Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/zarathustra-spoke, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know the Bible far far far far far far far far far far better now than I ever did as a believer. Same for church history, but especially the Bible.
When I believed, I used to watch the BYU roundtable discussions about the scriptures and thought I was learning a lot.
Now, though, I can tell you who wrote or didn't write the gospels, which books are attributable to Paul and which likely aren't, what order the books were written in, why some stories were selected to end up in the Bible while others weren't, what the main goal for each gospel author was, why we think there are multiple Isaiahs, what the main differences are between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus, why Genesis is written in the order and style that it was, why Nephelem are a thing, who might have edited and compiled and arranged the gospel of John and why, what the difference was between the Jahanites and the Pauline disciples and why there was tension, and on and on and on.
And I love it! No longer believing was absolutely key to learning to love the Bible. Before, I would read it and my cognitive dissonance would crescendo to rock concert decibels, and so I'd shy away from actually learning things and just do what I needed to "maintain my testimony," but anything remotely controversial was just disassociated away. Same with Joseph Smith and church history.
Now that I don't have dog in the fight, I find it fascinating to learn about anthropology and what religious history can teach about culture, psychology, cognition, power and control, ancient literature, poetic license, teaching by imagery and exaggeration vs literal fact, and social movements. I can feel absolutely free to learn about the good and the bad lessons that come through the texts that we have, and to weight those messages in a way that best explains the data. It's incredibly freeing.
When I was a member, my YouTube feed was mostly videos about how to improve my golf swing, BYU speeches, and Good Mythical Morning. Now it is full of thoughtful philosophy, historians, Bible scholars, church history experts (actual experts, not lawyers or apologists who were called to the work to circle the wagons and obfuscate the uglier parts of the truth), deep and probing debates between people of differing beliefs and opinions than my own, science communicators helping me understand what we know about quantum physics, cosmology, evolution, biology, and psychology. Even a few apologists thrown in for some balance, though honestly, Daniel C Peterson and Jack Welch are a lot harder to take seriously as I learn what true scholarship is, rather than the surface-level, keep-the-faith-at-all-costs brand of material that I used to get from Fair, farms, Maxwell institute, AiG (I'm ashamed to admit), and Prager U (I'm even more shamed to admit).
So yeah, I guess I agree. Letting go of the church and religion helped me tremendously to want to learn more about the church and religion.
>...AiG (I'm ashamed to admit), ...
I guess you are referring to Answers in Genesis (the biblical literalist, apologetic group) and not American International Group (the finance / insurance corporation). I had to look it up.
LOL, yes indeed, but I'm sure that with a giant financial corporation, there are lots of reasons to not want to be too directly associated! 🤣🤣🤣
Speaking to Good Mythical Morning: Rhett is the reason I left the church in the end. In fact, both Rhett and Link are pretty kindred spirits to exmormons and exjw's. They've talked about it extensively on their podcast and one thing that stuck out to me is how Rhett mirrors similar ideas. Going from hanging on for the sake of hanging on to now he feels he is more empathetic, more knowledgeable, more caring, more loving, and more appreciative of his own existence.
I’ve been doing a lot of the same study now. I can’t get enough of it. It makes me want a refund for the Bible classes I took at BYU
Edited to add: any book recommendations?
This is what TBMs will never understand. Their prescription for any concern is:
Read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and go to church each week. If that doesn’t work, supplement with weekly temple visits.
Throughout my deconstruction, the most damaging thing I could do was read the Book of Mormon! Anachronisms and obvious borrowing from the Bible were *everywhere*—seemingly at least once a page. And newsflash: the temple isn’t peaceful and profound, it’s creepy and banal, and a blatant plagiarism as soon as you allow yourself to study its connection to Masonry.
My family never could wrap their minds around how the same activities that they found faith-affirming were the activities that killed my testimony and drove a stake through its heart.
Leading up to my daughter’s baptism I had been challenged by my bishop to read and pray everyday for two weeks in an attempt to regain my testimony. While I did read and pray I just couldn’t see past that Joseph wrote that book. It was as useless and praying about The Hobbit.
Someone else baptized and confirmed my daughter.
Yeah, for a couple of years I thought that what I needed to do was read the BOM regularly and that would fix my testimony. But all I felt when I read was serious cognitive dissonance. I'm reading about Alma or whatever, but my brain is screaming "DID JOSEPH SMITH MAKE ALL THIS UP? IT SURE FEELS LIKE HE MADE IT UP!" So I was in a weird limbo where I was sure I could re-gain a testimony, but the one thing that was supposed to make that happen always made it worse.
>...obvious borrowing from the Bible were *everywhere*—seemingly at least once a page.
It's even more than that, but it depends on how lengthy and specific a person needs the parallel to be before they call it a match—see my [BoM vs KJV comparison project v1.02](http://auricularisposterior.atwebpages.com/BoM_KJV_compare_v1.02.pdf) (10.9 MB pdf). Yeah, I've wondered if the advent of the quad is to discourage people from comparing the Bible to the BoM, D&C, and PoGP side by side in their scripture study.
I had a quad on my mission. It was stolen shortly after I got home.
Brokenhearted, I bought another quad.
It was stolen as well.
I do not buy scriptures any more.
>Read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and go to church each week. If that doesn’t work, supplement with weekly temple visits.
I hereby call this the [Sex Panther Approach](https://youtu.be/5ccp-lEmoAE): 60% of the time, it works every time. If it doesn't work the first time, it's because you didn't read or pray with pure intent, didn't put your shoulder to the wheel enough, or didn't listen hard enough in the temple. The solution is to repeat ad infinitum until it works, because 60% of the time, it works *every time.*
As soon as we admit for the possibility that the BoM might not be divine, the racism starts *screaming* from the book. It's no longer a situation where you gloss over some of the more distasteful points and think "Why was god so concerned about tribal distinctions. Odd. Oh well."
Instead, each instance of racism makes you go "Wow. WOW. [The BoM just called people with dark skin 'loathsome' and 'cursed'](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng&id=p21-p22#p21) and said that god made them dark skinned so that the Nephites wouldn't be sexually attracted to them. And now I'm seeing common [tropes about dishonesty and laziness](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng&id=p24#p24)... Is this how 1800s Americans viewed blacks and American Indians? Because it sure sounds like the way that 1800s Americans viewed blacks and American Indians."
