My sister just pointed me to this article by Joseph Fielding McConkie entitled: “Two Churches Only”.

While I can’t argue technically or doctrinally with anything Bro. McConkie writes, I have always felt that this type of “false dichotomy” represents the worst thinking and teaching our church has to offer.

For some reason it reminds me of the immature college football player who runs up to the camera on New Year’s Day after scoring a touchdown and shouts “We’re number 1” with his index finger thrust forward….or the rabid fan that shouts “You all suck” to the opponents as they run onto the playing field at the beginning of the game.

I know this is strong language for me to use….but I belive that Brother McConkie’s article represents the worst writing and thinking our church has to offer the world today. What does it say about God that He would create “one true church”, and then only allow 1/2 of 1% of His children to have access to it within their lifetimes? There must be more to the eternal plan than this, or frankly, God isn’t the type of god I’m interested in worshipping. It MUST be that God has incorporated other faiths into His overall plan in some meaningful, important way–that makes calling them all an “abomination” or “of the devil” not quite accurate…and even sickeningly wrong and disrespectful.

I know the scriptures easily support Brother McConkie’s interpretation…but the scriptures leave open LOTS of room for intepretations that may not necessarily be righteous (killing is ok at times, wine is ok, multiple wives is both good and bad, women should keep silent in the church, etc.). (On the video clip, fast forward to time code 9:00 for the fast version)

To me, the plan is much broader, and much nobler than what Brother McConkie outlines in this article. To me, this type of writing only engenders pride, and complacency, and arrogance on the part of members….and does NOTHING to help bring people closer to our church.

A wise man once said that “Not all things that are true are useful”. While I’m not sure I’d apply this to the way we teach church history, I’d certainly apply it to this notion of “Two churches–the one and only true franchise vs. the Church of Satan”–and I guess I’d even question whether it’s really true. God is smarter, and more loving than this oversimplified dichotomy.

Just my opinion.

John Dehlin


  1. NFlanders November 16, 2005 at 4:39 pm

    Great post, John. This kind of thing bothers me greatly.

    It is my contention that Meridian is the most prominent anti-Mormon publication in the world.

  2. Craig November 16, 2005 at 5:01 pm

    I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue. I have come to similar conclusions. It seems to me that God needs good people in all kinds of organizations, and places, not just the Mormon church. I think most of us have known great people who have lived and died without joining the Mormon church. Whose contributions to this world have been extraordinary. Their positive influences in the world are just as needed as those influences coming from the Mormon church.

    On the other hand, I understand and appreciate the need to be very clear on this issue. A lack of clarity would only open the door for malcontents to create a divisive climate. Additionally, some members and investigators would no longer feel the need to make and keep the covenants found within the Gospel. History has taught us that if you provide a little wiggle room, many people will try to exploit it. Consequently, I agree with McConkie that we need to be very clear with the world (and ourselves) of what God expects from us.

    I agree, God is smarter, and more loving than this oversimplified dichotomy. But are we?

  3. John Dehlin November 16, 2005 at 5:04 pm

    Good points, Craig…but I have to believe that there are ways to motivate and inspire covenant making and keeping without denigrating others, and labeling them “Church of Satan”.

    Maybe I’m being naive, but I just have to believe that there’s a way.

    One thing I can say for sure…I do know personally lots of non-Mormons who act more Christlike than the average Mormon I meet. Somehow they’ve become motivated without believing others are inferior. Maybe we can find a way as well.

  4. Klaus Nomi November 16, 2005 at 6:38 pm

    I don’t want sound like a bigot and I certainly believe that that are truths in all faiths. I more importantly followers of “the light of christ” in all religions. Theology Christian, Islamic or pagan is an enemy to the spirit and a destroyer of faith. The philosophies of men are all ways in flux. The creeds and Theologies are sometimes destructive to the soul of man (total depravity, orginal sin, Predestination etc.) I feel no shame calling these Pernicious doctrines abominations. I would include mormon folk theology in with these.

