By
Ken Clark
I need to admit up right away that I'm a little bitter. I feel lied to and used. The church had every opportunity to be
truthful from the time my wife and I took the discussions to the time we
left.
My wife and I left the
I had been seriously looking for
another job for some time due to harassment from Priesthood (PH) leaders and
CES administrators. I couldn't take it
anymore. They were not crazy about my
teaching style. I was honest in a gentle
way with institute students about the church's history and doctrine. I wasn't impressed with their denial and
dishonesty. CES and PH leaders refused to
acknowledge that superior resources on church history and doctrine are available
from books, journals, and websites labeled by church leaders as "anti." And that most of the independent sources are
not anti at all. They are objective.
I felt compelled to teach the truth
about the church's drastic revision of history and doctrine. It was an ethical bind: by remaining loyal
and teaching the LDS viewpoint about history and doctrine, I was being
dishonest but valuable to the church. However, by being honest with the students I was branded as disloyal and
I could be fired. I found out that it is
impossible to change the system from the inside. The humility that the church encourages
members to adopt--to remain teachable--is not present in church leaders when they
feel it necessary to protect the church's image.
As one general authority told church educators, "Some things
that are true are not very useful" (Boyd K. Packer to a Church Educational
System Symposium at BYU in 1981). It was
a commandment to professionals to hide uncomfortable truths about Mormon
history and doctrine from students instead of teaching it accurately. I gradually learned that loyalty is and
always has been more important to church leaders than honesty. Mormons from the beginning have revised their
history to create a sympathetic image of a people who have been persecuted and
driven by ruthless, godless, hypocritical mobs for no good reason. It isn't true. It's also a myth that Mormon prophets and
apostles have always been godlike, infallible, and exemplary representatives of
God. Much of the time they have, but
many times they have broken the commandments they are supposed to model. Nevertheless I felt tremendous pressure to
teach what CES ordered while trying to find another job. I gradually lost respect for the church
leaders because in annual temple recommend interviews they demanded that I be
honest. Yet in the classroom they
required me to be dishonest. When I
tried to be honest they called it undermining students' testimonies or
undermining the authority of the prophets of God. The vast majority of students found the
honest approach in my classes refreshing. The pressure from leaders resulted in weekly migraine headaches
requiring a prescription to manage and regular prescriptions of acid reflux
medication to prevent ulcers.
The
Second to the Last Straw--Bishop L
On
The bishop announced that he was dissatisfied with our
church attendance because we hadn't been to church enough to suit him. I reminded him that in May I had written him
a letter as a courtesy informing him that we were going to be out of town much
of the summer because of an unusual number of out-of-town and family
commitments. He seemed irritated about
the letter and indicated that the letter appeared to him to be a lack of respect. I told him that on the contrary, my intentions
were to grant him respect. He argued
with me about it and I saw that I could not convince him that my motives were
pure. Because I remained steadfast he
changed tactics. He suddenly demanded
that Teresa enter the conversation. He
literally shushed me and said, "Let's hear what Mom has to say! C'mon Mom, what
do you say?" She agreed with me of
course and tried to restate our intentions. He directed rapid-fire questions at her for some time. It appeared that he was trying to make her
contradict what I had said--drive a wedge between us. His facial expressions and tone of voice were
tinged with anger and desperation. He
wanted to prove a point. It wasn't working so he finally stopped badgering
her. He wasn't finished. He was just getting warmed up and began to
pursue another angle.
He asked me how often we attended
church when out of town. I told him that
it depended on where we were visiting. When conducting CES business in North Central Idaho I always attended
the ward I visited. What about when I
was visiting an out of town relative? I
told him "not very much on those occasions." He demanded that I be specific and tell him how many times I had
attended and how many times I had missed. I told him I couldn't be specific because I couldn't remember. I wasn't in the habit of carrying a calendar
with me to document my meeting attendance. I didn't know I had to. No one else
I had ever known in 33 years of church activity had to. I could never remember another member being
grilled about this issue--ever.
He became more aggressive and his voice became louder and he
demanded to know, "so most of the time or not?" I told him that "some of the time would be accurate I guess." He again demanded that I be more
specific. I told him I couldn't. He said,
"So are you saying not much of the time?" I said, "No probably most of the
time,” trying to remember if most of my visits that summer had been to wards
where I visited for CES business or whether I was out of town visiting parents
or relatives. He continued to bear down
on me. Finally, he concluded this
segment of the grilling with "I cannot renew your temple recommend because
worthiness requires that you attend YOUR OWN HOME WARD." I had just been released as a bishop a year
and a half earlier. I remembered nothing
in the handbook suggesting that that aspect of meeting attendance should be
given the disproportionate emphasis he had just given it. By that standard worthy members who travel a
lot with their jobs or even general authorities would not qualify for a temple
recommend. He seemed bent on convicting
us. I was taken back. It was a little surreal. Before I could reflect he listed another
complaint against us.
"Why haven't you paid any tithing
during the year?" I replied that we were
going to pay our tithing in a lump sum or pay it with some investment stocks
that we would turn over to the church at the end of the year, using the
provision provided by the church in their handbook of instructions. I went on to tell him that my secretary at
the Institute in
He startled us and suddenly moved on
to the next problem, without any closure on the tithing issue. "You read the scriptures too much in
Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School!” he blurted out. He seemed pleased after injecting the
accusation. I looked at Teresa in
amazement and she looked at me questioning if she heard him right. I wasn't sure either so I asked him if he
really said that I read the scriptures too much in church. He told me it was rude of me. I patiently explained that I had begun taking
my scriptures to church years before it became fashionable. For 33 years when talks and lessons were
being given I followed along or looked up related verses. Anyone who knows me can vouch for that. He continued to insist that I was rude. I was growing impatient and protested that he
should talk to the people who sleep during church, play tic-tac-toe, and wander
around the hallways out of boredom. He
insisted that I was rude in an effort to make sure he got the last word in I
guess. I let him. It was obvious by now that the outcome of
this "interview” with my "spiritual shepherd” was decided before we walked in
the door. He announced that we were not
temple recommend worthy.
