For this review I am going to focus on the part of the chapter entitled Teachings of Lorenzo Snow and not look at the beginning of the chapter entitled From the Life of Lorenzo Snow.  I have chosen to do this for two reasons: firstly, I feel that my role in writing this post is to address the differences between LDS teaching, belief and doctrine and Biblically-based Christian teaching, and secondly, I found that I had so much I wanted to deal with in the ‘teachings’ section that it seemed unnecessary to dwell on the other areas.

I would first like to look at this bold claim: “That Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and other ancient worthies had this religion successively, in a series of dispensations, we, as a people, verily believe. … Mormonism, in short, is the primitive Christian faith restored, the ancient Gospel brought back again.”  I would like to know what evidence the LDS church has to substantiate such a claim.  Their religion is based heavily on the idea of eternal families being sealed together in exclusive temple ceremonies.  Through these ceremonies, people can progress along a path that can ultimately lead to godhood.  These principles are not found in the accounts we have of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Moses and they certainly do not resonate with the teachings, actions, life, death and resurrection of Jesus as contained in the New Testament.  Neither do the epistles addressed to the early churches contain anything that can be described as Mormonism.  No path to godhood, no salvation by “grace after all we can do”, no belief in one Prophet, seer and revelator overseeing and running one all-encompassing organisation, no Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, no exclusive temple ceremonies, no obligation to pay ten per cent of all income to the prophet’s organisation.  A claim such as the one above really ought to be backed up with evidence to support it.

In the paragraph following the one quoted above, we read of a kingdom being established where “light and intelligence shall be so generally diffused that it shall no longer be necessary for any man to say to his fellows, “Know ye the Lord, but all shall know him, from the least unto the greatest;” [see Jeremiah 31:34]”.  Yet the Lord of this Kingdom, who should be so easy to identify, is in fact rather difficult to get a grasp of when we actually look in detail at LDS sources:

“Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven” (Brigham Young in ‘Journal of Discourses’, 1:50-51)

“And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.”  (Alma 7:10)  Please note that this verse not only incorrectly states the birthplace of Jesus, but also contradicts the previous quote.

Therefore, it does not appear clear that the teaching of ‘the Kingdom’ in relation to ‘the Lord’ is clear or consistent even with itself or with the Bible.  So it would seem that the ‘light and intelligence’ brought about by the LDS church has not been helpful in aiding people to ‘know the Lord’.

This section of the chapter also refers to the prophecy made in Joel which states that “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy”.  This is included to build a picture of what the ‘Kingdom’ that the LDS church is establishing is like.  Old Testament scripture is being used here to try and legitimise LDS claims, yet to say that women in the LDS version of God’s kingdom can authoritatively ‘prophesy’ is ridiculous.  That is the domain of a select few.  That select few certainly contains no women!

Continuing the description of this kingdom, we read that “God has set up His Church and Kingdom on the earth for the benefit and blessing of the human family”.  Yet, if that is the case, one has to wonder why God would let this kingdom fail so badly in Mormon eyes from the end of the era of the first apostles to Joseph Smith’s ‘first vision’ (a period of around 1700 years) if it were his intention to benefit and bless the human family.  The words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18 (I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it) and 24:35 (Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away) should be enough to make it clear that God’s intentions were that his truth and church would not fall away or be removed from the earth and therefore the notion of a restoration is not something that God would ever have deemed necessary.  The chapter goes on to say: “Now talk about this kingdom being destroyed! … Why, you might as well try to pluck the stars from the firmament or the moon or the sun from its orbit! It never can be accomplished, for it is the work of the Almighty.”  Mormon teaching would suggest that the church established by Jesus did not even last as long as the LDS church has currently lasted, so how could any Mormon have confidence in the durability of their own organisation when it makes such a claim about the New Testament church established by Jesus himself?  The Kingdom of God seems to be a pretty flimsy concept in the LDS understanding.

A little further on is a statement that clears up any doubts about what the LDS church teaches about the Bible: “This Church will stand, because it is upon a firm basis. It is not from man; it is not from the study of the New Testament or the Old Testament”.  It would appear that for Mormons there is nothing secure about God’s revealing of his nature, identity and personality in either the Old or New Testament.  For an organisation that claims to be Christian, and the only 100% authentic version of Christianity at that, this is quite a bold claim regarding the importance of using the New Testament to understand and come to know the person of Jesus!  The chapter continues to explain that the LDS church has, “come directly from the Lord. The Lord has shown it to us by the revealing principle of the Holy Spirit of light”.  Really?  So you can ignore anything the New Testament has to say about Jesus and instead trust in a religion:

based upon a book written by a man using a rock in a hat to tell him what words should be written,

which contains a book that is built upon a provable lie (the claim that the papyrus used for the translation of the Book of Abraham had writings on it which were written by Abraham himself),

which has contradictory teachings on the nature of God: “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God” – Brigham Young, and then: “We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine” – Spencer Kimball.  Contradictory positions could also be provided here for the LDS position of polygamy and the rights of black people to hold ‘the priesthood’.

We then read that the Lord “opens to us the secrets of the celestial kingdom” yet neither Jesus nor the early church leaders teach anything about the celestial kingdom or mention anything that would even support the notion of meriting the right to live with God in heaven after we die on the basis of our own actions.  In fact the exclusivity of access to the celestial kingdom being through temple attendance, participation and worthiness is in direct contradiction with the Bible.  Consider these verses:

“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.  And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom”  Matthew 27:50-51

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;   Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.   For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;   Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time”  1 Timothy 2:3-6

“For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.  For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”  Ephesians 2:14-22

These verses demonstrate clearly that the notion of ‘secrets of the celestial kingdom’ flies directly in the face of the New Testament understanding, and therefore original Christianity’s understanding, of what the teachings, suffering, life, death and resurrection of Jesus mean for us.

The chapter continues: “Our work is … to become more and more perfect as we advance in years”.  This is a nonsense.  One cannot become ‘more perfect’.  Perfection ultimately means a state that can not be improved upon.  So to suggest that people can become more and more perfect is impossible.  It is also unbiblical to say that any improvement in our condition is down to ‘our work’.  Our work is as “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6) and the good work that goes on in the heart of a believer is not attributable to the believer, but rather to God: “he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:” (Philippians 1:6)

A little later on, the chapter discusses the commitment and sacrifices expected of LDS members to the cause of their faith or the building up of their ‘kingdom’.  Doctrine and Covenants section 98 is quoted here: “I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy; for if ye will not abide in my covenant, ye are not worthy of me.”  Again, we have here an example of the God of Mormonism telling his people that by sticking to the rules, they will then be worthy of him, and that if they fail to do this, they are not worthy of him.  Yet we know from the Bible that none is worthy of God (Romans 3:23) and that one is only ‘made worthy’ or justified by the free gift of grace (Romans 3:24) rather than by trying to earn worthiness.

Continuing on in the chapter, LDS believers are reminded that they “are engaged in the work of God. The prospects before us are glorious” and they are then told that they “may increase in knowledge and power”.  I am saddened that these appeals to glory of the self and the acquisition of power for one’s self are being made.  Is all the effort that this chapter is asking LDS members to make being done for such purposes?  Again I turn to Romans to demonstrate the Bible’s view of whose glory we should be concerned with, “if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”  (Romans 8:17-18)  Therefore, believers inherit God’s righteousness and glory, it is not about a path of progression to our own state of godhood where the power and glory are our own.  As that famous prayer makes clear: “thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever”.

