocating a license to do as we like – as if I have morally fallen and capitulated to a baser nature. As if I am fighting against decency, high standards and discipline. Not so. I still have a vision to become holy, but my views of who I am and who God is, have undergone major surgery and have radically changed. Now I see myself with all my qualities and gifts, as well as all my ambiguity – my Darker Side.
Now I have quiet and peaceful acceptance – the very opposite legacy with which Mormonism bequeathed me. I have truly learnt to love myself with all my inconsistencies and contradictions, in a much more healthy and joyful manner. I discovered this new persona – this way of accepting and embracing my Total Self by talking to God over a period of years, but most intensely and deeply, over the first few years since my wife died. Spiritually, I came alive in a profound and powerful manner. It was a paradigm – a glimpse of powerful transcendance. Such things are totally farcical to Mormon ears, because their unrelenting dogmatism will not allow the idea of substantial spiritual growth being bestowed on an apostate, who has finally finished ‘struggling’ against their truth.
The Traditional Christian View
Though it is slowly evolving, Mormonism is presently an arrogant religion. Arrogant people and organisations try to maintain power and control largely through fear and manipulation. That does not mean they are necessarily and consciously aware of this fact. They may be quite sincere. Each of us can so easily act arrogantly or manipulatively, yet still remain unaware of just how badly we are behaving. They assert they have all the answers and like some of their denominational Christian counterparts – they have adopted a concept of human sinfulness which is both unhelpful and spiritually stagnant. They teach, as do some other religions, that Adam and Eve sinned and separated themselves from God and could only return to unity and harmony with the Almighty by repentance and dedicated obedience – otherwise some form of damnation was in store. I believe that Adam and Eve are a myth.
Adam, they teach, was immortal, totally innocent and in complete harmony with God before he sinned. It is written that God “walked and talked” with Adam, but suddenly, through transgression, Adam fell and became mortal. Inherent within his mortality (They say) were certain degenerate characteristics, which have been passed down through all generations – including carnality (Lustful sexual inclinations and impulses) jealousies, greed, self importance (Ego) self centeredness, rebellion and many more. In this condition and with these propensities, God could no longer ‘dwell’ with Adam. God is holy and pure and as Mormonism will repeatedly remind you from their scriptures, God cannot dwell in unholy temples, and from a revelation to Joseph Smith he warns; “God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” So you are stuck – unless you clean up your act!
You’ve Lost Your Father
Mormonism teaches that in order to enter into communion or relationship with God, Adam was given commandments and rules to live by. These would make him ‘worthy.’ From the very beginning, Mormonism says that humans ‘fell’ from grace and favour with Deity and had to find their way back by obedience – by ritual, by observance, by ordinances, by effort, by discipline, as well as by a Saviour. Purity could not mix with impurity – perfection with imperfection – goodness with badness. So Adam was cast out of the garden.
In our Christian culture, God is perceived as being absent or lost to us. He no longer feels close. Even devout Christians have a hard job believing they are worthy of Gods personal attention or indwelling presence. Speaking of this damaging concept, Henry Drummond once warned how most people feel:
“We do not really believe that the living Christ has touched us, that he makes His abode in us”
God can be prayed to and believed in, but He is still ‘detached,’ still ‘out there.’ Thus, cut off from God, we have been carrying the ball and chain of guilt and alienation ever since.
This is a fundamental myth that I have not only discovered by reading more widely after Mormonism, but by personal living experience. If God lives at all, then He makes shockingly good news to all those who have been struggling all their lives to find Him…. He is not ‘out there.’ He is ‘in here.’
Richard Rohr, in his fabulous book entitled ‘Everything Belongs,’ rightly said:
“We cannot attain the ‘presence’ of God, because we are already totally in the presence of God. What is absent is ‘awareness’…. we are sleep-walkers”
The Book of Mormon declares in Mosiah 3:19 “For the Natural man is an Enemy to God…”
Mormonism would interpret it thus: “Natural” here may be defined as Carnal – possessing all those elements, inclinations or characteristics, which resist God and tend toward unloving and selfish impulses. To name a few: arrogance, lust, greed, unkindness, jealousy, cruelty, prejudice, anger and hatred. Mormonism teaches that these things separate us from God and form a barrier between us and God. The very word “Enemy” as used here in the Book of Mormon quotation, places you in a fighting position with God. The connotation is quite clear: an Enemy is a person that you are warring against – someone God does not like, does not love and does not want to be near – YOU. That is of course, false. Yet Mormon teaching makes you feel that way.
Mormon prophets and scripture tell you He loves you, but you, in your present state, are unclean, unholy and unable to win Him back without change, obedience and total commitment – without in fact, getting rid of all your badness. It’s not that any sensible Mormon these days believes that he or she has to become perfect in their life (We were once told so) but they struggle in their effort to be good, because psychologically speaking, week in and week out, throughout their lives, the church drips a steady flow of rhetoric, admonitions, warnings and pressures – to endure, improve, sacrifice and please their demanding god.
Without really knowing it, the average Mormon is transformed by an institution. In general, the spirituality they enjoy is a cheap substitute, because it centres not in God, but upon a conviction – a testimony and a love for ‘the Church.’ I say in general, because it is quite rare to meet a Mormon where you feel God is alive in their soul. Mormons talk endlessly about programmes, about prophets, about home teaching, genealogy, missionary work and temple attendance… everything, except being in love with God, or praising God. I know so few exceptions. David, my own twin brother is one of those exceptions.
On the one hand, Mormonism declares there is a spark of divinity within you, yet this is thoroughly overwhelmed and consumed by a sense of your own ‘unworthiness’ and ‘sinfulness,’ so inherent from birth through our culture, parenting and religious teachings. Mormons are taught to believe that they can only please God and find His acceptance and favour through traditionalism and obedience – through merit. The problem is, their teaching has no flexibility whatsoever. It is rigid and dogmatic. Their Truth is absolute. It is black and white. They proclaim: ‘we are correct’ and ‘we are the only true Church.’
Eckhart Tolle, in his book ‘Stillness Speaks’ said about Dogma:
“Dogmas – religious, political, scientific – arise out of the erroneous belief that thought can encapsulate reality or the truth. Dogmas are collective conceptual prisons. And the strange thing is that people love their prison cells because they give them a sense of security and a false sense of “I know.” Nothing has inflicted more suffering on humanity than its dogmas. It is true that every dogma crumbles sooner or later, because reality will eventually disclose its falseness; however, unless the basic delusion of it is seen for what it is, it will be replaced by others”
Meritocracy
In Mormonism, obedience and conformity equate with Acceptance, both by the church and by God…. you have to please God. You have to purify your thoughts. You have to be overcoming all sinful habits, correct any disobedient tendencies, trust leadership with unquestioning loyalty, repent of any past wrongs, root-out badness and ungodly dispositions. This will involve a life time of being vigilant about conscience… what is allowed and disallowed. I could site dozens – probably hundreds of scriptures, which could be used to convict a member of inherent ‘sinfulness.’
As a Mormon, you will be admonished to read your scriptures daily and thus be reinforced in your beliefs and in your acknowledgement of guilt, sin and shame… not to mention how grateful you should be! There is nothing inherently wrong with gratitude. The LDS gratitude will be genuine – they really will feel appreciative that God will save them from themselves. I still retain the same sense of gratitude toward God, but it no longer coexists with the indoctrinated ideology of self deprecation and alienation from the divine. Mormonism will tell you how to absolutely please God, how to avoid hell, how to get God on your side, how to have prayers answered and how to be saved. Through fear, it will remind you of the consequences of your rejection, of your disobedience, of your sexuality, of your pride and rebellion. It will emphatically declare only one way to God and exaltation – their dogma and their creed. All other avenues to God are essentially false and unauthorised. Conversely, it will dangle promises and predictions of both earthly and eternal rewards, to encourage and ensure your conformity.
It rightly rejoices in all those aspects about you which are lovely…. your purity, your selflessness, your generosity, your love, your kindness, your patience, your charity and so on just so long as they are good and do not conflict with Mormonism. This is fine, but the problem it has, is how to deal with the other half of you – your Dark Side, your Shadow Self…. Some of those so called nasty elements I have just spoken about, which describe your selfish or negative aspect – these come from your Dark Side. Innocent sexuality is also considered sinister and in need of cast-iron control, or suppression. These are to be rooted-out and purged, or they are to be repressed. It is interesting that the late Pope John Paul 11 used to practice self-flagellation with a belt and slept on a bare floor to bring himself closer to Jesus. He is not so different from the Mormon hierarchy, who are also hell bent on ‘purging’ our Darker Side.
Mormonism does not deal easily or adequately with the contradictions or reality within you. It is very frightened of it and ashamed of it. It tends to either force you to fix it, or failing that, it wants you to bury it… to deny it… to suppress it – just so long as it is hidden from view.
