Google Scriptures Someone Can Give to Investigator With Doubts to Read in Book of Mormon

Why I left the Mormon church building

by Tom Johnson on January 16, 2014 •
categories: family

I joined the LDS Church in 1991 and stayed an active member until January 2014. I held many leadership callings, served a mission, graduated from BYU, and worked in the Church's IT section for five years.

What led me astray after being so consistent and assertive for so many years?

First, I want to define my audience. I am aware that many of those who leave the LDS or Mormon Church write biting why-I-left stories. These stories contrast with the why-I-joined stories. Both are therapeutic, but they don't persuade anyone who has a closed heed. People see and hear things as they desire to interpret them, and so rather than writing to persuade anyone in particular of the right or wrong of my decisions, instead, I am writing this entry for myself. It's a record for me about why I left.

Decision-making information

When I joined the LDS church, despite my efforts to research the pros and cons, I never really grasped all the complexities of the faith and religion itself. 1 rarely has a rich understanding of things, peculiarly at xvi. You learn about issues little by petty, and yous manage to castor aside the troubling ones through simple explanations. Y'all're able to find adequate ways to explain abroad unsettling data. When yous desire to believe something, yous willingly accept many workarounds to accommodate your belief.

Similar many others, I did this time and again. Simply gradually I started to experience a sense of dislike for the Church – for the Sun sacrament meetings, Sun School classes, and Priesthood meetings. I did not similar the manner teachers would oft skip over difficult issues. I did not like that Church-produced manuals could be and so selective nigh the history it included. Where I wanted to inquire questions, the Church wanted to provide quick answers or no answers at all.

Rather than fostering a curious, open discussion near doctrine, scripture, ideas, and history, it seemed the Church's agenda was always the same: provide simplistic answers, put forward definitive interpretations, remove controversy, leave out historical information that doesn't promote religion, try to exist as pragmatic as possible without exploring the ideas with much inquiry, sweep ugly historical details under the rug, and always stay in the safe zone.

Peradventure it was the English language major in me, but I always felt that I didn't quite fit into this culture. Rather than close things upwardly, I wanted to open up them up. Instead of simplifying complexity, I wanted to see the complexity backside the uncomplicated. I wanted to engage in critical thinking, sympathise and explore ideas – even "unsafe" ones. I wanted to learn the consummate and existent histories, and more.

The Church's curriculum tends to be a bulwark to these efforts to learn. For instance, I remember reading the Teachings of Joseph Smith transmission every bit part of the Priesthood and Relief Society curriculum. In the front end of the book, at that place's a historical timeline of the life of Joseph Smith. In the timeline, though his spousal relationship to Emma appears, at that place'southward no mention that he ever married more one married woman. If you lot didn't have any other information, yous would might think Joseph Smith was monogamous. (Run across Historical Summary).

Additionally, these manuals were selected excerpts of diverse talks and essays, cobbled together in a piecemeal way, presented every bit if a single article. For example, in that location might be excerpts from 20 different speeches or articles on a specific topic, with paragraphs extracted from each of the talks (granted, with footnotes indicating the references).

I always wondered if I'd see the same context and pregnant if I were to get together all the source material and read the articles in full. What was left out from their talks? No doubt whatsoever controversial statements or not-sanitized information would be filtered from the manuals, so they could exist fabricated prophylactic for a positive, faith-promoting classroom word. In particular, I imagine the Brigham Young manual was advisedly selected, given the many non-canonical doctrines he taught.

Without question, the Church manages its information carefully. And today'south practices seem to match the practices in the earliest days of the Church as well. Joseph Smith was jailed in Carthage, where he was shortly murdered, for destroying a printing press (the Nauvoo Expositor). This printing press disseminated information he did not desire known. In the accounts from Church-produced histories, you lot never quite become the full picture of why Joseph wanted the printing press destroyed. What were they printing? Why did Joseph incite and then much anger amongst his enemies?

Among other things, the Nauvoo Expositor independent extensive allegations that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy (or "spiritual wifery," as it was referred to). Apparently information technology was still a secret at the fourth dimension, even though Joseph had been practicing it for years. The Expositor would brand this information known. The printing had to be destroyed.

But why? Why would God command men to follow a practice of marrying multiple women, and in Joseph's case, marrying other men'southward wives (despite the sanctity of the family unit, which has been the Church's principal emphasis), and control him to keep information technology a clandestine, and to deny to the world the fact that he skilful it?

This is why you never hear many details about why Joseph commanded the press printing to be destroyed – because if you knew the details, you might enhance questions like these. By filtering the history, the Church is able to suppress doubt. But the fashion the Church building manipulates information is just as frustrating as the history itself. Can God be the author of this manipulation? If so, it's a civilisation that is just non me.

The Church warns almost the dangers of "anti-Mormon literature," and then any time you beginning reading texts non published by the Church building or Deseret Books, even if they are fact-based histories written past honest scholars, you experience somewhat scandalous. You lot distrust the information equally if the enemies of the church were writing lies to dispense and misconstrue the truth. It's the argument of the toxicant well: anything a not-Mormon writes about the Church in a critical style is biased past the person's hatred of the church building.

I just mentioned one case of a selective history that the Church creates. This is not an isolated incident. There are dozens of historical details that have been whitewashed from gimmicky Church materials because, I presume, they practice non promote faith. For a people who are taught to seek learning, to study out of the best books, to become acquainted with the histories of nations, to accept the idea that the "glory of God is intelligence," this kind of distorted history and misrepresentation of information supports merely the opposite goal.

