ON LEAVING THE MORMON CHURCH - BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN
Though the genesis of my leaving the LDS Church partly pre-dated my even joining, I am beginning this narrative in the summer of 2011 and what was earlier is included in my remarks before “the Sanhedrin” as I set forth below.
In the summer of 2011, Bro. R….. was assigned as our home teacher. As he finished the lesson, I told him I did not believe in what he taught. We discussed it further and I disclosed that I did not believe in the Book of Mormon,
The Book of Abraham, The Doctrine and Covenants or any other LDS scriptures nor in Joseph Smith being a prophet. Bro. R….. asked why I belonged to the church if I believed as I did and I responded that that was a “good question”. Nevertheless, I continued to home teach the Potters when they were available
and the Merritts. I also gave my testimony in June or July. Like all testimonies that I had given, I never said “the church is true” but would say the “gospel of Christ is true” to denote my Christian belief, not a belief in the LDS church. In this last formal testimony in the Stamford chapel I testified about the Bible and how members should study it and use it approaching non-members rather than scriptures the non-members would not accept. Several members approached me to thank me for testifying about the Bible.
Several months went by and Bishop Merritt called me and we arranged for what I thought was my monthly home teaching assignment with his family. Instead, he ushered me into his home office. He asked me about my beliefs and I told him. He took my temple recommend and told me he would report to the
stake president.
In December I met with the counselors and then with Pres. Checketts. He told me they would think about the matter and he would discuss it with me again. There was no second discussion. On January 22, 2012, I received from Bro. Platt and another high counsel member a letter indicating the next Sunday
there would be a council meeting to try me on the charge of apostasy. I immediately looked on line for the procedures (placed online contrary to church rules, of course). I prepared for the meeting by planning my defense and choosing my witnesses. I also knew that they could only act if they went contrary to the handbook.
My preparation was based on the calling of five witnesses. I was not able to call any of them to testify, though I was able to represent what they would have said.

BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN

On January 29, 2012, I was scheduled to appear before the “Sanhedrin” being a Mormon disciplinary council on the charge of apostasy.. The council was, misnamed: “A Love Council”. I arrived on time at 5:00 sharp with the list of
five witnesses and prepared to prove that there was no evidence to support that charge as apostasy is defined in the church handbook. The council is composed of fifteen persons - the stake president, his two counselors and the twelve stake
high councilmen. After waiting about ten minutes, I was called into the office of the stake president - David Checketts. He indicated that one counselor, Pres. Steven Potter was unable to attend and would, unless I objected, be replaced by Pres.
Rodney Hawes. I indicated that Pres. Steve Potter was on my list of witnesses but that I had no objection to Pres. Hawes for whom I had the utmost respect. I indicated that I was denying apostasy as defined by the church handbook. Pres.
Checketts next indicated that Bishop Merritt would not be attending - and I indicated he, also, was a witness I intended to call. I then inquired about Bro. Pratt and he also was not to be there! Well, I then indicated I had two witnesses
coming from outside: Dick Helstein and Susan Helstein from Calvary Baptist Church. President Checketts who had the authority to allow them to testify said that they could not because it would require multiple lengthy interviews to
approve the testimony of a non-member. We went outside the office to see them and we approached them and I indicated that they would not be needed but Pres. Checketts insisted that he meet with them - and he did for 15 minutes.
I waited until after six before I was asked to go into the council room. When I got there I first had to walk around shaking the hand of each man on the council. It seemed that height was a requirement for being part of the council
and with only a couple of exceptions, all were 6 feet 2 or higher, up to 6 feet 6 or 7. It was noted that I brought in my laptop computer and I explained it was in case I had difficulty reading my brief handwritten notes which I had also on the
computer, It was “off” as anyone could have noted. Of course, in retrospect, it would have been better on and recording exactly what I am writing here from memory combined with my notes.
The rules set forth in the handbook indicated that nothing could be used against me from my discussions with my bishop or with the stake president without my permission, but Pres. Checketts immediately began with such a statement! Indeed, not only did I not even get asked if I denied the charges - I
wasn’t even told what it was that I was said to have done which would have constituted apostasy under the definition of the church. The handbook required both of these but it was not done. I objected and asked what was next.
President Checketts then allowed me to present my defense. I first began by citing the high regard I had for the leadership, especially Pres. Hawes. I next stated that we were acting under the church definition of apostasy and that I did not come under that definition. I made reference to my activities at Calvary and that they did not come under the strictures of the church as I had not formally joined the church, I had not taught any doctrine of the church incorrectly, and as for teaching anything at all I had never been told not to. I further made reference to members of the council and members not present that I never violated the rules on apostasy at any time and that members of both the Mormon church and of Calvary could so attest. Both groups would affirm that if I said anything
contrary to Mormon doctrine I carefully so noted it as being different from LDS doctrine. Indeed, I had home taught the same lessons to the stake presidency first counselor and his wife, and to the ward bishop and his wife, particularly on the Song of Solomon and expressing myself that it was not church doctrine. The other lesson I taught at a study at Calvary was a testimony meeting where each person gave a testimony of their faith and how it came about.
I told the council of my background, of being raised on family history going back centuries and even my relation to Joseph Smith. I now began a description of my spiritual life from birth to the present time, I described how my mother had almost died and had a near death experience in which she, on going to the light, said she told them she had to return to raise her sons. At the hospital a nurse told her that I was destined for something special.
When I graduated from primary at the First Presbyterian Church in Stamford, we were provided, as a class, with the option of getting the King James Version bibles on Children’s Day or waiting until fall to get the new Revised Standard
Version. I argued that the King James was good enough for my brother and good enough for me. I prevailed on the vote but the teachers, shocked, argued that the earlier class had voted for the RSV and we wouldn’t want to be different, would we? I wasn’t given the opportunity to respond and the class reversed
itself.
Next, I noted that on September 27, 1957 (I was 13) I went forward in the Billy Graham Crusade - which I remember down to what hymns were sung, what he said, and exactly where I sat in Boyle Stadium in Stamford. Next was my confirmation as a member of the Presbyterian Church on Maundy Thursday, 1959.
When I took the writing sample of the SATs, as required by Columbia, it was on the topic of heroes and I wrote as part of the essay (it was a one hour test) about Christ who was much more than a hero.
At MIT, in my freshman year, I immediately looked for a church to attend. I found a church with one-half Presbyterian roots in Boston, a couple of blocks west of Boston Common. I told how I urged classmates and stuffed mailboxes to encourage them to also attend. In a Humanities class I wrote about miracles, that they not only happened in Biblical times but still occurred. In my second semester, we read part of the Bible and read the exposition of Martin Luther on the priesthood of all believers. My paper on the last supper almost convinced my instructor that the emblems were symbolic and not a matter of transubstantiation.
I told the council of the churches I had been to, including such as St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York and numerous churches of different denominations. I told them how I wanted to teach Christ at the First Church in Plymouth, Massachusetts from the times I attended it with my aunt and that I hope some day to do so.
I told how I was a member of the Church of Christ at the time the missionaries had knocked on our door in 1977. I spoke to them about a lesson I had taught on whether or not there should be instrumental music in church. I told them about being considered for the office of deacon but was told my family was too large. I told the council about the time our son Richard was injured and our best friend prayed with me and he recovered while my friend’s daughter died and how my aunt died when our son was at a low point and still in a coma. I discussed our daughter’s rare illness and recovery after a blessing.
I spoke about a conversation I had with then-Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley in 1978 or 1979 in which Pres. Hinckley told me about his own doubts and how he was continually asking himself if the Church was true and that he wondered whether he would be able to hold to the faith until he died. I can probably find
the exact date because it was during a Stake Conference in New Canaan.
I spoke about the defining moment when I joined the Mormon Church, how I awoke early on the morning of April 15, 1980 and, in despair, had determined that no church was wholly true including the LDS church and that I would have to decline the invitation to baptism, having studied it from August 1977 to that time. I told the council how I went back to sleep and had a vision which I described as I had on other occasions. The troubling aspect of the vision was that I heard a voice speaking to me but could not remember what was said.
Nevertheless, I took this a sign and when the missionaries shortly thereafter called, I agreed to be baptized that night.
