Thanks to everyone for the great comments!

To clarify things a bit:

I have actually already talked to the Bishop and not gotten any real answers.

My spouse wanted this meeting so she could hear for herself what my main issues are. It's odd because every time I have tried to bring something up in the past several years, she poo-poo'ed what I had to say, said it "was anti-mormon" (really, the Journal of Discourses, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham are anti-mormon!?), said I needed to be more humble and pray harder,etc.Now that I have gone through the full blown faith crisis, done my research and do not come down on the side of believing in the church, she sees "eternity in peril" and all of a sudden takes an interest.

Spouse is extreme TBM, and to be honest she seems to love conditionally, that I measure up to be the Priesthood holding, obedient, tithe paying recommend holder that was promised to her in "My Turn on Earth" and "Saturday's Warrior."

We have no children so that's not an issue.

But, I feel I owe it to her to see some of the issues I have thought about for a long time.

I "argue" for a living, so presenting my "case" isn't an issue. I just want to focus on a couple of real issues from the "one unimpeachable source," LDS.ORG.

Comments? I really do appreciate the input. Thanks Again.

I wouldn't talk to the bishop again ------ he doesn't know any answers except his testimony and you should read the scriptures more and pray more.

If you can't talk to someone in the stake or church that can address the 'hard' issues ---- don't waste your or any brain washed leader's time.

If your wife wants to hear the issues talk to her alone. Sounds to me like most LDS women ---- absolutely no idea of doctrine but loves the social club and worries more about "how her church friends will react to her" if you don't toe the line like their brainwashed husbands. It's totally social to her. Your apostasy/questioning will just cause rumors about your wife and she may not be as acceptable in top ward social circles! Actually I am hoping this works in my case.

If that won't work ----- consider divorce. If a husband and wife can't discuss minor religious problems/issues and arrive at a solution (maybe you won't talk about the church again or question your spouses actions again) they shouldn't be married ------- why not end it now while you have time to find someone you can build a relationship of trust with, if there is really no trust in your relationship!

Actually, my tbm wife and my (I'm completely out of church and will call the church a SCAM to anyone I meet or who asks) relationship has become stronger by being REAL and HONEST with each other.

Sorry, but some people need to really get serious about this different beliefs in marriage thing. especially with LDS people ------ it will either make your relationship stronger or break it all together!

If she really needs you to go, then perhaps you take the Colbert Approach...

Act sincere, listen to his testimony, see how far to the absurd you can take Bish. Then take it further, and see how long it takes him to realize you are playing with him



Or the general god can't play both sides skit by second city about sports.
-Player: I would credit god for helping me win this game.
-Interviewer: How blessed are you.
- player: (more chat)
- interviewer: other QB credited god for his win last week, why do you think god abandoned his team this week.

I think it sounds great that your wife wants to hear about your issues with the church in the presence of the bishop even though she refused to listen to them when it was just you there.

I would say that you should go well prepared. Take a laptop computer with internet access or a smart phone to show the bishop the essays, or else take printouts of the essays. Take the Pearl of Great Price with its infamous facsimiles. The bishop won't be able to just fob you off by saying he has not looked at the material and does not have access in his office during the meeting.

The bishop might end up validating some of your issues right there in front of your wife, and your wife will end up realizing they are real issues and are serious. Like if you tell the bishop that Joseph Smith had up to 40 wives, and show him the footnote of the essay on lds.org, the bishop will have to say that it is true, but then he will say, "But that is okay because (apologetic blah blah blah.) And let me bear my testimony that I have felt warm fuzzies so I believe in an ancient Hebrew war god."

In the end the bishop will not have his faith shaken, but your wife just might. (But quite possibly not.)

People never change unless they want to. They never listen to other people unless they like what they hear on some level. Sometimes the sleeper effect can do wonders. But the change never occurs until a person thinks it is their own idea and theirs alone.