And this is the essential Paradox – we appear to be good and bad, clean and filthy, beautiful and ugly, innocent and guilty – all at the same time. Our inherent weaknesses and nasty little habits, collide with good aspirations and kindly characteristics. That is the Contradiction – the Paradox of who we are.
We are messy creatures and a religion that demands purity will not tolerate contradictions and mess. You must become black or white, but not grey – not both. If you should stray into your Shadow Side, you will be punished.
We want to believe we have high ideals and good moral character, but each of us also has elements of negativity, fear, inconsistency and selfishness. We want clearly defined dogma – to know exactly what God expects from us. We want a precise understandable description of what God is – all the procedures and regulations necessary to please him. We want to be able to control and proscribe regulations and programmes to virtually guarantee salvation, with rewards and punishments to keep us safe and sound. Living under a fabricated idealism requires that we virtually deny the real face of life with all its contradictions, mess, hypocrisy, sin, weakness, and suffering – a world which is both broken and whole at the same time – both good and bad. YOU ARE this contradiction.
Under such a system, what do we do with the darkness in life – the darkness in us? We usually fight it, run from it, deny it…. anything, except hold it and live with it. What we cannot deal with, or live with, we project away from us and onto others; we ‘scapegoat’ it.
As I have already shown, ancient Israel deliberately sent a goat into the wilderness with all the sins of the people upon it. All of us so easily blame others, or a particular person to absolve ourselves. The church does the same. Rather than face its own dark side, it presents to its members and the world at large, an image that is shiny bright and very acceptable. This is what I have been saying about the church of the Latter Day Saints – as an institution, it is a contradiction, because despite the naughty concealment of its real history and its false doctrines, it also teaches positive and healthy values. To give some credit to Mormonism itself, we might even say that for many people, it is a beautiful mess.
The Institutional church of Mormonism has not done what Christ has done. He took the dark side and without blaming, denying or punishing, allowed the love of God to absorb and transform it. Despite its rhetoric, Mormonism fails on the same ground – it won’t hold the pain of anything that is strange or messy. It blames and punishes, separates, stigmatises and scapegoats, until it gains control. I wonder now, whether the absence of the cross as a symbol in Mormonism, is a little more significant than I once thought? You see, the wooden crossbeams of the crucifix are a contradiction too – the collision of opposites, so well described by Richard Rohr.
“According to the bible, the Love which made the world’s, entered the greatest Paradox and Contradiction of all time. Instead of overcoming death by fighting it and externally banishing it – He succumbs to it, embraces it, and yields to it… in apparent and utter defeat! If Christian theology is right, then the purest and most powerful immortal Being in the universe, became drenched in our depravity and entered into the vault of death, in order to defeat it. Not just embracing paradox, but becoming it!”
It is so sad, but I see the Mormon church possessing the exact opposite spirit to Christ.
The church can’t live with ambiguity, contradiction or paradox, either in its own history, or in us, so we are asked to get rid of them – hide them, expel them… or we may be expelled. We are not allowed to remain ‘worthy’ and at the same time trust God to let these inconsistencies somehow find a way of manifesting meaning and purpose… either we must have control NOW, or they will take control. My excommunication is a point in fact. Patience with disobedience and weakness cannot be tolerated. Change must be immediate. Failure to get it together means punishment. Graciousness (Grace) is abandoned.
Richard Rohr said:
“There are no perfect structures and there are no perfect people. There is only the struggle to get there. Patience comes from our attempts to hold together an always-mixed reality, not from expecting or demanding a perfect reality. That only makes us resentful and judgemental, which is what has characterized much of Christian history. I agree with Bishop Spong when he says: “I don’t like religious people very much.” Who likes people who can never deal patiently with darkness and shadow – which is just about everything?”
Richard Rohr, ‘Hope Against Darkness’ Page 164
The church, like other main-stream denominations, never has liked to lose control and when great minds through the ages have declared new and radically different ways to understand our universe, they have been severely persecuted by the church, because it could not tolerate change and disorder. New ideas threaten to destabilise the concepts of creation and God – to undermine the status quo.
The church wanted to hold tight the concept of law and order at every level of creation. Unfortunately the smaller we go (Atomic particles) and the larger we go (Galaxies and black holes) ‘law and order’ seem to break down and we are back to mystery and ‘letting go of control.’ At these frontiers, Contradictions and Paradox seem normal.
Surely, if God exists, there are no mysterious or contradictions – only to us. But here and now, we live, love and die in them – except the church, it denies them and buries them. It cannot tolerate them.
My opinion is that God is in the detail – in all of it – in my badness and goodness, my beauty and my ugliness, my strengths and my embarrassing weaknesses. It is so wrong, yet so right. It is wicked yet so pure. It is both incredibly beautiful yet quite ugly. That is what a paradox is. It is not meant to work or even exist and in forced idealism it does not, but in the Real World, it is everywhere. My tears, tension, fears, and dreams are a witness that I find none of this amusing and excusable. I simply live under these experiences and am slowly learning to make sense of them.
Dealing With My Shadow Self
Leo Booth explained so well the problem of trying to overcome our baser instincts. From ‘The God Game: It’s Your Move,’ he continues:
“True spirituality is, ultimately, the essence of being real, of being honest with ourselves and others about our feelings and thoughts. What religion often does is teach people to abhor and deny their own reality. The reality of being human is that we are imperfect. We are vulnerable to illness, to mental or physical breakdown. Our emotions can keep us in turmoil. We are not spiritual puppets: we are free to choose between positive or destructive actions, and sometimes, innocent people pay the price for other people’s choices. Religion is often presented as the antidote to our humanness – the way out of sickness and pain; the way to insure that we will all choose positive actions. In this view, spirituality is seen as the proof that we have risen above our humanness. So people believe that if they are in pain, if they are angry, or jealous, or feel inadequate, the very presence of those feelings means they are not spiritual. So they rush to “transcend” or somehow get rid of, those so-called bad feelings.
Ultimately, those feelings are not transcended, but merely repressed, thus creating the Shadow or dark side of human nature. I see people in churches, treatment centres, support groups, and therapy, working diligently on removing these allegedly undesirable qualities. Outwardly, people project the image of what they are told is acceptable, not what is real. They are told not to show anger, told to “be brave” and not show pain, fear, or grief. They may be told not to “air the family linen” in public, so they become walled up and guarded. Perhaps they were told never to hurt people’s feelings, so they become co-dependently dishonest. They may learn early on that making a mistake could result in physical or emotional abuse, ridicule or shame, so they become perfectionistic and controlling. They may be told that sex is dirty or base, so they bury their sexual feelings under food, religion, or work”
Homophobia
Open any handbook found in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to do with sexual disorientation – gays, lesbians, or transsexuals… whatever ‘loving terminology’ is employed to advice leaders on how to deal with them, it will be homophobic. Quite bluntly, it can’t stand gays or transsexuals. It is frightened of them. Anybody radically different or strange is to be controlled or got rid of.
If you are gay for instance, you will need to meet with the bishop to discuss your ‘abnormality.’ Your mind will be challenged to confront your disorientation and get yourself back to a ‘normal’ heterosexual nature. If you have just started to investigate the church – forget about Baptism, until you are “fixed.’ Should you already be a member, be warned that you may well be banned from taking the sacrament, attending the temple or being given a Calling. Therefore, your potential creative contribution within the church will be denied you. Undertake or remain in a relationship and you will be in big trouble – your ‘sins’ and ‘abominations’ will have you excommunicated, or, if not yet a member – you never will be, until you repent of your sin.
Only you know how long it has taken to battle through adjustments and whatever suffering you have gone through to reach where you are today, in feeling comfortable and at peace with your particular sexual orientation. In this regard, Mormonism is miles behind you (Still growing up) and will probably not catch up with you in your life time. It will demand that you deal with your contradictions and perversions, or it will deal with you. Suddenly you will feel your identity – your very essence, denied and attacked. All its rhetoric will be kindly and loving, yet the reality will feel very different. It is merciless and arrogantly dismissive of whom you really are. As I have become increasingly aware, Mormon families who live under the church teaching that homosexuality is a sin and a perversion, which must be repented of, perpetuate that sense of alarm, disgust and alienation, so prevalent in the church generally. Thus, we have a worrying increase of gay youngsters within the Church resorting to suicide, having lost all sense of self worth and acceptance. Living under Mormonism is trying to mix oil with water. You will remain unaccepted and depressed. Walk away and find some real Christians who know more about the spirit of Christ, or perhaps dump the entire God scene, because you will not get much consolation from the Bible either; it is also filled with messages from the same homophobic, anti sexual fundamentalists, which caused the problem in the first place.
It is interesting, organisations are like individuals – when they are challenged or pressured by what we might consider as extreme opposites, their true colours start to fly… and they are not very bright.
