Why I Left The Church
I normally keep this kind of business to myself,but I'd like to summarize my true reasons for leaving my church of 13 years inan effort to communicate my thoughts clearly and prevent speculation among mymany, many great Latter-Day Saint friends and family members. I'm not attempting to persuade anyone bywriting this, just giving my explanation which you can interpret however youplease.
I emphasize that my decision is not the result ofsin, backsliding, temptation. taking offense, or any other stereotypicaljustification. I was not weak in thefaith, or looking for an out, or was too fundamental or too extreme afollower. It also preceded the maritaldifficulties and subsequent divorce I experienced with my wife, and was notcaused by the stress of family challenges.
No members of the church, active or otherwise,prompted or influenced my decision to leave. In fact, I kept my concerns and "investigating" on the way out private,and take full responsibility for it myself after a lengthy period of studying,soul-searching, and just sitting down and being honest with myself, beginningover 2½ years ago.
I simply believe that the church is not what itclaims to be. My fundamental issue is the conflict of information betweenreal, documented facts regarding the church's history and the church's versionof how things happened. If you feel theneed to categorize my reason for leaving, it would be that I thought my way outof the church.
Why I Couldn't Just Ignore Huge Issues and Take Them On Faith
It seems from my experience and relationshipsthat most active LDS members with testimonies have 2 or 3 doctrinal orhistorical issues, like those listed below, that are not exactlyfaith-promoting and have the potential to cause serious doubt about thechurch's claim to be the one true church and led by God...if the person continues to think about it, research it, or try toreconcile it with their beliefs.
The end result is usually just taking these 2-3difficult issues "on faith" and compartmentalizing them in the back of your mind,and avoid opening Pandora's Box by not addressing them again, and justaccepting that we don't have to know the answer to everything in this life.
I did this for years, and followed the church'snow-puzzling recommendation to beware of information that does not put it in apositive light, regardless of the information's source. I began to wonder why any organization woulddiscourage its members from learning real, historical facts-not from angry,exaggerated, and false claims from rabid anti-Mormons, but documented events inchurch history cited by the church's own faithful scholars and members.
I revisited, researched, and pondered at lengththe old issues, as well as several new ones. Any one of them by themselves was not a deal-killer and could have beenexplained away. But when there were notjust a few of these but 15-20 issues, the scales finally tipped and it seemedlike I was having to do mental gymnastics just to convince myself that somehowthere's somehow an explanation for it all.
In matters of spirituality, I believe that faith should allow us to bridge gaps where noinformation exists but should not, however, conflict with facts and reality-faithshould be based at best on a consistency of facts, but faith should not contradictobservable and thematically consistent facts.
After applying the principle of Occam's Razor(that the simplest answer or explanation is usually the correct one) Iconcluded that the sheer number of contradictions, plus the way the churchdiscourages its members from learning about them or talking about them, meantit is just more likely that the church is not 100% "true" than the likelihoodthat it is.
What's wrong with a church not being 100%doctrinally correct or its founders being less than perfect? Nothing. But when it claims that its doctrine is infalliable and that it is theone true church restored again to earth and led by Jesus Christ himself, Ibelieve there's a much higher standard to measure up to in order to justify itsclaims.
This is not a church you can just believe in bitsand pieces of as you wish, or say "Yeah, but...look at the positive socialbenefits, moral standards, etc." AsGordon B. Hinckley has stated, "Each of us has to face the matter - eitherthe Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is theChurch and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." I cautiously andcalmly faced the matter (and my fears) and found for myself that it is not 100%true, and is therefore not what it claims to be.
The Issues
A summary of some of the most important specificissues that led to me leaving the Church is below:
- Book of Mormon. Extensive anachronisms, complete absence of archaeological evidence that Book of Mormon peoples ever existed, impossible language evolution patterns, fantastic claims of military activity, lack of Hebrew markers in the DNA of native peoples of the New World, Martin Harris' public testimony that the 3 and 8 witnesses to the Book of Mormon saw the plates only with their "spiritual eyes" (i.e., it was a purely metaphysical experience), the 11 witnesses were not independent - most believed they stood to gain by the publication of the Book of Mormon and so had strong incentive to comply with Joseph's demands that they sign his pre-prepared affidavit, strong similarity with Ethan Smith's A View of the Hebrews, plagiarism from the Bible, extensive examples of 1820s cultural milieu, and Joseph Smith's celebrated track record of dishonesty paint a very compelling picture that the Book of Mormon is a piece of 19th Century fiction written by a creative genius, not an historical document.
