Welcome

page hero, text reads “Elemental Epistles”

As a former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I carry with me a tapestry of memories woven with threads of deep faith, community, and the promise of eternal blessings. I’ve felt the unwavering conviction that I was part of something profoundly true. I honor and respect that faith—it was once my own, and it shaped me in ways I’m still uncovering.

Elemental Epistles is a letter to my former self—the self that once stood firm in the church, confident I had been born into the only source of truth. It is an exploration of my personal journey, from the certainty of my religious upbringing to the faith crisis that led me down a different path. My aim is not to challenge or undermine your beliefs, but to share my story with empathy and understanding.

Throughout these pages, I explore the unique cultural and doctrinal facets that shaped my personal experience. I make every effort to address sensitive topics with care and respect. My goal is to provide a nuanced perspective that acknowledges both the light and the shadow that can be found within my former faith tradition.

I know that my journey may be difficult for many faithful church members to understand and accept. But I hope that by sharing my story, I can offer a compassionate voice to those who may be grappling with their own doubts and questions. Whether you are a lifelong member, a recent convert, or simply a curious visitor, I invite you to join me in this exploration with an open heart and a willingness to consider perspectives that may differ from your own.

This is not a call to abandon the faith, but rather a invitation to engage with the complexities of belief and unbelief with empathy and understanding. We are all on a journey of faith, seeking to find meaning, purpose, and connection in this world. May we walk that path together, with respect, love, and a deep appreciation for the sacred nature of each person’s spiritual experience.

Navigate with the arrow buttons in the top right or with your keyboard’s arrow keys. Start Reading


  • This is Version 2.0 of Elemental Epistles, published in December 2024; see Release Notes.
  • To report an error, discuss a concern, or connect with me, please reach out.
  • The printer icon in the top right allows you to print a page plus all its children. To print this full resource, use the print button on this page. To print a full chapter, use the print button on the chapter’s intro page.

Subsections of Welcome

Chapter 1

Introduction

page hero, a person starting to walk down a trail

Dear Faithful Self,

I want to take a moment to honor the journey we’ve been on together—the moments of joy, the struggles, and the questions that have surfaced along the way. Faith has been a guiding light for you, shaping your identity and providing a sense of community, but it’s also brought challenges that have led you to question and seek deeper truths.

In this moment of reflection, I want to reach out to you with love and understanding. This letter is an invitation to explore those questions together, to embrace the discomfort of uncertainty, and to find clarity in the midst of confusion. As we journey through these pages, I hope to remind you of the strength within you and the importance of honoring your feelings as we navigate this complex landscape. It’s okay to question, seek, and wonder about the truths you hold dear. I hope you know that it’s possible to honor your past while also embracing the possibility of growth and change.

I know you feel terrified. Your worldview is crumbling around you, but you’re trying to fight your doubts. You feel ashamed to ask questions. You’re not alone. Take your time, and know that you are in control here.

As I explored my beliefs, I realized that my faith was shaped by many factors, each seemingly small on its own. Yet, when considered collectively, they led me to the conclusion that I could no longer uphold my cherished belief system as my ultimate truth. In this resource, I liken each of these factors to individual elements, which together form a larger, more complex whole. This concept inspired the name of this resource: epistles composed of many smaller elements, each contributing to the narrative of my journey.


Subsections of Introduction

About Me

page hero, photo of Landon

I’m grateful you’ve joined me here. If you’re a stranger, my name is Landon, and I’m a PhD student studying formal verification. I’m working on finding new automated ways to reason about complex logical problems. I also enjoy reading, writing, cooking, and philosophizing. I maintain a handful of disparate projects in my free time.

I know firsthand how unsettling the experience of questioning long-held beliefs can be. When I started questioning my own beliefs, it was a deeply isolating and confusing time. I felt like I was the only one struggling with doubts and uncertainties. It wasn’t until I began sharing my story with trusted friends and family that I realized how common these experiences are within the Latter-day Saint community.

That’s why I’ve decided to put my name and my face to this project. I’m not an anonymous critic looking to tear down the church and its good members. I’m a real person who has grappled with these issues myself, and I want to create a safe space for others to do the same.

I spent 24 years as a dedicated member of the church, and I want to honor both the positive and negative aspects of that experience. My hope is that by sharing my story, I can create a space for nuanced, compassionate dialogue around the complexities of Mormonism. I don’t aim to persuade or proselytize, but rather to empower you as an intelligent being to make informed decisions about your own faith journey.

If, after reading this resource, you decide to remain a faithful member of the church, I want to explicitly honor that choice. These topics are sensitive and sacred to many, and I’ll do my best to approach them with the reverence they deserve, while also acknowledging the diversity of perspectives and experiences within my former community.

I welcome any questions or concerns you may have, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to engage in this important conversation. Thanks for joining me on this journey.

P.S. I added my photo to this page to prove I have, at one point or another, been outdoors.


My Intentions

page hero, a dart hitting a target

When critically analyzing information to help yourself make a significant decision, it’s important to consider the legitimacy of resources. You have surely learned many critical analysis skills in a high school language arts class. One such strategy is an evaluation of the intentions and interests of involved parties.

To that end, I have explicitly documented my intentions.

What I Intend

My intentions are simple, and I outline them as follows. I hope to:

  1. Encourage an honest, nuanced, and respectful conversation about beliefs from diverse perspectives;
  2. Normalize talking about all aspects of religion, including both benefits and harm; and
  3. Promote informed decision-making for people questioning their beliefs or experiencing a faith crisis.

I believe firmly in building the world I want to see, and I want to live in a world where people are comfortable having an open and honest conversation about faith. I believe publishing this resource contributes in a small way to building that world, and I hope it may have such an effect.

I have nothing material to gain from this resource. Its original version took four months to write and even longer to edit and publish. The current version has taken over a year to complete. I have taken a material loss by developing this resource. But I believe the value of contributing to this conversation is well worth the cost.

What I Don’t Intend

If you are experiencing a faith crisis and feel you must make a decision regarding your belief, I would encourage you to seek many sources for information. I hope this resource is useful, but I don’t intend for this resource to be a one-stop shop for faith deconstruction. A faith journey is beautiful and personal thing, and I hope you take the steps that feel most appropriate for you.

Further, I don’t necessarily want you to leave the church. I don’t necessarily want you to stay, either. I want you to make an informed decision that works for you. Only you know what is right for you. I sincerely hope you trust your own judgment and intuition to make a choice that brings you fulfillment and joy.

Perceptions of My Intentions

You may have heard the story of Lehi’s dream at the start of the Book of Mormon, which includes this verse:

And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not. These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away1

I fear that because I have left the church, my thoughts may be disregarded as a “finger of scorn.” I must state as explicitly as possible that I intend no mockery of faithful people. I admire and honor my pioneer ancestors who walked hundreds of miles in pursuit of a new life in the church. I have a deep respect for people who make great sacrifices for the sake of their beliefs.

I also want to empower anyone who fears that reading this may cause you to fall away from a beloved faith: you are an intelligent human being with free will. You’ve spent years working on refining your intuition. You may have even been promised that you have a gift to discern right from wrong.

The story of Jesus’ life is–in my opinion–a bautiful representation of empathy. The idea that someone would suffer and die for the sake of helping and understanding others is extremely powerful. One of the most beautiful things about life is learning about and empathizing with people we don’t yet understand. Learning about others’ perspectives and empathizing with them is not a betrayal of faith.

Why Trust Me?

I trust you to make your own informed decision. Even so, it’s possible you feel hesitant or afraid to read this. Russell Nelson’s recent advice might come to mind:

Never take counsel from those who do not believe2

Nothing in this resource should be considered counsel. Religion, after all, is a complicated, messy matter. I don’t know what course you should take. I understand you may not trust me. That’s okay. I still hope you are willing to hear my story and give my thoughts some reflection. Investigate the claims I’ve made. Tell me if I made a mistake.

I sincerely hope you do not feel I am attacking you or your beliefs. They were my beliefs for decades. I felt confused, conflicted, angry, afraid, hurt, and betrayed during my own faith crisis. It is normal to feel intense emotions when learning that a treasured belief system might be flawed.


  1. Smith, J. (2013). “1 Nephi 8”. In The Book of Mormon (2013 Edition). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/8?lang=eng ↩︎

  2. Nelson, R. M. (2023, October). “Think Celestial!” General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/general-conference/2023/10/51nelson ↩︎


Critical Analysis

page hero, a reflective person in nature

You may have experienced moments of doubt or uncertainty. It’s important to recognize that these feelings are healthy. They can be a catalyst for deeper understanding and growth. Apostle J. Reuben Clark taught:

If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed.1

This perspective invites us to approach our beliefs with an open mind and a willingness to explore. If your faith is built on truth and solid reasoning, then questioning it should only strengthen your understanding. Conversely, if there are aspects that do not hold up under scrutiny, this exploration can lead you to pursue a more authentic and meaningful belief system. After all, the church often highlight’s Joseph Smith’s experience, in which his questions and doubts ultimately allowed him to explore and discover his own belief system.

So I encourage you to approach this journey with curiosity and compassion, for yourself and for others. Together, let us engage in the critical work of understanding the complexities of faith and belief.

The Importance of Critical Analysis

Engaging in a critical analysis of your faith does not mean you are abandoning it. Rather, it is an opportunity to deepen your understanding and clarify your beliefs. Questioning your faith can lead to personal growth and a more profound understanding of your beliefs. It can enable you to explore the reasons behind your faith and help you develop a more resilient spiritual identity. It allows you to explore the reasons behind your faith and helps you develop a more resilient spiritual identity.

Many church members have been promised a gift of discernment. This gift is understood to be a sign that God trusts someone to explore and find the truth for themselves. Exploring your doubts can lead you to a more authentic expression of your faith. It allows you to align your beliefs with your personal experiences and values.

Creating a Safe Space for Questions

It’s natural to feel apprehensive about questioning your faith, especially in a community that values certainty. However, you are not alone in this journey. Many have navigated similar paths and have found strength in their inquiries.

As you embark on an exploration of your faith, remember that asking questions is a sign of strength, not weakness. Embrace the opportunity to investigate and reflect on your beliefs. By doing so, you may discover a deeper, more resilient belief system that resonates with your true self.

Let your pursuit of truth guide you, knowing that genuine inquiry can only lead to greater understanding and authenticity. You are not alone on this journey, and it’s okay to seek answers that resonate with your heart and mind.


  1. J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1983, p. 24 ↩︎


Chapter 2

My Story

page hero, Landon at his temple wedding

Content Warning

This chapter contains sensitive topics such as faith crises, abuse, assault, human trafficking, and mental and physical health struggles. Please proceed with care and discretion, or you may skip to Culture.

If you had told me on October 1st that by Halloween, I would no longer be a Mormon, I would have been shocked. If you had shown my September self a video of my November self sipping a mug of black tea, I would have been horrified. Yet, in hindsight, my decision to step away from the faith of my upbringing was both obvious and inevitable.

Sharing this story has been a difficult and vulnerable process for me. I have seriously debated whether I should put these deeply personal experiences out into the world. But I’ve come to believe that my story deserves to be told. We are all human, after all, and perhaps by sharing my story, I can help others who are navigating their own experiences feel less alone.

Before I begin, I want to emphasize that I have an immense love and respect for my parents and everyone who helped care for my young self. They are incredible, supportive people who did everything in their power to give me a happy, privileged childhood. I owe them so much, and I will be forever grateful for their sacrifices and unconditional love.

I also hold many church leaders and counselors from my youth in high regard. The issues I discuss are systemic in nature and should not be used to condemn the sincere, well-intentioned individuals who served in those roles. They worked so hard to serve and uplift their community.

My purpose in sharing this story is not to tear anyone down, but to encourage a thoughtful, nuanced exploration of the complex interplay between faith, culture, and personal experience. I hope that by sharing my own journey, I can provide validation and understanding for those who find themselves in the midst of their own spiritual upheaval.

May we approach each other with empathy, respect, and kindness.


Subsections of My Story

Religious Upbringing

page hero, a wooden sign shaped like an arrow

I was a very religious child. Until it was deemed an offensive term, I was occasionally called “Molly Mormon” or “Peter Priesthood.” Interestingly, the nickname shifted from innocent to offensive because of the word “Mormon,” rather than the commentary on my personality, but that’s neither here nor there.

Primary

From as early as four years old, I was encouraged to share my testimony in Primary and Scout meetings. Despite not fully understanding what I was saying, I recited the familiar lines: “I know the church is true”, “I know Heavenly Father loves me,” and so on. In church meetings, we sang songs that emphasized my belonging to the church, my future role as a father, and the infallibility of prophets. Even before I knew what a mission was, I sang about my hopes of being called on one. I loved singing and dancing to the primary songs; I recently found a home video of my three-year-old self belting “Follow the Prophet” at the top of my lungs.

Landon as a young child in church clothes

After I turned seven, the adults in my life became concerned about my upcoming baptism. My parents worked to help me understand the importance of what I was doing. However, given the somewhat complex theological concepts involved, I’m not sure I truly comprehended the full weight of that decision.

I learned that I would be held accountable for my sins starting the day I turned eight. I remember secretly hoping I would die before by birthday so I would never have to worry about sinning. The night before my birthday, I laid awake, staring at the clock until midnight. I prayed fervently for God’s help to avoid committing any sins now that I would be accountable for them. The following day, I was baptized, and my awareness of all of my sins amplified.

Priesthood

When I turned 12, someone from church visited our home to explain that I would soon be ordained as a deacon. They provided me with a laminated map of the chapel and instructions on how to properly pass the sacrament. They told me about my expected duty to collect fast offerings, going door-to-door on the first Sunday of each month. Shortly after, I was officially ordained and began participating in these responsibilities.

I remember receiving praise for making the decision to receive the priesthood. However, I don’t recall ever making that decision – it simply seemed to be an expectation that came with growing up.

Several months later, we moved to a new ward just a few blocks away. In the first Sunday School lesson in the new ward, I learned more about the significance of the priesthood I had received. I was told that when I passed the sacrament or collected fast offerings, I was acting in God’s name, as if Jesus himself were performing those duties. The priesthood I received at 12 years old gave me more authority in the church than any woman could ever have.

In the new ward, I started receiving calls to meet with the bishop for interviews. I was always instructed to attend these meetings alone. I felt confused years later when the church began allowing parents to join. These interviews typically began with casual questions about my life – how was school going, what were my hobbies, and so on.

Landon as a teenager in church clothes

At my first worthiness interview at age 12, the bishop explained that I could now enter the temple to participate in baptisms for the dead, something I hadn’t heard about before. He said he needed to sign a recommend for me, but he first had to interview me. He began reading the series of standard interview questions from a huge binder.

Some of the questions, like my belief in God, Joseph Smith, and the current prophet, were ones I hadn’t fully figured out yet. But I could sense the “right” answers he was looking for, so I simply said what I thought he wanted to hear, not wanting to disappoint anyone by being the only young man who couldn’t go on the temple trip.

The bishop asked whether I obeyed the law of chastity. He asked if I understood what that meant, and when I responded that it meant staying pure (that was the only explanation I had heard on the matter), he told me not to worry – he could explain it to me. He explained that sometimes people take photos and videos of sexual activity and put it in a magazine or on the internet. At this point, my understanding of sexual activity was limited to the poster of things we weren’t allowed to do in the middle school hallway. He told me in a hushed voice that sometimes, people look at those photos and videos and do sexual activities with themselves.

He gave me a detailed description of the mechanics of masturbation, then informed me I was never to “abuse myself” in such a manner. He told me he knew I didn’t have any problem with chastity because I was such a good kid, and he winked. I felt embarrassed for my lack of understanding, but there seemed to be no way to stop the conversation, and he was supposed to be a trusted adult, so I just nodded along while he explained.

After that initial interview, I was understandably reluctant to meet with the bishop again. However, I continued to sit through these interviews every six months, not wanting to be the only one excluded from temple trips with my peers.

Scouting

It was abundantly clear in every young men’s meeting that God wanted me to be an Eagle Scout. I tried to be a good sport about scouting despite relentless teasing from fellow scouts and leaders. I hated Scouts with all my heart. But I put a smile on my face and went anyway since it was what God wanted, and I was told I’d never find a worthy wife if I wasn’t an Eagle Scout. I even got second-degree sunburns spending a week at a Scout Encampment because it was what Thomas Monson said to do. You can imagine my confusion when the church cut ties with the Boy Scouts.

Landon after earning the eagle scout award

I even went so far as to get second-degree sunburns during a week-long Scout Encampment, all because it was what then-prophet Thomas Monson had instructed us to do. You can imagine my confusion, then, when the church suddenly announced it was ending its longstanding relationship with the Boy Scouts of America program.

Looking back, I recognize the immense pressure I felt to conform to these rigid expectations, all in the name of pleasing God and securing my future. When I was young, impressionable, and disassociatively compliant, I perceived little choice but to participate fully, even when it meant enduring experiences I deeply disliked.

In hindsight, I wish my church had empowered me to pursue my own interests, rather than simply accepting its youth programs as divine commandments.

Mental Health

After I was baptized, I began to feel an overwhelming sense of shame, guilt, and anxiety every time I believed I sinned. Would Jesus have spilled some water from the sacrament tray? Would He have arrived at church a few minutes late? Would God Himself have laughed at an inappropriate joke? Yet, no one at church seemed to talk about feeling anxious or guilty. Instead, the constant refrain was about the guidance of the Holy Ghost, described as a divine conscience helping us discern right from wrong.

During my formative years, I became an expert at interpreting my own feelings of shame and guilt as direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. I wasn’t just ashamed of myself – God Himself was ashamed of me.

When I reflect on my teenage experiences in the church, the dominant emotion that surfaces is fear. I was absolutely terrified of making any misstep or failing to be a perfect, Christlike example. I walked the halls of middle school in a constant state of anxiety, worried that hearing one too many curse words or off-color jokes would somehow corrupt me. I didn’t dare allow myself to develop even the slightest crush, as the church’s interpretations of scriptures like Matthew 5:28 and Alma 39:3-5 had convinced me that attraction was akin to the sin of murder, especially before I was allowed to go on (group) dates at 16 years old. It wasn’t until my 20s that I realized the anxious voice in my head was my own inner critic, not the Holy Ghost protecting me from sin.

Compounding these issues, I am autistic and introverted. I felt deeply ashamed every time I was asked to speak in sacrament meetings, participate in missionary activities, go home teaching, or lead class discussions. My peers and church leaders would use scriptures to imply that my struggles with social interaction meant I was a disappointment to God, my church community, and my family. I was regularly asked how I could possibly serve a mission if I couldn’t talk to people. Despite the church’s teachings of universal welcome, it became clear that I was only truly accepted if I could perform in the ways they expected.

I saw myself as one of God’s “factory seconds”, not the outgoing, charismatic leader that the straight, white men in the church were supposed to be. I was convinced I was letting God down at every turn. Looking back, I was one of the most privileged members of the church. I fall in nearly every majority group, I was raised in a middle-class family, and I came from generations of church members. And still, I didn’t feel welcome. I cannot imagine the harm this pervasive culture of perfection, guilt, and shame does to people who aren’t as lucky as I was, and I feel a great deal of remorse for the work I did to perpetuate a culture of exclusion.

As I advanced through the priesthood offices with each passing birthday, praise and support from family and church leaders only reinforced the notion that I was doing what was expected of me. When I turned 14 and became a home teacher, the prospect of sitting on someone’s couch, trying to make conversation with 30-year-old parents of four, filled me with dread. But because God Himself had commanded it, and out of fear of disappointing Him, my parents, and my church leaders, I went.

Called to Serve

The church had assumed I wanted to be baptized and receive the priesthood, and they similarly assumed I wanted to serve a mission.

I had been taught since primary that failing to serve a mission would disappoint my family and community and likely result in being berated or shunned by other church members. I was told I wouldn’t find a wife if I didn’t serve a mission, and I knew the young women in the church were taught to only date returned (with honor) missionaries.

I attended mission preparation classes and activities, but when I turned 18, I still felt unprepared. I had spent my whole life in the church, yet I still found its doctrine so convoluted that I couldn’t make sense of it. I had prayed for years about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the truthfulness of the church, but I never felt anything. I determined God was holding off or I was not righteous enough to receive a response. If everyone around me said the church was true, it must be – I was likely the missing link.

At 17, I received a phone call from the ward secretary asking when I would like to meet with the bishop to start my mission paperwork. I was not given a chance to opt out of this meeting, and when I arrived, I learned my papers had already been started. I was given a list of tasks to complete along with deadlines, and told what date to set as my availability (July 1, to beat the summer rush and get home in time to start college in the fall).

My mission call arrived by mail about two weeks after I submitted my papers. My mom texted me about it while I was on a school trip; I’d have to wait a couple of days to open it. I couldn’t eat or sleep. I brushed off the feeling as excitement, but I was terrified. I had spent years hearing I was too shy to be a good missionary, and that if I didn’t improve my social skills, I’d get eaten alive. I had also heard my dad talk about how stressful, exhausting, and abusive missions can be. But I felt I had no other choice – people who didn’t serve missions became social pariahs, and I was already on shaky ground socially. I didn’t want to be “Landon, the one who didn’t serve a mission”. If I wanted to marry a worthy woman, earn respect in the church, and be a decent father, I had to serve a mission.

When I finally opened the call, I was shaking so much I could barely get the letter opener into the envelope. There was a giant map of the world spread over the kitchen counter with circles where people predicted I would go. My parents set up the video camera to record the moment, and we later streamed an announcement on Facebook. Even now, my heart rate elevates and I start to sweat when I recall that experience. It has been the center of many nightmares since. In the moment, it was an exciting day, but it’s saddening that it was so thoroughly soiled by the trauma of the rest of my mission.

My mission call was the same template letter many of my friends received. God had supposedly told a church leader where I should live for the next two years – I was assigned to the Honduras Tegucigalpa mission. After some research, I learned it was statistically one of the most dangerous places in the world. I reached out to someone from my neighborhood who had recently returned from the same mission, seeking advice.

Her email was friendly and helpful, but it was terrifying. She mentioned that Honduran people are some of the kindest and most generous in the world, which I will readily attest to. But she also gave me some alarming advice. She hinted that missionaries often didn’t have enough money to eat properly. She said the missionary apartments were usually cheap and insecure, so I shouldn’t bring any valuables in case of break-ins. And she mentioned I should bring my own medications, as the ones supplied in the mission apartments were often out-of-stock or expired.

Into Adulthood

Of course, it would be unfair to view my religious upbringing in a strictly negative light. While I believe the church ultimately caused me more harm than good, I am grateful for the positive aspects it did provide. Through scouting, I learned the value of developing a diverse skillset. I also gained important interpersonal skills, including the surprisingly useful ability to teach a class or give a speech without much advance preparation. Additionally, my experiences taught me to be cautious when communicating with young people, as it is all too easy for an impressionable mind to internalize something that can cause needless shame, guilt, and long-lasting pain.


Temple

page hero, Landon in front of the Idaho Falls Temple

Shortly after graduating high school, I received my endowment. I made a trip to the bookstore with my parents to buy garments. Prior to this, all I had heard about garments was that some church members wear a special type of underwear to remind them of covenants they make. When we arrived, a friendly older woman explained the different styles to me, suggesting I try two kinds before my mission to figure out which fabric I preferred. I was also measured for what was described as a “ceremonial packet”, which I was instructed not to open until I was in the temple. At the end of this rather unusual underwear shopping experience, I was surprised by the cost. I recalled Jesus becoming upset with the money changers in the temple, but I figured perhaps he had his reasons for selling sacred clothing.

I was one of the first people endowed in the newly renovated Idaho Falls temple, so the process was disorganized and confusing. My mom and grandparents went one way, while my dad and I headed to the men’s locker room. In a hushed tone, an older man directed me to change into my temple clothes—an all-white version of typical business casual attire—and to put on the garment underneath. He chuckled, made a comment about the ceremony being more modest than when he had gone through, then told me to meet him back at the curtain where he was standing.

The Initiatory

I was instructed that I would be “doing an initiatory”. This involved proceeding through a cycle of four small, curtained-off rooms. In the first, an older man in a white suit explained that I was to wear the special temple garment I had just put on underneath my clothes at all times. Then, in the subsequent rooms, the worker dripped oil and water on my head and blessed various body parts, reading from a laminated page stuck to the wall.

In the final room, the worker became emotional and told me I was receiving a new name, the purpose of which I would learn later in the ceremony. He indicated this name was divinely revealed and that I was not allowed to ever reveal it, but must always remember it. I later discovered these names are simply assigned based on the day of the month one goes through the temple, rather than being divinely revealed. I had naively thought my name, Hyrum, was special and unique to me. I have since learned that my name was determined by the date I attended the temple.

We were then led to a chapel-like waiting room, with an organ quietly playing pre-recorded hymns. I sat in silence with my parents, grandparents, and a couple of my neighbors who had come to witness the occasion.

The Endowment

Right on schedule, we were escorted alongside other temple patrons to a room arranged like a small auditorium. My dad whispered to me that the men sit on the right, and the women on the left. A temple worker asked me to take a seat in the front row, between my dad and grandpa. Just as the lights dimmed, my grandpa leaned over and whispered that I was about to witness more than I would be able to handle.

“Welcome to the temple,” a voice boomed through the overhead speakers. It solemnly warned that we were about to make sacred covenants that would influence our eternal judgment. The voice indicated that anyone who did not wish to proceed should stand at that time. I felt intimidated and scared, but with our family having made the trip to Idaho Falls, I did not want to be “that guy” who backed out. It felt akin to a childhood dare – the voice daring us not to be too “chicken” to make the covenants.

The endowment began with a video depicting the creation story from the first chapters of Genesis. After the main part of the video, we received various tokens and signs, which we were instructed to keep secret. Near the end of the ceremony, I was instructed to join a circle with my family while we chanted a prayer in unison. This was introduced to us as “the true order of prayer”, but I wondered why a loving God would not give all His children appropriate instructions for prayer.

We were then instructed to approach a large white veil with specially shaped holes, exchange tokens with a worker on the other side, and recite a long, sacred phrase. This was all done “for and in behalf of Landon Taylor, who is dead”, leaving me to wonder if my endowment was even valid, or if this was God’s punishment for some unremembered sin.

Eventually, I made it through the veil into the celestial room – an over-lit lobby with ornate, expensive furniture. My family was emotional, but I felt disoriented and confused. The experience did not live up to the amazing spiritual event so many had described.


Mission

page hero, Landon in a mototaxi

Content Warning

This section describes labor trafficking, imprisonment, abuse, and other serious and potentially triggering topics. Please take good care of yourself, especially if you have survived similar experiences. Discretion is advised.

I don’t have many clear memories of the months leading up to my mission departure. I recall feeling a mix of nerves and excitement, but I had no real idea of what to expect. People had plenty of advice to offer. I was going to a dangerous place, so I needed to strictly obey the rules in order for God to protect me. If I felt homesick or had mental health challenges, I was to work harder until I felt better. I would likely have companions I didn’t get along with, but if we ever fought, I should polish his shoes for him. And if I ever found myself in a dangerous situation, I should bear my testimony or sing a hymn instead of fighting back.

Packing for the two-year mission was a daunting task. I had to fit everything I’d need into two 40-pound bags. We went to a store that had pre-made missionary supply packages, where I selected the color of my suit and they took care of the rest. I spent weeks staring at the contents, wondering how I would manage living out of those two bags.

As my departure date drew closer, my anxiety grew. I had no context to be able to explain my emotions to others, so I simply told people I was excited. My parents were especially supportive, considering I had no idea how to express that I was terrified. I thought, as a young man with God on my side, I shouldn’t be scared. The closest thing I’d heard to my feelings was a “sense of impending doom”—a heart attack symptom I read in the scouting handbook.

I think I worried my mom once when she asked how I was feeling, since I mentioned sometimes getting this ominous sensation. She asked if I was sure I still wanted to go, and looking back, I should have taken that opportunity to consider delaying. However, we had already purchased all my supplies and booked my plane ticket. Plus, I didn’t want to be seen as “Landon, the kid who stayed home from his mission at the last second” – I’d been taught to assume those who backed out had committed some grave sin that rendered them unworthy of service.

The MTC

On the fourth of July, I left for the Guatemala Missionary Training Center. My memories of that day are hazy, partially due to being in a disassociative state, and partially because I hadn’t slept well in the days before and after my flights.

I flew out of the Pocatello airport early in the morning. I felt awful, as my entire family was in tears seeing me off. Inwardly, I wanted to be anywhere else, but I felt compelled to hold it together and act confident. After all, I was now a missionary with God on my side.

Landon pointing to his plane Landon pointing to his plane

When my plane arrived in Salt Lake, I had an 11-hour layover before my connecting flight to Los Angeles. I wandered the airport alone for about 8 of those hours. Just hours earlier, I had been set apart as a missionary. In church, I’d often heard that the Holy Spirit would help me know who to talk to, especially since my leaders had pointed out how shy I was. “Oh, but you’ll be fine. The Holy Ghost will help you talk to people,” tended to follow the relentless reminders I wasn’t outspoken enough for God.

Yet as I roamed the airport, I couldn’t muster the courage to proselytize. Even before reaching the Missionary Training Center, I felt like I had already failed at being a missionary. After giving up on talking to strangers, more missionaries arrived, and we exchanged our collective nervous energy. Realizing everyone else was nervous too made me feel slightly better about my own trepidation.

We eventually took our flights to Los Angeles and then to Guatemala City, arriving early the next morning. None of us had slept since the previous night.

Introductions

Upon clearing customs, we were met by a gentleman who instructed us to board his bus. As we rode to the MTC, we did some sleepy sightseeing out the windows, all of us increasingly intimidated by the fact that everything was in Spanish. It was sinking in that we wouldn’t understand much for a while.

Outside of the Guatemala MTC Outside of the Guatemala MTC

When the bus arrived at the MTC, we were each handed a folder with an itinerary and told to take our bags to a classroom. We were then ushered single-file into a cafeteria, where we were served breakfast – scrambled eggs with nacho cheese sauce.

The MTC president walked along the line, shaking each of our hands. I overheard him telling one missionary that he could tell a lot about our character just from a handshake. He also instructed us that it would be rude to leave behind even a single bite of food, regardless of our appetite.

The president then informed us that we were never to leave the MTC building, and that he took pride in his strict policy of not sending missionaries home. He said the only ones he ever sent back “shouldn’t have come on a mission in the first place.”

A secretary followed the president, collecting our passports to be kept somewhere safe until we were ready to depart for our assignments.

My stomach was in knots. I felt there was no going back. I was committed to this mission, and I had to serve the full two years. I hadn’t eaten since Salt Lake, and didn’t want to be rude, so I tried a few bites of breakfast. But my body immediately rejected the concept of food, and I ran to the restroom to vomit. I later learned several other missionaries were in a similar predicament. We conspired to hide our uneaten food under our napkins and try eating again at lunch.

At the garbage can, I was confronted by the MTC president, who asked why I was acting ungrateful for the food. I explained that I felt sick, and he responded that he had originally sensed I would be a good missionary when he shook my hand. He warned me not to let him down.

Worthiness, Rules, and Consequences

After breakfast, we were sent upstairs for individual worthiness interviews. This struck me as strange, since we had all recently been interviewed by our bishops and stake presidents back home. We were told the purpose was to ensure we were “the kind of missionary they wanted to see” and to assign our companions for the next six weeks.