The last word from Leo Booth’s ‘The God Game: It’s Your Move’…
“We achieve great things because we have greatness within us. We do monstrous things because we have our own Shadow within us. This is how we mirror the universe in which we live, the light and dark, destructive and creative. To understand this concept, I had to be willing to move my image of “dark” and Shadow away from the negative meanings which are usually attached to them. I have come to understand the words “dark” and “Shadow” to mean that which is beneath the surface. So much of what is considered to be the human “dark side” has been buried in our pursuit to be pure. Our sexuality, anger, confusion, fears, imperfections are some examples of what many consider part of their own “Shadow” selves. These buried aspects often combine with each other and frequently seem to take on a life – an energy of their own. They can drive us, motivate us, without our being conscious of them, because we have sought to get rid of them. So they become part of our subconscious. Today, I understand that the “dark side” isn’t “bad,” but merely imperfect, incomplete. My dark side; the energies that remain buried beneath the surface, are simply opportunities to be positive and creative waiting to be uncovered”
At least Mormonism has retained some integrity in one area, it is consistent in the denial or concealment of its real self, with the demand you do the same.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Money Matters
Hypocrisy
“Mormon Church has misled members on $100 billion tax exempt investment fund, whistleblower alleges.“
“A former investment manager alleges in a whistleblower complaint to the Internal Revenue Service that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has amassed about $100 billion in accounts intended for charitable purposes, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Washington Post.
The confidential document, received by the IRS on Nov. 21, accuses church leaders of misleading members — and possibly breaching federal tax rules — by stockpiling their surplus donations instead of using them for charitable works . . . . ”
Washington Post – December 17, 2019
In 1973 I was sent as Bishop of the Catford Ward, London stake, to the April General Conference of the Church. Whilst there, a tour around Temple Square’s visitors centre did not impress me at all – too lavish and extravagant. Years later, an equal waste of resources occurred in the building of the luxuriously adorned Joseph Smith Memorial building, which featured in the Ensign magazine. The edifice was built from our resources – our tithing. What made it worse for me was an article in the Ensign Magazine, exhorting the members to reassess their values and think less about beautifying their homes and lives with unnecessary materialism and try harder to keep their homes ‘modest.’ It went on to encourage the payment of tithes and offerings as an important priority. As I looked at these marbled empty rooms, so richly and exorbitantly portrayed, I was so angry, I did something I had never done before – I wrote to the author detailing the hypocrisy and contradiction of the church. I never did get a reply. Below is the letter I wrote:
Dear Bro. Todd,
I’ve been reading the Ensign for many years now and have never ever felt anger, but today I did. An article by Brent L.Top on the subject of ‘Coveting’ in December 94 issue, quoted Joseph Wirthlin (apostle) from his October 1990 Conference address, stating emphatically we should not spend ‘extravagantly’ on our homes… their interior, décor, furnishings and landscaping – even if we had the money. He went on: “We may be misdirecting resources which ought to be used to build the kingdom of God and to feed and clothe our brothers and sisters.” I agreed with the principles taught in this article, yet the exhortation reveals a shocking level of hypocrisy. The Joseph Smith Memorial Building is, in my opinion, an extravagant use of church resources.
If the church leaders wish to help members become less covetous with their own money, then let the leaders first establish a proper example for all the members to see. President Hinckley said at the dedication or opening of the Memorial Building that some people might think it an extravagance (too right!)…. perhaps he too is secretly embarrassed at such an irresponsible use of tithing – money so often given at such great sacrifice!
Sincerely
Robert Bridgstock
Tithing
When they finally reach the delicate subject of paying tithing, missionaries will tell investigators that tithing is fair, because it represents 10% of a person’s income, so, if you earn a lot, you pay more and if you earn less, you pay little. Nonsense. Tithing has always been easy for high earners and harder for poorer people. Most of us who have been members all our lives know about these things. We have lived through times of plenty and times of scarcity. We can remember what it felt like to pay tithing when we had nothing and when we had plenty and it was so different. In those years when money was good, we set up our direct debits and just got on with life and thought no more about it … it did NOT hurt us, but in times of hardship we really struggled… and it HURT. Compound this with unfair circumstances, where two different wage earners bring home the same money and pay the same 10% tithe, but one family has more children to feed and perhaps has some crushing expenses for a handicapped child? Suddenly, the Mormon method of 10% on income becomes a terrible grinding problem for one family and a piece of cake for another! So, 10% across the board is NOT a fair system.
What we were told from Joseph’s revelations, is that tithing is 10% of our “interest” annually. Time and again, the highest authority will not interpret what “Interest” actually means, yet every bishop will ‘suggest’ it means 10% on gross income… or, if you want your blessings ‘net’ – then on net income! Actually, the essential Mormon scriptures which deals with tithing, does not give them authority to define it as a payment of 10% of income – net or gross. Let us look at those scriptures.
As far back as August 1974 I had serious doubts about the church, which I itemised in a letter to my stake president. One of the points I raised was about tithing. It is quite clear from revelations to Joseph Smith (D&C 119: 3-4) what tithing was meant to entail:
“Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion.
And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord”
Franklin D. Richards explained the meaning of SURPLUS as it appeared in verse 1 of D&C 119:
“I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop” Let us consider for a moment this word ‘Surplus.’ What does it mean when applied to a man and his property? Surplus cannot mean that which is indispensably necessary for any given purpose but what remains after supplying what is needed for that purpose. Is not the first and most necessary use of a man’s property that he feed, clothe and provide a home for himself and family!… was not ‘surplus property’ that which was over and above a comfortable and necessary substance? In the light of what had transpired and of subsequent events, what else could it mean? Can we take any other view of it when we consider the circumstances under which it was given in Far West, in July 1838? I have been unable in studying this subject to find any other definition of the term ‘Surplus,’ as used in this revelation, than the one I have just given. I find that it was so understood and recorded by the Bishops and people in those days, as well as by Joseph Smith himself, who was unquestionably the ablest and best exponent of this revelation.” (Franklin D. Richards, Nov. 6, 1882. JD 23:313.)
A young man knocked on my door whilst I was living in Sydenham, London. He was a missionary from the “Reorganised” Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Now the Community of Christ) I invited him in and we got talking about tithing. He told me how he paid his tithing:
“On becoming a member I assessed all that I had and all that I needed – not just money but all my material possessions. Then I was able to see what was ‘surplus’. This exercise gave me the opportunity to become a ‘steward’ over my own property as directed in D&C 42:32.”
He happily insisted that in his Church, tithing was paid exactly as these revelations stated and reminded me of the line in the previous verses, which read: “and this shall be a standing law unto them forever”… I had to admit, he seemed right… I had no argument!
In the Millennial Star of January 1847, Orson Hyde wrote an article on ‘tithing.’ In it he stated:
“The celestial law requires one tenth part of all a man’s substance, which he possesses at the time he comes into the church and one tenth part of his annual increase ever after. IF IT REQUIRES ALL A MAN CAN EARN TO SUPPORT HIS HIMSELF AND FAMILY, HE IS NOT TITHED AT ALL. The celestial law does not take the mother’s and children’s bread, neither ought else, which they need for their comfort. The poor that have not this world’s goods to spare, but serve and honour God according to the best of their abilities in every other way, shall have a celestial crown in the eternal kingdom of our Father” (capitals mine)
How interesting. Orson Hyde – one of the greatest leaders within the early years of Mormonism, held that tithing should be assessed and paid exactly as this young member from the Community of Christ had suggested and exactly as Mormon scripture dictates. These tithing exemptions to the truly poor will never be quoted in current teaching manuals, nor will his merciful and sensible approach be promulgated by the greedy prophets of today in the main stream Mormon church. It has changed the laws, or rules on tithing.
Since the days of Joseph Smith, Mormon prophets have made changes according to what they perceive and declare as ‘Revelations’ coming from God, thus amending, deleting or altering previously ‘unalterable’ decrees by God! For instance, Joseph Smith has stated clearly that the temple endowment was NEVER to be altered, but it has been, many times since his death. Funny how such revelations only seem to come about when either legal or social pressures build up to intolerable levels, as in the classic case of stopping polygamy or allowing the Blacks to hold the priesthood, as well as temple endowment changes. In reality, these changes have nothing to do with new revelations but everything to do with respectability, acceptance and conformity to civil law. In the case of polygamy, the Church brought forward The Manifesto, when it declared an official end to polygamy, yet its highest leaders still secretly encouraged and obeyed polygamous practices – lying whenever occasion required it, to cover their duplicity. This is a proven fact, discovered in historic documents. No ‘revelation’ was ever received to stop polygamy and the actual statement of the Manifesto was cobbled together by lesser men and just given to the prophet to approve and sign. From what I can understand, social pressures and even law suits forced it to make changes – not God.
Below are various observations taken from the Internet:
In the November 1999 Ensign, Gordon B. Hinckley, the President of the LDS Church, addressed various aspects of his religion in an article entitled “Why We Do Some of the Things We Do.” In the article, Hinckley addresses the question of “Why is the Church in business?”