When 1 party suppresses data, warns against unofficial sources of information, and sanitizes issues, doctrinal inconsistencies, evolution of ideas, etc. in guild to present a consistent and religion-promoting story that fosters belief, it frustrates me. I feel manipulated. Information technology goes against my sense of who I am and what I love – learning. Information technology makes me distrust Church leaders and curriculums. How can one increase faith and love in a God who runs a entrada of misinformation?

This culture of information manipulation is what finally led me to ask questions about belonging. I did non feel that I belonged in a culture that held up the banner of truth in one hand while hiding many facts beneath. In this civilization, church building was not uplifting or inspiring to me. Information technology was oftentimes frustrating, and when I brought up difficult data, many people did not know how to handle information technology. I did not know how to handle it.

You couldn't become to official Church sources for reliable information because the data usually did not exist, or if it did, it was and then watered down or one-sided that it was unhelpful. General briefing talks from leaders almost always stick with the well-nigh basic, simplistic issues. This is why everyone falls asleep during general briefing. There are quasi-tertiary-party sources, like fairmormon.org, only they oft don't supply satisfying answers.

Why doesn't the church appoint more fully with controversy? Nearly likely they do not have answers either, and then engagement would merely raise awareness of the bug with the stop result of creating more doubt. In that location are no good answers for issues such as polygamy, racism, evolving ideas well-nigh God, and many more.

Arguments and counterarguments

Information technology's probably truthful that for every statement there'due south a counter argument, so the opposing views abolish each other out and you're left with just faith. But sometimes the explanations you need to counter-argue problems in the church building have to get more than and more "clever" and ultimately unbelievable. At some point, you lot have to concede one side. In that location aren't simply a few issues that the Church building doesn't have answers for. If and then, 1 could overlook them or deal with them. The trouble is that there are dozens of issues.

For instance, the Book of Abraham is scripture Joseph translated from papyri that was included with several mummies that a traveling salesman of antiquities sold to the Church. Joseph translated the Egyptian text at a time when no one could read Egyptian. Years later, the aforementioned papyri was plant in a museum, having (partially?) survived a fire. Scholars know it's the aforementioned papyri because the facsimile matches. Now that scholars can translate Egyptian, they institute that it's a common funerary text, non the writings of Abraham. In fact, the time menses of the papyri was hundreds of years off from Abraham's fourth dimension.

Now, I said that for every statement in that location's a counterargument. Could it be that the papyri was just a touchstone that triggered a revelation for Joseph Smith, contained of the papyri? But what about the Egyptian alphabet that Joseph deciphered or developed? He conspicuously tried to report out the translation. How does Joseph make the leap into the text that he somewhen produced?

Or mayhap the recovered papyri isn't the original papyri, fifty-fifty though we have matching facsimiles? Maybe, but it's unlikely. It's hard to really believe the Book of Abraham is accurate, despite the possible counterargument, specially because the epitome shift from God to Gods as the creators matches ideas Joseph was learning about from other sources at the time.

In the terminate, I suppose you believe what you want to believe and make the details fit around whatever stories you lot need to support. For case, the Book of Abraham has a lot of astronomical data near Kolob and God's timetable and one intelligence being greater than another, but like other doctrines and scripture that are ignored (e.g. "eat meat sparingly"), nigh church members ignore these parts in Abraham every bit well.

The nature of God

I would love to see more open-minded, curious people in church building settings. I've frequently wondered why there aren't more. Afterwards all, religion seeks afterward the divine, looking at a reality beyond this world. So religion and philosophy should go together, right?

The problem is that God himself, as portrayed through the scriptures, doesn't have a philosophical mindset. To read the scriptures is to see the origin of this close-minded culture. God is a jealous, aroused God. He sees the world in absolute terms – right or wrong, black or white, good or evil.

God is not a philosopher. He is not a critical thinker. He is not even a likeable or curious person. He's more than of a megalomaniac who does confusing and frequently contradictory things without giving reasons.

He is a terrible communicator and a rhetorician who operates on fear. He withholds destroying you so that you return to worship him. Worship me or I volition stop you. Obey me or I will destroy you from off the face of this country. There'due south not one degree of allowance for sin. If you eat the forbidden fruit, you die. Except the plan was never for you to remain in the garden, so choose wisely, remembering that I forbid it. Huh?

The grapheme of God is ane of the nigh confusing aspects of the gospel, specially in the LDS religion. Putting aside his unlikeable nature, is he 1 beingness or three? Joseph Smith's 1838 account of the first vision claims to see 2 distinct beings, but this is a revised account. The account closest to the experience (1832) did non describe two beings. His first account included but a visitation from the Lord and forgiveness of sin.

Critics say that Joseph'southward idea of the godhood evolved over time, and yous tin see it in the Book of Mormon. The text is pretty articulate in saying there's one God, and you have to practice mental acrobatics to manage a credible interpretation where the writers merely mean "one in purpose." In the earlier Volume of Mormon texts, much of the linguistic communication about God was inverse from the original, and so that instead of saying Jesus is the Eternal Male parent, it says Jesus is the "son of" the Eternal Male parent. Instead of saying Mary is the "female parent of God," she is now the "mother of the Son of God." These are doctrinal rather than grammatical changes.