He complained about some other
things, and I told him that I wanted to appeal his decision not to renew our
temple recommends. "Fine, but the stake
president is going to have to tell me that I am wrong!” He seemed confident that that would never
happen. I was absolutely confident that
it would because his case against us seemed so petty, unchristian, and
bizarre. How could the stake president
support him? He was acting crazy! I had served as a bishop I wouldn't have
dreamed of roughing up members the way he had. I didn't know that he and the stake president were in complete agreement
because of meetings they had held prior to our encounter.
The next day (
He listed the bishop's concerns. I
told the stake president that it sounded as if the bishop thought I was
lying. He admitted that indeed the
bishop didn't trust me.
I discussed reading scriptures
during the meetings too much and the stake president clearly didn't want to
address it. I pointed out how absurd and
bizarre it was that I should be accused of such a silly thing. I thought it demonstrated just how crazy and
out of hand the rest of the bishop's accusations were. He said that he doubted if it was the heart
of the bishop's concerns. I reminded the
president that we spent as much time on that issue as any other subject. He clearly didn't want to talk about it
however. I am guessing that it was so
indefensible, that he couldn't support the bishop's point of view. He wanted to get to the stuff he felt he
could make defend.
He said that he too was worried that
I wanted to pay my tithing at the end of the year as a lump sum. I told him that I didn't see what the problem
was. Did he call everyone in for an interview
that chose to pay tithing in a lump sum at the end of the year? "No,” he admitted. He asked why I hadn't been to tithing
settlement in a while. I told him that
when I was bishop I was too busy. I was
busy conducting tithing settlement too. I think I had missed one tithing settlement after my release. I had written a letter with my last check (to
bring us up to the right amount) declaring that we were full tithe payers. He told me that the bishop was pretty upset
about the letter. (I must be a terrible
letter writer because the bishop didn't like any of them.) The bishop hadn't said a word to me about
it. I learned that because I had failed
to show up in person to the last tithing settlement, Bishop L had listed me as
a part-tithe payer the previous year despite the letter declaring us to be
full-tithe payers. "Why hadn't the
bishop said something to me instead of sneaking around behind my back if he was
so upset?" I asked. It seemed a little
passive-aggressive.
I
asked the stake president, "Does the bishop think I didn't pay a full tithing
because I pay it on my net income?" I've always done it that way,
since being converted in 1970. Apparently it bothered the bishop. I was supposed to pay more to the $6 billion per-year corporation. They held the threat of not receiving a
temple recommend over my head. A condition
of my employment with CES was that I hold a valid temple recommend. Refusing to renew it is a strong arm tactic
to keep me and other church employees in line. I could not remember Jesus threatening disciples because he demanded
more money from them. His emphasis
seemed to be on loving one's neighbor. Jesus wasn't wealthy like the Mormon Church is. Jesus of Nazareth rejected crass materialism
(Matthew
I'm distressed about the guilt
heaped on members to pay tithing, even when they don't make enough money to buy
food and pay their rent. "He that is
tithed shall not be burned at his coming,” so says Doctrine & Covenants
64:23 (scripture and revelations revealed to Joseph Smith by God in addition to
the Book of Mormon). Teresa and I were
not able to provide food in the early 1970's, yet we were continually coerced
with guilt and fear to pay up. In
The stake president addressed the
meeting attendance issue next. I was
tired of lying down and being treated like a doormat. So I argued with him rather than lie down and
take it anymore. He was still trying
hard to be folksy and cordial while we debated. He needed to get back to work and wanted to cut to the chase. He said he
had a simple solution to this problem. I
could do two things to earn the bishop's trust: (1) I should bring in my
paycheck stubs and let him and the bishop calculate my tithing for me; and then
pay that amount by-the-month. I was
supposed to forget about the options of paying in a lump sum or turning over
stock in lieu of tithing. (2) When
visiting relatives out of town, I was to attend church and bring back
information so my bishop could call the out-of-town bishop and verify our
presence there. He smiled proudly and
said, "I think that will solve everything. You'll gain his trust back in a few months or a year." This wily stake president, with his "ah
shucks” way was not only being heavy handed, but he was misleading me. He knew that in a week Bishop L would be
released and a new bishop would replace him. There was no way that I was going to solve any problem with Bishop L "in
a few months or a year." He wouldn't be
around. And I was the one being accused
of dishonesty.
I nearly fell off my chair. He could tell I was stunned, bewildered and
upset. He seemed to enjoy the obvious
advantage because he sat there with a big toothy grin. I asked him why I was being singled out and
persecuted. He told me that it wasn't
that at all. It was a matter of my being
in a very prestigious position in the stake. I was an Institute Director. "Why
you're almost like a stake president. You are an example and should be held to a higher standard." I told him that there were no separate
standards for different members, and asked him to justify his separate
standards in the handbook of instructions. He said he felt sorry that I wasn't being more cooperative and he was
worried about my testimony. He wondered
if I was "tough enough” to stand the chastisement. We talked more, but to be honest it's all a
blur. (The reason I remember the things
I do is because I took notes of the conversations and I keep them in my files.)
He left giving me a good-hearted
handshake. But I was angry and
confused. For 33 years the standard line
from leaders has consistently been, "Your tithing is between you and the Lord." (The Church Handbook of Instructions Book 1
page 134 defines tithing as "one-tenth of all their interest annually." It goes on to say, "No one is justified in
making any other statement than this.")
I had never heard of leaders telling a member to bring their
paycheck stubs to a leader so he could calculate their tithing and demand that
they pay it by the month. I had never
heard of attendance Nazis checking up on a member's out of town meeting
attendance. If they did institute the
practice, the majority of members on vacation would be in for a shock. It was bizarre. According to the Book of Mormon pride is a
terrible sin. What I had just experienced
was over the top smugness and arrogance (See also Ezra Taft Benson, Beware of
Pride, Conference Report, April 1989). I told myself "never again."
I left work immediately after the
interview because I was devastated and depressed. I had already worked the 320 hours that I
committed to CES. In fact, every summer,
I always worked at least 80 to 100 hours more than I contracted to so I would
be prepared for the coming school year. Didn't that kind of effort count for something or indicate something
about my character? I never received a
word of support, gratitude or encouragement for my effort to put in extra hours
during the summer months--time I could have used for vacation (or really
exciting home projects)!
As I climbed into my truck, I called my wife on the cell
phone. She was at work and when she
answered, her first question was, "How did it go?" I answered, "Great!” She was relieved. We had been through quite a few of these
inquisitions before so she was glad to be through another one. I asked her to meet me for dinner after she
got off work and I would tell her all about it.