Hinckley stated:
“We have a few business interests. Not many. Most of these were begun in very early days when the Church was the only organization that could provide the capital that was needed to start certain business interests designed to serve the people in this remote area. We have divested ourselves long since of some of these where it was felt there was no longer a need. Included in these divestitures, for instance, was the old Consolidated Wagon and Machine Company, which did well in the days of wagons and horse-drawn farm machinery. The company outlived its usefulness.
The church sold the banks which it once held. As good banking services developed in the community, there was no longer any need for church-owned banks.”
So according to the Hinckley, the LDS Church has only a few business interests. A review of businesses owned by the LDS Church would reveal a different conclusion. The Arizona Republic printed a detailed spreadsheet of the Church’s US corporations as follows:
Agri-Northwest (Washington state),
Applied Technology Group (SLC),
Beehive Clothing (SLC),
Beneficial Development Co. (SLC),
Beneficial Life Insurance Co. (SLC),
BLIC Agency (SLC),
Bluestem Co. (Oklahoma),
Bonneville Broadcasting System (SLC),
Bonneville Entertainment (SLC),
Bonneville Holding Co. (SLC),
Bonneville International Corp. (SLC),
Bonneville Media Communication (SLC),
Brigham Young University (Provo, Utah),
Brown & Co. (SLC),
BYU-Hawaii (Laie, Oahu),
Columbia Ridge Farms (Tri-Cities, Washington),
Continental Western Life Insurance Co. (Des Moines, Iowa),
Corporation of the President (SLC),
Corporation of the Presiding Bishop (SLC),
Cultural Centers Properties, Inc. (Oahu, Hawaii),
Descal & Co. (California),
Desco & Co. (Colorado),
Deseret Book Co. (SLC),
Deseret Farms (SLC),
Deseret Farms of California,
Deseret Grain (“nationwide”),
Deseret Gymnasium (SLC),
Deseret Industries (SLC and “national, similar to Goodwill Industries”),
Deseret International Charities (SLC),
Deseret Land and Livestock Co.(Utah and Wyoming),
Deseret Management (SLC),
Deseret Mutual Insurance Corp. (SLC),
Deseret News Publishing Corp. (SLC),
Deseret Ranches of Florida (Orlando),
Deseret Ranches of Wyoming (Cody),
Deseret Transportation (SLC),
Deseret Trust (SLC),
Deseret Trust of California (Los Angeles),
Eagle Gate Apartments (SLC),
Elberta Farms (Provo, Utah),
Eleven Bar Ranch (Nephi, Utah),
Farm Management Co. (SLC),
Foreign Lands Corp. (SLC),
Garrison Welfare Farm (Garrison, Utah),
Genealogical Society of Utah (SLC),
Grain Handling, Inc. (Washington state),
Hotel Temple Square Corp. (SLC),
Islands Foundation (Oahu, Hawaii),
KAAM-AM (Dallas),
KBIG-Radio (Los Angeles),
KBYU-FM and KBYU-TV (Provo, Utah),
Keystone Communications (SLC),
KIRO-AM and KIRO-TV (Seattle),
KMBZ-Radio (Kansas City),
KMEO-Radio (Phoenix),
KOIT-Radio (San Francisco),
KRIC-Radio (Ricks, Idaho),
KSEA-FM (Seattle),
KSL-Radio and KSL-TV (SLC),
K2H Farms, Inc. (Washington state),
KZPS-FM (Dallas),
Laie Resorts (Oahu, Hawaii),
LDS Business College (SLC),
LDS Foundation (SLC),
LDS Social Services (SLC),
LDS Social Services of Massachusetts,
LDS Social Services of New York,
LDS Social Services of Virginia,
Mormon Temples (SLC),
Magnolia Management Corp. (Orlando, Florida),
Mormon Handicraft (SLC),
Mortgage Loan Services (SLC),
Nauvoo Restoration (Illinois),
Newspaper Agency Corp. (SLC),
Office Management of Utah (SLC),
Pacific Heritage Life Insurance Co. (Portland, Oregon),
Polynesian Cultural Center (Laie, Oahu, Hawaii),
Promised Valley Playhouse (SLC),
Property Reserve of Arizona, Proprietary Holding, Inc. (SLC),
Ricks College (Rexburg, Idaho),
Salt Lake Macaroni & Noodle Co.,
Shadow Mountain Press (SLC),
Sooner Land & Livestock Co. (Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas),
Third Avenue Productions (Seattle),
Utah Home Fire Insurance Co. (SLC),
Video West Network (SLC),
Western American Life Insurance Co. (SLC),
WNSR-FM (New York City),
WTMX-Radio (Chicago),
ZCMI (SLC and national),
Zion’s Securities Corp (SLC).
(See Mormon Inc.: Finances & Faith: A Series About the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that Appeared in THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC, June 30-July 3, 1991 (Phoenix: Series Reprint, The Arizona Republic, 1991),
When president Hinckley said “we only have a few – not many” I thought he meant 3 or 4?
More like a Corporation
The church has decided to dump the time consuming maintenance and clean up of its chapels onto an already stretched membership. No doubt to help them appreciate their buildings. It now refuses to pay for custodians. Clearly, it must be going through a financial crisis. Perhaps we could take a quick peep, just to see how bad things really are?
The church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints receives up to an estimated 7 Billion dollars a year in annual tithing revenues. That’s just over 19 Million dollars per day in tithing! Not far off 1 Million dollars per hour! The Church refuses to disclose to the public or its members – how much money it receives annually and what those funds are used for. Because the LDS Church is a tax-exempt organization, it does not have to publicly disclose financial books. Dangerous.
For a better understanding, of just how much of a corporate empire we are dealing with here, then read Caroline Winter’s feature in Bloomberg Businessweek. “How the Mormons Make Money” July 10, 2012. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money
Here is her excerpt on tithing:
“According to U.S. law, religions have no obligation to open their books to the public, and the LDS Church officially stopped reporting any finances in the early 1960s. In 1997 an investigation by Time used cross-religious comparisons and internal information to estimate the church’s total value at $30 billion. The magazine also produced a “conservative” estimate that $5 billion worth of tithing flows into the church annually, and that it owned at least $6 billion in stocks. The Mormon Church at the time said the estimates were grossly exaggerated, but a recent investigation by Reuters in collaboration with sociology professor Cragun estimates that the LDS Church is likely worth $40 billion today and collects up to $8 billion in tithing each year.”
Other excellent blog site articles are:
- Alan Rock waterman ‘Pure Mormonism: How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ.’
http://puremormonism.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/how-corporatism-has-undermined-and.html
- ‘Chapter XVIII The prophet of mammon’
http://www.sacred-texts.com/mor/upu/chap18.htm
- On the whole subject of Tithing: http://mormonthink.com/tithing.htm
The purchase of the downtown Salt Lake City shopping mall complex – together with its design, refurbishment and the completion of the Condo’s, has been estimated to possibly reach $8 billion dollars! Honestly – would it make any difference if it were $6 billion or $4 billion… it is a staggeringly obscene amount of money for the Church to be spending for commercial reasons, when its wealth has come from the sacrifice of its ordinary members – many of whom will have suffered significant hardship and deprivation to find the means to pay their tithing – especially those in third world countries! Now the Church is also to build a new 220 bedroom hotel in Hawaii to replace the ‘Laie Inn’ hotel, at an estimated cost of $100 – 200 million dollars.
The Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints seems to be exactly that, a ‘business corporation.’ Again, from the Internet I found this short comparison: http://boards.gingerbeer.co.uk/index.php?topic=112894.40;wap2
According to Gordon B. Hinckley in a talk a few years ago:
“Last year alone we sent humanitarian aid to assist with 829 projects in 101 countries, giving 11.2 million dollars in cash and 44 million in material resources for a total $55.2 million.”
Assuming we can take the prophet’s word for it – and assuming this wasn’t an extraordinarily charitable year for the church (which, considering the fact that most years go by without the church releasing any such financial numbers, seems unlikely) – this means the church spends about 1% of its annual income, or, to look at it another way, LESS THAN $5 PER MEMBER PER YEAR, on charity.
Bill Gates, by contrast (and whose net worth is probably in the same neighbourhood as the church’s) has a charitable foundation that gives away over ONE BILLION DOLLARS each year to charity, or ABOUT TWENTY TIMES AS MUCH AS THE LDS CHURCH, even taking a conservative estimate for tithing intake and a liberal estimate for the church’s charitable giving’s. TBMs, (True Blue Mormons) your tithing money would do more good for the world if you were to instead give it to BILL GATES. Alarm bells should be going off in any reasonable person’s head right about now.
The church Accepts Tithing on Pornography
The American Journalist Joanna Brooks, wrote on January 28, 2011:
“Marriott hotels will be phasing out in-room pay-per-view pornography over the next five years, giving up about $100 million in revenues to do so.
