DNA Genealogies of American Indians and the
Book of Mormon[*]
Simon Southerton
March 17, 2000
December
2004
Simon
has written a book that examines LDS beliefs about the origins of
Native Americans and Polynesians. He examines these beliefs in the light
of the recent findings of DNA research and observes the divergence between what
most Mormons believe and the views of LDS scholars who have been forced to
grapple with the findings of science. The book is entitled “LOSING A LOST
TRIBE: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church” and is available from
Signature Books.
http://www.signaturebooks.com/Losing.htm
I approach this letter with a degree
of resignation. It doesn’t matter that I have given my heart to Mormonism for
three decades. This will count for naught to Mormons intent on uncovering the
real reason I left the Church. Mormonism equips its adherents with a keen sense
of judgment particularly when it is directed towards people who can so easily
be branded apostates. With that label securely attached, Mormons seem to
comfortably know how to think about a person who no longer believes. I know
this is the way they often think because I used to think that way myself. In
spite of this apprehension I am compelled to reveal my experiences in the hope
that it will help others find the truth. My name is Simon Southerton, I am
married to Jane and we are the parents of five children aged between 6 and 15
years. We left the Church together towards the end of 1998. At the time I was a
bishop in Brisbane, Australia. To my surprise I have found that most exmormons
I have communicated with since then were once committed believers like me and
not the moral bankrupts depicted by the Church. I now have ample appreciation
of the extent to which the LDS Church conceals truth and controls the flow of
information to members in order to maintain the faith of the saints.
In early August 1998, the life I had known as a Mormon came to
an abrupt end. When I woke up on the 3rd of August 1998 my mind had finally
accepted the truth. Some time during the night my subconscious had sorted my
thoughts of the previous weeks and placed them in some sort of order. The two
sides of my mind were on speaking terms and they set in place an inevitable sequence
of conclusions. In the face of a mountain of evidence, my heart finally
accepted what part of my mind already knew. The Book of Mormon was created in
the mind of Joseph Smith and is not a historical account of former inhabitants
of the American continent. While this realization was a shock, I soon became
aware of just how much my feelings about the Church had deteriorated over the
previous 20 years.
This is an unbalanced story. Mormonism has its good points,
among them being the close friendships that are formed through working and
socializing as a close knit group. I will not be dwelling on these. I want to
share a small portion of the truth that I have discovered and share some of my
reflections on Mormonism.
For at least a couple of centuries my
father’s ancestors had been committed members of the Church of England. I
discovered this in Shrewsbury Library in Shropshire, England as I was
researching my father’s genealogy in the parish of Church Pulverbatch. My
father, like his grandfathers before him, was a committed Anglican and actively
involved in our parish in Sydney. In early 1970, however, he was experiencing a
growing dissatisfaction with Anglicanism. In a sense our family had outgrown
the Anglican parish we belonged to. Tensions had arisen between my father and
the minister over reverence (silence) during the service. My father insisted
that all eight of his children attend the weekly service in addition to Sunday
School. He was sensible enough to know that if we didn’t attend in our youth we
were likely to maintain that habit throughout our lives. As a result of the
strained relations, my father was in the mood to listen when the missionaries
knocked on our door in Sydney. But he did not accept the Church at face value.
After about nine months of serious investigation our family was baptised into
the Mormon Church. I was ten years old at the time.
Attending the LDS Church made a change from hiding under the
house to avoid the Anglicans. I found I enjoyed going to Church. Early in my
youth I had become quite committed to the Church. I had every intention of
following the prophet. I advanced through the priesthood with few distractions.
I wanted to serve a mission, marry in the temple and raise a righteous family. The
rest of my life would comprise enduring to the end. President Spencer W.
Kimball, a white haired, croaky voiced man was the prophet during my formative
years. I used to love listening to him speak at conference. The primary message
he got through to me was to read the Book of Mormon. He encouraged us all to
read it and gain a testimony of its truthfulness. I generally wanted to follow
the prophet and do most of the things asked of me.
Throughout all of my teenage years my father was either my
bishop or on the stake presidency. He was a committed Rotarian, a pillar in the
Church and was loved and respected by many members in Sydney. I am only aware
of one member of the Church that he had a serious difference of opinion with.
My father was deeply troubled by proselyting methods missionaries were using in
the Sydney Mission while he was a bishop. People were brought to the chapel and
taught a very leading and high-pressure discussion and then committed and
baptised on the spot. People had frequently been taught, baptised and had gone
inactive before meeting the bishop or attending a single church meeting. My
father made certain that the mission president (Loren Dunn) knew exactly what
he thought of these methods. As a result the two obviously did not see eye to
eye. Loren Dunn returned to Salt Lake but was asked to attend our stake
conference in place of one of the apostles, several years later. When my father
who was serving in the stake presidency found out he was coming he immediately
knew he would be released. As a youth I was unaware of this, as my mother told
me many years later.
I rarely entertained doubts that Mormonism could be anything but
true. Like most Mormons I may have had fleeting moments when I questioned
Church teachings, but these were rare, soon chased away in the knowledge that
these doubts originated with Satan. I was generally comfortable with the
teachings of the Mormon Church. Few could not be satisfied with the assurance
that families can be forever and I saw little reason to seriously question this
and other Church teachings. Like most Mormons I didn’t read books that weren’t
approved by the Church and seldom read LDS books approved by the Church. I was
quite content that I, along with many other Mormons, had found the truth and
need look no further.
The earliest signs of my emerging interest in science manifest
themselves in my efforts as a young boy to grow vegetables. My father was a
keen gardener, and wisely suggested I start with radishes, a particularly
child-resistant plant. We spent many happy times together working in the
vegetable garden. He also tried to encourage me to be diligent at school but I
was an average student. The only subjects that I was interested in were
agriculture and science and this interest was rarely translated into scholastic
effort. Fortunately I managed a borderline entrance into the agricultural
science degree at the University of Sydney. My father wanted me to study for a
couple years before serving my mission because he felt I was too young to leave
at the age of 18. Sadly my father died at the beginning of my second year at
university.
In December 1980, after two years at university, I received my
mission call from President Kimball to serve in the Australia Melbourne
Mission. My disappointment at being called to a city just down the road didn’t
last long and I was excited when my new mission president wrote to me and
welcomed me to the mission field. He asked me in his letter to read the Book of
Mormon again before my arrival in Melbourne. I had just finished reading it
weeks earlier, but I immediately started reading it for the second time,
completing it on the plane to New Zealand on my way to the Missionary Training
Centre (MTC). The MTC consisted of two weeks of the most intensive study I had
ever experienced. I was pleased to leave so that I could get into the mission
field in Melbourne.
