The information I've shared on this blog is a drop in the bucket when it comes to discussing Mormon history and doctrine. There are many books, blogs, podcasts and other forums dedicated to discussing Mormonism (just start googling and you'll find plenty information or jump right into CESletter.com for a popular 80-page list of controversies). Based on the information I've read, as well as other experiences I've had, I don't think Mormonism is the one true church, as it claims to be. As I understand it, churches and religions have acted mainly as political structures throughout the course of humanity, for good or bad, and Mormonism is no exception.
But I don't want my blog to be about the church's truth claims.
This blog is for me. I write to help myself better understand the crazy emotional roller coaster I've been on and to help me unpack the reasons why leaving Mormonism was such a painful experience for me.
Up to this point, I've given a high level overview of some of the information that stands out in my memory as damning evidence that the church is false. It's definitely not a comprehensive list of the items on my "shelf", but it felt good to write out some of the major points, and I will probably discuss other major shelf items in the future. (Click here to read my post explaining the idea of a mental shelf)
The posts I've written so far are biased towards historical information and away from personal experiences. Figuring out how to write more about the personal/emotional side of this experience has been road block for me as I try to write more posts. Historical information is historical information, and it provides context, but the emotional punch it carries really pales in comparison to painful personal experience.
So why are personal experiences so hard to write about?
First problem: I've seen the hurt that Mormonism has caused people I love. The experiences of close friends and family members have deeply affected the way I view Mormonism and my reasons for leaving. But those stories are simply not mine to tell and I want to respect the privacy of others.
Second problem: Talking about my own pain is difficult because it requires being vulnerable and admitting my own weaknesses and insecurities. Who wants to admit to that stuff?
Third problem: Since leaving Mormonism, I tend to be hyper-vigilant when anyone talks about their feelings. Human feelings can be easily manipulated, and I've found that's it's better to trust evidence over feelings, especially when talking about religion. Religion is a loaded topic. It brings up a lot of emotions, and my feelings about things are not always an accurate way to measure the reality of a situation.
So between privacy concerns, dislike of vulnerability, and mistrust of feelings, it's going to be tricky writing more posts. How should I write about experiences with family and friends? How can I trust myself to remember things right when my memories are probably influenced by my feelings? Do I really want to dig up my insecurities and write about them?
I do want to write about them. Writing helps me wrangle my emotions and force them into an organized narrative instead of letting them float around chaotically in my head. As much as I would like to stick to the facts, there are times when it's helpful to talk about feelings, which is why I will be trying to bring more of a personal/emotional vibe into in my posts moving forward.
I recently had a conversation with a Mormon family member. They told me that they felt I was mocking them and their religion by being open about the problems I see in the church. I let them know that I'm not trying to mock, I'm trying to share my experience and talk about the problems that I see in Mormonism. That conversation led me to making this Facebook post that I decided to share here on the blog as well:
"Please understand that I don't post church stuff on Facebook because I want to mock the church. I think people who chose to believe are sincere in their belief that they believe it is the one true church and that they are trying the best they can to do good. I was in that position too! I believed it was true and had spiritual experiences that felt so real! I prayed and read scriptures every day, I went to church every Sunday, I served in callings, I based my life on the teachings and doctrines. I'm not trying to mock the church when I know how sacred it is to believers.
But I am not a believer anymore, and it has been a long, painful, and sad journey. It still makes me sad a lot of the time that now there are some relationships that are strained or ended because I'm not a believer anymore, and I'm sincerely sorry that my posts have hurt people. I don't want to convey anger, even though there is no denying that I have felt a lot of anger in this process.
I can't go back, and I can't "leave it alone". Once you've seen the problems, you can't unsee them. I share because I want people to understand that I didn't just leave because I got offended, or wanted to sin, or just gave up and stopped believing. I share because I think problems should be brought to light, and there are many problems in Mormonism. I share so that other people who are hurt by the problems in Mormonism know that their pain should not be dismissed and that I care! You are not alone! You don't have to go through the sadness and betrayal on your own. I'm here. There are whole communities of people here for you. Don't let a controlling organization tell you that church is the only way to be happy. You can be happy without an organization that hides information from you and shames you for never being good enough. You don't have to keep suffering in a system that doesn't work for you, especially because it's a religion built on easily falsifiable truth claims and doctrines that come from fallible human beings."