Are nosotros to believe that despite the fact that Joseph Smith'southward first account included only one God, and despite the Book of Mormon'south accent on one God, and despite the changed language of the scriptures by later church leaders to alter one God into a "son of God" – that nonetheless Joseph did non change his mind about the nature of God, that really when God says he is one, the text is Jesus speaking on behalf of the Begetter drawing himself into a i eternal heavily unit of measurement knit together with "one purpose"? If so, God is a poor communicator who possesses anything but a divine sense of articulation. If in that location are two distinct beings, and if Joseph saw them that way, I think history and scripture would exist clearer on this indicate. Instead, the texts show an evolution from ane being to two.

Just whether at that place is one God, two, or more, the idea of the trinity doesn't brand sense to me, neither in the LDS faith nor Christianity equally a whole. Nosotros pray to the Father despite the fact that 95% of the interactions in the scriptures are supposed to be with Jesus (Jesus acting in the name of the Father). Merely worshipping Jesus is … idolatry because Jesus is really our brother, not the Male parent? Also, he never wanted the celebrity for beingness the savior, right? Except he certainly gets a lot of information technology. Answers come through the Holy Ghost, who is … a third-party tool God uses to communicate? The trinity merely doesn't make sense to me. This heavenly construction is supposed to exist a reflection of our earthly family unit, except it only makes partial sense if you lot're a man, and even then it doesn't brand sense.

Believing that Jesus is the God of the Former Testament is even more difficult for me. The same God who commands Joshua to annihilate every living breathing thing in the land of Canaan (men, women, children, animals) is the same one who shows up later to command men to turn the other cheek, to take men refrain from calling another man a fool. He further belittles Jews who endeavor to obey the commandments Jesus gave to them in the by? I run across no relation between the Old Testament God and the New Testament Jesus. In fact, virtually of the stories in the Old Testament are bewildering (similar Lot giving up his daughters to be raped by a mob rather than dismissing his guest) and make no sense except possibly in a specific historical context.

Women in the scriptures

My wife, Shannon, has experienced a lot of frustration about the lack of women in the scriptures, and and then have I. Women play an extremely marginal function in the scriptures, especially in the Volume of Mormon. In the Old Testament, when women appear, they are frequently the ones who cause trouble, such every bit Eve taking the forbidden fruit. Or they are only important if they behave male person children (east.g., Abraham's wife). The scriptures are primarily a patriarchal tradition. The few women who creep in here and in that location (e.g., Deborah, Esther, the mothers of the 2,000 stripling warriors) are anomalies to what is mostly a male-dominated history and tradition.

How can a God who loves both men and women every bit be the author of such a male-dominated history?

One might say that civilization was patriarchal at the time, so it's no surprise that the scriptures reflect this culture. God works within the culture as best he can.

Except that rather than working inside an existing civilisation, the theocratic civilization is driven past laws and revelations from God. I think God should have inspired prophets with more gender-inclusive guidance. But actually, my suspicion is that the scriptures are patriarchal considering the scriptures themselves originate from the culture of the time. Priests were male person. Women were non allowed to hold the aforementioned positions. The text reflects the culture because it is a production of the culture.

Information technology'south no wonder that my wife stopped reading the scriptures regularly a long fourth dimension ago. They don't speak to her as a adult female.

Today, the Church continues the same culture of female marginalization. In Primary activities, boys participate in cub scouts and 11-year-quondam scouts each week. They get more funding, attention, leadership, and time than girls of the same historic period, who come across only twice monthly. Obviously the current president in his zeal for scouting has never perceived this imbalance. Or he has never addressed it. He celebrates and champions scouting equally a great program adopted past the Church. He is mute about women not holding real leadership positions in the Church, such as being apostles or prophets or even but holding the priesthood (outside the temple ceremony).

One might think that the Mormon doctrine of a Heavenly Mother might be a saving counterpoint to Christianity's cheeky handling of women throughout history (which starts with Eve's disobedience in the garden through to the Timothy's letters nearly women keeping silence in church.)

Simply the thought of a Heavenly Mother is never developed or taught in Mormon doctrine except for a brief reference in a hymn. Why isn't it taught? Nosotros don't know. In part, I think that coming out with a more than developed doctrine of a Heavenly Mother would cause us to question the unabridged Bible, which never mentions her role or being.

Further, God would need some explanation for her silence, and where she fits into the Trinity godhead. Why would she be so quiet all these years? Did the Father have her locked away (protected out of respect that her proper name not be blasphemed!), or did she not have the same nurturing, caregiving part as earthly mothers? The Church might even need to explicate why God the Father overshadowed Mary, who was presumably not his wife, with a baby, hence violating his ain commandment, so on. Or is God himself a polygamist?

During many church lessons, my wife tried to evidence how to include more stories of women, to remainder out lessons that were and so male-focused. She fifty-fifty once prayed to "Our Heavenly Parents" equally an opening prayer in sacrament coming together. Yet, her efforts were pretty much futile. In one case she was promptly released from her calling in the Principal. Existence a champion of women in the church building only caused her an immense amount of frustration and discouragement. Eventually, she stopped getting ready for Church until the 2d hour and would miss more and more than meetings.

Additionally, she felt that the stay-at-home office that she had been conditioned to accept did not fit her life very well. She wished she had pursued a career. She did not like dealing with children and diapers, and the four walls of dwelling were similar a prison. She resented the advice from her patriarchal approval that encouraged her role equally a stay-at-habitation mother. It seemed to brand her life miserable.