After our conversation my pain
changed to anger. Sometimes anger speaks
to the mind with greater clarity than anything else. I was determined to figure out a way to
quit. It became clear to me what to do
and for the first time in 33 years I wasn't afraid to quit. Teresa and I could do anything we set our
minds to. I refused to waste another
minute being scared and depressed because I was dependent on the church. I was no longer trapped by their threats of
reaping eternal misery. That had ended
years before.
I was tired of working for a group whose main method of
control is heaping guilt, shame and fear on members and threatening them with
eternal separation from God and family. I wasn't willing to give up my right to question and think for myself
another minute so I could pretend to be loyal. I was sick of being blindly submissive; pretending that leaders of the
church possess some special gift of inspiration or discernment when it is
obvious to that their judgment is mediocre, arbitrary or sometimes
ridiculous. I was tired of being told
that I was unworthy. I was tired of
having them try to convince me that I ought to feel inadequate because I
reserved the right to put their "inspired counsel” to the test. I was tired of being told that I needed to be
more orthodox. Why didn't they value honesty above orthodoxy? History proves that dictators always insist
on orthodoxy and unquestioning obedience. I was weary of being told it was wrong to teach the truth to members
about the church's history and past leaders. I was tired of pretending that simple-minded men (always men) are the
wisest among us. I did not believe that
when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done. In truth, members are supposed to believe
that when their bishop or stake president speaks, the thinking has been done
too. In my mind, it's just silly.
Church leaders often appear incapable of dealing with the
real complexities and subtle nuances in our lives. Almost everything is seen in purely black and
white, absolute terms. They offer cookie
cutter, simpleton advice to all members no matter what the problem--read the
Book of Mormon and pray about it. "The
Holy Ghost will tell you what to do." Trouble is, when you pray and reach a different conclusion than one of
your leaders, you are the one who didn't do it right or you weren't worthy
enough to receive the right answer. They
never entertain the thought that Joseph Smith or one of the living leaders is
just plain wrong. I'm offended that the
Mormon leaders expected me to respond as a dumb child who needed the church to
tell me what to think say and do. An
attitude of arrogant entitlement and control leaves little room for humility in
church governance. And too often the
trivial and peripheral are treated as fundamental. It's the "don't tell the emperor he has no
clothes” syndrome.
I spent the rest of the drive home figuring out ways to quit
and avoid financial ruin. If we needed
to, we would rob our savings and/or retirement and pay off the house, and I
would find another job. After all, I had
a Ph.D. in Education Administration (emphasis in Higher Education), a Masters
in Counseling and a teaching certificate, K-12. Why couldn't I find something else? I began to feel happy and excited by the thought that I would no longer
be subject to mind numbing and tortuous inquisitions, arbitrary rules and
unyielding leaders who insisted that we regard their every decision as inspired
of God. I had pulled back the curtain
and saw that the wizard was only an old white guy trying very hard to prop up
the fairy tale created by past Mormon leaders. Traditions trump honesty in the church.
When my wife and I met for dinner
that evening, she reached across the table, grabbed my hands, smiled, her eyes
gleamed (she has the most beautiful eyes) and she kissed me. I was eager to share the news. I waited for the waitress to finish her
duties and after she left, I blurted it out. "I want to quit CES and the church!” She barely hesitated. She giggled
and immediately cried out, "YES!” She
couldn't believe I was finally ready to do it. She had wanted me to quit CES for years because of the amount of abuse
heaped on me by insecure administrators for awful offenses like, "You say
"stupid” a lot. (I endured a 3-hour
verbal roast because of that one.) She
had been waiting for years for me to believe in myself enough to quit.
I can't describe how happy we were. Making the decision and then saying it out
loud lifted an enormous load. We ate our
meal and planned our escape from Mormon domination. We both had ice tea--a sign of real rebellion!
The next day was Tuesday, August 6th. I called a good friend in
I spent the rest of that same day
trying to determine what options to pursue to keep the financial pain and
strain my quitting would create to a minimum. I made a pretty good income with CES. My base salary had been approximately $62,500, plus an extra $8,000 to
$10,000 in summer income. We had grown
used to living pretty well because in addition to my salary, Teresa worked as
part-time as a Registered Nurse. We were
comfortable financially but it just wasn't worth it anymore. I refused to give up my right to think and
speak honestly for money.
My training and work experience for 27 years was in a narrow
field. Working in CES is all about
teaching religion with a Mormon slant, being clever and delivering the
party-line to kids who come to with questions--follow the prophet. It doesn't hurt if you are really good at
sports and ping-pong either. There are 2
universities and 1 college within 35 miles of
I couldn't even get an interview as night supervisor at the
student recreation center for 1/3 of my present salary. Truth is, they already had people in place or
knew whom they wanted to hire before they advertised the position. They advertised it to make it look like they
were interested in finding the best candidate. I don't blame them. But I got
scared. I liked being scared about this
problem instead of waiting for the phone to ring and having some CES
administrator or PH leader summon me to another inquisition.
I once got calls from two CES Zone Administrators from Salt
Lake grilling me because I had referred a 30-year old married, law student to
an article by Lester Bush out of Dialogue about why the church denied black members the
opportunity to hold the priesthood (PH). (See also Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race
Issue in a Universal Church, edited by Lester Bush and Armand Mauss, [Salt Lake
City Utah: Signature Books, 1984].) I
was told to be prudent and not undermine the testimonies of students. I informed the administrators that the person
they were referring to wasn't an institute student--he was a member of my ward
who asked me for information as his bishop. Besides, the information I directed the man to was responsible and accurate. I asked what my actions as a bishop had to do
with my CES employment when in this case they were not related? I never received an answer, but I got
warnings to be careful what I discussed with students. It was a veiled threat to avoid anything that
the church doesn't want to have to answer questions about--especially if the
answers reveal flaws in its leaders or the church bureaucracy. Apostle Dallin H. Oaks chiseled it in stone, "It does not matter that the criticism
is true." (Dallin H. Oaks, Reading
Church History, Ninth Annual Church Educational System religious Educators'
Symposium, August 16, 1985, Brigham Young University.) In CES it's your duty to keep the mystique
alive that the leaders are infallible.