One of the MTC president’s counselors interviewed me. He had a much gentler presence than the president and was extremely friendly. He spoke relatively limited English, but he definitely knew English better than I knew Spanish. He showed me a photo of his own son, who was currently serving a mission, and asked about how my family was doing, which helped put me a bit more at ease.

The counselor then showed me a laminated page of interview questions and suggested it would be easier if I read them and provided the answers. Most were fairly standard, except one that asked if I had ever committed a serious sin, regardless of whether I had repented. I understood this to be inquiring mainly about any past sexual activity, which seemed odd to me, given my understanding that repentance erases sin. However, I figured they had their reasons, so I simply gave a thumbs up in response. “I know,” the counselor said.

After the interviews, we reconvened in the cafeteria, where the MTC president and his wife formally introduced themselves and explained the rules. I remember a few that struck me as interesting:

  • Only one ice cream novelty was allowed per missionary at lunch and dinner.
  • We were to be strictly obedient to our schedules. If we needed an exception due to illness, we were to ask the nurse for permission to stay in bed. We were not permitted to move freely within the MTC.
  • Photos of the MTC interior were strictly forbidden.
  • The entire building (including the dorms) was monitored by high-resolution cameras.
  • We were not to walk around the dorms in our temple garments, as the president’s wife didn’t want to see young men in that state of undress on the security footage. Walking around in only a towel was preferred.

The president also informed us that the guards at the gate had been instructed not to allow us to leave the premises. We were not permitted to move freely through the halls. Our communication with family was limited to 30 minutes of monitored email per week – no phone calls or instant messaging allowed. We were told complaints should be brought to the Lord, not our families, and that any rule violations would result in “serious consequences,” which could mean a stern talking-to or even being sent home as “the missionary who got sent home for disobedience”.

Gate of the MTC Gate of the MTC

Mission Preparation

At one point, a few mission presidents and their wives visited to meet their incoming missionaries. They shared the tragic news that one of their sister missionaries had recently passed away in an accident. They told us God protects missionaries, but we still needed to be very careful. They suggested the young woman’s death may have been a “tender mercy”, since she was feeling homesick.

A couple weeks into our training, a missionary in my group began experiencing serious mental health challenges. He asked the MTC president to be sent home, but was told the president would pray about it. Days later, the president called him into his office and said the Lord had decided he should not return home. The missionary then tearfully confided to us that he was experiencing suicidal thoughts. He decided to claim his girlfriend at home was pregnant in order to force the MTC’s hand and get sent home, which finally allowed him to leave.

Later, during a devotional video featuring Jeffrey Holland (if I recall, it was the devotional in which he told us if we died, we were one of the lucky ones1), a missionary suddenly stood up and began shouting, “I have power and authority!” His companion and others tried to calm him, but the MTC presidency quickly ushered everyone to their rooms, and a nurse administered a tranquilizer to the disruptive missionary. We were later told he had been possessed by a devil, and that it was crucial to maintain our worthiness to have the Spirit with us. We never saw that missionary again, presumably having been sent home to face judgment from his local church community.

Toward the end of my time in the MTC, an employee from the area office gave a presentation on safety. It began with graphic instructions on how to avoid and respond to kidnapping. We were told harrowing stories about missionaries who were kidnapped and injured or killed, then assured that God would protect us. The advice was that if we were kidnapped, we should simply sing hymns or bear testimony, and pray until we were rescued.

The presenter also had a disturbing message for the young women. He said that in the event of rape, they would have to work out with God whether they could “live with themselves” after being assaulted. He shared that he had discussed this with his own wife. He said he would have to leave her if she was raped, as it is a violation the law of chastity, and men should not pursue unchaste women. We were told the first phone call in such a situation should be to the mission president, not the police.

The MTC president, who claimed to represent God, did nothing to correct or challenge this man’s disgusting opinion.

All the talks and lessons during the MTC conveyed a clear message to me: if I was not an absolutely perfect, obedient missionary, my safety would immediately be in jeopardy. Failure to strictly follow any rule or commandment could mean my parents would never see me again.

I wanted to reach out to my family for support, but we were told not to include any struggles in our emails, as all of our communication had to be faith-promoting. There were staff members in the computer lab at all times, reading messages over our shoulders. It struck me as strange that God would trust me to represent Him in the significant capacity of representing Him as a missionary, yet He did not trust me to email my own parents without supervision. Fearing the consequences of disobedience, I dared not write home about how awful I was feeling, lest it be seen as a lack of faith and put me in spiritual, emotional, or physical danger.

The Field

As our time at the Missionary Training Center came to an end, the secretary returned our passports. A few of us set off for Tegucigalpa, while others left for other destinations in Central America. At the customs checkpoint in the Tegucigalpa airport, we realized we didn’t have enough information to properly fill out the forms or answer questions – aside from the instruction to claim we’d only be in the country for six weeks. Thankfully, the customs agents were familiar with missionaries and helped us through the process.

After customs, we were greeted by two missionaries who introduced themselves as “the assistants”. I was still new to the mission hierarchy, so their greeting struck me as strange. They welcomed us with hugs, then immediately asked for our passports. We were told our documents would be kept in a locked safe at the mission office, accessible only to the mission president and his immigration secretary.

Meeting the mission president and his wife, I was struck by their immediate friendliness. They walked us upstairs in the airport to show us the view of Tegucigalpa before piling us into their cars and heading to the mission office. There, we underwent another round of interviews and had our photos taken with a map to send back home.

Landon next to a map Landon next to a map

That first night, we stayed in the “office home” – a large apartment where up to 30 missionaries would sleep during transfers. We were assigned the only room without air conditioning, on bunk beds stacked three high with bare, stained mattresses. The bathroom looked and smelled neglected, the walls dotted with the remains of unlucky pests. I didn’t sleep one bit, and the elders who lived in the home informed us they couldn’t afford to get us breakfast. “Don’t worry,” they said, “you’ll get used to being hungry.”

San Marcos de Colón

The next day, we were assigned companions and sent to our areas. I was sent to one of the most remote parts of the mission, so we had to break up the journey, spending a night in Choluteca. I still hadn’t had a chance to withdraw any cash, and my companion had run out of money, so we shared a bag of chips and some bags of water for dinner.

Early the following morning, we took the bus to San Marcos. I learned we were “opening” the area – the previous missionaries had been transferred, and my companion had never been there before. As the only elders within a two-hour radius, the responsibility felt daunting but exciting.

Finally finding an ATM, we withdrew some money and headed straight to a restaurant for lunch. But as I sat there, I was wracked with guilt, remembering a rule about not eating out. I couldn’t bring myself to finish the meal.

Landon on a hill overlooking San Marcos Landon on a hill overlooking San Marcos

Our district leader had visited the area before, so he showed us around town and introduced us to a few people. He informed us we’d be responsible for a small group (rather than a ward or branch), and that we’d be speaking in church and teaching all the classes each week. It was an overwhelming prospect, but over time I grew to love the area. The people were incredibly kind, and a member even offered to make us lunch daily for a small fee. Our budget was tight, but we made it work, skipping a few meals when we had to travel.

One night, during a division with our district leader, I witnessed the district leader’s companion blatantly disobeying mission rules. He was reading unapproved books and listening to music I knew was forbidden. When I tried to say something, I was dismissed as a flechón, or “straight-as-an-arrow”. I was terrified – if I didn’t stop this disobedience, I’d face divine retribution. I laid awake all night, jumping at every tiny sound, certain we were in grave danger.

We decided once to take a shortcut to visit someone in a remote part of our area. The trail involved a steep climb up a mountain. As we ascended, I started to panic, remembering the safety training that strictly prohibited us from attempting such climbs. I broke down in tears, shaking with fear, while my companion laughed and took photos of me. The thought of continuing up filled me with dread, but I couldn’t bear the idea of turning back and abandoning my companion. To this day, looking at those photos makes my stomach churn.

Landon climbing a rocky mountain Landon climbing a rocky mountain

Fuera JOH

A few months into my mission, I finally felt like I was starting to get the hang of speaking Spanish. My companion and I were talking to plenty of people, and it seemed like our efforts were paying off. Then the protests began.

One evening, as we walked home, I noticed what I thought was a parade passing by. But my companion started to panic, saying we needed to get home as fast as possible. We stopped by a pulpería (corner shop) to pick up dinner (instant ramen) and hunkered down in our apartment.

Soon, a local member called to check on us, explaining that this was not a parade—it was a political protest. Thankfully, this one remained relatively peaceful, but my companion had heard horror stories of missionaries getting trapped in their apartments for days or even weeks during unrest.

As the demonstration continued outside our window for a couple of hours, we took stock of our provisions. Two bags of spaghetti, some instant oats, refried beans, a bag of coffee (a gag gift), a hot plate that didn’t heat up enough to disinfect drinking water, and about 3 gallons of potable water. If we were going to be stuck inside, we certainly wouldn’t last long on this.

Food arranged on a table Food arranged on a table

Around 10 pm, the mission office called, instructing us to stay put until the president determined it was safe to venture out. That night and the entire next day, the power was out, and our phone was dying. In the morning, the protests seemed to have died down, but the mission president still felt it was too risky for us to leave.

I am so grateful for my companion, who reminded me that while it might not be safe in parts of the mission, we’d be even less safe cooped up at home. We decided to brave the streets, pooling our limited funds to stock up on staples at the grocery store. The walk back left me feeling dizzy and terrified - certain that God would punish us for our “disobedience.”

These lockdowns continued for weeks, stretching into the Christmas season. We rationed our dwindling food and water supplies, keeping just enough on hand to potentially evacuate to the mission office if needed. I spent many sleepless nights haunted by horror stories of kidnapped or murdered missionaries. If I died, would the mission president even bother calling my parents, or would he just send an email?

We did what we could to stay positive. We sang Christmas hymns, and I finally got bored enough to risk playing Monopoly instead of studying my scriptures or writing in my journal. I even took a blurry picture of our setup to remember the experience. I figured if God put us in this mess, He would tolerate some minor disobedience. We went to bed every night wondering if we would be able to make our bi-annual phone call home on Christmas.

Monopoly spread on a table Monopoly spread on a table

Finally, a few days before Christmas, we were granted permission to leave our apartment to make one of the two phone calls per year we were permitted. Sitting in the church building in Choluteca, I was wracked with anxiety, worried about going over the time limit and incurring God’s wrath. I tried to put on a brave face for my family, downplaying the difficulties we’d faced and focusing on our limited missionary success.

In hindsight, this experience was pivotal in shattering my misguided belief that my privilege and blessings were a sign of God’s favor. I came to see how my own entitlement and lack of understanding had blinded me to the realities faced by those with far less. I am horrified that I thought my privilege came because I won God’s favor, as if people who are born with less are somehow inherently less worthy than me. My mission had forced me to confront my own biases and shortcomings in the most painful way – but I have been privileged to be able to use it as a step toward true growth and empathy.

After our call, the family who hosted us treated us to a wonderful Christmas dinner. Sitting under their tree, listening to their stories and jokes, I was overwhelmed by their warmth and generosity. It was a stark contrast to the fear and isolation I’d experienced in our apartment. In that moment, I determined I aspired to have even a fraction of the humanity I’d experienced as a missionary.

Days later, I received news that I was being transferred to the heart of Tegucigalpa to serve as a district leader and train a new elder. As I packed up to leave, our group leader warned me that the city would eat me alive if I didn’t remain strictly obedient. The anxiety crept back in, but I couldn’t help but wonder if there was more to this mission than just obeying rules so I didn’t die.

Downtown Tegucigalpa

We had a transfer meeting-slash-Christmas party a few weeks into the new year, and I met my new companion. We hit it off immediately, which was a relief. Afterward, the zone leaders showed us to our new apartment – we were again opening an area after both previous missionaries were transferred away.

As we approached the apartment building, a tall concrete tower with a door right on the sidewalk, the zone leaders called the landlady. I soon understood why, as we were greeted by two massive, growling dogs at the top of a steep concrete stairwell. The landlady held their collars in one hand, beating them with a wooden dowel in the other. “They’ll get used to your smell in a few weeks,” she told us before inviting us up the stairs.

Large dogs on the landing Large dogs on the landing

When we entered our apartment, which was across the dogs’ concrete landing and up another flight of stairs, we found two moldy mattresses on a bare concrete floor, a hot plate melted to a plastic table, and a five-gallon bucket of murky brown water. The sink was ripped from the wall, and the walls were covered in crude drawings of scripture characters – likely left by previous missionaries trapped here during intense protests outside.

I was hesitant to request a new apartment, having been told the church operated on a tight budget. Our mission president would often recount his mother’s modest donations, asking “How are you using my mom’s money?” Not realizing the church actually had vast financial resources, I assumed this was God punishing me for my previous “disobedience”. I became obsessively anxious, determined to prove my worthiness through perfect obedience.

It took over a month of pleading to finally convince the mission office to let us move to a safer, more suitable apartment—one that cost an extra $50 per month. They repeatedly questioned why we couldn’t just stay put, despite my explanations about the safety concerns and the need for a proper living space.

This constant anxiety over our living situation and my compulsive obedience began taking a severe physical toll. I could barely eat, but I was terrified of wasting any food generously offered by members. I started keeping a bucket by my bed in case I needed to vomit in the night.

Bucket next to a bed Bucket next to a bed

One week, during our companionship review, my companion revealed that a ward member was furious with me, complaining to the bishop that I was an ungrateful missionary who refused her food. I was shocked – on paper, we were thriving, having baptized more people in two months than had been baptized in the past two years. But I was still not working hard enough to be welcome in the ward.

Sinking into depression, I bought a cheap notebook to serve as a private journal, pouring out my frustrations with God for placing me in this situation and my despair over feeling so alone and unwanted. I wrote about my suicidal thoughts and my hatred of being constantly hungry yet unable to eat. It was a vital outlet, allowing me to process the turmoil I couldn’t share with anyone else.

Then came a zone conference, where we were told that having love for our companions meant going through their personal belongings, including their journals and letters home. Panicked, I immediately discarded my notebook, erasing that precious outlet.

Bottling up my struggles once more, I decided the solution was simply to work harder. We were teaching good lessons and getting along well. Since I could barely eat, we always had enough money for food. But after a few weeks, a nagging pain in my toe began to worsen.

I’d heard horror stories of missionaries developing such severe infections that they nearly lost a foot. Concerned, I called the mission nurse, a young sister missionary. She diagnosed it over the phone as an ingrown toenail, instructing me to keep a strand of dental floss under the toenail and soak my foot in saltwater each night. If it didn’t improve in a month, she said, I should call her back.

But the pain only intensified, making it difficult to walk the 10 to 20 miles required of us per day. When I reached out again, the nurse dismissed my concerns, telling me to just keep working hard and trust that God would take care of it. I called every few days for a few weeks, and after months of pain, the mission office arranged for me to see a doctor.

The physician was appalled that I’d waited so long, warning me that I was lucky the infection hadn’t spread. That day, he removed a portion of my toenail and prescribed antibiotics and pain medication. Afterward, I was sent back to my area, expected to resume our 12-hour days of proselytizing as soon as possible.

I did my best to keep the wound clean, showering with a grocery bag taped around my foot and using diluted floor cleaner to soak it each night, since the mission supposedly couldn’t afford proper first aid supplies. When I asked a nurse for bandages and antiseptics, she scolded me for “wasting the Lord’s resources” and told me I needed to be more obedient for my toe to heal.

Landon’s foot in a grocery bag Landon’s foot in a grocery bag

A few weeks later, our zone received permission to take a special hike to a scenic waterfall. Though I worried about the strain on my foot, I didn’t want to hold my companion back from enjoying the trip. So I trudged along slippery rocks, my toe throbbing with each step.

Landon hiking next to a creek Landon hiking next to a creek

At one point, I asked my mission president for a small increase in our daily transit budget, to afford a mototaxi ride or two. He grew visibly upset, reminding me that enduring the pain would provide me with “faith-promoting stories” to share with my children after my mission. I was grateful my foot issue was relatively minor compared to what I’d seen other missionaries suffer. Still, I couldn’t shake the feeling that I was being punished, so I stopped pushing for proper medical care and financial resources.

When I returned home, my family doctor was shocked by the neglect I’d experienced. Within minutes, he resolved the lingering problem with my toe and instructed me to soak my foot in vinegar to clear the infection.

Elder Cook

Shortly after my toenail drama mostly subsided, we were informed that Elder Quentin Cook would be visiting our mission2. We prepared a special musical number, repeatedly reminded of the honor of singing for an apostle of God. Despite my insecurity about singing in public, I was relieved to spend a few hours rehearsing in the air-conditioned chapel rather than walking in the scorching sun. I even laughed along as I was teased for holding up rehearsal by limping slowly off the stand.

Cook’s arrival, accompanied by his wife, Mary (introduced only as “Elder Cook’s Wife”), as well as Gerrit and Susan Gong, was a major event. Our leaders emphasized how privileged we were to be in the presence of an apostle. As we lined up outside the building to shake his hand, I couldn’t help but chuckle at the thought of meeting a revered church leader while wearing off-brand Crocs to keep my toe dry.

Yet, when I took my seat, I felt a pang of shame, listening to the others rave about the incredible spiritual experience of shaking an apostle’s hand. I didn’t feel any different. In fact, I found myself more drawn to the genuine kindness and interest shown by Gerrit and Susan Gong.

I was puzzled by the security detail accompanying the visitors and the strict protocols around the first floor being reserved solely for Elder Cook. Local members explained the extensive measures taken to secure the building before his arrival. As I reflected on this, I couldn’t reconcile the need for such elaborate protection with the teachings we’d received about missionaries being divinely shielded on the Lord’s errand. After all, my fellow missionaries faced assaults, robberies, and other dangers daily in our mission.

It seemed to me that the church’s leaders seemed to have far less faith in their own physical safety than in the spiritual protection they claimed would cover the missionary workforce. This deeply saddened me, as I had been taught that we were fulfilling an apostolic calling, serving as a direct extension of these revered figures.

During the meeting, the talks were generally uplifting, but not groundbreaking. Gerrit and Susan Gong’s messages struck me as particularly “trauma-informed,” sensitive to the struggles we were facing. Mary Cook’s talk, with a strong emphasis on music, also resonated more than Elder Cook’s presentation.

Chapel in Tegucigalpa Chapel in Tegucigalpa

Elder Cook began by commenting on the insights he gleaned about each missionary from our handshakes, claiming he could peer into our very souls. He then shared that his own mission president had recently passed away, lamenting that he couldn’t attend the funeral, as his former companion, Jeffrey Holland, had.

Cook suggested the extensive missionary rules existed because “every time a missionary somewhere in the world does something stupid, we have to add a new one.” I couldn’t help but wonder how that applied to rules like the strict limits on our contact with family. His general advice included warnings against mocking local cultures – advice that felt somewhat patronizing, as most of us had developed a deep love and respect for the communities we served in. His closing testimony had a rehearsed quality, as he hinted at having had spiritual experiences he wouldn’t share, lest we grow envious of him.

Afterward, as we returned to our areas to continue our work, I found myself troubled. The three speakers with less “spiritual authority” had delivered messages that felt far more meaningful and aligned with our struggles. I wondered if perhaps God’s voice had been clearer through them than the apostle himself. But as a missionary, I quickly pushed those doubts aside, unwilling to question the divine calling of the Brethren.

It’s only now, looking back, that I recognize the profound dissonance between the church’s lofty rhetoric about missionary protection and the realities we faced daily - not to mention the stark contrast between the lavish lifestyle afforded leaders and the vulnerabilities endured by the rank-and-file. That experience marked an early crack in the foundation of my unquestioning faith.

Valle de Ángeles

When the mission president called to tell me I was being transferred to serve as a zone leader in an area called Cerro Grande, I had mixed feelings. It was a suburb of Valle de Ángeles, a popular tourist destination, and my new companion immediately warned me that it would be a challenging area.

He bluntly explained that the sprawling area meant that we’d have to walk everywhere and carefully ration our funds to eat. He also cautioned that the wealthy residents in our area were generally unreceptive to missionaries. This was a stark contrast to my previous, more successful area.

Looking back, I now understand that my struggles in this new area were likely exacerbated by my undiagnosed autism and subtle cultural differences and expectations. My companion regularly pointed out my confusing mannerisms, and our relationship quickly became strained and even abusive. He would walk ahead of me at a pace I couldn’t match, so I remember spending long, dark walks alone, occasionally hearing barking dogs, groups of teenagers, or the growl of a mototaxi. I was in a state of constant anxiety, praying fervently to make it home alive.

Eventually, we convinced the mission president to transfer us to Valle de Ángeles proper, hoping for better results. But the challenges in our relationship only mounted. One P-day, my companion secretly planned a trip to the nearby waterfall with some local young women—a blatant violation of the rules. When I confronted him about it, he left me behind to hike alone while he swam. I was furious, but also terrified of the consequences I might face for reporting his misconduct.

missionary and friend under a waterfall missionary and friend under a waterfall

Sure enough, when I did report him, the fallout was severe. My companion was called to a disciplinary meeting with the mission president in Tegucigalpa. Afterward, we couldn’t even afford the bus fare back home; the mission office lent us exactly the amount we would need. We asked our neighbors if they could help with dinner. I was so ashamed.

The next day, we received our bi-weekly funds, and my companion spent his entire amount on a volleyball, leaving us to scrape by on even less than usual. I was torn between my desire to be the perfect missionary and the reality of our circumstances. I agreed to share my funds with him, but stressed that we would not be able afford breakfast or single-serve bags of water for two weeks.

bag of water bag of water

The days that followed were tense. My companion gave me the silent treatment, only speaking when absolutely necessary. I tried apologizing, but he refused to engage. When our weekly planning session arrived, I felt I had to address the elephant in the room. I apologized again and asked if I could retract my letter to the mission president.

My companion broke down in tears. He began yelling and threatening me, warning me never to “snitch” again. In hindsight, I realize he was likely struggling with his own mental health issues – he mentioned problems with his girlfriend back home and admitted to feeling anxious and depressed. My companion opened up to me, mentioning issues with his girlfriend back home and struggling with anxiety and depression. At one point, he broke down in tears, admitting he was having suicidal thoughts. I was terrified for his safety, but I had no idea how to properly support him. The mission handbook discouraged us from getting too personal, so I felt I should let the mission office handle it.

They arranged for a church-employed psychologist to call him every few weeks, and the mission president offered some him some misguided advice. He told my companion that his mental health struggles were a result of sin, citing a scripture in Moroni 10 about despair coming from iniquity. I wish I had been better equipped to empathize and advocate for my companion’s wellbeing.

I wish I had known how to empathize and advocate for him. But the mission handbook discouraged getting too personal with our companions, so I felt I should let the mission office handle it. I prayed, asking for permission to be less obedient to support him, but I never felt a response.

Instead, I tried to serve him more, cooking us breakfast a few times a week. But the rest of the transfer was shrouded in a strange, melancholy haze. I was so worried about him hurting himself, yet powerless to truly help. When he was finally transferred to another area, I was anxious about his safety until I saw him near the end of his mission.

My next companion made it clear he had no interest in being a diligent missionary. I panicked, convinced that any disobedience would lead to more problems. So I tried to bargain with him, agreeing to let him call the shots if we could just get one baptism. After one person was baptized, we only left the house to visit my companion’s friends or eat. Tensions built between us, as disobedience caused me to fear for my life.

Our relationship deteriorated further, culminating in a heated argument one night. Based on the photos on this page, you can likely gather I’m not going to win a fistfight. My companion punched my stomach, and I ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and vomited. I stayed in the bathroom until I was confident he would be sleeping.

Afterward, I spent the night sitting at our folding table, crying and journaling about the anguish of wanting to do what’s right but feeling powerless to do so. I contemplated suicide, but I was stopped by the thought of my parents hearing about my suicide from my mission president.

At the next transfer, I was mercifully paired with a missionary I had met on my very first day. He was kind and hardworking, and we immediately clicked. This transfer was a breath of fresh air from the darkness I was living in. We repaired relationships with members, had enough money to eat properly, and I even kept food down. To this day, he is the only person I’ve stayed in touch with after my mission, and he has been so supportive during my faith transition.

For the sake of lightening the mood, I still laugh when I remember someone we met during this transfer. She was about 40 years old and very kind. She was a housekeeper for someone we had recently baptized, and she wanted to meet with us and learn about the church. It came to our attention over the next few weeks that she was very much in love with my companion. After my companion left, I learned that she was only baptized because she thought he would want to date her if she was a church member. She asked us if we thought she was crazy to think a 20-year-old missionary would want to go out with a 40-year-old married woman.

My next companion and I also got along very well. He was energetic, positive, and just happy to be alive. I learned from this companion how to accept life as it comes. I think we were both happy to have a companion who was interested in focusing on missionary work. Later in my mission, I went on divisions with this companion. He told me he had planned a visit to the hospital for that day, since we were good friends and he could use some support. He told me he had lost a family member to cancer before coming on his mission. He was terrified that he had some of the symptoms of cancer, but the appointment thankfully ended with good news. I tried to be supportive, but I had become so focused on being a perfect missionary that I lost sight of things that actually mattered. I regret feeling the need to focus more on missionary work than being there for a friend.

During our transfer together, we worked hard and kept up the relationships we had built with church members and investigators. We did everything we could to inspire other missionaries as zone leaders. I remember around holidays, people would feed us at every appointment, and I developed the horrible skill of eating as much as I could during appointments, then immediately vomiting after we left their house. Overall, though, life seemed pretty good.

The Office

After five transfers in Valle de Ángeles, the mission president called and asked if I would be an assistant. I was honored that he—or rather, God—had chosen me for this leadership role. During four of my final five transfers, we were to go on divisions five days a week, swapping companions and training missionaries across the mission.

While I appreciated the opportunity to gain a broader perspective, I found the constant travel and lack of continuity deeply unsatisfying. I missed the chance to really get to know people in one area. It felt like we were mass-producing missionary training, and every day blended together. The depression I had been battling crept back in.

Most of my time in the office was either monotonous or traumatic. I remember sitting in meetings with the mission president, where we were instructed to rely on divine revelation to determine transfers and companionships. But I never felt anything remotely spiritual about the process. Instead, I watched as missionaries I knew to be disobedient were placed in leadership roles, questioning the president’s discernment.

Landon sitting in Parque Obrero overlooking Tegucigalpa Landon sitting in Parque Obrero overlooking Tegucigalpa

The logistical work of organizing the mission was overwhelming. I felt like we were playing chess with the missionaries’ lives, making decisions that often had painful consequences for them. I was particularly disturbed when the mission president suggested pairing two “disobedient” elders together, hoping they would mess up in a big enough way to justify sending them both home.

At night, we were responsible for calling the zone leaders to collect statistics. These conversations were often harrowing, as I heard stories of robberies, assaults, and other dangers the missionaries were facing. I was even tasked with helping missionaries through mental health crises, as the mission president didn’t have time. The pressure to talk distressed missionaries down while dealing with my own feelings of inadequacy was overwhelming.

My stomach problems worsened to the point that I could hardly eat for months, which I saw as a financial blessing since it meant we spent less on food. There were times we barely had enough money for transportation, waiting for reimbursements after long trips across the mission.

One day, I was ecstatic to return to Valle de Ángeles on divisions. I visited one of the most devout people I had helped baptize. But when she told me she was leaving the church due to hurt inflicted by ward members, I was devastated. I couldn’t process the emotions, and when I got back to the apartment and saw the sink full of dishes, I had a breakdown. I started throwing the dishes out the window, then went to hide in the storage room, sobbing.

The mission president called to offer reassurance, telling me to keep working hard until it was time to come home. But I felt so guilty and ashamed, unable to reconcile my desire to serve faithfully with the growing turmoil within me. I sobbed for a couple of hours and felt guilty when I went to bed late.

The Return Home

As the time came for me to return home, I was an anxious mess. I could hardly eat during that final week, and I still feel guilty about vomiting the previous night, after one of the kindest families I’ve ever met offered us dinner. I was so dizzy on the bus ride to the airport that I had to sit on the floor, cross-legged, just to keep from fainting.

Landon looking back Landon looking back

Throughout it all, I wrestled with feelings of inadequacy. Had I truly served an adequate mission? I felt guilty, convinced that I hadn’t worked hard enough, that I had let God down by not being the perfect missionary I was supposed to be. I agonized over all the people I hadn’t talked to, the potential converts I had failed to baptize.

When I finally arrived home, my stake president immediately interviewed and released me from my missionary service. As I walked home, removing my sacred black-and-white name badge, I felt utterly lost. Every minute of the past two years had been dictated, and now I was left with only the vague instructions to attend church and start looking for a wife.

In a moment of defiant freedom, I retreated to my bedroom and began working on the talk I was expected to give on Sunday. I didn’t even succumb to the temptation of pornography, despite having unsupervised access to a computer. It was as if I was asserting my independence, reclaiming a sense of self that had been suppressed for so long.

Yet underneath that newfound liberty, I was deeply unsettled. My mission had been a tumultuous, traumatic experience, and I had no idea how to process it all. The structure and routine that had defined my life for two years was gone, leaving me unmoored and uncertain about the future. The transition back to “normal” life would be a difficult one, as I grappled with the lingering effects of my time as a missionary.


Adulthood

page hero, Landon at his wedding

After my mission, I was woefully unprepared to navigate the trauma and mental health challenges I was facing. I had only a rudimentary understanding of these issues from a high school health class. So I failed to recognize many of my own behaviors as trauma responses. I didn’t know it was abnormal to feel panicked on dates, or to struggle to converse about anything other than the church. I simply chalked it up to adjusting back to civilian life.

A Fast Marriage

When I returned home, I attended the singles ward for just over a year before getting married. I never felt truly welcome there, but I assumed that was normal since I had always struggled to fit in at church. I was disappointed when attempts to make friends or date within the ward fell flat. It was taboo to share mission stories, but that’s all I could think about. The unspoken expectation seemed to be a casual, surface-level investment in the church – too much, and you were seen as prudish, but too little, and you were unworthy.

My wife and I met and started dating very quickly after our first semester at Utah State University. By Christmas, we were “official”, and by the next summer, we were engaged. I still laugh at how many family members told us we were rushing, versus those who thought we were dragging our heels. We were married about a year after our first date, around 18 months after we first met.

Our wedding, which took place at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, was a confusing and somewhat traumatic experience. We were sealed in the Logan temple early in the morning, and we were surprised to learn that our only role was to say “yes” when prompted, rather than the traditional “I do”. Especially because we had no say over our vows, this left us feeling disconnected from our own marriage ceremony.

In the years that followed, I took on a caretaker role for a family member facing ongoing medical crises. During their many priesthood blessings, I felt compelled to make grand, faith-promoting promises, convinced that God would heal them. But each time a blessing went unfulfilled, I was left feeling betrayed and questioning my own worthiness. Thankfully, they eventually found a successful medication, and their own decision to leave the church coincided with a significant improvement in their overall health.

My wife and I also had to scale back our church involvement for a time, due to both time constraints and health limitations. One particularly concerning incident occurred when the primary presidency visited our home, where we were both sick, and their first question was about how they could get us back to work in our teaching calling.

A Career in Logic

As I began researching formal verification, my fascination with the ability to model complex systems and make provable claims about their functionality grew. I started wondering if these logical principles could be applied to religion as well. Surely, I thought, if God and His gospel were perfect, the doctrine would be logically sound.

On a plane ride to a conference, my advisor asked how missionaries determine their assignments. As I tried to explain the belief in apostles speaking with God, my brain ground to a halt. I remembered meeting Elder Cook and not feeling anything divine. I recalled the traumatic experiences of my mission, and suddenly I wasn’t so certain that God had truly been in charge.