(Lucky for them, Marriott guests will still be able to enjoy the Book of Mormon stashed in the nightstand drawer in Marriott hotel rooms, courtesy of the mega-Mormon Marriott family.)
The hotel chain says that the decision is economic: in-room porn profits have tanked because the porn industry has moved on-line.”
The following information comes from the Mormon Curtain:
“The Mormon Church has fired CES instructor Dan Phelps, the mayor of Clearfield, Utah, for viewing pornography on a city laptop computer. It also released him from his calling as stake president. Regardless of your views on pornography, that does make sense for a church which is supposedly anti-pornography. What makes less sense is this: Despite all of the above, the Church continues to allow one of America’s biggest pornography profiteers, Bill Marriott Jr. of hotel fame, to keep his callings in Church, and despite not accepting tithes on money won through gambling on grounds that it was gained immorally, happily accepts Marriott’s tithing on money earned from the sale of hardcore pornography in his hotel rooms. And by the way, according to the NY Times, the Marriott Corporation takes in around $200 million per annum in pornography sales.”
So…if you ‘look’ at pornography, the Church fires you and releases you from your calling. But if you ‘sell’ $200 million of it (or $100 according to Joanne Brooks) each year all over the world to hundreds of thousands of people, just like the poor chump who got fired, making millions in the process, you DON’T get released. In fact, you get to serve as a stake president asking your stake underlings if they keep the Law of Chastity, and then serve (as I understand it) as a temple president. Oh yeah – and though one of America’s top porn profiteers, you also get to remain Mormon Royalty.
Can someone explain this to me?”
http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_talbachman_section4.html#pub_-1724489442
(See NY Times, “Wall Street Meets Pornography”, Oct. 23, 2000).
It is a shock to investigators when missionaries tell them they will have to pay 10% of their income to the church in order to become a member – they quickly add however: “God will bless you as you start to pay your tithing and the destroying angel will pass you by when judgements fall upon the wicked.” Indeed, that tithing is ‘fire insurance’ is still a serious joke in Mormon circles.
I have paid many thousands of pounds into the Mormon church throughout my life. During my 17 freelance years there were some isolated occasions when my wife came to me crying, because we had no money for food, but we still paid our tithing. I have always believed (As I was told) that you don’t pay tithing with money – you pay it with faith.
Well, I started to notice something odd? For the first time in my life I stopped paying tithing… Yes, I no longer believed in the church and just stopped. As the months rolled into a year or more, I noticed money became easier. It felt like I was ‘being blessed’ (A frequent phrase used by Mormons when some money appears from no-where when struggling to pay tithing) So there I was, being ‘blessed’ for not paying it! Then I entered a period where my wife persuaded me to have more faith and just trust God and pay my tithing, and I, willing to do anything for her, agreed. (I might add to the TBM reader, these were days when I had no cynicism or anger about the church – just multiple doubts, with a sincere desire to be trusting). Once more, the months rolled into a year or two and low and behold, I started to be financially ‘cursed.’ I remember thinking to myself: ‘what is going on’ – I’ve got the faith and I’m trying hard, yet I have never had so many money worries?’ My business in generally suffered, with the amount of work I received, payments and cash flow and bills to pay! That did it for me, I eventually realised that the whole thing about being blessed was a persuasion of the head and not a factual reality.
So, whenever well meaning folk have shared with me their testimony of being ‘blessed,’ I also give them my own personal testimony of being ‘cursed.’ The truth is, ‘blessedness’ occurs whenever deep positive faith, or deep love is sent out into the world – it may not return in the form of material possessions but it will return. The church tends not to tell you that, until you come back months or years later and report that this God, who was supposed to bless me, has absconded….. “Oh,” they say, “we did not mean ‘literally’ bless you!” Actually, they did – just to get me into the church.
I would like the reader for one moment to seriously consider my above evaluation of being cursed for paying tithing: Look at the facts from God’s angle, as well as imagining please, that the church really was TRUE….
God, being aware of all things past, present and future, He would know that one day, I would actually write a book, which would testify to the world that his one and only true church on Earth (Mormonism) was FALSE. He could see I was confused by conflicting doubts, yet very earnest and sincere to know the truth. He could also see Norma as a thoroughly devoted wife and LDS members who kept ALL His commandments and held sacred her temple recommend and church membership. She was praying for me, worrying about me and doing all she could to support and love me. He had inspired His missionary force to promise me from Malachi 3:10 “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat (means) in my house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” In other words, Mormonism taught the missionaries to teach us, that God Himself was itching to PROVE to us how powerfully He wanted to bless us if we tried the experiment of paying tithing! This indeed, was the impression any normal guy should get from this verse.
Questions: Why did God fail me? Why did he fail his missionaries and His church in fulfilling what he said he would do? More importantly… why did He look down and see my beautiful wife – an angel on earth, and not think about her prayers, her faith? Why did he fail her? Why would He not see the entire situation as a wonderful opportunity to BLESS, as He said He would? Why would he look down on a devout woman of His church and look at me with my past prayers as I struggled to fight through questions and doubts? Why would He not look at my present sincere desire to trust Him and trust the faith of my wife – to really believe my wife? Even if I was lying here and I was not sincere – why would he not see I was just weak, confused and a bit stupid and that my dear wife could be ‘honoured’ by Him – that he could still ‘honour’ the missionaries who first taught me – that He could bring honour to His own name?
It seems to me there are only two answers which make sense. One: there is no God. Two: there is a God, but the LDS Church is not His. Therefore, those servants who make such promises in His name are not authorised and are not honoured.
Naively, Mormons think when they receive some unexpected money or some cheque through the post, God is actually blessing them for paying tithing, which for them, becomes proof they are meant to pay tithing. They overlook the fact that all those outside their faith also receive unexpected money from time to time – it happens to all of us. I have no problem believing that we might thank God, or feel grateful for such surprises, but for a member to treat it as living proof that the Church is true, is not sustainable when set against real life experience. There is a satisfactory trade off – when members pay their tithing; they have a cosy sense of ‘fulfilling their duty,’ for which, they will receive a secure feeling of hope that God will bless them. It really is their purchase of assurance. The other part of the trade off is that the Corporation grow fat on their sacrifices. My current perspective on this substantiates what I am saying. I have been out of the LDS Church for 8 years now. During this period I have been conscious of comparisons with what I would have feltif I had remained a member and a tithe payer. Countless times, money and gifts and good financial luck have come to my partner Marilyn and myself – sometimes, out of the blue! This could have been put down to ‘blessings’ from God if we had paid tithing, but actually, life has always been like this and includes difficult times when things seem to go wrong and times of plenty; we all have had those moments – as Mormons do too. It’s just life and nothing to do with specific ‘blessings’ for obeying rules.
Also I might add, in years past I would read the church’s Ensign Magazine and looked for those special stories about members who had their prayers answered, or had been especially ‘blessed’ for paying their tithing. I took great comfort and strength from those stories… Surely this was the Lords true church. Now I take a harder stare. If I had sent an article to the Ensign publishers on how I had paid my tithing and how God had cursed me – would they print it? Of course not! Most members would not even dream of sending in such a story anyway – nor did I. We have all been taught by the church that it was OUR faultif God did not bless us. We NEVER thought to question the church – that was literally unthinkable. The truth is, for every amazing story about being blessed for paying tithing, which appeared in the Ensign, 10,000 other stories of depressing reality will not be sent in, or even if they were – would be dumped in a bin.
CHAPTER 15
Life After Mormonism
Meeting Marilyn
My life really began to change for the better after meeting Marilyn for the first time, on 22nd February 2009. She was known as “Mal” or “Maz” by her friends and family. I preferred Maz. Maz took all my loneliness away and helped heal my heart from the ache of grief. She too had lost her loving husband Barry. Both of us had come from long-lasting and satisfying marriages,’ of some 36 years each. For several years, Barry had suffered with a failing heart and Maz had been there for him till the end. It has been wonderful to look back and tell each other about our past spouses’ with affection and reverence . . . and virtually no regrets. We laughed the other day when someone said: “The longer your spouse is dead, the bigger their hallo gets!” And it is so true. Sadly, death changes everything in a family structure – usually for the worst. Nothing can stay the same ever again.
Maz is kind, caring and affectionate. She is also a very dependable and an honourable woman. She is emotionally uncomplicated. Every day she carries a bright cheery spirit that is lovely to witness. Later in the summer of 2009, we decided to get engaged and planned a wedding at a hotel in the beautiful ‘Peak District’ of England (One of the national park areas) Maz actually bought a wedding dress in August and the whole thing was arranged, but with just a short time to go, we called it off. It was purely down to finances. Having just received a ‘projected pension forecast,’ it became obvious we were going to be seriously disadvantaged financially, by being a married couple. It was not what we wanted, but neither was ‘living together’ an option which bothered us. After all, we had been doing so, and were still happy to continue that way.
