This is obviously my response to the article making the
rounds again titled, “The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism.” The original
can be read by clicking the title. This article made the rounds a few months back, and being a Forman (Former
Mormon), I have a lot of active LDS friends and family. I saw several of them
post this article before I finally took the bait and gave it a read. Now that I’m
seeing it making the rounds again, I’ve decided to post a blog entry with my
responses.
Before I begin my response though, here are two quotes by
prominent LDS men which I think are pertinent to the topic:
“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation.
If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” ~President J. Reuben Clark
The author or the alarming truth article says that people rarely leave the LDS faith for
other versions of Christianity. I know several people who are exceptions to
this assessment. I agree that quite a few, maybe even 50% or more ex-Mormons
are atheist or agnostic, but I know quite a few people who left Mormonism for
other forms of Christianity. I don’t agree with the author’s assessment that
people feel there is so much missing from other forms of Christianity and
that’s why they frequently stop believing. Among discussions I’ve had with
fellow ex-Mormons, we came to realize that the ‘spirit’ we felt in the Mormon congregation
is the same spirit that is felt by Hindus, or Baptists, or Muslims, or Jews, or
even by ourselves as we watch moving films like the Lion King. For myself and a
lot of people I’ve chatted with, we drew the conclusion that the feeling of
warmth and goodness was not necessarily divinely inspired. After all, we know
that the Lion King is not a true story, and we also know that if the LDS Church
is the One and only True church with a capital T, then other religions have to
by default be false, and if their followers are just as convinced of their
version of Truth with a capital T, then there’s a huge flaw in the ‘spirit’
being used as a determining factor in discerning truth. Reaching that
conclusion makes myself and others skeptical of all religions, Christian or
otherwise.
The author goes on to say that “it’s simply impossible to
leave the Restored Gospel for another version of Christianity without realizing
that you have lost so many of its essential elements.” People who do leave the
LDS Church for other Christian sects would obviously take umbrage with that.
They reached the conclusion that the LDS Church was false, which means they
believe the ‘essential elements’ found in the ‘Restored Gospel’ aren’t as
essential as the author of the article feels they are. Furthermore, reaching
the conclusion that the LDS Church is false would also make all things related
to the restoration as told by Joseph Smith false as well, so this is not
something most people will have a difficult time leaving behind when they reach
the conclusion that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not true.
He claims that one of the problems people may find with the
Book of Mormon is the lack of archaeological evidence and says the same is true
of the Bible. He’s right for some stories from the Bible. There is no evidence
of a massive world-wide flood. Most bible scholars agree that the story of Noah
was just a story and not a literal event. A lot of people, Mormons included,
believe the story of Noah to be a true and literal thing that happened. I’ll
concede that a lack of archaeological evidence does not mean something did or
did not take place. The difference we see with the Bible versus the Book of
Mormon though is that there is evidence of some of the stories from the Bible.
For instance, there are literal places like Jerusalem which still exist today.
There is evidence of civilization existing there for thousands of years. There
is no evidence of the civilizations from the Book of Mormon. The Nephites and
Lamanites were said to have numbered in the millions. There were wars in the
Book of Mormon with battles claiming millions of lives. There are no bones,
weapons, chariots, or other evidence of these things taking place. Beyond the
missing evidence of battles, there’s no signs of these civilizations at all. In
Texas, there is ample evidence of the ancient Aztec and Mayan people dating
back 17,000 years. Modern day Europe still uses the same roadways as were used
as far back as 400 AD. There are no buildings, roads, art, pottery, etc. that
provide any evidence whatsoever of any of the people written about in the Book
of Mormon.
Even the Church itself hasn’t been able to find any. In the
1950s and 60s, the church hired a man named Thomas Stuart Ferguson to find
evidence. Mr. Ferguson was a professor in BYU’s Archaeology department. After
17 years of searching, he wrote a letter to the church saying, “...you can ’t
set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere – because it is fictional and will
never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology. I should say – what is in
the ground will never conform to what is in the book.” So for the author of this
article to claim that, "The same is true of the Bible" in reference
to archaeological issues, it's simply not accurate. At best it’s a gross
misstatement.
The author suggests that people who take issue with Joseph
Smith’s plural wives, specifically that where were a few who were very young,
should also recognize that the same things happened with the prophets of old.