  5. Craig November 16, 2005 at 6:49 pm

    I couldn’t agree with you more.


  6. John Dehlin November 16, 2005 at 7:11 pm


    Do you not see Mormon theology in flux?

    Think polygamy, Adam-God, Negro-doctrine, Blood Atonement, “As man is God once was”, etc. etc.

    Think thousands of changes to the Book of Mormon and D&C. Think new additions to the D&C that change past doctrines and practices.

    If you look to the heart of what Christ really seemed to condemn, it was those who felt they were “chosen” and “religious” and “churchy”, but who were ultimately hypocrites.

    I know we all are selective in the scriptural verses we want to use to justify our beliefs….I just happen to want to be on the side of openness and compassion. After traveling the globe and meeting people of all faiths, it just feels better to me. The average devout Mormon has nothing in righteousness over the average devout (fill in the blank).

    As Mark Twain says….travel is fatal to prejudice.

    That’s how I am feeling these days, anyway.

  7. Clark November 16, 2005 at 7:48 pm

    I’m not convinced the “two churches” is a false dichotomy. I mean it is in the scriptures. It’s certainly not problematic the way that say my pet peeve of liahonas vs. iron rodders is. (In that there actually appears to be a reasonable way to distinguish them)

    I’d say that most of the conversion will clearly be in the spirit world. As to why most don’t receive the fulness of the gospel here and now, I suppose that it isn’t necessary for their growth. But I’m not sure that says much about the issue of churches. And one can also point out that even the vast majority of Mormons hardly have the fulness in terms of doctrine (there is a lot left to be revealed) and few have all the ordinances (unless you’ve been so blessed to be called up to the Holy of Holies by Pres. Hinkley).

    So what’s the worry? I think the issue is more in terms of how the two church dichotomy is applied. And I think it is interpreted wrongly quite regularly. Certainly I’d agree that there are far too many self-congratulatory members out there. And I do think that many of Christ’s criticisms of the Jews of his era apply to many members. (Heavens, the Book of Mormon which is a type for our day also spends a lot of time criticizing or presenting the Nephites in a far less than flattering light)

  8. Clark November 16, 2005 at 7:56 pm

    Just to add, I’m actually very sympathetic to McConkie’s view that Nephi’s dichotomy relates to those born again. That is, some are members of the church of devil perhaps ignorantly simply because they are in bondage to the world. And the devil is the head of the world, symbolically.

    I also think that of course with any apocalyptic imagery, one has to tread carefully. The literature has certain forms. It seems to me that the big dangers that I think you warn of arise when apocalyptic language is treated as if it weren’t apocalyptic. That is, when a kind of poetic text is interpreted without the awareness of metaphor.

  9. John Dehlin November 16, 2005 at 7:57 pm

    You totally could be right, Clark. Still. I can’t get over the 99.95% number. What was God’s plan for them? Bide their time? Wander in meaninglessness…and inferiority? Why would God design a plan where .05% of his children had a shot at fullness, and the rest are simply out of luck? What are God’s expectations for them? Does he love them (the 99) any less than the 1?

    And if exaltation can come without being a member of God’s one true church in this mortal life, doesn’t that beg the question as to why we’re spending so much time emphasizing the dramatic importance of our “truthfuless” vs. everyone else’s?

    Shouldn’t we spend all our time trying to make sure we live worthy of the favoritism? And if we did, doesn’t it seem like that would mean much more internal focus (how can I love better?) than external focus (aren’t well all so glad that we’re right, and they’re all wrong?).

  10. John Dehlin November 16, 2005 at 8:00 pm


    Do you mean that “Church of the Devil” is only symbolic and metaphorical, and not literal?

    If it’s symbolic/metaphorical, couldn’t we choose a more Christlike metaphor? One that isn’t so completely associated with evil and darkness? One that isn’t tied to the ultimate in absolute depravity?

    To me, this type of language is evil…in that it is so comprehensively judgmental and critical and condemning.