Maz had sold her house and had moved in with me in late 2009. My own three floor town house was situated in a sleepy village called Barlow, near the Market Town of Selby, North Yorkshire, England. Selby, with its beautiful Abbey, sits about 8 miles south of the city of York. During the summer of 2009 we had decided to sell-up and buy a house together; a new start and a new beginning. During that next year until the summer of 2010 we battled with agents and prospective house buyers to sell my Barlow home and finally managed to move away to a new terraced house on the edge of Cannock Chase Forest in Staffordshire, in September 2010.
At present, we are retired and enjoy a somewhat lazy existence. We are together 24/7 and pretty much love it. I enjoy writing, photography, walking and oil painting. I’m also fascinated by Mormon history and culture; after all, it was my whole life and my entire value system. Mormons who begin to realize how badly they have been lied to and betrayed, after investing so much for so long, are rather like sexually abused victims – they cannot be expected to just ‘put it all behind them.’
Just because one leaves the LDS faith, does not mean they should cease to speak of it or even speak out against it. I consider the official Mormon Institution – its top hierarchy, to be guilty of horrendous and outrageous emotional, spiritual and mental abuse – for its manipulation, lies, theft and coercion. Mormonism – when thoroughly studied and understood, is a first class cult. Orthodox members who get all upset over ex-members continuing to mouth-off about the church, are utterly clueless about the depth of their own naivety and ignorance.
On The Road to Misery
During that last summer in Barlow—before we left—I was forced to deal with a financial issue involving my own six children, which greatly angered and saddened me . . . an issue or dispute that brought unhappiness to all concerned. For me personally, it ripped my soul apart with disbelief and disgust at the greed, arrogance and disrespect of my own children toward me. In my estimation, nothing that I have ever done, compared to what they did. I still cannot understand the morality or mentality that even ‘thought’ the way they did. Even as I re-write this book, the whole business has been buried, but unfortunately for me – buried alive. We have all moved on and can now talk and laugh together about many things, but not that subject – nor the hidden truth about Mormonism. We have all avoided these two subjects. Apart from this, our relationships in the family were previously aggravated by my wife’s death and the reasons for my excommunication in 2006.
The thing about excommunication is that the victim, or recipient, can come back – can change and repent, can start afresh, or return to the church, but I had no inclination or desire to do so. Indeed, I had done sufficient research to never do so again. People such as I will be seen as ‘betrayers of the faith,’ whereas in fact, the reasons for remaining outside Mormonism are all to do with evidence, conscience and integrity. This brings me appropriately to aspects of change. In direct proportion to my loss of belief in the church and my increasing conviction that it was false – of which I now have no doubts, means I now have lost all sense of misplaced guilt. Nothing in Mormonism frightens me. All its dire warnings from the hierarchy, its Judgement Day scenarios from the Book of Mormon for all unbelievers and most assuredly—the abusive correspondence of death and eternal misery, which fell through my letter box – mailed from President Tunnicliffe (My Stake President) – were as disturbing to me, as a mouse is to a cat. He told me in a letter dated the 10th April 2006:
“The road that you are on will lead to nowhere. It will—unchanged—only lead to misery.”
He went on to quote D&C84:41, which says that if we break covenants and altogether turn away, we shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. So, why am I not frightened? I’m not afraid, because the mask has slipped and the shine has gone. I’m not afraid, because I can see the mess behind the polished surface – which, in my poor naiveté of life, looked too good to be false. Now it is just plain ugly. Yes, I’m afraid of many things, but not lunacy.
The other day, some recent ex Mormon made a comment, he said: “I have discovered that members of the church know so little about their history – compared to ex Mormons.” We have made the time and given the time, to make a more thorough study of a wider range of articles, official LDS history and books, to determine what really happened. Active LDS don’t do this. Generally, they are far too busy magnifying their ‘Callings’ and working all hours for the church to stop and re-evaluate their so-called Truth. Apart from this, they are also officially warned and conditioned NOT to search beyond the kinder-garden of LDS culture, for answers. They are incredibly afraid, unless cosy, nice feelings about the LDS Restoration narrative, start to feel a little bit uncomfortable or disturbing. If you really want to know about the dangers and stupidity of trusting feelings, then read ‘The Apostasy of a High Priest,’ by Park Romney. The book does not deal with Mormon history or deceptions, but it does deal with the erroneous methods employed by the church to fool investigators and members about truth.
Who’s Afraid of the Mormon god?
Fear is something Joseph Smith counted on, to persuade people to conform. It is interesting that phrases like “eternal damnation” and ”endless torment,” were – according to Joseph Smith – used by God to deliberately scare us to death. In D&C 19: 6–7, God talks about the mistake we make about ‘time duration.’ He said that prefixes like: “eternal,” “endless” or “everlasting” were names for God and therefore, such verses had nothing to do with how long punishment would last. They were really saying that endless torment was Gods torment (because “Endless” was His name). Joseph Smith both warned and made guarantees that entire families would be either damned or entire families would be exalted, in order to pressure women into marrying him. So Joseph presents a God who plays with our fears and twists words around, hoping to frighten the living daylights out of us! It seems that Joseph and his god is one and the same anthropomorphic person – manipulators of people.
We should not be surprised to learn that a religion which wants control over us should also organise its doctrines to do just that. For instance, I have already said that their temple seems like a house of Satan, because of the constant warnings or the exposure of the Devil in the endowment presentation – especially before the last changes in 1990. To the best of my memory, warnings like: “If you do not walk up to every covenant you make in this temple, this day, you will be in my power,” must be the most terrifyingly and chilling threat imaginable.
Strange, all through my active years in the church as I have sat through endowment sessions and heard those words, I remember feeling a subtle and subdued resonance of anger toward the church and a total scepticism that the God personified in Christ would ever “hand me over” to Satan. It always felt theatrically stupid (As in a silly monster movie) and wholly inappropriate in a so-called temple of God. The rank and file members of the church are wonderful, but the temple – which once filled me with awe as I gazed upon it – that temple, I find totally repugnant … a manipulative house of Satan, invented by a man who wanted to play god.
In theory, (According to LDS scripture) I fall under a defining category called: “A Son of Perdition.” That is as bad as it gets! My condemnation is to have an eternal existence shut out from the presence of God – a place of ‘no glory’ – a place of outer darkness. At this point, why don’t we just read what God tells Joseph the prophet about MY fate? It is found in The Doctrine and Covenants, Section 76, Verses 31-38. This Section 76, tells the whole World how to qualify for Heaven. In Mormonism, there are three broad categories of worthiness, or three planets of ‘glory,’ and one place of outer darkness, or Hell. If you get to the top one, (Celestial) it’s because you kept all the rules of the church. The next one down (Terrestrial) is for “honourable people” – those who failed to accept Mormonism, but were decent. The third one (Telestial), is for scum bags – you know, adulterous, fornicators, deviants, thieves – nasty, selfish people….. yes, even these get to live in a ‘lower form’ of Heaven. Then there is my holiday resort, described below (can’t wait!). Notice how hermetically sealed it is. I won’t be able to get back. I’ll be locked-out forever:
“Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born. For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity. Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it . . . These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.”
The Doctrine and Covenants 76:31–38
When I consider the manner in which Mormonism suggests we attain knowledge, or gain a testimony of the church ‘being true,’ which is by simply trusting emotional feelings, I am most assured that a so-called ‘denialof the Holy Ghost,’ is a floored premise.
Doubting or defying the Mormon god, when you are fully involved in Mormonism, is like fearing to face Goliath, though it is only that: fear. The Mormon god is nothing at all. He simply does not exist … accept in your mind. You might as well be afraid of your shadow. Since being excommunicated, I can say with hand on heart, I have never – not even for one second, regretted my departure from the LDS faith, nor have I felt the slightest fear of their god.
Could I go Back Again?
I phoned my sister some time back and asked her what ‘difference’ she had noticed in me since my excommunication? Her first words were: “You are like a bird out of a cage . . . I have always said that. You seem free, more yourself . . . just more relaxed.” I think she is right. I certainly have no less humour – probably more. I am also a little extra cheeky and a little bubblier in public. So far, the baby seems intact, despite a lot of dirty bath water having gone down the plug hole. I used to have doubts the church might be false, now I have no doubts it might be true. Clearly, the biggest loss is my trust in so-called sacred scripture. It has lost its authority by rational deduction. There is too much naiveté, prejudice, hatred, violence, paranoia, sexual obsession, fear, fantasy, arrogance and too much of the suppression of women, to be at all believable.