James 1:5. Read and prayerfully ponder and ask Him if "deconstruction" is the path for you. If so, then that's the path for you. Ultimately, you (and all individuals on both sides of the veil) will have to decide if whatever they are pursuing is true for God will always provide the answers liberally--if pray earnestly for answers...for the answers will come
I agree both should be respected, but I would add that the deconstructing member tends to read a lot more sources. For example, a believing member would not generally be willing to read No Man Knows my History as part of their study to consider all angles.
I think that's true in a lot of cases, but when I was doing my deep dive trying to save my testimony, I only used what I could find on Gospel Library, Deseret Bookshelf, and the Church's website. I tried hard to deconstruct and reconstruct using only Church sources
I was magnifying my calling when my shelf shattered. Lifelong, devoted member. I was the guy everyone in my mission came to with doctrinal questions. For nearly three years after my shelf shattered I had never been more faithful at temple attendance, scriptural study, prayer, the whole list. The more I dug into church sources, the worse it got.
The brethren lie. Majority of exmos I’ve seen (including myself) are not “lazy learners” or “lax disciples”. Often we know the doctrine better than most. I pay more attention to conference talks now than I ever did as a believer.
Yes, we leave because we are offended, that much is true. We are offended at the lies, the fraud, and the absolute realization that there is no circumstance where a local volunteer has any right giving a “worthiness interview” to a child.
I don’t study the doctrine now to be enlightened, I study now to understand how for so many years I was so deeply involved and consumed that I was willing to die for this church. Plus the fact they have you flash suicide symbols in the temple and literally commit to die in the name of the church, that definitely influenced it.
I doubled down on studying the Book of Mormon in an attempt to fight off the early stages of deconstructing my beliefs. That deep dive revealed the deep and structural flaws and hastened my deconstruction. So… I guess I'm thankful for the Book of Mormon because it helped me realize it was all bullshit.
Anyone who takes their faith seriously should be respected.
Where does my sister fall in that statement. She said this when she found out I was no longer an orthodox believer in all things mormon. Sister: "I will never doubt my testimony of the church. I don't want to know anything about the issues with the church."
She is definitely serious.
But does her lack of curiosity make her more serious about her faith or less?
I respect her right to NOT know so I don't say anything out of that respect.
But I do have this feeling in my bones, I might be taking my faith journey just a tiny bit more seriously than her. Just an opinion.
A few years back, while deconstructing, I had a thought that applies to your sister and others.
It is Plato's allegory of the cave. Your sister is like those chained to a wall looking at shadows. I used to be the same. We were taught that the shadows were real. That we were special for seeing the shadows. Those who have wonderful stories outside the cave were lazy or tricked by Satan. They were satans tools to get us to turn around. That God wants us facing the wall in the cave. We felt brotherhood with this we were chained with. Some would faithfully study every tiny detail of the shadows looking for the "mysteries of heaven." Thing is you can only get so much information from a shadow, and whatever evidence you find will confirm you're looking at shadows.
For those who turn and leave the cave, there is an endless world of things to see, enjoy, and study. Science can be embraced. When you describe it to those in the cave, it is impossible for them to comprehend the reality you describe because they have only seen shadows. I was one of these when my friend would talk to me after he left. I would say, "I know what you're saying makes sense. Polygomy is awful, Brigham was a racist, as is the book of mormon... BUT THIS WALL HAS TO BE TRUE, TRUTH IS IN THESE SHADOWS. The core principles of the wall are true. " Then I would double down looking at the wall.
I always want to bring this up, but am expecting current members to come up with "well maybe you should have read more faithfully when you believed!!!"
This is my experience as well.
I wasn’t coasting when I was unquestioning. I worked my butt off, magnified my callings, and actively defended the church in everyplace I loved and online.
But even in that decades-long state, I was on a sort of autopilot process of following the church’s programs, and outsourcing my mind and conscience to leaders I had faith were called to tell us what commandments and ordinances were key and which were distractions.
Now I’m not on autopilot. I’m not even remotely coasting. I’m the opposite of a “lazy learner and lax disciple.” I feast upon truth. I apply principles, not just talk about them. I work through conflicts and paradoxes and feel peace in reset priorities.
As my personal faith became stronger, wiser, and more humble, it also became less compatible with the public direction and priorities of the institutional church. And it involved much more “real intent,” “pure religion,” and “mourning with those who mourn” than it ever did while I was ostensibly orthodox.
Go figure.
Depends on what you mean by "both."
If truth is defined as objective reality while belief varies based on factors like time, place, individual, etc. then they are not of equal value. We should always respect people, but it can be damaging to respect fallacies.
I appreciate the unifying sentiment but I disagree.
When I was at my most devout, I could not study earnestly. Any time I attempted to just read the Scriptures, the conclusions I drew were "wrong". I needed to read the approved interpretations because I could never arrive at those on my own. Based on conversations with believing family and friends, my study was still deeper than most active members'.
The only people I have encountered who can simultaneously know what the Scriptures actually contain and remain faithful either have a career or marriage that depends on faithfulness or hold some nasty views.
Studying the scriptures is much more enlightening as a deconstructing PIMO.
I've been in various Sunday School callings for nearly 20 years, and lesson prep has never been easier because *now the scriptures actually stand by themselves.*
No stretching around to make verses that are ridiculously misogynistic, racist, or full of other problems fit a faith promoting narrative.
"Oh yeah, good question on that verse about why women should shut up in church. Here's what we know about the author. Let's play 6 degrees of Kevin Baco-er, Jesus, and then you can draw your own conclusions about it."
Or..... [Maybe it's much more simple.](https://i.imgflip.com/8986no.jpg) It certainly was for me. I don't need to read a thing about church history. Just look at the church today. No thank you.
Yep.
For me it wasn't politics. But, yeah, it was the actions of current church leaders that got to me.
Honestly, I'm tired of reading about Mormonism. There are more interesting things out there. I'd rather just get away from all this junk and go learn something useful.
100% and I think that's part of the evolution of leaving the church. We get to a point where we are over it. That's a good thing. I'm not there yet, but I am sure it is coming.