The conclusion of the chapter builds on this theme of sacrifice in the cause of the LDS church:  “I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for any religion that was not worth living for and that was not worth dying for; and I would not give much for the man that was not willing to sacrifice his all for the sake of his religion.”  I find this statement problematic since there are a great many people, from a wide variety of religions, who have suffered and died due to their commitment to a sincerely held faith.  Such events reveal the depth of that person’s faith and not the veracity of their religion.  The theme of persecution is a recurrent one in LDS teaching materials and most LDS are well versed in the notion of being a ‘peculiar people’ and suffering for standing out in this way.  It is certain that the early LDS church members underwent some terrible ordeals at certain times and I would not want to make light of that, however, it is worth pointing out that often the people were suffering for their leaders’ practice of polygamy, or in response to a perception that the communal, close-knit Mormon way of life at that time represented a threat in terms of the LDS potentially being a political bloc, or a closed-off unit of industry, productivity and cultural isolation.  Let’s not forget why Joseph Smith was even in Carthage Jail in the first place.  Whatever the rights or wrongs of the treatment meted out to the early LDS, I think it would be a misrepresentation to suggest that they were suffering for their faith in Christ.  Christians this very day are being persecuted around the world for following Jesus and for refusing to renounce their faith.  Their struggles are well-documented here: http://www.releaseinternational.org/  Someone who truly suffered for Christ, and whose book I would recommend as probably the most inspirational thing I have ever read outside of scripture, is Richard Wurmbrand.  He was a Christian pastor in Romania during the era of communism.  He was imprisoned and horrifically abused for many years but never lost his faith.  His actions and life speak of a true devotion to Christ and his actions were imbued with total trust in the loving role of Jesus in his life.  To conclude my review I will leave you with his words:

“I have seen Christians in Communist prisons with fifty pounds of chains on their feet, tortured with red-hot iron pokers, in whose throats spoonfuls of salt had been forced, being kept afterward without water, starving, whipped, suffering from cold–and praying with fervor for the Communists. This is humanly inexplicable! It is the love of Christ, which was poured out in our hearts.”

This is a great couple of videos for anyone that has not seen this. Sandra Tanner who is actually a great, great grandaughter of Brigham Young and is also a co-founder of one of the earliest Christian Ministries to Mormons, shares her story.

Please see below a further letter from Chris addressing his concerns to the First Presidency and Quorum of the twelve.

This is something that to many members may seem futile, however to the many people that are leaving the LDS Church due to the issue’s Chris is raising it seems like high time that the leadership of the Church addressed these things themselves, rather than quietly standing back letting those that seek to defend the Church with no authority to speak for it do all the talking, which is the situation we are currently in.

Please enjoy and leave any thoughts below.

Dear First Presidency & Quorum of Twelve,

I am sorry I am writing this letter.

That is not an apology; it is a plain statement of fact. I sincerely am very sorry. It is regrettable that such a letter as this needs to be written at all.

However, when bishops and stake presidents find themselves unable to answer members’ basic concerns, and the Europe Area Presidency pointedly refuses to respond to crucial questions about the church’s foundational claims, it becomes obvious that something is very worryingly amiss. In such circumstances, what other option is there for troubled truth-seekers, than to refer the same unanswered questions to the fifteen men who are periodically sustained as prophets, seers and revelators, and who are sometimes reverentially termed “the living oracles”?

These matters are profoundly important, potentially influencing the daily lives of millions. Accordingly, answers are required from the governing body of the church. Whatever apologists, (self-appointed or otherwise), may have to say on the subject is irrelevant, unless of course, you, as that governing body, decide to endorse their ideas officially. In other words, a response needs to come directly from the horse’s mouth, and not from the mouth of just any aspiring stable-boy currently left to sweep up; stable-boys are hired and fired, and so their words carry no weight or authority.

You will, I assume, have some familiarity with my two Open Letters which were published earlier this year. If not, then they may be found here:

http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/2012/08/28/an-open-letter-to-europe-area-presidency-by-chris-ralph/

and here:
http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/2012/10/04/second-open-letter-to-area-presidency/

or alternatively here:

http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/open-letter-to-europe-area-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/

and here:

http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/a-second-open-letter-to-the-europe-area-presidency/

For the sake of brevity, I will not at this point repeat the full content of those letters, but ask for your considered responses when you have read them. Please answer honestly and openly, and please do so without further undue delay.

We have clearly arrived at an important crossroads in the evolution of the church, and history will almost certainly not judge you kindly if the content of those letters continues to be ignored. They represent the questions of many thousands already conversant with the uncensored historical information which is increasingly available to inquiring minds.
In the UK it is becoming apparent that we are nearing tipping point. The proclamation just published by twelve British members is the clearest evidence that disengagement is well underway. They represent thousands in this land who might now be properly described as “closet doubters”.

And who is to blame for that doubt? Are the members themselves culpable, or the local leaders perhaps? Hardly so. Those now leaving in significant numbers had, in many cases, been stalwart defenders of the faith for many years; they are not luke-warm converts of a few weeks’ duration, who have turned away for lack of understanding of gospel principles or church government. The current local leaders in many cases find themselves placed in the unenviable position of trying to advise men and women who are more knowledgeable than they themselves are about the issues. It is not the bishops’ and stake presidents’ faults that they soon find themselves in retreat, incapable of answering and unable to help. Blame for this situation rests squarely with the institutional church itself.

In an age of rapid information exchange, the practice of serving up sanitized history and empty spiritual placebos to the overworked and under-valued members, is without doubt poisoning the whole body of the church. The physician can hardly blame the patient for this perilous mis-judgment.

The tide is rising rapidly, and millions more who have yet to awaken to the uncomfortable facts, (usually because they have been actively discouraged from looking for them by church leaders and teachers), will before long also find out. And then the fairytale must give way to an era of post-fairytale reality. That means pain, and fear, and a sense of the deepest emptiness for many who are undeserving of such traumas, but it is a process which cannot be halted, because surely the God of Truth has willed it this way.

I am reporting this to you, but presumably you are already more than cognisant of these enormous challenges, and so you will also understand that this situation leaves you with a plain choice: either to continue to lead the people in a state of perpetual denial and ignorance, or to teach them to live by a new-found faith and trust in objectivity, which will permit truth to lead us where it will. It ought not to be too difficult for men of real integrity, men of God, to make an enlightened choice. Have we not sung together many times: “Do what is right, let the consequence follow”? The time is upon us when trust in that admonition needs to be expressed both in word and deed.

It is essential above all else to acknowledge that a brazen denial of the past has never been true faith, but just an avoidance of reality; and stubbornness has never been genuine strength, but just arrogance in disguise. This nettle before you must be grasped; this bullet must be bitten. It is for you to act now if you do not wish to stand condemned, not by history alone, but by all honest men and women throughout the world who value truth.

Take for example the case of the Book of Abraham. Scholars have been in no doubt about its true provenance for well over 40 years. However, the church hierarchy has in effect concealed the known facts from the tithe-paying membership. Why? Why are such vital historical discoveries not taught to the members as a matter of honour and integrity? Why is the myth of the Abrahamic papyrus still perpetuated even though it is proven to be false? After all, we read in church-approved manuals: “When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.” (p. 181 Priesthood & Relief Society manual, see http://lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng).