Would I seek re-baptism – could I go back again? No, I could not. To me, the evidence for the church not being true is stacking so high, it is just over-kill. When any person claims their church, their faith, their teachings and their doctrines, have come directly ‘from God’ via their prophets – there should be virtually no room for error. If any ‘ONE’ major teaching is shown to be false, or wrong, then the whole edifice collapses. God can’t be that stupid and that bundling. Mormonism has already collapsed under its D&C77 revelation on Creation. It collapsed under polygamy alone and the disgusting misogynistic approach it has toward women. It collapsed under the acknowledged ‘affair’ with Fanny Alger in the barn by Joseph Smith – as witnessed by Oliver Cowdery. It collapsed under polyandry. It collapsed under discrimination of Blacks, it collapsed under the mere teaching of Blood Atonement, never mind the murders which came from it. It collapsed under DNA findings, which proves the essential claims of the Book of Mormon false. It collapsed under stolen Masonic rituals for the Endowment. It collapsed under the failed fulfilment of roughly 68 prophecies in the D&C… prophecies, which makes the Mormon God invented by Smith, a complete idiot. It collapsed under the failed translation of the Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook plates. It collapsed under the so-called ‘First Vision.’ It collapsed under the totally misleading statements of all the Witnesses – rather than what we have been led to believe. It collapsed under the weight of a silly pebble in a hat. It collapsed under the fraudulent Kirtland bank. It collapsed under the Hoffman forgeries, which fooled modern day ‘Seers’ and highlighted their paranoia for suppression of facts; it even collapsed under the failure of my wife’s Patriarchal Blessing after a life time of obedience and unfailing devotion to the church. It collapsed under the weight of unanswered prayers. And of late, it collapsed very badly under the weight of a very prejudiced, unkind and abusive policy toward Gay families and their children. The list could go on and on. Any ‘one’ important doctrine or precept shown to be utterly wrong, defames the prophet who preached it. Their ultimate claim of having divine truth direct from god, doesn’t add up; it is still found wanting – and always collapsing.
Also, apart from the reasons given above, the evident absence of Gods hand in the decisions and running of the LDS church is starkly obvious; he is nowhere to be seen. Revelation is meant to guide the church, but my experience reveals a silent god. Real answers to prayers ought to be an obvious daily experience for Mormons, but they are not.
Mormons are Decent People
Before I take this further, let me make one thing clear: the caring priesthood smiles and solicitous overtones of love and concern are genuine. They really do believe what they are telling you. Their motives are not the problem; they do not suffer from badness, just blindness. A dictionary definition of indoctrinated says:
“To teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the aim of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions.”
It is the indoctrination and blindness of your bishop or priesthood leader, not his warmth or friendliness, which is the danger. This is important. I have said that Mormons are wonderful people, and in general, they really are. Kindness, friendliness, compassion, thoughtfulness and integrity . . . these are good qualities; these are admirable characteristics and cause us to feel comfortable and trusting. Years of exposure to Mormon teaching will include the importance of Christ-like behaviour, such as forgiveness, kindness, and turning the other cheek – these qualities in any member and any leader are not the issue. Millions of people with such characteristics exist in ALL religions.
Other reasons why I could not go back are summed up in the rest of this chapter.
What Revelation?
Having said all the above, when questions are unsatisfactorily answered and persistent challenges are met with a blank face, a leader will start to decline using their heart, and instead, turn to rules and procedures already laid down and even if, by chance, a leader should fail to do things as the church dictates – well then – somewhere along the line, someone will complain and that leader may fall foul of a higher authority. The culture or ethos is wedged tightly into their minds, so they are unable to truly feel the correct thing to do. Interestingly, they will talk a lot about listening to ‘feelings,’ or ‘listening’ to the spirit, in order to make a judgement. When I think of all the thousands of hours I have sat in meetings where we have sought through prayer, to feel and know the mind of God, and how we (Apart from only one odd moment I can remember) never felt a single thing for multiple decades! Even when I have played a minor role, yet have been in the room and watched closely the results of their prayer – there is nothing – just nothing.
The church has always made a big thing about Revelation (The will of God experienced as feelings in the mind or heart). Revelation at all levels of church administration, including all members individually, is – they claim – paramount, because that is how God will guide them. What they will do in their executive meetings, is to think as hard as they can and come up with the best decision possible, which is all very fine, except that it cannot be distinguished as anything especially different from the normal mental activity of thinking for themselves. Half the time a leader or member will be very uncertain and need an answer, but nothing comes from the outside – from God. If it had, we would all know about it! One has the self same suspicion about modern Apostles. By definition, an apostle in the New Testament had to be “A special witness of Christ,” meaning: someone who has ‘seen’ the risen Christ. Out of respect, members would not ask an apostle if he had actually seen Christ? Those who do, can be sure to get an answer, which runs something like: “These things are too sacred to discuss,” leaving the member still in awe and leaving the GA’s (General Authority) sense of power intact. In all my decades within the church, I have never heard, or read of a GA saying he has literally seen Christ. It is quite simple; in days of old, apostles bore witness of having seen the risen Christ. It was part of their job description to bear witness. Modern apostles just keep up the appearance of ‘mystery,’ but there is no revelation and no actual manifestation. If there were, they’d be jumping around like school children for chocolate – fighting each other for a chance to testify. They know nothing and they say nothing. Duped or not, they are the hierarchy of a vast financially soaked Corporation, not any church of Christ. The Jesus of the New Testament would be ashamed of the cult in Utah. The more I study, the more I am convinced that the worst corruption lies at the head and not the bottom of the church. Once again, the devoutness, sincerity and goodness of individual members, is not in dispute. They are great people and deserve so much better from their leaders.
Now, coming back to the claimed Revelation from God to guide the church; those who may have had the experience of ‘premonition,’ will have a distinct understanding of what it feels like to be given something – as if from beyond. It is significantly more powerful than any normal type of thinking. It is a wholly different experience. Many years before she died, I had a premonition of the early death of my wife Norma. It came out of nowhere and bang – it was there! Preceding it were no fears, no imagination, no emotion, no dark candle-lit corners, no prayerful moment or morbid thoughts. It might as well have come from outer space and crashed into my head. This kind of experience is completely absent from all church administrational meetings. What I have noticed in myself and in others, throughout many years of church decision making, is a total absence of discernible direction from God. Even when leaders have made, what they think, is a correct decision – they are counselled to pray and ask the Lord to ‘confirm’ to their minds and hearts, that it was correct? They pray and ask, but nothing comes – nothing happens.
Once they come up from their collective knees and having received no answer, they speak of what they feel they ought to do and which decision feels right (As if God must be leading them) but their tone and manner reveals, they have nothing from beyond. Saying they feel good is not good enough – any fool can say that. Frankly, all a leader can do is just trust whatever he thinks and feels as being correct, because nothing else is given. Revelation, I’m afraid, is not demonstrable. As far as I know, never witnessed or experienced. For those who might give me an example of one such revelation, there will be many thousands of others who have failed. They are told that God will reveal His will, or at very least, confirm their decision. Sorry, it just does not work. All they can justifiably claim is an assumption that God was guiding their thoughts? As an afterthought, when Spencer Kimball was praying to God to get direction on whether the Blacks should receive the priesthood, he did not get an answer. In so many words, he petitioned God thus: “Lord, we feel good about allowing them to hold the priesthood – if it is wrong, let us know?” As they got no answer to the contrary, it became the will of God.
Unanswered Yet the Prayer
That God will always answer our prayers, was demonstrated by countless true stories in the church’s official Magazines. Rational analysis seems to beg the question that for every poignant story of ‘divine intervention,’ there will be hundreds (I would even suggest tens of thousands) of untold and un-submitted stories, where members have failed to find their pleading prayers answered. Strictly speaking, this reality belies quite a neglectful God. So, this disproportionate perception of the church’s claim on truth is established . . . We get answers, God is with us, We have the truth, Our temple garments protect us, We will be blessed for paying our tithing and so on; the same black and white thinking, with no allowance for the grey of realism. The ‘grey’ is the paradox of both living and being in a world saturated, not only with our own contradictions and imperfections, but the searing disregard of a God, who is supposed to love us. The evidence is all around us and cannot be hid from the honest thinking person. I have my own convictions of how God has answered my prayers and how He loves me, but I cannot deny the fact that for most people, more prayers go unanswered, than are ever answered. The Mormon propaganda machine will sustain the illusion that the LDS are Gods favourite little flock and heading straight for heaven, with all the correct procedures, passports and recommends in place, and with God Himself appropriately defined, labelled and codified.
The truth is much more worrying and mysterious. During the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, a number of people went into a church to pray and the roof came down and buried them. They lay there for days and days in whatever pain or agonies possessed them, until they died. If they had not had the inclination to pray, they might have been safe in the street, or they may not have been? One thing is certain, neither the cries of innocent children under the weight of one reported school building, nor the prayers of dying worshippers, shifted God off his backside to safe them. If God is either unable or unwilling to save his children in such terrible, intense pain and need, why should I expect Him to answer me when I ask for better health, or a better relationship, or to bless me to find money for food when I have paid my tithing? I am beginning to realise I live in a wider world where his absence and lack of care is appalling. I hasten to say, that my own experience of God has been so powerful – I still believe, but that does not change how negligent He appears to be to the world at large?
