Do You Feel Accountable to Him?

On March 21, 2017, Mormon Leaks released a draft document that outlines recommendations for keeping young single adults active as the majority of them stop attending church when they leave home. In 2004, they report

there were 851,000 young single adults (YSAs), ages 18-30 years, in the United States and Canada. Best estimates suggest that 550,000 of these individuals were less active.

That is 65%! The rest of the document is an attempt to understand why it happens, and how to fix it.

One section in particular caught my attention. “Little Accountability”.

Few YSAs can definitively answer two important questions: “Who is your bishop?” and “Do you feel accountable to him?”

Do you feel accountable to him?! Really?! The bishop should feel accountable to the members of his congregation. The leaders of the church should feel accountable to the members, not the other way around? Churches should be there to help people become better, and to provide opportunities to serve others, not to determine every aspect of a member’s life. Millennials don’t respond well to claims of authority because they have seen time and time again how authority is abused and used to manipulate people. Technology has exposed these violations at a level not seen by previous generations.

Look, if you want to claim authority and expect me to respect it, you’d damn well better act in a respectable way. Show me how your doctrines and policies help people and are not harmful. Respect the fact that people have the right to choose to affiliate with a church or not (and that includes your own church). If someone decides to no longer participate in the Mormon church, respect their decision. Quit infantilizing your members. Quit berating and demeaning the LGBTQA+ community with messages like this:

The devil has been called “the great deceiver.” He attempts to counterfeit every true principle the Lord presents.

Remember, counterfeits are not the same as opposites. The opposite of white is black, but a counterfeit for white might be off-white or gray. Counterfeits bear a resemblance to the real thing in order to deceive unsuspecting people. They are a twisted version of something good, and just like counterfeit money, they are worthless. Let me illustrate.

One of Satan’s counterfeits for faith is superstition. His counterfeit for love is lust. He counterfeits the priesthood by introducing priestcraft, and he imitates God’s miracles by means of sorcery.

Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, but same-sex marriage is only a counterfeit. It brings neither posterity nor exaltation. Although his imitations deceive many people, they are not the real thing. They cannot bring lasting happiness.

God warned us about counterfeits in the Doctrine and Covenants. He said, “That which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness” (D&C 50:23).

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/04/the-war-goes-on?lang=eng

Mormons need to learn they are not accountable to their bishop or any church leader. If they believe in God, then God alone is who they are accountable to. The church leadership is really accountable to the membership even though they don’t show it. The answer to “Do you feel accountable to him?” should be an emphatic “Hell no!”

 

Leaving the Church Alone, Part 2

Dear believer,

Thanks for trying my little experiment.  I appreciate your willingness to try and step into our shoes.  I think it is important that we learn to have empathy for each other.  Sometimes, I forget what it was like to believe and to hear someone discredit my religious beliefs.  It is good to be reminded, so that I can empathize with your position.  I’d like to suggest another experiment.

Let’s get together and discuss a doctrine of the church.  You can even pick the doctrine.  It can be eternal families, homosexuality, grace, faith, repentance, temples, whatever.  Do you have one? Ok, now here’s the twist.  As we discuss it, you will take the anti stance, and I will take the pro stance.  In other words, you will try to discredit the validity of that doctrine, and I will try to defend it.  It is important that you do your best in this exercise.  it won’t do any good if you don’t.  I promise to do my best to defend the doctrine.

Here are a few ground rules for our discussion

1. Logical fallacies will not be accepted.  We can use https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ as a baseline.
2. No personal attacks.  We need to remain respectful of each other.  If one feels personally attacked, s/he will immediately tell the other so the other can correct them self.
3. No strawman arguments.  This will probably be the biggest temptation for us.  We’ll be defending the opposite position than we personally hold, so presenting a weak argument will make it easier for the other to present a convincing case.  It is important that we do our best to accurately represent the position we are defending.
4. There will be no “winner”. The discussion is more important than who can debate better.