On the morning of
I picked up the phone and called my
friend in SLC at CES headquarters and told him that we were submitting our
formal resignation, and asked for directions on how to proceed. He offered some wonderful words of encouragement
and gracious support, and then told me what to do.
I called my Area Director in
I called 3 colleagues who I still love. They worked with me for 12 years while I was
at the
My friends had heard me threaten to quit CES after enduring
some awful roasts in the past. My
colleagues were sad for me but they were torn. They wanted to offer their sympathy, but they would not cross the line--the
one that would make them look disloyal to the PH. Each CES colleague was a counselor to a
different stake president. One of them
is the second counselor to the student stake president--one of the stake
presidents who had made my life a living hell. My other colleague was first counselor to the stake president who I had
met with just two days before--the one who wanted to examine my paycheck stubs
and tell me how much tithing I should pay. They were absolutely loyal to the PH. I hated it. They knew that the
priesthood guys were way out of line, but they couldn't bring themselves to
admit it out loud. They circled the
wagons to protect their own jobs. They
had told me in previous conversations how terrified it made them to think about
leaving CES and find a job. They were
convinced that they couldn't make it outside church employment. I used to believe that too. Because of their fear induced paralysis they
wouldn't give me a lot of support--unless silence and "I'm so sorry” count. Some of that is due to the fact that I not
only opted out of CES but out of the church as well. Contrary to the lip service given to the
principle of obedience, loyalty is the first law of heaven in the church.
It bothered me that PH leaders are
unaccountable for nearly everything they say and do. I told my friends that a system that rewarded
atrocious behavior on the part of its leaders was sick and uninspired. It was a systemic problem and not a problem
with an individual as they tried to persuade me. I explained to my friends that
I didn't plan on ever coming back to church. I had lost so much respect for the system, rules, the hierarchal
organization and the demand that "when the leaders speak the thinking has been
done." I was tired of being ordered not
to think.
I was embarrassed that I hadn't had the courage to leave
earlier and I shared that weakness with my friends. It really hurt their feelings to hear me talk
that way. They love the church. They took it personally. I didn't go out of my way to hurt them. I only wanted to let them know that when I
said I was fed up and wasn't going to take it anymore, I really meant it. I didn't intend to submit to another phony,
pompous PH leader's arbitrary behavior again. There was some weeping on the phone. It wasn't me. I was too happy,
scared, enthusiastic and anxious. I
suspect they believed in their hearts that I had lost my soul. That's effective brainwashing on the church's
part.
It's a common theme that you cannot possibly be happy
without the church. When we would go to
church dutifully on warm summer days and see our neighbors take off for boating
and fishing trips or different church meetings, I think we all tried to
convince ourselves that they were weren't really happy--they couldn't possibly
happy--they weren't members of the true church! After all, we were righteous Mormons, who went to church even when it
hurt. Members frequently stand and
declare that if they weren't members they would probably be very unhappy and
living a life of sin. They honestly
believe that. That cliché breeds
dependence and then smugness.
I love my friends, and used to drop by the institute in
It's my opinion that
the leaders of the church encourage the use of devious tactics. Unwittingly or otherwise they have taught
CES employees and some PH leaders that it's okay to exaggerate or minimize
(lie) to protect the church and its leaders. Joseph Smith made it a time-honored tradition in Mormonism to "beat the
devil at his own game." Many Mormons
believe that it's okay to compromise the truth in order to protect the church,
because you're accomplishing a greater good. God's laws trump the laws of man. Interviews by Church president Gordon B. Hinckley to various media in
the past decade prove my point. He has
denied that the church teaches that God was once a man and that Mormons can
become gods and goddesses. He knows
that's blatantly false. He has declared
that only a small percentage of Mormons ever practiced polygamy (2-3%) when he
knows it was ten times that number or more (he's an amateur church historian
and has authored at least one book on church history). He denied that DNA evidence exists which
contradicts the Book of Mormon teaching that Native Americans are descended
from Israelites. The DNA evidence is
clear and undercuts the Book of Mormon thesis that colonies of Hebrews are the
direct ancestors of American Indians. He denied that Mormons led and carried
out the Mountain Meadows Massacre though he knows differently. Members watch the Mike Wallace and Larry King
interviews and learn that prevarication and deception is alive and well in the
highest echelons of the church--all for a good reason--to create a sanitized
image of the church and its people, and protect the church from embarrassing
criticism. When President Hinckley
acknowledges his deception publicly with a wink and a nod to members gathered
at a church general conference, members laugh approvingly (see Richard and Joan
Ostling, Mormon America, p. 296).
The colleague I worked closest with, the one who served in
the student stake presidency gave a talk about me in ward conference (an annual
meeting where stake leaders attend and focus on goal setting) not many months
after I dropped out. He told the
audience how sad he was that I left the church. Though he never mentioned me by name his hints and clues were clear to
my son and everyone else in the audience that he was talking about me. He said that my problem was pride. He said I stubbornly refused to humble myself
before my PH leaders. When I confronted
him about it in person he frankly admitted his error and apologized. He was pretty scared as I stood over him and
visited with him. I told him if he ever
wanted to give that talk again, he needed to invite me along and give me equal
time so I could give them the real story. I forgave him and told him never to do that to me again. My son reported that he had not told his
audience about the PH harassment I had endured. It was a typical dishonest account designed to defend the outrageous
behavior of flawed leaders who want to appear sinless by distorting the truth
to help them maintain their blameless image. As I keep saying, loyalty is more important than honesty in the
church. Deception is acceptable when
defending the church and its leaders. To
paraphrase, truth is the first casualty when defending the church and its leaders.
The deliberate ignorance and overwhelming indifference to
mistreatment by ecclesiastical leaders is discouraging to me. Members are trained to turn their heads and
treat those who refuse to take it anymore as "lost sheep." It's disgusting that they are willing to give
up their right to think, question and demand answers. But it won't change anytime soon.