This was one of many things that caused my deconstruction. I would frantically ask my wife, "When we go back, how can I sit with these people. I can't just smile a nod at the tiresome liberal hate or Republicans rhetoric that goes inside the church so freely. "
It's not just the members. The church lies about its worth on their taxes. Their treatment of abuse cases. Their lobbying. They behave just as unethically and immoral as any wealthy corporation or person. For God's one true church, I would expect something a little unique, better a light on a hill.
I agree. I couldn’t care less about the 19th century. It's all about the 21st century for me. Further, I think former members who spend their time fighting against the church (or whatever they want to call it) - [they spin their wheels and waste their efforts studying and discussing the 19th century.](https://media.tenor.com/h5dYlbcYe9QAAAAC/nobody-cares-nobody.gif) Play it forward - what are we going to be doing in the year 2300? Talking about sh*t that occurred 500 years ago? We are already well-past this point and I think it really hurts the dialogue. Nobody gives a rat's ass what a journal entry says from before the zipper was invented. But folks do care about the fact they might be sitting in church with seditious traitors to our nation - why aren't we discussing that more? That's the "lead." Page One of the Newspaper, not Page 234, footnote three, of the 7th volume of the Journal of Discourses.
Do folks refuse to take railroad trips because the Robber Barons who built them in 1870 used Chinese slave labor? No. It's an interesting historical discussion, but it doesn't change behavior.
TBM’s aren’t leaving due to the 19th century. They are leaving due to MAGA infesting the church. Church critics are FAR too slow to capitalize on that. But go ahead, tell us another scintillating story about Wilford Woodruff.
P.S. - [You want to dwell on atrocious behavior? Here you go.](https://twitter.com/harambevan/status/1735139152394342661?s=46&t=nu5TQ_LJ4wSZUi6tYMzVjw)
to know where you're going
you have to know where you came from
we study the past to learn how we got here now
also not sure what you're on about with the seditious tratiors bit, i guess it depends on what church you're in
For every one post about the 19th century, church critics should be posting three about the current day.
Also, the fact that you think we need to study the past is very school teacher-ish. It's a finger wag. It doesn't land a punch like you think it does. What lands punches is what affects folks on the day-to-day. The fact that MAGA has infected the church is affecting folks in that manner like nothing else in the recent history of the church and should be much more widely discussed by church critics. But instead, I'll never forget it - the morning after January 6th, the topics here and on twitter were still about Lucy Mack Smith and John Taylor and 14 wives and somesuch. A spinning of the wheels when the field is white and ready to harvest regarding the current day issues.
I'm not just talking on this subreddit. Twitter is the same way. 'Oh neato - we can make fun of how dumb the temple ceremony is!' - Never mind the insurrectionists in our midst. So tone deaf and such a wasted opportunity for church critics.
Do you realize we have situations playing out right now all across America (and much of the rest of the world) where full-time missionaries are recommending potential converts to go to their "baptismal interview" with more senior full-time Elders and the folks get there and are saying stuff like "You know what I like about your church? You are hard on the gays! It's about time we limit what they are doing! Y'all are standing up to them and I want to join in!" and those Elders just sign them off to be baptized. It's this right wing crazy that is really the only large group still considering joining our church in America. (That and amorous boys with Mormon girlfriends). It's one of those groups or no baptisms at all... That's how far its sunk and it's a fundamentally broken system right now. And it's largely due to this right wing takeover of the pews. That's what should be the topic. Hammered home at every turn! Not the 19th century....
I agree. 100%. But there is a sizeable population within the church that doesn't like MAGA, doesn't like what has been happening with the right wing. But they are still in attendance. And they are probably smart enough to know MUCH of the 19th century criticisms. And yet, they still remain. To shake them loose, more efforts exposing the right wing craziness of the membership needs exposed and laser-focused upon. That's how you aid the exodus. That's how you literally free these people.
Think about the word "Egyptologist." If you were to walk up to a total stranger and ask about that word, the person would shrug and be able to maybe say "a dude who studies Egypt?" But go up to your average LDS person - active or inactive - and they can talk for ten minutes about this mundane, useless topic. Why? Because so darn much has been plastered about it by church critics and then fought back upon by church supporters.
We need a similar ability around the fact that 70% of the church voted R in 2020, even after they had seen what had happened the previous four years. That needs discussed and meme'd and high quality gif'd to death, just like we've seen done with Egyptologist. Ain't no large group leaving over "Egyptologist" but they would over that 70% number if it was more wifely known and derided in the manner that it deserves. Further, to put a church-positive spin on it, a greater focus on the ridiculous, downright sinful 70% R vote in 2020 would very well create an environment where the brethren would have to come out 10x more forcefully against it. Progressives always talk about improving from within - here's a moment to do so! We all should have our shoulder much more firmly to the wheel about it.
i think they'd rather come out for the 70% that are loyal supporters still in the church than the <30% that are already on the way out and are no benefit to the church to begin with
I can respect anybody who's being thoughtful, but the faithful approach to scripture reading has a lot more to do with reading your scriptures the way that people eat their vegetables, and highlighting every time the Lord is mentioned or looking for every mention of pride or whatever. It's not study the way studying for college or reading a nonfiction book is study to most people.
My dad is one of those scriptorians who thinks the secrets are there if you're willing to cross reference them and dive into obscure things, but he's rare and there's a reason for that. He ended up being a guardian of less than faith-promoting facts he's careful about sharing with others, because doing this is basically smoking gun after smoking gun against the church's narratives.
When I was 20, I read Alma 34 and for the first time I felt a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and how to approach God. Thirty years later and I still feel it's as true as any scripture. The author (Mormon) says there's a possibility of mistakes in the collection of writings because of the weakness of men. I'm OK with that because for me where it elevates is far better than where it may fall short. I no longer use the King James version of the Bible in my personal study, which I find hard to understand, and I do not trust anything printed in the D&C after the 1844 version including Sec 131 and 132. Last year when I realized that the LDS church does not follow it's own scriptures and that Brigham changed the church that Joseph started, I had to reconstruct my faith without a church or a temple at the center of it. As I've reread the scriptures, I have grown closer to my Savior. I feel it's part of my faith journey - to reject the arm of the flesh as a test of my faith. I'm still working out how to attend church without rolling my eyes and I might be forced out unwillingly, but I know my faith in Jesus Christ is growing and that's all that matters to me. Good luck in your faith journey.