I know 2 and 3 are really just subsets of 1, but they’re too important to not separate out.  I want this to be a productive discussion.  I don’t want one or the other getting mad or insulted.

There is one last part to this experiment.  The next time you are in Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society, and the lesson involves the same doctrine we discussed, I’d like you to raise your hand and defend the same position you did during our discussion.  If you are not comfortable doing it at church, then do it during the next extended family home evening you attend, or when talking with someone you consider to have a strong testimony.  As you are doing this, I want you to watch the faces of those around you.  What are their reactions?  How do they respond to you?  What do they say?

Wait a couple of weeks, then you can tell people how you really feel about that doctrine.  Take note of any communication you receive from others during those two weeks.  We can get together afterward and discuss it.

Again, it doesn’t matter which of us is right.  I’m more concerned about your experience during this experiment.

Leaving the Church Alone

“You can leave the church, but you can’t leave it alone.”

 

Dear believer,

I’m sure you’ve thought this when someone you know and/or love says negative things about the church.  If not, then this post is not for you.  I know I said it many times before my faith transition (and thought it many more times than I actually said it).  I can understand it, too.  When someone disparages something that means so much to you, it can feel like a personal attack.  Probably, in some instances, you really have been personally attacked for your beliefs.  For this post, I’m not going to try to defend the position of the disaffected speaking negatively about the church.  Rather, I’d like to take a different approach.

I’d like you to take a week, just a week, and leave the church alone.  I’m not saying you need to actually leave the church, stop believing, read anti-Mormon literature, attend atheist events, drink coffee or alcohol, do drugs, have reckless sex, worship Satan, or any other thing you feel is immoral.  In fact, keep your morals exactly as they are, it will be more representative of what many experience during a faith crisis.  Just try leaving the church alone for one week.

1. Don’t talk about church.  When you have a conversation with someone and church or the gospel comes up, make note of it then change the subject.
2. Don’t post anything about church on social media.  When someone you know posts something church/gospel related, make note of it.
3. Don’t send out any email with church/gospel related topics.  When you receive an email with something church/gospel related, make note of it.  This includes the emails forwarded with faith-promoting rumors…you know the ones.  Do the same for any letters received in the mail.
4. Don’t send out any text messages related to church or the gospel.  When you receive one, make note of it.
5. When at a family event, don’t mention anything about the church, but make note of times when others do.
6. Don’t do anything with your church calling.  If someone calls you, bow out of the call gracefully and pick it up the following week, but make note of the call (or email, text, etc).
7. Here is the really tough one.  Don’t think about church.  When a though comes to mind that relates to the church, make note of it, then move on to a new topic.

I’ve only asked you to do this for a week.  It isn’t that long.  You can can even pick the week so that it falls on a week where you don’t have as many church responsibilities.  If you’re opposed to skipping church just once, then start the week right after church lets out and end the week as you get dressed for church the following Sunday.

That’s it.  Just try it for a week.  When you’re done, come back and we’ll talk about how your week went.  We’ll talk about the good and the bad, the easy and the difficult, and what it means to you to “leave the church and leave it alone”.  We’ll talk about the notes you took during the week.  We’ll talk about the times you wanted to strike up a conversation with someone, or contribute to a conversation, but couldn’t think about anything that didn’t somehow relate to the church.  I look forward to our discussion.

The dominant narrative is not true

Questioner: In your view do you see room in Mormonism for several narratives of a religious experience or do you think that in order for the Church to remain strong they would have to hold to that dominant [orthodox] narrative?

Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change.

 

Hat tip to John Dehlin for providing the link to the video and the transcript excerpt so I didn’t have to do it myself 🙂

Let’s consider what Bushman is saying.  “The dominant narrative is not true.”  The dominant narrative is the official position of the church.  It is the narrative the prophet, apostles, and seventies teach.  It is the narrative you will hear in General Conference.  It is the narrative the church produces in its Sunday School, Priesthood, Relief Society, YW and YM, Primary, Seminary, and Institute curricula.  This, in spite of the fact the church has maintained control over much of the historical record, and had access to the other records.  This in spite of scholars telling the church for decades that there are differences between the historical record and the dominant narrative.  In short, the church has been lying.  It has knowingly sold a false narrative, and expected obedience, reverence, and financial support in return.