  11. Abner Doon November 16, 2005 at 11:00 pm

    This is my problem with the Book of Mormon in general. It is a rather simplistic book and frequently employs dichotomies likes these. I think Fielding and McConkie were simply being true to their source material. How many times does the BoM deviate from an entirely one-dimensional description of people? How am I supposed to take someone like Ammon seriously (not to mention Korihor)? How about the 2000 young warriors who supposedly fight a major battle without a single death? B.H. Roberts pointed all this stuff out. It’s no secret that the BoM has an immature author’s fingerprints all over it.

    The civilizations depicted in the BoM are either totally good or totally bad, and switch from one to the other with astonishing rapidity. It frequently makes statements about how we should know the difference between right and wrong just as clearly as night and day. A bad tree can never bring forth good fruit. You’re either with me, or you’re against me. Church of God or the church of the devil. No ambiguity, no provisions for a a middle ground.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I see an awful lot of ambiguity, complexity, and shades of grey out there. Thus the BoM just doesn’t speak to me.

    Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let us not forget the wisdom of Obi-wan Kanobi – “Only the Sith speak in absolutes.”

  12. John Williams November 16, 2005 at 11:32 pm


    What about Nephi feeling guilty about his sins?

  13. Abner Doon November 16, 2005 at 11:42 pm

    Yes, that would probably be an exception to the rule. I can’t help but notice Nephi sounds an awful lot like Paul, though (cf. Romans 7).

  14. Bookslinger November 17, 2005 at 1:25 am

    Important point: in the first vision, it was the creeds of the other churches that were called an abomination, not the other churches or the members themselves.

    For creeds, see:
    or here

    The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed really aren’t all that far from LDS doctrine, only minor quibbles there.

    It’s the Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed that are abominations.

  15. Tim J. November 17, 2005 at 9:48 am

    “Why would God design a plan where .05% of his children had a shot at fullness, and the rest are simply out of luck? What are God’s expectations for them? Does he love them (the 99) any less than the 1?”

    I believe a lot has to do with what went on before we came to this earth. Which is a lot that we don’t know about. I came to a conclusion a few years ago that we have a huge misconception of what happened in the war in heaven.

    We have romanticzed it in such a way that we believe that you either went with Lucifer to outer darkness, or you chose to come here and agreed to do everything in your power to return.

    I don’t believe this. I believe many spirits (we were not perfect then nor now) looked at the task and thought, “Wow. That’s going to be a tough task. I have to do all that in order to return here? Wow. Well the terrestial (or even the telestial for that matter) kingdom would be a lot better than where they (the 1/3) are headed. So if I fail to return, hey I’m still better off.”

    Thus these spirits came to the earth without the specific goal of returning to Heavenly Father. They were just trying to stay out of Hell–and they have succeeded.

  16. John Dehlin November 17, 2005 at 10:05 am

    Hey Tim,

    I do totally respect and understand what your’re saying…and most importantly, why you’re saying it (based on past statements and interpretations of GA’s), but having spent a great deal of time traveling in foreign coutries, and becoming close friends with people of other faiths (or of no faith), this reasoning just doesn’t resonate with me–that somehow a devout Muslim in Africa or a devout Catholic in Quebec or even a totally ethical, honest, altruistic athiest was somehow less valiant or indecisive or spirituall weak or inferior in the pre-existance. If anything, they seem to me as much stronger and wiser and devout to Christ than the average LDS person.

    I’m sure there are valiant and less-valiant among us, but I don’t think any of us can really speculate as to who was/is and who isn’t/wasn’t…..and there’s SOOO much danger in trying to do so (in my opinion). Entire races of people in the past have been written off based on these justifications…only to have them overturned in more recent years (yet never apologized for).

    For me, this is the exact type of thinking that is most dangerous for Mormons….that we are chosen…elect….valiant…and the rest of the world something less than that. Seems like the BOM completely forbids this type of mentality (at least self-pronounced….if God says it, that’s another matter entirely).

    We are only elect/chosen/valiant when acting as such….and for me, following Christ’s example of love and humility and compassion are the only ways to really demonstrate this….which precludes broad, sweeping stereotypes and generalizations (judgments, basically) about the valiancy and worthiness of others…past and present.