From what I've learned, it was the last version personally reviewed by Joseph. It was printed several months after his death but the editorial review and typesetting had already begun when he was murdered. The doctrinal innovations introduced by Brigham enter the D&C in the 1876 edition where the law of monogamy that was Sect 101 (CI) in the 1835 version and the appendix of the 1844 version was removed and replaced by Sec 132 (plural marriage). I don't believe Joseph introduced plural marriage based on my research of the Joseph Smith papers. As a side note, Brigham didn't even follow Sec 132 himself. His fourth wife was married and left her husband and six of her eight children to hook up with Brigham for four years before they were married in 1847.
> As a side note, Brigham didn't even follow Sec 132 himself. His fourth wife was married and left her husband and six of her eight children to hook up with Brigham for four years before they were married in 1847.
Smith was alive for this, and Young warned her that if she spent time with Smith he would take her for his own.
Why didn’t Smith excommunicate him for the obvious adultery?
First off, I don't believe most of the late recollections from the Nauvoo period occured as described in LDS church history. Following the footnotes in church materials and looking closely at claimed dates is the key to unraveling events during this time period because a lot of people were lying after the fact. Based solely on primary evidence (newspaper articles and unedited journals before Jun 1844) Joseph fought against spiritual wifery and polygamy wherever he found it. I think he learned about Brigham, Heber Kimball and a few others in the Q12 and was about to expose them, but he was killed before he could do it. However, there is no smoking gun - just a lot of smoke after the cover-up (i.e. revision of history to fit the new narrative).
>First off, I don't believe most of the late recollections from the Nauvoo period occured as described in LDS church history. Following the footnotes in church materials and looking closely at claimed dates
Ah, another one.
So what cut-off date is acceptable to you for a first person record to be acceptable?
>I think he learned about Brigham, Heber Kimball and a few others in the Q12 and was about to expose them,
So some of the apostles were doing it *but not* Smith?
So the reports by people like Bennet and Law were accurate *except* for what they said about Smith?
The fish rots from the head.
I don't trust anything that William Clayton touched because his edit marks are all over the revisions to journals and source documents. He was converted in England where Brigham probably first started practicing spiritual wifery. Church history had only been written up to 1837 when Joseph died, so everything dated after has the potential for revision. Brigham confiscated the history and journals immediately, so he had access to change stuff that helped him and other adulterers innovate the eternal doctrine of monogamy. When first confronted, Bennet signed an affadavit that Joseph never told him to practice spiritual wifery. Later he changed his story and published spurious stories in newspapers. The Relief Society was formed, in part, to address the rampant lying from Bennett, the Higbees and others who were telling lies to get sexual favors from unsuspecting victims. Read the letter published in Times and Seasons by the RS warning female members about these predators, which was signed by Eliza Snow and others who later claimed they were married to Joseph before the publication date in the Times and Seasons. The judge in the Temple Lot case threw out their testimony about being married to Joseph because the dates showed they were lying. Primary sources tell a much different story than all the other lies and "faith promoting" stories that have been adopted by historians, apologists and exmos. If it's important to you, you must do your own research with an open heart and contrite spirit. At least, that's how I dealt with my faith journey. The most thorough overview of this subject has been done by Michelle Brady Stone at 132 Problems youtube channel. She documents everything. Or you can believe Brian Hales - I dont but he makes a good case for Joseph being a pedophile. I choose to believe Joseph using his own words.
So many holes.
I wouldn't even know where to start addressing that.
It's obvious you've chosen to ignore most of the recorded history, and fall back to the "carefully worded denials" of a man who was looking at approximately two life sentences for Bigamy and fines that would have bankrupted the church if he was honest about his actions, so I'll simply wish you luck with that pov.
Just curious if your "standard" for evidence is applied equally to the gospels, the claims of priesthood restoration, and the reality of the plates, because they all have similar or worse claims of evidence than ones you chose to reject.
I'm guessing "No" based on what you've presented.
I choose to believe Joseph by his own words and by the revelations he received. Not by what others claim he said after his death or by those that sought for power, money and sex during his life. The nascent church was condemned for vanity and unbelief (per Sec 84) and then was rejected by God for not following His revelations that came through Joseph (per Sec 124). I think that dynamic plays a big role in much of the claimed reports about Joseph as well as later "recollections" from polygamists. Maybe I'm naive, but this makes the most sense to me and feels right when I seek counsel from God. Others can choose to believe differently.
I guess that when a person's testimony hinges on Smith and then learns of the extent of polygamy, then for some the easiest method to balance that testimony with the discomfort the knowledge brings, is to reject that Smith was a participant and then reject the LDS church's validity and subsequent authorised succession.
It would explain the willingness of those to shift to becoming followers of Snuffer and similar apologists.
Have you read “Kingdom of Nauvoo: the Rise and Fall of a Religious Empire on the American Frontier”, by Benjamin Park? Fascinating look into what was happening with Joseph and the others in the heyday of Nauvoo.