Why then the deafening silence over something so radically important to the issue of belief in the prophetic office of Joseph Smith? Brethren, as the manual properly affirms, this kind of concealment is dishonesty; it cannot be called anything else. That fact alone is deeply distressing, but there is worse, for when such dishonesty is coupled with soliciting donations from a membership which lives in fear of spiritual condemnation if it fails to comply, it might perhaps be argued that institutional dishonesty has crossed a line and has become deception with intent to defraud. Or at any rate that is what we would probably call it in the UK. That reflects shamefully on all of us, and so I urge you to address this issue, or risk your names being forever tainted.

In the UK, most members pay their donations with added tax relief, and that resulting relief is additionally solicited by the church. This means that if deception with intent to defraud were ever to be proved, the long list of victims would not be limited just to the donors, but might also include the UK government, and therefore, in some way, each citizen of the UK. Assuming that UK offerings annually amount to a conservative £50m, it seems likely that the UK government is surrendering £10m per annum to the church as a corollary of the process. How much, therefore, has the average UK citizen unwittingly “donated” to the church over the last 40 years? This must be viewed as a potentially significant issue.

For most of us though, the deepest concern goes well beyond the earnings we have handed over under questionable circumstances. It is the devaluing of our standing in the eyes of our families and friends, which is most injurious to us, and it seems to occur whenever we place honesty above ecclesiastical loyalties.

I have a son I love and cherish as much as anything God has given me. I know he loves me too, but following my sincere attempt to be open with him about real church history, he concluded I had “lost the spirit”, and that I was no longer the person I had once been, the one he had always looked up to for advice and moral support. That wounded me deeply.

Why would he take such a view? Am I less honest, less charitable, less moral today than I was when I taught him at an early age to “follow the brethren”, and encouraged him to prepare to serve a mission for the church? Not at all. I am sure I am as much the person I ought to be now, as I ever have been. I have not really changed, even though my understanding of reality has. His respect for me has waned because you, (and those who formerly occupied your seats at General Conference), have consistently failed us. It is not his fault that he is afraid to look at the historical evidences which have opened my eyes. Nor is it his fault that he lives in fear of losing his own precious little eternal family if he should discover that my concerns are actually well founded. You have taught him throughout his life to fear the consequences of discovering the truth, and now he and we suffer daily for it.

It grieves me to know that he undoubtedly lives in a state of constant sorrow over what he sees as the disaffection of his parents and his siblings from the only divinely approved vehicle of salvation there is in this world. His life is needlessly streaked with unhappiness because of the fear of uncorrelated spiritual discovery you have sown in him since he first attended Primary. The demonstrably false tenet that God will not permit you, the Brethren, to lead the church astray has insidiously interpolated itself between us and his full trust, and so we are all condemned to suffer, as he doggedly tries to live an existence of false hope, vainly longing for things to be as they once were, but not knowing, (and, through fear, not wanting to know), the scale of the problems you have kept from him.

Having striven always to be honest with my fellow men, and having constantly held up that kind of example to our children, I find that a hidden wedge, (sometimes referred to by others as the “invisible elephant in the room”), has now resulted, and I am sure it is because he cannot prevent himself from measuring my worth by my unwillingness to pay you lip-service allegiance. As I no longer feel able to be supportive of your chosen ethos, he perceives that the fault is in me, for he has been thoroughly persuaded that you would not lead him astray. This is ironic on multiple levels, isn’t it?

We are more fortunate than many however, who, finding themselves in similar circumstances, are no longer even able to bring themselves to speak civilly to one another, for so great is the animosity arising from this issue of leadership infallibility. Tragically, Voltaire has been proven correct many times over in his observation that “Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices”.

Many LDS families have suffered and continue to suffer such injustices because of this infallibility belief first promulgated by Wilford Woodruff. It is time therefore to de-commission that pernicious and destructive teaching, which is currently instrumental in destroying so many kin relationships and friendships throughout the world.

There is a great need instead to re-enthrone the liberating principle of honest inquiry that all may freely discover the facts for themselves. This has been advocated by various leaders in the past, such as James E. Talmage, who stated:

“The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding… In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion or criticism is worth defending”

and J. Reuben Clark, who said:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed”

and Hugh B. Brown, who observed:

“Only error fears freedom of expression.”

This current “control neurosis” should cease. It is time to do as Jesus would do, and teach a gospel of inclusiveness once more, which emphasizes that nobody should ever be considered a lesser person for pursuing ultimate truth, even if their quest leads them in due course to the conclusion that such truth is not found within Mormonism.

As you consider the humble origins of this church, and of Joseph Smith junior its founder, on this his 207th birthday, please don’t allow yourselves to be deceived into thinking that the finery and sophistry purchased with accumulated wealth in recent times, will ever be sufficient to cover up the sins of the past. The eventual cost of misleading the people at this crossroads would prove far greater than any price you would pay for championing transparency and inclusiveness. And if your courage begins to fail you as you stand upon this momentous brink, then please exercise full faith, and do not attempt to count the cost as you cast off the worn and torn rags of misrepresentation which, to be truthful, have adorned Joseph Smith’s church throughout its history.

Provided your intentions are worthy ones, we, the many disillusioned members, are ready to help in every possible way if you will only begin to speak to us, and also listen to what we have to say, just as Elder Holland promised he would do on BBC television earlier this year.

However, your desire for realignment must be full and sincere. Half-truths will no longer do, for they are also half-falsehoods, and will be found out. The searing light of truth must be shone upon every concern. Full disclosure is the only hope there is that the patient may be healed of his otherwise terminal
condition.

The time has come; this moment of opportunity may never return.

In hope,
Chris Ralph

Dear Europe Area Presidency,

While your letter to local leaders of the church, dated 10th April 2012, was not originally intended for public dissemination, “the technology and modern communication tools of our day”, as you refer to them in that letter, have swiftly rendered this a widely read public document.

As such it is clearly deserving of a constructive response from the intended end-beneficiaries, and I, (being one of a rising tide of long established members who have in recent years been deeply affected by an array of distressing historical disclosures), now offer the following thoughts in the hope that the sense of wounded trust may be positively addressed.

Firstly, I applaud the encouragement you have given to local leaders to “work patiently and lovingly” with those of us who, more often than not through devotion to the church and its history, have had our eyes opened to challenging historical facts. How much better and in tune this is than certain regrettable past attitudes, which sometimes labelled those who had discovered uncomfortable historical facts as “unrighteous”, or as “having lost the spirit”, or worse still as “anti-Mormon”.

Whenever the term “anti-Mormon” is employed in an attempt to disqualify those whose avowed purpose is “pro-truth” and “pro-history”, then surely the church is upon very uncertain moral ground. Please, therefore, may I ask you to discourage that kind of name calling which can only cause further damage, and please do what you are able to reignite among the membership that same spirit of enquiry and quest for truth which a couple of generations ago was so aptly articulated by President J. Reuben Clark when he stated: ‘If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.’

Perhaps also we could have clarification about whether we, as Latter-day Saints still believe, (as I was taught and believed when I was converted to the church over forty years ago), that truth is better than riches because it will set us free? Do we still place value upon the title Truth which the Saviour took to himself? Can it justifiably still be claimed that truth is the common currency of the LDS church in 2012? If so, then surely there must be a respectable place within the LDS church for those of us who love transparency enough to speak it, and share it, and stand for it, even though some of us have hitherto been despised and misunderstood for doing so.