    Just my feelings on the matter…but I totally see where you’re coming from, Tim.

  17. Tim J. November 17, 2005 at 10:17 am

    I’m in NO WAY referring to different races, though I can’t blame you for thinking that as many people believe that Africans were denied the priesthood due to being less valiant in the pre-existence. I believe this to be whole-heartedly false.

    My feelings are the only way I can rationalize why people are born into the situations they are (ethnicity, origin, religion notwithstanding). I don’t see how you can rationalize what you’re saying taking into consideration what the scriptures, prophets, etc. tell us.

    There’s a lot we don’t know about the pre-existence, which is strange due to the fact that it was one of the most important happenings of mankind. We probably don’t know because we aren’t supposed to know (obviously). Not knowing keeps us motivated to do our best.

    Again, there was a divide a heaven, but I don’t believe it was as black and white as most LDS make it out to be. Not everyone that chose to come here shouted in joy and proclaimed their loyalty, swearing to return. Some were unsure of their capabilities and thus were okay with falling a little short. What did God do with them?

    This was much like myself when it came to math class. I knew going in I had a very slim chance of getting an “A” in that class, it just came very difficult for me. In order to get an “A” it would take a lot of time, hard work, and stress. I rationalized that it really wasn’t worth it, thus I was happy with falling short and getting a “C”.

  18. clark November 17, 2005 at 11:30 am

    John, I think that rhetorically using “church of the devil” isn’t wise. And in that I agree with you. It’s simply counter-productive for persuading people of much. I’m just suggesting that in terms of an exegesis of Nephi’s vision, it’s rather in keeping with eschatological texts and makes sense.

    I’m definitely not suggesting it for ways to make friends or influence people.

  19. John Dehlin November 17, 2005 at 11:41 am


    I actually believe that it’s not only damaging to say or write this….I feel like it’s dangerous to believe it. What possible good does it do?

    It’s far too dichotomous and oversimplified (in my view). As Abner mentions above, life is just far more complex than these crude poles suggest…scriptural or not.

    That’s how I feel, anyway.


  20. John Dehlin November 17, 2005 at 12:03 pm


    A couple of thoughts/questions come to mind.

    1) Regarding your statement, “I don’t see how you can rationalize what you’re saying taking into consideration what the scriptures, prophets, etc.”–I think that one’s pretty easy to answer. If there’s anything history has told is–it’s that scriptures and prophets are flawed/imperfect…and it’s our duty to not just blindly accept them, but to use our own minds and hearts and spirit to discern. If we were to believe everything the scriptures or prophets have said in absolute, we would still believe that women should stay silent in the church, the sun revolves around the earth, that polygamy is not doctrinal (See the 1835 D&C), that man will never walk on the moon, and that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence, and won’t receive the priesthood until the 2nd coming.

    2) Tim–regarding your comment about “I’m in NO WAY referring to different races”…it seems as though you’re against stereotyping based on race, but you’re ok stereotyping even more broadly that that–basically Mormon vs. everyone else. Doesn’t this seem even more disturbing than discriminating just by race…because it basically demonstrates prejudice against 99.95 of the world’s population?

    3) Don’t you think it’s dangerous to EVER try to decide who was/is valiant, and who wasn’t/isn’t? Why should we ever try (“Judge not”)? Isn’t God the only judge? Of what value is it to ANYONE (in or out of the church) to discuss this issue of who was valiant, and who wasn’t? Is there any possible good that can come of it? I certainly can list all sorts of evil….including Rameumptum-like pride on our part, and all sorts of prejudice and discrimination as well.


  21. Ben S. November 17, 2005 at 12:57 pm

    “It is a rather simplistic book…How many times does the BoM deviate from an entirely one-dimensional description of people? ”

    If the terminology used were always genetic, this might apply, but it’s not. Lamanite can simply be a socio-political term.