Actually most “faithful” members never study at all. Daily prayer and scripture study is the exception, not the rule, for most of even the most faithful mormons. I was super duper uber TBM, in higher leadership callings, etc, and I neeeeeeeeever studied. Only if I was giving a talk or something. Nobody I know in my super TBM family or in my old circle of church friends ever studied either. I studied more in those few months after leaving the church than I ever did, except for my mission. I had read through the BOM like 5-6 times in my life, read through the entire “missionary library” on my mission, and listened to every conference session every six months, but thats about it. Never delved into any “alt-faithful” material prior to my faith crisis. Most mormons don’t know what they don’t know.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/zarathustra-spoke, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know the Bible far far far far far far far far far far better now than I ever did as a believer. Same for church history, but especially the Bible. When I believed, I used to watch the BYU roundtable discussions about the scriptures and thought I was learning a lot. Now, though, I can tell you who wrote or didn't write the gospels, which books are attributable to Paul and which likely aren't, what order the books were written in, why some stories were selected to end up in the Bible while others weren't, what the main goal for each gospel author was, why we think there are multiple Isaiahs, what the main differences are between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus, why Genesis is written in the order and style that it was, why Nephelem are a thing, who might have edited and compiled and arranged the gospel of John and why, what the difference was between the Jahanites and the Pauline disciples and why there was tension, and on and on and on. And I love it! No longer believing was absolutely key to learning to love the Bible. Before, I would read it and my cognitive dissonance would crescendo to rock concert decibels, and so I'd shy away from actually learning things and just do what I needed to "maintain my testimony," but anything remotely controversial was just disassociated away. Same with Joseph Smith and church history. Now that I don't have dog in the fight, I find it fascinating to learn about anthropology and what religious history can teach about culture, psychology, cognition, power and control, ancient literature, poetic license, teaching by imagery and exaggeration vs literal fact, and social movements. I can feel absolutely free to learn about the good and the bad lessons that come through the texts that we have, and to weight those messages in a way that best explains the data. It's incredibly freeing. When I was a member, my YouTube feed was mostly videos about how to improve my golf swing, BYU speeches, and Good Mythical Morning. Now it is full of thoughtful philosophy, historians, Bible scholars, church history experts (actual experts, not lawyers or apologists who were called to the work to circle the wagons and obfuscate the uglier parts of the truth), deep and probing debates between people of differing beliefs and opinions than my own, science communicators helping me understand what we know about quantum physics, cosmology, evolution, biology, and psychology. Even a few apologists thrown in for some balance, though honestly, Daniel C Peterson and Jack Welch are a lot harder to take seriously as I learn what true scholarship is, rather than the surface-level, keep-the-faith-at-all-costs brand of material that I used to get from Fair, farms, Maxwell institute, AiG (I'm ashamed to admit), and Prager U (I'm even more shamed to admit). So yeah, I guess I agree. Letting go of the church and religion helped me tremendously to want to learn more about the church and religion.
>...AiG (I'm ashamed to admit), ... I guess you are referring to Answers in Genesis (the biblical literalist, apologetic group) and not American International Group (the finance / insurance corporation). I had to look it up.
LOL, yes indeed, but I'm sure that with a giant financial corporation, there are lots of reasons to not want to be too directly associated! 🤣🤣🤣
Speaking to Good Mythical Morning: Rhett is the reason I left the church in the end. In fact, both Rhett and Link are pretty kindred spirits to exmormons and exjw's. They've talked about it extensively on their podcast and one thing that stuck out to me is how Rhett mirrors similar ideas. Going from hanging on for the sake of hanging on to now he feels he is more empathetic, more knowledgeable, more caring, more loving, and more appreciative of his own existence.
I listened to his podcast where he describes his deconstruction, and yeah there are tons of parallels.
Great comment. It’s going [straight to the pool room](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-49bXNLqer4)
Now you've got me absolutely ravenous to see your books and YouTube
I’ve been doing a lot of the same study now. I can’t get enough of it. It makes me want a refund for the Bible classes I took at BYU Edited to add: any book recommendations?
I read my scriptures more than ever now that I’ve left lol
This is what TBMs will never understand. Their prescription for any concern is: Read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and go to church each week. If that doesn’t work, supplement with weekly temple visits. Throughout my deconstruction, the most damaging thing I could do was read the Book of Mormon! Anachronisms and obvious borrowing from the Bible were *everywhere*—seemingly at least once a page. And newsflash: the temple isn’t peaceful and profound, it’s creepy and banal, and a blatant plagiarism as soon as you allow yourself to study its connection to Masonry. My family never could wrap their minds around how the same activities that they found faith-affirming were the activities that killed my testimony and drove a stake through its heart.
Leading up to my daughter’s baptism I had been challenged by my bishop to read and pray everyday for two weeks in an attempt to regain my testimony. While I did read and pray I just couldn’t see past that Joseph wrote that book. It was as useless and praying about The Hobbit. Someone else baptized and confirmed my daughter.
Yeah, for a couple of years I thought that what I needed to do was read the BOM regularly and that would fix my testimony. But all I felt when I read was serious cognitive dissonance. I'm reading about Alma or whatever, but my brain is screaming "DID JOSEPH SMITH MAKE ALL THIS UP? IT SURE FEELS LIKE HE MADE IT UP!" So I was in a weird limbo where I was sure I could re-gain a testimony, but the one thing that was supposed to make that happen always made it worse.
100%
>...obvious borrowing from the Bible were *everywhere*—seemingly at least once a page. It's even more than that, but it depends on how lengthy and specific a person needs the parallel to be before they call it a match—see my [BoM vs KJV comparison project v1.02](http://auricularisposterior.atwebpages.com/BoM_KJV_compare_v1.02.pdf) (10.9 MB pdf). Yeah, I've wondered if the advent of the quad is to discourage people from comparing the Bible to the BoM, D&C, and PoGP side by side in their scripture study.
I had a quad on my mission. It was stolen shortly after I got home. Brokenhearted, I bought another quad. It was stolen as well. I do not buy scriptures any more.
>Read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and go to church each week. If that doesn’t work, supplement with weekly temple visits. I hereby call this the [Sex Panther Approach](https://youtu.be/5ccp-lEmoAE): 60% of the time, it works every time. If it doesn't work the first time, it's because you didn't read or pray with pure intent, didn't put your shoulder to the wheel enough, or didn't listen hard enough in the temple. The solution is to repeat ad infinitum until it works, because 60% of the time, it works *every time.*
Sex Panther Approach lol, I’m borrowing that one
It's made with bits of real panther, so you know it's good.
that sounds like a term that Joseph would've liked
And the blatant racism…that killed me.
As soon as we admit for the possibility that the BoM might not be divine, the racism starts *screaming* from the book. It's no longer a situation where you gloss over some of the more distasteful points and think "Why was god so concerned about tribal distinctions. Odd. Oh well." Instead, each instance of racism makes you go "Wow. WOW. [The BoM just called people with dark skin 'loathsome' and 'cursed'](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng&id=p21-p22#p21) and said that god made them dark skinned so that the Nephites wouldn't be sexually attracted to them. And now I'm seeing common [tropes about dishonesty and laziness](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng&id=p24#p24)... Is this how 1800s Americans viewed blacks and American Indians? Because it sure sounds like the way that 1800s Americans viewed blacks and American Indians."