There are many other forms of lying. 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.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

Beyond the lying, this also says something about God, or at least the prophets’ and apostles’ connections to God.  God, being omniscient, would have known that what would become the dominant narrative would be untrue.  God would also have known that the dominant narrative being exposed as lies would cause many people to lose faith and leave the church, and perhaps lose faith in God altogether.  Did God not correct the early prophets?  Did God allow His prophet to lead the church astray, rather than removing him from his place?  Or, does God not care enough about those people who lose faith when the lies are uncovered?  Or, perhaps the prophets and apostles don’t really have a link to God like they claim, and so were unable to receive revelation that the dominant narrative was untrue and they should correct it.  Or maybe God told them it was untrue, but they continued teaching it anyway.  Would they really be prophets, seers, and revelators in that case?

Now, let’s take this a step further.  How many of you prayed about the dominant narrative and received a confirmation from the Spirit that it was true?  How many of you taught the dominant narrative to others, felt the confirming witness that it was true, and those you taught also received the confirming witness of the Spirit that it was true?  How many times did you proclaim you know it is true?  All the while, the dominant narrative really wasn’t true.  What does that say about the method of using the Spirit to determine truth?  In reality, it just isn’t reliable.  It doesn’t work.  It is nothing more than emotional manipulation.  It doesn’t matter whether the fault lies in me or you, the receiver of the spiritual witness, or if it lies in God, the giver of the spiritual witness, or if there is no God at all from which to receive a spiritual witness.  The method is faulty and unreliable.  It doesn’t work.  It is simply an exercise in confirming the biases and beliefs you already have.  That is why the same method is used to determine that Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, and any other religion is true.

Here’s the problem as I see it.  The church was founded on lies, the church grew on lies, and the church is sustained on lies.  In essence, Bushman’s statement is an admission of this reality.

He Literally Just Described a Cult!!!

The church of Jesus Christ is not a social organization. It’s not just about what we do for three hours on Sunday. It can, and it should be the doctrine, the authority, ordinances, covenants are the central focus of our lives. If they are not, I urge you to consider your ways.

Being a member of this church affects everything. Where you go, where you don’t go. What you think, what you don’t think. What you speak, what you don’t speak. What you eat, what you drink, what you wear. There is no aspect of your life 24/7 that isn’t influenced by your discipleship and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ.

If it is less than that, you are living far below your privileges in the gospel. It is not a burden. It is not a chore. It is the only source of enduring joy, purpose, and direction, and we live in a world that is woefully lacking in all three of those things.

If Bednar had tried, I don’t know if he could have described the church in a more cult-like fashion.

It Just Isn’t Convincing

I remember being trained as a missionary to testify of each principle I was teaching to invite the Spirit, because the Spirit is what converts.  In other words, sharing my testimony was the best tactic for convincing those we were teaching that we had the Truth.  At the time, this totally made sense.  When I shared my testimony, I could feel the Spirit, and it was a meaningful experience for me.  When others shared their testimony, I also felt the Spirit, and it was a meaningful experience for me.  So there you go.  Air tight case…

Except for a few glaring flaws that I couldn’t see at the time.

I didn’t feel the Spirit when someone testified of a truth that conflicted with my Truth.  In fact, I felt anxious.  I felt like there was contention, simply because they didn’t agree with me.  A testimony was only convincing when it confirmed my beliefs.  I never considered how unconvincing my testifying was to someone who believed differently than me.

As an unbeliever skeptic, I have a much different perspective on testimonies.  I no longer feel “the Spirit” when someone shares their testimony.  Rather, I feel exasperated.  Why?  For the same reason I didn’t feel the Spirit when someone testified of something that conflicted with my beliefs.  The Spirit is nothing more than the comfort of someone agreeing with you.  It is the opposite of cognitive dissonance. If you agree with the moral of a story, you feel the Spirit.  If someone sacrifices for something you consider worthy of sacrifice, you feel the Spirit.