Teresa and I joined the church in 1970 approximately 6 weeks
after marrying, during my sophomore year at
I didn't learn that until after I was baptized that my
friend had totally misrepresented most of the things he told me about the
church. He wasn't being malicious or
sneaky. He was simply uniformed about
the church's history and doctrine. That's not uncommon. After all,
19-21 year-old boys ( and some girls) ride their bikes around pedaling
Mormonism all over the world and they are the full-time "pros." I used to prepare those kids in seminary and
institute classes and send them out on missions. I can vouch that they don't know much about
church history and doctrine. Most had
never read the Bible or Book of Mormon from cover to cover. By their own admission, most don't have
"testimonies” when they decide to go--often under tremendous pressure from
parents, seminary and institute teachers, girlfriends, etc. Missions are breeding grounds for all kinds
of misinformation. Missionaries
routinely learn mocking terminology when talking about other churches. They aren't particularly mean or
malicious. They just don't know any
better. They have no life
experience. They are trained by other
20-21 year-olds in the mission field. I
got frustrated and weary listening to them mock "J-dubs” (Jehovah's Witnesses),
"Holy Rollers”, "wicked Catholic priests”, and other religious groups. It was always based on incorrect and
distorted information. I corrected their
misperceptions every chance I got and pointed out to them that virtually of my
extended family belonged to different churches and they did a better job of
practicing Christianity than most Mormons I knew. They used to look at me like I had eaten one
of their parents. How could I be so
disloyal?
My new wife wanted to please me so she agreed to take the
discussions with me and we joined together in April of 1970. Because the missionary discussions are pretty
bland and don't really teach you about the strange beliefs of Mormonism (plural
marriage, barring black Africans from PH privileges, man can become god, God
was once a man, etc.). We weren't aware
that we weren't getting a lot of the "inside” information. We were joining because we were confident
that we were getting the full Monty. That's what we were led to believe.
Conversion is based on emotions stimulated during missionary
discussions and church meetings, and being loved by a whole group of people who
seem extremely happy that you are investigating their church. Pray and "feel” the spirit. Listen to your "heart." Does it "feel” right when you read the Book
of Mormon and pray? Independent sources,
independent evidence or factual information that may contradict what is being
taught, and may be more accurate is absent. An emotionally charged atmosphere is sometimes present during missionary
discussions. Sometimes when it's quiet a
missionary or member may tell you in a hushed voice, "that's the spirit telling
you it's true. Do you feel it?" Virtually any good feeling is the Spirit as long as it confirms
something you're supposed to believe.
Mormons believe that when you feel good about Mormonism, the
Book of Mormon, etc. The Spirit has just given you all the evidence you need to
know that it is true. They believe the
good feeling is superior to any other kind of evidence. You are strongly discouraged as an
investigator to seek out independent sources to investigate the truth of their
claims. I like to compare the validity
of a testimony of the Mormons to the Karo Tribe in
The members of the church were convinced that Elder Paul H.
Dunn was a special vessel of God's Spirit because he told miraculous stories
about war and baseball to Mormon audiences. He also wowed (translate: fooled) fellow general authorities. He was a member of the church's Quorum of
Seventy (they are said in the Doctrine and Covenants to be a quorum "equal in
authority” to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (D&C 107:26). Leaders and members felt the truth of his
message in their bones. He was also the
most entertaining speaker of all the general authorities. After all, who could top those stories? Everyone "knew” God had anointed him with a
special gift and calling and had a special purpose for him. God had given him those experiences so he
could teach the youth to be faithful, unquestioning, and loyal Mormons. Trouble is he turned out to be a liar. None of his stories about baseball or war
were true. (Repeat that sentence again
for effect emphasizing the word "none”.)
It's a dangerous thing to trust feelings completely without
some system of checks and balances. But
that's exactly what Mormons want investigators to do. Returned missionaries used to tell me how
distressing it was when an investigator would actually study independent
sources to check out their stories about the church. From the missionaries' point of view, Satan
invariably led those studious investigators away from the church. If only they wouldn't study!
Using the Bible to prove that Mormonism is the only true
church is one cornerstone of missionary work. The scriptural evidence that's provided to investigators consists almost
entirely of proof texting. A verse here
and a verse there are lifted from the Bible to prove a point, regardless of its
context. For instance, missionaries and
teachers in church classes, and of all places in general conferences held every
April and October, frequently use 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 to prove that the Word
of Wisdom, the church's prohibition against alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea,
is supported by the Bible. This
particular passage at first glance seems to indicate that one's physical body
is sacred and should be kept pure or God will not be pleased. In reality, if one begins reading from the
first verse and continues it becomes obvious that Paul is comparing Christ's
community of believers to a building--a temple. He's admonishing the church collectively to exhibit humility and
spiritual maturity and rid themselves of problems that plagued the church. It is not remotely related to the Mormon
health code or any other health code.
It disturbed a fair number of people when I pointed out this
common error. At first I was told that
scriptures can have many different meanings. I countered with, "Not when the meaning is spelled out clearly by its
author on a subject as clear as the one in 1 Corinthians 3." I need to point out that because Mormons
insist on using the King James Version most of the everyday members do not
understand much of what they read (based on their own admission). So they think that you can interpret passages
of scripture almost any way you want as long as it inspires you and motivates
you to become Christ like. I know
charismatic seminary teachers who testify to it. They assume it's all confusing and scriptural
authors don't really say what they mean and mean what they say. In classes I encouraged students to read the
New International Version or others that put scriptural language in an
understandable format. Some thought it
was heresy.
I was also accused of mocking the leaders of the church by
pointing out verses they had taken out of context. It's wrong to point out a mistake. The general authorities are nearly all former
businessmen, lawyers, and CES employees. They aren't theologians by any stretch--even the studious ones. I was supposed to pretend that they were
right when they were wrong to preserve their image. (The emperor has no clothes syndrome.)
I was too inexperienced and vulnerable at age 20 during the
missionary discussions to stop and say, "Emotions are not evidence that
something is true." They are just
feelings. Sometimes they are indications
of what kind of mood you're in (I treated members with bipolar disorder and
during depressed periods they were full of self loathing and feelings of unworthiness. When they were "up” they felt spiritually in
the groove); sometimes feelings are the result of getting carried away in the
moment; sometimes they are wishful thinking; sometimes they are the result of
hearing only one side of a story. In any
case feelings are not dependable measures of truth, facts or knowledge. I wasn't mature enough at that time to fully
understand that. I was carried away with
the feelings attending the missionary discussions and church meetings where we
were treated like royalty. It was very
flattering and I loved to be flattered. At that age I desperately wanted the approval of the missionaries and
the members. I was thrilled by the considerable attention the members gave
us. Though the Book of Mormon preaches
against it, flattery is an important missionary tool for the church.