Sadly, too many faithful advocates of historical truth have been shunned and discarded over the years, simply because they cared enough to question that which, although not of their own making or choosing, was nevertheless right there before them. What else could they do if they valued their integrity? It has long been a puzzle to me how we, as a church, might teach that the glory of God is intelligence, while, at the same time promoting the idea that when it comes to historical realities, ignorance is accounted a virtue. This, surely, is a contradiction which needs to be reconciled in the eyes of a quizzical world.

The concern extends beyond routine circumvention of intellectual discomfort however, to the weightier matter of commissioned institutional misrepresentation. The charge we, as Latter-day Saints of all levels of understanding, must confront is that the church has actively sought to replace authentic narratives of its history with deceitful mythologies.

For example, all of the contemporary accounts of the translation of the Book of Mormon refer to Joseph Smith using a seer- or peep-stone nestled inside his hat, into which he gazed for inspiration as he dictated the text, while the plates themselves were typically not present in the room. This process was of course an obvious extension of Joseph’s previous occultist practice of “scrying” during his treasure hunting days, (or “glass-looking” as the court papers referred to it when he was convicted of that misdemeanour in 1826). We have very detailed and reliable accounts of the actual translation process followed, and so a growing number of historically informed members feel concern that the church attempts in its publications to promote a different story without foundation in historical reality; these show Joseph apparently translating the gold plates by studying and touching them. Is this portrayal not disingenuous, given that we have a clear knowledge of how the text was actually produced, and also a tacit admission that the real history is perceived by church leaders to be an embarrassment?

Book of Mormon translation according to [1] The Ensign (Church Magazine), and

[2] South Park. NB: The South Park version is much more historically accurate

It is disconcerting when our children alert us to the true facts of this crucial event in Mormon history after watching an episode of South Park. The discovery that the creators of South Park place a higher value on historical authenticity than do the Brethren creates spiritual shock-waves from which some members never recover. And may I state the obvious here? This faith-shaking disparity between what the missionaries are trained to teach, and what the world already knows about our spiritual heritage, can hardly be blamed upon those members who accidentally stumble upon it, or on their children, or on the creators of South Park; the burden of responsibility for the misrepresentation rests firmly upon the shoulders of the Brethren, who allowed, and apparently encouraged it to be introduced into LDS popular culture. It is a sin of commission no less. Furthermore it is most distasteful to suggest, as some do, that because the sin was committed by the Brethren, it is authorised by Jesus Christ, unless of course they are suggesting that the Saviour is a deceiver.

Is it not sadly ironic therefore that your letter advises local leaders that “some choose to dwell on half-truths or inaccurate information regarding the church, its history, or its leaders”? That statement is undoubtedly true, but the accusing finger is readily shown by numerous examples, such as the one already mentioned, to be pointing in quite the wrong direction. Nor is it enough to assert, as you have, that the church does not hide historical facts, when it may so easily be demonstrated that it has done so in the past, and continues to do so even today. To make such a claim is just adding a further layer of untruth to that which already exists, and will not accomplish any honourable purpose. How is this practice worthy of God’s servants?

Might I humbly suggest that some soul searching and realignment with reality is urgently needed? It is certain that the regaining of spiritual equilibrium, which your letter laudably aims to accomplish, is going to take a great deal of constrained dialogue, empathy, understanding, and, where necessary, concession. Only when truth is acknowledged as sovereign will equilibrium ever be regained. Inclusiveness is a very positive first step in this vital process though, so thank you for offering some hope in that respect. May I comment, that my own Stake President has to date been commendable in his sensitive attempts to understand and handle my case? It is a pity that others in a similar position, I am informed, have done rather less well in dealing with these challenges.

We may of course ascribe much of the present situation to human failing. We might ask: is it wrong to fail if we acknowledge failure, and try again? Do we ever truly repent and learn when we cover our sin? It seems to me that we do not, and what applies to the individual, also applies to the institution.

Many wrestle in their spiritual progress with the behavioural problems of past leaders. They cannot understand why it was necessary, for example, for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to marry and have relations with other men’s wives, particularly, (in the case of Joseph), when his own wife was not even aware of several such relationships. They also baulk at the idea of an angel threatening Joseph with a sword if he did not enter into clandestine polygamous unions with numerous women, and they cannot begin to see the relevance of his secret marriage unions with teenage girls, some as young as fourteen. That kind of behaviour just does not resonate with their concept of what a prophet is, or ever has been. If you insist, as your letter does, that Joseph Smith was not a fallen prophet, then those who have become disillusioned and deeply offended by such disturbing disclosures, will need a full and honest explanation from you, which goes a long way beyond counsel to read the scriptures and pray. Perhaps the Brethren might follow that counsel themselves and seek the necessary inspiration about how the membership may be taught the historical truths, contextualising Joseph’s own fallibility. Nothing less will begin to win back a good number of members who presently feel disaffected for this reason.

However, even the behavioural anomalies of past leaders, is not the most serious concern causing disaffection. For some years I for one have taken the view that it matters far more what God did than what Joseph is recorded as having done. That Joseph was fallible, fallen even, is ultimately acceptable to the believer, for he was a man; however the scriptures, or Standard Works, are at the very foundation of LDS doctrine and practice. We, as members, are duty bound to acknowledge them as the mind and will of God, and as the means available to us for measuring spiritual truth. I ask you in all sincerity therefore to explain publicly an anomaly which apparently undermines the very authority of the LDS scriptures in the minds of many. The reason I ask for a public explanation is so that all may learn where the half-truths as well as the untruths may be identified in this matter.

I refer principally to the deeply disturbing anomalies encountered in the Book of Abraham, for they above all else have caused my own uncritical acceptance of LDS authority to unravel. I wish it had not been so, but nevertheless that is how it was for me, and once again, please remember that the circumstances were not of my choosing. In fact, like many others, I only became aware of the problem because I was attempting to defend, not attack, the position of the church. I and thousands like me now need a credible explanation from the Brethren if any degree of our support is to be regained.

You are probably already familiar with the concerns I shall raise, and also perhaps with some of the unconvincing apologetic responses which have been offered. In brief however, those concerns may be summed up as follows:

• The Book of Abraham was, (according to official documentation), in 1835 translated by the prophetic powers of Joseph Smith, from Egyptian papyri which Joseph Smith said contained a record of Abraham, and also one of Joseph who was sold into Egypt.

• The resulting text of the Book of Abraham states that the record was made by Abraham’s own hand upon papyrus. This would presumably have been c 1900 BC. The papyrus actually dates to the first century BC.

• When it is translated by modern Egyptologists, no mention at all of Abraham is found in the text. The papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was produced, is in fact a late copy, (Ptolemaic), of The Book of Breathings, a regular funerary text, which maps pagan Egyptian beliefs concerning the state of the soul after death.