The morning after my arrival, my mission president proudly
declared to his new missionaries that “the Australia Melbourne Mission, was a
tracting, door knocking, house to house mission”. Those were his exact words
and he was not wrong. Within days I was knocking doors for 8 to 10 hours a day
between the hours of 9.00am and 9.30pm. I soon became accustomed to the
workload and within a few months found that I actually enjoyed tracting. I used
much of this time to memorize scriptures and missionary lessons as I walked
endless miles from door to door. Every hour spent door knocking was tallied up
each week and reported to senior missionaries. I was surprised by the heavy
reliance on goal setting and statistics. I was not a goal setter. There was
also a rigid pecking order with senior missionaries exercising authority over
junior missionaries, however, few conflicts appeared to occur. There was
generally a tremendous sense of community among most of the missionaries. The
odd missionary hated the work and one or two I knew of did virtually no work
their entire mission, spending it in shopping malls or surfing.
Within a few weeks of my arrival I began like many missionaries
to desire my own witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I had never
doubted that it was true but I earnestly wanted to have my own answer to prayer
as Moroni promised in the last pages of the Book of Mormon. I had heard many
other members and missionary’s say that when they had prayed about it they had
received a confirmation that it was true. I was a willing and diligent
missionary and I felt my desire for a witness was appropriate. I was confident
that the Holy Ghost could answer my prayers by causing a burning or warm
feeling in my heart. I was confident that I would receive an answer.
During my evening and morning prayers for the first three months
of my mission I pleaded for a witness that the Book of Mormon was true. Again
and again I asked, but I did not receive the promised burning in the bosom. I
soon became very despondent and so concerned that I spoke to my mission
president. He assured me that the answers come in all sorts of ways and that
perhaps I had already received mine. I soon satisfied myself that mine had come
while reading the Book of Mormon. I even convinced myself that I didn’t deserve
an answer because it would almost be like seeking a sign. After all I already
believed it was true, I just wanted a spiritual manifestation that it was. I
did wonder, however, why my Heavenly Father would withhold an answer to such
earnest prayer, particularly when I desperately wanted it to be true. I felt
unworthy and frequently struggled to comprehend the level of faith that must be
required to receive this kind of witness. I wasn’t expecting a chorus of angels
or a vision, just the simple warm feelings in my heart. I gradually put my
concerns aside and began to testify that I had gained a witness while reading
the book. I never claimed that I had received a direct answer to prayer,
however, I strongly felt that I knew it was true.
During my mission I frequently heard other missionaries talk
about how the Spirit guided or prompted them in their work. Many described how he
guided them to particular streets or houses and answered other prayers. This
served to reinforce my feeling of inadequacy. I had pleaded for a witness of
the truth of the Book of Mormon unsuccessfully for three months, yet others
could virtually call upon the Spirit like he was an old friend. I had never
been more righteous in my life and I was working very hard to obey all the
mission rules and to work hard. Some of the missionaries claiming divine
guidance were not particularly obedient. I often felt that I was simply not
good enough to deserve the companionship of the Spirit that others had.
Occasionally I thought that it was because I wasn’t born in the Church. It was
widely believed in the Church that those who were valiant in the premortal life
accepted the Church in this life. I naturally concluded that those born in
Mormon families must have been even more valiant in the pre-existence.
On the whole, my missionary years were the most challenging and
yet some of the most rewarding of my life. I enjoyed my mission, however, I
felt very strongly that when I got home I wasn’t going to pine for the mission
field like many returned missionaries did. I wanted to get on with my life.
Within 3 months of my return I was engaged to Jane and the next thing we knew
our engagement was announced at stake conference. At the time of my return from
Melbourne, there was considerable pressure on the young adults to get married
although I believe it has become worse in recent years. Jane and I didn’t feel
particularly pressured, however, we married 6 months later. We were married
first in Sydney and then in the New Zealand Temple. One year later we became
parents with the birth of our first daughter Jessica. Our civil marriage was
never registered (slack ward clerk I guess) and we actually lived in sin for
the first 15 years of our marriage. Australian law did not recognize temple
marriages in those days.
A week after returning home from my mission I re-enrolled at
university. At first I could not remember anything from the subjects I took
before my mission, but within a few weeks things started to come filtering
back. In fact my two years of intense scripture study and memorization soon
began to pay dividends. I discovered for the first time in my life that I could
concentrate for long periods during study. I began to feel that with effort I
might even be able to achieve an honors grade at graduation. Two years later I
graduated with first class honors and immediately commenced studying towards my
doctorate. I am certain that my missionary training saved me two years of
research study, normally required before admission to a doctorate degree,
because it led to such an improvement in my results.
My uncertainty with recognizing the Spirit resurfaced during my
first year back from my mission. Australia beat America in the America’s Cup
yacht race. To most Americans this was a non-event but for many Australians it
was a huge thrill. Australia came from behind in the series to snatch victory
in the face of almost certain defeat. I felt intensely warm feelings in my
heart, as though it was going to burst. I had felt similar feelings when I was
teaching discussions as a missionary. I could not understand why the strong
emotional feelings I felt with such an event were essentially indistinguishable
from what I had learned to interpret as the feelings of the Spirit. They were
similar to the feelings I felt as I watched The Sound of Music, or Fiddler on
the Roof or Les Miserables. Even today as I watch The Sound of Music for the
30th time it will still reduce me to tears. Other people felt these same
feelings and many obviously felt them about their Church. I never resolved this
issue, that non-members also felt the Spirit and that it also made them feel
their Church was right.
Soon after I was married I was called to the position of young
men president. For most of my adult years in the Church I served in the young
men or in a bishopric where I was responsible for the youth. I found working
with the young men to be challenging and fulfilling because I felt you could
make a difference. I enjoyed the company of the youth more than the elders
quorum or high priests group. It was a calling where you had to rely on your
own belief in the Church as the youth were frequently questioning everything.
The boys rarely had their own testimony and some didn’t want to be there. In my
last year in our small ward I was a counselor in the bishopric, leading the
young men, teaching early morning seminary at 6.30am five days a week and
struggling to finish my PhD. I was a little relieved at the end of 1989 to be
offered an overseas research scholarship. Early the next year my wife and I and
our three children set off for the John Innes Institute in Norwich, England.