I fear that your marriage is doomed. Divorce could be best in the end. If your wife does not trust you enough to believe that you think carefully and come to good conclusions about the things you learn, then it is like she doesn't really love you. Like she is not married to who she thought she was.

In some marriages, the two partners just love each other and do not care what religion the other person is. It sounds like this is not how your marriage is.

In some other marriages there can be a sort of permanent truce. There is a rule that religion is not to be discussed. You never harass her about belonging to a cult and never ask her to flee, and she never harasses you about being an apostate and never asks you to go to church. This might be a good thing to try before giving up on the marriage.

I am sorry that you are in this situation and have to go through all this. I wish you well.

I think its great that your wife is dragging you to the Bishop with her to discuss the "problems" you have. Take advantage of that because she can then actually here them out AND realize the Bishop doesn't have any good answers.

I would use the CES letter as a frame of reference but from what I've been hearing the top 3 issues for people are:

1) the contradictory First Visions
2) the Book of Abraham
3) polygamy

I would make sure to discuss polygamy as that one usually gets the women. Discuss the number of women Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other church leaders had. The ages of their wives. how it wasn't to help the widows because most plural wives were never married. Mention Joseph Smith's approach to get these wome to marry him (pressure to marry him, angel with the sword, their families could receive exaltation, etc). Mention how many of the plural wives by these leaders were teenagers and how many of the DID have sex with their much older husbands WHILE their were teenagers. Mention polyandry, how polygamy was NEVER legal. Mention how it was LIED about by the church. Mention how the revelation on polygamy and written to Emma was AFTER Smith had already married other women.

Make sure you have EVERYTHING documented that you tell the bishop. I would even bring the footnotes with you so you can cite them. The ORIGINAL sources, not books written today or websites (unless they are by the church).

I would also be ready for any rebuttal he might provide by studying everything you bring up on FAIR. Make sure you have a response for anything FAIR says.

Also, just because the bishop has an "answer" doesn't mean you are stumped. Just politely tell him you just "buy" that answer. You can agree to disagree. Many of the apologists rebuttals are simple weak excuses. They are not not necessarily good answers.

Like saying "prophets aren't perfect" or times were different back then.

Advice:

(1) Don't accept him bearing his testimony. Point out that you
already KNOW that he has a "testimony" and for him to repeat
this only derails the discussion.

(2) Don't accept ANY suggestion that the problem is you. "Be
more humble," . . . "pray more," are ways for them to avoid
facing the actual issues you raise. Worse than that they are
an attack on your character. Don't sit still for it.

(3) Know the standard (F.A.I.R.) arguments ahead of time so
that you aren't blind-sided by them. In fact F.A.I.R. is a
great anti-Mormon resource because they verify that many of the
claims are accurate, and not just "anti-Mormon lies."

(4) Be bold in pointing out the far-fetched rationalizations
they use to try to make foul balls fair. The average Mormon
accepts stuff in the historical record by JS or BY when they
wouldn't dream of accepting it from someone living here and
now. Insane people have impeccable logic. They just start
from absurd premises. Point out the absurdity of premises that
are used to rationalize stuff.

(5) I happen to be a student of Hieroglyphic Egyptian. If it
were me, I could point out things that are clear and obvious to
me, such as . . .

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1356045,1356045#msg-1356045

Joseph Smith's paper trail on the BOA is an astoundingly strong
case against him. However the facts are hidden in an ancient
language and writing system that most people have no
acquaintance with. Thus we have the familiar situation (that
happens in major lawsuits) of opposing experts. One side
quotes some Egyptologist and then another side quotes another
Egyptologist. It is made worse by the fact that they have over
3000 years of Pharaonic Egyptian history to fall back on in
muddying the waters. The case itself is clear and simple, but
it takes some (not a lot) expertise to expose the apologetical
replies for the desperate BS that they are.

In short keep the discussion ON TOPIC: THE CLAIMS OF THE
CHURCH. Don't be sidetracked by any discussions of the
Bishop's testimony, your character or behavior, the "good" the
Church does etc. It's about the foundational claims of the
Church. Don't let it get derailed.

