I joined the church April 24, 1971 while serving in the Air Force in Thailand. My soon to be wife, a native of Thailand, had been converted a year earlier. She was instrumental in my meeting the missionaries and in my subsequent conversion. The missionaries did not have a "golden contact" in me because I challenged and researched everything the missionaries taught. Once I was finally baptized I became a zealous advocate for the restored gospel. Two months after my baptism my wife and I were married in a civil ceremony presided over by one of the full-time missionaries who had taught my missionary discussions.

About five years ago, for reasons that are explained at length below, I began to have troubling doubts about the church. After considerable research I became convinced that the church I had devoted my life to was not what I thought it was. Therefore, on January 17, 2000, I submitted a formal request to have my name removed from the records of the church.

The most important thing I want to say, in conclusion, is that my experience in the church was a positive one. I owe much of who and what I am to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I came to know and love some wonderful Mormons who are, indeed, worthy to be called saints. I hold no ill will to anyone. I leave the church with a clear conscience. Having said all that, I must emphasize that, in spite of the good the church does, at its core its doctrines are false. Mormonism is built on a foundation of falsehoods, myths and deception.

What follows is my reason for leaving the church. Some will assume that I became offended or disgruntled. On the contrary, I remained active with many friends in the church until the day I submitted my resignation. Undoubtedly there will be those who will think I have left the church as a result of the influence of "anti-mormon" literature. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was not until my thoughts were solidified and my decision to leave the church finalized that I began to look for support in the writings of others who have already abandoned Mormonism.

THE QUESTION OF LIFE

The first thing to establish is that all life on earth is carbon based. We may speculate or surmise that life elsewhere in the universe is base on some other substance, such as silicon, sulfur or chocolate syrup. It is entirely possible that there exist, somewhere in the universe, life forms or beings based on silicon, sulfur or chocolate syrup. If the universe is infinite and eternal and if we allow for an infinite number of possibilities, then silicon or sulfur or chocolate syrup are all viable possibilities as the building block of life. Nevertheless, the only element that we know of for a surety that can suffice as the basis for life is carbon. Nowhere in the universe do we have evidence of any life forms or beings based on anything other than carbon. Therefore, let us ignore the other alternatives. While not denying their possibility, we will admit their lack of probability. However possible such life forms may be, it is highly unlikely that they, in fact, exist. That said, we will assume, for the sake of argument, that all life anywhere in the universe is based on carbon.

Where does carbon come from? Prior to the "big bang" and for approximately ten billion years there was no carbon anywhere in the universe. Carbon is created in the furnaces of stars and when those stars explode the carbon is blasted into space. Eventually some of the carbon coalesces along with other elements and forms planets. Those planets, if conditions are suitable, evolve life and that life is based on the carbon that was spewed out of exploding stars. All life is literally made of stardust. The time it took for the very earliest of stars to evolve, mature and explode was about ten billion years. Thus, for approximately ten billion years there was no carbon anywhere in the formative and evolving universe. Moreover, there was no life anywhere in the universe because there was no carbon available to be the building block of life. Amazingly, however, almost immediately (in cosmic terms) after carbon became available from the first exploding stars, life began to appear and evolve, at least it did on our planet earth.

Almost simultaneously with the deaths of the earliest stars was the formation of our sun and the solar system some five billion years ago. After only another one-and-one-half billion years (3.5 billion years ago,) the first microbial life on earth emerged. From then until the present, evolution has taken charge and we have the world and the cosmos as we see them. But for the present discussion, one point must be kept in mind, that no life could possibly have existed in our universe prior to about five billion years ago.

THE QUESTION OF GOD

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) has a unique understanding of who God is and what His relationship is to mankind. Like most Christian ideologies, Mormons describe God as being omnipotent, omniscient and filled with loving concern for His mortal children. However, Mormons do not believe that God is omnipresent, that is, everywhere present at the same time. The Mormon concept of God incorporates "the central fact that God is a distinct, tangible being with a corporeal body similar in form and stature to that which man possesses." Joseph Smith, first in the line of Latter-day prophets, declared, "there is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones." The Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants, section 130, verse 22 states, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's. . ." (see also, Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-3; Exodus 33:11, 20-23; Numbers 12:7-8; Isaiah 6:1-11; John 12:44-45; Colossians 1:12-15; and Hebrews 1:1-3 for related Biblical references.) Nevertheless, because God is an "exalted man" He is "perfect in all his bodily attributes and powers. . . God is a divine being."