• The Book of Abraham produced by Joseph Smith from this papyrus refers in the text to associated “Facsimiles”, which also constitute part of LDS canon. Facsimile 1, (see below), for example allegedly shows Abraham fixed to an altar about to be sacrificed by the priest of the pagan god Elkenah, before being saved from this fate by an angel of the Lord. The official church website dramatically portrays this event in the “Gospel Art Picture Kit” with the following illustration:

• Note in both illustrations the inclusion of the lion-headed couch, and the presence of tell-tale canopic jars, which were routinely used by ancient Egyptians during the process of embalming. These formed part of the pagan funerary rites, and the same motifs may be found on the chamber walls of later pyramids, as for example:

• This well-known scene actually depicts the mythical embalming and resurrection of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the underworld, by his son Anubis, the jackal-headed god.
• There are differences certainly between Facsimile 1 and the images found in Egyptian burial chambers, but they are only the consequence of Joseph Smith incorrectly having guessed what had originally been recorded in the gaps where the papyrus was damaged. Fortunately, we are able to assess from the original papyrus the areas where Joseph employed his faulty guesswork, as the following photograph illustrates:

• The damaged and missing portion of the papyrus explains perfectly why the jackal-headed Anubis was absent from Facsimile 1, and in his place the otherwise unknown (to historians) priest of Elkenah was inserted by Joseph Smith. Creative though this idea may have been in 1835, according to the best scholarship presently available, it was wide of the mark.
• It is also very apparent that Joseph Smith had a misinformed idea about the original use of hieroglyphs. By comparing the glyphs on the papyri with an “Egyptian grammar” which was prepared under Joseph’s direction in 1835, it is apparent that Joseph considered that each glyph represented whole, complex sentences, rather than simple sounds or concepts. Accordingly we find one particular glyph, which resembles a reversed capital E, and which we now know means “water”, rendered by Joseph as: “It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos”

Even overlooking the anomaly, upon which historians are agreed, that the Chaldeans did not exist in the time of Abraham, or for several hundred years afterwards, how can such a mis-reading of one simple glyph leave any margin for doubt that Joseph Smith got it all very wrong in this case? Does it not take wilful blindness, and a high degree of spiritual contortionism to overcome plain common sense and believe otherwise? Are we really expected to believe that God, who gave each of us sufficient intelligence to reason and make sense of our environment, would require us in this instance not to use that same intelligence? In order to demonstrate faith, is it really necessary to practice such denial, or have faith and denial become one and the same?

For those of us who utilised native intelligence to renounce as hypocrisy those worldly systems and values around us when we turned our backs as converts on the world, and joined the LDS church, is it now reasonable to expect us to lay aside those same powers in considering this issue? Is it not more authentic, and pleasing to God, just to acknowledge the simple conclusion that Joseph may have tried but he failed? For me and for many others there is far greater peace in that course of action than in any amount of dissembling in a vain attempt to defend what is, and always will be indefensible. Can you or anyone, in the full glare of reason and reality, say I and others are wrong to feel as we do?

Brethren, where are the half-truths? Where are the falsehoods, and the false claims when the facts are properly and fairly illuminated?

It appears to me an impossibility in the light of the foregoing to disagree with the conclusion of one Egyptologist who remarked concerning the papyri: “Joseph Smith’s interpretation of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.” (James H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago)

I have not mentioned Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the other two Facsimiles, which are just as profoundly flawed; nor have I touched here upon any of the other scriptures revealed by him, but for now this one example will suffice. Please explain, with reference to the Book of Abraham, and the detailed evidence we now have concerning its provenance, how one may remain in harmony with Truth, and at the same time continue to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired.

You speak in your letter of providing the best possible answers. That is good, because those answers are what I and the rest of mankind deserve to hear, and we sincerely look forward to your response.

Please do not exclude me or others because we cannot agree with the position you feel forced to defend by virtue of your callings. Please accept us as those who wish for truth, wherever it may be found, to be upheld in the end as victorious over error. I agree with you that faith, (in truth at least), will always be a conscious choice, which is why I care enough to write and invite you to demonstrate the truthfulness of this matter to the world. Faith in that which is shown to be untrue however, is not worthy of the name. The apostle Orson Pratt, (writing with concern to the Book of Mormon, but his words may equally be applied to the case of the Book of Abraham), stated it well:

“If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments upon which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of the deception, and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments–by evidences adduced from scripture and reason. Such, and such only, should be the weapons employed to detect and overthrow false doctrines–to reclaim mankind from their errors, to expose religious enthusiasm, and put to silence base and wicked impostors.”

So, please provide your best answers, (even if those answers convey a sentiment of doubt), and please extend an honest hand of friendship to me and the many in my position, opening up a constructive dialogue with us, so that all may see that we are able to work together from here onwards in promoting truth and discarding past errors.

Sincerely and faithfully,

Christopher Ralph

This is part 2 of recent updates with Chris Ralph’s Journey out of Mormonism. Chris is a fascinating guy who has a very fair perspective on Mormonism despite the many historical issues he is facing which is ultimately leading him out of the Church. Part 1 can be found here.

Also just below. is the audio from a recent interview Chris did on BBC Radio Bristol, Trevor Fry’s “Sunday Starts”. Looking at the history of the Mormon church in Bristol, very interesting discussion.

Chris Ralph BBC Radio Bristol, Trevor Fry’s “Sunday Starts”

A CONTINUING JOURNEY OF LOYAL DISSENT (Part 2):

It is no secret that my testimony has been challenged enormously in recent years by information which is increasingly available on the internet and elsewhere. Some of the principle building blocks of that testimony have been found, upon close examination, to lack substance, and to be unfit for the intended purpose. That isn’t my fault, although I know some may choose to attack me for it, for I am merely the quality controller, not the manufacturer. Never again, for example, will I be able to view Joseph Smith as God’s ordained prophet now that I have seen for myself that his translation of the Book of Abraham from an Egyptian papyrus was ludicrously at variance with its authentic meaning. I do not see how one Egyptian glyph which we know translates as “water” can be mistakenly translated by God’s true messenger as: “It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos”?

It just isn’t tenable, no matter how much I might wish to believe it is. Now, whether Joseph Smith knew in 1835 when he supposedly translated the Book of Abraham that he was foisting upon the world an out and out deception, or whether he was completely swept up in the mesmerism of his own charisma, (which I personally suspect he was), hardly matters in the end; the fact is inescapable that his “translation” has misled millions in the name of divinity, and that cannot be dismissed as a trivial matter. (Yes, I have read the apologists’ explanations in my vain attempt to salvage something from the wreckage, but their spiritual contortionism is unconvincing and only saps confidence further). The conclusion that Joseph Smith was not the prophet I wanted him to be was not mere speculation on my part on a bad day, but was soundly supported by a higher quality of evidence than that required by criminal courts of law to condemn men to gaol. It is widely available evidence, obtained from multiple sources, which takes us far beyond all reasonable doubt. When I first confronted that evidence, and realized what it meant, my stomach turned. I felt physically sick. I so wanted Joseph Smith to be the prophet I had believed him to be for over 35 years. But pretense is not my forté.

The CJCLDS, (which, supposedly through divine revelation, canonized the Book of Abraham in the 1880s), has for over forty years possessed primary evidence of this deception in its vaults, but has done little or nothing about informing its tithe-paying membership of the historical realities of the matter. That non-response is for me the much greater concern, because, if institutional integrity means anything to God, that silence is surely indefensible. Why is this not by now headline news in every ward and branch of the CJCLDS throughout the world? Why is there not a frank and open discussion of these matters in General Conference? If there has been a major error of judgment, then the only right thing to do is to confess the error and seek forgiveness for it. Or are the Brethren not bound by the same laws which are incumbent upon rank and file members?