This isn’t unique to Mormonism.  Many (most? all?) supernatural and pseudo-scientific beliefs are professed by their believers using the same tactic as a Mormon testimony.  People testify of Christianity, Islam, essential oils, chakras, auras, spirits, etc.  Unless you can provide rational explanations supported by evidence, it just isn’t convincing.  It would be like me testifying of leprechauns, or Thor, or pick your favorite mythological character. No matter how much I claim it is true, unless I provide enough evidence to convince you, you won’t believe me.

One more thing.  If I have to believe something first before I will be given evidence that it is true, I’m not being asked to believe something that is true.  I’m being asked to delude myself into believing something that shouldn’t be believed.  You are implicitly admitting that there is no good reason to believe your claim.  Telling me I have to have faith in God in order for him to reveal himself to me, tells me there is no good reason to believe in God.

So, the next time you’re going to bear your testimony to me, save it.  All you are doing is showing you have nothing of value to contribute to the conversation.  Frankly, the more you do it, the less I want to be around you.

LDS Apologetics are Irrelevant

It is no secret that when you start expressing doubts about certain aspects of the church, you’re bound to receive an article written by some apologist.  Whether it comes from FairMormon, the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS), Jeff Lindsey, Brian Hales, the Givens, or any of a number of apologists.

The whole purpose of LDS apologetics, and the reason the church does not shut them down, is to introduce doubt.  It is to cause you to worry that the logical conclusions from reading the historical record may not be correct, that maybe you are wrong and you’re throwing away your eternal salvation.  They don’t provide any real answers, only possible explanations.  This wouldn’t be so bad if they were plausible explanations, or even internally consistent, but they don’t have to be and usually aren’t.  They only have to undermine your confidence in your ability to think logically and draw rational conclusions.  This serves to keep people in the church, paying tithing, and holding callings.  While it is working, why would the church want to shut this down?  If there is ever a time where more people leave the church because of apologetics, they will shut them down.

Clearly, I don’t have a high opinion of apologetics.  I find it to be dishonest, and ultimately self-delusion. Here are a few of the reasons for my low opinion.

Possible/Plausible/Probable

I touched on this a little earlier, but apologetics tends to rely on people not grasping the difference of these words.

Possible: able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something.

Plausible: having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable:

Probable: likely to be the case or to happen.

Let’s look at the idea apologists like to tout that Nahom has been discovered.  We have the letters NHM inscribed on a rock.  It is possible that they represent Nahom.  Is it plausible that they represent Nahom?  Well, we’d have to look at the credibility of the Book of Mormon, other explanations for the existence of the letters on the rock, the time frame that those letters were inscribed, and the location to see if it matches the BoM description.  Even if the letters did represent Nahom, does that mean it is the Nahom in the BoM?  Or, could it be another Nahom from that region.  Given the Nihm tribe in the area, it is more probable that it represents Nihm and not Nahom.  That won’t stop apologists from using the possible, though not probable, chance that NHM represents Nahom as evidence for the Book of Mormon.  We even see it as support for the current archaeological dig being done in the possible site of Bountiful.  Jumping from possible to probable takes a significant amount of supportive evidence, as well as the evidence required to disqualify other possible explanations.

Confirmation Bias

Quality research requires the researcher to identify hits and misses to any explanation proffered.  Confirmation bias happens when you only looking at the supporting evidence, or only noticing evidence that fits your preconceived notions, or giving it more significance than contrary evidence when it isn’t warranted.  Apologists do this with NHM and Nahom v. Nihm.  The existence of the Nihm tribe is much more significant than a story in a book that includes the name Nahom, especially when that book has no evidence to support its claims.

