Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: smeagol ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 01:17PM

This is from a sister that I have a very good relationship with. We have been close all our lives. Recently, her good husband has begun to question the truth of the church and she is getting scared so she came to me for advice for dealing with the issue. This is her response to my advice. I'm trying to think of a good way to respond back. Thank you.

Smea,
What you have written me is hard for me to read. I can see your point. All I know is that when faced with the question of would I be able to handle it if DH decided to leave the church- To me it is more than "church". It is not just the building and the meetings that i am talking about. It is my beliefs that go way down deep. I married him thinking that he would be a righteous priesthood holder, to give my sick kids blessings (that I have witnessed to heal immediately), to baptize my children, to be there for their marriages (yes it is more than just a building, no matter what the rituals are, there is a really strong peaceful spirit there that confirms to me that it is like no other place on earth). I married him "knowing" he would give these things to me and my family. Things that are not just "theory" to me, or a "religion" to me. They are who I am. If he rejects the blessings that have been given to us already through living the gospel, if he rejects God, then he rejects me. You probably see me as one of those crazy religious, zealous women, but that is not what I am, I am just telling you that the spirit resides in me and I know the power of it. It can whip your "logics" butt! You can CHOOSE to believe. You can have the "knowledge" that you have of our history (as if you know the facts anyway, you weren't there), and still CHOOSE to believe that there is goodness in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints, the way it is today. Lots of things evolve over time and become stronger and better, you yourself know all about that, why can't you except that a church that has mortals leading it, will have mistakes?
Your choices are really hurting Mere and your kids. I know you say that you are spending more time with them, but what about the confusing messages that you are sending. Of course they'd rather spend time with you, over going to church. But making them "happy" for the moment isn't always a good parenting technique, as you know. The principles and values that are taught in primary are key to holding on to while growing up. It gives them hope. Today Little daughter saw Little son moaning and crying in pain (he is very sick) and she wanted to help. The first thing she did was get down on her knees (command me to do the same), and pray for her brother. I know that her having that knowledge will help her when she no longer has me there to be with her. Not to mention the power that it gives to Little son to see his sister pray for him. They believe that there is a God that will help them and that is power. What ever your arguments are against me this time, I know that Mrs. Smeagol must feel the same as a Mother. It's not fair of you to put a wedge between you and her and your kids, just for the sake of your "knowledge". You say yourself that one can believe one way is true and another can believe the other is true, so why do you choose to abandon what you used to believe as true, when you see what it does to your family in the long run.
It scares me to death that DH would even consider abandoning our "church" because if he did, part of me would die. He would not only give up his whole childhood and growing up beliefs, but also his wife. Not to say I don't love DH more than anything in the world, but I come as a package deal. God is in me and it can't be separated, he would CHOOSE to leave me.

I love you Smeagol and I love Mrs. Smeagol and your kids, and I can't help but say these things candidly- because I do care.
Sue
- Show quoted

Please see my next post, which is my response to her. This first post was delayed and I decided to take a crack at it. What do you think of my response? (see next post below)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 01:20PM by smeagol.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SusieQ#1 ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 01:28PM

This statement, in my opinion, is the crux of the difficulty with beliefs in God. She says that she and God are a package deal. She certainly does put it succinctly and says it how she feels.
She is so emotionally attached to her God belief that if her husband abandons the beliefs she thinks that part of her would die. She clearly states her powerful fear.

Is it me, or does this sound overly dramatic? Is this how she thinks? Her personality?

I don't know how you are going to reply. But,somehow, hopefully, you can get the idea across to her that he is not rejecting her if he changed his mind about his beliefs in God.

And maybe you can get her to think in terms of how her love for him would naturally cause her to find out why he has changed his mind. And do it with sincerity. We do that for people we love. We listen to them. We care about what they have to say.

She cannot seem to understand that we all change. There are no guarantees. What she says she "knows" is not in fact, true.
She hopes, or believes, but there are no absolutes in life.

Maybe you don't need to reply at all.
Or just say: thank you for sharing your feelings.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: smeagol ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 01:30PM

Here is my response to her. Sorry it is so long!

I think it was hard to read because it felt like a personal attack, no? Let me back off a bit. I realize that it is not fair for me to look at this as a debate because of the personal nature. I totally see where you are coming from. Rather than try to write any convincing arguments, let me at least try my best to address your great comments.

You said,
> I married him thinking that he would be a
> righteous priesthood holder, to give my sick kids blessings ....etc snip...

Do you think Mormons are the only ones who have access to "really strong peaceful spirit" type feelings? If so, how are they different?

You said,
> I married him "knowing" he
> would give these things to me and my family. Things that are not just...snip...
> if he rejects God, then he rejects me.

How is a rejection of an idea (even a very deep rooted one that is close to your heart) the same as rejecting a person you love?

You said,
> You probably see me as one of those
> crazy religious, zealous women, but that is not what I am, I am just telling
> you that the spirit resides in me and I know the power of it.
No, I see you being like many other people that believe strongly in their faith as I once did.

You said,
> It can whip
> your "logics" butt! You can CHOOSE to believe. You can have the
> "knowledge" that you have of our history (as if you know the facts anyway,
> you weren't there), and still CHOOSE to believe that there is goodness in...snip...

It is true. You can choose to believe. It depends on what you mean by "whip logic's butt." If you mean who will come out with the most convincing argument supported by facts that is one thing. If you mean coming out feeling even stronger about your personal beliefs than before that is entirely different. I have a feeling you don't want to debate which are facts and which are not so I will not press that. I've always believed our church had mistakes in it. How could I have possibly believed that prophets were perfect men? I never believed
that. I was never taught that. I always considered Joseph Smith an imperfect man. To answer your question: I really do believe that a church organization that promotes good living standards and morals can have mistakes in it. It would be crazy not to believe that. It does not feel right that I continue down this argument but rather leave my answer there.

You said,
> Your choices are really hurting Mrs. Smeagol and your kids.

Mrs. Smeagol is making her own decisions. If she chooses to believe, I will support her by letting her continue to make her own decisions. How might I be hurting my children? We surely don't want to attempt at a comparison to parents that maliciously hurt their children do we? Children need to feel love, care, validation, leadership, freedom, responsibility, exploration, etc. right? We have learned ourselves that time is one of the greatest things we can give them.

You said,
> I know you say that you
> are spending more time with them, but what about the confusing messages that
> you are sending. Of course they'd rather spend time with you, over going to
> church. But making them "happy" for the moment isn't always a good
> parenting technique, as you know.

Maybe we could consider the words of the Book of Mormon. How do you know a seed is a good seed? Just because something happens "at the moment" doesn't mean something is wrong with it. The 1838 account of the first vision tells us that Joseph saw God in vision. That was likely "happiness" for Joseph at the moment, don't you think? When you pray to find a spiritual witness of the scriptures, have you ever felt "happy" for the moment? Showing children that we care and support them and love them as they spend time with us has actually been proven
through observation and many tests to be beneficial to children. Sure, I won't let my kids eat chocolate cake for dinner every night. Nor will I let them play video games constantly.

You said,
> The principles and values that are taught
> in primary are key to holding on to while growing up. It gives them hope.

Which principles and values are you specifically talking about that "give them hope?" I would wholeheartedly agree that many teachings can give people hope. I would like to see if the rest of the world is missing these principles and remains hopeless.

You said,
> Today Little Daughter saw Little Son moaning and crying in pain (he is very sick) and
> she wanted to help. The first thing she did was get down on her knees
> (command me to do the same), and pray for her brother. I know that her... snip...

I would consider this a very tender moment to cherish with your kids.

You said,
> What ever your arguments are against me this time,...

Hopefully not against you, personally. But I see there is no way for me to argue a personal idea without you not feeling attacked.

You said,
> I know that Mrs. Smeagol must feel the same as a Mother. It's not fair of you to put
> a wedge between you and her and your kids, just for the sake of your "knowledge".

She has searched information and pondered the feelings in her own heart on her own time. She is a big girl. I will support her in her own decisions to do as she wishes with information that she finds.

You said,
> You say yourself that one can believe one way is true and
> another can believe the other is true, so why do you choose to abandon what...? snip

We see things from a different point of view. There is nothing I can say in reply without sounding like I'm attacking so let me just say that I truly believe I am doing the right thing for my family in the long run.

You said,
> It scares me to death that DH would even consider abandoning our
> "church" because if he did, part of me would die. He would not only give up
> his whole childhood and growing up beliefs, but also his wife.

Why would he be giving up his childhood? It happened. It is a fact. You can't make it go away. Dad once told me that what I have done is the same thing as cheating on my wife. All I can say is I personally believe (and feel peace about it - the same peace I felt when praying about the Book of Mormon) that I am doing the right thing. I actually feel stronger about my relationship with Mrs. Smea and my children than I ever have before. I'm not saying my path is something for you to
consider. Not at all. I'm just trying to defend myself and my
decisions involving my role as husband and father as I teach my
children to be responsible adults and contributors to society, leading happy lives. Why would "part of you die?" Is that because there is a switch placed in your body by God that says, "when Elliot believes this way, turn this light off." Why?

You said,
> Not to say I don't love DH more than anything in the world, but I come as a package
> deal. God is in me and it can't be separated, he would CHOOSE to leave me.

Just keep in mind that your DH and your children are physically there with you every day. Life is beautiful and painful and amazing. The world around us is beyond description. We can sit in a forest and wonder in awe how amazing life is or we can wonder how amazing a being that we believe made it all is. Who are we to say the former is not
God and the latter is God? How can we mere mortals presume to make such a claim?

You said,
> I love you Smea and I love Mrs. Smea and your kids, and I can't help but say
> these things candidly- because I do care.

I'm glad you feel comfortable to do so.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 01:38PM by smeagol.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bingoe4 ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 01:50PM

She is clearly highly indoctrinated in the cult. One thing I'd like to point out to her though is that it would have been even sweeter and more productive if her dh would have offered to sit with ds, place cool wet cloths on his fore head, go with him to the Dr., let him watch what he wanted on t.v. etc. than to immediately think the first thing that should be done is prayer.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SusieQ#1 ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 01:58PM

Your replies will give her something to think about.Whether it sinks in or not, is another issue. You were kind and non-argumentative. That ought to go a long ways to keep the relationship positive.

We don't reach people with negativity, blame, name calling, telling them they are wrong, etc. Engaging in calling people stupid, ignorant, cultists, brainwashed idiots, etc. won't keep any doors open. Those kinds of personal attacks are not conducive to positive relationships. That shuts down communication.

I hope your communications continue to be positive and kind.
She has been very candid and honest.

As a convert, I see her beliefs just as strong and anticipatory as those in other faiths.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: sisterexmo ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 02:14PM

She married a Priesthood-Holder. If he leaves the church he leaves her.

I can't get my heart around such an attitude to your partner in life - it sounds so impersonal the way she states it. Do you think she really feels this way about her marriage?

I hope you can find a way to keep your relationships with all your family - but would not know how to do it myself.

Good luck

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: downsouth ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 02:23PM

Leaving the church does not have to mean leaving your faith in God or being a Christian. She shows this whether she realizes it or not in her statement about the little girl kneeling to pray over the brother. In her earlier statements, she mentioned about the priesthood and the healing powers. In her action of praying, she now concludes that the power in not exclusive to the priesthood as stated before. She believes HER (their) prayers will work and the sick boy believes it as well.
My wife told me the same thing (I was quitting on her if I was quitting the church), still together and stronger now 3 years later.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Utahnomo ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 02:26PM

The first time I questioned my belief in the church was when I was watching a movie. I don't even remember what the movie was about but what I do remember is that there was a part that made me cry. As I sat there crying from the emotion portrayed in the movie, a movie that had absolutely nothing to do with religion, I recognized the "feeling" that was making me cry. I said to myself, "self, isn't this the same feeling you get in church?" Holy crap, it is!!!!

So after that I started paying attention to that "feeling" and I realized that I got it on many different occasions, most of which were not related to church in any way.

Your sister has had a similar "feeling" that has been interpreted by her as god telling her something is true or correct or right. Because her interpretation of that feeling was that it "meant" the church is true, and it was tied to emotion, you will have a hard time convincing her otherwise. The sad thing is that she sounds ready to leave hubby if he leaves the church and THAT is one of the BIG problems with the morg. All the talk about family goes straight out the window when one spouse leaves the church, and he church wholeheartedly supports the spouse that is remaining in the church. Can you say "tearing families apart"?

In my opinion the best advice you can give your sister at this point is NOT to leave hubby just because he doesn't believe. She would do soooo much more damage to family and kids by doing that than she would by staying with him regardless of his beliefs. This is one area where the church is so completely screwed up. Families are shredded daily because of this one thing and that is just sad.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: WiserWomanNow ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 02:41PM

Dear Sis,

Given your views, it seems that your two choices are for you and DH either to find a way to respect your differences and keep your family together, or to get divorced.

Good luck.

Love,
Smeagol

* * * *

Smeagol, this is exactly the kind of situation that gives lie to the B.S. that “we are a family church.”

Your sister (like many Mormons) has NO opening for any position other than her own. Very sad. However, that being the case, all you can do is clarify her two remaining options - find a way to live peaceably with her husband or get divorced so she can remain married to the church, as she apparently is now.

Let us know how it goes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: topojojoe ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 02:47PM

Not to say I don't love DH more than anything in the world, but I come as a package
> deal. God is in me and it can't be separated, he would CHOOSE to leave me.

I married him thinking that he would be a
> righteous priesthood holder, to give my sick kids blessings ....etc snip...


I like your reply. The best way to responde to a highly emotional reply, is to be non-emotional. In the church all you have is feelings, so clearly all replies are highly emotional.

I would actually add that she could also CHOOSE to stay with him.

I would also ask if her DH had acted in any way immoral or unworthy, since questioning the church (other than obvious questioning itself). What has he done (besides the questioning) that now makes him un-righteous? Are we not to 'study and ponder' all things? Does truth scare easily?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: excatholic ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 02:57PM

How does someone choose to believe something? I don't understand this. You can choose to follow a religion. People often describe doing things that they know in their hearts are wrong because it is what their religion teaches. I can't imagine doing that, but it is a practice that makes some sense on some level.

But choose to believe? Either you believe something or you don't. Can you believe that pigs have wings or that two times two is thirty-seven? You can choose to pretend to believe--that's called living a lie.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: smeagol ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 05:24PM

So I got an email response from my sister as follows:

"Smea,
I appreciate what you wrote. ...snip... I think that I seemed like I felt attacked- because I will tell you later, but you were right. I did feel that way. not because of what you said anyway....long story. I think I need to drop this subject for a while. Thank you for sharing what you did. I totally respect your opinion, thank you for respecting mine. ...snip... We'll talk soon.
love Sue"

I find it interesting that some people who are so emotionally wrapped up in a faith decide that they need to "drop the subject" or "let it go" in order to move on. I think it is a way to shelf the problems (i.e. truth).

Thanks for all your comments.

Smeagol

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SusieQ#1 ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 05:32PM

realized she was overreacting.
Nice job! If she "lets it go" -- that sounds like she is more interested in her family than breaking it up.
I'm one who believes firmly that "letting it go" and move on is one of the most healthy things we can do for our well being.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: smeagol ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 05:46PM

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm one who believes firmly that "letting it go"
> and move on is one of the most healthy things we
> can do for our well being.


I can see how that is healthy too but at the same time I see it as delaying or putting off the inevitable, especially when you have a spouse that is seriously moving forward on these kinds of questions. What it means is the wife will try to avoid any deep discussions with DH. DH will start to feel isolated and DW will feel attacked because her protected items on the shelf are getting prodded and disturbed and starting to fall down.

Maybe I'm wrong though...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SusieQ#1 ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 06:56PM

"Letting it go" is about just that, removing the emotional connection/bond to the problem. It's about releasing yourself from the power it has your life.
Some call it "turning it over to God, or "Let Go and Let God."
This makes sense to believers.

Nothing is shelved. It is definitely not about denial.

It's about a level of knowing that there are some things we have no power to control. It's about releasing control of other people also.

Once that concept is understood, we let go of trying to control other people.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Naysayer ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 05:49PM

I feel sorry for your sister. The level of programming is always more evident when the TBM belief system is on the line. I think that its hard to debate "belief" and the dictates thereof in any rational manner so I wouldn't try. If this were my sister, I'd ask her to think about the kids growing up without a dad and if it was worth having an open mind on the subject instead of immediately shutting her husband out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 05:54PM

If your sister REALLY believes in Mormonism ask her for one instance where an apostle or Church president has said, in General Conference that a spouse should divorce if the other spouse "loses their testimony" or "leaves the Church."

Ask her for any example in an official lesson manual or the GHI where it says a spounse should divorce an unbelieving spouse.

Ask her to find any scripture that says a spouse should divorce an unbelieving spouse.

Then when she can't find any such example or scripture, point her to the following scripture:

"13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

I Cor. 7:13-14

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: aldebaran ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 09:27PM

I think you will find the following links useful in understanding your sister's response, along with some advice to help mitigate it in the future.

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/36/7/947.abstract
http://acawiki.org/When_Beliefs_Yield_to_Evidence:_Reducing_Biased_Evaluation_by_Affirming_the_Self

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: imaworkinonit ( )
Date: September 30, 2010 01:30AM

can allow a person to question their assumptions. I seem to remember Steven Hassan saying something to the effect that you should help a person trapped in a cult to go do something new or different. I can't remember if that was just so they could have something to look forward to outside the cult, or if it was to build confidence. Maybe both.

So what does it say about Mormons that they are so scared to question their beliefs? Are they just afraid because of the threats of losing the spirit and their families for all eternity? That their identities are too wrapped up in their religious membership? Or are they just really insecure?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Ishmael ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 09:44PM

Syntax here suggests that she may be equating herself with "God," or that she is linking herself with "God."

The latter may be more likely, and it is one of the pernicious results of the woman's vows in the temple ceremony that puts man between woman and god and gives her no direct line to god herself except through the "righteous" man. Man is placed in the middle, and when the middle goes, so goes "god" and "woman." Or at least that may be what her beliefs dictate.

And the cult goes on . . .

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Scooter ( )
Date: September 29, 2010 10:12PM

Dear sister,

at the end of the day, you have to believe that ancient Jews traveled in wooden submarines from Arabia across whichever ocean and colonized the Americas 2,500 years ago.

I can no more believe in that than I do in flying reindeer.

Oh, and I will never allow a used car salesmen to ask my 12 year old how much he punishes the pope, or she noodles the nun.

If you think that is normal, then you really can never understand.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: FreeAtLast ( )
Date: September 30, 2010 12:06AM

Point #1:

From the website about how cultic Mormonism 'programs' people:

"Self-esteem and personal power: LDS females

It is no secret that many Mormon women are depressed. One of the main reasons why is because they have been disempowered by Mormon patriarchy for generations. Mormon patriarchy is rooted in early 19th-century American patriarchy, which evolved from transplanted British and European patriarchy. For centuries, men controlled the main institutions in society (e.g., government, the military, churches, businesses) and allowed women only certain privileges. During the past century, things have changed significantly for females, particularly in Western countries. In the past 100 years, women have empowered themselves as never before in history. They have become political leaders, military commanders, professors, senior managers, surgeons, astronauts, professional athletes, etc. Females have proven themselves to be just as capable as men at effectively using power and authority, and in some cases, better. The Mormon patriarchal order is rooted in an archaic belief system and needs to radically change; LDS females do not have to support the patriarchal status quo in the Mormon Church if they don't want to.

Another major reason why many LDS women are depressed is that they have been psychologically conditioned by Mormonism to base much of their self-esteem and identity on being a daughter of a male deity ('Heavenly Father') and a 'wife and mother in Zion'. As mentioned, Heavenly Father is a psychological construct, the product of human thought. To base part (or all) of one's self-esteem on something that is only a belief is not wise. It is also not prudent to base one's self-esteem on one's marital status, which many women, in and outside of the LDS Church, do. Why? Well, what happens if your spouse is killed? With your husband gone, is your self-esteem going to collapse? What would happen to your self-esteem if you discover that your spouse has been having an affair? Will it crumble? Furthermore, if you base your self-esteem on being a mother, what happens to it if you're no longer a mother because your child is hit by a car and killed? These aren't pleasant things to think about, but the truth is that they are realities for some women, including some LDS women, and heart-breaking situations happen to people. Life is full of risk.

Many women in the Mormon Church link their self-esteem to aspects of the lives of their priesthood-holder husband and their children: the prominence of their husband's calling (e.g., bishop, stake president), his academic and professional successes and how much money he makes, the fact that their sons served missions and their children are married in the temple, etc. Why do so many LDS women do this? Because it brings them approval from Mormon authority figures (the most prominent one being God, as Mormons conceive 'Him' to be in their minds) and the LDS community. It reinforces their status in the Mormon 'tribe' as a faithful 'wife and mother in Zion'. But what happens to the self-esteem of LDS women when their priesthood-holder husband becomes 'inactive', their sons don't go on missions and their daughters won't marry in the temple? It decreases/suffers.

The deepest and strongest foundation of self-esteem is ourselves. It is the only foundation that will withstand the losses, vicissitudes, and storms of life. Most people, including Mormons, do not understand this profound psychological truth because they do not understand how they have been psychologically conditioned or what healthy self-esteem is based upon (the six practices mentioned above)."

(ref. http://members.shaw.ca/blair_watson/).

Point #2: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints

According to LDS 'prophets' of the past generation, two things are necessary for Mormonism to be true:

1. Joseph Smith experienced the First Vision, as per his written account published in the Pearl of Great Price ("JOSEPH SMITH—HISTORY EXTRACTS FROM THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH SMITH, THE PROPHET" - ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1).

2. The Book of Mormon is a true/actual record of ancient civilizations (fair-skinned Nephites, dark-skinned Lamanites, etc.) that lived in the Americas from ~2,200 BC to 421 AD.

In Gen. Conference in Oct./02, Pres. Gordon Hinckley told Latter-day Saints:

"We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.

When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.”

That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud."

(use the Search function at www.lds.org to find Hinckley's talk, "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith")

A HUGE problem for the LDS Church is that Joseph Smith (JS) related and wrote down conflicting versions of his so-called 'First Vision' experience, thus discrediting himself (ref. http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-accounts.html). He kept getting his age, the place, what happened, and other major elements of the 'First Vision' wrong. A person who keeps changing a fantastic story that he/she alleges is 'true' isn't believed - except by naive, duped followers.

In Gen. Conf. in Oct./86, Pers. Ezra Benson told Latter-day Saints (see "The Keystone of Our Religion" in the Nov./86 issue of the Ensign at www.lds.org):

"There are three great reasons why Latter-day Saints should make the study of the Book of Mormon a lifetime pursuit.

The first is that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. This was the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement. He testified that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion." A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles."

The second ENORMOUS problem for the LDS Church is that science has proven irrefutably that it is a work of fiction. Archaeological, genetic and linguistic research have all shown that - contrary to the 'true' BoM and 'true' LDS Church teachings for generations - the ancestors of American Indians came from northeast Asia, not ancient Israel, as the BoM states. The research has also shown that Native Americans' ancestors arrived in the New World many thousands of years before the BoM characters, Laman, Lemuel and their followers were supposedly cursed by 'the Lord' with dark skin (see 2 Nephi 5). The Wikipedia article about indigenous peoples of the Americas says that the northeast Asian ancestors of American Indians arrived in the Western Hemisphere as far back as 40,000 years ago (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_americas#Migration_into_the_continents).

Genetic research alone has thoroughly discredited the BoM (see "DNA vs. The Book of Mormon" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svfxSscxh8o).

JS was clear in his 1842 Wentworth Letter that a) prior to the arrival of the Jaredites about 2,200 BC, the Americas were uninhabited, and b) as described in the BoM, the ancestors of American Indians were the small group led by Lehi who left Jerusalem about 600 BC. (use the Search function at www.lds.org to search for the Wentworth Letter).

The BoM mentions NONE of the animals, plants, peoples, means of barter/trade, spiritual traditions, calendars, cultures, or anything else that existed in the Americas between ~2,200 BC and 421 AD.

The "most correct of any book on earth" DOES mention animals (e.g., domesticated cattle, sheep and goats, 'asses'/donkeys, elephants), grains (wheat, barley), peoples (fair-skinned Jaredites and Nephites), means of trade (gold and silver currency), time reckoning (7-day week w/ a Sabbath), religion (Judaism-based), and other things (e.g., written language in 'Reformed Egyptian', silk, metal weapons, armour) that were NOT in the Americas during the BoM timeline. In most cases, those things came to the Americas in the late 15th-century and after with the arrival of Europeans.

We know from the title page of the first (1830) edition of the BoM that JS had himself identified as its author: http://www.inephi.com/1.htm

We know from the Book of Abraham in the PoGP and the ancient Egyptian papyri that JS obtained in 1835, which disappeared, then resurfaced in 1966 in a U.S. museum that what he claimed was a 'true' 'translation' of the papyri was nothing more than JS' imagination at work (see "The Lost Book of Abraham" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE).

Tom Donofrio's investigation of two American history books, one published in 1789 and the other in 1805, which were available to JS, revealed that he 'borrowed' phrases from the books and put them into the BoM (see Book of Mormon Tories at http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/magazine/pmm_article_full_text/211).

The evidence is clear: Joseph Smith lied about his 'First Vision' experience, and he lied about the gold plates, being visited by an angle, and the origin of the Book of Mormon. He repeatedly lied even before the Mormon Church was officially established. For nearly eight generations, the LDS Church has systematically deceived members and potential converts about JS, the BoM, early church history and many other key aspects of Mormonism. It continues to do so to this day, as official church materials (many are online at www.lds.org) and Gen. Conference talks by Mormon 'prophets' and other GA's show.

Historical data, including that on the LDS Church's FamilySearch.org website, show that JS made other men's wives his wives as well as single women and teenage girls as young as 14 (young enough to be his daughters). According to the LDS Church's summary for D&C 132, JS knew the "doctrines and principles" of polygamy as early as 1831, including the principle that no Mormon man was to take a plural wife without his first wife's consent and only virgins "vowed to no other man" could become plural wives (see D&C 132:61).

So, why did JS repeatedly disobey the 'revelation' from 'the Lord' and make 11 married/vowed women his plural wives? (ref. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/). According to D&C 132:61, marrying a non-virgin who was already vowed was an act of adultery. Including his extra-marital affair with teenage servant girl Fanny Alger (she worked in the Smith home), JS committed adultery 12 times! We know from historical documentation that he got the wife of Windsor Lyon (Sylvia) pregnant (see the last para. at http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/08-SylviaSessionsLyon.htm).

Why was JS never excommunicated from the church for adultery? Why did the Mormon Church conceal from members and potential converts that JS was an adulterer and pedophile?

In the spring of 1844, just weeks before his death at Carthage Jail, "in a public sermon, Smith vehemently denied he had more than one wife" (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith#Death). He fibbed as a young man about having a 'spiritual' power to find buried treasure, and became a consummate liar by adulthood - and lied to the end of his life.

The evidence proving that Mormonism is a fraud is irrefutable. The BoM 'arch' of the LDS religion has collapsed. However, instead of repenting for its many sins, the Mormon Church continues to mislead people, and indoctrinate them - starting in childhood - to hand over at least 10% of their allowance and money gifts, and wages and salary (as working teens and adults). For generations, the LDS Church has defrauded tens of billions of dollars from ignorant (of the truth), unsuspecting people.

For all these reasons and more, ethical, reasoned people do not participate in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: luminouswatcher ( )
Date: September 30, 2010 12:53AM

Do you believe in Jesus?

Do you believe Jesus is the Savior?

Do you agree that the Savior's role at the end of time is to know the heart and mind of all the children of men, and to provide a fair judgment because of that knowledge?

Do you believe that the mortal life is a test and challenge so we can prove that we will follow the path of truth and light when we come across it?

Are you completely sure that your spouse has not discovered a bit of evidence left as part of the great plan to keep him from following idle and false structures around the truth like those created by the old Pharisees?

What does the parable of the prodigal son mean exactly? The one that followed who they are, was ultimately honored, but the one who thought they were the righteous stalwart was ultimately disgraced?

What does it mean to have an eternal companion? Everyone talks about an eternal family, but in the end it is only two that becomes one flesh. They become one in purpose and being just like we are supposed to become one with the purpose and meaning of God's Plan of Happiness. It is not a threesome, it is a parallel analogy. You committed to love a person and to bring about such a miraculous thing. It was forever. Were you not serious, or are you just lazy? Do you believe in the miracle of the Atonement or don't you.

[that is what I would try and communicate. I tried to remember what my feelings were like, and what I thought the desired world view was. Now I think I am going to be sick... ]

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: phyllis ( )
Date: September 30, 2010 01:34AM

very level-headed and compassionate. too bad so many mormons can't deal with rational discourse. sounds like she reacted the way my mormon friends and family do, they overreact emotionally and then ask to drop the subject.

good luck in your ongoing discussions, if any!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: honestone ( )
Date: September 30, 2010 01:50AM

I think your responses are fine. I just do not get it when a person thinks GOD approves of leaving your spouse for a reason such as this. A spouse is to be the love of your life, a person who you can talk over anything with. But this person is so indoctrinated with the "church" that no human can match it in importance. The spouse who is using his/her brain and discovering things to improve their life and live with integrity deserves someone better than that. Just my opinion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Toy Soldier ( )
Date: September 30, 2010 11:55AM

Is it worth telling her about 'Faces East', a board for TBM's who have unbelieving spouses?

http://www.faceseast.org/

There seems to be a lot of support and encouragement, and a safe place to vent!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: CL2 ( )
Date: September 30, 2010 02:00PM

I will NEVER understand these women who leave their husbands or threaten to over unbelief.

Like someone pointed out--where does it say in church teachings to divorce your spouse? Is she going to divorce any of her children if they stop believing?

Where is the "endure to the end" that I heard taught so much while growing up. They want it ALL NOW. There is something really wrong with this attitude.

I lost my marriage--she is a fool if she thinks there is just another good man out there who wants to raise her children AND LOVE THEM like their own father does.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **  **      **        **  **     **        ** 
 ***   **  **  **  **        **  **     **        ** 
 ****  **  **  **  **        **  **     **        ** 
 ** ** **  **  **  **        **  **     **        ** 
 **  ****  **  **  **  **    **  **     **  **    ** 
 **   ***  **  **  **  **    **  **     **  **    ** 
 **    **   ***  ***    ******    *******    ******