How is it that God could be a physical being who resembles mortal man in every respect? Could a man become like God? How did God come to be an exalted man? In Mormon parlance, God's name is Elohim. This is in distinction to Jesus Christ (Jehovah) and the Holy Ghost who are themselves separate and unique beings. In order to prevent any confusion, the name "Elohim" will be used whenever speaking of God the Heavenly Father, the Endless and Eternal Man of Holiness.

Elohim became God through essentially the same process of life, salvation and exaltation as is affordable to mankind. An aphorism of Latter-day Saint thought is: "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." The details of how this happened are not thoroughly discussed in common Mormon literature, nevertheless, it is accepted as a matter of faith that Elohim earned his exaltation, so to speak, as well may we also. As Joseph Smith said, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see . . . . It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible . . ." According to the temple version of the creation story Lucifer, tempting Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit states, "I want you to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that your eyes may be opened, for that is the way Father (Elohim) gained his knowledge (emphasis mine.) The implication, obviously, is that God went through all the trials and temptations of mortality just as we must. Initially, the primeval Elohim was pure intelligence. By virtue of having been the most intelligent of all intelligences he became God. The Mormon scripture Abraham, chapter 3, verses 19 and 21 state, "I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences" (see also verses 18-22.) Elohim used that intelligence to fashion spirits and then physical bodies to house the spirits. He next established the pattern of existence from intelligence to spirit (by some unmentioned means.) Then the spirit is fused into a mortal body. Next the spirit is disembodied (at death) and then returned to an immortal body (when the spirit rejoins the body at resurrection.) Finally, for those deemed worthy, the resurrected, immortal soul is exalted. Exaltation is becoming, not merely like God in every respect, but a god in fact. To be exalted is to become a god. You or I or anyone who lives worthily and participates in all the ordinances of the Church and the Temple is entitled to become an exalted being, exactly like Elohim or Jesus Christ. The grander implication of this for the exalted Latter-day Saint is to continue progressing throughout eternity, bringing new spirit children into existence, creating worlds of his own and populating those worlds with mortal beings who will provide physical bodies in which to house new spirit children. Numerous books have been written discussing these issues at great length; this has been but the briefest of outlines.

The immediate questions that arise are puzzling. How did Elohim create a spirit for His own intelligence? How was Elohim infused into a physical body? Did Elohim affect His own salvation? Did Elohim live on a world that He Himself had peopled with other spirits such as Himself? How could Elohim have exalted Himself? Did Elohim resurrect himself? Or, did He create Himself as a fully exalted being in an instant? To the best of my knowledge, these questions are not answered in LDS literature. And how about Joseph Smith's statement that there is "a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father?" Moreover, there is the matter of our Mother in Heaven, but this is more than I want to get into herein. As difficult as these questions are, I believe there is one additional question more difficult than them all.

THE QUESTION OF KOLOB

Latter-day Saint scriptures often speak in cosmic terms (Job 9:9; 38:31; Psalms 8:3; 147:4; Doctrine & Covenants 76:24; 88:13 and 37-47; Moses 1:33-38; Abraham 1:31 and 3:1-10 for example.) Nevertheless, the creation accounts of Genesis 1, 2; Moses 2, 3 and Abraham 4, 5 clearly pertain to the solar system and to this earth alone. The creation accounts have nothing to do with the greater expanse of the cosmos. Certain passages may suggest the Milky Way Galaxy, e.g. Abraham 3:1-7, but as for the creation per se, only the immediate solar system is described. We are told that Elohim lives on a planet near to the great governing star, Kolob, and from there he planned and directed the creation of our solar system. There is even scriptural support for this conclusion found in Moses 1:31-39, "only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you." Thus, Elohim is not the god of the universe; rather, He is the god of our solar system and, perhaps, the Milky Way Galaxy. Neal A. Maxwell referred to a picture of the Milky Way during a lecture at BYU. He then stated, "The placement of our comparatively tiny solar system in the suburbs of the Milky Way galaxy" is reminiscent of an early Mormon hymn If You Could Hie to Kolob extolling the glory of Kolob. Finally, J. Reuben Clark Jr. dances around the issue then declares, "But this fact seems reasonably clear that this hub or center of (the Milky Way) galaxy exists and performs, in broad principle, the functions of Kolob and that Kolob's existence and function were known about four thousand years before our day." Actually, many scientists are of the opinion that a light devouring black hole is the great governing orb at the center of our galaxy rather than the crystalline sea of glass as romantically described in Mormon literature.