My advisor was respectful of my beliefs, noting that it was an interesting perspective for someone who hadn’t grown up in a religious context. This conversation would prove to be a pivotal moment, setting me on a path of questioning and deconstruction that would forever change my relationship with the faith I had once so fervently believed in.


Faith Crisis

page hero, a person walking out of a door

For months, my wife and I each quietly grappled with the unsettling realization that the church we revered might not be all it claimed to be. Yet, we dared not voice these doubts aloud, fearful of the upheaval that would surely follow.

The Shelf Breaks

During times of spiritual crisis, people often speak of a metaphorical “shelf” – a place where one stores the troubling questions and inconsistencies that challenge their beliefs, hoping to address them another day. But as the weight of these doubts grew heavier, my own shelf finally buckled under the strain.

It happened during a research conference in Iowa, where I found myself surrounded by a diverse group of brilliant, happy individuals from all walks of life. As I conversed with these kindred spirits, I was struck by the genuine contentment they exuded—a stark contrast to the unease that had long plagued my own faith.

Landon in front of a giant gnome in Iowa Landon in front of a giant gnome in Iowa

Watching them freely enjoy simple pleasures I had been taught to shun, I could no longer reconcile the notion of a loving God bestowing truth upon a chosen few, while condemning the rest of humanity to spiritual darkness. In that moment, the foundations of my beliefs began to crumble, and I found myself adrift in a sea of uncertainty.

Confronting the Abyss

I could no longer ignore the gaping chasm that had opened beneath my feet. I had to make a choice: either firmly commit to the church’s teachings, or walk away entirely. Trembling, I poured out my heart in prayer, begging for divine guidance.

But the peace and comfort I felt in that moment was not the affirmation I had been conditioned to expect. Instead, it was a profound sense of release, as if a great weight had been lifted from my shoulders. In that instant, I realized that the feelings I had attributed to God’s presence were, in fact, of my own making—a cruel illusion that had kept me tethered to an institution that had caused me, and countless others, immense anguish.

A Liberating Transition

As I grappled with the realization that the church’s claims of divine truth were nothing more than an elaborate illusion, I found myself faced with a stark choice: either cling desperately to the beliefs that had once provided such comfort and certainty, or embark on a perilous journey into the unknown.

In the end, the decision was not as difficult as I had feared. I could no longer in good conscience support an organization that had betrayed my trust and inflicted such deep, lasting wounds. The church’s teachings and actions had become a source of profound discomfort, and I refused to continue bearing the burden of their transgressions.

The moment I severed my ties with the church, I felt a profound sense of liberation wash over me. Gone were the shackles of guilt, shame, and the constant striving for an elusive perfection. In their place, I discovered a newfound joy and authenticity that had long been stifled.

I savored the simple pleasures I had once been taught to shun—the refreshing taste of tea, the energizing kick of coffee, and the freedom to keep 100% of the fruits of my own labor. These small acts of defiance against the church’s dictates felt like acts of rebellion, each one a joyful reclamation of my autonomy.

To my immense relief and gratitude, my wife and I decided to leave the church at the same time. Together, we embarked on a transformative journey, shedding the weight of dogma and expectation that had long burdened our lives. Sunday mornings, once filled with the dread of triggering and uninspiring church meetings, became a time of respite and rejuvenation. We reveled in the freedom to spend our time as we saw fit, to be generous and kind without the constraints of institutional obligations.

But perhaps the most profound change was the sense of finally being “allowed” to be a good person. Without the church’s influence, I was free to support causes I truly believed in, to help others directly rather than funneling my resources into a multi-billion-dollar organization’s coffers.

My relationships blossomed as I shed the anxiety and shame that had long plagued me. Friendships became more meaningful, and I felt a deep sense of connection with people who had also chosen to forge their own paths.

One of the letters I am most proud to have received is the confirmation of my resignation from the church. To me, it represents the culmination of months of agonizing self-reflection and the courage to confront the harsh realities that had been hidden from me for so long.

Letter confirming resignation from LDS church Letter confirming resignation from LDS church

This document is not merely a piece of paper, but a symbol of my transformation—a testament to the hard work and emotional turmoil that led me to this pivotal moment. It gives me hope for the person I am becoming, unencumbered by the shackles of an institution that has caused me, and countless others, immense harm.

While I believe the church’s claims of membership and ordinances hold no true significance, I am grateful to have formally disassociated myself from an organization that has betrayed my trust and continues to inflict trauma upon millions. This letter is a reminder that I have the power to shape my own destiny, to live a life guided by my own moral compass, and to embrace the boundless possibilities that await me beyond the confines of my former faith.


After the Church

page hero, sunrise

A year after severing my ties with the church, I find myself in a state of profound contentment—a far cry from the trepidation and anxiety that had once gripped me. It is as if a great weight has been lifted from my shoulders, allowing me to breathe freely and embrace the boundless possibilities that lay before me.

In the initial months after my departure, I still grappled with the deeply ingrained beliefs and fears that had been instilled in me from a young age. The specter of divine retribution loomed large, and I had internalized an expectation that God would smite me for my transgressions. But as the days turned into weeks, and the weeks into months, I gradually shed the mantle of guilt and shame that had long burdened my existence.

Reclaiming Financial Freedom

One of the most liberating aspects of our newfound independence has been the ability to direct our financial resources in a manner that aligns with our own values and priorities. For years, we had dutifully paid our tithing, terrified of the consequences that might befall us should we fail to “render unto God” what was rightfully His.

Yet, in the year since we stopped this practice, our financial situation has only improved. While life still presents its natural ebbs and flows, we have generally experienced good fortune, free to use our hard-earned money to support the people and causes that truly matter to us, rather than funding the church’s vast commercial ventures.

Embracing Physical and Emotional Well-Being

The church’s rigid dietary restrictions had long been a source of frustration and confusion. But now, armed with the guidance of medical professionals and academic research, we have embraced the health benefits of coffee and tea, savoring the low-calorie energy they provide and enjoying the positive impacts on our overall well-being.

Similarly, the patriarchal dynamics that had once defined our marriage have given way to a partnership of true equality. We no longer feel the need to adhere to the church’s antiquated and oppressive gender roles, freeing us to forge our own path as equal, autonomous individuals.

Cultivating Authentic Connections

Perhaps most significantly, I have found the courage to fully embrace my relationships, unencumbered by the church’s divisive policies and hidden agendas. I can now love my friends for who they are, without the burden of secretly trying to convert them or make them conform to the church’s narrow definition of worthiness.

This newfound authenticity has breathed new life into my interpersonal connections, allowing me to forge deeper, more meaningful bonds with those who truly matter. And while the transition has not been without its challenges—particularly in navigating the reactions of some of our friends and family members—the relationships that have endured have only grown stronger, forged in the crucible of our shared journey.

A Newfound Sense of Purpose

As I have shed the shackles of my former faith, I have discovered a profound sense of purpose and meaning that transcends the rigid dogma I once clung to. My newfound belief system, best described as optimistic nihilism, embraces the inherent randomness and meaninglessness of the universe, while finding solace in the notion that it is this very lack of divine oversight that imbues our lives with true value and significance.

I no longer strive to please an omniscient, judgmental, fickle deity, but rather to be a force for good in my community, driven by my own moral compass, empathy, and compassion. Each day, I work to become a more authentic, kind, and generous version of myself, savoring the preciousness of my one life.

In the end, my experience is a testament to the transformative power of embracing truth, even in the face of personal and social upheaval. For in doing so, I have discovered a level of joy, peace, and fulfillment that I never could have imagined during my time within the church. This, to me, is the most powerful evidence against the validity of its teachings—a testimony of the human spirit’s capacity to thrive when freed from the shackles of dogma and fear.


Chapter 3

Culture

page hero, group of people looking at the sunrise

Culture among church members can have a dual nature: it offers a strong sense of community and belonging, but it can also impose significant pressures and expectations. This chapter explores the intricate dynamics of this culture, highlighting the ways in which it fosters connection and support, while also examining the constraints it places on expression and belief. By understanding these cultural nuances, we can better appreciate the complexities faced by those navigating their faith journey.

At its core, this culture is deeply intertwined with religious beliefs and practices, creating a unique environment where faith and culture are often indistinguishable. For many, being a part of this community provides a profound sense of identity and purpose, offering support and connection in a world that can often feel isolating. However, this same culture can also create challenges for individuals who find themselves questioning their beliefs or seeking to forge their own paths.

One of the most interesting aspects of the church’s culture is its emphasis on testimony, which serves as a cornerstone of both faith and community identity. Members are encouraged to share their personal testimonies, reinforcing a collective belief system that binds the community together. This practice fosters a sense of belonging and shared purpose, but it can also create pressure to conform to specific beliefs and experiences. I explore the concept of testimony, examining how it shapes individual identities and the expectations that come with it.

This pressure extends beyond testimony, manifesting in aspects of daily life. From societal norms surrounding family life to expectations of personal conduct, members often feel compelled to adhere to an idealized version of what it means to be a faithful Mormon. This pursuit of perfection can lead to feelings of inadequacy and guilt, particularly for those who struggle to meet these standards. In the section on pressure, I identify how these expectations can impact mental health and personal well-being.

Similarly, the church often employs controlling mechanisms to maintain adherence to its beliefs and practices. This can include both formal structures, such as church leadership, and informal social dynamics that discourage dissent. I explore how these dynamics can stifle individual expression and create an environment where questioning is often met with resistance.

The pursuit of perfection influences everything in the church, from personal aspirations to community expectations. I analyze the psychological toll of striving for an unattainable ideal and how this impacts members’ self-worth and mental health.

While the church promotes values of integrity and truthfulness, there can be a reluctance to discuss doubts or problems openly. In the section on honesty, I examine the tension between the desire for authenticity and the fear of judgment. I further explore dishonesty at high levels in the church and advocate for a culture of transparency.

I later explore how the community views those outside the faith and the implications of this perspective on relationships and personal identity. The dichotomy between in-group solidarity and out-group skepticism can complicate interactions with non-Mormons and create a sense of cultural insularity.

Finally, I explore the theme of identity, examining how being part of the Mormon community shapes personal and cultural identity. For many, their faith is a central aspect of who they are, but as individuals navigate their faith journeys, they may find themselves redefining their identities in profound ways.


Subsections of Culture

Testimony

page hero, a microphone on a stage

At less than five years old, I was instructed to stand in front of my primary class and say that I knew the church was true. This experience was repeated for years. Sometimes I wonder if I really knew what I was talking about. I wondered if kids had some kind of spiritual gift that helped them know the truth.

One memory affirms that I did not actually understand what I was asked to testify of. When I was six, my family moved to a new ward. I remember feeling confused in a primary class. My old primary teachers always used to say, “I know that this church is the only true church.” So when we went to a new building (a new church, as I remember understanding it), I was distraught to hear my new primary teacher say, “I know that this church is the only true church.” We were going to a new church, I thought, and both cannot possibly be true.

I once told this story at a youth activity and got a few laughs. It’s always felt like a cute anecdote about a confused kid. But I’ve realized its significance: when I was asked to “bury” my testimony in primary, I was given a script to repeat. I was taught to say what I believed until I finally actually believed it. The church’s claims were required to be my ground truth for years.

Shared Identity

As a teenager, I was still conflicted. My friends in seminary would talk about having amazing spiritual experiences. People shared how they felt like God was speaking to them when they read the Book of Mormon. I never had these experiences, but I felt like I had to share them to fit in. So when a seminary teacher asked us to share our experience with the Book of Mormon with a neighbor, I made one up. When I was asked to speak in church, I concluded my talk with a template that I still have saved on an old hard drive:

I know with all my heart that the church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that he translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God. I know the church is led by a prophet today. I know the scriptures are true. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

It was made clear to me that to be accepted in the church, you had to have a testimony, and you had to repeat it often. I remember hearing the parable of the ten virgins and being chastised in Sunday School because I wouldn’t stand up in testimony meetings. I was told that when Jesus came, I had better have enough testimony (or oil in my extended-metaphorical lamp).

When I was a missionary, I was told to testify regularly. Even if I was doubting something, I must have repeated thousands of times the same testimony over and over. In the MTC, I practiced using tone and inflection to sound sincere when I bore a testimony. I spent hours practicing “Yo se que la iglesia es la unica iglesia verdadera” (I know that the church is the only true church). Throughout my mission, I learned from mission companions and the mission president that changing my voice’s tone made a testimony sound more convincing. I practically mastered the whispery “testimony voice” that so many of us are familiar with.

Having a testimony to share gave me a sense of shared identity. I was part of an “in-group” who could talk about spiritual experiences and bear testimony of them. This shared identity can be valuable; it was nice to believe I had support from my church community if I needed help.

Pressure to Testify

However, this shared community created a sense of constant pressure. If I were to stand in front of a congregation and say “I’m not sure whether or not the church is true”, there would likely have been people whispering to each other in the pews, and I would probably have subtly become less welcome in the community. I was chastised as a teenager because I didn’t go up to the microphone during testimony meetings.

I was good at giving a fake testimony, but I wanted to have the spiritual experiences other people kept talking about. I prayed several times a day on my mission to feel that the church was true. I prayed for some sort of confirmation that the Book of Mormon was true or that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I occasionally felt relaxed and peaceful, and I thought that might be good enough. I thought that if so many other people had impactful, significant spiritual experiences and could testify of truth, so could I. I lied through my teeth and it worked. People could not tell I was lying, or they at least never called me out for it. Mission companions would say they felt the spirit when I testified about the church. I am now deeply remorseful that many people were (at least partially) converted and baptized on the basis of my phony testimony.

Eventually, I could not tell what I believed and did not believe anymore. Memorizing and repeating my testimony dozens of times every day for two years eroded at any sense I had of what I really believed. When I got back from my mission, I knew all the right lines to say. I was congratulated for giving an impressive, eloquent talk (which was a translation of a talk I gave in the last week of my mission). Even though it felt gimmicky and repetitious to me, people said they felt the spirit when I shared my testimony in Spanish at the close of the talk.

Eventually, I was asked to give a talk in sacrament meeting themed “Why I believe”. I started writing the talk by scribbling “What do I believe” on the top of a ledger notebook. I was stumped. I wanted to say I believed the church was true, but I’d never really received a spiritual confirmation of it. So after spending several hours trying to piece together any scraps of testimony I actually had into a talk, I ended up talking about believing that it is valuable to believe in a chance to correct mistakes. I talked about how the Jesus story was useful, and how we should love all of God’s children. I somehow managed to squeeze out a 10-minute talk. Had I not felt pressure to testify of what everyone expected, I could have given a much more meaningful talk, but I couldn’t bring myself to show any doubt in front of my community.

My New Testimony

After my talk, I started seriously researching the church’s truth claims. For the first time in my life, I let myself read “anti-mormon” literature, like the Gospel Topics Essays on the church website. I spent a good deal of time on the Mormon Stories website and reading Letter for my Wife. Finally, I was starting to read logically consistent arguments. It was terribly unfortunate that these arguments contradicted everything I’d been taught to believe, but they finally worked in my mind.

Over the next few weeks, I read antagonistic work followed by apologist rebuttals (usually from FAIR). The apologist arguments were, in my opinion, incredibly weak and involved a great amount of speculation, while antagonistic work was usually evidence-based and logically sound. I wanted so badly for the church to be true, so I prayed over the course of several days. Eventually, I told God I had no testimony and experienced abuse from the church, and unless I received a spiritual confirmation the church was true, I was going to leave. I told Him I respected Him and wanted to follow His will, but that He had not yet given me enough information to believe that meant staying in the church.

I felt very little. So I prayed again. “Dear Heavenly Father, should I leave the church?” I asked. I felt more peace and calm than I had felt during any other prayer. My mind felt clear. I felt everything church leaders had identified to me as signs of the spirit. I couldn’t believe it. “I’m interpreting this feeling as a sign that I should leave the church,” I confirmed. I still felt what I identified as the spirit, so later that day, I let my wife know I was leaving the church.

I can now say with more assurance than I ever had as a member of the church that the church is not true. I know with all of my heart that if there is a God, it is not through Russell Nelson or any other rich white man in a suit that He directs His work. I know Joseph Smith was not a prophet. He deceived, abused, and manipulated swaths of innocent people. Above all else, I know that leaving the church has made me happier, healthier, kinder, more hopeful, more generous, more tolerant, more understanding, and overall better than staying possibly could.

I learned in the church that while people can refute facts, they cannot refute spiritual experiences. So I humbly and vulnerably share this in hopes that it might help someone avoid the abuse thousands of church members have survived and continue to experience every day. The church is not true; it is not what it claims to be.


Pressure

page hero, pressure gauge

In the church, pressure to conform is palpable and pervasive, often manifesting in forms that can leave individuals feeling trapped and manipulated. This pressure is not merely social; it is deeply woven into the fabric of church doctrine, culture, and community expectations. As I navigated my own journey of questioning and ultimately leaving the church, I became acutely aware of how this pressure operates and the toll it takes on members.

When I made the decision to leave the church, I felt I had been betrayed and lied to. For several weeks, I had lingering doubts about my decision. I have since learned that what I experienced is very common among people who leave high-demand religions, and it bears many similarities with the experience of leaving an abusive or manipulative relationship. The pressure to conform to church teachings and expectations can create a sense of entrapment, making it difficult for individuals to assert their autonomy or question their beliefs.

Think Celestial

For years, I refused to acknowledge the manipulative aspects of the church, believing that any resemblance to manipulation was a distortion of divine guidance. However, as I began to investigate my beliefs, I was shocked by the manipulative language used by church leaders. For instance, during General Conference, Russell Nelson’s statements often employed fear-based rhetoric, suggesting that failing to adhere to church teachings would result in eternal separation from loved ones. Such comments not only instill fear but also reinforce the idea that questioning the church equates to rejecting God. This kind of language can be deeply troubling, as it creates an environment where members feel compelled to suppress doubts and conform to the collective belief system.

Thus, if we unwisely choose to live telestial laws now, we are choosing to be resurrected with a telestial body. We are choosing not to live with our families forever.1

Those who have participated in or watched an endowment ceremony in the 2010s might relate when I say this sounds much closer to Satan’s threat (something akin to “if these people do not live up to every covenant they make, they will be in my power”) than God’s comforting, patient language. It strikes fear into parents who believe they are sealed to their children forever. It uses threatening language, and I believe this manipulative statement alone is damning evidence that Nelson’s address does not match the tone or nature of God.

Consider a later paragraph in his address:

When you are confronted with a dilemma, think celestial! When tested by temptation, think celestial! When life or loved ones let you down, think celestial! When someone dies prematurely, think celestial. When someone lingers with a devastating illness, think celestial. When the pressures of life crowd in upon you, think celestial! As you recover from an accident or injury, as I am doing now, think celestial! As you focus on thinking celestial, expect to encounter opposition. Decades ago, a professional colleague criticized me for having “too much temple” in me, and more than one supervisor penalized me because of my faith. I am convinced, however, that thinking celestial enhanced my career.1

While they appear innocent, catchphrases like “think celestial” are common thought-stopping strategies. Consider this: if “think celestial” was your go-to mantra, and you were confronted with something that made you doubt, would it be more appealing to “think celestial” or use reasoning skills to sort out who is right? This sentiment reminds me of language common among manipulative parents I’ve met, who will convince their child to do something with questions or sayings that back the child into a corner.

Of course, mantras can be helpful. My wife and I often repeat to each other, “handle it now,” which keeps us from letting dishes or laundry build up. But I suggest that when someone else tells you what your mantra should be, it is worth scrutinizing their intentions.

Nelson continues in his talk:

As you think celestial, you will find yourself avoiding anything that robs you of your agency. Any addiction—be it gaming, gambling, debt, drugs, alcohol, anger, pornography, sex, or even food—offends God. Why? Because your obsession becomes your god. You look to it rather than to Him for solace. If you struggle with an addiction, seek the spiritual and professional help you need. Please do not let an obsession rob you of your freedom to follow God’s fabulous plan.1

When I first heard this talk, this quote struck me as particularly problematic. It uses something familiar to many church members (the concept of addiction) and expands its scope to include anything someone turns to rather than God for solace. While it is wise to seek help if an addiction is controlling your life, this paragraph appears to be designed to tear down people who are struggling rather than lifting them up.

I cannot speak for Jesus, but the stories I’ve read throughout the scriptures do not seem to indicate that he was offended by people suffering with addiction. I can only imagine Jesus having more compassion and empathy than I could comprehend. I do not think this is the language he would have used. Not to mention, addiction is globally categorized as a disorder that often requires treatment rather than something that can be prayed away.

It is impossible for me to know Nelson’s exact motive when he penned this talk. But I will suggest that I would only say something like this if I wanted my audience to feel guilty and ashamed. As I discuss in the following sections, guilt and shame are great tools to keep people engaged in the church and afraid to question. Everyone I’ve ever met has “struggled” with something on this list during a hard time. Students play video games to relax after a long day of classes and work. People go into debt in emergencies or even to feed their families. Anger is a normal emotion and is healthy when expressed appropriately, and on a personal note, I cannot imagine a perfect, merciful God being offended that I bake a batch of cookies after a long day at work (even if the practice is not the healthiest).

Consider one final quote from this talk:

As you think celestial, you will view trials and opposition in a new light. When someone you love attacks truth, think celestial, and don’t question your testimony. The Apostle Paul prophesied that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”1

Understanding “think celestial” as a thought-terminating statement, I do not understand how this paragraph could possibly have been inspired by the same Jesus I’ve read about in the New Testament. I suggest that this statement is carefully crafted to cast doubt on anyone who thinks differently or does not believe. The word “attacks” conjures warlike and violent imagery, and listeners are encouraged to see anyone expressing contrary or alternative ideas as the enemy. This is a painfully divisive way of speaking in which the alternative opinions the enemy. If you start to question your loyalty to the church, you must be “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”.

I would encourage reading rest of Nelson’s talk. It is full of fallacy: rather than truly rebut any “anti-mormon” arguments or even mention them specifically, he shamelessly casts his opposition away with Ad Hominem. Because I oppose his ideas, I must have been seduced by a devil and should not be trusted.

I would like to point out at this point: I primarily cite church-produced resources and my own experience to form my argument. I propose that there are specific problems with the church, and my argument focuses on those problems, not individual church members or leaders. While I disagree with many of the points Nelson makes, I make no attempt to degrade him or use his character to negate his arguments.

The Weight of Expectations

From a young age, members of the church are taught that their worth is tied to their adherence to church teachings and their ability to fulfill various roles within the community. This creates an environment where people feel they must constantly measure up to an ideal that is often unattainable. The pressure to serve, to be perfect, and to maintain a façade of righteousness can be overwhelming. I often felt that my worthiness was contingent upon my ability to meet these expectations, leading to a cycle of guilt and shame whenever I fell short.

For instance, the concept of “worthiness” is a recurring theme in church teachings. Members are frequently reminded that they must be worthy to partake of sacred ordinances, such as taking the sacrament or entering the temple. This creates a high-stakes environment where individuals may feel they cannot express doubts or struggles for fear of being deemed unworthy. The pressure to conform can lead to a façade of compliance, where members feel compelled to present a polished image to the community, even if it means suppressing their true feelings and experiences.

For years, I refused to acknowledge the manipulative aspects of the church, believing that any resemblance to manipulation was a distortion of divine guidance. However, as I began to investigate my beliefs, I was shocked by the manipulative language used by church leaders. Their messages often instill fear and reinforce the idea that questioning the church equates to rejecting God. This kind of language can be deeply troubling, as it creates an environment where members feel compelled to suppress doubts and conform to the collective belief system.

The Role of Guilt and Shame

The pressure to conform extends beyond mere rhetoric; it permeates daily life and personal relationships. Members often feel obligated to adhere to an idealized version of what it means to be a faithful Mormon, leading to feelings of guilt and inadequacy when they fall short. This pursuit of perfection can manifest in various ways, from the pressure to fulfill church callings to the expectation of maintaining a certain image within the community. I found myself caught in a cycle of overcommitment, where I would question whether I was doing too much, reassure myself it was God’s will, and then feel guilty for wanting to do less. This cycle is indicative of the manipulative dynamics that can arise within high-demand religious settings.

Guilt and shame are powerful tools used within the church to apply pressure to members. Leaders often employ these emotions to encourage compliance and discourage dissent. For example, when church leaders speak about the consequences of sin or the importance of tithing, the underlying message is often one of fear: fear of losing blessings, fear of eternal separation from loved ones, and fear of disappointing God. This fear can be paralyzing, leading members to stay in the church even when they have serious doubts or concerns.

I remember feeling a profound sense of guilt when I considered stepping back from my calling during a personal crisis. The thought of letting down my family, my leaders, or even God himself was enough to keep me tethered to a belief system that no longer worked for me. This guilt was compounded by the church’s teachings on family and eternal relationships, which often frame leaving the church as a betrayal that could result in eternal separation from loved ones. The pressure to maintain these relationships, even at the cost of personal well-being, is a heavy burden to bear.

The Illusion of Agency

One of the most insidious aspects of the pressure within the church is the illusion of agency. Members are taught that they have the freedom to choose, yet this choice is often framed within a narrow set of church-defined parameters. The idea that one can choose to leave the church is often met with dire warnings about the consequences of such a decision, reinforcing the notion that true happiness and fulfillment can only be found within the church’s teachings.

This manipulation of agency can lead to a profound sense of confusion. I often found myself questioning whether my desire to leave was truly my own or a result of external pressures. The church’s narrative suggests that those who leave are succumbing to temptation or being led astray by “seducing spirits.” This framing not only invalidates the experiences of those who leave but also serves to reinforce the idea that dissent is inherently wrong.

Encouraging Manipulation

The pressure to conform is particularly evident in the relationships between parents and children within the church. Many parents are taught that if their children stray from the faith, they risk eternal separation, leading to strict adherence to church teachings. This can create a toxic environment where children feel guilted into compliance, often at the expense of their own well-being. The fear of disappointing family members can be a powerful motivator to remain in the church, even when personal beliefs have shifted.

Within Families

Parents within the church are often taught that if their children stray from the faith, they risk eternal separation. This belief can lead to an environment where strict adherence to church teachings is enforced during childhood. Although I am grateful that my parents respect my autonomy, it took me months to muster the courage to tell them I had left the church. I frequently hear stories of individuals who have left the faith and now struggle with strained relationships with their families who remain. It is heartbreaking to consider that a church, which claims to promote free will, can foster such tragic outcomes.

Many children raised in the church face disciplinary actions if they refuse to attend services or participate in church activities. They often experience shame or guilt for not conforming, especially if their friends are not church members or if they engage with ideas that contradict church teachings. The experience of disclosing one’s departure from the church is often likened to coming out to homophobic parents about one’s sexual orientation, highlighting the deep emotional turmoil involved.

Among Missionaries

Missionaries are trained to be adept manipulators and high-pressure salespeople, often employing tactics such as “love-bombing.” This strategy involves identifying individuals who are vulnerable—those going through a divorce, experiencing job loss, facing homelessness, or navigating new parenthood—and presenting oneself as a supportive friend. Missionaries frequently express love and concern these individuals, despite having little genuine connection. They encourage other church members to join in this support, praying with the individual and sharing comforting scriptures, all while subtly suggesting that joining the church is the solution to their problems. However, once the missionaries leave or become preoccupied with other conversions, the initial support often dissipates, leaving the individual feeling abandoned within the church.

In Leadership

Reflecting on my time in leadership positions during my mission, I feel a deep sense of regret. I now recognize that my ability to be manipulative played a role in my assignments, even though I was unaware of it at the time. My conversations with fellow missionaries reveal that many others share this sentiment. When assisting the mission president in assigning companionships, it became clear that those who garnered his favor were more likely to be promoted to leadership roles. My own promotion to assistant was likely influenced by our shared hometown and the personal rapport we developed.

After my mission, while serving as a singles’ ward clerk, I was tasked with compiling a list of the highest-donating members in the ward to inform leadership decisions. Leadership roles and callings are often assigned with the belief that providing individuals with prestigious positions will make them feel valued and encourage their continued participation. Leadership meetings often felt like strategic sessions, where we were playing a game of chess with people’s spiritual well-being.

Feeling Trapped

Before I made the decision to leave the church, I found myself in the Denver airport, returning from a work trip. As I passed by a restroom, a sign caught my eye that read something along the lines of, “If you feel you cannot leave, you may be a victim of human trafficking.” This statement struck a chord with me and prompted deep reflection on my own experiences within the church.

Throughout that summer, I had been working to process the trauma I experienced during my mission. Standing there in the airport, it suddenly hit me: I had never once felt that I could leave my mission. Even if I had wanted to, the church had my passport, and it was made abundantly clear that any missionary sent home would have to endure a humiliating phone call with their parents and would likely be shunned by their community. This moment made me acutely aware of how trapped I had felt within the confines of my mission and the church as a whole.

As I contemplated my relationship with the church, I compiled a list of the ways I felt constrained. I realized that I never felt I could decline a calling, believing that these assignments were divinely inspired. This sense of obligation weighed heavily on me, as I felt that saying no would be tantamount to rejecting God’s will. The pressure to comply was compounded by the guilt I experienced when family health issues pulled me away from church meetings. I often convinced myself that I wasn’t doing enough for God, leading to a cycle of self-reproach that only deepened my sense of entrapment.

Moreover, I felt silenced when it came to addressing concerns with church leaders. The fear of being perceived as dissenting or unfaithful kept me from voicing my thoughts, even when I witnessed mistakes or harm. This culture of silence extended to my financial obligations as well; I was convinced that failing to pay tithing would lead to dire consequences, including financial ruin. The belief that my worthiness was tied to my contributions created an environment where I felt I had to constantly prove myself.

As I advanced in priesthood offices and served my mission, I did so out of a sense of duty rather than genuine desire. The mantra of “that’s just what I’m supposed to do” echoed in my mind, reinforcing the idea that my path was predetermined and that deviation was not an option. This led me to bear a dishonest testimony, as I feared disappointing both God and those around me. I felt compelled to present a polished image, wearing conservative clothing and hairstyles out of fear of being labeled immodest.

My teenage years were marked by attending unwelcoming church activities simply to keep others happy, even when I felt uncomfortable. I often voted to sustain church leaders without knowing anything about their character, driven by a sense of obligation rather than informed consent. The temple, which was meant to be a sacred space, became a source of trauma and triggering memories, especially after my mission. I participated in worthiness interviews, despite understanding my inherent worth to God, and I prayed and spoke in meetings even when I felt unprepared or uninterested.

Setting boundaries was a foreign concept to me; I never felt empowered to do so, even when I was hurt or uncomfortable. This lack of agency led me to be unkind and judgmental toward those who didn’t fit the church’s mold, despite knowing that Jesus taught love for all. I found myself justifying hateful, bigoted, and otherwise inappropriate actions under the guise of sustaining church leaders and doctrine, further entrenching myself in a system that felt increasingly misaligned with my values.

While my list could go on, I believe this captures the essence of my experience. I constantly felt compelled to give endlessly, often without any evidence that my contributions were genuinely benefiting others. This led to a relentless cycle: I would question whether I was doing too much, reassure myself it was God’s will, feel guilty for wanting to do less, and then double down on my efforts, only to repeat the cycle.

Recovery from Pressure

This may or may not be your experience, but if it resonates with you, know that these feelings are indicative of being in an abusive and manipulative relationship. As I reflect on my own experiences, I recognize that the pressure to conform and the manipulative tactics employed by the church can have lasting effects on mental health and personal identity. The journey of leaving such a high-demand environment is fraught with challenges, but it can also lead to a newfound sense of freedom and authenticity.