1 mean solar day while driving to church, she said she felt the Principal curriculum was grooming our daughters to be passive stay-calm nurturers. She considered this didactics malicious and even satanic.

Nosotros almost turned around the auto and drove home, but nosotros went to church that day anyhow because she had to get volunteers to sign up for meals delivery as office of her compassionate service.

How could the divine plan and eternal roles of providing versus nurturing consequence in then much frustration? I had to ask myself seriously, why go on going down a path that was simply making my wife miserable, especially when I had and then many doubts myself?

This was actually the turning signal for me. When I joined the church at sixteen, the model of the solid, stable Mormon family was a huge motivator. I saw so many happy looking Mormon families that did all kinds of activities together, that had functional households, etc. – it really appealed to me, since my own family had split autonomously through divorce when I was ten.

Simply now I saw that the church was dividing my family. My wife was going inactive, and her frustration with the Church's sexism just continued to increase. It made her angry and frustrated. Was the church, which I had grown to increasingly dislike and resent, worth belongings on to? I realized it was time to make a decision. But as the solidarity of the family influenced my determination at sixteen, the same concept influenced past determination at 38.

It's funny to me how one can continue a course and then blindly, every bit if on machine-pilot. It actually takes someone close to yous who struggles with something to cause you lot to rethink and reassess your beliefs. I might take continued for a few more years, increasing doubts, reducing the number of things I actually believed, whittling away my testimony until I had absolutely nothing left. I am glad that my wife helped me come across religion more clearly.

The Book of Mormon

There are many things in the Church that I disagree with, and that'southward somewhat expected of any establishment. For example, I think the temple ceremony is weird and obviously Masonic in origin. It is not the flagship symbol of my membership. Nor exercise I think people who spend hours and hours in the temple are contributing whatsoever meaningful service to society.

I as well think the idea of the atonement is basically unnecessary and perplexing. The story of my life is not one of needing to be purified from sin then that I can render to God. That's not a story that appeals to me or rings true, nor is conservancy a common theme in other religions, which focus on submission (Islam), harmony (Confucianism), suffering (Buddhism), and other themes. I think that tithing is far as well much coin to give to a church building (the equivalent of a donating a new car every year), that dwelling house teaching is a nuisance, and then on.

I have many disagreements, but the 1 thing that kept me going was the Volume of Mormon. It was something I couldn't explicate. It seemed indisputable. The Book of Mormon seemed to exist compelling evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Even if Joseph Smith barbarous or the Church strayed abroad, I would still remain active because the Book of Mormon was truthful, and that meant the Church'south origins were true.

It wasn't until I began reading more critical texts of the Book of Mormon that I began to encounter the text as a product of the 19th century. For case, the Book of Mormon, supposedly written for our day, doesn't address most of the major problems we've faced in the 20th century. At that place'southward null well-nigh civil rights, feminism, homosexuality, development, nuclear war, or engineering. All the bug addressed are pretty clearly 19th-century issues. We oftentimes don't encounter them because nosotros aren't familiar enough with the historical context to recognize the themes, only they stand out clearly to scholars.

Instead of addressing issues of our day, there are enough of themes virtually hole-and-corner societies and how these societies contributed to the downfall of lodge. At that place are themes related to Catholics, Republicans, Deists, and other groups. One overarching theme of Book of Mormon itself is that Indians are descendants of the Israelites. This idea was pop at the time, as you tin run into through Ethan Smith'due south book Views of the Hebrews and other teachings of the mean solar day.

Additionally, many of the stories of the Book of Mormon fit into a revivalist culture. For example, consider Alma the Younger who is racked for torment and and then delivered into the blessed arms of Jesus. Or the queen of Male monarch Lamoni who falls to the ground, sees a vision, and so stands up to preach the love and mercy of Jesus. The all-time assay showing the revivalist origins of the Book of Mormon can exist found in An Insider's View to Mormonism, past Grant Palmer.

Probably the about difficult feat to pull off for any writer is the visit of Christ to America. Portraying Christ in a conceivable style at all is an extremely hard task. However when we compare Jesus in Jerusalem to Jesus in America, they're quite different. In Jerusalem, Jesus speaks in parables, refers to himself as the Son of Man, is playful at times with his disciples, and more.

In America, Jesus is just as you might imagine him to exist in the 19th century – he blesses the children, heals the sick, prays for the people, teaches them the bones doctrine of faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus is serious and holy and gentle and weepy. I realize the context is unlike (post-resurrection versus pre, America versus Jerusalem), but the portrayal is but a trivial also predictable for me.

Information technology's also bewildering to see Jesus repeat the same phrasing as in the King James Bible. Evidently Jesus didn't deliver the same Sermon on the Mount in both locations nearly verbatim, and so what'southward going on here? No ane has a skillful answer except to say, "We don't know much most the process of translation."

What I would have liked to see is the Sermon on the Mount recast in unlike language and perspective. That concise poetic language would accept been nearly incommunicable to spin in an alternatively cute style. But past copying the same text verbatim, Jesus comes beyond as someone giving the aforementioned spoken communication as elsewhere, as if Matthew's record of the Sermon on the Mount were a give-and-take-for-word transcription of what Jesus said (written many years after the result happened and gathered from second or third-paw accounts).

One common criticism of the King James language in the Book of Mormon is that errors in the Rex James version of the Bible are perpetuated in the Book of Mormon. This makes the idea that the text appeared discussion afterwards word on a seer stone a little less conceivable. Why would Jesus not catch the errors as he gave the text to Joseph 1 word afterward the other? This is to say nothing of thousands of grammar errors that take been after corrected. The reply to these questions once more is always, "We don't know much nigh the process of translation."