    Further, I find Todd Compton’s “The Spirituality of the Outcast in the Book of Mormon” to argue well against the position you’re taking.

    “Abstract: In the Book of Mormon, despised outcasts, such as the Lamanites or the poor, often have a special aptitude for spirituality, and the richer, “civilized,” and more overtly religious Nephites are often declining in righteousness. This phenomenon, with some characteristic specific themes, such as being excluded from a religious edifice, is found in ancient and contemporary cultures and religions. This theme points up the complexity of the Book of Mormon, which is not simple cowboys-and-Indians melodrama.”

    You’re also not taking Moroni’s editorial sensibilites and historigraphy into consideration. History for him is meant to be didactic. He draws meaning out of it, and chooses his stories and sources to make the points he wishes. There have been several articles on this as well, though I don’t think any are on line.

    John, have you seen Stephen Robinson’s discussion of this passage? I’ve found it helpful.

  22. John Dehlin November 17, 2005 at 1:02 pm

    No, but I’ll give it a read!

  23. Matt Elggren November 17, 2005 at 1:35 pm

    I agree with John’s questioning the doctrine of “one true church” vs. all the others. However, having been raised in orthodoxy, I have experienced the mind-set of “knowing” the “one true church” doctrine to be true and how this certainty dramatically impacted my views of the world and others. My experience has been that, if I “know” something to be true, then no amount or quality of contrary evidence can survive the blinding light of truth…which truth I love more than any human being or relationship.

    So calling a dichotomy false, especially one so near and dear to the essence of Mormon faith and identity as this one, will have one primary effect on those who “know” it to be true…it will confirm their faith and place the source of the statement solidly outside of truth…though benevolently and condescendingly so…and among the “good men who were not valiant in seeking truth”.

    John, from the orthodox view, you are a prime candidate for the Terrestrial Kingdom…and of course, this is just and fair and charitable of God because this is the only place that you could truly be happy…despite what you think, oh man.

    Now I personally don’t believe I know the truth about much anymore and I’ve left this “only true church” dichotomy behind…so I find that I totally agree with you. But I also have much sympathy for others who have posted here in defense of the “one true church”. Not that I agree with them, but that I know where they are coming from and remember, not so long ago, being just as certain and utterly lost to my conviction.

    I am hopeful too, because I have also experienced what it’s like to lose faith and come to know something else…that there is nothing to fear in not knowing the truth. And I know that this is all part of the human experience and our natural evolution. I believe we’ll all eventually get past the fear of not knowing and not being on the “right” side.


  24. Tim J. November 17, 2005 at 3:02 pm


    I’m not judging here. There will be PLENTY of lds who end up in the terrestial and even the telestial kingdom. One argument that I hear from evangelicals is that we believe that when Christ returns, only Mormons will be left. While I don’t doubt many LDS believe this–it is false. There will be many people from all different backgrounds left standing, depending on their righteousness.

    However, to deny that the one-true-church exists is to deny that the LDS church is ONLY church that has the true authority of God and the accompanying saving ordinances (which are indisputably necessary for exaltation). The righteous will have the opportunity to receive these, whether in this life or the hereafter.

    I also feel as though we need to separate the members from the religion. I have met and befriended several people from other religions. They are good people with good morals and high standards that do the best they can. Do I think they’re damned for not having the truth? Absolutely not. They will be judged according to the amount of law which they have received and they will be given the same opportunity that we have, and I feel that they probably were some of the most valiant spirits. However, I believe some of the churches they are a part of know very well that they are misleading their flock. But I do not hold this against them.

    Likewise, I know many LDS members who have probably lost their inheritence and will end up well short. I don’t believe, even though they might have been born into the covenant, that they were one of the valiant ones.

  25. Matt Elggren November 17, 2005 at 3:18 pm

    And how do you know this? What is it like “knowing” such things as only God could and should know?

    We Mormons (and humans) so often talk about things as if they were _real_ things. For Mormons it’s things like…like pre-existence, inheritance, the pre-mortal valiance of ourselves and others, etc. We talk about these things with the same confidence as our knowledge of the rising sun. But these things are of an entirely different class.