By acknowledging the pressures inherent in the church’s high-demand culture, we can better understand the complexities faced by those navigating their faith journeys and the importance of reclaiming one’s agency in the process. Since leaving the church, I have discovered a newfound freedom to be myself and pursue my own path. I believe I am living an honorable life, doing as much good as I can, and it has been liberating to shed the fear, shame, guilt, and pressure that accompanied my relationship with the church.


  1. Nelson, R. M. (2023, October). “Think Celestial!” General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/general-conference/2023/10/51nelson ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎


Perfection

page hero, person looking in a broken mirror

There’s something wrong with you. In fact, you’re naturally God’s greatest enemy and you always have been. Don’t worry, though. We have the cure. For the low price of 10% of your income and eternal, unwavering loyalty, we will make sure you’re good enough for God.

That’s the message I internalized as I grew up in the church. It’s a powerful message.

The church’s pervasive message of imperfection can often feel like a heavy burden. The underlying narrative suggests that there is something inherently wrong with every human being, framing everyone as fundamentally flawed and in need of redemption. This sentiment is often couched in seemingly innocuous phrases such as, “Of course, nobody’s perfect,” or “We all need to repent.” While these statements may appear benign, they contribute to a culture of perfectionism that can be deeply damaging. The church teaches that imperfection not only separates individuals from God but also bars them from eternal family connections in the afterlife. This creates a powerful incentive for members to seek perfection, often leading to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt.

The church’s teachings can be distilled into a reductive framework that emphasizes the following points: you are inherently flawed, your imperfections prevent you from achieving eternal happiness, you cannot attain perfection on your own, and the church alone possesses the means to facilitate your journey toward perfection through the Atonement. This narrative can feel like a snake oil sales pitch, where the solution is presented as exclusive to the church, creating a dependency on its teachings and practices. The pressure to conform to these ideals can be overwhelming, as members are often reminded that failing to meet these standards can result in exclusion from sacred ordinances, such as temple access or holding the priesthood. This creates a cycle of anxiety and self-criticism, where individuals constantly strive for an unattainable ideal.

The Impact of Perfectionism

The harmful effects of this perfectionist culture are evident in the lives of many members. The church’s emphasis on an “us versus them” mentality can lead to a lack of compassion for those who do not conform to its standards. While some congregations are making strides toward inclusivity, the pressure to evangelize and convert those outside the faith can create an environment where individuals feel unwelcome or judged. This was particularly evident in my own experiences, where discussions about LGBTQ+ issues were often steeped in condemnation, leaving little room for understanding or acceptance. The fear of being seen as imperfect or unworthy can lead to isolation, as members may feel they must hide their true selves to fit in.

Moreover, the church promotes an image of happiness, health, and prosperity as a direct result of faithful living. This creates an additional layer of pressure, as members feel compelled to present a façade of perfection to the outside world. The expectation to maintain appearances can be exhausting, leading to a culture where individuals are afraid to express vulnerability or admit to struggles. This pressure is compounded by the church’s teachings that equate personal trials with opportunities for growth, leaving little room for genuine emotional expression. The result is a community where many feel they must constantly perform, sacrificing their authenticity for the sake of perceived righteousness.

Keeping Up Appearances

Ironically, while church leaders often condemn perfectionism, the relentless pursuit of perfection becomes yet another task on the already overwhelming to-do list of a faithful member. Balancing the demands of school, family, church responsibilities, and personal aspirations can feel insurmountable. The expectation to excel in all areas can lead to burnout and disillusionment, as individuals grapple with the impossibility of meeting these standards. The pressure to be a perfect spouse, parent, and church member can create a sense of inadequacy, as members compare themselves to the idealized versions of others they see in church settings or social media.

This culture of perfectionism can also lead to a phenomenon known as “imposter syndrome,” where individuals feel like frauds despite their accomplishments. Many members may achieve significant milestones—such as serving missions, obtaining degrees, or raising families—but still feel unworthy or inadequate in the eyes of their peers and church leaders. This internal conflict can be exacerbated by the church’s teachings that emphasize the need for constant self-improvement and repentance, creating a cycle of self-doubt and anxiety.

Good, Not Perfect

During my faith journey, I have found solace in affirmations that challenge the perfectionist mindset instilled in me. Recognizing that perfection is subjective and that I am deserving of love and respect, regardless of my flaws, has been liberating. Simple affirmations such as “I care, and I am trying, and that is enough” have provided a sense of peace that was often elusive within the church’s framework. These affirmations serve as reminders that personal worth is not contingent upon meeting external standards or conforming to societal expectations.

Additionally, engaging in self-compassion practices has been instrumental in counteracting the harmful effects of perfectionism. Learning to treat myself with kindness and understanding, especially during moments of failure or struggle, has fostered a healthier relationship with myself. This shift in perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of personal growth, where mistakes are viewed as opportunities for learning rather than as indicators of worthlessness.

Summary

Ultimately, the church’s narrative that there is something fundamentally wrong with individuals serves to control and manipulate its members, creating a cycle of dependency on its teachings for validation and worth. This perfectionist culture not only fosters feelings of inadequacy but also stifles authentic self-expression and connection with others. As individuals grapple with the pressure to conform to unattainable ideals, they may find themselves trapped in a cycle of self-criticism and isolation. However, recognizing that personal worth is inherent and not contingent upon perfection can be a transformative realization.

Embracing the understanding that imperfection is a beautiful part of the human experience can lead to greater compassion for oneself and others. By challenging the harmful teachings of perfectionism and cultivating a mindset of self-acceptance, individuals can break free from the constraints of the church’s narrative. In doing so, they can foster a more authentic and fulfilling life, grounded in the belief that they are worthy of love and respect simply for being who they are. As we move forward, it is essential to remember that our value is not defined by our adherence to rigid standards but by our capacity for growth, empathy, and connection with others.

In the immortal words of John Steinbeck, “And now that you don’t have to be perfect, you can be good.”


Control

page hero, caution sign on a keyboard

It is deeply offensive to tell someone they are in a cult. I don’t see any advantage to arguing about the word cult as it applies to the church, but I do propose that it is both a high-demand religion and an authoritarian, controlling organization. Whether the word cult applies to the church, its controlling behavior is problematic and leads to harm.

I explore the BITE Model, developed by cult expert Steven Hassan, to identify areas where the church imposes authoritarian control over its members. The BITE Model is a framework used to analyze the methods of control employed by cults and high-control groups. It consists of four components: Behavior Control, Information Control, Thought Control, and Emotional Control, which I analyze individually in this section.

If you are an active church member and feel threatened or uncomfortable reading this section, I would encourage an exploration of those feelings. I did not believe I was in a controlling, authoritarian organization until I noticed I did not feel free to question it.

This section might apply particularly to your relationship with the church. Please take good care of your own mental health, but I encourage an honest exploration of your feelings as you read.

Behavior Control

Behavior control is a significant aspect of the organizational structure and culture within the church. The church employs various methods to regulate the actions and lifestyles of its members, creating an environment that encourages conformity and discourages dissent. This control manifests through strict adherence to church teachings, surveillance by church leaders and peers, and the imposition of behavioral norms that govern many aspects of daily life.

One of the primary methods of behavior control in the church is the regulation of personal activities through the Word of Wisdom. This code prohibits the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea, while encouraging a diet rich in grains, fruits, and vegetables. Members are expected to adhere to these guidelines, and failure to do so can result in social stigma and disciplinary action. Additionally, the church requires members to participate in regular church activities, such as weekly meetings and service projects, which further reinforces group cohesion and commitment to the church’s teachings.

Surveillance is a critical component of behavior control within the church. Members are often encouraged to monitor one another’s behavior, fostering a culture of accountability and mutual observation. This can manifest in informal settings, such as ministering programs, where members are assigned to check in on each other regularly. The church also emphasizes the importance of personal worthiness, which is assessed through regular interviews with local leaders. These interviews can create a sense of being constantly observed, leading members to self-censor and conform to the church’s expectations.1

Confession and accountability are also prevalent. Members who commit serious transgressions, such as adultery or pornography use, may be required to confess their sins to a bishop or stake president, who then determines a course of action for disciplinary measures. This process can involve public acknowledgment of wrongdoing, which serves to reinforce group norms and discourage nonconformity. The fear of public shame and the desire for forgiveness can compel members to adhere strictly to church teachings, making it difficult for them to question or challenge the church’s authority.2

The church employs a subtle system of rewards and punishments to maintain behavior control among its members. Positive reinforcement is evident in the recognition and praise given to those who fulfill their callings, participate in church activities, and adhere to church standards. Conversely, members who fail to comply may face social ostracism, loss of church privileges, or even excommunication. This system creates a powerful incentive for members to conform, as the desire for acceptance and fear of rejection become significant motivators in their lives.3 Over time, this dynamic can lead to a profound internalization of the church’s values and beliefs, making it increasingly challenging for individuals to break free from the church’s influence.

Behavior control is a critical mechanism employed by the church to maintain authority and influence over its members. Through the regulation of personal activities, surveillance, public confession, and a system of rewards and punishments, the church creates an environment that stifles individual autonomy and promotes conformity.

Specific Examples:

  • Adults who drink coffee and tea or who do not wear church-provided undergarments are not allowed to attend their loved ones’ temple weddings.
  • To obtain a temple recommend, people must devote a significant amount of time and money to the church.
  • Missionaries’ entire physical reality is regulated, including a strict schedule, monitored communication, 24/7 surveillance, and restrictive rules.

Information Control

Information control is a crucial aspect of the organizational dynamics within the church. This control manifests through the regulation of information that members receive, shaping their understanding of the world and reinforcing the church’s teachings. By managing the flow of information, the church tries to maintain doctrinal purity, discourage dissent, and foster a unified belief system among its members.

One of the primary methods of information control is the promotion of church-approved literature and media while discouraging or banning outside sources. The church encourages members to read scriptures, church publications, and materials produced by church leaders, which present a specific narrative aligned with church doctrine. This focus on approved materials limits exposure to alternative viewpoints and critical analyses of church history and teachings. For instance, members are often discouraged from reading books or articles that are critical of the church, as these are labeled as “anti-Mormon” literature, which is seen as misleading or harmful.1

The church also employs a strategy of discrediting outside sources of information. Members are taught to view secular media and academic critiques with suspicion, often being warned that such sources are biased or hostile to the church. This creates an environment where members may feel guilty or fearful for seeking information outside of church-sanctioned materials. The church’s emphasis on the importance of faith and spiritual confirmation over empirical evidence further discourages critical thinking and independent research, reinforcing a reliance on church teachings as the ultimate authority.2

Rewriting history is a common tactic used in information control. The church has a history of presenting a sanitized version of its past, often omitting or downplaying controversial events, such as the practice of polygamy or issues related to racism and sexism. This selective presentation of history serves to maintain a positive image of the church and its leaders, while discouraging members from questioning or exploring these complex topics. When members encounter conflicting information, they may be taught to dismiss it as false or misleading, further entrenching their loyalty to the church’s narrative.4

Isolation from non-members is also a significant aspect of information control in the church. Members are often encouraged to associate primarily with other church members, which limits their exposure to diverse perspectives and alternative beliefs. This social isolation reinforces the church’s teachings and creates an echo chamber where dissenting opinions are less likely to be encountered. The church’s emphasis on community and fellowship among members fosters a sense of belonging that can make it difficult for individuals to seek out or accept information that contradicts church doctrine.1

Information control is a vital mechanism employed by the church to shape the beliefs and behaviors of its members. Through the promotion of church-approved materials, discrediting of outside sources, rewriting of history, and social isolation, the church creates an environment that limits access to diverse perspectives and reinforces adherence to its teachings.

Specific Examples:

  • The pamphlet and talk “To Young Men Only” was regularly taught and reinforced when I was a teenager. It appears to have been removed completely from the church’s website and curricula.
  • Many members were confused at the publication of Saints, which presents a still-sanitized but more open view of church history that was previously considered anti-Mormon.
  • The Gospel Topics Essays present a convoluted view of history and doctrine, clearly designed to prevent members from seeking other sources or viewing outside sources as legitimate.
  • As a missionary, I was only allowed to read a carefully-curated selection of four books plus my scriptures.

Thought Control

Thought control is a significant mechanism employed by the church to shape the beliefs and cognitive processes of its members. This control manifests through various techniques designed to promote conformity, discourage critical thinking, and reinforce the church’s teachings. By influencing how members think about themselves, their faith, and the world around them, the church seeks to maintain a cohesive and loyal community.

One of the primary methods of thought control is the use of indoctrination techniques that emphasize repetitive messaging and slogans. Church leaders often use catchphrases and simplified doctrines to convey complex theological concepts, making them easier for members to internalize. For example, phrases like “Follow the prophet” or “The family is central to God’s plan” serve as guiding principles that members are encouraged to adopt without question. This repetitive reinforcement can lead to a form of cognitive dissonance, where members may suppress doubts or critical thoughts in favor of maintaining alignment with the group’s beliefs.1

Black-and-white thinking is another hallmark of thought control within the church. Members are often taught to view the world in binary terms, categorizing beliefs and behaviors as either righteous or sinful, true or false. This dichotomous thinking simplifies complex issues and discourages nuanced understanding, making it easier for the church to maintain authority over its members. For instance, members may be taught that those who leave the church or criticize its teachings are “anti-Mormon” and therefore inherently misguided or evil. This framing reinforces loyalty to the church and discourages members from exploring alternative viewpoints.2

Cognitive dissonance is further exacerbated by the church’s emphasis on personal revelation and spiritual confirmation. Members are encouraged to seek personal experiences that validate their beliefs, often through prayer and meditation. Members are taught that these experiences must align with church teachings. While this can foster a deep sense of faith, it can also lead to a reliance on subjective experiences over objective evidence. When members encounter information that contradicts church teachings, they may experience cognitive dissonance, leading them to dismiss the conflicting information as false or misleading rather than reevaluating their beliefs.4

The church also employs thought-stopping techniques to discourage critical thinking and questioning. Members are often taught to suppress doubts or negative thoughts about the church, viewing such feelings as temptations from the adversary. This can create an internal conflict where members feel guilty for questioning their faith, leading them to silence their critical faculties in favor of blind obedience. The emphasis on faith and trust in church leaders further reinforces this dynamic, as members are taught that questioning authority is tantamount to questioning God.1

Thought control is used by the church to shape the beliefs and cognitive processes of its members. Through indoctrination techniques, black-and-white thinking, reliance on personal revelation, and thought-stopping practices, the church creates an environment that discourages critical thinking and promotes conformity.

Specific Examples:

  • “Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith”
  • It is extremely taboo to criticize church leaders.
  • Members are taught to sing a hymn or read scriptures if they start to doubt.
  • Ex-mormons are viewed as misled by Satan.

Emotional Control

Emotional control is employed by the church to maintain influence over its members and ensure adherence to church teachings. This control manifests through various tactics designed to manipulate members’ emotions, fostering a sense of dependency on the church and its leaders. By creating an environment where feelings of guilt, fear, and love are strategically employed, the church seeks to reinforce loyalty and discourage dissent.

One of the primary methods of emotional control is the use of guilt and shame to regulate behavior. Members are often taught that failing to adhere to church teachings or commandments can lead to serious spiritual consequences, including separation from God and loss of eternal blessings. This emphasis on guilt can create a pervasive sense of inadequacy among members, leading them to constantly strive for perfection and fear the repercussions of their shortcomings. The church’s teachings on repentance and forgiveness can also be used to manipulate emotions, as members may feel compelled to confess their sins to church leaders, reinforcing their dependence on the church for spiritual validation.1

Fear is another powerful tool of emotional control within the church. Members are often warned about the dangers of leaving the faith or associating with those who are critical of the church. This fear can manifest in various ways, including the fear of losing one’s eternal family, facing social ostracism, or experiencing spiritual condemnation. The church teaches that those who leave the faith are at risk of falling into darkness or being led astray by the adversary, which can create a sense of urgency to remain loyal and compliant.2 This fear can be particularly potent for members who have been raised in the church, as the prospect of leaving can feel like abandoning their entire support system.

Love bombing is another tactic used to exert emotional control in Mormonism. New members or those who are struggling with their faith may be overwhelmed with affection and attention from fellow church members. This initial warmth and acceptance can create a strong sense of belonging, making it difficult for individuals to question the church or its teachings. Once individuals are more deeply integrated into the community, the church’s emotional manipulation can shift to a more controlling dynamic, where love and acceptance are contingent upon adherence to church norms.1

Shaming and blame are also prevalent in the emotional landscape of the church. Members who express doubts or question church teachings may be shamed for their lack of faith, leading to feelings of isolation and self-doubt. This shaming can discourage open dialogue about personal struggles and reinforce the idea that questioning the church is inherently wrong. The emotional toll of this dynamic can lead members to suppress their feelings and conform to the group’s expectations, further entrenching their loyalty to the church.4

Emotional control is a vital mechanism used by the church to maintain authority and influence over its members. Through the use of guilt, fear, love bombing, and shaming, the church creates an environment that manipulates emotions and fosters dependency on the church and its leaders.

Specific Examples:

  • Members are threatened with eternal isolation if they break their covenants.
  • The church suggests that no true happiness is possible outside of the organization.
  • Many people who leave the church are shunned by their families, friends, and former communities.

Summary

In summary, the mechanisms of authoritarian control employed by the church can be understood through the lens of Hassan’s BITE Model, which encompasses Behavior Control, Information Control, Thought Control, and Emotional Control. Each of these components plays a crucial role in shaping the beliefs and behaviors of church members, fostering an environment that prioritizes conformity and loyalty to the church.

Behavior control is evident in the regulation of personal activities, surveillance by peers and leaders, and the imposition of strict behavioral norms. Members are required to adhere to church teachings and participate in community activities, creating a culture of accountability that discourages dissent.

Information control further reinforces this dynamic by promoting church-approved literature while discrediting outside sources. This selective exposure limits members’ access to diverse perspectives and critical analyses, shaping their understanding of the world in a way that aligns with church doctrine.

Thought control manifests through indoctrination techniques, black-and-white thinking, and the promotion of personal revelation over objective evidence. These practices discourage critical thinking and create cognitive dissonance, leading members to suppress doubts and maintain alignment with the church’s teachings.

Emotional control is employed through the manipulation of guilt, fear, love, and shame. By fostering dependency on the church for emotional validation and support, the church reinforces loyalty and discourages individuals from questioning their beliefs.

Together, these mechanisms create a system of control that shapes the lives of members within the church. Understanding these dynamics is essential for recognizing the challenges faced by individuals navigating their faith and for providing support to those seeking to explore their beliefs outside the confines of the church.


  1. Hassan, Steven. Combating Cult Mind Control Freedom of Mind Press, 2016. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. Lalich, Janja. Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults. University of California Press, 2004. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. Benson, Ezra Taft. A Witness and a Warning: A Modern-Day Prophet Testifies of Christ. Deseret Book Company, 1980. ↩︎

  4. Bushman, Richard L. Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2005. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎


Honesty

page hero, person looking through leaves

Like many belief systems, mormonism places a strong emphasis on values such as integrity, truthfulness, and honesty. These principles are deeply embedded in the teachings of the church and are often highlighted in sermons, church literature, and community interactions. However, despite this promotion of honesty, there exists a complex and often contradictory relationship between these ideals and the lived experiences of many members. This tension manifests in a reluctance to discuss doubts, questions, or personal struggles openly, creating an environment where authenticity can be overshadowed by fear of judgment.

Cultural Expectations

At the heart of this issue is the cultural expectation within church communities to present a façade of unwavering faith and adherence to church teachings. Members are often encouraged to share their testimonies and experiences in a way that reflects positively on their faith. There exists a strong cultural expectation for members to embody unwavering faith and adherence to church teachings. This expectation is often reinforced through church services, community gatherings, and personal interactions. Members are encouraged to share their testimonies, which typically highlight their faith journeys in a positive light. This creates an environment where individuals may feel compelled to present an idealized version of themselves, often at the expense of their true feelings and experiences.

The pressure to conform to this image can lead to a reluctance to express doubts or questions. Many members find themselves grappling with internal conflicts, feeling that their struggles with faith may not be understood or accepted by their peers. This cultural norm can foster an atmosphere of silence around personal challenges, where individuals may feel isolated in their experiences. This can lead to a culture where individuals feel pressured to conform to a certain image of righteousness, suppressing doubts or questions that may arise. The fear of being judged or ostracized for expressing uncertainty can be overwhelming, leading many to internalize their struggles rather than seek support or understanding from their peers.

This reluctance to engage in open discussions about doubts can have significant implications for mental health and personal well-being. Members may experience feelings of isolation, anxiety, or guilt when they grapple with issues that challenge their beliefs. The internal conflict between the desire for authenticity and the fear of judgment can create a sense of dissonance, where individuals feel they must choose between their true selves and their community. This dynamic can be particularly pronounced for those who may be questioning fundamental aspects of their faith or who have experienced personal crises that challenge their beliefs.

Fear of Judgment

The fear of judgment is a significant barrier to open dialogue within church communities. Members may worry that expressing doubts or questioning church teachings will lead to social ostracism or disapproval from fellow congregants. This fear can be particularly acute for those in leadership positions or those who are heavily involved in church activities, as they may feel a heightened sense of responsibility to uphold the church’s image.

This fear can manifest in various ways, including self-censorship and avoidance of discussions about faith-related struggles. As a result, many individuals may internalize their doubts, leading to feelings of shame, anxiety, and loneliness. The inability to share these experiences openly can hinder personal growth and spiritual development, as individuals may feel trapped in a cycle of unacknowledged conflict.

Impacts on Mental Health

The internal struggle between the desire for authenticity and the fear of judgment can have profound implications for mental health. Members who feel unable to express their doubts may experience increased levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. The pressure to maintain a façade of faith can lead to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt, as individuals grapple with the disparity between their internal experiences and external expectations.

Moreover, the stigma surrounding mental health issues within the church can exacerbate these challenges. Many members may feel that seeking help for mental health concerns is incompatible with their faith, further isolating them from potential support systems. This dynamic underscores the urgent need for open conversations about mental health and the importance of creating a culture that encourages vulnerability and authenticity.

Dishonesty at Higher Levels

The issue of dishonesty within the church is not limited to individual members grappling with their faith; it extends to institutional practices and leadership decisions that can undermine trust within the community. Instances where church leaders have failed to address controversial topics or have misrepresented information can create a culture of opacity that leaves members feeling betrayed and confused. This section explores notable cases of dishonesty at higher levels, including the SEC scandal and other instances where church leaders have misled members, highlighting the implications of these actions on the faith community.

The SEC Scandal and Financial Dishonesty

One of the most significant recent examples of dishonesty at high levels within the church is the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into the church’s financial practices. In 2019, the SEC charged the church’s investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, with failing to disclose over $32 billion in investment assets. The SEC alleged that the church had intentionally concealed these assets to avoid scrutiny and regulatory oversight, which raised serious ethical questions about transparency and accountability within the organization.1

The SEC’s findings revealed that church leaders had misled members about the church’s financial status, claiming that funds were being used primarily for charitable purposes while maintaining a substantial investment portfolio. This lack of transparency not only violated federal securities laws but also eroded trust among church members who believed they were contributing to a faith that prioritized honesty and integrity. The scandal highlighted a disconnect between the church’s teachings on honesty and the actions of its leadership, leading many members to question the integrity of the institution itself.

Historical Misrepresentation

Beyond recent scandals, there have been numerous instances throughout the church’s history where leaders have misrepresented information or failed to address controversial topics candidly. For example, the church’s historical stance on race and the priesthood has been a contentious issue. For many years, church leaders taught that Black individuals were denied the priesthood (and other saving ordinances) due to divine revelation, a narrative that was later disavowed when the church lifted the ban in 1978. The lack of transparency surrounding the reasons for the ban and the subsequent change in policy has left many members feeling misled and confused about the church’s true stance on race.

Additionally, the church’s handling of its history regarding polygamy has also raised questions about honesty. For decades, church leaders downplayed the practice of polygamy, often framing it as a historical anomaly rather than a foundational aspect of early church history. This selective presentation of history can lead to feelings of betrayal among members who later discover the full extent of polygamy’s role in the church’s past. The failure to address these issues openly can create a culture of mistrust, where members feel that they are not receiving the full truth about their faith.

The Impact of Leadership Dishonesty

The implications of dishonesty at higher levels within the church are profound. When leaders prioritize maintaining a specific narrative over fostering open dialogue, it can lead to a breakdown of trust between members and church leadership. This mistrust can manifest in various ways, including decreased engagement in church activities, increased questioning of church teachings, and, in some cases, disaffection or disaffiliation from the faith altogether.

Moreover, the lack of transparency can have a chilling effect on individual members who may feel discouraged from expressing their doubts or concerns. When church leaders are perceived as dishonest or evasive, it can create an environment where members feel they must choose between their personal beliefs and their loyalty to the institution. This dynamic can lead to increased feelings of isolation and anxiety, as individuals grapple with the dissonance between their experiences and the church’s teachings.

Advocating for Transparency

To address these issues, it is essential to advocate for a culture of transparency within the church. Encouraging open discussions about doubts, questions, and personal struggles can help dismantle the stigma associated with vulnerability. Creating safe spaces for dialogue—whether through small group discussions, workshops, or online forums—can empower members to share their experiences without fear of judgment.

Additionally, church leaders should play a crucial role in fostering transparency by addressing difficult topics openly and honestly. By acknowledging the complexities of faith and the challenges that members face, leaders can help create an environment where authenticity is valued and supported. This shift towards transparency can lead to a more compassionate and understanding community that honors the diverse experiences of its members.

The Call for Accountability

The gap between leaders’ expectation of honesty from church members and the leaders’ scandals and dishonesty emphasizes an unhealthy power dynamic between leaders and members. Members are taught regarding dishonest leaders that they are only men, and they can’t be expected to be perfect. However, to be able to enter a temple, members must affirm to their leaders that they are honest in their dealings with their peers.

In light of these issues, there is a growing call among members for greater accountability and transparency from church leadership. Many members advocate for a more open approach to discussing difficult topics, including the church’s financial practices, historical controversies, and the implications of past leadership decisions. By fostering an environment where honesty is prioritized, the church can begin to rebuild trust and create a more inclusive community that values authenticity.

Additionally, some members are pushing for structural changes within the church to promote transparency. This includes advocating for independent audits of church finances, open forums for discussing controversial topics, and increased accessibility to church history and doctrine. By addressing these concerns head-on, church leaders can demonstrate a commitment to honesty and integrity that aligns with the core values of the faith.

Summary

In conclusion, while the church promotes values of integrity and truthfulness, the reality of navigating faith within this cultural context can be fraught with challenges. The tension between the desire for authenticity and the fear of judgment creates barriers to open dialogue, impacting both individual well-being and the overall health of the community. By advocating for transparency and fostering an environment where honesty is celebrated, the church can move towards a more inclusive and supportive culture that honors the complexities of faith and personal experience. Embracing these changes can ultimately lead to a stronger, more resilient community that values complexities of faith and personal experience.


  1. See the official papers from the SEC at https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf ↩︎


The Other

page hero, a group of people by a chalkboard

My favorite song in the church’s Children’s Songbook is “I’ll Walk With You”. It reads, in part:

If you don’t walk as most people do, Some people walk away from you, But I won’t! I won’t!

If you don’t talk as most people do, Some people talk and laugh at you, But I won’t! I won’t!

I’ll walk with you. I’ll talk with you. That’s how I’ll show my love for you.

Jesus walked away from none. He gave his love to ev’ryone. So I will! I will!1

I always felt that the church should feel welcoming to everyone. Of course, the church is usually welcoming to majority groups. I, a straight white man, was allowed to be relatively comfortable in the church, so I was hesitant to notice glaring problems affecting the people around me. I was eligible for any calling I could possibly want. The church had made it clear to me for decades that I was born into my comfortable status because I had won God’s favor (perhaps even before I was born).

The church fosters a strong sense of community among its members, often characterized by deep-rooted in-group solidarity. This solidarity is built upon shared beliefs, values, and experiences that create a cohesive identity among members. However, this strong sense of belonging can also lead to a pronounced skepticism toward those outside the faith, often referred to as “non-Mormons”, as well as people within the group who don’t meet the cultural norms of the group. This dichotomy between in-group solidarity and out-group skepticism has significant implications for relationships, personal identity, and the broader cultural dynamics within and outside the church.

The In-Group

Within church communities, members often experience a sense of belonging and support. This solidarity is cultivated through shared religious practices, communal activities, and a collective commitment to the church’s teachings. Members frequently engage in social events, service projects, and church meetings that reinforce their shared identity and values. This strong sense of community can provide emotional and spiritual support, fostering a sense of purpose and belonging that is deeply fulfilling.

However, this in-group solidarity can also create an “us versus them” mentality, where members may view those outside the faith with skepticism or suspicion. This perspective is often rooted in a desire to protect the community’s values and beliefs from perceived external threats. As a result, interactions with non-Mormons can be fraught with tension, as members may feel compelled to defend their faith or distance themselves from those who do not share their beliefs.

The Out-Group

Of course, non-Mormons fall into the out-group. Ex-Mormons are especially problematic to church teachings, so we also fall into the out-group. But I believe the out-group (i.e., “the other”) is made up of more people than church members often see.

Perhaps you’ve been “the other” before. I remember how it felt to be picked last in gym class, how painful it was to be teased because I didn’t have social skills, and how it felt to be a relatively-disliked religious minority in Honduras. While these experiences are obviously not representative of everyone, I hope I can draw on them to empathize.

If you have spent much time in the church, you probably already have a good idea of who “the other” might be. Everyone’s experience is unique, so there is no way to describe every situation that might cause someone to be “the other”, but this list may describe a few “others” in the church:

  • Women, who are to be helpmeets to their husbands and are not to serve in major leadership roles;
  • LGBTQ+ individuals, who are taught that their very existence is problematic and sinful;
  • Families (especially parents) of non-Mormons or ex-Mormons;
  • Mixed-faith couples and families;
  • Single adults approaching their late 20s;
  • Unmarried couples who live together;
  • Introverts;
  • Neurodiverse people;
  • People with tattoos and multiple piercings;
  • People experiencing poverty or homelessness;
  • People who drink coffee and tea;
  • People who swear;
  • People who bring up controversial topics in Sunday School;
  • Young men who return home from a mission early or don’t go on one;
  • Men without significant callings;
  • Women without children;
  • People with disabilities and chronic illness.

The list could go on, but I believe I have made my point. In some areas, more people are likely to feel unwelcome at church than not.

Out-Group Skepticism

The skepticism toward “the other” can manifest in various ways, influencing how members perceive and interact with them. This skepticism may stem from a combination of doctrinal teachings, cultural narratives, and historical experiences that shape the community’s worldview. For instance, members may be taught that their faith is the only true path to salvation, leading to a belief that those outside the faith are spiritually misguided or lacking in understanding.

This perspective can complicate relationships with non-Mormons, as members may approach interactions with preconceived notions or biases. Non-Mormons may be viewed as outsiders who do not understand the values and principles that guide their community. This can create barriers to meaningful connections, as members may be hesitant to engage with those who hold different beliefs or lifestyles.

Specific Effects on Out-Groups

Because I cannot possibly do everyone justice, I would like to discuss in greater depth how just a few of these “others” are impacted by church culture and teachings.