If it is true that Elohim went through a process of life, death and exaltation prior to His becoming the god of the galaxy, when and where and how did He live? He could not have lived as a mortal being in this universe because nothing lived in this universe prior to five or so billion years ago. There is not enough time in the universe for any planet to have evolved intelligent life much earlier than our earth. Let me restate this so there is no misunderstanding. According to the best scientific evidence presently available, intelligent life had not, indeed, could not have evolved or existed anywhere in the universe very much sooner than it did evolve on earth. Elohim may have existed as pure intelligence or as a spirit (these are beyond scientific scrutiny) but not as a mortal being in this universe. If He could not have existed as a mortal being in this universe then it is not true that "as man is, God once was." If Elohim could not have existed as a mortal man in this universe, then He could not now be an exalted man or God. Therefore, the Mormon God, Elohim, is not God.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Elohim is God of the Universe, Igniter of the Big Bang, Creator of Galaxies and Progenitor of Worlds without number. He surely must have lived in some previous universe now unknown and, perhaps, unknowable. He could not have become exalted in this universe because it did not exist until He created it. His mortal life, death and exaltation must necessarily have occurred in some previous, extraneous universe. This is entirely plausible as a matter of faith that would put to rest all my arguments and answer all my questions. Unfortunately, I find no evidence for this solution in revealed Mormon doctrine. In fact, Latter-day Saint theology defines Elohim's "endless," "eternal" and "infinite" attributes not as adjectives meaning absolutely beyond time and space, rather, as merely nouns or names descriptive of the awesome portentousness of God. "Endless is my name" (D&C 19:10.) "Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?" (Moses 1:3) "Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also" (Moses 7:35.) Bruce R. McConkie explains that titles such as "Eternal Father" or "Eternal God" are expressions of "God as an Eternal, exalted Being." Also, he is "beyond finite comprehension in power, dominion, godly attributes, and eternal glory." But all of this talk about being "exalted" presupposes that Elohim lived a mortal life, somewhere, and was worthy of becoming a god; that is the nature of exaltation. Orson Pratt qualified the word "eternal" in an interesting way. He said, "But there is something still greater in the expression of eternal life, than that of a few million years. It is something that has no end. It may have a beginning . . . . there is a beginning but no end." In this way we can understand the nature of Elohim. He had a beginning at some moment in the primordial past but now, as an exalted being, is eternal, thus without end. Nevertheless, as we have seen, His moment could not have been in our universe.

On the other hand, if Elohim is responsible for the creation of this universe, why would he now bother Himself with living on a planet nigh unto Kolob, which is, presumably, somewhere within the known universe? Thus Mormon doctrine negates what might be, in my opinion, the single best argument in its own defense. Instead of being above and beyond the universe, Mormonism places Elohim within the cosmos; He is a part of it. As explained by Keith E. Norman, "Rather than existing apart from and independent of the material universe, God operates within time and space according to inviolable laws; otherwise, he would cease to be god (Alma 42:13, 22, 25)." Some other god may be responsible for the universe, but not Elohim.

We cannot speculate about the possibility of Elohim existing outside our universe. We cannot conjecture that the location of Kolob lies somewhere beyond the cosmos. We cannot make these speculations or conjectures for two reasons: first, no such habitable universe is known to science and second, no such realm has been revealed in Mormon literature. Moreover, many scientists are of the opinion that our cosmos is necessarily the only possible universe in which any intelligent life could exist. As pointed out above, descriptions of Elohim's domain "nigh unto Kolob" would lead one to believe that it is somewhere within our very galaxy. In any case, it surely is within our universe because Mormon thought allows for nothing else. Mormons might attempt to use the "escape clause," that is, God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (Article of Faith, number 9.) However, that which has already been revealed certainly places Elohim within our universe.

THE QUESTION OF WORLDS WITHOUT NUMBER

This raises a related issue. The scripture passage in Moses 1:32-39 states that innumerable worlds have come into and passed out of existence over the aeons of eternity. "And worlds without number have I created. . . . but only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand. . . . And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works." Each of those worlds, presumably, was populated with the children of Elohim (D&C 76:24 and Moses 7:30) who lived their lives and were exalted or not and then passed on into eternity. As each world achieved its divine destiny it, too, was exalted to become a celestial realm and, as a mortal planet, passed out of existence. As we have already seen, no such inhabited worlds did or could have existed long enough before our earth to have evolved intelligent life. (For fascinating discussions on the possibility of extraterrestrial life see Hugh Ross for a creationist point of view. Also, see John Barrow and Frank Tipler for an in depth scientific point of view.) But the larger implication is this: the entire Latter-day Saint cosmology is founded upon an everlasting, infinite and eternal universe or "steady-state" universe. "Millions of earths like this, would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations. . . . all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity" (Moses 7:29-31.) Unfortunately, the steady-state theory has been conceptually abandoned among mainstream scientists for more than thirty years. According to Keith Norman, "Virtually all astronomers and theoretical physicists now accept the Big Bang version of creation." It is understandable that Joseph Smith and other early church authorities would have used this model in the Pearl of Great Price and in other writings, it had been the preeminent model for centuries. Again, quoting Norman, "Mormon cosmology is readily understood in terms of a nineteenth-century scientific milieu . . . . In general, Mormon cosmology is quite consistent with Newtonian physics: the universe is a rationally ordered system consisting of matter which obeys inviolable physical laws." The steady-state theory has been replaced by the now famous and well-established "big bang" theory. Quoting Hugh Nibley, "You may accept the Big Bang, with its potential for producing all that came thereafter, but by any reckoning the earth was definitely not among the instantaneous productions of the first millisecond or even the first fifteen minutes. No matter how you figure it, it came along much, much later after a great deal had happened. 'Worlds without number' had already come into existence and gone their ways." At first glance it may appear that Nibley is acknowledging the big bang, however, he slips back into the steady-state theory by mentioning innumerable worlds having come and gone. Elsewhere Nibley states, "What was there before the Big Bang? All matter, all space was contained in one point that had no dimensions whatever. Well, that's absurd." He cannot accept big bang cosmology because it nullifies the steady-state argument and that is the basis of Mormon cosmology.

If the steady-state theory is false then Mormon cosmology is false. If Mormon cosmology, which derives at least in part from the Book of Moses, is false then the Book of Moses is false. If the Book of Moses is false then the prophet who produced it and proclaimed it to be the Word of God is a false prophet. Since the steady-state theory is false, then Mormon cosmology and Joseph Smith the Prophet are also false.

THE QUESTION OF MATTER

Another evidence that Elohim is "within" the known universe and not "without" the cosmos. LDS scripture categorically states that God took of preexistent matter to create the galaxy, solar system and earth. (See Abraham 3:24 and D&C 93:33 and 131:7 for example.) According to Hyrum Andrus, Joseph Smith "proclaimed that matter and intelligence are eternal and that God is in time and space as the great Organizer of self-existing matter and things." Again, Andrus quotes Parley P. Pratt who said, "There has always existed a boundless infinitude of space. The elements of all these properties or things are eternal, uncreated, self-existing. Not one particle can be added to them by creative power. Neither can one particle be diminished or annihilated." Thus, Mormon doctrine posits that matter is indestructible and eternal, being neither created (exnihilated) nor destroyed (annihilated) yet a fundamental fact is that, prior to the big bang and for about one million years thereafter, no matter could have existed. The plasma universe was far too hot for any atoms to have formed. It would be another several millions of years before any matter, as we know it (e.g. hydrogen) would appear. Keith Norman speculates, "Mormonism's insistence that matter, not to mention intelligence, is eternally existent, without beginning or end, would be met with considerable skepticism in the scientific community today." In other words, for the Mormon creation story to have any meaning or relevance it must concern itself exclusively with our earth and, as already has been suggested, the galaxy. Frank Salisbury explains the eternal nature of the elements thus, "Since specific elements are created in atomic reactions (e.g., in the stars), this must refer in a general way to the matter-energy stuff of which the universe consists. In any case the creation story says nothing of the creation of matter-energy." Moreover, in order for Elohim to have used preexistent matter, He could not possibly have created the earth until well after the big bang. We know that the solar system could not have formed until at least ten billion years after the big bang but neither could have the mythical world of Elohim nigh unto Kolob.

The real strength of this argument, however, is that it drives another nail in the coffin of Mormon cosmology. It demonstrates first, that Elohim could not be the creator of the universe; second, that the Mormon description of matter breaks down at the big bang; and third, that Mormon cosmology is consistent with nineteenth century theories now outmoded.

THE QUESTION OF COSMOLOGY

It is very important to note at this juncture that I am not dismissing Joseph Smith and the Book of Moses on the basis of a handful of so-called scripture verses, rather, I am dismissing them based on the total cosmology that was built up around that handful of verses. No less an authority than Hugh W. Nibley stated, "All throughout you will see the most popular ones (fictional cosmologies) like Star Wars, are those that have an element of plausibility. It starts out 'in a galaxy far away and long ago.' This sort of thing could happen. We have been teaching that these things have always been happening. There has always been something going on. So cosmology is a big thing here."

Mormon cosmology is based on the idea of "concentric hierarchies," that is, beginning with the earth and the solar system, we will find ever larger systems or realms, one above the other, throughout the expanse of the universe until we reach the greatest of all near the star Kolob. As we read in Abraham 3:9 and 16, 17 "And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob . . . to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest . . . . If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam (stars) that thou has seen, because it is nearest unto me. Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it." Like a target with a bullseye, the concentric hierarchies theory posits ever increasingly complex levels of cosmic organization. It has been scientifically demonstrated to be inaccurate.

In the same way that creationists cling in futility to the literal interpretations of the creation account in Genesis, so too do Mormons cling to the Pearl of Great Price. In addition to the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, which repeats and amplifies the Book of Moses, must also be dismissed. They both tell essentially the same mythological creation story as Genesis, long considered a metaphor by all but ardent creationists, and pronounced to be the veritable Word of God by Joseph Smith. Some LDS authors, e.g. R. Grant Athay, attempt to obfuscate the cosmological issue by saying that the astronomy of the Book of Abraham is "difficult to place in modern perspective," that some terms are "confusing" and that "one can only speculate" what "the apparent ambiguity of words" mean. If Mormon cosmology is that difficult to discern or is outright unreliable then of what use is it? In fact, whatever arguments may be used to illustrate the inaccuracy of the Genesis account may certainly be extended to the books of Moses and Abraham. According to Joseph Fielding Smith, "The stars and planets are governed in their times and seasons by great orbs appointed to this honor by the commandment of the Lord. There are things revealed in the Book of Abraham which were not understood by the astronomers in the day of Joseph Smith, and which are not accepted with finality even to this day by the learned searchers of the heavens." Could it be they were neither understood then nor accepted now because they are fiction?

Finally, the temple version, which is in many respects distinct from the Pearl of Great Price or the Genesis account, must also be a work of fiction. Specifically, according to the temple version, on the third day we hear Elohim telling Jehovah and Michael (Adam), "Return again to the earth that you have organized. Divide the light from the darkness. Call the light 'day', and the darkness 'night.' Cause the light in the firmament to appear; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. Cause the stars to appear and give light to the earth, the same as with other worlds heretofore created. Call your labors the Third Day, and bring me word" (emphasis mine.) If the temple version of the creation myth is mere fiction what then of the temple ceremony itself? If the central story, crucial to the temple ceremony, is myth at best or fiction at worst, then the temple ritual is nothing more than a man-made device. Other authors have discussed at length allegations that the Mormon temple ceremony borrowed liberally from the rituals of Freemasonry. It is either man-made myth or man-made fiction.

To illustrate the outrageous extent of LDS cosmology, there is a doctrine in some Mormon literature that asserts that the earth was not even a part of our solar system prior to the Fall. "This earth was created in a different environment, a very different atmosphere from the one we know now. It was created near Kolob, near to where God himself dwells," states Robert L. Millet in The Man Adam. He goes on to quote Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor in support of this position. The earth was then moved from its staging area, the place where it was created, to its current position in our solar system as a consequence of Adam's and Eve's transgression. Clearly, this fiction is so far over the top as to be unworthy of rebuttal. One variation on this theme advanced by James E. Talmage (a scholar who should have known better) is that ancient planets were broken up and reassembled to form the earth. This, supposedly, agrees with the transported earth notion and, at the same time, overcomes geological evidence supportive of evolution. Frank Salisbury, a Mormon apologist with degrees in botany, biochemistry, plant physiology and geochemistry, diplomatically dismisses this idea by stating, "Authors are too literal for me when they consider every word that the early Church authorities said about creation to be true but seem to think that science has learned nothing of geology, paleontology, biology, cosmology, etc. They accept without question suggestions that Adam and Eve and plants and animals were brought from another planet, that the light bathing the earth on the second day emanated directly from God, that the earth fell from the vicinity of Kolob, and so on. I love to study these statements of the early brethren . . . But since they sometimes conflict with each other, with the scriptures perhaps, and certainly with a more modern science, I don't see why we should insist on being conservative about those liberal (in the best sense of the word) statements. . ." Are we then allowed to pick and choose what to believe? Or should we choose to believe a doctrine until such time as science demonstrates it false? I choose to believe science until such time as it is demonstrated to be false!

For me, the great tragedy of the foregoing realization is that there is so much about Mormon doctrine and cosmology that sounds true and feels right. It is just that appeal that attracted me to Mormonism in the first place. It is those sweeping ideas that grabbed my interest and held it for more than twenty-nine years. It is those profound sounding ideologies that convinced me that I truly had a testimony. Unfortunately, if the Mormon Elohim is not God and if Joseph Smith is not a prophet and if the Books of Moses and Abraham are no more empirically reliable than Genesis and if the temple ceremony is a man-made fiction, then no matter how appealing it all seems, it is just a sham. Mormon cosmology and theology are just another religion, no different than Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam or Hinduism.

One might argue, "But surely cosmology and whether the universe is steady-state or not cannot be more important than faith in Jesus Christ, the power of prayer and the promise of eternal salvation!" My answer is this. Yes, faith and prayer and so on are important, but they are also common to all of Christianity. They are by no means unique to Mormon theology. "But what of exaltation and eternal progression?" Ah, now you are back to cosmology. You see, the very thing that makes Mormonism different, unique and vital is its doctrine of exaltation. All else is preparatory to and prerequisite to the doctrine of exaltation. Exaltation is the end result of a worthy, Christ-like life. Exaltation, the idea that one may become god and progress throughout eternity creating and populating worlds without number, is cosmology. Now, if that cosmology is based on false assumptions or erroneous premises then, like a house of cards in the wind, it all comes crashing down. In other words, the very thing that gives Mormonism its distinctiveness, in my opinion, is the very thing that is spurious. Exaltation is a counterfeit cosmology. "Yes, but what of Joseph Smith and a living prophet today?" I am hardly the first to call Joseph Smith into question, although my inquiries are my own. (For a scholarly, albeit less radical discussion, see Keith E. Norman's "Mormon Cosmology: Can It Survive the Big Bang?") I am sure the living prophet in Salt Lake City has only the noblest intentions; no different than the Pope in Rome. I am also quite certain that he cannot be bothered asking too many probing questions. "If it is evidence you want then what of the evidence of prayers answered, of miracles received and prophecies brought to fruition?" Once again, these things are common to all of Christianity and, in fact, many non-Christian religions. People who are not Latter-day saints and who know nothing of Mormonism testify to the power of prayer in their lives. Even Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems believe miracles have happened to them. As far as prophecies are concerned, many religious leaders, though not specifically designated a "prophet," claim to receive revelations from God. So it is not merely a matter of evidence, rather, it is of evidence that matters. "Yes, but have you fasted and prayed about all this?" Quite frankly, no, I have not fasted and prayed. At the same time, I have contemplated, pondered and mentally agonized over ideas that were difficult to accept initially and that were life changing finally. Presently, I feel that any imagined answer to prayer, contrary to my carefully thought out conclusions, would be nothing less than wishful thinking. "But what if, in the end, you are ultimately wrong?" I have considered that possibility and I fully well understand the consequences. However, to me the issue is not that I may be ultimately wrong, rather, it is that Mormons are already wrong. In the potent words of Keith Norman, "If we are to persist in the claim that our theology encompasses natural and not just mythical truth, then we are obliged to come to terms with a science devoted to material reality. It is no longer possible to pretend there is no conflict."

THE QUESTION OF ADAM AND EVE

Perhaps a note of explanation is in order. It may be assumed that this crisis of faith was a hasty or ill-conceived decision; one that was not well thought out. But in reality it has taken fifty years to arrive at these conclusions. Twenty-nine of those years (more than half of my life) were spent as an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, throughout my church membership I have made a rigorous effort to search the scriptures diligently and to study, ponder and pray about the doctrine and theology of Mormonism.

Five years ago I became quite concerned about Adam and the apparent conflict of the creation story with the scientific evidence of evolution. I decided to follow the admonition to "seek out of the best books" an answer to my questions. I felt that there must be a way to reconcile, at least in my own mind, the seeming dilemma and ostensible contradiction between science and religion.

As I continued my research I came to some preliminary conclusions. If it is true that Adam was the "first flesh" of all God's creatures, as indicated in Moses 1:34 and 3:7, then he must have dwelt on earth as an immortal being for something like 400 million years prior to the Fall that supposedly occurred around 4,000 BC. However, if we understand the passage in Moses 3:7 to mean that Adam was the first ancestor of the human family then he may have lived all of 3.5 million years prior to the Fall. If, on the other hand, we understand it to mean that Adam was the first of the human family (as espoused by most of Christendom) then he lived a mere 200,000 or so years as an immortal being prior to the Fall. The problem is solved for Mormons in the temple version of the creation story. Adam, as Michael the Archangel, assists Jehovah (Jesus Christ) to create the world. In that version, he does not come into the world until the sixth day; after the earth has been populated with all manner of plants and animals. Thus, Adam and Eve were the first of the human family who lived in the Garden of Eden for a period of time lasting about 200,000 years and ending with their eviction from the Garden at the Fall. As a Latter-day Saint, I should have no problem accepting any of these concepts as a matter of faith. On the contrary, as a reasonable person, it is all quite incredible. As an issue of faith, I can accept that an immortal being could exist for 200,000 years or an eternity. As a matter of reason or rationality, it is absurd. Many Christians live by the dictum, "I have faith, nevertheless, it is absurd." I have come to the realization that I can neither believe nor live like that. Recently, I read a quotation that said, "No Adam, no fall. No fall, no atonement." The implications are far reaching. Mark E. Petersen in his book Adam: Who Is He? makes a strong point when he says,

And Petersen goes on in like manner discussing the Doctrine and Covenants as well as other writings of Joseph Smith.

Finally, he says, "It is essential to say that the account of Adam, his fall, and his subsequent ministry is one of the basic foundation stones of our religion. It is vital and true. Without it we would have no gospel of Christ.

"If we reject Adam, we must in all consistency likewise reject Christ, for it was Christ who atoned for Adam's sin."