    How do you know?

  26. Tim J. November 17, 2005 at 3:23 pm


    It’s pure speculation (as is a lot of things on the blogs) on my part and I wanted it discussed. I don’t know what happened. Like I said, it’s simply how I rationalize certain things. If you have a different opinion, I’d like to hear it and then discuss it. If we go around always asking people (esp. Mormons) how they know, things can get out of hand because eventually someone will throw out the personal revelation card and end all discussion.

  27. Matt Elggren November 17, 2005 at 3:59 pm

    You’re right. An appeal to personal knowledge from God trumps all…but isn’t that ultimately the _only_ appeal that Mormon orthodoxy has going for it?

    And so we’re back to the realm of “false” dichotomies only this one is about those who know and those who don’t know (and are known, as I’ve often heard it put). And as you point out, this dichotomy doesn’t cut along the line of church membership but through the ranks of the church and possibly beyond…and depending upon which prophecy referenced…anywhere from half the church or more doesn’t know and/or belong to Christ.

    I understand this and I once totally believed it.

    But if the only sustainable argument supporting it is an appeal to personal revelation from God regarding the doctrine and its source, then I say, with John and many others, that this doesn’t appeal to my own sense of goodness and justice. And it certainly doesn’t appeal to my God-given sense of skepticism and wonder.

    But above all (and this is where the trump cancels itself out) it hasn’t been my personal experience with God that such knowledge as the current or final state of humans is to be had in this life if ever. Unfortunately, I don’t have a church or scriptures to back me up on that personal experience…to give it the validity of authority that you get when your personal revelation matches-up with an institutional doctrine.


  28. Tim J. November 17, 2005 at 4:10 pm


    I appreciate your comments. I don’t really have any direct scriptural or prophetic reference to back up my feelings either. As LDS we romanticize WAY too much of what goes on (Mormon Art, those damned Living Scriptures videos, etc). This is dangerous because it distracts us from other possibilities which may be true. A few weeks ago my EQ president was imploring us to do our hometeaching and reach out especially to the inactives because, at one time or another, they had the goal of exaltation as well. That, I believe, is false.

  29. Hyrum November 17, 2005 at 8:54 pm

    McConkie has one thing dead on in this piece: in order to avoid redundancy as an organization, the LDS Church needs to stress its uniquess. I have noticed in recent years that the Church started handing out Bibles as well as Books of Mormon. I wonder if this 1) signals a mainstreaming, and 2) if there is any relationship between that mainstreaming and a dip in the number of converts.

    Liberal Protestantism is in decline in part because people can easily meet similar needs in liberal political action groups and other good causes. If redundancy exists, people don’t see the point in the bother.

    Aside from that, I can only strenuously caution against the kind of divisive rhetoric that McConkie employs. It is one thing to claim one has “the answer,” and another to rub it in others’ faces. Frankly, the idea that a “believer” would characterize others as members of the devil’s kingdom is simply scary. That kind of thinking leads to some very dark places indeed.

    Why be so brash in identifying others as the devil’s minions when it has been made purposely difficult? Wheat and tares, when sown together, are indistinguishable for a time. That is the point of the metaphor. Paul spoke of wolves in sheeps’ clothing. If the wolves were so easy to spot, why all the wasted ink? Furthermore, the wolves were wearing sheeps’ clothing because they were among the “saints.” Still so easy to tell the difference, Joe?

    Finally, I just have to point out the hilarity of a guy with the handle “Klaus Nomi” writing the sentiments posted above. Klaus Nomi was the first rock personality to die of AIDS. He was a protege of David Bowie, a gender-bender, and he sang the choruses of his songs in a falsetto operatic voice. The image of Nomi connected to words like those is certainly worth a guffaw.

  30. Samuel November 18, 2005 at 12:24 am


    I know I said that I wasn’t going to post anymore on your site, in my last Email to you, but I just have to thank you publicly for your honesty and straightforwardness on this particular subject. When I read this post, I about fell off my chair. This post sparked a fire within me and I had to respond and give my points of view. I’ve been pondering this exact subject for the last 6 months.