Now I discussed my Mormon “faith” or “testimony”. Of course, it was a negative one. I explained that what I knew was not from outside sources but from my own readings of Church publications, including Joseph Smith‘s Church History, etc.
I brought up the Book of Abraham and asked, rhetorically, whether anyone actually believed it. I explained that during my senior year at MIT, I took a rather eclectic freshmen elective for no credit, virtually all of my other courses being upper level graduate courses. Anyway, as part of this course taught by
Prof. Emeritus Adams, we got to climb the tower of the Old North Church in Boston, went up the Bunker Hill Monument, visited the art and science museums of Boston - getting prestige tours as Prof. Adams knew everyone as a descendant of the Pres. Adamses. We had a lecture by Dr. White, Pres.
Eisenhower’s personal physician, and another lecture by a noted Egyptologist. It was my memory of that last item which was the first of many signs of the utter falsity of the Book of Abraham as the “facsimiles” which Joseph Smith pretended to decipher were not anything like he claimed them to be. Hence, never for a moment had I ever believed the Book of Abraham. I further indicated that years ago I indicated my problems with the Book of Abraham in a temple recommend interview with then Bishop Potter and he had said, “I understand”.
Next, I discussed the Book of Moses. I explained that Joseph Smith’s “translation” failed as it did for the Book of Abraham and Smith’s plurality of gods was a wrong interpretation of Genesis. Like the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses is a fake.
Next item: the Doctrine and Covenants. Before I joined I had read the D & C and concluded it was wrong on any number of occasions including the claimed explanations of biblical passages which, in my estimate, butchered them.
Joseph Smith tried his hand at “translating” the Bible. So long as it was only an attempt, so what. But the Mormon Church claims it is correct. Looking at Biblical scholarship and comparing it with what he wrote, we see a charlatan. He
changed passages to go along with his doctrines. The Mormon Church also has its own Bible, presenting it to unknowing people as “The King James Version” but with its own head notes which are often misleading and wrong and with notes from the “Joseph Smith Translation”.
What about the Book of Mormon? I explained how I had gone for over twenty-five years without reading it beyond the first few pages. I described how terribly it is written as one of the three worst books I had ever read. I finally read it several years ago by getting a first edition copy because at least it lacked the head notes and the versification made to mislead people into thinking it was scripture. I explained how I had noted, from my own readings similarities to things such as the Book of Judith. (The reader should note that I know more now
than at the time of the hearing but do not include these things in this discussion as I did not raise them with the council). I did discuss that DNA proves that the native Americans are not descendants of someone known as Lehi. The reason I actually put off reading the Book of Mormon for so many years was because I
was doubtful that I would be able to believe it. I was right.
I explained to the Council that I do not believe in Joseph Smith as being a prophet, nor in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I discussed my temple experiences, noting that in mid-2011 I had given the priesthood lesson on temples, and no-one could find anything I said wrong because I had not told of my own beliefs. I told the council that I believed the
temple ceremonies were wrong and believed that from the first time I went. I told them they came from masonry. I described my feeling in the New York temple as like being in a tomb.
I confessed to the council that perhaps part of the reason
the temples proposed for Hartford and then for Harrison were not built was because I had prayed against them. I believed, and still believe, neither was a correct site. Nor is New York City anything to be proud of. As for Harrison, NY not only was it not on good public transportation lines, it was to be virtually hidden in the attempts to alleviate the anger of nearby residents. I found the New York Temple depressing as there was no outside light, the pillars in the “Celestial Room” are only painted marble and that it is entirely artificial.
Moreover, it is virtually out of sight except for Mormons going there. The appropriate site should have been Stamford near the railroad station which would have been good not only for people in the area but for those who needed mass transit and being near the interstate, it was convenient for all of southern
New England and Northern New Jersey. My comments were not meant so much as criticism but as showing that I had tried to help the church.
I told the council how I had tried to help the missionaries by advising on how to find people new to Stamford and know the names of people when they knocked on doors, and how I had even given a letter to Pres. Checketts to help in reducing the major divorce problems facing the stake, especially in New Canaan and why the efforts they had tried were to little avail.
I closed my defense with my testimony of the Savior. I told of the atonement and the grace of God, that I knew I was saved and my beliefs were intact.
Next, I answered questions by the Council members. One of the first questions was why didn’t I just resign? My reply was: “I am not a coward”. I was asked about my beliefs regarding the prophets and told them I did not believe
the church was led by a true prophet. I was asked about believing in the Trinity and I said I believed in the Trinity as taught by the Christian churches. I was asked about teaching what I believed to my children and told them that I was not
sure whether I would or not because of the problem with people when they realize their beliefs are wrong and that they might despair and lose all faith. I did say that I had discussed my beliefs with two of my children who were inactive. I did add to my answer that I was not sure Mormons would make it to heaven. I
tried to answer all questions in full candor.
I urged the council to either do nothing or excommunicate me. If nothing, they would have succeeded in showing me that they respected the church definitions.
At the very end, I read certain Bible passages. I first read to them from Stephen’s defense before the Sanhedrin in the Book of Acts. My closing passage was of Christ to Judas: “What you are about to do, do quickly”. My reference to Stephen was especially poetic because that was the name given to
me in the temple, though I did not tell them this tidbit of information.
I was then asked to leave the council chamber. I picked up the laptop to take with me and was told I had to leave it there. So I did.
In the end, the “Love Council” did not act quickly. A little more than an hour later I was asked to go back into the council room. I looked at my laptop and noted that they had inspected it - which was ridiculous since they could see it was never on and if it were aimed at recording anything, it would have been
only useful to record the discussions when I wasn’t present! It only demonstrated paranoia on the part of Pres. Checketts.
It took more than an hour. They neither ruled correctly nor excommunicated me. The ruling was to disfellowship. Not only was I criticized for what I said, but the stake president told me of conditions to be followed. The clear intent was to use the decision to prevent me from communicating with my
family as one condition was that I was not to speak with my family about my beliefs on threat of excommunication. Another was that I could not lead a public prayer. The most onerous, beyond church official policy, was the threat of excommunication
if I so much as attended any meeting or service at Calvary
Baptist Church. This last prohibition was modified in the written decision. Anyway, the stake president closed by asking me to remain behind for a further meeting with the stake presidency. I declined. I was then told I had to go to each
council member and “thank them” and shake their hands. After this, I left.