This is a bit disingenuous as well. We know that several Presidents of the
United States owned slaves. However, if a modern president were do own slaves,
they would be impeached immediately and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law. Just because someone in power did something long ago when cultural norms
dictated it was acceptable does not mean people in power today shouldn’t be
held to a higher standard. Furthermore the ancient prophets aren’t exactly good
examples of good humans. The ancient prophet Lot offered up his daughters to be
gang raped, Noah had sex with his daughters, Moses had the people murder all
the men, women, and children from a neighboring village … except the virgin
women – they could be kept as a reward for the murdering. The examples go on
and on where prophets of old are not exactly good examples of being decent human
beings. Joseph Smith does not get a blanket pass for his abhorrent marriages to
teenage girls (there were seven under the age of 18, and one as young as 14) simply
because prophets of old also had multiple child wives.
The article goes on to say that Anti-Mormonism is about
getting people to lose faith in the church, and to lose faith in God. I don’t
believe this to be the case either, but it’s a huge generalization. Sure, there
are definitely anti-Mormons out there who want to promote atheism. There are
plenty out there who just want to educate Mormons about their own history
because a lot of it has been swept into the closet. Also, I think ex-Mormons
who happen to be atheist - myself included in this - aren’t necessarily trying
to convince other people that what we believe is absolute Truth with a capital
T. I share my beliefs with others because that’s what people do. We talk about
what we believe. Mormons and their missionary program are perfect examples of
this. They frequently talk with other people about what they believe. Some of
them are talking about their beliefs in hopes of gaining converts and persuade
people to their version of the truth. Other Mormons just talk about their
beliefs to share with others their own personal human experience. That’s what I
feel like I’m doing most of the time when I discuss my beliefs with others. I’m
connecting with another human being by sharing the conclusions I’ve reached
based on my own life experience. I’m not judging or condemning them for
reaching different conclusions nor do I feel judged by them for the conclusions
they’ve drawn.
The author claims that the same criticisms shared today are
the same criticisms that were shared decades or more ago. This may be the case,
but I have to be honest, after leaving Mormonism, I learned a lot of things
about the LDS Church that weren’t taught or readily available while I was a
member. The same is true today, and was even more true decades ago. Maybe some
Mormons have personally researched the Kinderhook plates, or discovered that
when Egyptologists examined the papyrus in the Book of Abraham, it doesn’t
translate to anything remotely similar to what Joseph Smith wrote, but most active
Mormons aren’t aware of these things. It certainly isn’t taught in church on
Sunday, and when looking for information about it within Church documents and
resources, it’s very difficult to find. There are active LDS people who’ve
encountered many or all of the criticisms being peddled about the Church and
they still continue believing that the Church is true. I have a friend who’s
among those people. He’s read the criticisms and he’s researched controversial
facts about Church history. He still struggles with doubt from time to time,
but the conclusion he’s reached is the same as it always was, the LDS Church is
true and has value in his life – it goes without saying that I drew different
conclusions. So yes, the author of this article is right in saying they’re the
same criticisms, but misses the point that these criticisms are backed by
factual evidence and have resulted in a lot of believing Mormons leaving the
faith when the conclusions they draw are contrary to what they’ve always
believed.
The article contains a lot of scary atheist talk and claims
the Adversary is laying foundation for plunging Western society into atheism.
As a member, the very word atheist was scary to me. I believed that people who
didn’t believe in God were bad people who did bad things. As an adult, I have a
lot of atheist friends and can say they are among the most kind, genuine, philanthropic
people I’ve ever met. I’ve met some jerks too, but I’ve encountered a lot more
jerks who happen to be LDS, than jerks who happen to be Atheist. The word
Atheist is still being used as a scare tactic, but for me, the word atheist
just means that there is not enough evidence to support my personal belief in a
god. I also think there’s not enough evidence for me to believe definitively
that there is absolutely not a god. I simply live my life as if it’s the only
one I have. I treat people around me with respect and kindness and try to
follow my moral compass to make good decisions. If there is something beyond
this life, so be it, but nothing about that idea changes the here and now for
me.
The author of the article claims that atheism replaces the
foundations of morality. If we look to religious scripture for our morals, then
slavery, rape, murder, and a slew of other awful things are condoned. He’s
right that atheism replaces foundations of morality, but I think what is and is
not moral is certainly not something that should be determined by religion. The
LDS Church opposed equal rights for Blacks in this country. Beyond denying them
the priesthood, the LDS Church opposed equal rights and opposed interracial
marriage. From today’s vantage point, we can see that the church was wrong on
these things. Even they admit in their “Blacks and the Priesthood” essay that
these policies were wrong. Maybe atheism places moral value on human desire,
but most atheists agree that there’s a clear boundary when the actions of one
interfere with the desires of another. I don’t think this is a bad thing. I
recently read a study which concluded that atheists are less likely to steal
than theists and that atheists are generally more philanthropic. We can also
see benefits of cultures with high populations of atheists like Finland and
Sweden. The point is that atheists are not inherently immoral nor are religious
people morally superior.