Women

Women are not equal to men in the church. They simply are not. Because I, occasionally to my demise, have a Y-chromosome and do not have the understanding this topic deserves, I would like to quote two women who have been extremely supportive to me as I have deconstructed my faith.

First, I present a quote from my wife:

Growing up, I was taught I was nothing more than a baby-making, housekeeping sex toy, an object for my husband’s use and enjoyment. Beginning in primary—before I had even started puberty—I was overtly taught that the greatest role I could ever fill is that of a righteous homemaker, a wife, and a mother. I was a second-class citizen in the church from my conception, and I was expected to be treated as such for time and all eternity as my husband’s wife.

I recorded this thought shortly after we learned we likely couldn’t have kids, and we were working on processing the trauma that came with that. While the news was challenging for both of us, my wife seemed especially devastated. She felt like because God won’t let her have kids, her worth was gone. Never mind her academic and professional success and her amazing skills in so many areas of life; her job was to be a mom, and suddenly she couldn’t have that. We talked about how she could still be a nurturing, motherly figure, but her role as a mother was so deeply ingrained in her beliefs about herself.

As an aside, I refer to my wife throughout this document as “my wife” rather than by her name. After much discussion, she determined it was in her best professional interests to make it hard for search engines to index this document using her name.

Second, I roughly quote one of our best friends who has been extremely supportive as we have deconstructed our beliefs:

It feels like the playground bully is holding equality over women’s heads. It feels so “gaslighty”. They say women are equal and toss us a little tiny bit: young women passing the sacrament to women in mothers’ rooms, relief society presidents helping more with church welfare. But it’s not equality. I’m still a helpmeet to my husband, I’m still first and foremost a mom, I’m still a second-class citizen who needs a man to make my decisions for me.

When we first started talking about gender dynamics in the church, I learned that there was a whole world I had never even noticed. I didn’t have any clue that my wife felt less-than when she learned in the temple that I was required for her to be exalted. I didn’t know how painful it is for women to feel like they don’t have a voice at church. I am ashamed to have benefitted greatly from imbalanced gender roles without even realizing it. My wife has mentioned that she didn’t even realize it, but she was conditioned to expect to be less-than, even in her own home.

Since leaving the church, we have made it a priority to have truly equal roles in our marriage. I still have a lot to learn, and I am so grateful for my wife’s patience as I have learned about the subtle ways I was conditioned to oppress her in our own home. We are becoming happier than ever, and our relationship is becoming healthier and more balanced than it ever was.

Racial Minorities

This topic has been discussed a great deal in both support and opposition of the church. I wholeheartedly condemn the racist teachings and practices in the church (many of which still exist today), but because of my background, I do not feel especially qualified to thoroughly address racism.

I will simply say that I am disgusted that the church and its leaders would teach for decades that racial minorities are inferior, were less righteous before this life, or should not participate fully in the church. It is, in my opinion, horrifying and reflective of despicable moral character to insist that the church is not (and has never been) racist. It is disappointing to see racist church leaders from generations ago hailed as prophets and revelators without acknowledging that many of their fundamental teachings were inherently racist and directly contradictory to God’s nature as “no respector of persons”.

The LGBTQ+ Community

I am deeply discouraged when I hear many church members and leaders treat the LBGTQ+ community as less-than. I am ashamed to have once believed that “same-sex attraction” was just a temptation from God. Shortly before I left the church, I sat uncomfortably through a meeting while a stake president mentioned that we shouldn’t care or even acknowledge that someone is gay. He taught that all of our identities boil down to being a child of God, and that we should look past anything else.

I bit my tongue, but I wanted to ask: if the only part of our identity that matters is being a child of God, why would The Family: A Proclamation to the World indicate that gender is a vital part of our identities? And why, if we only care about being children of God, can women and men not have the same responsibilities within the church?

I have tried throughout this resource to avoid throwing unanswered questions at a reader, so I propose my own answer to the above questions: The church’s leaders benefit greatly by putting themselves above others, especially when someone’s identity can be dismissed as sinful. Thus, the church has enacted a trans-exclusionary restroom policy while unashamedly protecting child abusers.2

Further complicating the issue, parents of people in the LGBTQ+ community are often stuck between a rock and a hard place; damned if they support the church, damned if they support their child. I regret remaining silent in a Sunday School class sitting next to the parents of a gay friend while the teacher taught that “if you raise a kid up in the way they should go, they won’t depart from it”. The lesson condemned parents who didn’t do enough to keep their kids “on the strait and narrow”. My friend’s mom decided to prioritize loving and supporting her son over defending the church; his dad chose to prioritize the church. Neither was able to balance the church’s teachings: his mom was condemned by staunch church members for letting her morals slide, and his dad was condemned by others for letting his child down.

I am also appalled when some church members expect someone to remember and recite “Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” and become genuinely upset about the use of the word “Mormon” at the same time they insist on deadnaming teans people (i.e., using someone’s former name or pronouns after an identity transition) or refuse to use any of the several appropriate ways to refer to the LGBTQ+ community (e.g., LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQ+, LGBTQIA+, etc.). I cringed in church meetings when someone talked about “alphabet people”, or some random combination of letters. The LGBTQ+ community is huge and there are 4-7 letters to learn.

Less-Common Church Membership Status

While it seems to be becoming more acceptable, church members have long-condemned nuanced, less-active or inactive church members, calling them “lazy learners” or “fence-walkers”. I remember feeling morally superior as they sent us as young men to proselyte to our less-active friends. It was clear to me that people were to be exactly obedient to the church. We talked in classes and meetings about people who were “falling away” or “giving in to the influence of the adversary”. The church has members believe anyone but the most faithful members has been deceived by Satan’s lies and should be preached to.

Neurodiversity and Introversion

I am autistic and introverted. Church meetings and ordinances were a living hell. It was exhausting to act like a door-to-door salesman during two years of missionary work. It was distressing to be baptized over and over for the dead or have water and oil dripped onto my head during initiatory ceremonies. It was humiliating to be expected to give equivalent talks and testimonies to everyone else. And I was one of the lucky ones: I have relatively low support needs and can “mask” well enough to fit in during church meetings.

A family member with ADHD has also shared her experience being judged and criticized for playing games, drawing, reading, or working on crafts during church meetings. Because it was unrealistic for her to sit still and focus on the speakers in church, she always felt like a lower-class citizen among church members.

The church’s message is clear: if you are not an extroverted neurotypical person, you’re not welcome.

Early Returning and Non-Missionaries

Early returning missionaries and those who choose not to serve missions often find themselves navigating a complex social landscape. For many members, serving a mission is seen as a rite of passage and a demonstration of commitment to the faith. Early returning missionaries—those who return home before completing their full two-year service—may face stigma or judgment from their peers, as their experience can be perceived as a failure to meet the community’s expectations. Similarly, individuals who opt not to serve missions for personal, financial, or health reasons may also feel marginalized within the church.

Cultural Insularity

The dichotomy between in-group solidarity and out-group skepticism can contribute to a sense of cultural insularity within church communities. Members may find themselves primarily interacting with fellow church members, leading to a limited exposure to diverse perspectives and experiences. This insularity can reinforce existing beliefs and create an echo chamber effect, where members are less likely to question their views or engage with differing opinions.

Moreover, this cultural insularity can impact personal identity. Members may come to define themselves primarily in relation to their faith, viewing their identity as intrinsically linked to their membership in the church. While this can foster a strong sense of belonging, it may also limit individuals’ ability to explore their identities outside the confines of the church community. For some, this can lead to feelings of alienation or confusion when encountering differing beliefs or lifestyles.

Implications for Relationships

The implications of this perspective on relationships are profound. Members may struggle to form genuine connections with non-Mormons, as the skepticism toward outsiders can create barriers to understanding and empathy. This can lead to missed opportunities for meaningful dialogue and collaboration, as members may be reluctant to engage with those who hold different beliefs.

Additionally, the pressure to conform to the community’s views can create internal conflict for individuals who may wish to explore relationships outside the faith. Members may feel torn between their loyalty to the church and their desire for authentic connections with non-Mormons. This tension can lead to feelings of isolation or frustration, as individuals navigate the complexities of their identities and relationships.


Identity

page hero, nested mirrors

Identity encompasses the beliefs, values, and experiences that shape a person’s sense of self. In the context of the church, identity is profoundly influenced by faith and community. For many members, being a part of the church is not just a religious affiliation; it is a central aspect of who they are. The teachings, rituals, and social dynamics of the church play a significant role in shaping personal and cultural identity. However, as people navigate their faith journeys—whether through questioning, redefining beliefs, or even distancing themselves from the church—they may find themselves undergoing profound transformations in their identities. In this section, I explore how a church community shapes personal and cultural identity, the intersection of faith and self-perception, and the complexities involved in redefining one’s identity in light of evolving beliefs.

Faith and Identity

Faith serves as a foundational pillar in the identity of many church members. The beliefs and doctrines of the church provide a framework through which people understand themselves and their place in the world. For many, being a member of the church is synonymous with their identity; it informs their values, behaviors, and relationships. The teachings of the church, such as the importance of family, service, and moral integrity, become integral to how members perceive themselves and their responsibilities within the community.

The core teachings of the church, including the principles of the Gospel, the Plan of Salvation, and the emphasis on eternal families, shape the worldview of its members. These teachings provide a sense of purpose and direction, influencing how members define success, happiness, and fulfillment in their lives. For many, the church’s doctrines offer not only spiritual guidance but also a moral compass that informs their daily decisions and interactions with others. Participation in church rituals, such as baptism, confirmation, and temple ordinances, reinforces a sense of belonging and identity among members. These rituals serve as milestones that mark significant spiritual and communal commitments, further solidifying one’s identity as a faithful member of the church. The shared experiences of worship, service, and fellowship create a collective identity that members often carry with them outside of church settings, influencing how they relate to others and perceive their roles in society.

The concept of “being a Mormon” is often viewed as a core aspect of identity, characterized by strong social expectations and norms within the community. Many church communities are marked by a sense of social cohesion, where members feel a collective responsibility to uphold the values and standards of the faith. This creates a set of social expectations that can shape individual behavior and self-perception. Members may feel pressure to conform to certain ideals, such as being active in church service, maintaining a wholesome lifestyle, and raising children in the faith. These expectations can reinforce a sense of identity that is closely tied to one’s participation in the church and adherence to its teachings.

Personal and Cultural Identity

For many members, faith is not only a personal belief system but also a cultural identity that is deeply intertwined with their upbringing, community, and social interactions. This blending of faith and culture creates a unique identity that can be both enriching and challenging, particularly as people navigate the expectations and norms of the church alongside their personal experiences and beliefs.

Cultural identity within church communities is often influenced by a rich tapestry of traditions, values, and practices that are passed down through generations. These cultural elements can include everything from family gatherings and holiday celebrations to specific ways of worship and community service. For many members, these traditions serve as a foundation for their identity, providing a sense of continuity and belonging. The cultural practices associated with being a Mormon can create a strong sense of community, where shared experiences and values foster deep connections among members. However, this cultural identity can also impose certain expectations that may conflict with individual beliefs or experiences, leading to internal struggles as members seek to reconcile their personal identities with the collective identity of the church.

Members further find themselves navigating a complex relationship with the outside world, particularly in regions where they are a minority. Perceptions of the church in popular culture and media can influence how people view themselves and their faith. Stereotypes and misconceptions about the church can lead to feelings of defensiveness or the need to prove one’s worthiness as a member. This external pressure can complicate the process of identity formation, as people may feel the need to conform to societal expectations while also adhering to the teachings of their faith.

As people engage with the world outside the church, they may encounter diverse perspectives and experiences that challenge their understanding of identity. This exposure can lead to a reevaluation of personal beliefs and values, prompting members to explore what it means to be both a faithful church member and a member of a broader society. For some, this journey may involve embracing new ideas and practices that enrich their understanding of self, while for others, it may result in a desire to distance themselves from the church altogether. The process of navigating these complexities can be both liberating and disorienting, as people seek to carve out their own identities in a world that often feels at odds with their faith.

The interplay between personal and cultural identity is particularly evident in the experiences of those who may feel marginalized within the church. People in the LGBTQ+ community, for example, often face unique challenges in reconciling their sexual orientation with the teachings of the church. The cultural norms and policies surrounding sexuality and gender within the church can create a sense of alienation for those who do not conform to traditional expectations. As these people navigate their identities, they may find themselves grappling with feelings of shame, rejection, or the need to hide their true selves. This struggle can lead to a profound redefinition of identity, as they seek to find acceptance and belonging both within and outside the church.

Faith Journeys and Identity Redefinition

As people embark on personal faith journeys, they often encounter significant challenges that prompt them to reevaluate and redefine their identities. This process can be complex and multifaceted, as members grapple with the tension between their deeply held beliefs and the realities of their lived experiences. For many, this journey involves questioning established doctrines, confronting doubts, and ultimately seeking a more authentic sense of self that may diverge from traditional church teachings.

One of the primary challenges faced by people navigating their faith journeys is the struggle to reconcile personal beliefs with institutional teachings. Many members grow up internalizing the church’s doctrines, which can create a strong sense of certainty and belonging. However, as they encounter new ideas, experiences, or perspectives—whether through education, relationships, or exposure to different cultures—they may begin to question the validity of those teachings. This process of questioning can be both liberating and disorienting, as people confront the possibility that their long-held beliefs may no longer resonate with their evolving understanding of the world. The internal conflict that arises from this dissonance can lead to feelings of guilt, confusion, and isolation, as members grapple with the fear of disappointing their families, friends, or church leaders.

For some, the journey of faith may culminate in a decision to distance themselves from the church altogether. This can be a painful and difficult choice, as it often involves leaving behind not only a set of beliefs but also a community that has provided support and identity for much of their lives. The process of leaving the church can be fraught with emotional turmoil, as people navigate feelings of loss, grief, and uncertainty about their place in the world. However, for many, this decision also represents an opportunity for personal growth and self-discovery. By stepping away from the constraints of institutional teachings, people may find the freedom to explore new beliefs, values, and practices that align more closely with their authentic selves.

Conversely, some people may choose to remain within the church while redefining their relationship with their faith. This can involve a reexamination of church teachings and a willingness to embrace a more nuanced understanding of doctrine. For these people, the journey may include finding ways to integrate their personal beliefs with their commitment to the church, allowing for a more flexible and individualized approach to faith. This process can foster a sense of empowerment, as members learn to navigate their spiritual paths on their own terms, rather than adhering strictly to prescribed norms.

The process of redefining identity in light of personal faith journeys is often accompanied by a search for community and support. As people explore new beliefs or question established doctrines, they may seek out like-minded people who share similar experiences. This can lead to the formation of alternative communities, both within and outside the church, where people can find acceptance and understanding. Online platforms, support groups, and local gatherings can provide spaces for open dialogue and connection, allowing people to share their stories and learn from one another. These supportive environments can be instrumental in helping people navigate the complexities of their faith journeys, fostering a sense of belonging that may have felt elusive within traditional church settings.

Ultimately, the journey of navigating faith and redefining identity is a deeply personal and transformative experience. As people confront the challenges of questioning their beliefs and seeking authenticity, they may emerge with a more profound understanding of themselves and their place in the world. This ongoing exploration of identity not only enriches their personal lives but also contributes to the broader conversation about the nature of faith, belonging, and the complexities of the human experience. By embracing the journey of self-discovery, people can cultivate a more inclusive and compassionate understanding of identity that honors the diverse paths taken by members of the church and beyond.

Identity Changes

Many people experience significant changes in their identities, particularly when their faith journeys lead them away from the teachings and practices of their existing belief system and community. This transformation can be both liberating and isolating. For those who begin to question or reject core tenets of their faith, the process of redefining their identity often involves a painful separation from the community that once provided a sense of belonging and purpose.

The isolation felt by people distancing themselves from their community can be profound. Many find that their relationships with family and friends become strained as they diverge from shared beliefs and practices. The social fabric of the church is tightly woven, and stepping away from its teachings can lead to feelings of alienation. This is particularly true for those who have been raised in the faith, where the concept of “being a Mormon” is deeply ingrained in their self-perception. The fear of judgment or rejection can create a barrier to open dialogue, leaving people feeling unsupported in their quest for authenticity.

Moreover, the loss of community can exacerbate feelings of loneliness and confusion as people grapple with their new identities. The transition often requires not only a re-evaluation of personal beliefs but also the search for new social networks that align with their evolving values. This journey can be daunting, as people seek to find acceptance and understanding outside the familiar structures of their upbringing. However, it can also lead to the discovery of new communities that celebrate diverse identities and foster a sense of belonging based on shared experiences rather than shared beliefs.

Conclusion

The interplay between faith and identity is complex and multifaceted. While the teachings and practices of the church play a foundational role in shaping individual identities, the process of navigating personal faith journeys can lead to profound transformations. As people confront doubts and redefine their beliefs, they may experience both the challenges of isolation and the opportunities for growth and self-discovery.

By fostering an environment that values individual experiences and encourages open dialogue, the community can become a more inclusive space where all members—regardless of their faith journey—can find acceptance and support. Ultimately, recognizing and celebrating the richness of diverse identities not only strengthens the community but also enriches the broader tapestry of human experience.


Chapter 4

Doctrine

page hero, library full of books

At the heart of any religious tradition lies its core doctrine—the fundamental beliefs, principles, and teachings that define the faith and guide the lives of its adherents. For those who have dedicated their lives to a particular religion, these doctrinal foundations often serve as the unshakable bedrock upon which their entire worldview is constructed.

However, as we embark on this critical examination of doctrine, we must be willing to approach these sacred tenets with the same level of rigor and skepticism that we would apply to any other system of beliefs. After all, if a faith’s claims are truly divinely inspired and beyond reproach, they should be able to withstand the most meticulous scrutiny.

In this chapter, I explore the various elements that comprise the church’s doctrine, exploring concepts such as the nature of truth, the role of reason, the authority of canonical texts, and the historical context that has shaped the evolution of these beliefs over time. I also examine the thorny issue of doctrinal inconsistencies, as well as the challenge of testing the verifiable claims made by religious institutions.

By approaching these topics with an open and critical mind, I aim to gain a deeper understanding of the foundations upon which faith is built, and to assess whether these foundations can truly withstand the weight of rational inquiry. This exploration is not intended to undermine or diminish the personal spiritual experiences of believers, but rather to encourage a more thoughtful and nuanced engagement with the core tenets of one’s belief system.

Ultimately, my goal is to empower you to make informed decisions about the beliefs you choose to embrace, grounded in an understanding of the complex and often contentious landscape of doctrine in the church.


Subsections of Doctrine

Truth

page hero, hand holding a compass

I believed from a young age that the church’s teachings represented absolute, unequivocal truth. “I know the church is true,” I said (and heard) countless times, uttered with a fervent conviction that seemed to defy any possibility of doubt or questioning. This sentiment was often expressed through the sharing of testimonies—intimate spiritual experiences that were presented as irrefutable evidence of the divine origins of the church’s doctrines and practices.

However, as I’ve grown older and my understanding of the world has deepened, I’ve come to realize that the nature of truth is far more complex and elusive than the simple declarations of certainty that I once accepted without question.

Would You Want to Know?

I pose an question vital to the discovery of truth: If your belief system were wrong, would you want to know?

As I’ve grappled with the nature of truth in a religious context, I’ve come to realize that the path to understanding is paved not with unquestioning faith, but with a willingness to approach questions with an open and critical mind.

While personal spiritual experiences should not be dismissed, when these subjective experiences are elevated to the level of absolute, unquestionable truth, they can become a hindrance to genuine understanding and growth. Instead, I attempt to strike a balance – acknowledging the value of spiritual exploration, while also recognizing the limitations of personal revelation or the pronouncements of religious authorities.

By embracing a more holistic, multifaceted approach to the pursuit of truth, we open ourselves up to a richer, more nuanced understanding of the human condition and our place within the grand tapestry of existence. This means being willing to engage with diverse perspectives, to challenge our own preconceptions, and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead – even if that means confronting uncomfortable truths or letting go of cherished beliefs.

In my own journey, this realization has forced me to grapple with the uncertainty and ambiguity that often characterize the human experience, rather than clinging to the false comfort of absolute certainty. But it has also imbued my understanding of the world with a deeper sense of wonder, a greater appreciation for the complexity of existence, and a renewed commitment to the ongoing pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Embracing the complex nature of truth is a celebration of the richness and complexity of the human experience. It is a call to approach the world with a spirit of curiosity, humility, and a willingness to engage in the ongoing dialogue that is the hallmark of true intellectual and spiritual growth.

The Burden of Proof

When confronted with claims of absolute, unquestionable truth, it is important to carefully examine the burden of proof that rests upon those making such assertions. In academia, for example, the peer-review process demands extensive evidence to support any hypothesis or theory. The more extraordinary the claim, the more robust the supporting evidence must be.

In the context of religious discussion, Hitchens’ Razor is a commonly-cited epistemological razor that distills this requirement into a simple phrase:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.1

This principle of the burden of proof is a fundamental tenet of rational inquiry, rooted in the recognition that our individual perceptions and beliefs can be shaped by a wide range of cognitive biases, emotional attachments, and cultural conditioning. It is not enough to simply assert a truth claim and expect it to be accepted at face value; rather, the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate the validity of their position through verifiable, objective evidence.

If truth claims are to be taken seriously, one must be willing to subject those claims to the same rigorous standards of evidence and rational scrutiny that are applied to any other system of beliefs. Only then are the foundations of faith built on a solid, unshakable bedrock of truth, rather than the shifting sands of unsubstantiated assertions and appeals to authority.

“The Church is True”

I’ve always been confused by the claim that a church can be true. I have pondered this claim and asked church members what they meant by the saying. In general, the saying can be interpreted in the following ways:

  1. The church’s doctrine and truth claims are true; or
  2. The church values and exemplifies truth, honesty, and transparency.

Doctrinal Truth

The claim that the church’s doctrine and truth claims are true is simultaneously straightforward and complex to analyze. The church’s burden of proof is to demonstrate that its doctrine is logically consistent; by identifying even one example of logical inconsistency, it is possible to disprove the truth of doctrinal claims. The church has produced a finite set of claims, so it is possible to determine the logical soundness of church doctrine in a finite amount of time. However, as I explore in the following section on Reason, a combination of highly-effective logical fallacies scattered throughout the church’s teachings introduces a layer of complexity to this analysis.

When it comes to its doctrine, I’ve often found that the church does not uphold its burden of proof. Time and again, I’ve encountered faith-based teachings that rely heavily on appeals to authority, personal experiences, and the force of tradition, rather than rigorous, empirical validation.

Consider the church’s doctrine of prophetic infallibility—the belief that the church’s president and apostles are incapable of leading the faithful astray, as they are guided directly by God. This claim, at the heart of the church’s truth claims, is presented as an absolute, unquestionable tenet of the faith. Yet, prophets and apostles have made pronouncements and policy decisions that have later been abandoned or reinterpreted as mistakes or imperfections.

If sound reasoning methods were truly applied, one would expect the church to provide a robust, well-reasoned justification for why its leaders should be granted such a lofty, infallible status—one that can withstand rigorous scrutiny and critical analysis. Instead, the doctrine is often simply asserted as a matter of faith, with little attempt to demonstrate its validity through objective, verifiable means.

Further, doctrines and teachings evolve and change over time. What was once presented as an immutable, divinely-inspired truth can later be reframed, reinterpreted, or even outright abandoned as the understanding of the world and the human condition progresses.

The history of the church provides a prime example of this phenomenon. Teachings and policies that were once touted as eternal, God-given mandates—such as a racial ban on priesthood and temple ordinances or the practice of polygamy—have since been discarded or reinterpreted, challenging the notion of the church’s infallibility and the immutability of its core truths.

This pattern of doctrinal shifts and revisions requires us to confront a fundamental question: If the “truths” of a religion can change so dramatically over time, how can we be certain that the current teachings represent anything more than the fallible interpretations of human beings, rather than the immutable, divinely-inspired revelations they are often claimed to be? I cannot answer this question, but I assert that the burden of justification lies with church leaders, who—in my opinion—have yet to provide a satisfactory answer.

By failing to uphold their burden of proof, church leaders visibly attempt to insulate their doctrines from meaningful critique and challenge. This undermines the pursuit of truth and can foster an environment of unquestioning obedience, where adherents are discouraged from engaging in critical thinking or independent investigation of the faith’s core tenets.

Cultural Truth

The assertion that the church values and exemplifies truth, honesty, and transparency is one that deserves careful scrutiny. On the surface, this claim aligns with the church’s professed commitment to moral and spiritual principles. However, a closer examination of the church’s historical and contemporary practices reveals a more complex and, at times, contradictory reality.

One need look no further than the church’s long-standing tradition of obfuscation and secrecy surrounding its finances, institutional decision-making, and the personal lives of its leadership. Despite repeated calls for greater financial transparency, the church has steadfastly refused to provide externally-audited reports of its vast wealth and expenditures. This lack of openness stands in stark contrast to the church’s teachings on the importance of honesty and accountability.

Similarly, the church’s handling of sensitive issues, such as allegations of sexual abuse within its ranks, has often been characterized by a troubling pattern of cover-ups, victim-blaming, and a general unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Time and again, the church has prioritized the protection of its reputation and institutional interests over the pursuit of justice and the wellbeing of its own members. It was discouraging to see the church spend tithing money in a legal battle defending the right of clergy members to withhold information about abuse. It was more discouraging to read the church’s reaction in (the church-owned publication) Deseret News:

Bill Maledon, the church’s attorney who handled the case, said in a statement to the Deseret News, “We are pleased with the Arizona Superior Court’s decision granting summary judgment for the Church and its clergy and dismissing the plantiffs’ claims.”2

Moreover, the church’s historical narratives have been shown to contain numerous inaccuracies, omissions, and even outright falsehoods. From the whitewashing of its past treatment of marginalized groups to the selective presentation of historical evidence, the church has at times demonstrated a concerning disregard for the principles of truthfulness and transparency that it so ardently espouses.

One particularly thorny issue that arises when examining the nature of truth in a religious context is the possibility of a prophet or religious leader deliberately deceiving their followers. While many faiths hold their prophets and apostles in the highest regard, imbuing them with near-infallible status, history has shown that even the most revered religious figures are not immune to human flaws.

The discovery of past religious leaders engaging in unethical or even criminal behavior—from financial misdeeds to sexual abuse—have shaken the faith of many adherents, forcing them to confront the unsettling reality that even those entrusted with the divine mantle of leadership are capable of betraying the trust placed in them. This raises profound questions about the reliability of truth claims and the need for robust systems of accountability and transparency within faith communities.

Ultimately, the claim that the church values and exemplifies truth, honesty, and transparency must be viewed through a critical lens. While the church may pay lip service to these virtues, its actions and institutional practices often tell a very different story – one that raises troubling questions about the church’s commitment to the pursuit of truth and the wellbeing of its adherents. True transparency and accountability can only be achieved through a willingness to confront the church’s shortcomings and to hold its leaders and institutions to the same standards of honesty and integrity that they demand of their members.


  1. Hitchens, Christopher (6 April 2009). God Is Not Great: How religion poisons everything. Twelve Books. ↩︎

  2. “Judge dismisses lawsuit against church in Arizona sex abuse case, citing clergy-penitent exception”. (2023, November 9). Deseret News. https://www.deseret.com/2023/11/8/23953246/statement-from-church-arizona-sex-abuse-case-lawsuit ↩︎


Reason

page hero, strawman

Church teachings place a strong emphasis on faith, revelation, and spiritual experiences as the primary means of gaining knowledge about religious truth. However, it is also important to engage in logical reasoning and critical analysis when evaluating religious claims. Reason and faith need not be in conflict – in fact, they can and should work together to help us arrive at a more complete understanding of spiritual and religious matters.

The Role of Reason

Reason, or the use of logic, evidence, and critical thinking, is a valuable tool that can complement and enhance our spiritual experiences. Reason allows us to:

  1. Examine religious claims objectively
  2. Identify inconsistencies or contradictions
  3. Evaluate the reliability of sources and evidence
  4. Draw logical conclusions based on available information
  5. Reconcile apparent conflicts between faith and empirical knowledge

Using reason to analyze your faith does not mean you are betraying or rejecting that faith. Many faithful church members have found that carefully examining their beliefs through the lens of reason has actually helped them develop a more nuanced, well-rounded understanding of their religion. If religious claims stand up to scrutiny, reasoning should be a means of refining and deepening your spiritual convictions, not undermining them.

In fact, church members have been encouraged throughout history to try to reason about their beliefs:

If [Joseph Smith’s] claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect.1

With this in mind, I spend the remainder of this chapter reasoning about church beliefs and teachings. I point out logical flaws in specific aspects of the church’s doctrine, and I discuss apologetic and antagonistic reactions to those flaws.

Reasoning Skills

Throughout this chapter, I refer to and utilize a number of reasoning techniques, which I describe in greater detail in this section. The key is to approach these logical analyses with an open and curious mindset. Engaging reasoning skills does not have to undermine your faith – in fact, it can actually help you develop a deeper, more nuanced understanding of your beliefs.

Building a Rational Argument

Building a rational argument is a systematic process that requires careful consideration of claims, evidence, and logical structure. Great care should be taken to avoid producing falsifiable claims.

Some people spend their entire careers evaluating the components of a rational argument. It is impossible for me to provide a comprehensive resource; however, this resource relies primarily on simple arguments that are straightforward to construct and analyze.

Considering Alternatives

Because religion can be an emotional topic, it is easy to show a bias toward a certain conclusion. For example, apologetic work often assumes a claim from religious leaders is true before building an argument around it. It is important to consider multiple possible explanations or interpretations, rather than immediately accepting the one presented. Exploring alternative viewpoints can lead to a more nuanced and well-rounded understanding of the issue.

There is little point in reasoning if the purpose is to justify a statement that you are unwilling to change your thoughts about. The human brain is capable of amazing reasoning feats, but there is no point burning sugar to reason about something if it does not have the potential to make a meaningful impact.

Logical Reasoning

Many of the church’s claims can be evaluated using the principles of (Boolean) logic – that is, breaking down ideas into simple statements that are either true or false. For example, the statement “There is a dog in the room” can be logically analyzed as either true or false based on the actual presence or absence of a dog.

Logical Proof Techniques

One powerful logical proof technique is proof by contradiction. Let’s say you want to prove the statement “There is a $100 bill on the table.” To do this using proof by contradiction, you would:

  1. Assume the opposite is true – that there is no $100 bill on the table.
  2. Then, look at the table. If you find a $100 bill there, you have contradicted the assumption.
  3. Since it’s impossible for there to both be and not be a $100 bill on the table, the original claim is true.

Proof by contradiction allows the logical establishment of the truth of a claim by showing that the opposite cannot be true. This technique can be surprisingly useful when evaluating religious teachings and claims.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning involves drawing specific conclusions from general premises. For example, if the premise is “All dogs have four legs” and the specific case is “Fido is a dog”, the deductive conclusion would be “Fido has four legs.” This type of logical inference can be a useful tool for evaluating religious claims, since it can be used to create a convincing proof of the truthfulness of a statement.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning works in the opposite direction, drawing general conclusions from specific observations. For instance, you may notice that every church member you’ve met has been kind and charitable and inductively conclude that church members are generally kind and charitable people. Inductive reasoning can provide valuable insights, but it’s important to be cautious about making generalizations. Inductive reasoning has an important limitation: it cannot be used to craft a convincing proof.