During my PhD study I became fascinated with the power of
molecular genetics to answer biological questions. I took the opportunity to
learn many of the fundamentals of DNA technology in the stimulating and
challenging environment of the John Innes Institute. In recent years this
institute has grown to become a world-leading centre for plant science
research. I was immediately called to serve with the youth in the local ward
and within a few months I was called to be the young men president. This was
the most enjoyable calling I ever had. The ward was large and we had about 20
boys attending. They were some of the nicest boys I have known and I really
felt that I did the best that I could to lead them. It was very difficult to
say goodbye to them when we returned to Australia in early 1992 when I took up
a research position in Canberra.
About a month after my return I was called as the young men
president of the Canberra district. I was happy to accept the calling but I was
concerned at the high turnover of youth leaders in previous years. During the
interview I received an assurance that I would be given sufficient time in the
calling to generate stability in the youth program. Canberra had a history of
shuffling men through callings because of a chronic shortage of leadership. If
a senior leader moved away, it was common for a chain reaction of leadership
changes to take place. One year later and a week before our annual youth
conference I was released and called as a counselor in my local branch
presidency. I was terribly disappointed. I learned soon afterwards the reason
for my release. The district president had called someone from my branch to a
district position. My branch president insisted that I be returned to the
branch in order to square things up. The district president told me he wanted
me to stay with the young men, but he felt compelled to let me return to my
branch. Up until this time I had felt confident that most of my callings were
inspired, but I struggled with this release. I had great difficult believing
that this was inspiration from above rather than desperation from below.
The LDS Church has struggled in Canberra for decades and most of
the leadership, including the current stake presidency has a pretty good idea
why. The Canberra membership has been divided into 5 small branches for as long
as I can remember. The struggle to provide leadership in these small units is
exacerbated by the fact that Canberra’s population is highly transient.
Numerous requests to area leaders and mission presidents that the units be
combined have repeatedly been rejected. Many Canberra members believe that area
leaders want as many branches as possible in Canberra so that on paper the
church appears larger than it really is in the national capital. The real
casualties of this policy were the youth, who were denied the opportunities for
more friends and support and the continual struggling of the branches resulting
in burned out and depressed members. I wondered at times why they called people
to leadership positions in Canberra if they didn’t trust their judgment on the
tough decisions.
After my release I found myself in a branch full of people who
had to drag themselves to Church. At a senior leadership testimony meeting I
witnessed almost every man testify that the only thing that kept him coming to
church was his testimony. I left that meeting feeling very disillusioned,
because I was beginning to feel the same way myself. Since the church was a big
part of our family life we decided to leave Canberra. In spite of the fact that
I enjoyed my job I accepted a research position in Brisbane. After two years in
Canberra we moved to Brisbane where we happily settled into a large ward. When
we arrived I asked the bishop to give me a breather while I regrouped after my
experiences in Canberra. He knew exactly what I had been through and respected
my wishes, having had a similar experience himself. Two months later I was
called to be one of his counselors. He is one of the nicest, most genuine men I
know and I will always respect him. I particularly enjoyed serving with him
because he reminded me of my father. Towards the end of the second year it
became obvious that the ward was growing too large for the bishop and the
building. The ward was split in late 1996 and I was called as the bishop of one
of the wards.
I remember feeling a strong sense of helplessness about being
called as a bishop. I felt that my life was almost out of my control and that
someone else was calling the shots. I felt extremely inadequate because the
previous bishop had been so good, but he was very supportive of my call. I had
served in several bishoprics, but I knew being the bishop was a completely
different challenge. I had an inkling of the tremendous strain that this call
would place on my family but by the end of my first week as bishop I had had a
full taste of it. Some inactive members repeatedly harassed me for financial
assistance. It was clear that they had been extracting considerable financial
assistance from previous bishops under false pretences. A new bishop was an easy
target so they tried everything on me. When they failed to obtain any money
they left the ward in search of another unsuspecting bishop.
At the end of January 1998 I took time off work and spent two
months studying for an exam to enter a graduate medicine degree at the
University of Queensland. The first subject I studied was biology. I find
biology fascinating and after this period of study I felt I had gained a much
broader appreciation of the subject than at any other time in my life.
Soon after completing my study I read
an article on the Flood and the Tower of Babel in the January 1998 issue of the
Ensign magazine. According to this article faithful Latter-day Saints believe
in a universal flood that killed all animals and presumably most plants,
besides those on the ark. Those who believed anything less were lumped in with
the unbelievers. It was claimed that these unbelievers were persuaded in their
belief by the way that they interpreted geological evidence. There could not
have been another time in my life when I would have reacted more strongly. I
had come to accept that Noah was a real man, but that the Flood was a localized
event. I strongly suspected that other LDS scientists thought the same way. If
there was a major extinction in the last 5 to 10 thousand years then the
biological and geological evidence has been removed. I didn’t know any
scientists who considered that there was evidence of a universal flood. I
accepted that God had power to do many things, but covering, creating or
distorting evidence to test His children was not a characteristic of the God I
worshipped. I was deeply disappointed at this article. As a bishop I was
sacrificing a large amount of my time serving in my ward, at the expense of my
family. It hurt deeply to be labeled an unbeliever by an ignorant BYU scholar
on the Church payroll.
While I was greatly troubled by this article, my testimony was
unaffected. I had known for some time that things that are written in the
Ensign are not necessarily doctrine. I had over the years, however, grown tired
of the fact that modern biology was frequently an easy target for ignorant
attack by uninformed Church leaders. About the only book in my limited LDS
library that mentioned the Flood was Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie. This
was a relic from the black and white days of Mormonism from my youth. I was
already acquainted with McConkie’s ignorant position on evolution so I was not
interested in what he had to say about the Flood. Like many Mormon scientists I
saw no conflict between my religious faith and an acceptance of the principle
of evolution. Evolution is simply one of the firmest facts ever to be validated
by science. Despite this, it is surrounded with controversy and widely
condemned by large numbers of people who generally haven’t taken the time to
carefully examine the evidence. In my experience in the Mormon Church, public
criticism of evolution was acceptable while vocal support was frowned upon.
