The definition of "cult"

It can be argued that by one definition, any religion could technically be called a cult. But since that gets us nowhere, let’s look at some another definition from Webster:

: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous

The problem with the qualification of “accepted” and “large” is that at some point, all major world religions were small and unaccepted. To the Romans and Jews of the 1st century, Christianity was a small, upstart cult. But now because of the billions of adherents (in some form or another) it is accepted as a legitimate religion. The reason I don’t like this is that it relies on the “might makes right” principle, or strength in numbers (known as Agumentum ad populum).

Another definition that I found that probably adds to the definition to make it clearer:

A group that uses manipulative psychological “mind control” techniques to recruit and control their members. These techniques might be “love bombing”, instant friends or emotional blackmail. At extremes it might include keeping people away from their friends and family and isolating them both physically and emotionally.

Sometimes we hear the terms “mind control” and “brainwashing” used interchangeably, but there are a few differences. Mainly, brainwashing is done coercively by someone perceived as an enemy using threats of personal and familial safety. The victim experiences “thought reform” as a survival mechanism. Kidnapping victims like Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Dugard experienced this, commonly called Stockholm Syndrome.

Meanwhile, “mind control” is a little different. It is more subtle, and done by people who are considered to be trusted friends. Sometimes the people doing it don’t even realize that they are doing it. The process is slower and seen as a positive thing.

Mind control techniques can be summed up with something called the BITE model, created by Steven Alan Hassan. It stands for: Behavior control, Information control, Thought control, Emotional control.

With Behavior control, they:

• Say what clothes to wear: clothing that covers garments
• Say how many piercings and tattoos are appropriate
• Say what to eat and drink: Word of Wisdom
• Regulate time: between 3 hours of church, FHE, Mutual, callings, Temple Trips, Elders Quorum/Relief Society activities, firesides, and other meetings, the average LDS person probably spends upwards of 20 hours a week doing church activities.
• Demand perfection and/or obedience: This quote from Marion G Romney, taken from General Conference in October 1960: “Standing by me, [Heber J. Grant] put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the president of the church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’”
• Have bizarre rituals/ordinances: Temple ordinances, though some of the bizarreness was dropped in 1990, and still others later in 2005.
• Have a financial obligation: Tithing
• Want members to have a dependence on group

With Information control, they:

• Deliberately withhold information: Until last month, the LDS Church never admitted to Joseph Smith using a rock put into his hat to "translate" the Book of Mormon, and instead promoted the idea that it was translated directly from the plates.
• Minimize or discourage access to non-church sources of information: Telling members to not look at “anti-mormon” literature, or only trust internet searches from lds.org.
• Whitewashing history or disturbing facts: Quote from Boyd K. Packer: There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful. (from “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect”)
• Encourage spying on other members: Home Teaching and Visiting Teaching. In the LDS church, this is probably more benign than in other groups. But it is stated that the bishop is able to keep tabs on the needs of the ward through HT/VT, but also to know if everyone is reading scriptures, praying, etc.
• Extensive use of church-generated information and propaganda: The Ensign/New Era/Friend, Church News, books from Deseret Book.
• Distort information to make it more acceptable: Usually called “milk before meat,” or “line upon line.” It’s like signing a contract without knowing all the details because if you knew all the details you’d run.
• Downplay the past leaders’ mishaps (Joseph Smith’s polygamy/polyandry, the fact that he had a gun and killed 2 people before he was shot, destroying a printing press that was accusing him of polygamy)
• Insist that any information that casts a negative light on the church is taken out of context or that it is an outright lie.

With Thought control, they:

• Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as truth, instill black and white thinking, and an “us vs. them” or “insiders vs. outsiders” mentality.
• Use loaded language and clichés which constrict knowledge and stop critical thoughts: Anytime they are confronted, LDS members are told to bear testimony or sing a hymn.
• Instilling the idea that they are the only ones who have the truth, a.k.a. the “one and only true church”
• Teaching thought-stopping techniques which shut down reality testing by stopping negative thoughts and allowing only positive thoughts: “Contention is of the devil.” This shuts down debates that might lead to the member thinking about an outsider’s point of view.
• Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy. Doubts are turned around on the member and their devotion or worthiness to the group is questioned.
• Tell members to go to leaders for answers to questions, not outside sources.