    I have tremendous respect for you John and give you huge kudos for being able to be frank, candid and honest, regarding this matter, knowing that it must be very difficult for you to deal with and accept.

    I agree 100% with everything that you’ve said regarding this “one and only true church” teaching and we are on some very common ground in this instance. It is indeed very strong language for you John, as you usually try to defend these types of things and teachings or find either a rational or acceptable explanation for them. To flat out say it is wrong, is a big thing for you, I’m sure.

    I was stunned when I first read your post and wondered if you had even written it, since you hadn’t signed your name. Now I know that you did write it, so that’s why I’m responding. Now onto the subject matter at hand.

    The problem is, that you can’t be a good, temple going member of the Church, if you don’t believe this “one and only”teaching, you just can’t. We taught it for two years on our mission. Everything that the Church stands for, from baptism, to the temples and everything in between, demands that one accept this premise.

    It is required!! If this premise isn’t true, then the entire premise of the Mormon Church, along with the importance of it’s teachings, temples, etc, go right out the window and are rendered meaningless. Let me state a few examples to support this point of view.

    To reject this teaching, requires one to have to reject the divine authenticity of The Book of Mormon, therefore, rejecting Joseph Smith as a true Prophet of God. Don’t worry everyone, I’m going to support these points too, just give me a minute. It also requires us to reject the First Vision and the words that Jesus supposedly spoke to Joseph Smith. Again, if these words straight from Jesus’ mouth are false, then everything crumbles.

    So, if The Book of Mormon isn’t divine, Joseph Smith isn’t a Prophet and the words from the First Vision can’t be accepted, what do you have left to believe in? What would be the point to continue on in the Mormon Church?

    Aren’t those things the entire foundation of the Mormon Church? What does the Church have without all of that to stand on? They have nothing!! I’ll give you some quotes at the end to also support this.

    If the entire foundation of the Mormon Church is questionable or false, that it stands to reason that the Mormon Church is obviously false as well. It’s pretty simple isn’t it? You can’t have a “true Church” when the BOM, D&C, First Vision and Joseph Smith are all false, right? It’s just common sense.

    Joseph Smith History specifically says, starting in verse 18… “I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

    19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors• were all corrupt; that: “they draw• near to me with their lips, but their hearts• are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments• of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power• thereof.”

    20 He again forbade me to join with any of them;

    So, “they were all wrong”, “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight”, “those professors• were all corrupt” and he “forbade me to join with any of them, etc, etc.”

    Then, let me remind everyone of the following verses from the BOM and D&C:

    1 Ne. 14: 10
    10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two• churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other• is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso• belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore• of all the earth.

    D&C 18: 20
    20 Contend• against no church, save it be the church of the devil.

    GS Devil
    The church of the devil: Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God.

    GS Devil
    The devil founded the great and abominable church, 1 Ne. 13: 6 (1 Ne. 14: 9). There are only two churches, one of the Lamb of God and one of the devil, 1 Ne. 14: 10 (Alma 5: 39). Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil, D&C 18: 20. The great and abominable church shall be cast down, D&C 29: 21.


    I know that I’m simply stating the obvious, things that most everyone here is probably already familiar with, but to me, it is just so clear and so important to fully understand these verses. Either these things are true or they aren’t. There is no ambiguity, no gray area, as taught by Hinckley himself. These things are clearly stated and there is no other interpretation in my opinion.

    Just the word “restoration”, or the phrase “restored gospel”, clearly states the idea that there is no other true Church. It clearly gives one the idea that the Mormon Church is “the one and only true, restored Church on the earth”, doesn’t it? That the Mormon Church is the only Church that has the “authority of God” to act or “the authority to act in the name of God.” .

    Again, we taught that on our missions in the very first discussion. We were taught and trained to teach it as the missionary discussions were “inspired” directly from God. At least that was always my understanding and what I believed. When the discussions changed in the mid-80’s, those changes came from God, through his Prophet.