One interesting detail I recently observed is Jesus' quotation of Malachi. Have you lot e'er noticed that Jesus in America quotes Malachi differently from the way Moroni quotes Malachi to Joseph Smith? Maybe they each leveraged Malachi for dissimilar purposes, but it seems that this little detail was disregarded and only addressed in hindsight in Joseph's 1838 First Vision account. In Moroni's visit to Joseph, Moroni quotes Malachi saying that without the priesthood revealed, the whole earth would exist wasted. Jesus quotes the same passage of Malachi but fails to mention this point about the priesthood. Perhaps the priesthood wasn't relevant to the Nephites, even though Jesus gave the priesthood to his apostles on his visit? Or maybe this was an oversight by the Volume of Mormon author.

On the topic of translation, the Church mainly teaches and portrays Joseph translating the text from a set of gold plates. Actually, the existent history is that most of the translation was done through a seer stone rock (a kind of magical stone) that Joseph would use by looking into a dark hat. Joseph used this aforementioned rock to look for buried treasure several years before (1826) he received the Book of Mormon. The seer stone or peepstone is what is meant when people refer to the "Urim and Thummim" near of the time. The "gift" that Cowdery has in the D&C is a gift with a divining rod of some kind.

Other parts of the Book of Mormon seem to accept source material equally well. The chapters virtually retrieving the plates seems a spinoff of Joseph'due south retrieving of plates. Lehi's dream matches a dream Joseph'south father had. In that location are odd parallels with other texts, such every bit the Spaulding manuscript.

Oliver Cowdery, 1 of the scribes, attended a church where the pastor taught many of the ideas well-nigh the Indians being 1 of the lost tribes of Israel, and such.

Regarding the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, this seems more hard to dismiss until you read about the other spiritual visions the witnesses had (see An Insiders View of Mormonism). Clearly this was a unlike time, i in which a magic world view permeated the common beliefs of the people. We never quite know what is meant by "spiritual eyes," which is how the witnesses saw the plates.

Even despite all of these details, information technology's hard for me to outright dismiss the Book of Mormon. Even if Joseph dictated it discussion past word equally he looked in a night hat, it notwithstanding seems a remarkable achievement. Delivered to the printer without punctuation past someone unlearned, it's pretty amazing.

However, Joseph's involvement with other scripture gives me more reason to doubt. Equally I mentioned earlier, the Book of Abraham is supposedly a text he translated at a time when Egyptian was undecipherable. But the same papyri that has been found and translated in the nowadays twenty-four hour period shows it to be a regular funerary text, not the writings of Abraham. This example more than than any other points to Joseph'southward farthermost souvenir of religious imagination. If he could write the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses, then why not write the Volume of Mormon likewise? Peradventure his caste of unlearnedness is underestimated.

What's astounding to me about the Volume of Mormon is how mild it is. Inappreciably any of the controversial aspects of Mormonism have their roots in the Book of Mormon. Temples, eternal progression, polygamy, garments, prop8 funding, eternal nature of gender, conservatism, etc., do non originate from the Volume of Mormon. Except for the exclusion of women and a passage that supports a racist mindset virtually skin color, the Book of Mormon is adequately beneficial.

What the Book of Mormon does seem to have is an affluence of original stories, which at times is inspiring. And the book makes many references to Christ, which might appeal to many Christians. Just I call up the references to Christ are a bit unbelievable. They are so explicit, particularly every bit they name him "Jesus Christ" (every bit if Christ were his last name rather than Greek word for Messiah, which is a twist Paul made rather than something common during Jesus' time). Are nosotros to assume the Former Testament scribes and prophets removed this specificity about Jesus as the Messiah? Why? I don't see the historical evidence for a widespread conspiracy among Old Testament priests and scribes to remove the references to a future Messiah. Yet the Volume of Mormon prophets discuss Christ plain as day.

Perhaps the main trouble with the Book of Mormon is lack of archeological evidence. A society equally massive and extensive as the Nephites and Lamanites and Mulekites should get out more of a footprint. In 2,000 years, are nosotros to believe that all trace of the weaponry, armor, cities, highways, temples, and so on disintegrated into dust despite the hundreds of thousands or even millions of warring peoples? For a people who worked with metal to smith swords and other weapons, with concrete to build highways and buildings and temples, they should leave some trace. Subsequently all, nosotros're non talking well-nigh millions of years agone. It's a mere two,000 or so. Further, the ethnic tribes don't reflect the Nephite/Lamanite events in their history or ideas. The lack of archeological prove of the Volume of Mormon people is peradventure the strongest argument against it.

Farther, Deoxyribonucleic acid testify disproves the idea that the Indians are descendants of the Israelites. The Church has toned down its position on the connection between Indians and Nephites/Lamanites, claiming that the Nephites mixed in with a people who already existed on the country. This is fine, I guess, fifty-fifty though Moroni explicitly tells Joseph that Indians are the "literal descendents of Abraham" in Joseph'southward Get-go Vision account (see 1835 first vision acccount).

When Joseph sent missionaries among the Lamanites, he considered the Indians to exist the Lamanites. How was the prophet so misinformed? What are we to brand of the Dna show that undermines this connectedness? Was Moroni mistaken? Was the DNA of modern-solar day Indians diluted beyond recognition due to intermixing? Once again, there's no real evidence for the Book of Mormon.