With Emotional control, they:

• They use guilt and fear heavily to make one afraid to question or leave the group. They will also use the threat of losing one’s family: The LDS church promotes the idea of a “forever family,” but only if everyone is a faithful member.
• They teach that good feelings are from god, and that they are the ultimate source of truth.
• Phobia indoctrination, including inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authority. No happiness or fulfillment possible outside of the group and terrible consequences if you leave. Here's an example of this kind of phobia indoctrination from David Bednar.
• Shunning of those who leave; fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family
• Teach that those who leave were offended, or couldn’t live the standards, and that there’s no legitimate reason to leave the organization. The organization often uses character assassinations on those who left so as to discredit any information they might spread around.
• Ritualistic and sometimes public confession of sins: Bishops’ interviews of teenagers where they ask about masturbation and other “sins” of a sexual nature to instill guilt into them.
• Love-bombing: When someone is about to join or starting to waver in their devotion, the members rally around the person to shower them with social interaction, kindness, gifts of food, notes that they are missed, etc.
• The double-bind: They ask prospective members to read/pray and see if they get the good feeling. If they don’t, they tell the person that they must be doing something wrong. There is only one “correct” answer.

The BITE model mentions several other things that don’t apply to the LDS church, but most of them do. (visit the above link for the full list)

My personal thought is that it is probably the most mainstream cult in existence, and that it straddles the line dividing church from cult. They display many of the attributes, but none to the severe outward extent that we often think of cults having. Reprisals aren't so overt as threats to life and limb as with many Muslim groups, or threats of lawsuit to recover money as with Scientology, or overt shunning as with Jehovah’s Witnesses. It's still very real though. Shunning can still happen by devout family members, but the church disavows an official policy. They in fact state that they do the opposite but it seldom works that way in reality. Mormons are subtly trained from infancy to use sort of a passive-aggressive approach to disciplining each other, sort of a stealth disapproval if someone gets out of line. It's part of the "worthiness fetish." They are a purity cult.

It's certainly not a destructive/dangerous cult like the Branch Dividians or an Islamic jihadist group. They are a Christian denomination, and they do some good in the community. But they most definitely exhibit a lot of the traits that cults have.

(written by Joseph)

The Judgments of Family and Friends

When we left the LDS faith we heard about a few of the rumors that went around about us because people from our former ward would come and ask us if they were true. The biggest and most bizarre one was that we had joined another sect of Mormonism and have become polygamists. This is not true. We have not joined with any religious groups.

In addition to these rumors, we have experienced many judgments and some shunning from our LDS family and friends.  Most of Joseph’s family has not said much about it and treats us like nothing has changed at least when we are around, but who knows what they might say when we aren’t there to hear it.  However, Joseph had one brother that made a lot of judgments in the beginning and did not treat us very Christ-like but when this was pointed out he more or less stopped.  This same brother of Joseph also deleted me as a friend on Facebook.  

I should mention that other Facebook friends of the Mormon faith have also deleted me from Facebook because they feel like I post negative things. For them I say: What about all the LDS things that get posted on my wall? You could always choose to hide what you don’t like. That is what I do.

My family has been okay for the most part with the exception of 2 family members who make judgments almost every time I talk with them. For example, tonight I joked about how we should bet on something we were debating about and they immediately assumed that I must be a gambler, now that I have left the church. The other family member of mine likes to ask me if I have started drinking/smoking amongst other things.  

I just don’t get why so many LDS people feel they have the right to judge others. They are not God. I know cigarettes are not healthy for me. I watched my grandfather die from smoking and may experience the same thing with my dad. I am not planning on smoking. But I have always felt that alcohol was okay, even when I was a TBM (true believing Mormon). I don’t think that because one drinks a single drink of alcohol that it makes them an alcoholic. I believe it is the behavior in which they do it. Do they abuse it? So I may try it because I am curious. I may even gamble for fun if I am in Vegas but I won’t make it a hobby.