You see, had I, as an individual, knowingly misrepresented crucial facts about my credentials for the purpose of obtaining significant financial gain, (the CJCLDS apparently receives billions of dollars in tithing each year, much of it donated trustingly by the poor and needy), and had I done so over the course of forty years, it would rightly become a matter which would bar me for the time being from holding a temple recommend; it might even lead, with full justification, to action being taken against me because of my un-Christian conduct, and the possible loss of my membership. One might ask therefore why the institutional church, and those directing it, are not subject to the same spiritual and moral laws as ordinary members. Is the silence due to lack of courage, or lack of conscience?

The uneasy question also arises, if Joseph Smith couldn’t translate regular Egyptian in creating the Book of Abraham in 1835, how well qualified was he to translate so-called Reformed Egyptian six years earlier, when he produced the Book of Mormon, the keystone of the Mormon religion? It too, has been scrutinized of course, (not that the average member would know it), and with what results? So far academic research into native American linguistics, anthropology and archaeology, stylometric analysis of the text, and molecular DNA analysis, offers nothing of substance which supports the proposal that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record, despite the best efforts of Mormon apologists to suggest it does.

Put simply, the pieces just don’t fit. I have done enough research in my time, albeit into local and family history, to know that when enough pieces of the puzzle don’t fit, the hypothesis is flawed, even though our most heartfelt wishes and personal loyalties may be invested in it. In the real world, which is where, by divine decree we find ourselves, facts must inform feelings, and not vice versa. Anyone who doggedly insists that feelings may override facts, has already surrendered the argument, and also their ability to think critically. Sadly, there are many good but frightened LDS members caught in the jaws of this cruel dilemma, and I can only see those numbers escalating in the years to come. Historians may, I suspect, look back upon this decade as the era of the great Mormon meltdown in the British Isles. We can only hope and pray that growing disillusionment will not turn to utter despair. I am learning daily that God is far bigger than I previously ever understood, and there is everything still to hope for.

So, in summary, investigation reveals that some of the building blocks acquired during my long years of LDS membership, consist of a very fragile substance which crumbles under scrutiny. I wish it were not so, (I really do), but it is, and honesty must be valued above loyalty. That doesn’t take anything away, however, from the many good people I have been privileged to know within Mormonism, or from my own gains in having lived within that circle for so long, and it certainly doesn’t erase my sense of shared identity with Mormon friends. I so hope those friendships and associations will continue, for they are part of me. The apostle Paul was as committed a Christian as any, but he was also a Jew and a Roman citizen. His Jewish and Roman identities did not cause him to align himself personally with the judgments of Caiaphas or Pontius Pilate. Likewise I wish to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of my earthly life, but my acquired identity is undeniably with the Mormon people, and I still count myself a fellow citizen with them for family and cultural reasons, even though the evidence in my view invalidates LDS theology. The theology won’t matter much with the passage of time. It is only certain that it will change as it has done in the past; it is going to have to in order to accommodate the 21st century blizzard of information which challenges many of its past assumptions.

It’s going to be a very rough ride in years to come, and many LDS will seek shelter from the storm as they stumble over the shocking truths for themselves. I think of my own children and grandchildren for example, and hope that they will find a safe haven. It’s a journey I am ready to make with them, but this journey can only be a journey of loyal dissent. Whether it is a journey I will be permitted to continue unimpeded has yet to be decided by those appointed to judge such things for the good of the membership. I will only say I feel encouraged though. If my Stake President is in any way representative of the main body of believers, then some ears will be ready to listen, and some sensitive, caring hearts and minds will be ready to consider the sincere newly found narratives and experiences of bruised and battered truth seekers like me. Perhaps Christian inclusiveness and unquestionable openness will yet come to characterize modern Mormonism.

The door, I sense, is presently open ajar, and, as long as those in higher places have the wisdom and humility not to slam it shut, there is, I think, yet real cause to hope that two-way fellowship and constructive dialogue will have important parts to play. Perhaps it will be finally accepted that people like me, who care deeply, are going to be of greater value commenting within the necessary processes of change, than would be the case if they were excluded or shunned. It should amount to this really: what would Jesus do? The name “Jesus Christ” may appear large in the title of the LDS church, but who will honestly dare to suggest that Jesus would approve of institutional cover-ups? Surely his message would always be that error should be confronted, acknowledged, rooted out, and repented of, and rebirth sought in line with truth.

Therein, I think, is found the Way, the Truth, and the Life which is genuinely worth following. The Lord has never needed anyone to lie for Him.

Hi all for any of you who havent seen this, its the stories of a number of people who left the LDS Church and turned to faith in Christ, its a really well done video with some great stories. Enjoy.

On 25th April 2012, I duly met with my Stake President and Bishop, at their request. My daughter Sophia also invited herself along to support me, as she had been the means by which knowledge of my Public Apology to Blacks had been made known to members of the local LDS community. We had previously ascertained that concern over my apology was the reason for holding the meeting. Sophia felt strongly about it and wanted to claim her share of culpability.

The four of us spent just over two hours together. It was a pleasant meeting, and there was no sense of personal antagonism. I have known the Stake President for over 30 years, during which time we have served together in several stake leadership positions. He has a daughter who is a fortnight younger than our oldest son, and we reminisced briefly about how their carry-cots had once been positioned side by side in a rented meeting house, where he had served as Branch President, and we were visiting.

The Bishop is a full-time employee of the church, who moved, with his family, into our ward a few years ago. He has served as bishop for about four years, during most of which time I have not attended. We get along fine, though he describes Sophia and me as “intellectuals”, and he says he cannot understand the gospel on that level. Sophia served in the Ward YW presidency when she last attended regularly, and taught two of his daughters. So the first 15 or 20 minutes passed in catching up with the news of three families.

The meeting then got underway in earnest. SP observed that I had given outstanding service to the church over the years, and suggested that something had changed in me. I agreed that I had given much, and that my understanding of things had begun to change a few years ago. I then asked which is the greater principle, loyalty or honesty? We all agreed that honesty is the greater if there is conflict between the two. We then reflected on the visit from Bishop three and half years ago when he had suggested to me I was on a precipice and about to slip into apostasy.

I recalled his advice to me at that time to become “a wise old owl”, and to attend church but keep my views to myself. I said that was a turning point for me, for I knew that I could not do so. Bishop had warned me that by sharing with others what I had learned I would be guilty of apostasy. I said I could not attend without engaging in the subject matter. SP nodded and appeared to understand that. SP said that some members had been upset recently that the difficult doctrine of “the negro and the priesthood”, (as it used to be referred to), had been given publicity by me.

I suspect those members were actually more upset at the derision they received from other participants in response to critical comments they made about The Apology, advocating only blind obedience to the church leaders. I recounted the story of my Zimbabwean friends Chengetai and Nyorovai, when I was a relatively new member in 1972.  The missionary elders had refused to teach them because they were black Africans, and as such could never have the gospel blessings I might enjoy as a white man. I said that although the policy had changed in 1978, the inescapable impact upon my mind, as a young man of 19, was that of racial superiority, (for that was the teaching of the time), and it took another 20 years for me to eradicate that false idea.

I then asked how Brigham Young and more recent church leaders could all be prophets of the same God, for BY on one occasion had stated that the penalty for a white man marrying a black woman would be death on the spot, and that this would ALWAYS BE SO, but today the marriage of mixed races is performed in LDS temples. Was BY a false prophet, or are the brethren of today apostates for having negated his prophecy? Bishop suggested that there were precedents for change and continuing revelation, with the gospel having been confined to the Israelites at one time and circumcision having been a pre-requisite to it. I asked if any OT prophet had ever said that this would always be so. He said that not as far as he was aware, but there might have been such a prophet whose words are not recorded. I observed that in that case it amounted to a non-argument, and just an unsupported supposition.