A credible researcher would not go to London in search of Diagon Ally simply because it is described in Harry Potter books.  Until the Harry Potter books could be shown to be historically accurate, there would be no reason to look.  Likewise, until the Book of Mormon can be shown to be historically accurate, there is no reason to believe the letters NHM inscribed on a rock in the area of the Nihm tribe would really mean Nahom.  Jumping to the conclusion it represents Nahom is simply confirmation bias.

Not official/authoritative

In the end, however, my opinion doesn’t matter because apologetics in an LDS context are irrelevant.  No matter how convincing their explanations may be, they do not speak for the church.  Their conclusions are unofficial and non-authoritative.  They could provide extensive evidence to support a doctrine, including journal entries, talks given in church conferences, quotes from past prophets, etc.  However, if the church came out with an official declaration that contradicted the apologists, they would have no choice but to fall in line and find evidence to support the new position.  For LDS apologetics, “when the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done”.

When you have a prophet who speaks with God, and declares his word, apologists can only agree with the prophet.  They can’t contradict him, because then they would be contradicting God, and undermining their purpose of defending the faith.  Anything they say that the prophet has not spoken to is merely speculation, subject to relegation to the trash bin once the prophet does speak.

Clearly I no longer believe in the church or any of its truth claims, but if you want to provide answers to my questions, doubts or concerns, leave the apologetics out of it.  I really don’t care what they have to say.  If I am going to align myself with the church, I want to know what the church’s official positions are so I can decide if I agree or not.

Lastly, the fact the church is using apologists to write the recent essays to answer people’s concerns tells me the leaders of the church have no direct connection to God.  They are no more inspired than any other leader of any other faith in the entire world.  What is the use of a prophet, seer, and revelator if he neither prophecies, seers, nor reveals?

What I no longer believe

There are some things I used to have a testimony of, but I no longer do.

• I used to believe that the curse of dark skin in the Book of Mormon was only a sign of their curse, but the curse was actually not being permitted to hold the priesthood.  Now, I realize the dark skin was the curse, and it is just the ramblings of a racist conman.
• I used to believe God condoned polygyny when commanded through a prophet, and that it was mostly to take care of widows and single women who couldn’t own property.  I now realize that view was naive and ignorant.  I cannot see, given human nature, how any form of polygamy would not be abusive and damaging to at least one of the involved parties.
• I used to believe the prophet could never lead us astray.  I now realize that prophets habitually lead people astray because they are just people with faults and biases, who are delusional about their station in life.
• I no longer believe Joseph ever had a real vision (hallucination perhaps), or that he saw Jesus, or God, or an angel, or whatever version you prefer.
• I no longer believe there were any gold plates, or an angel Moroni (or Nephi depending on which version of the story you prefer), or that any priesthood power was restored.
• I no longer believe the papyri ever contained the writings of Abraham.
• I no longer believe the priesthood and temple bans were anything other than racially motivated.
• I no longer believe that modified masonic ceremonies have any bearing on what happens to me after I die, or that I am bound by any promises made without full disclosure, or that underwear can protect me.
• I no longer believe homosexuality is sinful, or that requiring lifelong celibacy is a reasonable demand of our LGBT brothers and sisters.
• I no longer believe the church is an honest organization that can be trusted to use tithing funds appropriately.
• I no longer believe there is an evil spirit out to get me.
• I no longer believe that my morals come from a book, or some supernatural being.  They are mine.  I choose them.  I am responsible for them.

Where is the Evidence?

At the end of a debate on creationism between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, both were asked what it would take for them to change their mind.  Ken Ham said, “no one’s ever going to convince me that the word of God is not true”.  Bill Nye said, “We would just need one piece of evidence”.  One of these guys has an open mind, the other is Ken Ham.

Frequently, when ex/former/post Mormons discuss how to get believing Mormons to question their assumptions about the church, they propose the questions, “If the church wasn’t true, would you want to know?” and “How would you know?”.  In other words, what would it take for them to change their mind?

I’d like to flip those questions around.  If the church was true, would I want to know?  How would I know?