I just want people to know that Joseph and I would never have left the church if it were true (the one and only). We are not dumb people. We didn’t leave over something small and stupid, like being offended by someone. We left because we found out about several things that the church has in their history that did not sit right with us. We could not be part of a cult that continues to lie to their people.

Fortunately, there have been a couple of families who have not shunned us. One is a family who moved far away a couple of years ago and decided to email us when they heard of the news. Her husband struggled at one point with the church but decided to stay because he likes the values the church teaches and felt it was the best place to raise their children. The second family also moved from our former ward, but only a short distance away and still remains friends with us. It is nice to know that there are still a few good people out there that don’t think they are God.  

The first "Rock" star of Mormonism

In case you hadn't heard, the LDS church is in the middle of releasing a series of “essays” that are meant to help members who have questions about some of the “difficult” topics concerning doctrine and history. They've already covered the multiple versions of the “First Vision” story, the Priesthood ban on those of African descent, and polygamy.

The most recent one concerns how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. What is depicted in the church’s art usually involved Joseph Smith looking at a set of golden plates with Oliver Cowdery acting as a scribe.  Here are a bunch of examples:


One thing to note is that with only one exception, none of them show him using the “Nephite Interpreters,” commonly known as the Urim & Thummim, and most do not show a curtain separating Joseph and Oliver.

But after years of denying it, the church finally admits that it was translated by use of a seer stone in Joseph Smith’s hat. These pictures are probably more accurate:


What’s interesting about these is that one of them came from the show South Park. They had a better description of the translation process than the LDS church did!

Here are some supporting statements from LDS church history corroborating this:

Emma Smith (Joseph's first wife):
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
   -   The Saints Herald, Vol. 26, No. 19, p.289


David Whitmer (one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon):

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

To be fair, Apostle Russell Nelson did use that quote in an Ensign article in July of 1993. But until now, that statement had only been in print once during my entire life. It does seem like the church wasn't too keen on being forthright about this.


Here are statements from past General Authorities about the “seer stone” method of translation:


 Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th president of the church:
While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet JS used a seerstone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that the stone was used for this purpose.
...
It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the prophet would substitute something evidently inferior [to the Urim & Thummim] under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the prophet did possess a seerstone, which he may have used for some other purposes.
    - Doctrines of Salvation vol.3 pg 225-226


Apostle Bruce R. McConkie: 
"In imitation of the true order of heaven where seers receive revelation from God through the Urim & Thummim, the devil gives revelations to some of his followers through peepstones or crystal balls."
    - in his book Mormon Doctrine under peepstones

Improvement Era Article:
"In the opinion of the writer, the Prophet used no seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, neither did he translate in the manner described by David Whitmer and Martin Harris. The statements of both of these men are to be explained by the eagerness of old age to call upon a fading and uncertain memory for the details of events which still remained real and objective to them."
Improvement Era, October, 1939


Apostle John A. Widtsoe: 
"Some use was made also of the seer stone and occasional mention was made of it. This was a stone found while the Prophet assisted in digging a well for Clark Chase. By divine power this stone was made serviceable to Joseph Smith in the early part of his ministry. There is no evidence that this stone was used in Joseph's sacred work"
   -  Joseph Smith—Seeker After Truth, 1951, p. 267


And here’s the best part: they still have the stone in the Church’s vaults.

Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth President of the LDS church: 
"The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the church."
        -  (Doctrines of Salvation,Vol. 3, p. 225)

Why wouldn’t they want to parade this out and show people? Because it seems weird, hokey, and makes it look more like “folk magic” rather than divine inspiration. Add to that the fact that Joseph wasn’t even looking at plates at all, and it makes one wonder why it was so important that they were preserved! And if they still have this miraculous stone, why haven't any of the subsequent prophets, seers, and revelators used it to translate?