I did not know that our progress was being carefully
monitored and "helped along the way” by the ward leaders attending weekly
Sunday leadership meetings. I did not
know that tactical plans and coordinated assignments were made to insure that
we felt loved and welcomed. I didn't
know that ward members were assigned to invite us over to dinner, offer us
rides, with the responsibility to report back. I just loved all the attention and though these were the best people in
the whole world. My wife wasn't moved
nearly as I was by the slavish attention. She carries a wonderful sense of healthy skepticism with her. Had I listened to her we would have never
joined the church.
If I had
been more mature then I would have questioned why the Mormons demanded such an
unquestioned devotion and obedience to elderly white men. It was hero worship when I later stepped back
and thought about it. It was sort of
like the reverential awe paid to the pope, except he is much more limited
within the confines of papal infallibility than Mormon leaders are. They were treated like old rock stars. Joseph Smith and the living prophets were
elevated to exalted status. According to
Mormons Joseph Smith was the greatest mortal who has ever lived because he did
more for mankind than anyone else except Jesus Christ. (Doctrine and Covenants Section 135, verse
3) Why didn't I question that cult-like
demand for obedience? Why didn't I
question that Jesus and the atonement were pushed to the background and
obedience to Mormon prophets was thrust into the foreground? Why didn't I
question, the Mormon mantra, "Obedience is the first law of heaven,” or "The
prophets will never lead the church astray,” or "Obey the prophets and even if
it's wrong you'll be blessed?" That's crazy! If there is a first law of heaven, it‘s free
will, the right to think and choose for one's self. Only later when I was
teaching for the church did it occur to me that a lot of time and talk is invested
in reminding members that we fought a war in heaven to preserve the principle
of agency--the right to make choices. Yet
you were supposed to surrender your agency to God. That translates into giving it to the Mormon
leaders because they speak for God. What
they say is exactly the same thing God would say if He were present (D&C
Mormons
contradict themselves and each other when teaching or defending the faith. I used to do it too. It's not the members' fault. Their leaders have said some really silly
things but you're not supposed to point them out or notice them. You're also not supposed to notice that
leaders routinely contradict each other, while claiming to receive clear and
direct messages from the same God. Imagine for a moment what kind of mixed up and confused being God must
be to say one thing through Apostle Dallin Oaks (homosexuals may have something
in their genetic make up that makes them that way) and the opposite thing
through Apostle Boyd K. Packer (homosexuals are the way they are because of
mischief and sinful behavior--there is no such thing as a genetic
tendency). There are hundreds of
striking contradictions that you are supposed to turn a blind eye to or
preferably never discover by reading studying.
It began
with Joseph Smith who translated the Book of Mormon (BM) as God wrote the
correct English sentences on a peep stone in a hat Joseph thrust his face
into. At least that was the first
claim. It had to be changed when Joseph
promptly began changing the awful grammar and some doctrines of the BM in 1837
when the second edition was published. Smith had written in 1 Nephi 11:18 that Mary "was the mother of God." When he changed his theology about
God, he changed that passage in the 1837 version to read that Mary was "the
mother of the Son of God." In
D&C
Joseph also
made drastic changes to the Doctrine and Covenants (revelations to Joseph
Smith) between 1833 and 1835 without the consent of other leaders. It caused David Whitmer, one of the most
prominent leaders next to Joseph Smith, to lose faith in him. He accused Joseph of receiving revelations
for the purpose of reserving power for himself and contradicting his own claim
that God was speaking to Him (David Whitmer, "An Address to All Believers in
Christ”).
The new and
changing views of the most basic doctrines provide cover for those trying to
explain the faith and find something in common with traditional
Christians. If Mormons are accused of
being brainwashed sheep who are supposed to obey leaders without question, the
Mormon can simply quote another leader who contradicted that idea and said the
opposite--that Mormons are supposed to think for themselves. Mormons can rarely be pinned down in a debate
about religion due to the many contradictory positions they may hold. Their
explanation is that God is merely giving new knowledge "line upon line, precept
upon precept” as mankind becomes ready for it. In addition, having no concrete definition of doctrine allows them to
neatly sidestep any question they personally don't agree with by saying, "that's
not official doctrine." They
don't seem to notice the absurdity of that position. For many years I didn't.
The missionaries were eager for us to "feel” the
truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Because I admired Elders B and A, we wanted to please them and to feel
something during the missionary discussions. They are trained to try and baptize as many converts as they can. They were only doing their jobs. I "felt” something because the pressure was on
to feel it. I was 20 and Teresa was
18. Basing your entire life on some sort
of unidentifiable feeling instead of rational evidence places the vulnerable
and insecure investigator in the uncomfortable position of wanting to please
the missionaries and members who have lavished kindness on them. If they are weak like I was, they will try
hard to do that. Being such young
newlyweds, we were also susceptible to a new religious group after a dramatic
life-changing event. I wanted their
approval and everyone else's too come to think of it. I grew up wanting approval. I can also look back and remember guilt and
the superstitious feelings I carried inside about God, human nature, religion
and spirituality. I was ripe for the
picking. Mormons bring concrete answers
to all of life's most profound questions and it appealed to me. I was too young to see that it was all too
pat. But I wanted to learn all those
simplistic explanations to all of life's hard questions. I wanted easy answers for virtually every
question. They had them.
Ideally, an investigator is supposed to learn a little about
the church, hopefully not be introduced to the serious historical and doctrinal
problems the church desperately wants to keep hidden, and then join the church
in about 2 weeks. It's a little like a
used car salesman who doesn't want a prospective buyer to check out their
"deal” with other dealers, Consumer Reports, or other good, independent
information. The quicker you buy and the
less you check out their claims the better. The big tool the used car salesman doesn't have is one that the Mormons
use routinely. "If you are given the
opportunity of joining the true church then turn away from it, you face an
uncertain eternity. You will have
rejected an opportunity from God's servants to join God's true church." That's what the missionaries told us or words
to that effect. We were young and
impressionable and I believed them (Teresa didn't).