- Polygamy. I am convinced that the practices of polygamy and polyandry are demeaning to women and came about solely to justify Joseph Smith's committing of adultery. There are at least 33 well-documented cases of him taking plural wives. 11 of these women were married to other men and continued to live with their husbands while engaging in dalliances with Joseph Smith. Many of his plural wives were teenagers, some as young as 14 in the case of Helen Mar Kimball. It is clear that D&C 132 has not been repealed and plurality of wives continues to be fundamental doctrine of the church (notwithstanding President Hinckley's denials to Time). There are many statements by the church's prophets, seers and revelators that conclusively support this statement.
- Book of Abraham. The papyrus Joseph Smith used to "translate" the Book of Abraham has been shown to be only common Egyptian funeral documents. Indeed, Joseph Smith's "Egyptian alphabet" has been proven to be nothing more than gibberish. LDS church leadership has been well aware of these facts for many years and yet they continue to deceive the members by claiming it to be of divine origin.
- Lying For The Lord. The church's practice of theocratic ethics (the concept of independence of church ethics and traditional ethics of honesty and integrity), initiated by Joseph Smith, is alive and well today. The church espouses a "faithful history" policy articulated by Elders Packer, Oaks and Nelson. President Hinckley's misrepresentations to Time regarding the doctrines of plurality of Gods and polygamy are evidence that "lying for the Lord" is still accepted practice. Other examples include the many depictions of Joseph Smith (in church artwork, in missionary discussions, etc) bringing about the book of Mormon by translating the golden plates, when, according to the church's own historical account, it was brought about by Joseph putting his face in a hat and staring at a seer stone. I find the fact that leadership continues to misrepresent the historical difficulties and doctrines of the church appalling.
- Retroactively Altered Revelations. The church has made extensive retroactive changes to revelations to meet the needs of leaders over the years. This practice was particularly pungent during the church's early years, but continues to our current day. A recent example is the change to the introduction to the Book of Mormon, in which the Nephites and Lamanites go from being the principal ancestors of the American Indians to just being among the ancestors in light of the fact that little DNA evidence, if any, has been found to prove the official story of native North, Central, and South Americans' ancestry accurate. A substantial example is the multiple conflicting versions of the First Vision, in which aspects of the story as fundamental as the number of personages who appeared to Joseph Smith during the First Vision varies from one angel, to Jesus Christ alone, to God the Father and Jesus Christ as two personages, to one version in which hundreds of angels appeared to Joseph.
Double Standards
I could turn the other cheek if the church simplyclaimed to be a congregation of nice people teaching and following what theybelieved was an accurate interpretation of scriptures, the gospel, etc. What organization or public figure doesn'thave some dirt on them? They allprobably do. But the way that thesefacts are covered up, swept under the rug, or flat-out denied is just plainfishy to me.
Why would God feel the need to act fishy? Sure, it might be "led by God throughimperfect servants," but I don't think throwing in the disclaimer that JosephSmith wasn't perfect somehow overcomes the serious misconduct of someoneclaiming to be God's oracle. I mean,could God not find someone to found his church who wouldn't marry other men'swives behind their back? While keepingit a secret from his wife and the church's members for years?
For example, if the leader of some other churchtoday were found guilty of that, I guarantee you that as a church member Iwould have written them off as a con man, or at best an ineffective servant ofGod. Would you believe such a man if heclaimed to be the one man God chose at this time to be his prophet andrepresent him on earth?
This double standard seems hypocritical to menow-as does teaching the importance of education and learning (unless itcontradicts the church), the importance of critical thinking and being open-minded(unless it contradicts the church), and telling the truth (unless it's notfaith-promoting).
Again, the simplest answer is usually the correctone, and I have chosen to go with that rather than keep telling myself, "Yeah,well maybe the Lord wanted that to happen so that this would happen and thenthat would happen, etc."