The SP then brought up the topic of polygamy to illustrate how the Lord can change his mind. That took us in another direction altogether of course, and nothing more was afterwards said about my Public Apology, which had been the original reason for the meeting. The subject of polygamy having been raised in this way, I asked whether they understood where the doctrine of plural marriage had come from. Bishop said he believed it had arisen because of the need for the widows to be protected when crossing the plains, and said there had always been more women in the church than men. I told him that I had used that argument myself in my time, in order to defend the practice, but the evidence points in a different direction for the 19th century Utah census returns indicate that there were always more males than females.

SP acknowledged that he understood that polygamy had actually started with Joseph Smith. I told him that that is a soundly established historical fact, and that some LDS apologists even argue that the first instance of a polygamous marriage was between JS and Fanny Alger as early as 1831, although Emma Smith and Oliver Cowdery both regarded it at the time as an act of adultery. I asked SP what his response would be if I came to him and told him that an angel had appeared to me with a drawn sword and had threatened my life if I didn’t command him to give me his wife or his daughter in marriage. I asked if he would accept I was inspired of God. He indicated that each case would have to be treated on its merits. I suggested that actually the answer would be no, but that this very argument was used repeatedly by Joseph Smith in order to establish relationships with the wives of his supposed friends, and some younger women, as young as 14.

Bishop said that at that period of history some things which may now sound unacceptable to us, might have been more acceptable. I asked if he really thought that secretly marrying other men’s wives and children, while concealing it from his own wife would really have been acceptable in 19th century society. He admitted he didn’t. I asked SP if I came to him and announced that I had multiple wives, would he not be sufficiently concerned to take disciplinary action against me? He said again that he would need to treat it on an individual basis. (This surprised me as I thought polygamy was a mandatory excommunicable offence).

I said that two years before I stopped attending church I had reached the conclusion that if Joseph Smith had ever been a prophet, then he was a fallen one at best. SP nodded and said that he felt that JS had got some things wrong. I asked him whether he felt those were big things or small things. Is it a big thing for example to take another man’s wife from him? He didn’t answer. Bishop suggested we don’t have sources for these stories. I mentioned the letter JS wrote to one of his “wives” stating that she should only come to see him when Emma was not at home. I mentioned Oliver Cowdery’s and David Whitmer’s conclusion that JS had in some way fallen from grace.

I mentioned William Law and his wife, who were approached by JS with a proposal that they could wife swap with him and Emma. I said there was plentiful evidence, but it is covered up from rank and file church attending members. SP said I had done more research than he had done. I agreed. Sophia then explained about the Book of Abraham, and produced some children’s books on the subject of Egyptology, pointing out canopic jars, which neither had heard of before. She showed them Facsimile 1 from the BoA, and the damaged papyrus from which it was copied, or imagined, and the common Egyptian motif of Anubis embalming Osiris, which she said she had frequently encountered when she visited Egypt.

I mentioned that these things are now taught to 9 year olds in school. I said that The Book of Abraham has been part of LDS canon since the 1880s, and most damningly the name Abraham is not even mentioned once in the entire text, when it is properly translated. Rather, it is a funeral text which relates to an Egyptian pagan priest named Hor who lived about 1800 years after Abraham. I also added that the church has known about this since the late 1960s, but has never informed its tithe-paying members of the shocking truth concerning the matter. If the name Abraham had appeared even once in the text would the church not have trumpeted that fact from the rooftops instead of remaining silent? I expressed the opinion that this complete discrediting spelt the death knell of the church as a serious world religion.

There were some theological discussions then about the nature of salvation. I proposed that authentic Christian belief is in salvation BEFORE all we can do, and a changing of the heart which then brings forth good works, rather than an arduous ladder-climbing process of works at the end of which we inevitably fall short, and salvation is then extended as an act of grace and mercy if we have ticked enough boxes. I shared my own born again experiences when I was 18, and rendered my interpretation of them, likening myself to a duckling which had hatched and had seen a cat, then followed it as if the cat had been its mother. Having experienced a conversion to Christ at the commencement of my time as an “investigator”, it was likewise so easy to accept all else the missionaries afterwards taught me.

The SP then acknowledged he could see that I believe in God, and Christ, and he asked me therefore if I believe also in Joseph Smith, continuing revelation through living prophets of the church, and the Book of Mormon. I answered to each that I didn’t, and I couldn’t. I also told him nicely that I didn’t recognise his authority over me, and he acknowledged that he understood. He asked me if I believe that Christ stands at the head of his church. I said I did, but not in the sense that he meant it. I explained that I don’t accept the LDS church as the one true church, but believe Christ leads many people in many ways, including through this and other churches, and they, the believers are the church of Christ.

There was considerable concern that I would want to remain a member of the church despite holding these opinions. I explained that it has much to do with my identity with the LDS people. I alluded to my research, and said that I feel a kinship with the early British converts to Mormonism, although I see that they were in many cases misused by the system. I said I had also been baptised an Anglican when I was an infant, but I have never sought to sever that tie formally.

Church service had represented a large slice of my life, and many hours given to the church which I now wish I could have back to spend with my children, and with one in particular, (my son Emmanuel who died in 2010). My life’s journey has largely been hand in hand with Mormonism, and though I have no time for the institutional church, nor any longer do I believe in it, that is still who I am. I still hold to the good standards of the LDS. I have a son and grandchildren who attend, and I still wish I had the option of fellowship with the members on an honest, cultural level. That feeling may change in time, probably depending upon my son Edwin’s future involvement, but for now that is where I am. I told the SP that he therefore has a problem.

He either accepts that I shall be a free spirit, thinking, speaking and writing as I honestly see fit, or he must attempt to discipline me, but if he does so, then it will be for speaking the truth, and that will be newsworthy; the media will have questions he will need to answer. In conclusion I said I had no wish to be in the position I was in, but that honesty had defeated loyalty in my case; I cannot deny what I have found. I cannot revere, admire or follow the man Joseph Smith, whose life is routinely misrepresented by the church, from the account of his alleged first vision right up to his dying words; the real Joseph was not the man who is spoken of in Sunday School, and I cannot in good conscience follow a paedophile and womaniser who pretended to his followers he could translate that which he could not.

The SP kindly assured me that he had always known me to be an honest man, and had never doubted it. He apologised for his own faults, and said that he realised this meeting should have occurred some years ago. I thanked him, and agreed it would have helped if we had met at an earlier date. Things finished on a high when SP said he was going away to think about what had been said, and thought we might need to meet again, and then hesitatingly added he would like me to go away… at which point Sophia and I laughed out loud, and we all laughed. I interjected “I bet you would. Where would you like me to go? Onto President T’s patch?”  (Pres. T presides over the adjoining stake). SP answered: “I wouldn’t wish that on him!”

Bishop had seemed a little agitated at times by the information we shared, but this was after all new to him, and we understood his reaction, because that had been ours too upon first hearing it. SP appeared to be somewhat more familiar with the historical difficulties, and sat there sadly nodding his way through proceedings, apparently understanding, if not actually agreeing with the conclusions we had drawn from our experiences. I think a positive message was delivered. I anticipate that the Area Presidency will tell SP to keep a careful eye on me, and find out more in due course, and, if I continue to speak my mind, to call a council for me. I gained the impression that on a personal level that is not what my SP wanted to do.