As a fellow attorney, I see where you are coming from. I would follow the well known "IRAC" formula in this discussion.

Issue: was the practice of polygamy sanctioned by god, if not, what does that mean?

Rule: The DC lists the rules for practicing polygamy. These include power to perform marriages from X date forward, and only marrying virgins.

Analysis: Jospeph Smith took his first plural wife before the pwer to seal was given to him. He married women who had already been married, violating god's rule to only marry virgins.

Conclusion: Smith's practice of polygamy was bogus.

YOu could also point out the stark contrast in the language found in Jacob Chap 2 condemning "that which was done of old" and DC 132 which says Solomon and David did no sin.

Moroni or Nephi visited Joe?

Show the pictures used by TSCC (Open houses, etc) that show Joe sitting at a table looking at the plates with scribe in view:

No U&T, No Rock In Hat, No seer stone

If that isn't / wasn't deception... what could be?

TSCC certainly knows what power to persuade an image has!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 10:15PM by GNPE.

and you don't, you really don't have to defend yourself or your decision because you are not the one who has made grand claims of a divine restoration.

Now that you've had time to thoroughly investigate this, you have come to conclusion the claims are false, so discussing an itemized list of issues is a waste of time because they are too numerous and on going to chase.

You don't believe and there is no reason for you to believe.

Don't allow them to put you on the defensive, they are the ones who have to defend the outrageous claims of Joseph Smith and all that came after.

Just a thought.

You are going to see the bishop because you are a hard-headed, strong minded, argumentative male.

You have tried to discuss the issues with your wife before and she is simply rail-roaded by your logic and your clear, logical mind. She is maybe hoping that another strong male (in her eyes) can counter you and allow her (or him as her mouthpiece) to get a word in edgeways in the debate.

Perhaps if you didn't treat the issue like a legal case, and your wife as another opponent in a debate, then maybe you might get somewhere.

I type the above a complete hypocrite, and a very logical, strong willed male. So take my opinion with that in mind.

meeting in "his" office lends an air of authority to his position.

I would call it off, unless you're prepared to set the tone, which is "why should I believe any of this"?

As anagrammy said toward the end of this post ...

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1493479,1493859#msg-1493859

... your wife may have married a role, not a person.

If you and she have never clarified that issue, then this meeting might be just her (increasingly desperate) attempt to have someone set you straight instead of a genuine interest in learning.

Like a marriage counseling session that begins with one spouse telling the counselor to fix the other spouse is likely doomed, so might be this meeting.

If you do go through with the meeting...

A thing I have learned to do in a meeting with two other people - when I want to convey something to one person, I tell it to the other person, and let my actual target sit there and watch and listen and think, unencumbered by the obligation to formulate a reply.

Best of success,

JAR

Presenting a case is only effective in an impartial decision is to be made, based on facts.

In this case, your wife's real attitude is the one she showed you at home. The idea of meeting with the bishop is for him to threaten you into dropping your "anti-Mormon" ideas (they never call them historical facts).

I believe your only path to reconciling your new awareness with the life you and your spouse planned together is to show her that life with a man who really puts his family first (not the church) is so much better.

I suggest you have a genial meeting with the bishop in which you say you are "in transition" with various issues and will need time to sort things out. This buys you the time you need to demonstrate the kind of life you are offering.

In previous posts, I have listed steps to take to get from here to there. Usually there is damage to overcome as most of us are so shocked by what we learn that we naively assume anyone who knew what we found out would immediately leave the church.

This is not so. It takes time for people to emotionally prepare to leave the Mormon world view and embark on life as a free solo person. That face plate does not rip off easily. Your wife deserves that time and you should be patient.

Now I don't know you at all, of course, so don't take this personally, but it is possible she does not know you other than your Mormon self, therefore may need to get acquainted slowly with who you are other than an obeying priesthood holder. In short, she may not love you and it's not her fault. It's what she was taught through Mormon brainwashing.