I felt a need to talk to other members about my concerns but
when I made an attempt a member in my ward, who overheard a private
conversation, reported me to the stake president! From that point on I became
very reluctant to talk to members about things that troubled me. I soon felt
quite alone in my thoughts at church. I could only discuss things with my wife,
my friends at work and some of my family. I concluded that the Internet was the
quickest and most readily available avenue for me to find out what other
Latter-day Saints thought about the Flood. Or so I thought. I found material
written by Mormons on evolution, Book of Mormon archaeology and many other
subjects but after two weeks I had made no progress. Without doubt the article
that had the most impact on me was a statement published by the Smithsonian
Institute in Washington D.C. concerning the Book of Mormon. In very strong
language this statement spoke of a complete lack of evidence for any connection
between the Old World and the New World. The strength of this statement jolted
me. Scientists rarely make such dogmatic statements unless they have plenty of
evidence (or none in this case) to back them up. I had been told in seminary
that the Smithsonian had been known to use the Book of Mormon in their
research. The statement utterly refuted this claim. In fact the Smithsonian has
grown tired of responding to Mormons who regularly contact them to see how the
Book of Mormon is helping them out. I believed the Book of Mormon was true and
that Hebrew civilizations had occurred on the American continent. I firmly
believed that there was a connection between the Old and the New World,
however, I had never taken the time to seriously examine this. I was confident
that somewhere in the scientific literature there must be some reliable
research that supported this. There is an abundance of Mormon literature that
claims strong links between the two worlds. With this in mind I decided to look
for myself for research that supported Old World migrations to the Americas.
I began searching for research papers having some connection
with American Indians or Polynesians. Because I was familiar with plant
genetics I became interested in recent research on the DNA of American Indians.
The principles of DNA analysis are applicable to all living things so it was
relatively easy to jump from the plant to the animal kingdom. I rapidly
accumulated many scientific papers comparing the mitochondrial DNA of American
Indians from numerous tribes with the mitochondrial DNA of other populations
around the world. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child each
generation. It is essentially a female genealogical lineage, or a maiden name
if you like, stored in the mitochondrial DNA sequence. This part of the total
DNA genome is used for population studies in many animal species. It is very
simple to study because the mitochondrial genes don’t get rearranged each
generation like most genes, which are inherited as a mixed bag from previous
generations. I was equally interested in more recent Y-chromosome DNA studies. Male
lineages, much like DNA surnames, are passed from father to son and clearly
reveal male genealogical lineages.
In the last decade scientists from several research groups had
tested the mitochondrial DNA of over 2000 American Indians from about a hundred
tribes scattered over the length of the Americas. It soon became apparent to me
that about 99% of their female lineages were brought into the Americas in
excess of 12,000 years ago. Almost all of these lineages are most closely
related to those of people in Asia, particularly in southern Siberia near
Mongolia. Several tribes in Mesoamerica (which included Aztecs and Mayans) had
been tested and all but a couple of individuals out of about 500 had
mitochondrial DNA of Asian origin. The small fraction of Native American
lineages that were not from Asia appeared to originate in Europe, most likely
Spain. DNA studies also showed that the female ancestors of the Polynesians
came from South East Asia and not the Americas. Y-chromosome studies, which
trace male migrations, strongly support the mitochondrial work, except that the
European influence is higher (about 10% in the Americas).
For two weeks I wrestled with the research. I collected more and
more research papers but failed to find anything that supported migration of
Jewish people before Columbus. Enough is known about the DNA lineages of Jews
to be very confident that they are clearly distinguishable from Asian lineages.
They would also be easily identifiable if they were present in the Americas in
significant numbers. I struggled with the complete discrepancy between the
research and my understanding of the Book of Mormon and the doctrine of the
Lamanites. The Book of Mormon describes the occurrence of Hebrew civilizations
in the Americas numbering in the millions. It is clear that the victorious
Lamanites would have numbered in the millions in about 400 AD. I could not
understand how such large numbers of people could have escaped detection.
Until this point in my life my intellectual study of the Book of
Mormon was minimal. I had read it several times from cover to cover and knew
the first few chapters of I Nephi very well. I had only taken a passing
interest in New World prehistory. Perhaps this was because I am an Australian.
I suspect that few Americans have an interest in Australian prehistory. Perhaps
it was because I was so busy in the Church that I just didn’t have the time.
For whatever reason I had happily assumed that BYU scholars were uncovering
evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. I began to closely examine the text of
the Book of Mormon. The Introduction to the book states that the principle
ancestors of the American Indians are the Lamanites. The original founders of
both major Book of Mormon civilizations fled to a Promised Land kept from the
knowledge of other nations. Historical accounts of these civilizations only
mention the presence of people in the New World whose Hebrew origin is
accounted for in the text. People who migrated away from these civilizations
appeared to be entering further unoccupied territories. There is not a single
mention of non-Israelite people in the entire history. According to the Book of
Mormon there was clear reason to consider it Mormon doctrine that the American
Indians are predominantly the offspring of Hebrew ancestors. The Lamanites with
their dark skin curse and loincloths appeared as stereotypical American
Indians. This strong scriptural foundation is apparently the reason that most
Latter-day prophets and senior leaders consider this to be the case today.
Arguably the most frequently repeated message in the Book of Mormon is that the
seed of the Lamanites would receive the Gospel in the Latter days from the
gentiles. This is further supported in the Doctrine and Covenants where God
himself refers to any Indians at the frontiers as Lamanites. How could God
allow the book to give the overwhelming impression that the descendants of Lehi
were numerous, when they are now virtually undetectable?
I desperately tried to find holes in the research but soon
realized just how fruitless this was. I was not upset by it and strangely my
belief remained intact. I was on a detached journey of discovery in a field of
science that was new to me. The gravity of the situation completely escaped me
at first; however, gradually I became aware of the contradiction that I was
faced with. When I woke up on the 3rd of August 1998 I felt I had solved a
puzzle I had been battling with for as long as I could remember. During the
night my subconscious must have found the space to sort things out. All the
problems I had been struggling with evaporated when I reached one simple
conclusion. As much as I wanted the Book of Mormon to be true, I suddenly knew
that it wasn’t. It might be full of some remarkable stories and scriptural
writings, but it wasn’t history about real people. My belief in the Book of
Mormon was the foundation for my belief in Mormonism. When it was shattered it
brought a lot down with it. I immediately knew that I must be released from my
calling. I rang my stake president that day and arranged to have an interview
the next night. I told one of my counselors and my close friend Kevin Thomson
serving in another bishopric, about why I was going to be released. Both were
in a good position to defend my reputation in the face of the rumors that would
certainly start. Few bishops are released before serving two years and knowing
some members in my ward, the gossip was certain to travel quickly.