The big ‘aha moment’ of this article is that Atheism
destroys agency. This was a bit of a let-down for me. The author titled the
article “The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism” and references his big ‘aha
moment’ pretty early on in the article. The conclusion he’s drawn is neither
alarming nor true. In what ways do atheists have fewer choices than theists?
While an active believing Mormon may have the choice between drinking alcohol
or not, the rest of us have the same choice, the only difference I can think of
is that I don’t believe I’ll be punished for drinking the alcohol. Furthermore,
I don’t want to force my only thoughts about alcohol onto other people. I don’t
want to make laws requiring people to drink a glass of wine with dinner even
though a glass of wine every day has a lot of health benefits. I recognize that
we all have the ability to make our own choices in life and I like it like
that. The LDS Church lobbies the government of Utah to enact archaic laws
restricting the choice of other people in their alcohol consumption. Beyond
alcohol, the LDS Church as also asked their members to vote against approving
medical cannabis. This restricts the agency of ill people who want to try a new
medicine that is showing promising results in other states. The question that I
keep asking myself after reading the article is this: how are atheists promoting a way of life that
limits people’s agency? I just can’t understand how this is a conclusion we can
draw from any of the evidence.
I definitely identified with the author regarding seeing two
different paths ahead. When I was a member, I saw similar darkness on one side
and light/comfort down the other path. I believed that one path would lead to
my ultimate destruction and demise. When I finally reached a breaking point and
had to make a decision of which path to venture down, I chose not to choose. I
decided to end my life because the path I’d been told would lead to light,
happiness, and comfort seemed too difficult – I’d been trying so hard to keep
to that path, but I simply wasn’t capable of traveling that road any longer,
but at the same time, the path of darkness wasn’t something I was willing to
take either. I would rather end my life and take my chances that God would
forgive my sin of suicide over traveling down the dark path. I made a plan and
wrote my note. Just before taking the final step, I knelt down and prayed.
During the prayer, it occurred to me that I’d always just been told about how
awful the dark path was and I’d just believed it, but I’d never asked for
myself. I finally asked God which way I should go. It was the most intense
spiritual experience I’ve ever had in my life. I knew beyond a shadow of a
doubt that the supposed dark path was my true path to real happiness. It was
okay for me to choose to accept myself and find a spouse to love me too, even
if I shared a gender with that spouse. The same feeling I’d felt for years in
seminary and sacrament meeting, and young men’s, the feeling that confirmed to
me that the Church was true, was now telling me to save myself by choosing
love. Looking back on that now, I believe it was my internal drive for life
rather that divine intervention, but at the time, no one could have convinced
me that God wasn’t communicating to me that the LDS Church was wrong about who
I was and how I should live my life. Whether God or my internal desire to
survive, the fact is I’ve never been happier. I am now on the path that seemed so
dark and terrible and I’ve never felt more fulfilled, more loved, or more at
peace. My point here is not to say that the path active Mormon people are on is
wrong, but just that it’s not right for everyone.
The last thing I want to say, is that even if it were true
that atheism or a lack of belief in Mormonism does lead down a dark path to the
abyss of human suffering, it wouldn’t change the fact that truth is still
truth. Children want to believe in magic and deny logic for years with
characters such as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. The world is just a little
bit darker without that magic. It doesn’t make the truth any less true though.
You can’t put a price on truth, and you can’t continue believing in fairy tales
simply because it makes life seem more comfortable or full of light. In my
opinion, the real alarming truth behind anti-Mormonism is that most of us seek
to spread truth. Like I said before, I have a close friend who has studied
church history and knows the same things I know, but he drew different
conclusions. I don’t think less of him for that, in fact I admire his courage
and strength of resolve. I suppose the real alarming truth about Anti-Mormonism
is that we simply want people to know the whole truth about what they believe.
If you’re an active believing member of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’ve made it this far, thank you for reading.
I appreciate you taking the time to read a blog that disagrees with your
worldview. I’d also invite you to dive in and truly research your own church’s
history. You may be surprised at some of the things you discover you never
knew.