The same thing goes for this blog. I want to be able to tell my story. I want to share the problems that I have seen and bring them to light by writing about it. I'm really glad when people reach out to me. It let's me know I'm not going on this journey alone. I want to reach out to others as well. None of us need to go through this alone.
There is a story in the Book of Mormon called Lehi's dream, or Lehi's vision (1 Nephi 8). In this dream, Lehi sees a straight and narrow path leading to the tree of life. To get to the tree, the crowds of people must cling to the iron rod and follow it to the tree. In the distance is a "great and spacious building" filled with people mocking those who go to the tree, but those holding steadfastly to the rod ignore the mockery and push forward.
“For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it.” -D&C 132:22 (see also Matt. 7:13–14)
"Hold to the Rod,the Iron Rod,'Tis strong and bright and true" -Hymn #274
This story was always encouraging to me. I looked to the commandments as a constant source of guidance. The teachings of the church were my rock, my firm foundation, my iron rod. It didn't matter if "the world" mocked me for being Mormon. I wouldn't drink coffee, I wouldn't swear, I wouldn't listen to "bad" music, I wouldn't watch "bad" movies, I wouldn't skip church, the list goes on and on.
I was going to cling to the iron rod until I made it to the tree of life.
But at this point in my life, the summer after my junior year of college, I had several items weighing on my shelf of doubts. How could I know which the teachings of the church were "doctrine" if prophets and leaders sometimes "speak as men"? How could I trust an organization that withholds some parts of their history and doesn't publish their finances?
I still wanted to have faith in the scriptures and doctrines of the church, so I looked to church approved sources for answers. My patriarchal blessing said that I should: "Read, study, and ponder the scriptures, and the prophets that have lived since the prophet Joseph Smith."
I understood this to mean that I should study church history, so that's where I started. I took a church history class at BYU called "Global Church 1900-Present" and used that as a baseline for my own research. I didn't like what I found, which was that the history I knew had been more white-washed than I realized. The thing that bothered me most was that the Mormon version of history always stressed "inspiration" and "the will of the Lord" while never admitting the reality of certain circumstances.
To explain what I mean, I've thought of four big issues that stand out in my memory. I've broken them down between the Mormon version of how the issues have been handled and the reality of the circumstances that existed in the larger context outside of Mormonism.
Polygamy
Mormon version: Ask any Mormon missionary or member of the Mormon church and they will tell you no, the church does not teach the practice of polygamy. Polygamy was practiced in the past, they'll admit, but it was ended in 1890 because of the will of God. They will call it an "inspired revelation" or use a similar phrase to expresses the idea that God alone was the catalyst for this change.
Reality: The Edmunds-Tucker Act was passed in 1887. The act made polygamy illegal and would cause the church to lose all of its assets to the US government unless they disavowed the practice. [1] The church's response from 1890 is known in Mormon scripture as Official Declaration 1, which proclaims the end of polygamous teachings in the church (though the church didn't quite get rid of all polygamy in their doctrine. See D&C 132).
The prophet at the time admitted that the decision was not made entirely based on God's will:
"On September 25, 1890, President Woodruff wrote in his journal that he was “under the necessity of acting for the Temporal Salvation of the Church.” He stated, “After Praying to the Lord & feeling inspired by his spirit I have issued … [a] Proclamation.”" [2]
The phrase "Temporal Salvation" = $$$$. The threat of losing real estate was the spark that "inspired" the prophet to make this proclamation. Mormon's don't talk about that part, though. They focus on the part that says this revelation came from God. Whether intentional or not, they white-wash the history by not discussing the Edmunds Act because it was a major part of the context in which the church made its decision to disavow polygamy.