This brings me to my larger point. Taken solitary, with but a few issues, i could accept a simple explanation as a workaround. Merely when you lot kickoff stacking the problems up, at that place's a bespeak where at that place are as well many, it's hard to believe. In fact, it'due south haphazard and disingenuous to even attempt to believe.

Some apologists say the Nephites were a small tribe in a larger continent where a lot of other people lived, then information technology'due south difficult to discover a record of them, only the Book of Mormon makes a large betoken most the promised country beingness a pick land where no one is allowed to dwell unless they are brought past the mitt of the Lord. Why would all of these other tribes, who have left no record of a Christian religion, have been brought over by the Lord, nonetheless leave no testify of Christianity?

Interestingly, the Book of Mormon authors exit a lot of geographical clues most narrow necks of land and such, near giving a trail of their routes. Unfortunately, no i has been able to conclusively map their location. Except for a possibly lucky hit with ane city, Nahom/NHM, coinciding with one route and story, the residuum is a big mystery.

In summary, although the Book of Mormon seems to have some compelling internal bear witness, mainly because the narrative is complex, I accept to ask, which is more likely, that a book with

no archeological show
no DNA connections
overt 19th century themes, parallels with other ideas and texts of the fourth dimension
large verbatim chunks of text from the Bible
predictable portrayals of Jesus
no findable location despite detailed geographic notes
articulate revivalist themes during a context of revivalism

And produced or translated past someone who:

had an occupation every bit a treasure digger using a seer stone (and who used the same seer stone to translate near of the book)
evolved/inverse his ideas almost God and the starting time vision
pretended to translate Egyptian into other scripture that later on proved false
married other men's wives and denied it
lived in a fourth dimension when many other religions were created

is in fact true?

Should I suppose that an affections delivered the plates and afterward took the plates back, serving no real purpose except to try men's organized religion? I call back it'due south hard take the latter. There'due south too much evidence for the sometime, even if we don't know exactly how the book was written, and fifty-fifty if the book has internal complication.

Suppose I guess incorrectly. Suppose information technology turns out everything in the Church is true. Will an all-seeing God punish me for using my brain to arrive at a logical conclusion?

In the terminate, what is the existent value of acting out of religion rather than reason? Does a blind obedience and embrace of something hoped for (with little testify) help u.s.a. become more god-like?

Is it correct to deliver truth through such suspicious means so fault people for not believing information technology, especially when the message bearer practices a secret form of polygamy and resembles all the characteristics of a cult leader?

Allow me ask a broader question: Why do we even have this concept called "faith"? We give a positive name to a behavior that is little valued in other contexts. Why would God want men and women to human action with poor-founded belief and uncertainty, trusting in something they don't know to be existent or truthful, even professing in large gatherings that they "know the Church building to be true"? What's the purpose for keeping people in semi-confused state, wondering exactly what they're supposed to believe? It seems having religion is a positive manner of describing promise combined with wish fulfillment and fantasy.

Confirming spiritual experiences

There are a couple of other topics to wrestle with. First is the spiritual confirmation of the Volume of Mormon. Brandon Pearce has a nifty essay on this topic (run across Why I left the Mormon church building). At that place are a great many people who experience spiritual peace, burning in the bosom, and other spiritual experiences within the church and gospel. Because of these confirming spiritual experiences, they will dismiss any logic they don't empathise, go along pressing forward despite cool practices and contradictory evidence, and go on believing because they received this spiritual witness.

The trouble is that people in other religions have like confirming spiritual experiences. Otherwise, why would religion be a worldwide phenomenon? To deny that a Roman Catholic nun, a Sufi Muslim, or an Evangelical as well have confirming spiritual experiences is naive. Merely if the Spirit testifies of truth, it seems inconsistent of the Spirit to deport witness in so many different religions and ideologies.

A recent series of lectures I listened to helped me go a meliorate understanding of the biological underpinnings of spiritual experiences. Run across The Spiritual Brain: Science and Religious Experience, by Andrew Newburg). If you put a radioactive tracer in someone's encephalon while they have a spiritual experience (such equally a nun'southward centering prayer), you can see what parts of the brain light up (eastward.g., the frontal lobe). In tests that scientists accept done, they tin consistently tie spirituality to various parts of the brain. Although one might say God imbued man with the very equipment he would need to communicate with him, I find this hard to believe. It's more likely that "God" is in that part of the brain.

My experience of the Spirit reflects a lot of inconsistency. Sometimes I've felt the Spirit in a picture show, or at a technical writing conference, or while talking at random to someone. On my mission, I recollect I felt the spirit maybe because of the tension of the situation, the anxiety of meeting someone new combined with the apprehension and euphoric imagination in relating the Gospel message, which possibly released the correct endorphins (at times, and other times non). I have felt "the Spirit" many times while writing this exit narrative. My breast is somewhat warm, non dissimilar the other "spiritual" experiences.

I remember the spiritual experiences we experience in organized religion are concoctions of our brain. Information technology's hard to show this, of course, but it seems like our bodies might have adjusted this style as a means of reducing existential malaise. Simply like sex makes you feel adept, so that you are more than inclined to procreate, perhaps our bodies release similar endorphins when nosotros notice comforting stories that explicate and answer the unknown. We're not only alone in a vast universe, living out an cool beingness; we have a loving begetter. He has a plan for us. Nosotros're his children. He watches out for us. Not even a sparrow falls without his notice.