There would need to be evidence that a series of things are true in order for me to believe the church was true.  In order:

1. There would need to be evidence that God exists.  I’m not talking about feelings or emotions, but actual evidence.  For starters, a repeatable method that works for everyone.  It would need to work for unbelievers as well as believers.
2. There would need to be verifiable evidence that Joseph Smith saw and talked with God.  Contradictory accounts that were written 12 to 18 years later are not credible given the way memory works.
3. There would need to be verifiable evidence of the existence of the gold plates.  Seeing the plates in your mind is not evidence.
4. There would need to be evidence that the events described in the Book of Mormon actually took place.  Such evidence would be archaeological, linguistic, or DNA.  Can we find any items left from the BoM population?  Can we find any linguistic evidence showing a Semitic influence?  Can we find any DNA markers from a Middle-eastern migration around 2000-3000 BCE, or around 600 BCE?
5. There would need to be verifiable evidence that the priesthood restoration events actually occurred.
6. There would need to be verifiable evidence that the succession crisis was resolved according to God’s will, that Brigham Young was God’s new prophet as well as all of the prophets up to Monson.  This evidence would necessarily exclude the other Mormon churches that also started up during this time period.  Given the LDS church’s claims, they cannot be also be “true” if the LDS church is “true”.

This is certainly not everything I would need to have answered before I believed the church was true, but it is a start.  For now, I’ll ignore the Book of Abraham, polygamy, the Kinderhook plates, the Greek Psalter, Zelph, plagiarism of masonic ceremonies, Adam & Eve, the flood, the tower of Babel, the exodus, Deutero-Isaiah, the Kirkland Anti-Banking Society, etc, etc.  We can go there eventually, but let’s just start with these six items.

The church, starting with Joseph Smith and continuing all the way to Thomas Monson, has made the claim that the Book of Mormon is true (historically, not just metaphorically), and that this is God’s one true church.  The onus is on them to provide credible evidence for their claim.  It really doesn’t matter what evidence I can bring against their claim if they can’t first provide credible evidence that supports their claim.  It would be irrational to believe such a claim.

I’d like to believe that I am open minded, as I value that trait.  If you can provide evidence that supports your claim, I am open to changing my mind.  Until that time, don’t be surprised if I roll my eyes when you bear your testimony.  I’ll try not to, but I’m making no promises.

You Never Really Had a Testimony

How many times have you been told, now that you no longer believe in the church’s teachings, that you must have never really had a testimony?  Most of us apostates have probably heard it at least once, and likely there are many of you who have heard it multiple times.  I was in a long discussion with a family member when this was said to me.  We had just finished talking about how this family member had spiritual experiences and that I can’t say they never had them, to which I agreed.  I fully believe they have had many spiritual experiences, and continue to have them.  I just disagree with their significance and meaning.  I have had spiritual experiences in my life and for most of my life fully believed in the church.  So when I was told I never really had a testimony, I threw it right back in their face.  There is no way for them to really know if I ever really had a testimony or not.  Only I could speak to that.

Since then, I’ve thought about that experience and I’ve come to a slightly different conclusion.  I certainly had a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet, the Book of Mormon was true, the church was lead by a living prophet, etc.  However…

• I never believed in occult magic
• I never believed that scripture was dictated using a rock in a hat
• I never believed imagination (spiritual eyes) was a sufficient method for witnessing the reality of the gold plates
• I never believed that God would condone a married man marrying women who were already married, or young girls, or lying about it.
• I never believed that “translate” doesn’t mean to convert text from one language into another (Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham)
• I never believed it was right to modify revelation from its original form to better fit later teachings of the church
• I never believed it was honest to teach a whitewashed version of history, even if it was to help others join the church.
• I never believed abuse, whether physical, psychological, mental, or spiritual, was acceptable behavior (I’m looking at you D&C 132!).

So, yes, there are things of which I never really had a testimony.  I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them now!

What things does the church now admit to that you never believed?