Soon after I came to the realization that the Book of Mormon is
not what it claims to be, I became deeply upset. I had firmly believed that it
was true. I had not been looking for evidence to prove it wrong. I had been
looking for research that could be viewed as supportive. It was a shock to have
my belief shattered so quickly. For about three days the thought of all this
reduced me to tears, at almost any hour of the day. I went for days’ wondering
if anything at all that I believed was true. As a Mormon I believed that all
other Churches were false. I was in no hurry to rush out and join another
Church.
I was released within two weeks of speaking to my stake
president. I spoke at my release and asked the members not to gossip among
themselves about why I was released. I told them that all they needed to know
was that it was the right thing to happen. For some reason, at the time I felt
strongly that the senior leaders of the church needed to know about the science
so that they could be prepared for what lay ahead. I was strangely protective
of the Church. My stake president and his counselors were very compassionate
and never judgmental. They suggested that I speak to the area leaders in
Sydney. I soon discovered that other members and leaders were less considerate.
Several clearly assumed I had sinned and one man in my ward took it upon
himself to call me to repentance.
I was surprised to receive, out of the blue, a very thoughtless
and judgmental letter from a member of the area presidency. He launched into
his letter by quoting a scripture in 2nd Nephi 9: 28-29, which was probably conceived
by Joseph Smith to put the fear of God into someone questioning his authority.
"O, that cunning plan of the evil one! O the
vainness, and frailties, and foolishness of men! When they are learned they
think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set
it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore their wisdom is
foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. “But to be
learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God."
The rest of the three-page letter contained a collection of
statements that were purely intended to fill me with fear and guilt. I was
warned that I would damage my family’s reputation and hurt my mother, family,
wife, children and future generations. I was warned that I would become a
hollow shell of a man without the Church. It was clear that the area leaders
had not even spoken to my stake president and had written the letter on the
basis of idle rumors. I had asked to be released because I was honestly concerned
and it was the correct thing to do. I could not simply pretend that I was not
troubled. At the time I was still shocked and confused and had not decided that
I was going to leave the Church. Even my stake president and the new bishop
were disappointed when they saw the content of the letter. I firmly, yet
politely, responded to this letter and received a letter shortly afterwards
apologizing for acting on hearsay.
The area leaders initially questioned the validity of the
science and assumed that my interpretation was incorrect. They were of the view
that the American Indians were Lamanites and if the science doesn’t agree with
that conclusion then the science is wrong. They suggested I speak to a BYU
professor who was an expert in this field. I was irritated by the fact that
they trusted Mormon scientists at BYU more than non-Mormon scientists, but I
guess I had grown accustomed to this prejudice in the Church. I corresponded
with this BYU professor on about four occasions until I became even more convinced
of the seriousness of the situation. He was a very nice man and he was very
honest with me. In the midst of his lengthy defenses of the Church he
acknowledged that greater than 98% of American Indians came from Asia and that
this conflicts with current thinking in the church regarding the whereabouts of
the Lamanites today. Not only did he confirm my conclusions, he strengthened
them even further. He confirmed that scientists at BYU had tested 3000 American
Indians from Peru and they came up with the same problem of virtually all the
female DNA lineages coming from Asia. Now I knew that all three major
civilisations in the Americas the Aztecs, Maya and Incas were comprised of
people who trace their genealogy back to Siberia. Data from Peru had been
conspicuously lacking in my research.
My communication with the area presidency stalled when they
became aware that my correspondence with BYU had confirmed my interpretation.
It was evident that they were seeking advice from more senior leaders and that
these leaders were hastily speaking to scientists at BYU. The explanations that
eventually came back to me were that the term Lamanite was a cultural or
political term and that we don’t know precisely where they currently live. The
BYU professor had struggled for a number of years with the research, but had
managed to settle most of his concerns. He had come to the conclusion that it
wasn’t doctrine that the American Indians were Lamanites. I was dumbfounded. If
this doctrine could be so easily dismantled then no doctrine in the Church was
safe. I have since come to the conclusion that LDS leaders have realized that
it is much harder to change the truth than to change doctrine. So they simply
change the doctrine. I used to think that doctrine was the truth and that the
truth is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I began to read some of the material published by people at BYU
and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). The most
widely accepted theory at BYU was that the descendants of Lehi lived in
Mesoamerica. I closely examined the claims of archaeological evidence for the
Book of Mormon. I quickly came to the conclusion that none of it can be
considered evidence. At a stretch it could be used to make it appear that the
occurrence of Hebrews in ancient America was plausible if you want to believe.
Many exaggerated claims of the past have steadily evaporated under the weight
of objective research. Major weaknesses have now been found in the widely
touted evidences for the Book of Mormon such as Quetzalcoatl, stele 5 (Lehi’s
tree of life) and others. The truth is that there is no reliable scientific
evidence supporting migrations from the Middle East to the New World, just as
the Smithsonian statement had said. Some Mormon scholars and indeed Apostles
are aware of this and quietly acknowledge it in academic circles behind closed
doors. This is never revealed to the Church at large presumably because it
isn’t faith promoting.
Alternative theories of how Lehi’s descendants established their
civilizations in the Americas are now being contrived. Soon the most popular
theory will be that after the arrival of Lehi’s family in the New World, his
descendants recruited a large peasant population that formed the base of their
civilizations. These poor people would have been none other than the Native
Americans. Some derive support for this idea from the writings of John
Sorenson, a senior FARMS scholar. He claims to have found numerous references
in the Book of Mormon to “other” people being there when Lehi arrived and later
during the Book of Mormon period. Apparently those that miss these evidences
are lazy readers with only superficial interest in getting to the deep truths
in the book.
Some at BYU thought that the now obvious link to Asia could be
explained by the Jaredite migrations. Hugh Nibley speculated that the Jaredites
had migrated 8,000 kms across Asia and then sailed to America from China.
Doubtless they picked up a few Asians on the way. This was a new theory to me
and I was utterly astonished at the book by Hugh Nibley that expounds it. I was
amazed at the way educated Latter-day Saints at BYU accommodated the
contradictions between science and the Book of Mormon. Some simply avoid these
difficulties with a dismissive citing of the work of Nibley or Sorenson. “Oh
that problem was solved years ago!” At best Nibley’s work was a feeble attempt
at solving the Asian problem, but it did nothing to solve the absence of a link
to Israel, which was so starkly revealed by the DNA evidence. Native Americans
clearly migrated from Asia, but it was at least 12,000 years ago and it was
almost certainly on foot. The archaeological and anthropological evidence for
this is considerable and it is universally accepted by non-Mormon scientists.