Or, to paraphrase that line of thinking, "BecauseI know the church is true (i.e., wantit to be true) I will come up with the most complex and mind-bendingrationalization possible to refute this strange historical fact and support thedecision I have already made in my mind, which is not changing no matter what." I would hope that scientists, doctors, worldleaders, CEO's, etc do not use the same thought process when coming acrossfacts that appear in contradiction to previous beliefs. I have found that for me, only by admittingthat I don't know for sure what istrue that am I truly able to learn by exploring all possibilities...even ones I don't like.
Taking "The Red Pill"
The positive benefits, experiences, and socialcommunity and culture of the church probably keep many of us from wanting toconfront these issues for ourselves. Idid not want to for years, and reluctantly did at the potential risk of losingfriends, family, and an entire belief system that became a framework for myentire perception of life, the earth, and how to think/live/act/allocate time/eat/talk/dress/etc.
I can assure you that losing this framework andstructure for living was very, very difficult, and is best compared to thechallenges converts face when joining the church, only with a backdrop ofdisappointment instead of excited exploration.
This was not easy, and if you think you wouldhave had the courage to take the Red Pill in the movie The Matrix, I am lessinclined now to believe that most people would choose to "go down the rabbithole" when it is so much easier to blissfully continue to believe in and wantto stay in a world you are so certain really exists.
I was not looking for reasons why the church isnot true. I was living perfectly contentwith being a faithful, believing member of the church when I saw a billboardfor PostMormon.org on the freeway in Provo, a support group / discussion forumfor those who have left the church or are considering leaving.
Out of curiosity, I went and was surprised tofind rational, level-headed people giving their well-thought, andwell-documented concerns with the church. This began my search to find out whatreally happened and make my decision based on facts and not angry bias ordoctrinal differences.
I was also amazed to find that many of the site'smembers are actually (or at least claim and appear to be) happier after havingleft the church, and did not degrade into rage-filled alcoholic sex-addictedapostates who can't leave the church alone, but are happy to leave it alone andget on with their lives.
Life After The Church
I had always been led to believe that without thechurch, people may believe they arehappy but are really missing out, or that if they would just accept the gospeland live the commandments they would be so much happier. While this may frequently be the case, I havemet and spent time with numerous ethical, wonderful people who live happy,productive lives, have excellent relationships, and have found happiness, peaceof mind, and spiritual progress / substantial personal development throughother means. The church does not have amonopoly on truth or righteousness.
I can honestly say that I am happier now, too,notwithstanding my recent divorce, which was not caused by me leaving thechurch. Changing my beliefs createddifficulty for sure, but we could have worked through it had I handled ourrelationship and communication better during the last 2 years.
I love my member friends and look forward tospending time with them for the rest of my life while keeping my opinions tomyself unless asked. I have no qualmsagainst church leaders, local or otherwise, at least during modern times.
I have found it easier to love people now, andtruly empathize with them now that I don't feel compelled out of duty to sharemy particular worldview with them as though it were a never-fail remedy. While this is taught in the church, Istruggled with it in application to a degree because you are always thinking inthe back of your mind "If they would just do XYZ or not do XYZ they would behappier."
I also have more time to serve people andactually renew myself now that I am not obligated to perform church callingswhich seem more like self-perpetuating busy work that takes us away from family(or actually getting something done, like feeding the poor, etc). Truth be told, I have not really done muchservice since, and the church didprovide many opportunities to do so, but I do have the time, inclination, andfreedom to find worthwhile causes to support.
I still like the church and what it does for manyof its members, though I'm reluctant ever again to believe that any onecookie-cutter solution is able to fit every person on earth. I also believe that many members would dowell to stay right as they are, while others may benefit from leaving. It's not my place to say, though.
As for me, it helped me make the transition fromtroubled teen to a happy and morally grounded and disciplined person. It probably kept me from making a lot of themistakes young people make. And, itmarked my entrance into the world of spirituality, loving and serving people,working for something bigger than myself, public speaking, and many other greattimes and benefits I wouldn't trade for anything.
I simply believe that its teachings are a milewide and an inch deep, and that I have received all the life's lessons from thechurch that can only be acquired as a member. I look forward to perpetual learning and improvement, but believe thatthese things can be obtained from being open-minded, committing to learn bestpractices for improving myself and the world I live in, exercising criticalthinking, and testing things for myself while simply doing my best.