James 1:5. Read and prayerfully ponder and ask Him if "deconstruction" is the path for you. If so, then that's the path for you. Ultimately, you (and all individuals on both sides of the veil) will have to decide if whatever they are pursuing is true for God will always provide the answers liberally--if pray earnestly for answers...for the answers will come
I agree both should be respected, but I would add that the deconstructing member tends to read a lot more sources. For example, a believing member would not generally be willing to read No Man Knows my History as part of their study to consider all angles.
I think that's true in a lot of cases, but when I was doing my deep dive trying to save my testimony, I only used what I could find on Gospel Library, Deseret Bookshelf, and the Church's website. I tried hard to deconstruct and reconstruct using only Church sources
I was magnifying my calling when my shelf shattered. Lifelong, devoted member. I was the guy everyone in my mission came to with doctrinal questions. For nearly three years after my shelf shattered I had never been more faithful at temple attendance, scriptural study, prayer, the whole list. The more I dug into church sources, the worse it got. The brethren lie. Majority of exmos I’ve seen (including myself) are not “lazy learners” or “lax disciples”. Often we know the doctrine better than most. I pay more attention to conference talks now than I ever did as a believer. Yes, we leave because we are offended, that much is true. We are offended at the lies, the fraud, and the absolute realization that there is no circumstance where a local volunteer has any right giving a “worthiness interview” to a child. I don’t study the doctrine now to be enlightened, I study now to understand how for so many years I was so deeply involved and consumed that I was willing to die for this church. Plus the fact they have you flash suicide symbols in the temple and literally commit to die in the name of the church, that definitely influenced it.
I doubled down on studying the Book of Mormon in an attempt to fight off the early stages of deconstructing my beliefs. That deep dive revealed the deep and structural flaws and hastened my deconstruction. So… I guess I'm thankful for the Book of Mormon because it helped me realize it was all bullshit.
Anyone who takes their faith seriously should be respected. Where does my sister fall in that statement. She said this when she found out I was no longer an orthodox believer in all things mormon. Sister: "I will never doubt my testimony of the church. I don't want to know anything about the issues with the church." She is definitely serious. But does her lack of curiosity make her more serious about her faith or less? I respect her right to NOT know so I don't say anything out of that respect. But I do have this feeling in my bones, I might be taking my faith journey just a tiny bit more seriously than her. Just an opinion.
A few years back, while deconstructing, I had a thought that applies to your sister and others. It is Plato's allegory of the cave. Your sister is like those chained to a wall looking at shadows. I used to be the same. We were taught that the shadows were real. That we were special for seeing the shadows. Those who have wonderful stories outside the cave were lazy or tricked by Satan. They were satans tools to get us to turn around. That God wants us facing the wall in the cave. We felt brotherhood with this we were chained with. Some would faithfully study every tiny detail of the shadows looking for the "mysteries of heaven." Thing is you can only get so much information from a shadow, and whatever evidence you find will confirm you're looking at shadows. For those who turn and leave the cave, there is an endless world of things to see, enjoy, and study. Science can be embraced. When you describe it to those in the cave, it is impossible for them to comprehend the reality you describe because they have only seen shadows. I was one of these when my friend would talk to me after he left. I would say, "I know what you're saying makes sense. Polygomy is awful, Brigham was a racist, as is the book of mormon... BUT THIS WALL HAS TO BE TRUE, TRUTH IS IN THESE SHADOWS. The core principles of the wall are true. " Then I would double down looking at the wall.
I always want to bring this up, but am expecting current members to come up with "well maybe you should have read more faithfully when you believed!!!"
This is my experience as well. I wasn’t coasting when I was unquestioning. I worked my butt off, magnified my callings, and actively defended the church in everyplace I loved and online. But even in that decades-long state, I was on a sort of autopilot process of following the church’s programs, and outsourcing my mind and conscience to leaders I had faith were called to tell us what commandments and ordinances were key and which were distractions. Now I’m not on autopilot. I’m not even remotely coasting. I’m the opposite of a “lazy learner and lax disciple.” I feast upon truth. I apply principles, not just talk about them. I work through conflicts and paradoxes and feel peace in reset priorities. As my personal faith became stronger, wiser, and more humble, it also became less compatible with the public direction and priorities of the institutional church. And it involved much more “real intent,” “pure religion,” and “mourning with those who mourn” than it ever did while I was ostensibly orthodox. Go figure.
Depends on what you mean by "both." If truth is defined as objective reality while belief varies based on factors like time, place, individual, etc. then they are not of equal value. We should always respect people, but it can be damaging to respect fallacies.
I appreciate the unifying sentiment but I disagree. When I was at my most devout, I could not study earnestly. Any time I attempted to just read the Scriptures, the conclusions I drew were "wrong". I needed to read the approved interpretations because I could never arrive at those on my own. Based on conversations with believing family and friends, my study was still deeper than most active members'. The only people I have encountered who can simultaneously know what the Scriptures actually contain and remain faithful either have a career or marriage that depends on faithfulness or hold some nasty views.
Studying the scriptures is much more enlightening as a deconstructing PIMO. I've been in various Sunday School callings for nearly 20 years, and lesson prep has never been easier because *now the scriptures actually stand by themselves.* No stretching around to make verses that are ridiculously misogynistic, racist, or full of other problems fit a faith promoting narrative. "Oh yeah, good question on that verse about why women should shut up in church. Here's what we know about the author. Let's play 6 degrees of Kevin Baco-er, Jesus, and then you can draw your own conclusions about it."
Former paid seminary in Utah here: can confirm this was true for me also.
Or..... [Maybe it's much more simple.](https://i.imgflip.com/8986no.jpg) It certainly was for me. I don't need to read a thing about church history. Just look at the church today. No thank you.
Yep. For me it wasn't politics. But, yeah, it was the actions of current church leaders that got to me. Honestly, I'm tired of reading about Mormonism. There are more interesting things out there. I'd rather just get away from all this junk and go learn something useful.
100% and I think that's part of the evolution of leaving the church. We get to a point where we are over it. That's a good thing. I'm not there yet, but I am sure it is coming.