Identifying Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Logical fallacies are common errors in reasoning that can undermine the validity of an argument. They are commonly introduced because of cognitive biases. Recognizing these fallacies can help you think more critically about religious teachings and claims. A well-constructed argument should be free of fallacy. An excellent resource to explore logical fallacies in-depth is RationalWiki, a community-driven resource that promotes rational thought.

I have identified a selection of fallacies that tend to arise in religious conversations, as well as examples and strategies to avoid each fallacy.

Confirmation Bias

Identification: Confirmation Bias (sometimes known as motivated reasoning) is the tendency to seek only information that conforms to their existing viewpoints, ignoring information that contradicts them. Everyone experiences confirmation bias, but it is crucial to consider diverse perspectives to construct the most complete argument possible.

Example: People tend to read news media that aligns with their existing political views rather than exploring diverse interpretations of events. Further, religious arguments sometimes rely heavily on confirmation bias to encourage members to stay in the faith. For example, leaders might encourage only seeking “church-approved” resources.

Defense: When you notice yourself avoiding an opinion that differs from your own, it might be worth exploring the other party’s perspective.

Appeal to Emotion

Identification: An appeal to emotion (argumentum ad passiones) occurs when a speaker seeks an emotional response rather than reason. It often includes loaded terms that invoke feelings of fear, guilt, shame, excitement, or other intense emotions. It appeals to a listener’s prejudice rather than offering a sober assessment. Appealing to emotion is not inherently harmful, but it does not produce a rational argument. Appeals to emotion are extremely common in religious settings.

Example: If we didn’t have the church, imagine how many people would be murderers and rapists.

Defense: When you notice yourself experiencing an emotional response to something, consider if that emotional response forms the basis for your conclusion.

Lying

Identification: Lying is the most obvious logical fallacy. If a statement is a lie, it is false.

Example: There are no lakes in Idaho.

Defense: To avoid lies, it is important to consult a number of sources, preferably with varied interests (i.e., opinions from many people in support of vs. in opposition to an issue).

The Fallacy Fallacy

Identification: The fallacy fallacy (argumentum ad logicam) occurs when one assumes that because an argument contains a fallacy, it is false. Because true statements can be made using faulty logic, it is important not to dismiss a claim solely on the basis of a bad argument.

Example: The statement “God exists because good people believe in God” is a fallacy, so God must not exist.

Defense: If you find a fallacy in an argument, it is important to evaluate the claim without considering the fallacious argument. If the claim still holds water after the fallacy is removed, the fallacy did not matter. If the argument relies on the fallacy, however, it is important to pursue a better argument for or against the claim.

Argumentum Ad Hominem

Identification: An argument against a person rather than a claim (argumentum ad hominem) is one of the most egregious fallacies I encounter from any side of a religious debate. It involves an attack on one’s character rather than their claim. It serves to distract from the original argument by switching the focus to character, not truth.

Example: You shouldn’t trust an exmormon, they’re just angry at the church.

Defense: Watch out for Ad Hominem anytime the stakes are high and parties seem desperate to make their point, as it is often someone’s last resort. If in doubt, consider whether an argument is focused on the claim or the speaker.

Appeal to Hypocrisy

Identification: An appeal to hypocrisy (argumentum ad hominem tu quoque) is the ugly cousin of Argumentum Ad Hominem. It involves arguing against a claim because the speaker has acted in a manner inconsistent with it.

Example: You can’t criticize someone’s dishonesty when you’ve been caught lying yourself.

Defense: Watch out for Tu Quoque if someone is calling someone a hypocrite, and evaluate if the claim of hypocrisy renders the original argument false.

Special Pleading

Identification: Special Pleading involves claiming that something is an overwhelming exception to a rule, without justification for the exemption. While special cases do exist, Special Pleading specifically involves moving the goalposts because a claim was shown to be false.

Example: The church never misled members about their finances. Except for the SEC scandal, but that doesn’t count. They are still as transparent as they can be.

Defense: In religious settings, Special Pleading arises especially frequently in apologetic work. Because the goal of apologetic work is to attempt to resolve problems with religious claims, the argument often needs to be molded to fit the claim. This can increase the attractiveness of insisting on exceptions to the rules.

Truth vs. Counsel

In religious settings, truth and action are often conflated. James 2:20, after all, teaches that “faith without good deeds is useless”2. There is a tendency to draw a conclusion like “the Book of Mormon is true” and interpret that statement as an imperative to act.

In this chapter, I evaluate only truth. That is, I do not have any idea what you should do with the information I present. I advocate for empathy, respect, and nonviolence, but beyond that, I don’t really care what action you take. What I do care about is giving you the information you need to choose a course that aligns with your own values.

For example, if you find my argument convincing that the church’s claims regarding The Book of Abraham are not true, there are myriad possible resulting actions: you may decide to leave the church, you could continue believing in the church’s other claims, you might disregard truth entirely and emphasize the symbolic message of the book.


Canon

page hero, old books on a shelf

The church is distinguished by its unique canon, which includes the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. As a church member, I was taught that these texts are divinely inspired and foundational to faith. However, a critical examination of these scriptures raises important questions about their historical authenticity, theological consistency, and overall truthfulness.

In this section, I systematically deconstruct the claims of truthfulness associated with these unique scriptures. By analyzing the historical context, textual integrity, and the evidence—or lack thereof—for their narratives, I challenge the assertions made by church leaders. This exploration highlights critical issues with the texts themselves and considers the broader implications of accepting these scriptures as authoritative. Through this critical lens, I seek to foster a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the church’s scriptural claims and encourage thoughtful dialogue on the nature of religious truth.


Subsections of Canon

The Book of Mormon

page hero, person holding a Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is often referred to as the keystone of the one’s beliefs, claimed to be a record of ancient American civilizations and a testament of Jesus Christ’s ministry in the Americas. The 2015 edition of the book’s introduction clearly makes this assertion:

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. […] In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. […] Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”1

However, a critical examination of The Book of Mormon reveals several significant issues regarding its historical authenticity, textual integrity, and theological claims. In this section, I discuss specific claims about The Book of Mormon that I believe negate any potential for truthfulness and require the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a product of the author’s imagination.

Basic Requirements for Legitimacy

In order for The Book of Mormon to be considered true, I assert that the following claims must hold (i.e., if these claims are not true, the book cannot be true):

  1. The Book of Mormon was translated—not written—by Joseph Smith, and
  2. The Book of Mormon is theologically and logically consistent.

In the following sections, I demonstrate that the church does not uphold its burden of proof of these claims, and ample evidence supports the rejection of all four claims.2

Requirement 1: Translation

The translation of The Book of Mormon is a pivotal claim that underpins its legitimacy and is central to the beliefs of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith asserted that he translated the book from golden plates, which he claimed were engraved by ancient prophets.3 According to Smith, these plates were discovered in the 1820s in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and were revealed to him by an angel named Moroni.4

Burden of Proof and My Argument

It is the church’s responsibility to prove the claim that The Book of Mormon is a translation of a historical text. I make no attempt to disprove that claim. Instead, I argue that it is sufficiently possible that Smith did not translate it.

Specifically, I make the following arguments:

  1. It is possible that Joseph Smith and his associates wrote The Book of Mormon, and
  2. It is not probable that Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon from an ancient text.

The notion that Joseph Smith likely dreamed up The Book of Mormon himself has been studied and discussed by professional researchers for generations. While I attempt to provide a rational and balanced argument, I do not have the resources to produce a comparable discussion. An astute reader should check my claims against peer-reviewed and primary sources. I encourage an exploration of the following sources, from which I have synthesized this section:

  • No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith by Fawn M. Brodie (1945)
  • Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman (2005)
  • Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet by Dan Vogel (2004)
  • “The Book of Mormon: A Historical Perspective” in The Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Edition by Richard L. Anderson (2003)
  • The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction by John W. Welch (2009)
  • New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe (1993)
  • Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon by David Persuitte (1985)
  • By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion by Terryl Givens (2003)
  • Early Mormonism and the Magic World View by Michael Quinn (1998)
  • An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins by Grant Palmer (2002)

Argument 1.1: It is possible that Joseph Smith and his associates wrote The Book of Mormon

Occam’s Razor recommends searching for the simplest hypothesis (i.e., the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions). In the case of The Book of Mormon, the simplest hypothesis is that Smith penned the book by himself or with the help of his close associates.

Smith’s Background

It has been well-documented, including in several church-produced and above-listed sources, that Joseph Smith grew up in an educated family during a time of extreme religious excitement. Smith’s family was involved in various religious movements, and he was exposed to a wide array of religious ideas and texts from a young age. This environment fostered a culture of inquiry and debate, which likely influenced Smith’s theological development. Both of Smith’s parents were educators, and many of his family members were educated and respected individuals.

Smith’s early experiences with folk magic and treasure-seeking also played a significant role in shaping his worldview. These activities provided him with a framework for storytelling and a familiarity with the narrative techniques that would later appear in The Book of Mormon. The blending of religious fervor and folk traditions in early 19th-century America created a fertile ground for the creation of a new religious text, one that could resonate with the spiritual yearnings of his contemporaries.

Linguistic Characteristics

The linguistic style of The Book of Mormon has been a focal point in the authorship debate. Critics have noted that the text exhibits characteristics typical of early 19th-century American literature, including the use of language unique to the King James Bible and narrative structures common in that era. Smith, drawing from his cultural and literary context, may have written the book himself or collaborated with others who shared similar influences.

One of the most notable aspects of The Book of Mormon is its linguistic style, which closely mirrors that of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible and other religious texts that were prominent in 19th-century America. The frequent use of phrases such as “and it came to pass” exemplifies this biblical cadence, which was familiar to readers of the time. This stylistic choice not only reflects the religious milieu of early America but also indicates that the authors were intentionally crafting a text that would resonate with contemporary audiences.

Further, the poor quality of the writing in early editions of The Book of Mormon appropriately matches Smith’s estimated education level and experience. The book is not a literary or philosophical masterpiece; it is full of logical inconsistency and other critical issues that a keen author would spot and correct.

Literary Characteristics

The narrative structure of The Book of Mormon further supports the idea of Smith’s authorship. Scholars often point to instances of chiasmus—an ancient Hebrew literary form where concepts are presented in a mirrored fashion—within the text. For example, Alma 36 is often cited as a well-structured chiasmus, showcasing a sophisticated literary technique that suggests a deliberate composition. Additionally, the development of characters, such as Alma’s transformation from a persecutor to a prophet, reflects common narrative arcs found in 19th-century literature, emphasizing moral and spiritual growth.

The themes present in The Book of Mormon further echo the religious discourse of the early 19th century. Central themes such as faith, redemption, and the consequences of sin resonate with the revivalist movements of the time, which emphasized personal revelation and the role of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, the portrayal of America as a promised land reflects the nationalistic sentiments of the period, positioning the Nephites and Lamanites as distinct peoples with a divine purpose.

When compared to other contemporary religious texts, such as the writings of the Shakers or the works of early American revivalists, The Book of Mormon exhibits similarities in style, themes, and narrative techniques. Moreover, the narrative style and themes of The Book of Mormon reflect the folk traditions and storytelling methods prevalent in early 19th-century America. The moral lessons, allegories, and parables found throughout the text align with the storytelling practices of the time, suggesting that Smith drew upon the cultural and literary environment surrounding him. The use of familiar narrative structures, such as the journey of a chosen people and the fall and redemption of civilizations, mirrors the themes found in contemporary religious literature and reflects the revivalist spirit of the era.

The character of Nephi, for instance, embodies the archetype of the faithful leader who is guided by divine revelation. His journey from Jerusalem to the promised land serves as a metaphor for the quest for spiritual truth, a theme that resonates with the religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening. This context likely influenced the creation of The Book of Mormon, as it sought to address the spiritual needs and questions of its audience.

Summary

The historical, linguistic, and literary characteristics of The Book of Mormon provide substantial evidence for the argument that Joseph Smith and his associates could have authored the text. The influence of the King James Bible, the presence of chiasmus, and the thematic elements all point to a deliberate construction that aligns with the cultural and literary context of early 19th-century America. By examining these aspects, one can argue that The Book of Mormon is not a divinely inspired translation but rather a product of its time, reflecting the literary style, beliefs, and ideals of its author.

Argument 1.2: It is not probable that Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon from an ancient text

The presence of anachronisms in The Book of Mormon raises significant questions about its historical authenticity and the possibility that Smith translated it from ancient records. In the context of the Book of Mormon, anachronisms are elements that do not align with the historical context of the purported ancient Americas. For instance, references to animals, technologies, and terminology indicate that the authors were likely more concerned with addressing contemporary issues than accurately depicting ancient civilizations.

Material Anachronisms

Several specific examples of anachronisms in The Book of Mormon further illustrate this point. The mention of horses in the text has been a focal point of debate, as archaeological evidence does not support the existence of horses in the Americas during the time periods described in the book. Similarly, the use of “steel” is problematic, as the technology for producing steel was not present in the ancient Americas prior to European contact. Additionally, the term “Christian” is used in the text to describe followers of Christ, which raises questions about its applicability in a pre-Christian context. Further, the character of King Noah is depicted as a ruler who indulges in excess and leads his people into sin, a narrative that reflects contemporary concerns about leadership and morality rather than an accurate historical account of ancient governance.

Linguistic Anachronisms

A significant aspect to consider in the authorship debate is the influence of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, particularly the writings attributed to Isaiah, on The Book of Mormon. Deutero-Isaiah contains themes of comfort, redemption, and the promise of a coming Messiah, which resonate throughout The Book of Mormon. However, the KJV translation of these texts is not without its errors and idiosyncrasies, many of which are reflected in The Book of Mormon. For instance, certain phrases and interpretations found in the KJV are echoed in text of The Book of Mormon text, even when they may not accurately convey the original Hebrew meanings. This reliance on the KJV raises questions about the authenticity of the translation process claimed by Joseph Smith. If Smith were indeed translating ancient records, one would expect a more direct and accurate rendering of the original texts rather than a rehashing of KJV translation errors. The presence of these KJV-specific phrases and interpretations suggests that the authors of The Book of Mormon were drawing from the familiar language of the KJV, further supporting the argument that the text was crafted in a modern context rather than being a genuine translation of ancient scripture.

Cultural Anachronisms

The portrayal of societal structures in The Book of Mormon also reflects modern concerns rather than ancient realities. For example, the text describes complex political systems, such as the reign of judges and the establishment of a monarchy, which may have been influenced by contemporary American governance and debates about democracy and authority. The character of Moroni, who leads a military campaign against the Lamanites, embodies the ideals of patriotism and sacrifice, echoing the sentiments of a nation grappling with its identity in the wake of the American Revolution.

Additionally, the emphasis on personal revelation and the quest for truth resonates with the revivalist movements of the time, which emphasized individual spiritual experiences and the importance of personal faith. This alignment with contemporary beliefs suggests that the authors were crafting a narrative that would appeal to the spiritual and cultural landscape of early 19th-century America.

Anthon Transcript

In my opinion, the most damning evidence against translation claims is the Anthon Transcript. This document, which Joseph Smith claimed to be a copy of characters from the golden plates, was presented to Charles Anthon, a classical scholar, in 1828. Anthon reportedly examined the transcript and expressed skepticism about its authenticity, stating that it appeared to be a form of shorthand rather than an ancient script. If Joseph Smith had indeed translated The Book of Mormon from ancient records, one would expect the characters to reflect a coherent and recognizable ancient language. However, the fact that Anthon could not validate the characters raises questions about the authenticity of Smith’s claims.

Anthon Transcript Anthon Transcript

Furthermore, the Anthon Transcript has been described as resembling elements of 19th-century American writing styles along with convolutions of Latin characters, suggesting that it may have been created by Smith or his associates rather than being a genuine representation of ancient script. This connection reinforces the argument that The Book of Mormon was likely a product of its time, crafted within the cultural and literary context of early 19th-century America, rather than a divinely inspired translation of ancient texts.5

Translation Process

The translation process is alleged to have involved the use of the Urim and Thummim, which Smith described as a set of divine instruments that facilitated the translation of the ancient text.6 However, many church members were surprised at the 2018 release of Saints7 to learn that Smith often dictated the text while looking into seer stones, which were placed in a hat to block out light, allowing him to focus on the words that appeared.8 This method of translation has been a subject of much discussion and debate, as it raises questions about honesty, authorship, and divine intervention.

The church has demonstrated dishonesty throughout its history by teaching members conflicting narratives regarding the translation process. Many church members are familiar with images similar to the following, which depict Smith’s translation process using the Urim and Thummim, essentially composed of spectacles and a breastplate.9

Joseph Smith using Urim and Thummim Joseph Smith using Urim and Thummim

Throughout history, the church has taught members that seer stones were not used in the translation process. Bruce R. McConkie (a man who claimed to speak on behalf of God) compiled into Doctrines of Salvation the following statement from Joseph Fielding Smith (a man who claimed to speak on behalf of God):

SEER STONE NOT USED IN BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION.

[…]

While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.10

Further, Bruce R. McConkie (still a man who claimed to speak on behalf of God) wrote the following about seer (peep) stones in Mormon Doctrine, which was promoted by the church until being discontinued in 2010 due to low sales:11

In imitation of the tme order of heaven whereby seers receive revelations from God through a Urim and Thummim, the devil gives his own revelations to some of his followers through peep stones or crystal balls. An instance of this copying of the true order occurred in the early days of this dispensation. Hiram Page had such a stone and was professing to have revelations for the upbuilding of Zion and the governing of the Church. Oliver Cowdery and some others were wrongly influenced thereby in consequence of which Oliver was commanded by revelation: “Thou shall take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that Satan deceiveth him.” (D&C 28:11)

These men who professed to speak for God made God’s opinion on the matter clear: seer stones were not used in the translation of The Book of Mormon, and they are instruments of Satan to give revelations to his followers. However, the church has recently adjusted its message: a seer stone was indeed used to translate the book. The Joseph Smith Papers include a page dedicated to seer stones, and they include the following photo of a seer stone associated with Joseph Smith. Leaders throughout the church’s history not only knew of the seer stone’s existence; they had the stone in their possession. In my opinion, this serves as evidence that church leaders throughout history have wilfully misled church members about the origins of their fundamental text.

Image of Seer Stone associated with Joseph Smith Image of Seer Stone associated with Joseph Smith

While the dishonesty of church leaders does not prove that the The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, it does raise serious questions about the motivation of church leaders. If The Book of Mormon were irrefutably true, what would motivate prophets to lie about its history? I suggest that if the church were confident about the keystone of their religion, they would have allowed the history to speak for itself.

Discussion

In conclusion, the presence of anachronisms and the alignment of narrative style with early 19th-century American literature strongly suggest that it is not probable Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon from ancient records. Instead, these elements indicate that the text was crafted to engage a modern audience, reflecting contemporary beliefs and cultural practices. By examining specific characters, societal structures, and thematic elements, one can argue that The Book of Mormon is not merely a divinely inspired translation but rather a product of its time, addressing the complex interplay of faith, culture, and literature in early American society.

Apologetic Approaches

When defending The Book of Mormon from an apologetic perspective (i.e., a perspective that forms its argument under the assumption that The Book of Mormon is true), apologists may rebut these claims using a number of familiar arguments. I present a selection of these arguments and my analysis of them; I encourage you to explore both apologetic and secular sources and determine for yourself what is most convincing.

Divine Inspiration

One common apologist argument is that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired in his translation process, which allowed him to produce a text that, while reflecting contemporary language and themes, still conveyed ancient truths. They assert that the presence of anachronisms can be understood as a result of Smith’s limited vocabulary and cultural context, rather than evidence of authorship.

While divine inspiration is a central tenet of faith for many believers, it does not provide a basis for historical or textual authenticity. The argument that Smith’s limited vocabulary accounts for anachronisms fails to address the specific instances where the text directly contradicts known historical facts. For example, the mention of horses and steel in a pre-Columbian context cannot be easily dismissed as mere linguistic limitations. Furthermore, if the text were truly inspired, one might expect a representation of ancient cultures rather than a reflection of 19th-century American society.

The Anthon Transcript as Evidence of Authenticity

Apologists often argue that the Anthon Transcript supports the idea of Smith’s translation process. They claim that Anthon’s inability to recognize the characters as an ancient language does not negate the authenticity of the golden plates, as they could have been written in a language that was not familiar to him.

While it is true that Anthon’s assessment does not definitively disprove the existence of the golden plates, it raises significant questions about their authenticity. If the characters on the Anthon Transcript were indeed representative of an ancient language, one would expect a scholar of Anthon’s caliber to recognize them. Further, modern scholars would surely be able to recognize and parse the language. The fact that he described them as resembling shorthand suggests that they may have been fabricated or adapted from contemporary writing styles. This undermines the claim that Smith was translating genuine ancient texts. Further, inspection of the transcript from a modern perspective reveals that the characters are most likely a convoluted representation of Latin characters, and Reformed Egyptian, the language the characters were alleged to represent, likely never existed.5

The Literary Style as Evidence of Ancient Origins

Another apologist response is that the literary style of The Book of Mormon, including its use of chiasmus and other literary devices, indicates a sophisticated authorship that could not have been achieved by Smith alone. They argue that these features point to an ancient origin and suggest that Smith was merely the instrument through which these ancient writings were revealed.

While the presence of chiasmus and other literary devices is noteworthy, it does not necessarily imply ancient authorship. Literary techniques can be employed by writers of any era, and the use of such devices in The Book of Mormon can be seen as reflective of the literary culture of early 19th-century America. Furthermore, the argument that Smith could not have produced such a text overlooks the possibility that he was influenced by the literary styles and themes prevalent in his time. The sophistication of the text may be more indicative of Smith’s ability to draw from contemporary sources rather than evidence of divine inspiration or ancient origins.

The Context of Anachronisms

Apologists often contend that the anachronisms found in The Book of Mormon can be reconciled with the idea of a translation process, arguing that these elements may have been included to make the text relatable to its audience. They suggest that the use of familiar terms and concepts was a deliberate choice to facilitate understanding.

While it is reasonable to assume that a translator might use familiar language to engage an audience, the extent and nature of the anachronisms in The Book of Mormon raise serious concerns about its historical accuracy. The inclusion of terms and concepts that are not merely relatable but fundamentally inaccurate in the context of ancient America suggests a lack of authenticity. If the text were genuinely a translation of ancient records, one would expect a greater effort to maintain historical integrity rather than adapting the narrative to fit contemporary understandings.

Discussion

In summary, while apologists present various arguments to defend the authenticity of The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s role as a translator, these responses often fall short when scrutinized against the evidence. The presence of anachronisms, the implications of the Anthon Transcript, and the literary style of the text all point toward the conclusion that The Book of Mormon is more likely a product of its time, crafted within the cultural and literary context of early 19th-century America, rather than a divinely inspired translation of ancient scripture.

Requirement 2: Consistency

Self-contradictions (also known as logical inconsistency) are damning evidence against assertions of truth. Two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be true. A book with claims as significant as The Book of Mormon’s ought to be logically consistent, especially because the book is purported to be inspired by God. Proponents argue that the text presents a coherent theological system, with consistent teachings about God, Jesus Christ, and the principles of salvation. They assert that this internal consistency is indicative of divine inspiration and supports the idea that the book is a legitimate scripture.

Burden of Proof and My Argument

It is the church’s responsibility to demonstrate the logical consistency of The Book of Mormon. Moreover, a single counterexample to the claim (i.e., a single example of logical inconsistency) invalidates the claim. That is, if there exists any pair of contradicting assertions in The Book of Mormon, the book is not logically consistent, and cannot be determined to be true.

I make the following argument:

  1. There exists at least one pair of contradicting assertions in The Book of Mormon.

Argument 2.1: There exists at least one pair of contradicting assertions in The Book of Mormon

Supporters of The Book of Mormon often point to its central themes, such as faith, repentance, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ, as evidence of its theological coherence. The text emphasizes the importance of personal revelation and the role of the Holy Spirit, which aligns with the teachings of the Bible and provides a unified message about the nature of God and His relationship with humanity. Additionally, the narrative of Christ’s visit to the Americas after His resurrection is presented as a fulfillment of prophecy, reinforcing the idea of a consistent divine plan. However, a closer examination reveals several minor and major logical inconsistencies within The Book of Mormon that challenge the claim of theological coherence.

Major Inconsistency: The Nature of the Godhead

The text presents differing accounts of the nature of God and the Godhead. While it emphasizes the oneness of God in some passages, it also describes the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct beings, which can lead to confusion regarding the nature of the divine. This matches Smith’s own apparent confusion regarding this topic, as evidenced by contradictions within his First Vision accounts. This inconsistency raises questions about the clarity of the theological framework presented in the text. Consider the following verses, which contradict modern editions of The Book of Mormon:

Ether 3:14 (1830 Edition). Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.

1 Nephi 11:21 (1830 Edition). And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!

1 Nephi 13:40 (1830 Edition). And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which is of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world;

Major Inconsistency: The Nature of Hell

For Latter-Day Saints, the nature of the afterlife clear: all of God’s children, including those who are not valiant, receive one of the three kingdoms of glory. There is also a hell-like place designated for certain people. In modernity, the church teaches that denying the Holy Ghost is the only unpardonable sin. However, three verses in The Book of Mormon contradict each other and this teaching:

2 Nephi 9:34. Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.

2 Nephi 28:15. O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

3 Nephi 27:11. But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.

Moroni 8:20-21. And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption. Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Mosiah 16:11. If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation, being delivered up to the devil, who hath subjected them, which is damnation.

Major Inconsistency: Nephi’s Building Materials

The book of 2 Nephi reads as if the author forgot what they were writing halfway through and attempted to carry on regardless. Consider the following verse, detailing the abundant temple-building supplies available to the people:

2 Nephi 5:15. And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

Just one verse later, those materials seem to have disappeared:

2 Nephi 5:16. And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Major Inconsistency: Baptismal Prayers

Modern church members understand that ordinances like baptism are accompanied by prayers that must be recited verbatim. Consider the following contradictory baptismal prayers from The Book of Mormon:

3 Nephi 11:24-25. And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying: Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Mosiah 18:12-14. And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart. And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world. And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.

Major Inconsistency: Prophecies

The text contains numerous prophecies regarding the coming of Christ and the establishment of His church among the Nephites. However, the fulfillment of these prophecies is often vague or inconsistent. For instance, Christ visits the Americas after His resurrection, yet the details of His teachings and the establishment of His church among the Nephites are not consistently followed in subsequent chapters. This raises questions about the reliability of prophetic fulfillment within the narrative.

Minor Inconsistency: Continuity of Prophets

The account of the Jaredites presents a civilization that existed prior to the Nephites and Lamanites. However, the text does not provide a clear connection between these two groups, leading to confusion about the historical timeline and the continuity of prophetic leadership. The lack of integration between the Jaredite and Nephite narratives creates logical inconsistencies regarding the overarching story of God’s dealings with His people.

Minor Inconsistency: Black-and-White Thinking

The ongoing conflict between the Nephites and Lamanites is a central theme in The Book of Mormon. However, the text often portrays one group as inherently wicked and cursed, while the other is depicted as the righteous. This binary view oversimplifies the complexities of human nature and morality.

Minor Inconsistency: Moral Dilemmas

The character of Moroni, who is depicted as a righteous leader, engages in acts of violence and warfare. For instance, Moroni is praised for his military prowess and willingness to defend his people, yet this portrayal conflicts with the teachings of Christ about love and non-violence. This inconsistency raises questions about the moral framework presented in the text and whether it aligns with the principles of peace and charity emphasized elsewhere. This inconsistency is somewhat weak, as throughout the Bible, God’s nature is occasionally ruthless and violent.

Minor Inconsistency: Role of Prophets

The text discusses the establishment of a system of judges to govern the people, suggesting a shift away from prophetic leadership. However, this raises questions about the role of prophets in guiding the people. If prophets are divinely appointed to lead, why would the people choose a system that could potentially lead to corruption and injustice? This inconsistency challenges the idea that prophetic guidance is the best form of governance, but it does not necessarily demonstrate a strong logical consistency within the text.

Summary

While proponents of The Book of Mormon argue for its theological and logical consistency, a critical examination reveals inconsistencies that challenge this claim. The wide range of contradictory statements contribute to a lack of coherence in the text. As such, the assertion that The Book of Mormon is a logically consistent and theologically sound scripture is called into question, further supporting the argument that it is likely a product of its time rather than a divinely inspired translation of ancient records.

Apologetic Approaches

In response to criticisms regarding logical consistency, apologists may argue that the complexities of divine nature and human morality cannot be fully understood by mortals. They may assert that apparent contradictions are simply reflections of the limitations of human understanding and that the divine plan is ultimately beyond comprehension.

Contextual Interpretation

Apologists often contend that ,any apparent contradictions in The Book of Mormon can be reconciled through a contextual understanding of the text, which reflects the complexities of divine nature and human experience.

While context can provide insight, it does not eliminate the contradictions themselves. If the text is divinely inspired, one would expect a higher degree of clarity and consistency. Contextual interpretations often rely on subjective reasoning, which can lead to varying conclusions rather than a definitive resolution of the inconsistencies.

Progressive Revelation

Some claim that Joseph Smith’s evolving understanding of doctrine, including the nature of the Godhead, reflects a process of progressive revelation rather than confusion.

Progressive revelation should ideally lead to greater clarity and coherence over time. Instead, it raises questions about the reliability of divine guidance if foundational doctrines are subject to change. If God is unchanging, then the nature of His revelations should also be consistent, which is not evident in the varying accounts.

Different Perspectives

Apologists often suggest that the differing accounts of events or teachings in The Book of Mormon can be attributed to the perspectives of different authors or narrators, each providing their unique insights.

While multiple perspectives can enrich a narrative, they should not lead to outright contradictions. If the core message is divinely inspired, the authors should be in harmony regarding essential doctrines and teachings. Discrepancies that lead to confusion undermine the text’s claim to divine origin.

Symbolic Language

Some suggest that inconsistencies are due to the use of symbolic or metaphorical language, which may not be intended to be taken literally.

While symbolism can be a valid literary device, it should not serve as a catch-all explanation for contradictions. If key doctrines and teachings are obscured by symbolism, it raises concerns about the clarity and accessibility of the message. A divinely inspired text should communicate essential truths in a way that is understandable to its intended audience.

The Importance of Faith

Faith is said to be essential in understanding The Book of Mormon, and believers should trust in its divine origin despite apparent inconsistencies.

While faith is a personal journey, it should not be used as a substitute for critical examination of the text. Faith in a text that contains glaring inconsistencies can lead to cognitive dissonance and a lack of intellectual integrity. A truly divine text should withstand scrutiny and provide a coherent framework for belief.

Historical Context

Apologists argue that the historical context of the time when The Book of Mormon was written accounts for some of the inconsistencies, as the authors were influenced by their cultural and societal norms.

While historical context can influence writing, it should not excuse fundamental contradictions in doctrine or narrative. If the text claims to be a record of divine revelation, it should transcend cultural limitations and provide a consistent and universal message. Inconsistencies that arise from historical context may suggest a human origin rather than divine inspiration.

Personal Revelation

From an apologetic perspective, personal revelation and individual interpretation play a crucial role in understanding The Book of Mormon, allowing believers to find personal meaning in the text.

While personal experience is significant, it can lead to subjective interpretations that vary widely among individuals. This subjectivity can create a fragmented understanding of the text, undermining its claim to be a unified and coherent message from God. A divinely inspired text should provide a clear and consistent foundation for all believers, rather than relying on individual interpretations that may conflict with one another.

Discussion

In conclusion, because apologetic approaches tend to ignore consistencies altogether in favor of another argument, they are often guilty of a straw man fallacy. No amount of special pleading can remove inconsistencies from the text, so The Book of Mormon appears to be a 19th century construction rather than a divinely-inspired historical record.