It should be kept in mind that these scientists are as diligent and truthful as
anyone else. This conclusion is the result of capable people trying to honestly
explain the evidence to the best of their ability. For several decades Mormon
scholars have disputed these conclusions, however, the evolving theories about
the current location of the Lamanites have been heavily influenced by
mainstream theories of New World colonization.
I was amazed at the lengths that FARMS went too in order to prop
up faith in the Book of Mormon. I felt that the only way I could be satisfied
with FARMS explanations was to stop thinking. On the other hand I was also
surprised at how readily the declarations of the prophets, including Joseph
Smith, could be overlooked in order to salvage the wreck. Some argue that
Joseph Smith was never clear about where the Lamanites were located. I doubt
Joseph Smith felt it necessary to be specific because he so obviously thought
that all American Indians were Lamanites. It is very clear in the Doctrine and
Covenants that the God speaking to Joseph Smith thought the Indians in Missouri
were Lamanites. The explanations of the FARMS researchers stretched the bounds
of credibility to breaking point on almost every critical issue. I could not
force myself to accept their conclusions no matter how hard I wanted it to be
true. I continuously found myself thinking that there is a simple explanation
for all this.
I could not believe that Lehi and his family conquered thousands
of Native Americans soon after their arrival in America and that they became
adopted as Lamanites. I also could not accept that the title Lamanite was
essentially political. Its only political use was to distinguish divisions
among the Lehites and Mulekites. Many prophecies about the Lamanites also refer
to their seed in the latter days, clearly implying a genealogical link. I
couldn’t believe that a people could be so worthless in the sight of God and
the Nephite prophets that they were simply not mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
I was troubled by the statements made by Joseph Smith and all the prophets
about where the Lamanites currently live. Millions of members of the Church
have been mislead into believing that the Lamanites are all over America and
Polynesia. I am certain that thousands of Native Americans and Polynesians have
been attracted to the Church in the belief that the Book of Mormon contains an
account of their ancestors.
After communicating with scientists at
BYU and reading numerous FARMS publications I told the area presidency what I
had learned and I asked for their advice. I asked them a direct question.
Should I accept the FARMS theories limiting Lehi’s impact to a small
colonization and at the same time reject the words of the prophets or should I
reject all the science and go back to what the Book of Mormon and prophets have
said? In their letter of response they deliberately avoided answering my
question. Their advice was that from time to time things will come along that
seem to discredit the church but that I should “Stick with the old ship, it
will pull you through”. I was also instructed that I didn’t need to explain to
other members what my difficulties were. The final humiliation was the
inclusion in the letter of dialogue I could memorize and quote, like a mindless
zombie, to members who inquired about my troubles. I should respond by saying
...
"We are all tried in different ways in the Church;
and through those trials comes either increased faith and greater commitment,
or a lost faith. I am committed to spending as much time as I need with the
Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price to get
my previous witness back again as it was before”.
In other words, stop thinking, hope it will all go away and
pretend that something was currently wrong with me. The thought of quoting this
pathetic response to members inquiring about my current situation made me ill.
I soon learned what they meant by things that seem to discredit
the church or what they also referred to as the “interesting Church issues
list”. I became aware for the first time in my life about many other issues
surrounding the origin of the Church. I was particularly troubled to learn more
about the Book of Abraham, another Latter-day Saint scripture originating with
Joseph Smith. Joseph claimed that it was a direct translation from some papyri
written by the hand of Abraham. I learned that the papyri were thought to have
been destroyed in a fire in Chicago; however, they were discovered in a museum
in New York in 1966 and returned to the Church the following year. They are
unmistakably the ones used by Joseph Smith as they contained facsimile 1, which
is printed in the current Book of Abraham. In addition the church had a copy of
Joseph’s Egyptian alphabet and grammar. This document written by Joseph Smith
contains a column of hieroglyphics copied from the papyrus next to a column of
definitions. All of the symbols in the alphabet were found on a small portion
of the recovered papyri. Pictures of the papyri were published in the New Era
and Egyptologists, including several Latter-day Saints, translated the text.
They were found to be common funeral texts that were traditionally placed with
mummies at burial and they dated to about 100 AD. This event occurred just
before I was baptized into the Church. Thirty years later I had never heard
anything about it.
I read the apologies offered by Mormon scholars, the most
predictable being that they haven’t found the correct papyrus. Other FARMS
scholars hunt for references to Abraham in other papyri as though this supports
the Book of Abraham. I found that the same mental acrobatics required to accept
the Book of Mormon defenses were necessary to salvage the Book of Abraham. I
read several of Hugh Nibley’s comments after the papyri were found and he was
clearly stumped. I was astonished to read a statement by him a decade later
claiming that no one had laid a glove on the Book of Abraham. This is an
absolute lie and a prime example of the art of lying for the Lord. It wasn’t
faith that was required to accept the apologist’s conclusions; rather, it was a
pigheaded, dogmatic insistence that Mormonism was right. The Book of Abraham
has been completely and utterly exposed as a piece of fiction originating in the
mind of Joseph Smith.
There were large volumes of other “interesting Church issues”
that I discovered. With my eyes now open the difficulties with the Book of
Mormon seem endless. They range from a complete absence of all the Old World
crops and animals mentioned in the text through to the absence of metallurgy,
horse drawn wheeled vehicles and any Hebraic or Egyptian-like writings in
pre-Columbus America. With the origin of the Book of Abraham exposed, and my
faith in the Book of Mormon so recently shattered, I have no faith in anything
that the Mormon Church claims. At almost every turn, facts are distorted and
truth concealed in order to maintain the faith of most inquiring Latter-day
Saints. In order for me to remain with Mormonism my struggles with the Book of
Mormon and the Book of Abraham would have completely drained me. I would have
indeed become the hollow shell of a man the area leaders forecast I would
become.
Soon after these events we moved back to Canberra. I have lost
contact with essentially all of my friends in the Church. In the 18 months
since I left the church I have told very few Mormons about the difficulties I
have with the Book of Mormon. Of those that I have told, several have left the
church. My friend Kevin Thomson asked to be released three weeks later and then
left the church with his wife and three children a couple of weeks before us.
The DNA evidence was only the catalyst. They left when they became aware of the
difficulties surrounding the Book of Abraham and the recurrent sanitizing of
Church history. They found most of the troubling information in Church
publications. It is surprising what you see when your eyes are open. Kevin had
struggled early in his mission with so many missionaries claiming to feel the
Spirit guide their every move. At the time he had also felt very inadequate and
unworthy, a feeling we both had shared. Few former LDS friends of theirs speak
to them now that they have left, including their bishop who was a good friend
of both of us. They are very happy and treasure the time they now have together
as a family.