More information: http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm#introduction

(Written by Joseph)

The Fragility of a Testimony

When Mormons use the word “testimony,” they mean it in the way that most Christians use the word “witness.” In the judicial court sense, a witness is someone who saw a crime take place, and a testimony is the account of what they saw and heard. By contrast, religions usually use those words differently to mean a telling of one’s religious beliefs. But for the purposes of this essay, we’ll use the religious definitions.

What is interesting to me is how often one will hear about how fragile testimonies can be. Statements in General Conference or Sacrament Meetings will often remark about a testimony needs to be constantly “nourished” through scripture reading, church attendance, and by bearing of the testimony (“witnessing” in traditional Christian parlance). A related analogy that I heard was that having a testimony was like swimming upstream in a river - we need to be constantly working because if we’re not doing anything we’ll go downstream.

Here’s the thing: if it’s a real “testimony,” why should it NEED strengthening? For example, I know I live in Ogden, UT. I can bear testimony to that (in the court sense). I don’t have to wake up every so often and recite it to an individual (or a congregation) to convince myself of that fact. Just like I don’t have to keep convincing myself that concrete is hard. Or that the Pythagorean Theorem works. In the court sense, a witness shouldn't need to wake up every morning and reaffirm that it was the blue car that ran the red light and caused the accident.

But an LDS testimony is different. Most of the statements consist of “I know” statements, about things that they believe are true. And it needs to be done (or alternatively, heard from someone else) every so often to reinforce belief. It’s not so different from the kinds of daily affirmations that people do in the mirror when trying to convince themselves of something. Several LDS general authorities have said that a testimony is found in the bearing of it. Imagine if a judge or attorney said that to a witness in a trial!

Allow me to illustrate how this looks to me with a little analogy. It seems like people trying to convince themselves that Santa is real (sorry, it’s just after Christmastime, and it was an easy target). For most of them, they have been told that Santa was real ever since they were little. And they were told to just keep convincing themselves and their friends of that fact, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. To wit:

1. Nobody has ever seen the man in person (except at the mall, I know), flying reindeer, or elves.
2. The North Pole workshop doesn't appear on maps.
3. There are differing accounts on the personality and physical description of Santa depending on what culture one is from
4. The physics behind delivering so many toys to so many kids worldwide is impossible
5. Et cetera.

Despite statements like these, kids have been able to put them out of their minds and ignore evidence and keep their convictions that Santa is real. After all, believing in Santa just feels good. And let’s face it, for the most part, belief in Santa is pretty benign and can be fun. But we all know some people who go WAAAY too far with the whole Santa thing.

Ok, I think you get my point, so we’ll drop the Santa analogy. What I’m getting to is that rational people will drop the belief once they learn the real facts about how it was really their parents all along. That does, after all, make a lot more logical sense. But here’s where things get a little different in the real world. When confronted with facts that contradict belief, instead of changing beliefs, Mormons tend to dig in deeper (though this practice is not limited to Mormons). Instead of having faith that acts as a bridge between belief and fact, Mormons re-define faith as a shield against uncomfortable facts and history and choose to ignore them.

The traditional defense against science and logic used by Mormons is that they experienced the “burning bosom” of the Holy Ghost telling them that what they learned in church was true. Often, they add that they can’t deny what they felt, and that it trumps any facts that contradict what they felt.

But as it turns out, the LDS religion isn't the only one to make people have good feelings and emotions to swell (it’s also possible to duplicate the feeling using certain meditation techniques). In fact, just a little research from the web will confirm that there are many people around the world who feel the exact same feelings about their religions. Why are their accounts and “testimonies” not just as valid as any Latter-day Saint’s?

The problem is that they can’t all be true. It’s human nature to reject any information that doesn't fall within one’s preconceived notions and paradigms. So the knee-jerk reaction is to discount someone else’s beliefs and rationalize it away as the “deceptions of Satan,” or some other equally implausible explanation. What usually follows is an emotional reaction where people “dig their heels in” and become further entrenched in their own belief, and more strongly convinced that others have been led astray (and need saving).

Unfortunately, feelings can’t always be trusted. I felt good feelings while hearing one of the stories behind Del Parson’s most famous painting. I loved that story . . . that is, until I heard it from Del Parson himself at a talk that it was completely false. I was confused and wasn't sure what to think about it (I was experiencing what is called cognitive dissonance). So I guess that’s why the Scientific Method was invented.

Finally, the last piece of caution given to LDS members is to not read or look at anything that might weaken their testimony. To me this sounds like the desperation of the Wizard of Oz - "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" The leaders are so worried about the general membership finding out about the ruse that they have to scare them away from even looking. Going back to the Santa thing, it's like when parents tell their children to not look in mommy's closet so they don't find the presents and shatter the illusion. Personally, if I were confident in a product I sold, I would challenge others to find the flaws instead of hiding them. Actually, that's what scientists and mathematicians do when they do research. Before it's published, it's sent to various peers to find flaws with the logic and methodology used. After taking what peers say into account, the research and peer review process is started over. It continues until nobody can find anything wrong with it.

I'll end this with three quotes from past General Authorities.

#1: If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak. (Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, Page 216)

      -  George Albert Smith, LDS Church President

#2: I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.”

            - LDS Apostle Hugh B. Brown, “A Final Testimony,” from An Abundant Life, 1999

#3: "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed."
            -  J. Reuben Clark, LDS Presidency First Counselor

(authored by Joseph using Anne's blogger account)

Objection!

      So my youngest brother introduced me to a series of lawyer/courtroom video games called Phoenix Wright, in which you play a defense attorney. I thought it sounded like a lame concept for a video game at first, but it’s actually really fun. It’s based upon the Japanese Criminal Justice system, which, when a case goes to trial is almost like “guilty unless proven innocent.” The main method of proving your client’s innocence is by finding instances where the witnesses’ testimonies contradict the evidence. When you find one, you get to yell a very satisfying, “Objection!” (which can also accomplished by pressing a button)

Finding those kinds of inconsistencies is also how Anne and I found our way out of the LDS church. Here’s an example: if you go to mormonnewsroom.org, and look at their frequently asked questions page, it has all kinds of things that are commonly asked. Two that caught my eye are right next to each other. Here’s a screenshot that I've highlighted, but in case you want to check it out for yourself to see that I haven’t altered anything but the colors, here you go.

Those statements blatantly contradict things that I was taught multiple times throughout the years I went to church. The FAQ claims that these were just a misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or speculation, trying to paint the picture that it was the local members who perpetuate these rumors and not the leaders/scriptures.

May I present exhibits A through H:


Exhibit A:

“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.”

   -D&C 132:20


Exhibit B: 

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know... that he was once a man like us.... Here, then, is eternal life – to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves... the same as all Gods have done before you...”

- Joseph Smith, Jr., “King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses, v. 6, pp. 3-4,
also in Teachings of the Prophet of Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346.
Source: http://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf


Exhibit C:

“The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself.”

- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 3, p. 93.


Exhibit D:

“That exalted position was made manifest to me at a very early day. I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This may appear to some minds as something very strange and remarkable, but it is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with His promises.”

- Lorenzo Snow, Unchangeable Love of God, September 18, 1898, emphasis added.


Exhibit E:

“Man is a god in embryo and has in him the seeds of godhood, and he can, if he will, rise to great heights.”

-Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball (1982), 28.


Exhibit F: 

Here’s one from lds.org's Gospel Principles manual:
Like before, only the colors were changed to highlight.

Exhibit G:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

 -  Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48, emphasis added


Exhibit H:

And finally, when asked about it in 1997 by TIME magazine, here’s what Gordon Hinckley had to say about it:

“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”

- “Kingdom Come,” TIME Magazine (4 August 1997): 56
[this is the original quote presented in its entirety. TIME omitted some of it with an ellipsis]


So as you can see, if the local members got that idea, it’s because the leadership was promoting the idea since the beginning. Trying to characterize it as non-doctrinal rumors spread by the lay people is clearly a case of blaming the victim. And instead of saying, "Yes, we teach that," the FAQ tries to weasel its way around so that it doesn't make the church look as "weird" and more mainstream.