Racism
Mormon version: The inspired revelation from God known as Official Declaration 2 cleared up previous racism and ended the priesthood ban that was keeping black people from entering the temple. Church leaders spent many hours in the temple "supplicating the Lord for divine guidance" before receiving the revelation to end the ban in 1978. [3] The leaders were truly inspired.
Reality: The 1960s Civil Rights movement, which happened years before Official Declaration 2, was the real catalyst for clearing up the racism of the church's priesthood ban, not a revelation from the Mormon church. Again, the Mormon version omits the critical context of the progress made by the Civil Rights movement and white-washes the history in a way that emphasizes the revelatory inspiration of Official Declaration 2 and dismisses the impact of the work done by Civil Rights activists like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others to raise awareness of racism in the United States. Without the work of these activists, who knows when (or if) the priesthood ban would have been lifted.
Temple Ordinance Changes
Mormon version: I grew up being taught that the temple ceremony is a sacred revelation from God and that God never changes. It was more than a little shocking when I first learned that the ceremonies have changed over time. To be honest, I don't actually know how most Mormons explain the changes because they hardly ever talk about temple ceremonies in general. One clever way to talk about the changes is to avoid the subject entirely:
"What has changed in the temple ceremony? It’s probably more important to understand what has not changed." [4]
Reality: The symbol of slashing your own throat was removed from the temple ceremony. You are also no longer required to be naked under a poncho during the washing and anointing, a ceremony which included being touched on various body parts by a temple worker. First of all, eww. Second, HOW COULD IT NOT BE CHANGED?? Being touched by a stranger while you sit naked under a poncho or making the gesture of slicing your own neck open is really creepy in any context, and especially creepy in the context of a religious ceremony. It seems obvious that the church would have to remove those parts of the ceremony if they expected people to enjoy going to the temple.
Like I said, Mormons just don't talk about the temple ceremony. They will say that Joseph Smith received the ceremony through "inspiration" and talk about how special their experience there is, but then they will say that the rest is sacred, which basically means they want to keep it a secret. The pervasive white-washing of temple issues and why God changed his mind about the creepy parts of the temple ceremony is really tied up in this sacred secrecy, which deserves a post of its own.
Women Praying in General Conference
Mormon version: General Conference of April 2013 was the first time women were allowed to pray during the sessions. God loves His daughters and treats them as equals with His sons, so of course, women should be allowed to pray in church meetings. One women's response to this historic event was: "I am so full of joy and love for a Heavenly Father that answers prayers and inspires change." [5]
Reality: The part the Mormon version doesn't acknowledge is that maybe it wasn't God who inspired this change. The reality is that women's rights activists in the church had been working on issues like this for years, and in the time shortly before this conference their activism had been gaining momentum. I remember getting my own invitation to a "Wear Pants to Church" Facebook event in early 2013, and it wasn't long after this conference that the Ordain Women movement began staging protests. It wasn't allowing women to pray that caused these movements. These movements had already been at work for years. Reaching the milestone of women praying in General Conference, followed by other big events that followed, were the results of their efforts, not the cause.
The idea that activism or politics could change the way the church operated had never been a part of my worldview before. It didn't seem possible that the will of God could be influenced by political and social pressure, but it looks like it has been.
The more I learned about the actual history of the church, the more discrepancies I saw between the faith-promoting narrative of the church and the reality that the church responded to these situations in a way that any organization would: they caved when the pressure became too much. None of these instances showed foresight or prophesy. It was all reactionary, not inspired.
I came to a conclusion: the "iron rod" of church doctrine zigs and zags as often as it needs in order to protect the organization, and the God of the Mormon church seems to change his mind a lot. I didn't feel like I could trust the church's "inspired revelations," or any of their "doctrine" for that matter, to keep me on the straight and narrow anymore.
My shelf was reaching a breaking point.
Notes:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act
2. https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng
3. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
4. http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Can_Temple_Ceremonies_Change.pdf
5. http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/56116507-78/church-women-general-prayer.html.csp