AFTER THE SANHEDRIN

What should I do? The action was, of course, NOT one taken by the Council but one taken only by the stake president and the council “sustained” the decision. In the Mormon Church, the vote could be 14-1 against the decision but if the 1 was the stake president, the decision stands. If a member does not
“sustain” the president, it is likely he will not long be a member of the high council and even more unlikely that he will rise in the church organization.
Now the ball was back in my court, or so I thought. Several days later, I received a call from the first counselor in the
bishopric asking me to return the keys to the building. I was in charge of building cleaning for the ward. I had had a dream about this and what to say when I handed in the keys. I met him, after attending a funeral the next Saturday and
handed him the keys saying: “I have greater keys than these”.
A week or two later, Bishop Merritt called and asked me to meet with him. This meeting took place in his home office. He asked me if anyone had “offended” me causing me to lose my “testimony”. I replied in the negative. He next said that everyone he knew - and he had been a bishop overseas earlier -
was either offended or was hiding some “secret sin”. I said no, so he asked about pornography and I said no. He asked if I masturbated, and I said on a few occasions where relief was necessary. I did not explain it further as it related to
health reasons. Aha! So that was it! In my mind I laughed at him. But to the bishop, I had “evil thoughts”. I told him it can be done without thinking such thoughts but he now had the answer to my “apostasy”. I went home and told my dear wife about this. What respect I had for Bishop Merritt was lost. Since then, I have learned on-line that this is typical of the Mormon church and demonstrates its depraved thinking.
Before the deadline to appeal, I had it delivered to the home of Pres. Checketts. Now I heard nothing. From February 26 onwards, I heard nothing. I got concerned the appeal was not forwarded to Utah. By May 4th I had started reading about other Mormons who no longer believed and on that date posted
my first contribution on-line which merely stated that I hoped that we had colorful garments in heaven.
I gave my wife printouts of a couple of the threads I read, including those by Tom, “the anointed one“.
Finally, in July (or perhaps earlier?), a decision on my appeal came down. I, of course, was not told. My wife was told. I will probably never know how long the stake president sat on the decision and discussed it with higher Mormon Church authorities. The stake presidency then met with my wife and several of our children. They got written statements from them. Instead of conceding that the First Presidency had sent it back for re-hearing, the object was to find some other way to discipline me.
After hearing about the success of the appeal and before contact with anyone other than confirmation of the success, Caleb, a grandson was blessed in New Canaan. Normally, in our justice system, the setting aside of a verdict and granting of a new trial puts one in the position of status quo ante, that one is in the position prior to the judgment. This would mean I could speak in church and so forth as I could prior to the hearing. Just to be sure, I inquired of Pres. Potter. If I could have spoken I intended to speak of the naming of a child and the right of the parents to act with inspiration. Pres. Potter indicated that I could not speak and that despite the success of the appeal, I remained under the orders. I was galled by the people chosen to take part in the ceremony because
it included particular members of the high council who, with the exceptions of Bro. Pratt and Pres. Potter who I had expected to call as witnesses, had assented to the error of the council in affirming the decision of the stake president. I have resolved never to attend another meeting of any kind. I did not ask to be part in “the circle” because I do not regard the placing of a child on the rolls of the LDS church to be a good thing at all.

BEFORE THE STAKE PRESIDENCY

After the decision of the First Presidency for a new hearing President Checketts (from what he told me) had repeated discussions with, at least, the area authority on what to do. Apparently, they couldn’t figure out what it meant that the appeal was successful. So, their next step was to call in my wife and some of our children who wrote letters for them to use in the new trial. They were seeking some way to discipline me, having failed in their first attempt. I have learned that my family mistakenly thought it would bring me back into the fold
and blamed me as “angry”. On the contrary, the result was as I write below. As the Bible says, one should not take something to the church leaders until after you have discussed matters with the person. I was served with notice of a new hearing three days before the hearing was to be held. Thank God our legal system does not act this way. The new notice did not simply provide a new hearing, it added the charge of “conduct
unbecoming a member”. What, on earth, was this? I asked to meet with the stake president. He consented to this meeting but
apparently felt he needed his counselors with him (perhaps to protect him or at least give moral support) so I met with the three. Checketts told me I had to present the appeal to the council. This, of course, was wrong. It was a rehearing.
Next he decided that I had to go first. That is, present my defense without even knowing the charges. I said that was not right. He said they would proceed with the charge of apostasy. I said that what I had done did not qualify under the church rules. He said it did. Pres. Stauffer then read the handbook
section and we went through it and I showed it did not come under the church rules. As for the “conduct unbecoming” Checketts would not say what it was. Now the stake presidency sent me out to discuss what to do. They now called me into the council room. First, they conceded that I did not go first. Second, they essentially conceded they could not prove apostasy. I noted that Pres. Checketts was “angry”. Pres. Stauffer said he probably had a good reason to be angry. I conceded that. So what were they now going on? Checketts ominously said that I was abusive to my wife and they intended, the next night, at the “Love Council” to bring in my wife and “several” of my children to testify against me. What
was it about? Well, apparently, the “abuse” concerned my speaking to Mom so much about why the church was untrue and Joseph Smith was a fraud. That they would risk permanent damage to my family and my marriage was beyond the pale. They had crossed the line that can never be uncrossed.
President Checketts had also accused me of asking Pres. Potter if I could be part of the circle in Caleb’s blessing. I disagreed. When Pres. Potter affirmed what I said, Checketts gave him an angry look and told him to say nothing.
Before leaving, I gave my parting words of advice. “The Church of Satan“, aka the LDS Church, can be damned. As for telling others about all of this, that may come to pass. And I would never cease from telling my wife my beliefs which I should have done throughout the years. I called my wife to ask what this was all about, with a feeling of deep hurt. By the time I got home, I knew that I had only one choice for myself, for Christ,
and for my family. I could not put my family at risk. I could not be untrue to my beliefs in the Savior and I could not be untrue to what I knew the truth to be. Shortly after getting home and before the clock struck twelve, I e-mailed my
resignation with a cc to Pres. Checketts. I also sent him a second e-mail asking that the “love council” not take place and with a statement, if it was, that “I intended apostasy”. Note that it was not an admission that I had done so, but
that it was my intent to join another church (though that has not yet happened) and make statements which would constitute apostasy.

AFTER RESIGNATION

My wife gave me a card. It was of importance like the first card she sent me that day she met me back in 1969. She told me that all of this will only strengthen our bond and love.
As a result of the decision, I was not invited to our daughter Sarah’s wedding, even for the time outside the temple. I now understand fully how hurtful the LDS wedding standard is which allows only “worthy recommend holding members” to attend the idealized temple weddings. No children allowed. No nonmembers allowed. No members who have doubts, or who don’t tithe are allowed, etc. The church does not appreciate or understand the pain inflicted on countless parents, siblings, and friends of so many people married in the temple where such parents, siblings, and friends are non-members, members who,
perhaps, admit to drinking coffee or tea, or, at the very lowest, ex-members. I paid a “ransom” (tithing) to attend one daughter’s wedding, something I regret deeply but it was done because she so wanted me there. I love Sarah no less. I did wish she could see a temple wedding and compare it to those in churches (other than the second-class Mormon chapel weddings) before being married in such a wedding. The aim of temple sealings (not weddings in any true or Biblical sense) is to guarantee obedience to the LDS church, not the true vows taken to each other but a vow placing the church first. On October 26, 2012, Sarah was married in the Rexburg, Idaho temple.
Though tears come into my eyes when I think of not being there, I have no doubt that my resignation was the right thing to do and that my journey in faith can continue unhindered and that my faith will continue to grow.
When I wrote to our children explaining what I believed, I found that they, not including two of the twelve, are unwilling to test their faith with an examination of truth and continue to believe in the church, even in some cases accusing me of not being truthful because what I wrote “could not have happened“. Such is the hold of a faith based on feelings and “a burning in the bosom” rather than a real evaluation of truth.

Let truth prosper.