These ideas brand you lot feel good, calm, and so you attach to a ready of principles and laws that make lodge more than efficient. The rules of faith bind guild together with mutual stories and principles. Religion provides a cohesion for a well-functioning and efficient group to collaborate and exist successful. God's all-seeing middle makes the group'due south members responsible to the rules even when others aren't watching. Only that religion helps groups be successful doesn't hateful it'due south true. Information technology ways evolution favored people with this inclination.

Jesus

The final part of my notes here deal with Jesus. 1 of the best biographies of Jesus is Zealot, by Reza Aslan. Listening to this volume, which focuses on the historical Jesus, information technology's pretty clear that Jesus was a product of his times. Jerusalem was under oppressive Roman occupation. Jerusalem was land given to the Jews by God, so it frustrated the people immensely to exist under foreign rule.

Many messiahs stepped frontwards in Jesus' time. Yous don't frequently hear nearly them because they were executed past the Romans and largely forgotten, but at that place were many messiahs.

There were also many miracle workers. The divergence with Jesus' miracles is that he provided them for complimentary. We ofttimes marvel at Jesus' miracles because our contemporary context doesn't accept the same merchandise of people. But the worldview at that time inclined people to see many more miracles in their environment.

Mostly, Jesus was a zealot who wanted to restore Jerusalem to the Jews, liberating it from Roman rule. He constantly preached that the kingdom of God was at hand, even noting that there were some who would not taste death before they saw the kingdom of God ushered in.

Unfortunately, the kingdom of God Jesus talked about (which would have eradicated the Romans and restored the Jews to independence) never came to pass. His disciples never wrote anything down because they were waiting for this kingdom, but it never happened. The Romans crucified Jesus just like all the other would-exist messiahs.

Was Jesus just a poor communicator, really indicating that the coming Kingdom of God was a spiritual one, or that the Kingdom of God was the millenium that would have place several m years from now? I can't really believe that.

Interestingly, Jesus never proclaims himself to be the Messiah. If he does, it's just in response to someone asking or assigning the name to him, and Jesus consistently refers to himself every bit the "Son of Man." This appellation has confused a lot of scholars. What exactly does it mean to be the "Son of Man"?

There are some Old Testament references to the Son of Man, but the figure is non necessarily a messiah. It's a person of ability who volition be a male monarch, for the most function.

Further, throughout his ministry, Jesus actually tells people not to tell others that he is the Messiah. Scholars refer to this as the "Messianic Secret." Could it be that Jesus didn't want people to believe him to be more than he actually was?

Virtually of the people who wrote the New Attestation, who proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah, never lived with him. I think Luke may be the 1 questionable exception, but by and large scholars say that the Greek influence (the Jewish hellenists) who came after Jesus converted Jesus not simply into a Messiah, but into God himself. Yous tin can run across this progression from Mark (the first Gospel and source for the other two – Matthew and Luke) to John (written last, 100+ AD). John takes Jesus to a whole new level.

Scholars say that after Jesus failed to conductor in his kingdom, his disciples had to reimagine how he could be the messiah. They reinterpreted Jesus to be much less of a zealot and more than of a spiritual teacher indifferent to goals of political liberation. His disciples did this in part to make sense of Jesus' failed messiahship every bit well as to appeal to a Roman audience hostile to Jewish zealotry movements.

Ane of the near radical reinterpreters was Paul. Paul'southward reinterpretation of Jesus was heretical in his time. Paul had constant conflicts with James, the recognized leader of the early church who remained more fixed on the Law of Moses and temple worship.

Virtually people reading the Bible don't realize that Paul's interpretation of Jesus veers quite a means off from the original Jesus and the initial doctrine of the disciples. Rather than focusing on a police force-based, temple worshiping way of life, Paul preached belief in Christ as a means of forgiveness and elevated Jesus to not only be the Messiah, but God himself.

Paul'south theology appealed more to Romans and Greeks. Paul has xiv letters in the New Testament, compared to just several from others. Paul won over the people because his theology more closely appealed to Roman credo.

The Zealot book I mentioned earlier is really eye-opening. It'due south difficult for me to believe that Jesus was divine. This makes me doubt fifty-fifty more than the Book of Mormon, since the Book of Mormon focuses so much of its attention on Jesus. It seems pretty articulate that the Jesus of history is quite different from the Jesus in the gospels, and it's the latter effigy that is portrayed in the Book of Mormon.

Farther, from my offset twenty-four hour period in the church to my last, I never felt a detail dear or gratitude or deep involvement in Jesus. A lot of people go teary eyed when they call back most Jesus paying for their sins on the cross. For some reason this story has never moved me. I don't feel any particular affinity for Jesus. Perhaps this lack of emotion towards the Savior is a failure on my function, only it also defies the purpose of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon'southward main purpose is to bring men to Christ. Despite my having read and studied it for years, my soul was never brought to Christ.

Finally, I retrieve there are some interesting parallels between Christ's preaching nearly the imminent Kingdom of God and Joseph Smith's preaching about the latter days and restoration. Without drawing too many parallels, it seems people are ready to believe a messenger who tells most a time soon to come. For Joseph, his revelations signalled a time of bully restoration and ushering in of the last days and upcoming millenium. But 170 years later on his death, we oasis't really experienced any smashing last-days-apocalyptic phenomena, and the "final days" may stretch for a thou years or more before the millenium.