Like the rest of us, Mormonism has not the faintest idea why God can appear to be so kind to some and be so consistently cruel to others. They, like so many other religious people, too frequently offer a glib platitude and expect you not to worry your little head about it anymore. I go back to the point I’ve made elsewhere in this book, Mormonism has tied God up in so many knots of predictability and absolutism, that it is difficult for them to get Him off the hook of their own making. They have a God who is bound by law; a God who is forced to ‘bless’ when they are obedient (As described in my chapter on Patriarchal Blessings). Countless Mormons have pleaded and complied over many years and still wonder why God has not answered them?
And so it is, that most of us live very parochial lives and are rarely able to sense and feel the plight of others, or make any connection with what implications the suffering of others may have on our beliefs, until we too encounter darkness and suffer in some way. We are told by scientists that the universe is full of Dark Matter, which we cannot see. Likewise, Mormonism cannot see ‘grey’ matter…. life’s awkward and stark contradictions. It is a fact that so little of life’s harsh reality will penetrate the protection of Mormonism’s insular and restricted viewpoint.
I remember once sitting in an LDS chapel, waiting for the service to start and thumbing through a newly published church hymn book. I felt a contemptuous wave of anger rising inside me, as I realised they – the Brethren who lead an excuse for my church – had deleted one of my favourite hymns. It was called: ‘Unanswered yet the prayer.’ That hymn (Well loved by many in my day) had sent a message of hope to thousands of souls … and the church just ripped it out and threw it away! Why would they do that? That hymn had brought enormous comfort, consolation and peace to all those who’s prayers were either unanswered or still waiting to be answered – and that was all of us – at one time or another. Why did they do that? I will tell you why. I suppose they thought it would teach members to be more positive about their prayers, but in truth, it was the intrusive, manipulating rejection of the realities of life – the difficult grey areas. Part of Mormonism’s continuing denial of mess and disorder, of contradiction and things as they really are. “Let’s take the hymn away and pretend that God will always answer our prayers.” What a cynical and divisive thing to do – another way of protecting the members from authentic reality. The hymn itself of course – even its title, suggests God has taken too long to answer, whereas the church has unfortunately bound God under an oath to hear us and answer us. Their scriptures declare: “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say; ye have no promise”(D&C 82:10)
Getting rid of the hymn clears up the contradictions (The grey areas) and refines the harmony of themes with official dogma. You see, the hymn contrasted too sharply the stark difference between cosy illusions and the pain of real life experience. The deletion is just another tiny denial of reality and the desertion of truth. No such deletion could have occurred in the church’s new hymn book, without a prophet’s approval.
Transform or Conform?
The last thing to mention, as I begin to wind-up this book, is the general shallowness of Mormon Spirituality. I have already indicated, how it is normal or far more likely for a member to testify how amazing and wonderful the church is, but rarely ever hear them say how wonderful God is. I have also said that in the Mormon church you will likely as not, turn to ashes first, before finding a person on-fire with God. In John Ortberg’s book: ‘The life you’ve always wanted,’ he has a chapter on change. In it, he deals with what he calls, ‘Identity’ or ‘Boundary Markers.’ The more Boundary Markers a religion has, the less likely it is to truly transform or change our hearts.
The word “transformed” is used in the bible. I think of Paul who said; “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Biblically, the whole idea is that God is the one who transforms us, not from any of our outward or external practises, but by affecting the heart until this central life force works its way from the inside out, to change the way we think, act and feel. In Mormonism, although a person is meant to experience love, joy and peace (Known biblically as “the fruits of the spirit”) they are just as likely to end up feeling the fruits of a controlling institution, which is a lot more like banality, guilt, and stress. I remember more than once sitting in a bishopric meeting listening to the brethren discussing why so many sisters were on anti-depressants? The Bishop was totally perplexed. He asked: “why, in a church which has the Holy Ghost, are all these sisters in this situation?” Why indeed?
Otberg said:
“The great danger that arises when we don’t experience authentic transformation is that we will settle for what might be called pseudo-transformation. We know that as Christians we are called to “come out and be separate” that our faith and spiritual commitment should make us different somehow. But if we are not marked by greater and greater amounts of love and joy, we will inevitably look for substitute ways of distinguishing ourselves from those who are not Christians. This deep pattern is almost inescapable for religious people. If we don’t become changed from the inside-out, we will be tempted to find external methods to satisfy our need to feel that we’re different from those outside the faith. If we cannot be transformed, we will settle for being informed or conformed.”
Just think about many of the external factors within Mormonism, which enable members to be identified as exclusive or special:
Dietary laws – no smoking, alcohol, tea, coffee (Word of Wisdom)
Living prophets and apostles – your very own mouth piece for God
Temple ordinances, such as washings, annointings, endowments, baptisms, sealings
Continuous wearing of temple garments – day and night
Sabbath observance
Priesthood
Relief Society (Women’s group)
Various age group or gender classes or meetings
Documented Patriarchal blessings
Tithing
Seminary
Institute
Styles of modest clothing
Fasting
Genealogy
Additional scriptures
Home evenings
Home teaching
Visiting teaching
Missions
Callings
Educational programmes
Lessons
Second Annointings
Ortberg’s observations are that within religion, these kinds of practises are boundary markers and give members the opportunity to distinguish themselves between those inside the group and those outside the group. He says these external practises are highly visible, but relatively superficial. What’s worse, the insiders become proud and judgemental toward outsiders. Boundary markers become a shallow and poor substitute for real spirituality and create a false sense of superiority over others – unconscious arrogance.
Dallas Willard said: “Spirituality, wrongly understood or pursued is a major source of human misery and rebellion against God”
One thing which had struck me quite forcibly over the last few years of my membership in the church was the spiritual condition of Mormons. Generally speaking, they were emaciated and sickly. Apart from odd exceptions, they seem spiritually lifeless – lacking vitality, even stagnant. You can feel it quite strongly at the kind of boring and uninspiring talks given at the General Conferences of the church. It is because all their energy and all their lives are focused and consumed on these externals… these boundary markers. That’s what they are taught – that’s what they are brainwashed into believing. All rules, rituals, observances, externals and conformity, equates with self worth and divine acceptance; substitutions for real transformation. It is a strange and frightening situation that the church is ‘set up’ (By fault or design), to actually reinforce and encourage a superficial sense of spiritual well being. The leaders get the control they want, which includes vast amounts of tithing, whilst the members get the cheapest and worse kind of spirituality.
John Otberg sights the following fictitious example of the superficiality of boundary markers within his own church, so let me use the same story within an LDS setting:
Suppose a bishop in his Ward was consumed with pride or resentment, but his words – both in meetings and in the sacrament service – were orthodox and appropriate. Suppose the church, under his leadership, was improving (At least statistically) As long as he was towing the line and being outwardly circumspect, he is not likely to be released or criticised. Privately he could be a sod, but outwardly – in public, he lets nothing slip. Few would be any the wiser.
But suppose he stood at the chapel door as everyone was leaving, just to say goodbye, yet was smoking a cigarette (Prohibited law under Mormonism) until the last one had gone. If he was resolved to continue in this vein each week . . . what’s the odds, he’d be released pretty damned quick.
To use the author’s own words: “No one at church would have said that smoking a cigarette was a worse sin than a life consumed with pride and resentment. But for them, cigarette smoking became an ‘identity marker.’ It was one of the ways they were able to tell the sheep from the goats. That is why the marker held an emotional charge far beyond its theological significance. For the Bishop to have smoked a cigarette would have caused a scandal, (His pride would not), not because they were so naïve that they thought it an ‘evil’ thing to do, but because it would have violated an unspoken boundary marker. It would have threatened their sense of identity.”
It was the religious elite in Jesus’ day who were so full of boundary markers, yet dead to love. Jesus said they “strained at a gnat but swallowed a camel.” They were consumed with ritual, rules, special clothing and dietary laws – all externals, which gave way to pride. We should not be surprised that for them, He had the greatest condemnation.
Lastly, in case you think that all ex-Mormons are rather nasty twisted individuals, perhaps you might read the account (In the link below), of a very sweet elderly LDS couple, who had learnt the truth of how false the church really is. Many, many thousands are leaving the LDS Faith, because it has betrayed them…. did you know, that even years ago, the bulletin boards on exmormon.org received an average of 1.5 million hits a month, or around 50,000 a day? There are a lot of people who sense something is wrong and they are not getting their answers inside the church. As I have already said, it is estimated that the church had roughly 100,000 members resigning each year. Here is a story of two of them:
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft25.htm
Thank you for reading my book. Should you wish to contact me, my email address is:
robert.bridgstock@sky.com