I'm suggesting she may be won over by not making any assumptions and demonstrating more caring than was possible when you had the parasitic church sucking all your energy.

Best of luck, friend, we are here for you. Every piece of advice here is valuable and you will definitely resonate with some of it.


Kathleen Waters

People stop believing in the church doctrine, but they still believe the church attitude that you have to think you have "the truth." And you have to convert others.

So mo's try to convert exmo's and exmo's try to convert mo's, and we spend our lives fighting and disrespecting each other.

In other words, control freaks.

Once I realized this, I have tried to be happy when others are doing what they like. Sure I offer my opinion, but don't get upset when they disagree and choose another path.

I remember at a funeral for my grandpa, my aunt talked about his insistence when she was little, that she put pepper on her eggs. Years later she asked him why he did that, and he didn't know. That stuck with me and years later I realized he was like me - his way was right, and it made him feel better to make others be like him.

If your wife wants to do church stuff, let her and be happy for her. If you want to stay home, she should be happy for you. If she isn't, and makes threats of divorce like my wife did, just tell her you aren't leaving and show her the door. Don't play their games.

So this is a lot more than facts. Its about human behavior and manipulation. Only insecure, immature people need others to conform to them. Perhaps its time for your wife to grow up or get someone else.

I notice many exmos are angry and hateful towards Mormons. I've learned to live with them and accept what they like. I was them, after all.

I will second TDWMB's recommendation. His point about lending an air (validating) the authority of the bishop's role is a huge psychological risk. You don't want to find yourself unknowingly feeling like a 12-year old deacon being cornered about how much and when was the last time you masturbated.

But you can still be the good guy. Refuse to meet in the bishops office but offer instead to meet somewhere else, maybe over lunch or dinner and offer to buy. Be firm about this.

Same thing apply's to being 'ambushed' if you are at the meeting house for some reason for a 'friendly chat'. Politely say, "sure I'm happy to talk to you. But how about we just take a walk outside as the friends we are instead of doing the whole formal bishop office thing..."

I got great advice on how to put things in perspective regarding church authority roles. "Just keep reminding yourself that they are just volunteer's like you are (or have been). Nothing more, nothing less."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 11:44PM by mannaz.

I don't see this meeting with the Bishop as a bad thing. You're obviously a smart guy and you're going to have all of your ducks in a row. The bishop is quite likely going to validate most of your facts. This will probably be a surprise to your wife -- she likely thinks your facts are wrong. Once she sees that you are right on the facts, I'll bet she will be more willing to consider your arguments, opinions and conclusions.

Good luck and I hope you return and report!

This is what I was thinking too...

One of my favorite points is that Joseph Smith had a relationship with Fanny Alger in 1833 (acknowledged in the essays) when the sealing power wasn't restored until 1836. Polygamy was illegal in the state so the "marriage" wasn't recognized by church or state. The icing on the cake is that Family Search still does not show Fanny sealed to Joseph to this very day. It was adultery by every definition. Another that might appeal to your wife is that Emma was the 25th woman sealed to Joseph. They had children who died in between the time that the sealing power was restored and the time he was sealed to her. It proves that the sealing power was not initially restored for eternal families; it was about polygamy. Since these issues are a matter of dates verifiable with the LDS sources, they can't be dismissed as anti-Mormon lies.

GOOD LUCK!

FYI - as I remember it, the sneaky essay said that Joseph Smith "married" Fanny Alger in the mid-1830's, not pegging the date down. Historians all agree it was before the sealing power was restored... Although this tidbit is omitted from the essay. Also, there is no evidence of a marriage actually taking place... All "evidence" is later recollections by those not directly involved. Just in case this gets thrown back at you.