Finally, I just wanted to note that while I've fabricated a lot of references to criticisms and other issues with the Church, I'm not a historian or philosopher. The issues are much more elaborate than I've fabricated them out to be, and many apologists and LDS church building members take made detailed counter arguments in support of the church building's position, just equally critics take more detailed arguments against the apologists.

I don't think any corporeality of study or enquiry will definitively finish the discussion. At the cease of the day, I just don't experience that religion is me. Some might say that's the bespeak – faith is supposed to make you a improve version of yourself. It's but I don't similar the graphic symbol of religion in the first place. It's close-minded, definitive, and doesn't seem to harmonize with the scientific discoveries of our fourth dimension. (I haven't even discussed the creation versus the procedure of evolution, and how evolution shows a world without a designer.)

Moving by organized religion

Interestingly, when I let other members know that I left the church, few actually asked me why. I presume they already know why one would leave, or they don't dare expose themselves to the aforementioned information. Or perhaps they respect my agency too much. I'one thousand not sure.

A lot of ex-Mormons experience angry at the Church. Sure, in that location'south a bit of me that resents having been involved for so long even despite my questions and doubts over the years (which many have but suppress). But I also think Christianity itself is a fabrication, as are other religions. If that's the case, most of humanity has been duped by religion in one grade or another – not only in contemporary times, but throughout history (including Greeks, Romans, Persians, etc.). And why? Because our biology betrays us. Our encephalon compels us to believe. We have to make full in the unknown with comforting stories. We are wired to believe.

For me, I feel it's time to undo that wiring, to prefer a more skeptical and critical mental attitude toward my beliefs. I am excited at the prospects of this ideological liberation. It'southward like waking up after beingness asleep for millennia.

Undoubtedly, looking into the sky without the comforting thought that in that location'due south a caring God who listens to my prayers, responds appropriately, receives me in loving artillery, and awaits a reunion when I dice and pass through the veil, is somewhat unnerving.

Musing on the implications of a godless universe can produce the kind of existential nihilism that compels some philosophers to prefer extreme positions (similar choosing suicide every bit the merely real selection in a face up of absurdity).

Others see the globe with newfound wonder, looking to the images from the Hubble telescope and other scientific phenomena with awe and respect. Richard Dawkins's volume on evolution, The Greatest Show on World, expresses some of the awe and wonder at the miracle of life. Seeing life evolve spontaneously, changing shape and composition and co-evolving in an intricate ecosystem built on randomness and selection, is a fascinating prove to behold. We miss that testify when we read the creation as a serial of God-created-this-and-that events.

When yous take the religious glasses off, life looks different. Knowing that this might very well be my only time, this brusk space, fills me with a different perspective. If this is the only life (and no one can know for sure), one has a responsibility to accept it more seriously. Life, so fragile, is something to be treasured and cherished. This brief moment in time where everything comes together for me to briefly feel and consciously process it all – I want to experience it, even as a blip on the cosmological radar, to live my life more authentically and purposefully and mindfully because I recognize it for what it is.

I'chiliad guessing that, from an evolutionary perspective, such a mindset probably makes me less productive. If I'grand preoccupied in conjecturing on the wonder of evolution, the vastness of space, my ultimate insignificance and significance, I may not exist such a productive fellow member of society. There are probably many activities I might decide are worthless and piffling. Abandoning these activities might make me less productive and successful. Therefore, from an evolutionary point of view, natural option probably favors the busybody religious devotee, the one who adopts a specific spiritual destiny then tries to fulfill it, rather than one who rejects and questions destiny birthday.

I have to wonder, though, what purpose consciousness serves usa from an evolutionary signal of view. Is it a fluke in our biological makeup, a mutation that allows us to exist aware of ourselves? Cocky-awareness of beingness? Sensation of our death? Awareness of significant and meaninglessness? Why did humans develop this capacity?

Somehow in the little electrical impulses from neurons in our brain, we become conscious thought and complexity – and from complexity, machines and computers and theories of how we all came most. That is a truly amazing phenomena, one that suggests college purpose and power behind it all. Just maybe not.

I do know that information technology takes a sure courage to adopt a different point of view. Information technology's much easier to continue through life on auto-pilot, looking toward the next life, abdicating to absolutes and paths defined by the establishment of organized religion. At least I am certain about my uncertainty. I know that I do not know, and I desire to alive my life, notwithstanding insignificant, with this agreement.

About Tom Johnson

Tom Johnson

I'thou a technical writer / API dr. specialist based in the Seattle expanse. In this blog, I write about topics related to technical writing and communication — such as software documentation, API documentation, visual communication, information compages, writing techniques, plain language, tech comm careers, and more. Bank check out simplifying complication and API documentation for some deep dives into these topics. If you're a technical author and want to go along on superlative of the latest trends in the field, be sure to subscribe to email updates. You can likewise larn more about me or contact me.

Comments

tobeygisman.blogspot.com

Source: https://idratherbewriting.com/why-i-left-the-mormon-church/

Google Scriptures Someone Can Give to Investigator With Doubts to Read in Book of Mormon

Why I left the Mormon church building

Decision-making information

Arguments and counterarguments

The nature of God

Women in the scriptures

The Book of Mormon

Confirming spiritual experiences

Jesus

Moving by organized religion

Other go out stories

Recommended reading

About Tom Johnson

Comments

0 Response to "Google Scriptures Someone Can Give to Investigator With Doubts to Read in Book of Mormon"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel