After several months of deep thought and study, I have made the decision to leave the LDS Church. My husband and I came to the decision together and I never felt any pressure from him to leave or change my views. I even sent in my letter of resignation before he did. I have yet to hear back from them but I am technically no longer a member. I did not come to this decision lightly, there were a lot of factors that went into my decision and I do not regret it. I still want to continue my relationship I have with my Mormon friends and family. This doesn't change how I feel about anyone. I am glad that I'm being honest with those I love and myself. I've written down my reasons for leaving and I'll let you decide to read it or not. Thank you for giving me the chance to be honest. If you have any questions feel free to contact me however you want.
I think it really started with me after I had Ruben. It was a difficult birth and recovery and the pressure to get right back into my calling and participate same as usual was overwhelming. I also wanted to know my role as a woman better and I decided to study the subject in depth. I wanted to learn more about what Jesus Christ taught about women and after I exhausted the resources on lds.org I searched online to see what perspectives other Christian faiths had on Jesus's teaching about women. I realized that many people consider the women who followed Jesus to be apostles right along with the twelve men. This made me look more in depth on how the Church treated women in the past and how they treat them now. I found out that women were able to give healing blessing during the early days of the church, which is obviously not the case now. I grew frustrated as I continued to read talks on lds.org and looking at fairlds.org (a site that defends and attempts to explain things about the Church) and realized that I wasn't fulfilling my role as a woman as described in these two websites. After having Ruben I had some serious doubts about having any more children, the first few months were extremely difficult and a little traumatizing. I knew that if I decided to only have one child I would never quite fit the role I was expected to have as a wife and mother.
After thinking about this issue I decided to look more into what Joseph Smith taught and I found out about the issues with the Book of Abraham. Looking deeper into it led me to look at more of the church's history and I was pretty appalled. I decided I could't associate with a church that had such a terrible past and who is now trying to cover it up. Ben wrote a letter with a more comprehensive explanation of some of the issues that we both have with the church. Here are some parts of his letter that really solidifed my desire to leave:
The Book of Abraham
"There are many reasons to criticize the LDS church, but there is also objective evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the LDS church is not true. To me, the strongest such piece of evidence was learning the truth about the Book of Abraham [1].
"Canonized in 1880, the Book of Abraham is purportedly a translation of some ancient Egyptian papyri that came into the possession of Joseph Smith, supposedly containing "the record of Abraham, written by hisown hand on papyrus." This story is told in Sunday school so most members are aware of it. What most are not aware of is what happened to the papyrus afterward. While thought to be lost in the 1871 Chicago fire, fragments of the papyri have been recovered, including portions that were used to create the "facsimiles." We know these are the same papyri for numerous reasons including the fact that the facsimiles exist and are identical to the fragments that were recovered. "In Joseph Smith's day, no one could translate Egyptian hieroglyphics. Today, obviously, we've made a lot of progress in that area. Scholars have been able to translate the documents and found that Joseph Smith was way off. The papyri are common Egyptian funerary documents, and many other similar papyri exist. They have nothing to do with Abraham. There's no other explanation for this simple fact: Joseph had facsimiles made, numbered the sections, and gave detailed translations of specific characters (for example, "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head"); scholars today have shown that these translations are not even close to correct (the part identified as Pharaoh is actually "Label for Isis (text to the right of figure 2 of facsimile 3): Isis the great, the god's mother"). You can read Joseph's translation side-by-side with that of experts on the Wikipedia article for the Book of Abraham [1]. Mormon and non-Mormon experts agree on this translation and disagree with Joseph.
"So what does this mean? Well, Joseph clearly represented the Book of Abraham as a translation of an ancient document, similar to the Book of Mormon, and he was clearly a fraud. Let's be clear: he didn't claimthat this was an "inspired translation" similar to his translation of the Bible. He had an ancient documentand translated it incorrectly. If he blatantly lied about this, all of his credibility with regards to anything else he claims happened (especially translating the Book of Mormon) goes right out the window. I've discovered a great site [2] that looks at many similar issues objectively, using only official sources and allowing commentary from faithful members as well as critics. I have found that the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against the church, so much so that it is not reasonable to believe anymore. I could give further examples of doctrines that just don't stand up to scrutiny, but I'll leave it at that for now."
Feelings as justification for belief
"Missionaries often read Moroni 10:4 with investigators, which says that if you want to know the truth of the church, and ask "with real intent," you could know. I think it's ironic because to me, "real intent" would mean wanting to really know whether it's true or not, and accepting the possibility that it's not. In my experience, most people trying out "Moroni's promise" are looking for a confirmation of their belief and do not allow for the opposite to happen. If you receive no "answer," they tell you, that just means you need to keep trying until you feel it.
"Feelings are not a good reason for belief. We have feelings about things all the time that are wrong (e.g., "did I leave the stove on? Oh, no I didn't.") We tend to remember only the times that reaffirm our beliefs, though, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias [11] that has been well studied. The fact is, you certainly can feel good about the church after reading the Book of Mormon, but it's completely internal, not a message of truth from any god. Billions of members of other faiths feel the same way about their faith, and in spite of what the LDS church teaches about truth being available in all faiths, the various religions are in many ways mutually exclusive, teaching contradictory doctrines that their members believe as fervently as you believe the doctrines of your own religion. In fact, Muslims believe something uncannily similar to the LDS church's teachings: they believe that if you read the Koran and pray about it, you will know that Allah is god and Mohammad his prophet. Millions of Muslims have confirmed that this "test" worked for them. You might say that their good feeling is because their religion contains a part of the truth; they would counter that your good feeling is because your religion contains a part of the truth. There's really no difference. This is why feelings are not a good justification for belief, and objective analysis of the evidence is absolutely essential."
Here's the link to his full letter: files.bendmorris.com/leave.pdf
Since deciding to leave I have been much happier and my swings of depression aren't as bad. The Church teaches that people feel bad when they sin. But I was doing everything I was 'supposed' to do and yet there were days when I just didn't want to get out of bed or do anything. I felt like I was a bad person for feeling depressed and anxious. Like I was being punished but I didn't know why. This led me to think that there was nothing I could do about it and to just wait until the next life to find happiness. Now I know that isn't the case. I know now that I have days where I feel bad sometimes because of depression, not sin or Satan trying to bring me down. Just knowing that has made me so much happier and since I made the decision to leave I haven't had a single day where I don't feel like doing anything. I still get down, but I know the scientific reason behind it and that it is fixable. It's not a trial that God is putting me through to make me stronger, it's a combination of genetics, chemicals in the brain, and my own thought processes.
Thank you for taking the time to read my reasons and if there are any more questions please feel free to ask. I am willing to have an open and civil discussion with anyone who wants it.
Sincerely,
Carol Morris
Here are some more notes from Ben's letter:
Notes:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham
[2] http://www.mormonthink.com
[3] Evolution, though controversial in the public sphere, has long been accepted by biologists as a scientific fact on par with gravity. Some argue that "evolution is just a theory." So is gravity. Some people think that science starts as "theory" and then, after gaining enough evidence, becomes "law." This is an inaccurate view of the scientific method. Science begins with a hypothesis. Hypotheses are refined through experiments until they gain enough supporting evidence to be accepted as theory. A theory is different from, and never becomes, a law. A theory is a model that is used to explain things that we observe. Just as gravity explains what happens to falling objects (imperfectly, I might add, but it's by far the best theory we have so far), evolution explains why we have so many different kinds of species today, why they seem similar in some ways and different in others, why there are geographic and temporal patterns in species differences, etc. For well over a hundred years scientists have tested evolution as a possible explanation for biodiversity and it's the theory with the most supporting evidence and no significant refutation. It certainly explains the current state of life on earth much better than the Bible. In fact, even if you don't realize it, you probably believe in evolution (although "believe" isn't the right wordto use, because people don't "believe" in gravity - it exists, and you either accept that fact or do not.) Have you ever observed that (A) some animals are better at surviving than others (for example, a faster gazelle or a giraffe with a longer neck that can reach leaves the others cannot) and (B) parents have children that are similar to them, but a little bit different from each other? The logical extension of these two facts is evolution. Parents have children that are a little bit different from each other, the fittest ones are more likely to survive, and then have their children, and so on. Small differences each generation add up to large differences over a long period of time.See also http://mormonthink.com/scienceweb.htm#evolution
[4] There could not have been a global flood. If there had been, there would be an enormous amount of evidence. There would be geological and tree ring evidence, for starters. Also, it's inconceivable that Noah fit all living animals into a boat (two of some, seven of others), and the logistical problems inherent in such a story are staggering: for example, what did they all eat? Where did their waste go? Was every species of parasite and pathogen also present? Where did the water (enough to fill the entire earth) come from, and where did it go? How can you explain the huge amount of modern genetic diversity in a way that is consistent with this story? Why are there regional patterns in the evolution of species, if they were all present at the ark after the flood? The dimensions of the ark are given in Genesis and are wholly insufficient to contain even a fraction of animal biodiversity. Some apologists argue that the flood was merely a local flood and was exaggerated in the account in Genesis.This might work for other Christian denominations, but it doesn't work from an LDS perspective. The LDS church teaches that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. For biblical history to remain consistent, somehow the flood would have had to transport Noah from North America to somewhere in the Middle East. This means it would've been much more than just a local flood, and the problems above definitely apply. See also http://mormonthink.com/scienceweb.htm#noah
[5] See note 3 about evolution; the story of the creation and Adam and Eve, taken literally, cannot possibly be true, as we know that humans have existed much longer than 7,000 years and that they share common ancestors with other hominids including other species of the Homo genus (Neanderthals, Homo erectus,etc.) as well as chimpanzees, gibbons, and gorillas. The church, in the temple, teaches a literal view of this story; after all, if there was no literal fall, why would we need a literal atonement? After learning about primitive hominids that resemble humans and the evolutionary processes involved, one must ask oneself: at what point did god decide that they were "human" enough, and give Homo sapiens a soul, and name one of them Adam? What happens to all of the other hominids? Are they equivalent to animals? In spite of what Genesis says about giving man "dominion," there's really no difference between us and animals apart from our larger brains. Several other species have intellectual abilities that approach ours, including dolphins, elephants, and other apes. Leaving the church has helped me to realize that we should treat all life on earth with more respect.There are some great documentaries available (including a few on Netflix) on human evolution. I strongly encourage you to watch one. See also http://mormonthink.com/scienceweb.htm#adam
[6] The Book of Mormon has been called "the most correct book on earth" and was once considered the story of a group of Jews that came to the Americas and were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. The church has since distanced itself from this claim, saying that they were only among the ancestors. The claim of Jewish ancestry is not backed up by DNA evidence, which shows that Native Americans migrated to North America from Asia via land bridge, long before the time of the Book of Mormon. Currently, Mormon apologists believe that the events described in the Book of Mormon occurred in a small part of Central America, a much smaller geographical scale. This conflicts with the church's own teachingson the subject. In the Doctrine and Covenants, revelations were written calling early members of the church to preach the gospel to the "Lamanites" (i.e., the descendants of the Book of Mormon people.) Where did they go? Not South or Central America. They preached to the North American natives.There are many anachronisms in the Book of Mormon (things discussed in the Book of Mormon which werenot present in the Americas at the time) including, to list just a few: horses, elephants, steel, wheeled chariots, a currency system using precious metals, bees, cattle, goats, wheat, silk...the list just goes on andon.See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon
The Book of Mormon is purportedly the record of millions of people who existed over the span of about athousand years. They certainly would've left a huge mark that archaeologists and anthropologists would beable to uncover. We have ruins from much smaller civilizations that existed 10,000+ years ago but not a trace of the events of the Book of Mormon. The method of translation is also not something that all members know about. Joseph did not actually "translate" the plates. He had magical stones, which he had found in a well prior to claiming to find the golden plates. He would put them in a hat and then put his head in the hat and they would glow and words would appear, which he would dictate to a scribe. (Note that all depictions in art and film accepted by theLDS church give a very dishonest view of what happened, usually showing him reading from the plates whilea scribe recorded what he read.) It's interesting to look at the original, unedited text of the Book of Mormon as dictated by Joseph Smith. It contains serious grammatical errors that have since been corrected. For example:
• "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents..."
• "the bands which was upon my wrists..."
• "Moroni was a coming against them..."
Does this sound like something written by an all-knowing god, or by someone in 19th century America? Considering Joseph's claim that god gave him the word-for-word translation for him to read, this represents a significant difficulty. A few significant doctrinal changes have also been made to the Book of Mormon by the LDS church since Joseph's death. See also http://mormonthink.com/book-of-mormon-problems.htm
[7] The church does not make its financial records publicly available (which I think it should to be able to claim tax exemption) but the "less than 1%" figure is the best estimate we can make from all the evidence we have.See http://mormonthink.com/tithing.htm#howdoes
[8] I'm referring to this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101
I take issue with the following claims that I feel are dishonest attempts by the church to distance itself frompast doctrine:
•"The practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in the Church. The general standard of marriage inthe Church has always been monogamy, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (see Jacob 2:27)." Thisis blatantly dishonest. Polygamy is absolutely doctrinal and was a significant part of life for early church members. Polygamist sealings in the temple are still performed.
•"People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning... At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church..."It's not known why, how, or when? We certainly know all three. It happened under Brigham Young (Joseph Smith did ordain black members to the priesthood.) He taught, from general conference (and so did many other leaders) the doctrine of the “curse of Cain.” I can see why the church would not want to admit this, but it's reality.
•"We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is." Adam-ondi-Ahman, in Missouri.
•"Q: Do Mormon women lead in the Church?
A: Yes." Women are only “allowed” to lead otherwomen, and have callings in the primary, etc. Obviously, the real leadership of the church is 100% male and all female “leaders” are subject to men.
[9] http://mormonthink.com/QUOTES/blackintermarriage.htm
[10] "The Nazi State and the New Religions: Five Case Studies in Non-Conformity" by Christine Elizabeth King.
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