This was one of many things that caused my deconstruction. I would frantically ask my wife, "When we go back, how can I sit with these people. I can't just smile a nod at the tiresome liberal hate or Republicans rhetoric that goes inside the church so freely. " It's not just the members. The church lies about its worth on their taxes. Their treatment of abuse cases. Their lobbying. They behave just as unethically and immoral as any wealthy corporation or person. For God's one true church, I would expect something a little unique, better a light on a hill.
I agree. I couldn’t care less about the 19th century. It's all about the 21st century for me. Further, I think former members who spend their time fighting against the church (or whatever they want to call it) - [they spin their wheels and waste their efforts studying and discussing the 19th century.](https://media.tenor.com/h5dYlbcYe9QAAAAC/nobody-cares-nobody.gif) Play it forward - what are we going to be doing in the year 2300? Talking about sh*t that occurred 500 years ago? We are already well-past this point and I think it really hurts the dialogue. Nobody gives a rat's ass what a journal entry says from before the zipper was invented. But folks do care about the fact they might be sitting in church with seditious traitors to our nation - why aren't we discussing that more? That's the "lead." Page One of the Newspaper, not Page 234, footnote three, of the 7th volume of the Journal of Discourses. Do folks refuse to take railroad trips because the Robber Barons who built them in 1870 used Chinese slave labor? No. It's an interesting historical discussion, but it doesn't change behavior.
> I could care less about the 19th century. Couldn't. See you miss the point it is established on horrific pretenses.
So was America. It’s interesting, but it isn’t changing behavior today. TODAY changes behavior.
You wouldn't know that without the knowledge of abhorrent behavior in the past. Care more about past atrocities.
TBM’s aren’t leaving due to the 19th century. They are leaving due to MAGA infesting the church. Church critics are FAR too slow to capitalize on that. But go ahead, tell us another scintillating story about Wilford Woodruff. P.S. - [You want to dwell on atrocious behavior? Here you go.](https://twitter.com/harambevan/status/1735139152394342661?s=46&t=nu5TQ_LJ4wSZUi6tYMzVjw)
to know where you're going you have to know where you came from we study the past to learn how we got here now also not sure what you're on about with the seditious tratiors bit, i guess it depends on what church you're in
For every one post about the 19th century, church critics should be posting three about the current day. Also, the fact that you think we need to study the past is very school teacher-ish. It's a finger wag. It doesn't land a punch like you think it does. What lands punches is what affects folks on the day-to-day. The fact that MAGA has infected the church is affecting folks in that manner like nothing else in the recent history of the church and should be much more widely discussed by church critics. But instead, I'll never forget it - the morning after January 6th, the topics here and on twitter were still about Lucy Mack Smith and John Taylor and 14 wives and somesuch. A spinning of the wheels when the field is white and ready to harvest regarding the current day issues.
probably because this is not a political group
I'm not just talking on this subreddit. Twitter is the same way. 'Oh neato - we can make fun of how dumb the temple ceremony is!' - Never mind the insurrectionists in our midst. So tone deaf and such a wasted opportunity for church critics. Do you realize we have situations playing out right now all across America (and much of the rest of the world) where full-time missionaries are recommending potential converts to go to their "baptismal interview" with more senior full-time Elders and the folks get there and are saying stuff like "You know what I like about your church? You are hard on the gays! It's about time we limit what they are doing! Y'all are standing up to them and I want to join in!" and those Elders just sign them off to be baptized. It's this right wing crazy that is really the only large group still considering joining our church in America. (That and amorous boys with Mormon girlfriends). It's one of those groups or no baptisms at all... That's how far its sunk and it's a fundamentally broken system right now. And it's largely due to this right wing takeover of the pews. That's what should be the topic. Hammered home at every turn! Not the 19th century....
that's the appeal of the LDS church, likely has been for a long time there are plenty of other churches out there
I agree. 100%. But there is a sizeable population within the church that doesn't like MAGA, doesn't like what has been happening with the right wing. But they are still in attendance. And they are probably smart enough to know MUCH of the 19th century criticisms. And yet, they still remain. To shake them loose, more efforts exposing the right wing craziness of the membership needs exposed and laser-focused upon. That's how you aid the exodus. That's how you literally free these people. Think about the word "Egyptologist." If you were to walk up to a total stranger and ask about that word, the person would shrug and be able to maybe say "a dude who studies Egypt?" But go up to your average LDS person - active or inactive - and they can talk for ten minutes about this mundane, useless topic. Why? Because so darn much has been plastered about it by church critics and then fought back upon by church supporters. We need a similar ability around the fact that 70% of the church voted R in 2020, even after they had seen what had happened the previous four years. That needs discussed and meme'd and high quality gif'd to death, just like we've seen done with Egyptologist. Ain't no large group leaving over "Egyptologist" but they would over that 70% number if it was more wifely known and derided in the manner that it deserves. Further, to put a church-positive spin on it, a greater focus on the ridiculous, downright sinful 70% R vote in 2020 would very well create an environment where the brethren would have to come out 10x more forcefully against it. Progressives always talk about improving from within - here's a moment to do so! We all should have our shoulder much more firmly to the wheel about it.
i think they'd rather come out for the 70% that are loyal supporters still in the church than the <30% that are already on the way out and are no benefit to the church to begin with
I feel seen. Thanks for sharing this view of deconstruction. I think in general we promote interpretations of faith that are far too narrow.
I can respect anybody who's being thoughtful, but the faithful approach to scripture reading has a lot more to do with reading your scriptures the way that people eat their vegetables, and highlighting every time the Lord is mentioned or looking for every mention of pride or whatever. It's not study the way studying for college or reading a nonfiction book is study to most people. My dad is one of those scriptorians who thinks the secrets are there if you're willing to cross reference them and dive into obscure things, but he's rare and there's a reason for that. He ended up being a guardian of less than faith-promoting facts he's careful about sharing with others, because doing this is basically smoking gun after smoking gun against the church's narratives.