Conclusion

Because The Book of Mormon does not meet either basic requirement for legitimacy, I personally conclude that The Book of Mormon is most likely a 19th century work of fiction, rather than an inspired text about ancient peoples. Some suggest, upon determining the book is not true, that truth is not the priority; The Book of Mormon teaches good principles, so it must be divinely inspired.

True vs. Good

Upon determining that The Book of Mormon is not true, some people suggest that truth is not the main concern; if the book teaches good principles, that is good enough. This perspective raises important questions about the nature of truth and morality.

Truth Matters

While it is undeniable that many texts, including The Book of Mormon, contain valuable moral teachings and principles that promote kindness, charity, and integrity, the distinction between truth and goodness is crucial. Good principles can be found in various philosophical, religious, and literary works, but the source of those principles matters significantly when evaluating their legitimacy and authority.

Truth serves as the foundation for moral principles, particularly among Latter-Day Saints. If a foundational text is based on falsehoods or historical inaccuracies, the ethical teachings derived from it may also be called into question. For example, if the narratives within The Book of Mormon are fictional, the context in which those moral lessons are presented may lack the authenticity that gives them weight. A moral principle that is not grounded in truth risks becoming subjective and open to manipulation.

Moral Relativism

Emphasizing good principles over truth can lead to moral relativism, where the validity of ethical teachings becomes dependent on individual interpretation rather than objective standards. This can create a slippery slope where any text, regardless of its veracity, could be justified as a source of moral guidance. If we accept that a work is divinely inspired solely based on its moral teachings, we may inadvertently endorse ideas that conflict with established truths or lead to harmful consequences.

The claim of divine inspiration carries with it the expectation of truthfulness and reliability. If The Book of Mormon is viewed as a divinely inspired text, it should provide a consistent and truthful account of spiritual and moral principles. When the truth of the text is called into question, it undermines the credibility of its teachings. A truly inspired work should not only promote good principles but also be rooted in historical and factual accuracy, or religious leaders should be honest about the book’s origin.

Alternative Sources of Goodness

There are numerous sources of moral guidance that are both true and beneficial including philosophical works and ethical frameworks. By prioritizing truth, individuals can seek out teachings that are not only good but also grounded in reality. This approach allows for a more robust understanding of morality that is less susceptible to the pitfalls of false narratives.

Many historical and philosophical texts provide ethical teachings that have stood the test of time and are supported by historical evidence. Works by philosophers such as Aristotle, Kant, and Mill offer frameworks for understanding morality that are based on reason and human experience rather than unverifiable claims. These texts can provide a more reliable foundation for ethical behavior. Further, secular ethical frameworks provide a basis for moral reasoning that does not rely on religious texts. These frameworks encourage individuals to consider the consequences of their actions and the development of character, promoting a sense of responsibility and accountability that is grounded in human experience rather than divine command.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while The Book of Mormon may contain good principles, the question of its truth is paramount. A text that lacks historical and factual legitimacy should not be fully trusted as a source of moral guidance. It is valuable to seek out teachings that are both true and good, ensuring that ethical frameworks are built on a solid foundation of reality rather than fiction. By prioritizing truth, individuals can engage with a broader array of moral teachings that are not only beneficial but also rooted in a reliable understanding of the world. This approach fosters a more informed and responsible ethical perspective, allowing for a deeper engagement with the complexities of human morality.


  1. See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20241113215722/https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng ↩︎

  2. See Doctrine → Truth → The Burden of Proof ↩︎

  3. Smith, J. (1830). The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi. Palmyra, NY: E. B. Grandin. ↩︎

  4. Bushman, Richard L. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Knopf, 2005 ↩︎

  5. Shields, S. L. (2021). The Quest for “Reformed Egyptian.” The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, 41(2), 101–125. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27112676 ↩︎ ↩︎

  6. See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng ↩︎

  7. Saints: The Standard of Truth. (2018). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ↩︎

  8. Whitmer, D. (1887). An Address to All Believers in Christ. See https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/4/mode/2up ↩︎

  9. Image source: October 2015 Ensign at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng ↩︎

  10. McConkie, B. (1954). Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3. Utah: Bookcraft. p. 225-226 ↩︎

  11. See https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_15137409 ↩︎


Doctrine and Covenants

page hero, historic cabin and cart

The Doctrine and Covenants is considered a foundational text for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, containing revelations and teachings received by Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders of the church. It is often viewed as a guide for church governance, doctrine, and personal conduct, with the introduction asserting its divine origin:

The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days. Although most of the sections are directed to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the messages, warnings, and exhortations are for the benefit of all mankind and contain an invitation to all people everywhere to hear the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, speaking to them for their temporal well-being and their everlasting salvation.

However, a critical examination of the Doctrine and Covenants reveals several significant issues regarding its claims of divine inspiration. In this section, I discuss specific problems with the Doctrine and Covenants that I believe negate any potential for divine inspiration. Because church leaders do not emphasize the truthfulness of the Doctrine and Covenants in the same way they emphasize The Book of Mormon, this section is a discussion of the book’s cultural and theological problems rather than a dissection of its truthfulness.

Manipulative and Abusive Language

The Doctrine and Covenants is replete with language that many would consider manipulative or abusive. The following passage is particularly problematic, even from the most faithful perspective:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:51-56. Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.

I believe this passage speaks for itself as a reflection of Joseph Smith’s character and intentions. In my opinion, this does not seem like the language of the loving God found elsewhere in scripture.

Compatibility with Other Scripture

If the Doctrine and Covenants were truly inspired by God, one would expect it to be consistent with other works that claim inspiration from God. Because this is visibly not the case, I conclude that the Doctrine and Covenants was likely written primarily by Joseph Smith to serve other (selfish) interests.

Appearance of Deity

The Book of Ether is asserted to take place around 2000 BC1. It quotes God directly:

Ether 3:15. And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

In order to be logically consistent, other scripture may not allow the appearance of God to anyone before about 2000 BC. However, the Doctrine and Covenants directly contradicts this assertion, assuming the church’s claim that Adam and his son Seth lived around 4000 BC is true.

Doctrine and Covenants 107:53-55. Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.

And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.

This contradiction raises serious concerns, as God—a perfect being—should not have forgotten that He showed himself to Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah when He spoke in the book of Ether. While there exist many apologetic responses to this contradiction, I find it unreasonable to believe that these texts are inspired by God.

Polygamy

Polygamy is perhaps the most hotly contested topic in the church. I suggest the discussion of polygamy in the Doctrine and Covenants alone is damning evidence that Joseph Smith was acting in his own interests during the formation of his church, and I claim that it is reasonable to reject the hypothesis that he was inspired by God.

In The Book of Mormon, polygamy is generally condemned. While the book’s discussion of polygamy leaves room for God to temporarily allow polygamy, the following verse makes God’s stance on one specific case of polygamy clear:

Jacob 2:24. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Later, the Doctrine and Covenants claims God has a contradictory opinion on polygamy. Not only is David’s and Solomon’s polygamy not abominable, but the book claims God provided wives and concubines to David.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:38-39. David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

God’s stance in the Doctrine and Covenants is generally more compatible with the position expressed in the Bible:

2 Samuel 12:7-8 (KJV). And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

The Lord Dwelling in the Heart

The Book of Mormon clarifies that the Lord does dwell in the heart:

Alma 34:36. And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.

The Doctrine and Covenants directly and clearly contradicts this verse:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:3. The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

While apologetic responses to this contradiction often assert that the symbolic nature of the passages does not lend itself to a formal analysis, I propose the following: If it were purely symbolic and thus did not matter, God would not have wasted limited resources (Joseph Smith’s time, paper and ink, and space in a relatively small scriptural canon) to include these contradictory verses in scripture.

Priesthood Authority

The concept of priesthood authority also presents contradictions between the two texts. The Book of Mormon discusses the priesthood in a more general sense, emphasizing the importance of righteousness and the power of God rather than a specific organizational structure.

In contrast, the Doctrine and Covenants provides a detailed account of the restoration of the priesthood and the specific offices within the church. It clearly outlines the hierarchy of the priesthood, including the roles of apostles, bishops, and other leaders. This emphasis on a structured priesthood can be seen as a departure from the more egalitarian and personal nature of priesthood described in The Book of Mormon, leading to questions about the legitimacy of priesthood authority and its implications for church governance.

Nature of Revelation

Another area of contradiction is the role and nature of revelation. The Book of Mormon presents a narrative in which prophets receive direct revelations from God, often in the form of visions or angelic visitations. For example, in Mosiah, King Benjamin delivers a powerful sermon after receiving a divine message, emphasizing the importance of personal revelation and the need for individuals to seek their own understanding of God’s will.

Conversely, the Doctrine and Covenants places a strong emphasis on the authority of church leaders to receive revelation on behalf of the entire church. This is particularly evident in sections that outline the roles of the President of the Church and other leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators. For instance, the Doctrine and Covenants states that the church is to be governed by the revelations given to its leaders, which can create a tension between individual revelation and the centralized authority of church leadership. This tension raises questions about the nature of personal revelation and its compatibility with the hierarchical structure established in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Discussion

I believe the glaring inconsistency between The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants is damning evidence that Joseph Smith was not inspired by a perfect being when he penned these records. If he were indeed inspired by God, this contradiction would leave room for the following possibilities:

  1. God was wrong. This raises huge problems for other truth claims, as an infallible God is critical to the possibility that one true church exists.
  2. God changed His mind between the writing of these verses. This would invalidate the claim that God is unchanging, and it creates problems for people who act according to the church’s commandments, as a God who changes His mind would not be a just deity.
  3. Joseph Smith incorrectly interpreted revelation. This raises significant concerns about the legitimacy of his other claims, including claims that have significantly impacted the trajectory of the church and the lives of its members.
  4. Only one of the canonized books is inspired by God. Were this the case, the modern church would be in apostasy, as the church uses both books as canon.
  5. Joseph Smith penned religious texts himself, and he was not inspired by God. Using Occam’s Razor, I would suggest this is the most realistic option.

Further, I believe that it would be unreasonable to blame ongoing revelation and restoration for these errors. These scriptures have existed for generations, and at least 15 people at the head of the church have claimed to have direct access to inspiration from God. I expect that if there are errors in fundamental religious texts, God would instruct these people to make appropriate corrections as promptly as possible.

Conclusion

While it is possible to spend years dissecting every problem with the Doctrine and Covenants, I believe in the context of a book claiming divine origin, even one problem is sufficient. The church and the book itself fail to uphold their burden of proof of the book’s validity. While I have presented my own conclusion, there are many high-quality sources on these topics from spiritual and secular perspectives. I encourage those who may use this information to guide major life decisions to explore both sides of this topic in-depth and draw their own conclusions.


  1. Book of Mormon Time Line. (n.d.). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Retrieved December 20, 2023, from https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/ensign/2011/10/book-of-mormon-time-line ↩︎


Pearl of Great Price

page hero, pearl earrings

The Pearl of Great Price is a short, canonized book of scripture for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, containing alternative accounts of the creation of the earth, an alternative translation of the book of Matthew, and a history of the church’s founder.

Unlike other scripture, the church places relatively little emphasis on the Pearl of Great Price. Not only does the church neglect its burden of proof that the book is divinely inspired; it seems to attempt to cover up its troubling history. In this section, I demonstrate key problems with aspects of the Pearl of Great Price, which I believe support the rejection of the church’s claims regarding its truthfulness and legitimacy.

By far, the most problematic part of the Pearl of Great Price is the Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith claimed to translate from ancient Egyptian papyri that he acquired in the early 1830s. However, when these papyri were later examined by Egyptologists, they were found to be common funerary texts, specifically the Book of the Dead, rather than the ancient writings of Abraham.1

Facsimile from The Book of Abraham Facsimile from The Book of Abraham

This discrepancy raises significant questions about the authenticity of Smith’s translation and the divine inspiration he claimed. Critics argue that if the foundational text of the Pearl of Great Price is based on a mistranslation, it undermines the legitimacy of the entire work. Further, it casts doubt on Smith’s ability to translate by divine inspiration.

The academic, peer-reviewed article I reference is paywalled, so I include the conclusion as follows:

In the preceding I have argued that (1) Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are not in agreement with the meanings which these figures had in their original, funerary, context; (2) anachronisms in the text of the book make it impossible that it was translated from a text written by Abraham himself; and (3) what we know about the relationship between Egypt and Asia renders the account of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham extremely implausible. If one accepts that Joseph Smith was using the facsimiles in a fashion which was not consonant with their original purpose, it does not make sense to then insist that “the Prophet’s explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices.” I see no evidence that Joseph Smith had a correct conception of “Egyptian religious practices” or that a knowledge of such was essential to the production of the Book of Abraham.1

Apologetic sources have contested this claim for years, but I believe that apologetic responses tend to be weak enough to serve as additional damning evidence against the legitimacy of the book. FAIR, for example, claims the following:

The official position of the Church is that the Book of Abraham is “an inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.” Anything beyond this is speculation, and does not constitute official Church doctrine relative to the Book of Abraham’s origins. Nevertheless, it’s clear from the historical evidence that Joseph Smith was not attempting a scholarly translation of the Book of Abraham à la Jean-François Champollion or other Egyptologists, but rather produced a revelatory translation […]. The exact nature of this revelatory translation is uncertain, with various theories having been offered over the years.2

These responses are often guilty of “moving the goalposts”, a particularly egregious logical fallacy that distracts from the original claim. Joseph Smith claimed that God inspired him to translate the text, which he claimed was written by the hand of Abraham. That claim has been rejected by convincing evidence presented by relevant experts and validated by a scholarly community.

Evidence demonstrating the Book of Abraham was not translated from ancient text creates a large set of problems for the validity of the Pearl of Great Price, and it provides damning evidence against other truth claims.

Most importantly, it demonstrates that Joseph Smith was not inspired by God when he dishonestly claimed to translate the book. Whether Smith genuinely believed he was inspired by God is of little importance; an individual should be completely confident in their claims before using them to persuade large groups of people. This undermines his ability as a prophet and revelator, and it lends substantial room for a reasonable doubt about the legitimacy of Smith’s divine inspiration as he founded a church.


  1. Thompson, S. E. (1995). Egyptology and the Book of Abraham. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 28(1), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/45228487 ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. “Book of Abraham/How was it produced — FAIR”. (2023, November 9). https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/How_was_it_produced#Question:_How_was_the_text_of_the_Book_of_Abraham_produced_by_Joseph_Smith.3F ↩︎


History

page hero, old barn

Faithful and secular sources alike understand that the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints raises serious concerns about the church’s legitimacy. I am not a historian; presenting church history is not the objective of this project. In my opinion, while church history is a valuable tool to help one assess their belief system, evidence in the modern church is sufficient to make an informed decision regarding membership therein. Thus, I wish to explore only a small selection of events throughout the history of the church at surface level in this section. I encourage curious individuals to read both faithful and secular histories and draw their own conclusions.

Romantic Relationships

Romantic relationships within the context of early Mormonism reveal a complex tapestry of beliefs, practices, and societal norms. From the controversial practice of polygamy to the dynamics of marriage and family life, these relationships were often influenced by theological doctrines, cultural expectations, and the personal experiences of key figures in the church.

Polygamy and Polyandry

Polygamy is one of the most contentious aspects of early Latter-day Saint history, significantly impacting the lives of its leaders and members. It has been discussed heavily from both faithful and secular perspectives. While I provide a brief summary, resources like https://josephsmithspolygamy.org provide extensive information about polygamy in the early church.

Emma Smith, the wife of Joseph Smith, is a central figure in the church’s narrative, yet she was not the first woman sealed to Joseph. Historical accounts suggest that Joseph was first sealed to Fanny Alger in the early 1830s, around 1835 or 1836, while the Smiths were living in Kirtland, Ohio. Alger, a young woman living with the Smith family, is often considered the first instance of plural marriage in the Latter-day Saint movement.1 This relationship was kept relatively private and not widely known during Joseph’s lifetime.

The practice of plural marriage was later formalized and publicly acknowledged in the 1850s, but it created significant tension within Joseph’s marriage to Emma, who reportedly opposed the practice and struggled with the idea of her husband taking additional wives2. This tension is reflected in various historical accounts and letters where Emma expressed her feelings about polygamy and its implications for their family.3

Early church leaders also played a crucial role in establishing and promoting the practice of polygamy. Following Joseph Smith’s initial sealing to Fanny Alger, prominent leaders such as Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Orson Pratt entered into plural marriages, further institutionalizing the practice. Brigham Young, who succeeded Joseph Smith as the leader of the church, publicly advocated for polygamy, famously stating, “I am going to be a God, and I will have a plurality of wives”4. This endorsement created a culture in which polygamy was not only accepted but encouraged, leading to significant demographic and social changes within the church.

The eventual public acknowledgment of polygamy in the 1850s, alongside the establishment of a hierarchical structure that supported plural marriages, complicated the dynamics of family and leadership within the early church5. The multifaceted history of polygamy highlights the challenges faced by early church leaders as they navigated the theological and social implications of their practices. In summary, while Emma Smith is a prominent figure in Joseph Smith’s life and the early church, her opposition to polygamy and the sealing to Fanny Alger underscore the complexities and tumultuous nature of relationships within early Mormonism and the evolving understanding of marriage and family during that period.

In addition to the practice of polygamy, which involved men taking multiple wives, early Latter-day Saint history also includes instances of polyandry, where women were sealed to multiple husbands. Joseph Smith himself was sealed to several women who were already married to other men, a practice that has raised significant ethical and theological questions. For example, one of the most notable cases of polyandry involved Joseph’s sealing to Zina Huntington, who was married to another man at the time. This practice of polyandry was not widely acknowledged or accepted within the early church and has been a point of contention among historians and scholars6. Furthermore, the broader concept of polyamory, which encompasses consensual relationships involving multiple partners regardless of marital status, is not explicitly addressed in early Mormon doctrine but has gained attention in contemporary discussions about relationships and family structures. The complexities of these practices reflect the evolving understanding of marriage and relationships within the Latter-day Saint community and highlight the challenges faced by early church leaders in reconciling their beliefs with the realities of human relationships.

Pedophilia

The early history of the church is also marked by troubling instances that raise serious ethical concerns, particularly regarding the age of some individuals involved in plural marriages. Historical records indicate that some of Joseph Smith’s plural wives were very young, with some estimates suggesting that he married girls as young as 14. For example, one of his wives, Helen Mar Kimball, was sealed to him when she was just 14 years old1. This practice has led to significant criticism and accusations of pedophilia, as the marriages often occurred in a context where the young brides had little agency or choice in the matter.

Additionally, the church’s early leaders, including Brigham Young, also engaged in similar practices, marrying young women and sometimes widows of deceased church leaders. The normalization of such relationships within the context of plural marriage raises questions about the power dynamics at play and the implications for the young women involved. Critics argue that these practices reflect a broader pattern of exploitation and manipulation, particularly given the societal norms of the time that often placed women in subordinate positions6.

The church has since distanced itself from these practices and has publicly condemned any form of child marriage or exploitation. However, the historical reality of these relationships continues to be a source of contention and debate among scholars, historians, and church members. The legacy of these practices serves as a reminder of the complexities and moral challenges faced by early church leaders and the need for ongoing reflection on the ethical implications of their actions. I assert that they are evidence that church leaders were not inspired by a loving God, as they consistently did not display the character of people such a God would choose as leaders.

Racial Issues and Priesthood Restrictions

The historical ban on Black men receiving the priesthood is a significant and painful chapter in church history. Instituted in the mid-1800s, this policy was often justified by church leaders through a combination of cultural beliefs and selective interpretations of scripture. Prominent figures, including Brigham Young, cited the “curse of Cain” and other theological rationales to support the exclusion of Black individuals from priesthood ordination. This ban not only marginalized Black members but also perpetuated systemic racism within the church, leading to feelings of unworthiness and disconnection from the faith community.

The impact of this policy was profound, as Black members were denied access to the same spiritual privileges and responsibilities as their white counterparts. Many faced discrimination and were often relegated to the periphery of church life. The emotional and spiritual toll of this exclusion cannot be overstated, as it created a barrier to full participation in the church’s spiritual and communal life. By preventing Black church members from receiving what the church considered to be necessary ordinances for exaltation, church leaders (who claimed to speak on behalf of God) made it clear that they believed Black members were less-than in God’s eyes.

In 1978, the church announced a revelation that lifted the ban, a decision that was met with mixed reactions. While many celebrated this change as a long-overdue step toward equality, it also raised questions about the nature of divine revelation and the church’s previous teachings. The church’s subsequent efforts to address its past, including the establishment of programs aimed at fostering inclusivity and understanding, reflect an ongoing struggle to reconcile its history with its present. The church’s failure to apologize for the policy or take steps toward restitution leave gaping wounds and prevent reconciliation and healing within the faith community.

Historical Revisionism and Transparency

The church’s approach to its own history has often been characterized by a tendency to downplay or omit controversial aspects in official narratives. This practice of historical revisionism has significant implications for members’ understanding of their faith. Many members have felt blindsided when confronted with historical facts that contradict the sanitized versions they were taught. For instance, the church’s early history includes instances of violence, polygamy, and conflicts with the U.S. government, yet these topics are frequently glossed over in official teachings.

The challenges faced by historians and scholars in presenting an accurate account of church history are critical to this discussion. Many have sought to uncover the complexities of the church’s past, only to encounter resistance from church leadership and members who prefer a more favorable narrative. This reluctance to fully embrace transparency has led to a growing demand for open dialogue about the church’s history, including the complexities of its founding, early controversies, and the actions of its leaders.

As members increasingly seek a more nuanced understanding of their faith, the church’s historical narratives are being scrutinized. This section will highlight the importance of historical accuracy in fostering a more informed and engaged membership, as well as the potential for healing and growth that comes from confronting uncomfortable truths.

Gender Roles and Women’s Rights

From the early days of the church, women have often been relegated to supportive roles, with virtually no opportunities for leadership or decision-making. While some women have found empowerment in their roles as wives and mothers, others experience feelings of confinement and inequality.

The lack of female leadership positions within the church has been a point of contention for many members. Despite the church’s emphasis on the importance of women in the family and community, leadership roles remain predominantly male. This has led to ongoing discussions about gender equality and the need for greater inclusion of women in leadership positions.

Violence and Conflict

Church history includes several instances of violence and conflict, with the Mountain Meadows Massacre being one of the most notorious. In 1857, a group of emigrants traveling through Utah was ambushed and killed by a contingent of Mormon settlers, along with some Native American allies. This tragic event raises profound questions about the moral and ethical implications of the church’s actions during a time of heightened tension and fear of persecution.

The church’s response to the Mountain Meadows Massacre has evolved over the years. Initially, the church leadership downplayed the incident, attributing it to rogue individuals rather than a systemic failure.

The implications of such events are significant for members navigating faith transitions. Violence in the church’s history can lead to questions about the nature of prophetic authority and the ethical foundations of church teachings.

Doctrinal Changes and Revelations

The church and its doctrine have undergone significant evolution since its founding in the early 19th century. Key changes include shifts in teachings about the nature of God, the afterlife, and the practice of polygamy. For instance, early church leaders taught a concept of God that included the potential for humans to become divine, a belief that has been refined over time. Additionally, the church’s stance on polygamy, once a central tenet, was officially renounced in 1890, leading to a redefinition of family structures within the faith.

These doctrinal changes have profound implications for members’ faith journeys. For many, the evolution of teachings can create a sense of instability or uncertainty regarding prophetic authority. If doctrines can change, what does that mean for the reliability of current teachings? This question can be particularly challenging for those who have built their faith on the belief in unchanging truths.

Moreover, the church’s ongoing revelations and adjustments to doctrine can lead to a sense of disillusionment among members who feel that their understanding of faith has been compromised. For those in transition, grappling with these changes can be a pivotal part of their journey, prompting them to reevaluate their beliefs and the foundations upon which they were built.

Treatment of LGBTQ+ Individuals

The church’s historical and contemporary stance on LGBTQ+ issues has been a source of significant tension and conflict, both within the church and in broader society. The church has consistently opposed same-sex marriage and has upheld policies that promote heterosexual marriage as the only option. This position has led to feelings of exclusion and marginalization among LGBTQ+ members and their families.

The church’s stance has often been framed in terms of doctrine and morality, which can create a painful dichotomy for members who identify as LGBTQ+ and wish to remain part of the faith community. The impact of these positions on LGBTQ+ members can be profound, leading to struggles with identity, mental health, and familial relationships.

In recent years, the church has made minimal efforts to address LGBTQ+ concerns. However, many LGBTQ+ individuals and allies feel that these efforts fall short of true acceptance and inclusion. Further, the changing nature of these policies raises questions about church leaders’ legitimacy and authority as prophets.

Conclusion

The church’s troubling history raises important questions about its role in society, its cultural practices, and the importance of inclusivity. This dialogue can foster a deeper understanding of the complexities of faith and identity, encouraging members to embrace a more nuanced perspective on their beliefs and the church’s place in the world.


  1. B. Carmon Hardy, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy in Historical Perspective, 2007 ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. Linda K. Burton, “Emma Smith: A Woman of Faith,” Ensign, 2010 ↩︎

  3. Newell, Linda King, and Valeen Tippetts Avery. Emma Smith: Mormon Enigma. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994. ↩︎

  4. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269) ↩︎

  5. (D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 1994) ↩︎

  6. (D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, 1997) ↩︎ ↩︎


Inconsistency

page hero, mismatched eggs

It came to my attention as I studied the gospel that the church’s policies and practices often contradict its doctrine. In this section, I address critical issues in which the church itself does not practice what is taught in its own canon.

Attitudes about Abuse

Many are familiar with a recent legal battle involving the church in Arizona. Church members are taught that God despises abuse and that the church wants to do everything it can to protect survivors. Many heard Russell Nelson say the following:

Abuse constitutes the influence of the adversary. It is a grievous sin. As President of the Church, I affirm the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ on this issue. Let me be perfectly clear: any kind of abuse of women, children, or anyone is an abomination to the Lord. He grieves and I grieve whenever anyone is harmed. He mourns and we all mourn for each person who has fallen victim to abuse of any kind. Those who perpetrate these hideous acts are not only accountable to the laws of man but will also face the wrath of Almighty God. For decades now, the Church has taken extensive measures to protect—in particular—children from abuse. There are many aids on the Church website. I invite you to study them. These guidelines are in place to protect the innocent. I urge each of us to be alert to anyone who might be in danger of being abused and to act promptly to protect them. The Savior will not tolerate abuse, and as His disciples, neither can we.1

It is generally understood that mandatory reporting is an effective way to prevent abuse and protect survivors.2 It is thus discouraging to see that the church is not doing everything it can to protect people from abuse, as it actively fights against mandatory reporting laws. It spends significant amounts of sacred tithing money in legal battles defending the right of clergy members to withhold information about abuse. I was disgusted to read the church’s reaction in Deseret News when an Arizona case resulted in reinforced clergy privilege.

Bill Maledon, the church’s attorney who handled the case, said in a statement to the Deseret News, “We are pleased with the Arizona Superior Court’s decision granting summary judgment for the Church and its clergy and dismissing the plantiffs’ claims.3

This quote was extremely concerning to me, as the president of the church recently gave the opposite impression. Certainly, a man who grieves whenever anyone is harmed would not be pleased at this dissapointing result of a grueling lawsuit for survivors of abuse and their families.

I am further concerned by the church’s lackluster efforts to protect children and youth. When I served as a primary teacher, I was asked to complete a short online training. This training encouraged me to avoid being alone with children and listed a few rules I was expected to follow. I did not undergo a background check. I had no experience working with children; I didn’t even have children of my own.

It is more concerning that with absolutely no training, bishops can (or could for many years) isolate young people behind a closed door to talk about their sexuality. When I was 12 years old, my bishop—a middle-aged man I had never formally met—talked to me about puberty, taught me what masturbation and pornography were, and told me to suppress any romantic feelings I started to experience.

It’s no wonder, although it is heartbreaking, that there are so many instances of sexual crimes within the church. For those curious, floodlit.org has compiled a significant volume of data about recent abuse within the church. I was shocked to see so many bishops, missionaries, stake presidents, and other prominent church figures had been convicted of sexual crimes.

The church clearly does not care about abuse, at least not as much as it cares about preserving its own reputation. By itself, I believe the church’s damnable nonchalance about abuse is sufficient reason to formally disassociate oneself the church and never look back.

Changing of Temple Ordinances

Joseph Smith, the person who originally claimed to receive revelation from God about the temple, taught that the temple ordinances cannot change:

The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial Kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.”4

Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.4

The power, glory and blessings of the Priesthood could not continue with those who received ordination only as their righteousness continued; for Cain also being authorized to offer sacrifice, but not offering it in righteousness, was cursed. It signifies, then, that the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise their Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing.4

It is confusing and concerning, then, that ordinances within the church change. Those who have been in the church for several years have observed major changes, but temple ordinances have changed greatly since their institution.

For example, around 1912, the Oath of Vengeance was removed from the ordinance, and in the 1930s, the wording of penalties was softened. The 1960s saw a change in the garment pattern worn in the temple. A series of notable modifications occurred in the 1990s, including the complete removal of penalties from the endowment ordinance, changes to the second sign of the Melchizedek priesthood, the elimination of the five points of fellowship, and a revision of the law of obedience for women. In 2005, the washing and anointing ceremony was altered to be performed symbolically, eliminating the practice of ordinance workers touching temple patrons while wearing only a large poncho. More recently, the temple ceremony and its wording have been significantly revised to better appeal to women, expedite the ordinance process, and accommodate COVID-19 restrictions.

Those curious about recent changes to the temple ceremony may be interested in comparing their current temple experience to the experience from the mid 2010s. I was shocked to learn how much had changed even within the last decade, especially considering the ordinance was supposed to be eternal and unchanging.

Revelations Changing

I addressed this in a previous section, but consider again the following quote from Joseph Smith:

Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation.5

It is thus abundantly clear that a revelation that contradicts an earlier revelation is false, or is from a bad angel. Interestingly, nearly every modern church leader has produced contradictory revelations. For example, the church’s early teachings on polygamy were initially presented as a divine commandment, yet in 1890, under pressure from the U.S. government, church leaders officially renounced the practice, declaring it no longer a requirement for salvation. This shift created a contradiction between earlier revelations that endorsed polygamy and the later stance that prohibited it. Additionally, the church’s evolving position on race and the priesthood serves as another example; for decades, Black members were denied the priesthood based on revelations that were later deemed incorrect, culminating in a 1978 revelation that lifted the ban.

Further, in 2015, church leaders implemented a controversial policy that classified same-sex couples as “apostates” and prohibited their children from being baptized until they reached the age of 18 and disavowed their parents’ relationship. Church communications insisted that this policy was produced through divine revelation. This policy sparked significant backlash both within and outside the church, leading to protests and calls for greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals. In April 2019, the church announced a reversal of this policy, stating that children of same-sex couples would no longer be barred from baptism. This change was seen by many as a step toward greater inclusivity and a recognition of the evolving societal attitudes toward LGBTQ+ issues. However, it significantly damages church leaders’ claims to a representation of Diety.

Because a thorough analysis of contradictory revelations is both simple to conduct and dull to describe, I suggest that a curious reader may begin their research at Richard Packham’s list of Brigham Young’s teachings.