THE QUESTION OF DEATH

In conclusion, in 2 Nephi 2:22-24 we read that there was no death on earth prior to the Fall. Latter-day Saint theologians have interpreted this passage to indicate that no living thing, not plant nor animal nor human being was subject to death before the Fall of Adam and Eve. According to Bruce R. McConkie, "Death began, as far as this earth is concerned, after and as a result of the fall of Adam. There was no death for man or for any form of life until after Adam transgressed." And again from McConkie as quoted in Petersen, "The first man and the first woman were not married until death should part them, for at that time death had not come into the world." This poses a great dilemma. If the Fall occurred sometime around 4,000 BC (as most theologians admit) then how can we account for the abundance of fossils dating from millions of years ago? The scientific evidence is conclusive and verifiable. The religious doctrine is a leap of faith. If the statements in 2 Nephi 2 are true, that there was no death before the Fall, then Adam must have been the first creature on earth! Moreover, the Fall would have had to have been hundreds of millions of years ago in order to account for the fossil record. If that is the case, then Adam and Eve could not have lived as immortal beings because after the Fall they became mortal. On the other hand, if death came before the Fall (as science attests) and if we assume the Fall was truly sometime around 4,000 BC then this is clearly in opposition to the Book of Mormon as well as Mormon doctrine. The evidence verifying that death has been a part of life for millions of years is everywhere.

THE QUESTION OF THE FATE OF THE UNIVERSE

The final question must be: What will be the ultimate fate of the universe? There are, currently, two scenarios on the fate of the universe neither of which is compatible with Mormon cosmology. The first scenario is that the rapidly expanding universe will continue to expand forever. This option assumes that the amount of matter in the cosmos is insufficient to hold it together. The stars and galaxies will continue to race farther and farther apart. One by one the stars will burn their nuclear fuel, the galaxies will grow dim and the universe will be cold, dark and dead. All life will have ceased by that time.

The second scenario proposes that the matter in the universe is sufficient to hold it together, however, at some point gravity will take control, the expansion will reverse itself and the cosmos will begin to implode. Ultimately, all matter will be crushed into a new singularity. All life will cease. One variation on this theme is that, once the state of singularity is reached, the cosmos will "bounce" back into existence. That is, at its most extreme compression, there will be another big bang (Big Bang the Sequel?) and the cycle of expansion and contraction will begin anew. Even if this variation is correct there is no reason to suppose that intelligent life as we know it will re-emerge. The "new" universe could evolve in such a way that no life of any kind will be possible.

As we have seen, Mormon cosmology depends on a steady-state universe. A steady-state universe has never existed nor will it exist in the future. The expanding universe will end as a cold and dark (maximum entropy) void unfit for any life or it will collapse upon itself in what has been dubbed the "Big Crunch." Either way, all life will cease. Either way Mormon cosmology fails. In the words of Keith Norman, "Either scenario poses a serious challenge for Mormon theology." He goes on to state,

Very slowly it became obvious to me that neither faith and reason nor religion and science are reconcilable. Why choose the side of science instead of religion? Why accept theory against theology? Why schism rather than synthesis? Why? Because at the time of my conversion and for many years thereafter the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seemed the most reasonable, rational and logical of alternatives. It was because of Mormonism's reasonableness that I accepted it, placed my faith in it and nurtured a testimony of it. Mormonism no longer seems so reasonable.

The more I learned, the more acutely aware I became of the dichotomy between the doctrines of religion and science. As Keith Norman summarizes, "Whether or not it can be reconciled with science, Mormon cosmology encompasses a powerful religious myth that should not be dismissed lightly." The more I learned, the more I came to believe that many of the core doctrines of Mormonism defy all reason and logic as do most religious dogmas. I began to lose my testimony as well as my faith. Ironically, I am more convinced than ever that God exists! I know there is a God, He is simply not the God of the Mormons.

Andrus, Hyrum L. God, Man and the Universe. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968.

Barrow, John D. The Artful Universe. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

Davies, Paul. The Mind of God. New York: Touchstone Book, 1992.

Ferris, Timothy. The Whole Shebang. Touchstone Books, 1998.

Journal of Discourses. Vol. 21. London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886.

Rees, Martin. Before the Beginning. Reading: Perseus Books, 1997.

Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993.

Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.

Salisbury, Frank B. The Creation. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976.

- - - The House of the Lord. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979.

- - - Jesus the Christ. 15^th ed., rev. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1977.

Yes, I have really read nearly all of these works in their entirety! L. Gasch