Regarding Fannie Alger and other plural wives see the following website:

http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/JS_Polygamy_Timeline.htm


Below is the text from the website re Fannie Alger, which I think is one of the better 'just the facts' accounts of the matter. Due note the damning quote from Oliver Cowdrey at the end of the third paragraph. Oliver Cowdrey never recanted this statement and it remained and 'open wound' (my words but based on seeing others accounts) between OC and JS.

Fanny Alger is Joseph's first known plural wife, whom he came to know in Kirtland during early 1833 when she, at the age of 16, stayed at his home as a housemaid. Described as "a varry nice & Comly young woman," according to Benjamin Johnson, Fanny lived with the Smith family from 1833 to 1836.

Martin Harris, one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, recalled that the prophet's "servant girl" claimed he had made "improper proposals to her, which created quite a talk amongst the people." Mormon Fanny Brewer similarly reported "much excitement against the Prophet…[involving] an unlawful intercourse between himself and a young orphan girl residing in his family and under his protection."

Former Mormon apostle William McLellin later wrote that Emma Smith substantiated the Smith-Alger affair. According to McLellin, Emma was searching for her husband and Alger one evening when through a crack in the barn door she saw "him and Fanny in the barn together alone" on the hay mow. McLellin, in a letter to one of Smith's sons, added that the ensuing confrontation between Emma and her husband grew so heated that Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, and Oliver Cowdery had to mediate the situation. After Emma related what she had witnessed, Smith, according to McLellin, "confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him." While Oliver Cowdery may have forgiven his cousin Joseph Smith, he did not forget the incident. Three years later, when provoked by the prophet, Cowdery countered by calling the Fanny Alger episode "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair."

Chauncey Webb recounts Emma’s later discovery of the relationship: “Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house”.

SOURCE: Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, p.291

At least one account indicates that Fanny became pregnant. Chauncy G. Webb, Smith's grammar teacher, later reported that when the pregnancy became evident, Emma Smith drove Fanny from her home (Wyl 1886, 57). Webb's daughter, Ann Eliza Webb Young, a divorced wife of Brigham Young, remembered that Fanny was taken into the Webb home on a temporary basis (Young 1876, 66-67). Fanny stayed with relatives in nearby Mayfield until about the time Joseph fled Kirtland for Missouri.

Fanny left Kirtland in September 1836 with her family. Though she married non-Mormon Solomon Custer on 16 November 183614 and was living in Dublin City, Indiana, far from Kirtland, her name still raised eyebrows. Fanny Brewer, a Mormon visitor to Kirtland in 1837, observed "much excitement against the Prophet … [involving] an unlawful intercourse between himself and a young orphan girl residing in his family and under his protection" (Parkin 1966, 174).

SOURCE: Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, p.8

You may also be able to turn the bishop's own testimony against him by getting him to testify to something you know to be false. For example, if you can get him to bear his testimony that JS did not engage in polyandry, or could translate Egyptian, you can then prove the exact opposite. This will have the effect of neutralizing any testimony going forward; after all, how can his testimony be trusted if it's based on provable falsehoods?

As for the Book of Abraham, I might simply consider looking at the figure of Isis in Fax 3. Show some of the countless images available of Isis that are online, then challenge him to ID the Fax 3 figure. If he has a shred of honesty, he'll have to admit it's Isis, just for consistency's sake. Then point out that JS called that figure "King Pharaoh" (BTW, "Pharaoh" of course isn't a name but a title, cementing the ignorance of JS in that regard).

Conditional love is NOT love. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. One spouse's love for the other has to come first. Any other arrangement is a fraudulent construct, open to failure. Same for LDS parents who place the church above their children who will be cast aside for non adherence to a bunch of stupid rules based on an evil doctrine.

Ron Burr

Lethbridge Reprobate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conditional love is NOT love.

Exactly, it's a business transaction.

I agree 100% with Ron. If her love for you is primarily based on you being a worthy TBM priesthood holder, which you do not want to be, then you speaking with the bishop will not matter. You need to find out if you come before the church with her.