Obedience to Civil Law

Articles of Faith 1:12 states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” This principle is echoed in Doctrine and Covenants 58:21, which teaches, “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.” Given these clear directives, it is perplexing to observe that the history of the church is marked by instances of disobedience to the laws of the land.

For example, Joseph Smith performed marriages without the necessary civil authority, engaging in practices that were not legally sanctioned. Early church members, including Smith himself, entered into illegal polygamous and polyandrous marriages, defying the legal framework of the time. Additionally, Smith established an illegal bank in Ohio, which ultimately contributed to financial instability and controversy. His actions led to his imprisonment for destroying the printing press of a rival newspaper, an act that was viewed as a violation of the law. Furthermore, the church’s stance on polygamy is encapsulated in Official Declaration 1, which asserts that the church was willing to disobey the law of the land to continue the practice of polygamy. These historical contradictions raise important questions about the relationship between religious conviction and legal compliance within the context of the church’s teachings.

In more recent years, the church has faced criticism for its perceived disregard for local laws and regulations, particularly in relation to zoning and land use. A notable example occurred in Fairview, Texas, where the church sought to build a massive temple in a location that was inappropriate due to zoning restrictions and community planning. The church’s decision to move forward with the project despite local opposition raised concerns about its commitment to honoring the laws of the land and respecting the voices of community members. This situation reflects a broader pattern in which the church has prioritized its own interests over legal and community considerations, leading to tensions between church leadership and local authorities.

Such actions can be seen as contradictory to the teachings found in the Articles of Faith and Doctrine and Covenants, further complicating the church’s relationship with the law and its members’ understanding of obedience and respect for civil authority.

Worship of Jesus

One of the most confusing inconsistencies in the church is its position on worshipping Jesus (rather than restricting worship to God the Father). The scriptures clearly teach that we should worship Jesus. Take Exodus 20:3 (KJV), spoken by Jehovah of the Old Testament, believed to be Jesus of the New Testament:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Jesus’ followers also worshipped him throughout the New Testament with no sign of correction from Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-17 (KJV). Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

While this leaves room for interpretation, The Book of Mormon also commands us to worship Jesus.

3 Nephi 17:10. And they did all, both they who had been healed and they who were whole, bow down at his feet, and did worship him; and as many as could come for the multitude did kiss his feet, insomuch that they did bathe his feet with their tears.

However, Bruce McConkie (a man who claimed to speak on behalf of God) made it clear we are not to worship Jesus, and this is believed by many church members today.

We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense—the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.6

Despite McConkie’s revelation, the church recently seems to have changed its message again. I was presented with this ad the other day.

Ad that reads “Come worship Jesus with us” Ad that reads “Come worship Jesus with us”

This leaves me uncertain about the church’s teachings, as the scriptures teach us the importance of worshipping Jesus, but modern church leaders indicate it is a sin. However, the church is currently advertising that church members worship Jesus in their meetings and with missionaries.

Sex and Sexuality

The church has, especially since coming under fire for prejudice against the LGBT+ community combined with a great volume of abuse scandals, apparently changed its stance on critical issues.

First, many members are familiar with recent policy changes and reversal of those changes regarding children of gay couples. These changes are concerning to me, as such a fast policy change after a PR disaster seems fishy, indicating God likely did not actually inspire at least one of the changes.

Second, anyone over 20 who grew up in the church was likely presented, at one point or another, with the conference talk (converted into a pamphlet) titled “To Young Men Only”. When I was 12 years old, my church leaders used this packet to teach me what masturbation was. This was produced and supported by a long line of prophets and apostles. It now seems to be absent from the church’s website, and I can find no mention of it. Thankfully, it has been uploaded to Internet Archive. I find it bizarre that the church seems to be hiding what was considered a crucial, sacred text only a few years ago.

Third, many are familiar with the church-published book The Miracle of Forgiveness. I do not feel the need to discuss its contents in much depth, but it is interesting to me that many of the core principles taught by the book. In the preface, Spencer Kimball absolves the church from errors in the book’s contents, but the church nonetheless published, printed, distributed, and continued to promote the book for decades. The book and its contents are now largely taboo discussion points in the church.

Finally, the church’s policy on chastity has changed greatly over time. It is concerning to me that historical church figures are well-known to have married multiple people, including already-married women. It is disappointing to see the church cover up a great volume of abuse scandals and promote an authoritarian culture that protects abusers while encouraging young people to feel guilty about their natural feelings and experiences.

Mormon?

Church members and leaders alike long embraced the term Mormon to describe the church and its members. The church poured huge amounts of sacred tithing funds into recent campaigns like Meet the Mormons. Members were taught through official communication from church leaders to create an “I’m a Mormon” profile on the church’s missionary website. So the following recent quote has long been deeply concerning to me:

What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement. 7

Were generations of prophets misled by Satan? Certainly not, or it is impossible to tell where else the church may have strayed from being God’s one true church. But if former prophets were not misled by Satan, then this statement from Russell Nelson is not accurate, and God’s supposed prophet has lied. In either case, based on this single counterexample, I believe there is sufficient damning evidence that the church is not what it claims to be.

Discussion

I have previously discussed the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem to quoque, or an Appeal to Hypocrisy. To avoid relying on this fallacy to build my argument, I clarify the claim made throughout this section:

The church, which has canonized a volume of text alleged to be revelation from God, does not operate exactly as its canon indicates.

I am not suggesting that because church leaders exhibit hypocrisy, the church is not true. Instead, I expect God’s one true church to hold itself to its own (allegedly divinely-inspired) standards. It was disappointing to learn that despite claiming to have a direct connection to God, prophets often make significant mistakes as they direct the operations of the church, and these mistakes genuinely hurt people.

I am further confused by the argument that prophets only speak for God when they are speaking “as a prophet”. Not only does this statement feel like a disgusting weasel out of any responsibility or accountability; it cannot be used to defend inconsistencies like these. I believe it is reasonable to assume that church leaders are indeed speaking as prophets and apostles when they address the entire church, establish curricula, and approve advertising materials. If one cannot make this assumption, then it would be impossible to know when to trust a prophet. In this case, I find these inconsistencies much more damning. The church’s inconsistency convinces me that the church is not truly directed by a perfect, all-knowing God.


  1. Nelson, R. M. (2022, October). What Is True? General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/general-conference/2022/10/19nelson ↩︎

  2. Mathews, B., & Bross, D. C. (Eds.). (2015). Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect (Vol. 4). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9685-9 ↩︎

  3. Judge dismisses lawsuit against church in Arizona sex abuse case, citing clergy-penitent exception. (2023, November 9). Deseret News. https://www.deseret.com/2023/11/8/23953246/statement-from-church-arizona-sex-abuse-case-lawsuit ↩︎

  4. Chapter 36: Receiving the Ordinances and Blessings of the Temple. (n.d.). In Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Retrieved December 21, 2023, from https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-2 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  5. Volume 4 Chapter 33, Page 581. (n.d.). In History of the Church. BYU Studies. Retrieved December 21, 2023, from https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/volume-4-chapter-33/ ↩︎

  6. McConkie, B. R. (n.d.). Our Relationship with the Lord. BYU Speeches. Retrieved December 21, 2023, from https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/relationship-lord/ ↩︎

  7. Nelson, R. M. (2018, October). The Correct Name of the Church. General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church ↩︎


Testable Claims

page hero, lab experiment

Church leaders have produced testable claims during the history of the church, and many of those claims have fallen apart as time has passed. In my opinion, leaders’ failure to pass their own tests is convincing evidence that the church is a man-made organization and not inspired by God.

Kinderhook Plates

Fewer topics are more detrimental to the truth claims of the church than the Kinderhook Plates. Consider this oft-quoted line from Rough Stone Rolling:

Church historians continued to insist on the authenticity of the Kinderhook Plates until 1980 when an examination conducted by the Chicago Historical Society, possessor of one plate, proved it was a nineteenth-century creation.1

The plates, if you are unfamiliar with them, were a set of bell-shaped brass plates, pictured below.

Kinderhook Plates Kinderhook Plates

Joseph Smith insisted he translated a portion of the plates. He taught they contained the history of the person they were buried with, who was a descendant of Ham. Unfortunately for Joseph, the plates were a forgery.

I am stumped by Joseph’s inability to discern the forgery. I do not understand how he was able to translate (apparently using his translation gift from God) these plates that contained no meaningful information.

The church itself appears to be grasping at straws to find an explanation for this. I propose a simple explanation: Joseph failed to demonstrate any prophetic or divine translation ability and was not truly a prophet of God.

The Book of Abraham

I discuss the Book of Abraham in the section about the Pearl of Great Price. In summary, the Book of Abraham demonstrates that Joseph Smith was not inspired by God when he dishonestly claimed to translate the book.

Prophetic Revelation

Throughout the scriptures, God has revealed many significant and destructive events through His prophets, including the destruction of cities, wars, famines, droughts, and plagues. Given this historical precedent, it is perplexing that the church has often seemed surprised by a multitude of similar events in modern times.

For instance, despite many church buildings being located in arid regions such as Idaho, Utah, and Arizona, the church frequently maintains large lawns and appears to be careless about water usage. It is surprising that church members have not been counseled to limit their water consumption and conserve resources to mitigate the worsening drought conditions in these areas. Additionally, while some efforts were made to reduce reliance on in-person church meetings, the church seemed unprepared for the onset of COVID-19. Despite the critical importance placed on temple ceremonies, baptisms, and the sacrament for one’s exaltation, the church had to make retroactive adjustments to temple ceremonies, meeting procedures, and other activities to accommodate the pandemic’s restrictions.

Moreover, the church does little to proactively prepare its members for potential crises, apart from encouraging those with the means to stockpile food, water, and other essentials. This practice appears inconsistent with the character of the God described throughout the scriptures, who often provides guidance and warnings to His people. Additionally, wars and protests have disrupted the lives of many Latter-day Saints around the world, seemingly without any forewarning or counsel from God. In another instance, a prophet once revealed that the Book of Mormon was a record of the primary ancestors of indigenous peoples, yet the text had to be altered retroactively in light of advancements in genetic research.

Furthermore, despite generations of prophets teaching that professional opportunities and other blessings are directly tied to tithing, a disclaimer in Footnote 20 of Russell Nelson’s recent General Conference talk left me confused.

This is not to imply a cause-and-effect relationship. Some who never pay tithing attain professional opportunities, while some who pay tithing do not. The promise is that the windows of heaven will be opened to the tithe payer. The nature of the blessings will vary.2

This statement raises questions about the reliability of the church’s teachings on tithing and blessings.

Ultimately, I have seen no convincing evidence to suggest that Russell Nelson or any prophet throughout the church’s history possesses prophetic abilities that surpass those of individuals who are simply skilled at research. In recent years, I have been more impressed by scientifically based forecasts than by the accuracy of any prophetic declarations. This disparity further complicates my understanding of the church’s claims regarding divine guidance and the role of its leaders.

Patriarchal Blessings

I would encourage a thorough exploration of the Patriarchal Blessing Revelator produced by Fuller Consideration. This resource provides a fascinating look at the promises made in patriarchal blessings, many of which have not come to fruition. For instance, numerous individuals, including many who were born well over 110 years ago, were promised they would be alive for the Second Coming of Christ. This claim raises significant questions about the reliability of such prophetic assurances. Additionally, many people, including those who are still single or have never married, were promised marriage, which has not materialized for them. Furthermore, a considerable number of individuals were assured financial stability and other temporal blessings that ultimately did not come to pass. These examples highlight a pattern of unfulfilled promises that can be disheartening for those who have placed their faith in these blessings.

It is important to note that patriarchal blessings are often filled with vague language and contingencies that can make it easy to interpret them in various ways. As I have revisited my own patriarchal blessing, I have come to realize that the promises contained within it are general enough to apply to nearly any church member. Their counsel often consists of broad guidance that could be applicable to anyone, such as the instruction to devote time to preparing for service in the church. This realization has led me to draw parallels between the general statements found in my patriarchal blessing and the kinds of predictions one might hear from a fortune teller at a carnival.

Ultimately, this experience has prompted me to reflect on the nature of patriarchal blessings and their role within the church. While they are intended to provide comfort and guidance, the lack of specificity and the prevalence of unfulfilled promises can lead to disillusionment for many members. It raises important questions about the nature of divine revelation and the expectations placed on individuals who seek spiritual direction through these blessings. As we navigate our faith journeys, it is essential to critically examine the teachings and practices of the church, including the significance and implications of patriarchal blessings in our lives.

Word of Wisdom

In my opinion, the Word of Wisdom serves as compelling evidence against Joseph Smith’s abilities as a revelator. It seems unlikely that a divine being would provide guidance that reflects generic health advice from the 1800s, especially when God is believed to possess the ultimate understanding of the human body. This raises questions about the modern interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, particularly regarding its prohibitions and allowances. For instance, the current stance against consuming coffee and tea overlooks the significant health benefits these beverages can offer3. Conversely, the acceptance of sugar and artificial sweeteners, both of which have been linked to serious health issues, seems contradictory to the intent of promoting health.4 Additionally, the original text of the Word of Wisdom indicated that beer was acceptable, yet it is now deemed inappropriate.5 Furthermore, the guidance regarding water—suggesting that it need not be filtered or boiled—could have potentially prevented illness and death among early church members.

The text of the Word of Wisdom states the following:

And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones; And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.6

This promise of specific blessings for all saints who obey the commandments is particularly intriguing. The use of universal quantifiers implies that every faithful individual should experience these benefits. However, a single counterexample can invalidate such a sweeping claim.

I present such a counterexample: many faithful saints, including several members of my own family, live with chronic health conditions despite their diligent adherence to the Word of Wisdom and other commandments. These individuals often struggle with fatigue and cannot run without becoming weary. Additionally, many suffer from bone diseases, and missionaries—who are typically very strict in their obedience—frequently encounter serious health complications.

Given these observations, I argue that the Word of Wisdom was not inspired by God. The lack of promised blessings for many faithful members suggests that there was no divine influence in the creation of this commandment or its associated promises. This raises important questions about the nature of revelation and the expectations placed on church members regarding their adherence to the Word of Wisdom. As we reflect on these issues, it becomes essential to critically evaluate the teachings and practices of the church, particularly those that claim divine origin.

Conclusion

I propose that these simple examples are sufficient to demonstrate that the church’s testable claims do not withstand scrutiny. Certainly, I argue, an omniscient, omnipotent God would fulfill the promises His prophets make, and certainly He would inspire leaders as accurately and helpfully as possible. The failure of so many testable claims calls the legitimacy of the entire church organization into question.


  1. Bushman, R. L. (2007). Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ↩︎

  2. Nelson, R. M. (2023, October). Think Celestial! General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/general-conference/2023/10/51nelson ↩︎

  3. Chu, Y.-F. (2012). Coffee: Emerging Health Effects and Disease Prevention. John Wiley & Sons. Liao, S., Kao, Y.-H., & Hiipakka, R. A. (2001). Green tea: Biochemical and biological basis for health benefits. In Vitamins & Hormones (Vol. 62, pp. 1–94). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0083-6729(01)62001-6 ↩︎

  4. Wölnerhanssen, B. K., & Meyer-Gerspach, A. C. (2019). Health effects of sugar consumption and possible alternatives. Therapeutische Umschau Revue therapeutique, 76(3), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1024/0040-5930/a001070. Gardener, H., & Elkind, M. S. V. (2019). Artificial Sweeteners, Real Risks. Stroke, 50(3), 549–551. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.024456 ↩︎

  5. Evolution of the Word of Wisdom – Barley Drinks and Imbibing Pioneers. (2021, March 25). https://wasmormon.org/evolution-of-the-word-of-wisdom-barley-drinks-and-imbibing-pioneers/ ↩︎

  6. Smith, J. Accessed 23 December 2023. Doctrine and Covenants 89. In Doctrine and Covenants (Online Edition). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/8?lang=eng ↩︎


Chapter 5

Next Steps

page hero, a row of doors5

A faith transition can be one of the most profound and challenging experiences in a person’s life. Whether you find yourself questioning long-held beliefs or contemplating a deeper commitment to your faith, the path ahead is filled with choices that can shape your spiritual journey.

In this chapter, I explore a few of the options available to you as you navigate this pivotal moment. I detail some of the considerations of remaining within the church or stepping away, encouraging you to reflect on the possibilities that lie ahead. It’s essential to stay true to yourself as you move forward, emphasizing the importance of spiritual authenticity.

This chapter is designed to support you in exploring the myriad of options available, helping you make informed choices that resonate with your true self. Whether you choose to stay, leave, or find a new path entirely, remember that your faith journey is uniquely yours, and every step you take is a testament to your courage and commitment to personal growth.


Subsections of Next Steps

Your Well-Being

page hero, a rock on a beach

Questioning your belief system is a big deal. Religion is an emotionally charged topic, and exploring your beliefs often brings up complicated feelings. It is normal to feel confusion, betrayal, anger, sadness, helplessness, and other emotions. You deserve respect during this process.

Go Your Own Pace

Letters like this one often receive criticism from faithful rebuttals that they throw too much information at a reader. FAIR (a popular apologetic resource) refers to this as an “abusive tactic [in which people] are trying to coerce you into a situation where they can bombard you with so many doubt-provoking questions that they can cause your resolve to collapse and your identity to fall apart”1.

I understand this concern, and I want to approach sensitive topics with empathy and respect. I cover a wide range of topics in this resource because there is much to explore, and I believe each aspect is significant. Please take your time. There is no rush to absorb everything at once.

My intention is not to coerce you into any particular viewpoint. Remember, this is a static website—it doesn’t have feelings, and it will remain here for you to revisit whenever you choose. If you ever feel overwhelmed, if your sense of identity feels shaken, or if your resolve begins to waver, I encourage you to take a step back and click away. Reach out to a trusted loved one or a support hotline if you need. Your well-being is my priority.

I hope this resource proves to be useful, honest, and straightforward. I believe that the information presented here can stand on its own merit and does not require manipulative or abusive tactics to be compelling. My goal is to foster an environment where you can engage with the material at your own pace, allowing for thoughtful reflection and personal growth.

Your Identity

If you’re like many who grew up in the church, you’ve probably sung “I Am a Child of God” from a very young age. You may have even heard talks like “You Are a Child of God”, in which Gordon Hinckley emphasizes that you should obey commandments with exactness because of your identity as a child of God (even pointing out that blessings from a loving God are conditional upon obedience):

If you really know that you are a child of God, you will also know that He expects much of you, His child. He will expect you to follow His teachings and the teachings of His dear Son, Jesus. He will expect you to be generous and kind to others. He will be offended if you swear or use foul language. He will be offended if you are dishonest in any way, if you should cheat or steal in the slightest. He will be happy if you remember the less fortunate in your prayers to Him. He will watch over you and guide you and protect you. He will bless you in your schoolwork and in your Primary. He will bless you in your home, and you will be a better boy or girl, obedient to your parents, quarreling less with your brothers and sisters, helping about the home.2

It can be difficult to imagine anything else serving as such a fundamental part of your identity. For many, the comfort of understanding this identity is worth maintaining a belief system despite contrary evidence. I want to suggest, however, that changing my own perspective on my identity has significantly improved my life. It has been one of the most challenging things I have ever done, but it has also been one of the most rewarding in a way I didn’t think was even possible.

If this identity were taken away—if it were instantly refuted—who would you be? It was initially a shock for me, but there are fundamental truths about your identity that you can embrace.

  • You are part of a long-lasting biological cycle. The atoms that make up your body have always existed and will always exist. Your atoms have made up many things before and will make up many things after your life.
  • You are an intelligent being, even the universe dreaming of itself.
  • You belong to a community of people to which you can contribute meaningfully.
  • You can make life better for the people you love.
  • You are capable of loving life, enjoying your interests, and creating interesting things.
  • You have a unique personality that can contribute to your sense of self.

If you are experiencing a faith crisis, it might be helpful to write down more fundamental parts of your identity that remain true, whether or not the church is true.

Your Values

You might be surprised to find that changing your beliefs doesn’t necessarily mean changing your values. I still hold many of the same values I held before I left the church.

For example, I still value:

  • Protecting autonomy and agency
  • Using a surplus to provide for people who need it
  • Protecting health by rejecting or limiting harmful substances
  • Using speech to encourage and inspire rather than hurt
  • Showing patience and tolerance when I don’t understand something
  • Using privilege to help vulnerable people

If you are deconstructing your faith, it can be helpful to make a list of your values. If you’re like me, you’ll probably be surprised at how few of the things you value depend on the church.

What Changes?

If you decide to leave the church, you are also leaving behind a community identity. This can be intimidating, but in my experience, it can also be incredibly refreshing. The day we decided to leave the church, I remember telling my wife, “I finally feel like I’m allowed to just be a good person.” Leaving the church can mean you no longer have to defend your identity with an often-unpopular organization. You can be free to live by your own conscience.

As I have worked on deconstructing my beliefs, a saying has resonated with me: Always trade up3. When you make a major faith or identity decision, ask if your decision leaves you better off than you were before you made it. And remember, you are an intelligent being. You get to decide what is better or worse for yourself.


  1. Allen, S. (2021, August 25). “The CES Letter Rebuttal Part 1”, Quoting Manuel W. Padro’s Quora submission. FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/25/ces-rebuttal-part-1-extended-version ↩︎

  2. Hinckley, G. B. (2003, April). “You Are a Child of God”. General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/you-are-a-child-of-god?lang=eng ↩︎

  3. Dehlin, J. P., Johnston, B. (2010). “How to Stay in the Church”. Stay LDS / Mormon. https://www.staylds.com/?page_id=462 ↩︎


Choosing to Stay

page hero, a rock on a beach

Navigating a faith crisis can feel like standing on shaky ground. When the beliefs that once felt solid begin to crumble, it can be disorienting and lonely. Yet, amidst the turmoil, many individuals find themselves choosing to stay connected to their faith and community, often for deeply personal reasons.

For many, the church is more than just a place of worship; it’s a community filled with friendships, shared experiences, and a sense of belonging. I remeber many Sunday gatherings, potlucks, and conversations with friends who feel like family. These connections can be incredibly meaningful, providing a support network that is hard to replicate. The thought of leaving this community can be daunting. It’s not just about stepping away from a set of beliefs; it’s about losing the people who have walked alongside you through life’s ups and downs. For many, the desire to maintain these relationships becomes a powerful anchor, even when doubts begin to swirl.

Then there are the teachings of the church itself. Many members find comfort in the principles that the faith promotes. These values often resonate deeply, offering a guiding light in a world that can sometimes feel chaotic. Even during a faith crisis, you may find solace in the idea of service, the joy of helping others, and the importance of family bonds. It’s not uncommon for someone to feel that, despite their doubts, the teachings of the church still provide a framework for living a meaningful life.

As you grapple with faith, you may discover a more nuanced understanding of their beliefs. This journey can be transformative, allowing you to interpret doctrine in a way that feels authentic. In this light, staying in the church can become a way to navigate a faith journey while still finding purpose and connection. The idea that faith can evolve can be incredibly liberating. It allows you to embrace doubts while still feeling tethered.

Finally, the commitment to family and generational traditions often plays a significant role in one’s decision to remain in the church. For many, the church has been woven into the fabric of their family and cultural identity for generations. The desire to pass on traditions, values, and beliefs to their children can be a powerful motivator to stay involved, even when grappling with personal struggles. The thought of creating a legacy of belonging and purpose in the next generation can inspire people to work through their doubts while remaining active in the church community.

In the end, while a faith crisis can lead to significant questioning and uncertainty, many people find compelling reasons to stay connected to the church. The sense of community, the value of teachings, and the commitment to family and tradition all contribute to the decision to remain engaged. Each person’s journey is unique, and for many, the path forward involves navigating faith in a way that honors both their doubts and their commitments. Ultimately, the choice to stay can be a testament to the complexity of faith and the enduring power of community—a reminder that even in the midst of uncertainty, there can be a profound sense of belonging and purpose.


Choosing to Leave

page hero, a person walking in a forest

Leaving the church can be a difficult and transformative decision. For many, it’s not just about stepping away from a set of beliefs; it’s about untangling themselves from a way of life that has shaped their identity, relationships, and worldview. The journey to this decision is often fraught with emotional complexity, filled with moments of doubt, clarity, fear, and liberation.

The process of leaving begins with a faith crisis—a moment when the foundations of belief start to shake. This can be triggered by a variety of factors: encountering historical truths that challenge the church’s narrative, grappling with personal experiences that don’t align with church teachings, or simply feeling a growing sense of disconnection from the community. As these doubts surface, they can lead to a profound sense of isolation. The very community that once felt like home can suddenly seem stifling, and the teachings that once provided comfort can feel constricting.

As you begin to question your faith, you may find yourself in a state of internal conflict. There’s a deep sense of loss that accompanies the decision to leave—loss of community, of shared rituals, and of a familiar way of life. For many, the church is not just a religious institution; it’s a family, a social network, and a cultural identity. The thought of walking away can be terrifying. What will my friends and family think? Will I be ostracized? The fear of losing relationships can weigh heavily on the heart, making the decision to leave feel like an act of rebellion against not just the church, but against loved ones.

Yet, for many, the desire for authenticity and personal truth ultimately outweighs these fears. The journey of leaving can be one of profound self-discovery. As people step away from the church, they often find the freedom to explore their beliefs and values without the constraints of doctrine. This newfound autonomy can be exhilarating. It opens the door to a world of possibilities—new philosophies, spiritual practices, and ways of understanding the universe that may have previously felt out of reach.

Leaving the church can also lead to a reevaluation of personal relationships. While some connections may falter, others can deepen. Many individuals find solace in communities of people who have also left the church, creating new friendships based on shared experiences and mutual understanding. These connections can provide a sense of belonging that feels just as fulfilling, if not more so, than what they experienced in the church.

Moreover, the act of leaving can be a powerful statement of self-empowerment. It’s a declaration that beliefs and values matter, that personal truth is worth pursuing, even if it means stepping into the unknown. This journey can be liberating, allowing you to reclaim your narrative and redefine your identity outside the confines of church teachings.

However, the process is not without its challenges. Many who leave the church experience a period of grief as they mourn the loss of their former lives. This can manifest as feelings of guilt, confusion, and sadness. It’s a complex emotional landscape that requires time and patience to navigate. Healing often comes in waves, and it’s essential to feel and process these emotions fully.

Leaving the church is a deeply personal journey that can be both painful and liberating. It involves grappling with loss, fear, and uncertainty, but it also opens the door to self-discovery, authenticity, and new connections. While the decision to leave may come with its own set of challenges, many find that embracing their truth leads to a richer, more fulfilling life. Ultimately, the journey of leaving is not just about stepping away from a faith; it’s about stepping into a new chapter of life—one that is defined by personal beliefs, newfound freedom, and the courage to forge one’s own path.


Thank You

page hero, a dart hitting a target

As we reach the end of this journey, I find myself reflecting on the path we’ve traveled together. It’s been a deeply personal exploration, one that has allowed me to share my story, my struggles, and my insights with you. I hope that in these words, you’ve found a sense of connection, understanding, and perhaps even a little comfort.

Saying goodbye is never easy, especially when it involves something as profound as faith and identity. I want to express my gratitude for your willingness to engage with my experiences, to consider perspectives that may differ from your own, and to walk alongside me in this exploration. Whether you are a lifelong member of the church, a recent convert, or someone simply curious about the journey of faith, your openness means the world to me.

I recognize that our paths may diverge here, and that’s a beautiful thing. Each of us is on a unique journey, shaped by our experiences, beliefs, and the questions we carry. I hope that as you continue on your own path, you do so with a heart full of compassion and a mind open to the complexities of belief and doubt. Remember that it’s okay to question, to seek, and to explore. It’s in these moments of inquiry that we often find the most profound truths about ourselves and the world around us.

As I close this epistle, I carry with me the lessons learned, the friendships forged, and the love that remains, even in the face of change. I hope you, too, can find peace and fulfillment in your journey, wherever it may lead you. May you embrace the beauty of your own experiences, the richness of your beliefs, and the depth of your questions.

Thank you for allowing me to share my story with you. With warmth and gratitude, I wish you all the best as you navigate your own path. I hope our journeys, different as they may be, can share a spirit of compassion and empathy.

With love,

Landon


FAQ

In the time this resource has been available, a few questions have commonly arisen. I am grateful to people who have pointed out errors and provided a sincere criticism of the early versions of this project. I hope this page explains the rationale behind my decisions and encourage transparent, thoughtful conversations as I continue to improve this resource. As always, reach out if you find I have made a mistake.

Terminology

I have done my best to balance terminology between my own experience and the preferences of diverse people and communities.

I don’t prefer to be called Mormon. Why not use the correct name of the church?

I spent 24 years in the church. For 21 of those years, men who claimed to speak for God instructed me to proudly call myself a Mormon. While the term Mormon may not be fundamental to current church members’ identities, it was fundamental to mine. I only say Mormon when referring to my own historical identity, and I do not refer to existing church members as Mormons.

If you are a faithful Latter-Day Saint, I hope you use whatever term that best describes your personal identity, whether that is Mormon or the scriptural name of the church. I advocate for mutual respect, and an easy way to demonstrate that is by allowing all parties to define and describe their own identities.

Why do you sometimes avoid people-centric language?

While preparing this resource, I researched communities that are commonly affected by the church. Part of this search included a query about how certain communities prefer to be referred to. It is challenging to balance the identities of individuals when discussing the large communities we all belong to, but I sincerely hope my language balances the feelings of many parties.

For example, I am autistic. I really struggle with the idea of people-first language to describe myself, since autism is a fundamental part of my identity. Because being autistic is an attribute I have, not a struggle I need to overcome, I identify as “an autistic person”, not “a person with autism”.

My goal is to include and uplift diverse thoughts and experiences, but I also happen to be a privileged white man who grew up in an extremely sheltered environment. If you feel I have not referred appropriately to a person or community, please consider reaching out, and I’ll gladly correct my mistake.

Transparency

I value and aim for transparency as I encourage honest conversations about faith.

Why would you change so much in Version 2?

I started writing Version 1 of Elemental Epistles immediately after I decided to leave the church. My emotions were high. I did my very best to present a clean, rational argument, but I fell short in a few places.

Since writing Version 1, I have had an opportunity to spend more time processing trauma from my mission and childhood. I have been able to be more reflective on my experience, so in Version 2, I feel I present a much more detailed, nuanced story that is easier to read.

I felt it was prudent to clarify my intentions in Version 2, and I needed to improve the flow of the entire document. I also needed to #simplify my info-dumps, especially about logic and reasoning. For those curious, I maintain version notes for this project.

How can I know you don’t have ulterior motives?

I appreciate your skepticism – it’s important to carefully consider the motives and intentions behind any resource, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like faith and belief. Maintaining a critical eye is a wise approach.

My primary aim is to create a space for nuanced, compassionate dialogue around the complexities of Mormonism, particularly from the perspective of someone who has been on their own faith journey. I don’t seek to persuade or proselytize, but rather to share my personal experiences and reflections in a way that honors the diverse range of beliefs and perspectives many people experience.

To that end, I’ve made a concerted effort to:

  • Ground the content in trustworthy sources whenever possible, including church-approved materials.
  • Avoid giving prescriptive advice or counsel, recognizing that each person’s path is unique.
  • Refrain from any commercial or financial motives – this is a labor of love, not a means to profit.
  • Present a balanced, nuanced view that acknowledges both the light and the shadow within my former faith.

Ultimately, my hope is that this resource can foster greater understanding, empathy and open dialogue—not to push anyone in a particular direction, but to create a safe space for exploration and reflection. I’m happy to address any questions or concerns you may have.