My brother and his wife and five children left at about the same
time and are now happily attending another church. The DNA evidence was just
another problem in a long list of issues that seriously troubled them about the
church. My brother had served in many senior leadership positions including
seven years as a bishop, as a stake young men president and as a member of a
mission presidency. His wife had known for years that the Church was not true.
She had realized that many of her friends shared just as strong feelings about
the churches that they attended. She couldn’t continue to feel that they were
any less important in God’s eyes, or that their feelings were any less valid.
She struggled for years to hide this from the extended family group. They were
both greatly relieved when all their children left with them. Since “going
inactive” both my brother and I and our families have not had a single home
teaching or visiting teaching visit from the Church. It is clear that senior
leaders have given instructions that we should not be visited.
It has been essentially pointless telling most of my family why
I was troubled. They seem to know already why I was released and left the
Church. Communication channels are completely choked with emotions and
discussion of concerns about the Church is off limits. This has stifled
conversation at family gatherings where a favorite topic used to be
remonstrating over little things at Church. Some probably feel that I must
never have really believed the gospel. Others think I was stressed because of
the workload of being a bishop. One sister-in-law is convinced I committed
adultery. At times it hurts to see the stranglehold the church has over the
minds of people close to me. Two years ago I was a respected member of my
family and I still would be if I had lied to myself that there was no problem.
Like many Mormons their testimonies of the Church are tied very close to their
emotions. Most have never seriously looked at the Church’s history or
doctrines, and if they have it has only been through approved Church sources.
Some have probably never read the Book of Mormon right through. It is a strange
irony that those with a superficial understanding of the Book of Mormon generally
won’t appreciate the theological basis for my concerns.
I am sure that some are comforted in their belief by the thought
that scientists at BYU are not troubled. Area leaders have probably reassured
my family and other members that because faithful scientists at BYU know about
the DNA research, all is well. They probably didn’t mention that since the
Church owns BYU it can control what its staff say or publish. Members who
criticize the Church or its teachings at BYU face being sacked and excommunicated.
Scholars paying too close attention to the details of Church history have been
severely repressed in recent years. The same censorship of scientists has
occurred before in BYU’s history and it will happen again. In the heartland of
Mormonism the consequences of this action can be devastating for an individual,
who could find themselves unemployed and an outcast in his family and
community. Many scientists have learned that the best way to deal with these
difficult issues is to not deal with them. Some keep Church and science safely
locked in separate mental compartments and never attempt to resolve any
conflicts. They reason that they have the eternities to resolve these
conflicts. I must have been doing this myself to a certain degree. It disappoints
me greatly to see the Mormon Church hiding behind academics at BYU. I wonder
how many of those academics harbor real concerns about the Church but are
afraid to speak out. In most cases educational institutions have helped open
the eyes of the masses, but BYU is being used to prop up Mormonism as its
scholars revise history and defend the books of scripture attributable to
Joseph Smith.
I didn’t leave the LDS Church and stop
believing because it was easy. I desperately wanted the comforting teachings of
the Church to be true. I don’t have any brilliant insight to offer about the
meaning of life, and I haven’t found another “true Church”. Curiously, in some
conversations with Mormons the fact that I haven’t resolved these problems
seems to reassure them that I am wrong. I realized recently that for most of my
life my family was the most powerful force motivating me to stay in the Church.
Honestly telling my family of my concerns over the years was almost
unthinkable. I think back to the time on my mission when I was pleading for a
witness that the Book of Mormon was true. As with all young Mormons searching
for the truth, there was a lot riding on those prayers. It was not simply a
matter between God and me. There were going to be many people enormously
disappointed in me if I didn’t get the right answer, including parents, family,
friends, companions and my mission president. Most young men gain their
testimony of the Church when they are a missionary. Not surprisingly, I have
never heard of a missionary returning from his mission early because he didn’t
believe the Church was true. The fear of hurting the feelings of those you love
the most is an extremely powerful motivation to not rock the boat.
Not long before we left the Church I glanced through the latest
Sunday School manual on the life of Brigham Young. If I had not known anything
about Brigham Young I would have been convinced, after reading this manual,
that he lived a monogamous life, marrying a second time after the death of his
first wife. The manual borders on deception, completely omitting the fact that
Brigham had more than 20 wives and fathered 47 children. When I brought this to
the attention of a recent convert I was accused of spreading lies about the
Church. In an interview with my current stake presidency, one counselor bravely
expressed his disappointment at the current trend in the Church to rewrite
history. The trend towards sugar coated Mormonism, where only the most
palatable and uplifting parts of the history is retained concerned me greatly
during my last few years in the Church. For similar reasons I could rarely face
reading the Church News where all the news was good news.
My most frequent companion during my experience in Mormonism was
the feeling of inadequacy. This was particularly true during my mission and the
years immediately following. If I had just worked a little harder or cared more
or followed the Spirit more closely I could have helped save more souls. Being
told over and over again that we will be held accountable for the souls that we
should have saved ate away at me at times. It was fashionable to retell
motivating stories of our premortal commitment to bring the Gospel to certain
people we would meet in this life. These stories did nothing to ease my
anxiety, and neither did pathetic Church film strips such as My Name is Thad
with an irritating little kid who had an uncanny knack for converting every
unsuspecting person he met. Initially I was asking myself am I going to suffer
for eternity because I didn’t bring the Gospel to my friend or I allowed a
young man go inactive or I didn’t reactivate my in-laws? I remember being
inspired in a meeting to ring a close friend and to invite him to stake
conference. I had felt guilty for years that I had never invited him to Church
and was crushed when he flatly declined the invitation. He was not at all
interested in the Church. I was left wondering if my previous failure to
introduce him to the Church led to his lack of interest. Early in my married
life I also frequently felt anxious about the inactivity of my wife’s parents.
Was I doing enough to help them come back to Church? When others from their
ward invited them to Church I felt pangs of guilt because I hadn’t invited
them. Our relationship has blossomed since leaving the Church. I sometimes
wondered if I had already failed and was there any point prolonging the agony.
When I failed to visit the nine families I was assigned to visit each month,
the same inadequacy gripped me. Even when we did achieve 100% home teaching,
the feeling of achievement was always fleeting, as the next monthly goals
loomed large.