Another point that deserves attention when referring to the
missionary discussions is the principle of informed consent. Ethics related to the practice of medicine
require that a patient be given all pertinent information about the risks and
benefits of a procedure before consenting to it. It's understood that the choices (autonomy)
of a patient cannot be honored unless they have good information on which to
base an informed decision about their health (See Beauchamp and Childress,
"Principles of Biomedical Ethics,” (New York: Oxford University Press 1994)
Fourth Edition). Similar ethical
standards exist in other helping professions. Mormon leaders feel comfortable ignoring this fundamental ethical
standard. When we were being taught by
the missionaries we were not given a full disclosure of what Mormonism is all
about--no one is, by design. The
discussions, whether missionaries used a flannel board, 3-ring binders, or the
little tiny spiral bound picture sets, are non-offensive and homogenized for a
reason. They carefully avoid what is/was
central to Mormonism:
(1)
God
was once a man who lived on an earth, was married and a polygamist,
(2)
He
lived such a good life he earned his exaltation through good works,
(3)
After
he died He was resurrected with a perfect body of flesh and bone,
(4)
Ditto
for his plural wives,
(5)
He
received power to create worlds including this earth, from His Father
(Grandfather God) in Heaven (who received if from His Father in Heaven (Great
Grandfather God), etc.,
(6)
He
impregnated his wives in heaven in the way that women get pregnant on earth,
(Brigham Young added that there is no other process of creation.)
(7)
Through
procreation God and his multiple wives created billions of spirit children
(it's a woman's duty to be eternally pregnant),
(8)
The
spirit children fought a war in heaven to preserve agency and Satan (one of
Jesus' brothers, a son of God, and one of the brothers of the rest of God's
children) was cast down to earth to tempt mankind to sin,
(9)
It
is the duty of women to prepare bodies for as many spirits as possible (women
practice having babies on earth and will continue to do it for eternity) and
men get to put them there. Polygamy is
the order of marriage in heaven.
(10)
Jesus
was one of God's spirit children just like the rest of us, making Him a spirit
brother of mankind (equal but smarter and better behaved),
(11)
Men
and women are supposed to prove that they are worthy to live in the highest
kind of heaven there is--the highest degree of glory of the celestial
kingdom--based on their deeds in this life (Abraham 3:22-23). They have to prove that they are worthy to be
a god.
(12)
Only
"valiant” members of the church will enter the highest degree of glory of the
celestial kingdom (D&C 76:50-70). Others who are really good but don't become members will be declared
"not valiant." (D&C 76:72-78).
(13)
Jesus
got his physical body because God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary,
making Him Jesus' biological father as well as his spiritual father. Bruce R. McConkie, a former apostle says that
1 Nephi
(14)
Jesus'
sacrifice on the cross didn't really pay for the sins of mankind--it was during
His pleading in Gethsemane for the Father to "remove this cup from me” that He
paid for everyone's sins--even though the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine
and Covenants all say He paid for everyone's sins on the cross.
(15)
Mormon
leaders taught for decades (late 1840's to 1904) that unless members practiced
polygamy they could not enjoy the highest degree of the celestial kingdom
because it was the most important law given to mankind.
(16)
Mormon
leaders taught that black individuals were unworthy to hold the Mormon
priesthood because they had been cursed by God for their lack of valiance
before coming to earth during the war in heaven. They had not been supportive enough of God
and Jesus and were cursed for their lack of faith with a dark skin and
miserable lives (Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Way to Perfection”). Brigham Young decreed that if a black
male/female married a white person only death "on the spot” for both of them
could atone for that drastic sin.
(17)
Joseph
Smith changed his story about the First Vision several times beginning in 1832
and ending in about 1840. Each new
version was more impressive than the preceding one, but contradicted "facts” in
earlier versions, and actual events in his life.
(18)
Joseph
Smith radically changed the meaning of many verses in the Book of Mormon and
Doctrine and Covenants after claiming that the original accounts had been
revealed to him by God--leaving open the question, "Was God confused or did
Joseph get it wrong after claiming to have gotten it right?"
(19)
The Book of Mormon doctrines and beliefs revealed in the Nauvoo period, and
still present today do not resemble those that Joseph adapted, changed, revised,
contradicted and altered later in his life and put forth as "official
doctrines."
(20)
Joseph
preyed on gullible young women to carry out his sexual fantasies under the
guise of obedience to God. He told
adolescent girls as young as 14 that they would forfeit their own and their family's
right to eternal life if they didn't marry him and consummate the marriage in
the customary way. He would be indicted
and convicted of rape and other sex crimes today. In Joseph's case however, he
married more than a dozen young women, plus other men's wives, 5 pairs of
sisters, and a mother and a daughter.
(21)
A
mountain of good scientific evidence proves conclusively that the Book of
Mormon could not possibly be what Joseph claimed. The archaeological and DNA evidence alone are
devastating to his claims.
(22)
The
Three Witnesses did not see anything. They admitted later in life that they saw gold plates "with their
spiritual eyes” and not in a literal, physical sense.
(23)
The
There is no attempt whatever to inform investigators what is
at the core of Mormonism or what the controversial issues are. It robs investigators of the opportunity to
make an informed choice about something they assume affects their eternal
state. Instead they don't know what
they're really joining. The process
behind the strategy is this. The young
missionaries, most of whom have never read the Bible through, are unaware of
the facts that contradict the missionary discussions they repeat by
memory. They think they have been
prepared by the crack troops in the Missionary Training Centers to handle
important questions, yet they have no knowledge of the history or doctrine of the
church they represent. I speak as an
expert on the subject. I taught,
prepared, and trained the prospective missionaries for 27 years. One of the stated purposes of the seminary
program is to train missionaries. (Seminary is a religious education program for those in grades
9-12.) Part of the Institute curriculum
is a religion class called Mission Preparation. (Institute is weekday religious instruction for college students.) The class avoided any hint that there are
mountains of evidence that contradict and undermine the foundations of the
church's doctrine and history. The
counsel is, "bear your testimony because no one can dispute your own personal
experience with the Holy Ghost” or words to that effect. It's unethical and borders on brainwashing. It mocks the principle of informed
consent. Apostle Boyd K. Packer
commanded CES teachers to teach only a version of history and doctrine that
builds faith. Not only is this practice
offensive, it is hypocritical coming from one who claims that the Mormon Church
is superior to all others.
I recall that shortly after being baptized, the Branch
President called us in to inform us that we were placing our eternal lives in
jeopardy if we continued to use artificial birth control. It was quite an intrusion into the most
personal aspect of our marriage. He
found out because a gossipy member had been quizzing me on what kind of birth
control we used, and I told him that we used the pill. He reported this sin to the Branch President. He retrieved dozens of quotations from church
presidents and apostles from his files (none more contemporary than 1947) that
warned the members against the evils of birth control. We had married young with the idea that we
would finish college before we began to have children. Fearing that God would punish us for
eternity, we stopped using the pill and Teresa immediately became pregnant.
We pretty much lived by the rule that "when the prophet
speaks the thinking has been done" and, "If you don't support your bishop [or
Branch President] you don't sustain the prophet." In fact that idea was reinforced in various
ways over and over again for the next 33 years. It made our lives miserable because the brethren made unreasonable and
sometimes impossible demands. It often placed us in tortuous double binds. I was supposed to be a model family man, but
I was supposed to never turn down a calling even if it meant being away from
home way too much while my wife was having babies just over a year apart. We feel silly now for being so gullible and
giving away our sacred right to plan our family ourselves.
Being a member of the Mormon Church meant that I was rarely
at home to help my wife with our growing family. I was attending meetings and feeling very
important. It was a nightmare for
Teresa. She began to wonder way back
then if the church was a bunch of baloney. It couldn't be true or else they would have more sense than to make such
unreasonable demands on us. Having to
raise a lot of small children without any help was killing her. But the church's view of women was that they
were put on earth to have as many children as they could bear and raise
them. We were told that Mormons were
supposed to provide homes for righteous spirits that waited in the pre-mortal
existence to come into our families. If
Mormons didn't have a lot of babies, then those poor spirits would have to go
to the homes of the Gentiles--non-members. That would be a tragedy. Surveys
reveal that that Mormons freely admit that they usually have larger families
than the norm is because they see it as a religious duty ("The Religion &
Family Connection: Social Science Perspectives” Edited by Darwin L. Thomas [
Inherent in such an attitude is arrogance and a
not-so-subtle dismissal of women as little more than baby factories though
members deny it. When we joined the
church females were counseled to raise up their children to the Lord, provide a
perfect home, teach their children the gospel, always be happy and cheerful,
make perfect home made bread and rolls, visit the sick, do visiting teaching
every month without fail, be a great and beautiful wife, be intelligent and
conversant with world affairs, never turn down a calling, and (stay beautiful
for your husband)--all the while having babies as fast as possible. We were never, ever, even slightly encouraged to use some sort of family
planning or birth control to protect Teresa's health. We were however reminded in various meetings
over the years to avoid being selfish and think of the millions of spirits who
needed to gain physical bodies. (Ezra
Taft Benson, "To the Mothers in
By the late 1980s and early 1990s Mormons began to hear the
leaders harp on having babies as fast as they could, less and less. After some overzealous PH leaders took it
upon them selves to meddle too much by telling couples what kinds of sexual
positions were approved of the Lord, they began to pull back. I remember sitting with President K in a
temple recommend interview in
Some overzealous PH leaders even went into great detail with
teens, teaching them about sexual encounters they had no knowledge of
before. The leaders received a lot of
complaints about those interviews. Couples since that time have been given more control over their
reproductive choices. PH leaders have
been ordered not to meddle in the affairs of married couples. It only took 150 years for that enlightened counsel.
Pregnancy dragged Teresa through a knot-hole backwards. Morning sickness turned into all-day,
everyday nausea. She never had that
"glow” that the Mormon men insist women get when they are pregnant. The morning sickness increased with each of
our five children. Teresa was ready to
die after our last baby. She was worn
out. Her tank was completely empty and
yet she needed to do more, or so the church told her over and over again. She was called to serve in the Primary
Presidency right after the birth of our 5th child. She couldn't say no because I worked for the
church and it might cast a bad light on my employment. Most Mormons when being transparent and
completely honest admit that they feel nagging guilt most of the time for all
kinds of things. Sometimes it's because
they would like to say "no” to a calling and sometimes it's because they feel
they are not doing enough to be approved by God. The leaders use guilt in liberal doses to
prod the members along. "A religion that
doesn't require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to
produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation." (Joseph Smith, "Lectures on Faith” Kirtland, Ohio, December 1834.)
After our first baby, we needed to go to the temple, get
married again so God would deem us worthy, (D&C 132:15-19) and have the
baby sealed to us so we could live together in eternity as a forever
family. Otherwise, no matter how
Christ-like we were for the rest of our lives, we would never make it to the
highest degree of glory of the celestial kingdom (D&C 131:1-4). Though there is nothing in the Bible or Book
or Mormon about temple marriage being a necessary pre-requisite because he
hadn't invented it yet. Joseph Smith
added this ordinance to the Mormon requirements in the 1840's during the Nauvoo
period. There is much evidence that his
reason for adding the eternal marriage component was so he could use it to
cloak his polygamous activities. Nowadays, the church never refers to it in those terms, and most members
are unaware of Joseph's original intentions for the ceremony (Fawn Brodie, "No
Man Knows My History” (2nd
ed., rev. and enl., 1st Vintage Book, July 1995); or Richard Van Wagoner's, "Mormon
Polygamy: A History, 2nd Edition (Signature Books Incorporated,
1989); also David John Buerger "The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon
Temple Worship” (Signature Books Incorporated, December 2002)).
We were told our civil marriage in the
We weren't very smart. Teresa was hemorrhaging pretty badly from the birth of our first
child. The birth had been a difficult
one for her. We had no business jumping
in the car with well-meaning Mormon handlers determined to get us to the temple
in
I didn't see one angel, or departed spirit in the temple! I did get the jolt of my life. The ritualistic ceremony enacted by live actors in the temple was shocking and disappointing. The special covenants were the usual kind except for the extraordinary promise to be willing to give everything including one's life if the church required it. The penalties and oaths for not keeping secrets were bizarre and pointed to a kind of paranoia. I promised to have my throat slit if I ever revealed anything that I saw or heard in the temple. I wondered what all the secrecy was about. Years later when I learned that Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from Masonic ceremonies then added his own tweaks to it I learned why. His closest Masonic friends and church leaders admitted