The prosecution rests, your honor.

(authored by Joseph using Anne's blogger account)

Running Scared

Many in the LDS faith don’t understand why I would call this post “Running Scared,” because many of them are either not aware of some of these issues or have chosen to bury their head in the sand. But an ex-mo, such as me, already knows of the multiple lies and attempted cover-ups that the LDS church has tried in the past. So when they try to play it off as if they have always made this information available it infuriates me. For those who have read 1984 by George Orwell, the phrase, “We have always been at war with Eastasia” comes to mind.

Those who choose to bury their head and to ignore the facts also ignore the press when a general authority (Marlin Jensen) confirms that members are leaving “in droves.” They continue to ignore the fact that Jensen was then given emeritus status after coming out and saying things that hurt the churches appearance. They don’t even bother to look into why other general authorities have also been given the same status or they aren’t even aware of the term emeritus status. I believe this is due to the fact that it is pounded into the heads of all members to look away when they hear something that goes against the church.

I think that the church is slowly coming to terms with the fact that so many are leaving. And that is the reason they are publishing essays on many of the disturbing issues in their history. However, the essays so far don’t actually share all the details; they just touch on the issue and then they play it off as if it has always been common knowledge taught in the church.

The first essay was about the multiple accounts of the first vision. But the church fails to go into the major differences in the different accounts. Why would they want to point out all the differences when it would just hurt them? Instead they just point out that various aspects were emphasized to different audiences but that the gist is the same. This statement is from the June 1957 Improvement Era magazine and points out a major difference.

“I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

“I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and the Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two beings.

“This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day. I can remember quite vividly that in 1915 I had a mere dream, and while the dream was prophetic in nature, it was not startling. It has been long since fulfilled, but I can remember every detail of it as sharply and clearly as though it had happened yesterday. How them could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately?" Improvement Era, June 1957, p 436 (emphasis added).

The second essay was about Race and the Priesthood. This essay cracked me up as I read it because I think what person could possibly read this and not see how ludicrous it sounds. Why does God allow man to rule His church? Why doesn’t he stand up for what is right and have His one and only true church stand up for what is correct? Don’t we teach the youth of the church today to stand up for what is right? Why couldn’t God do the same thing? 

“Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion.” (taken from LDS.org article on race and the priesthood)

The previous statement makes me think that Joseph Smith was influenced by the times and man more than he was by God. Then there is Brigham Young who apparently didn’t talk to the same God as the other prophets. What a joke! If I was still a believer this would bother me greatly  and my shelf would be collapsing  This article makes me wonder when God will change His mind about same sex marriage; He does seem to change His mind a lot.

Indoctrination

Since I have been out, I have observed many who indoctrinate their children without really knowing that that is what they are doing. Many have their children memorize the Articles of Faith or other scriptures. I believe this is a form of brainwashing. I don’t think it is done intentionally but it is what they have been taught a good parent does. Another example of brainwashing is testimony meeting.  I remember hearing in church about the importance of bearing one’s testimony and that by bearing it often we would get a stronger testimony. President Boyd K. Packer stated, “A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it.” Shouldn’t we know what we believe before we get up and testify of something? Plus they tell you what a testimony is to consist of. This tactic works with just about anything. If a person tells themselves something over and over, and if they hear it over and over again they begin to believe it. There are also those parents that take their children up and whisper in their ears what to say. These young children are not old enough to know what they believe and the only reason they repeat LDS doctrine is because they are taught the same concepts week after week. 

Now I’m not saying we shouldn’t teach our children to be good people, but that we should teach them to keep an open mind and to not be afraid to doubt their their beliefs and to double-check things (in other words, to not "doubt their doubts). We should teach them to always seek for knowledge and truth and not to just shut the door because we think the one way is the right way. Everything should be questioned in this world. No one person can ever stand up and say I know this, but we can believe and have faith in something. But even then we should continue to gain knowledge and be open to hearing others’ points of view.

 The following link is to a well done video that discusses this topic further.

Josh breaks down Mormon mind control