Shortly before Easter I received a written invitation to meet with the local LDS Bishop and Stake President on Wednesday 25th April. I had not been attending church for three and a half years, and during that time had had just three fairly superficial exchanges with the bishop. Bishop Wiltshire is a caring, self-effacing man with little desire, I sense, to occupy that particular position of responsibility; he freely admits that he finds it challenging to deal with what he terms “intellectual matters”. By this he means the hard-to-explain anomalies in real LDS church history, which have caused me to re-evaluate my commitment to the church.

During the first of those visits Bishop Wiltshire rather apologetically explained that he was not prepared to discuss my concerns about LDS history, and felt he should warn me that if I shared whatever I had discovered with anyone outside of my immediate family, then I would likely be considered in apostasy, and might face church discipline. The second visit was really to interview my daughter, after which he briefly repeated his previous message to me. The third occasion followed our son’s tragic death in September 2010, when, as bishop, he dutifully dropped in to express his condolences. That period was a complete blur, and I only recall that he sat with us for a few minutes, not really knowing what to say.

So why, after so long, and so many missed opportunities to support us emotionally through our challenges and grief, did the local leadership now want me to go to see them? When I posed that question to them, I was answered that the purpose of the meeting would be to discuss “personal thoughts and feelings about… testimony, the Church and its teachings”. It appears that I had rattled a few cages by recently posting a Public Apology for having followed the LDS church’s racist teachings when I was a new convert to Mormonism.

I had been baptised in 1971, at the age of 18, but was not made aware of LDS racist issues until some while later. At that period of LDS history men of African descent were still denied the privileges of priesthood and of being sealed to their families in the Mormon temple, as members of all other races were. This was because Africans/”negroes” were depicted in LDS theology as bearing the mark of Cain, which indicated that they had been less valiant in the pre-existence, and were therefore spiritually inferior.

I had two black Zimbabwean friends, and when I enthusiastically tried to introduce them to the LDS missionaries in 1972 I was taken to one side by the Mission President, and advised that it would be better if they were not entertained as prospective converts, as they could never share in the eternal blessings that were mine to claim as a white man. For the first six or so years of my membership I accepted with unease this deeply racist stance, believing it must have a divine purpose of some sort. Then, in June 1978, the priesthood ban was removed by the church, to my relief, and the relief of most LDS members; however, the insidious dogma of spiritual inferiority took many more years for me to eradicate from my understanding. It was for this reason that earlier this year I drafted and signed my Public Apology to people of Black African descent. Others added their signature to mine, and sought to give it publicity among LDS and ex-LDS friends.

In a short time the Public Apology came to the attention of certain members of my local LDS congregation, in Yeovil, who were very critical of my actions, not, I believe, because they had any intention of justifying racism, but because the Apology inferred that the LDS church had been at fault, and that past church leaders had been uninspired. Their criticisms were accurate, if unwarranted, for I do indeed hold past leadership responsible for this abomination, and unequivocally declare that these were never God’s intended teachings.

So complaints having been made, it appears that at the meeting on 25th April, I shall be asked to say sorry for having said sorry! And, my intention is to tell Bishop Wiltshire, and Stake President Crew, “sorry, but I’m not going to say sorry for feeling as I do, or for expressing those feelings publicly as is my right”.

And then we shall encounter an impasse, and I anticipate that my LDS membership will be placed on the line. It seems likely, and perhaps inevitable that I shall be asked to appear before a disciplinary council, (church court), in due course, and will lose my LDS membership if I am not prepared to relent. Such a decision, if taken by President Crew, would, according to LDS theology, be extremely serious. It would spell the end of my eternal marriage contract to my wife of 32 years, Diana, (a faithful member since she joined in 1977), and would sever any eternal relationship I might enjoy with my children and my parents, and extended family members. The “sin” occasioning such extreme theological consequences would be that of exercising freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, which had reflected badly, though entirely honestly, on the LDS church’s historical position.

This, I think sets the scene for what may well become something of a saga over the coming weeks and months. I shall report further as the story develops.

This is Elder marlin k. jensen who is on the Quorum of the 70 in the Mormon Church. He is of the top 85 men in leadership in this organization and is also the Churches head historian. He recently did a live interview with the audience being able to ask questions. At around the 29th minute he is asked about the effects of google and the information people are finding, and the effects that is having on the church. I would recommend you click on the link and listen to it for the full answer, but he does say this:

“Weve never had a period of apostasy like we are having right now, largely over these issues.”

Like never before people are leaving the LDS church due to the issues people are coming across on the internet, that they would never find on the official Church website.

In a Washington Post article It says that Mormon scholar, writer and observer Terry L Givens  said “I definitely get the sense that this is a real crisis,” . “It is an epidemic.” There is a “discrepancy between a church history that has been selectively rendered through the Church Educational System and Sunday school manuals, and a less-flattering version universally accessible on the Internet,” Givens said.

And I think for me and many others this is the issue, what the LDS Church teaches and has taught for many years about its history is entirely different at times, to what you will find if you go to lds.org. To Mormons reading this, and I dont mean apologists I mean regular Mormons who have come across this site I would ask do you know that when Joseph Smith “translated” the book of Mormon the plates were not there. He put his face into his hat with his seer stone in it and just dictated from that, no eyewitness reports claim that the plates were there for the translation process. Do you know Smith married teenage girls as young as 14 polygamously without Emmas knowledge, many if his wives were married to other men, there is no way you could know that unless you dare to look at what the church calls apostate material, yet often it is more truthful than what you are being told.

People are no longer just quietly submitting and they are looking for themselves, leading the LDS church to think we are going to have to do something about this. I think this will soon lead to a drip feed of new information about church history coming from the church in an attempt to stop its people from leaving.

Another news article says this:

The LDS church claims 14 million members worldwide — optimistically including nearly every person baptized. But census data from some foreign countries targeted by clean-cut young missionaries show that the retention rate for their converts is as low as 25 percent. In the U.S., only about half of Mormons are active members of the church, said Washington State University emeritus sociologist Armand Mauss, a leading researcher on Mormons.

Sociologists estimate there are as few as 5 million active members worldwide.

The LDS Church boasts 14 million members worldwide yet it seems that a mass amount of these well over half are inactive and not involved, And more than ever people are looking into the information for themselves and deciding this is not true.

In the UK I have heard estimates recently that of the 190.000 members we are looking at around 50.000 active, I dont know what the figures are of people leaving but more and more I am getting contacts of people who have looked into the history of the church and seen the evidence for themselves of Joseph Smiths obsession with women leading to him taking other mens wives as his own without his wife Emma, or their husband knowing its going on and the stories continue.

Elder Jensen also said in the interview above:

“My own daughter,” he then added, “has come to me and said, ‘Dad, why didn’t you ever tell me that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?’” For the younger generation, Jensen acknowledged, “Everything’s out there for them to consume if they want to Google it.” The manuals used to teach the young church doctrine, meanwhile, are “severely outdated.”

People today are no longer happy to quietly follow the Prophet and this is likely to continue to cause massive problems for the LDS Church.

Maybe you are a UK (or anywhere) LDS member reading this thinking “Bobby your just another horrible Anti-Mormon spouting lies.” Well dont listen to me just look into it for yourself, below is a video of a family who recently did. I challenge you to watch it and not just think like your church wants you to think, which is to ignore all information a critic of the church presents as they are just full of hatred.