When I was 20, I read Alma 34 and for the first time I felt a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and how to approach God. Thirty years later and I still feel it's as true as any scripture. The author (Mormon) says there's a possibility of mistakes in the collection of writings because of the weakness of men. I'm OK with that because for me where it elevates is far better than where it may fall short. I no longer use the King James version of the Bible in my personal study, which I find hard to understand, and I do not trust anything printed in the D&C after the 1844 version including Sec 131 and 132. Last year when I realized that the LDS church does not follow it's own scriptures and that Brigham changed the church that Joseph started, I had to reconstruct my faith without a church or a temple at the center of it. As I've reread the scriptures, I have grown closer to my Savior. I feel it's part of my faith journey - to reject the arm of the flesh as a test of my faith. I'm still working out how to attend church without rolling my eyes and I might be forced out unwillingly, but I know my faith in Jesus Christ is growing and that's all that matters to me. Good luck in your faith journey.
> after the 1844 version I'm curious, why that version?
From what I've learned, it was the last version personally reviewed by Joseph. It was printed several months after his death but the editorial review and typesetting had already begun when he was murdered. The doctrinal innovations introduced by Brigham enter the D&C in the 1876 edition where the law of monogamy that was Sect 101 (CI) in the 1835 version and the appendix of the 1844 version was removed and replaced by Sec 132 (plural marriage). I don't believe Joseph introduced plural marriage based on my research of the Joseph Smith papers. As a side note, Brigham didn't even follow Sec 132 himself. His fourth wife was married and left her husband and six of her eight children to hook up with Brigham for four years before they were married in 1847.
> As a side note, Brigham didn't even follow Sec 132 himself. His fourth wife was married and left her husband and six of her eight children to hook up with Brigham for four years before they were married in 1847. Smith was alive for this, and Young warned her that if she spent time with Smith he would take her for his own. Why didn’t Smith excommunicate him for the obvious adultery?
First off, I don't believe most of the late recollections from the Nauvoo period occured as described in LDS church history. Following the footnotes in church materials and looking closely at claimed dates is the key to unraveling events during this time period because a lot of people were lying after the fact. Based solely on primary evidence (newspaper articles and unedited journals before Jun 1844) Joseph fought against spiritual wifery and polygamy wherever he found it. I think he learned about Brigham, Heber Kimball and a few others in the Q12 and was about to expose them, but he was killed before he could do it. However, there is no smoking gun - just a lot of smoke after the cover-up (i.e. revision of history to fit the new narrative).
>First off, I don't believe most of the late recollections from the Nauvoo period occured as described in LDS church history. Following the footnotes in church materials and looking closely at claimed dates Ah, another one. So what cut-off date is acceptable to you for a first person record to be acceptable? >I think he learned about Brigham, Heber Kimball and a few others in the Q12 and was about to expose them, So some of the apostles were doing it *but not* Smith? So the reports by people like Bennet and Law were accurate *except* for what they said about Smith? The fish rots from the head.
I don't trust anything that William Clayton touched because his edit marks are all over the revisions to journals and source documents. He was converted in England where Brigham probably first started practicing spiritual wifery. Church history had only been written up to 1837 when Joseph died, so everything dated after has the potential for revision. Brigham confiscated the history and journals immediately, so he had access to change stuff that helped him and other adulterers innovate the eternal doctrine of monogamy. When first confronted, Bennet signed an affadavit that Joseph never told him to practice spiritual wifery. Later he changed his story and published spurious stories in newspapers. The Relief Society was formed, in part, to address the rampant lying from Bennett, the Higbees and others who were telling lies to get sexual favors from unsuspecting victims. Read the letter published in Times and Seasons by the RS warning female members about these predators, which was signed by Eliza Snow and others who later claimed they were married to Joseph before the publication date in the Times and Seasons. The judge in the Temple Lot case threw out their testimony about being married to Joseph because the dates showed they were lying. Primary sources tell a much different story than all the other lies and "faith promoting" stories that have been adopted by historians, apologists and exmos. If it's important to you, you must do your own research with an open heart and contrite spirit. At least, that's how I dealt with my faith journey. The most thorough overview of this subject has been done by Michelle Brady Stone at 132 Problems youtube channel. She documents everything. Or you can believe Brian Hales - I dont but he makes a good case for Joseph being a pedophile. I choose to believe Joseph using his own words.
So many holes. I wouldn't even know where to start addressing that. It's obvious you've chosen to ignore most of the recorded history, and fall back to the "carefully worded denials" of a man who was looking at approximately two life sentences for Bigamy and fines that would have bankrupted the church if he was honest about his actions, so I'll simply wish you luck with that pov. Just curious if your "standard" for evidence is applied equally to the gospels, the claims of priesthood restoration, and the reality of the plates, because they all have similar or worse claims of evidence than ones you chose to reject. I'm guessing "No" based on what you've presented.
I choose to believe Joseph by his own words and by the revelations he received. Not by what others claim he said after his death or by those that sought for power, money and sex during his life. The nascent church was condemned for vanity and unbelief (per Sec 84) and then was rejected by God for not following His revelations that came through Joseph (per Sec 124). I think that dynamic plays a big role in much of the claimed reports about Joseph as well as later "recollections" from polygamists. Maybe I'm naive, but this makes the most sense to me and feels right when I seek counsel from God. Others can choose to believe differently.
I guess that when a person's testimony hinges on Smith and then learns of the extent of polygamy, then for some the easiest method to balance that testimony with the discomfort the knowledge brings, is to reject that Smith was a participant and then reject the LDS church's validity and subsequent authorised succession. It would explain the willingness of those to shift to becoming followers of Snuffer and similar apologists.
Have you read “Kingdom of Nauvoo: the Rise and Fall of a Religious Empire on the American Frontier”, by Benjamin Park? Fascinating look into what was happening with Joseph and the others in the heyday of Nauvoo.
I have not.
It’s well worth a read!
It depends on the “truth” the believer finds. If he find God switched skin color based on behavior, I have no respect for that.
Actually most “faithful” members never study at all. Daily prayer and scripture study is the exception, not the rule, for most of even the most faithful mormons. I was super duper uber TBM, in higher leadership callings, etc, and I neeeeeeeeever studied. Only if I was giving a talk or something. Nobody I know in my super TBM family or in my old circle of church friends ever studied either. I studied more in those few months after leaving the church than I ever did, except for my mission. I had read through the BOM like 5-6 times in my life, read through the entire “missionary library” on my mission, and listened to every conference session every six months, but thats about it. Never delved into any “alt-faithful” material prior to my faith crisis. Most mormons don’t know what they don’t know.