The LDS teaching that we will be held accountable for the lives
of people we could have saved left me thinking at times that I would rather not
have been brought up in the Church. That way I wouldn’t have this knife hanging
over my neck my whole life. As the years passed it was not possible to sustain
the guilt and gradually I drove much of it from my thoughts. Clearly other members
must have done the same thing because nobody I knew was perfect. It was obvious
from the talks at General Conference that many parents felt enormous guilt when
their children went astray despite being brought up in the Church. According to
Mormon scripture, parents are responsible for their children’s sins if they go
astray because of a failure on the part of the parents to teach their children.
How could a parent who has a child who has left the Church not blame
themselves? There is always something extra that the parents could have done
because we are only human. They might not have had Family Home Evening every
Monday night of the child’s life. They might not have prepared adequate
lessons, or set a perfect example etc. Not only do the parents feel the
distress of perhaps losing a child for eternity, they have to suffer with the
uncertainty that they might be eternally punished for their failures. I thought
about this teaching frequently, wondering what sort of a being would expect
this of His children. And what about the people we should have saved but
didn’t? Could God allow one of His children to suffer for eternity because
another failed to bring the Gospel too them? Is that in any way fair for the
person on the non-receiving end? Perhaps God had backup people or a series of
backup people to deliver the Gospel message to those unfortunate enough to have
slack Mormon friends?
A frequent companion to my sense of failure was the thought that something was
wrong with me. Why did I have to drag myself to hundreds of meetings a year?
Others seemed to love meetings. Many of these meetings seemed to achieve so
little especially when you considered that these people could have been at home
with their families. Each year as bishop I missed about 150 evenings with my
children because I got home so late. The Church continues to pride itself on
being family centered. Why did I hate getting up at 5.30 every morning to take
my kids to early morning seminary? Why did I find the temple a relatively
meaningless experience? Why did I feel that Home Teaching and Visiting Teaching
was invasive of people’s privacy? It was widely accepted in my last stake that
the role of the visiting teacher was to get into the sisters homes to see if
they were on top of the washing and ironing, house cleaning and of course
obeying the commandments. Why did I constantly feel uncomfortable about
baptizing people into the Church within days of being met by the missionaries?
I guess I inherited this fault from my father. For many years, however, I was
convinced that the answer to these questions was that something was wrong with
me. I wasn’t righteous enough, didn’t read the scriptures enough, didn’t pray
enough, didn’t do my home teaching enough etc, etc.
A constant difficulty I had was the feeling that whenever we
were asked to commit to something, the level of commitment required was almost
always more than could be reasonably achieved. When we lived in Sydney there
were goals set by the stake leaders to attend the temple four times a month.
Achieving this meant at least twelve hours in the temple and probably another
six hours in travel. Why did I feel this was a burden, while other couldn’t
seem to get enough of the temple? In most wards we were required to home teach
between 5 and 9 families a month. In order to achieve this it was necessary to
be out a minimum of two nights per month visiting. Scheduling for two home
teachers and the families they visit to be available on the same night was a
monthly nightmare. This problem was made more difficult by the fact that only a
few nights in the month were left after all the meetings were taken out. The
women in the Church experienced similar struggles and sense of failure as they
were equally burdened with the responsibility to visit the sisters every month.
The worst thing about these monthly responsibilities was the feeling that the
goal could never be achieved. As soon as it was done the next month arrived.
Many bishops I knew were frustrated at the difficulty they had in motivating
members to keep doing their Home and Visiting Teaching. By the time I left the
Church, I think I had become numb to the whole thing.
I have finally resolved the issue that troubled me almost 20
years ago on my mission and which dogged me my whole life in Mormonism. I now
know that those feelings that most members are conditioned to recognize as the
Spirit are not the exclusive property of the Mormon Church. All people
experience strong emotions and warm feelings in their hearts, and many people
feel them about their church. I do not believe that they exclusively tell
people that the Mormon Church is the only true Church on earth. I don’t deny
that many members of the Church, including myself, have had powerful
“spiritual” experiences when they feel warm feelings in their heart. Like many
Mormons, however, I had invalidated the feelings of non-members, rationalizing
that they only feel portions of the Spirit because they have portions of the
truth. If that was true, then how does a person distinguish between a portion
of the Spirit and a full dose? Why would God make so much rest on such an
impossibly hard decision? I am now convinced that He cares more about how
genuinely good a person is than their ability to allow their feelings to direct
their lives.
June 2005
Do you need
advice or assistance?
Over the last
6 years I have received hundreds of emails in response to my letter. Some
have been from Mormons who have had a similar experience in the church.
Others have friends who are Mormons and want to know how to help them. A
growing number of emails come from people who were investigating Mormonism and
want to know some background information before making any commitment.
During that time I have only received 4 or 5 emails from hostile Mormons.
I have
attempted as best I could to respond to all of those emails; however, the time
that this takes increasingly eats into time with my family. I feel that I
am at a stage in my recovery from Mormonism where I need to devote more time to
my family and to life after Mormonism.
If you feel
that you need assistance with coping with the transition out of Mormonism then
I strongly suggest that you join one of the following online exmormon
communities. Just post a message in the chat groups and you will reach
many people who have valuable insight to share with you. Some people on
these boards (typically frequent posters) can be very angry and may be
unhelpful; however each list is populated with many quiet onlookers who are
thoughtful and often very happy to help out.
The exmormon
bulletin board https://www.exmormon.org/bboards.htm
This is a very
active site with about 150,000 posts per month.
There are several
exmormon lists at Yahoo groups
Exmormon (the
big one)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Exmormon/
This one is
probably the most useful group for someone just leaving the church.
For singles
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ex-Mormon_Singles/
For fellow
Aussies
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exmoaussies/
Just started
in 2005 and growing fast
There are many
sites on the web that contain factual information about virtually every issue
(and there are many!) related to Mormonism and its doctrines and scriptures.
Just do a Google search and you will find heaps of information. Richard
Packham’s site is an excellent place to start. Richard is a retired
attorney and is very helpful should you wish to contact him.
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/
If you feel a
very strong need to contact me then I suggest you contact my publisher,
Signature Books, and they will forward your email on to me.
Love and best
wishes,
Simon
Recovery
from Mormonism www.exmormon.org
[*] This is story number 125 on the Recovery from
Mormonism web site https://www.exmormon.org.
Simon is a plant research scientist and currently
works for CSIRO in Canberra. Jane is a High School English/History/Drama
teacher.