    Remember now, it is the “divinely inspired” Book of Mormon, “the most correct book on the earth”, that refers to the Church of the Devil and the Mother of harlots, Mother of abominations and the whore of all the earth”, and this applies to any Church that isn’t the Church of the Lamb of God.

    As it clearly states, “Behold there are save two• churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other• is the church of the devil.” This is obviously something that Joseph Smith strongly believed all the way back to the First Vision as I showed above. Again, the BOM, confirms that other Churches are abominations.

    Now to further show what I now consider to be incredible arrogance by the Mormon Church, that they are the only ones with “the truth”, I want to share some words from M. Russell Ballard.

    I went to a Stake Conference a couple of weeks ago and he had some very arrogant things to say that are very relevant to this conversation.

    Now, those true believers out there, do you accept that M. Russell Ballard is a true Apostle of God and that when he speaks in a Stake Conference, he is inspired, or was he just speaking as a man, unless it was something that agreed with your point of view? This is a common argument that I’ve been running into a lot with Friends and Family members. Just something to think about while you read and ponder what he said.

    I’m only going to include the pertinent things that apply to this conversation, but he did have some other “words of wisdom” or “tidbits” of insight that he shared with us. I will be doing a post on my blog later tonight regarding these other “tidbits” from Ballard that were rather silly, amazing and never heard of before, as far as I know.”

    I think he was re-writing Mormon theology and doctrine once again with some of his remarks that he demanded were true.

    Anyway, back to the topic at hand; Ballard made the following statements, “Joseph Smith was chosen before the foundations of the world were laid and he was tutored, prepared and taught for generations.”

    He then said, “We as Latter-Day Saints, know more about the purpose of life, who we are, where we came from and were we are going than everybody else on the entire planet and that we know concisely what will happen after this life.”

    He then said, point blank, “we, as a people, know more than every other person on this entire earth.” “How and why do we know this”, he asked”? Well, of course, he said it’s because of “Joseph Smith.”

    If that doesn’t smack of complete arrogance and “I’m better than everyone else”, I don’t know what does. There was no humility in his words whatsoever. He was boasting about how much we know. This is the attitude that you, John, are talking about in your post.

    This attitude is being shared by people like Ballard, who is supposed to be a humble servant/Apostle, of God, isn’t he? He was telling everyone that either we are more blessed than everyone else in the world or just smarter, you decide.

    As a “TBM”, I used to eat that stuff up and it made me feel good that we knew so much that the rest of the world had no clue about. It confirmed to me that we were indeed, a peculiar people, but a peculiar people with the only truth.

    That knowledge gave me a fire to want to share, give two years of my life serving a mission, etc, while trying to convince the rest of the world that they needed to be a Mormon like me in order to be saved.

    I felt very bad for those that had their chance, felt the spirit, but then rejected it because they couldn’t stop smoking or drinking, etc. I hoped that they would get another chance, prayed and fasted for them, my soul was tormented, but my understanding was that they would only get one chance, either in this life or the next. I felt that sadly, they may have had their one chance.

    But, in short, it drove me to do what the Church wanted me to do, in order to help them complete their mission and goals. My Family and I paid my way, which came to around $10,000, for this wonderful privilege of helping the Church achieve their agenda and goals. Meanwhile, I had to subject myself to Mission Leadership that was much less than honorable or respectful and in some cases, downright abusive.

    At least I met some great people that I’ll never forget, learned a new language and learned how to survive in a foreign land/culture, etc. Also, one very important thing that I learned, was all about the very obvious flaws that exist in the Mormon Church that I previously wasn’t familiar with.

    I left naive and came home knowing more than I ever wanted to know. Ignorance is indeed bliss, at least in this case.

    Now, back to Ballard for a second, let’s keep in mind that M. Russell Ballard is also a direct descendant of Joseph Smith. So, it would make sense to give Joseph Smith all the credit and make him the reason why we are so much more intelligent than all those other poor folks that must be living horrible, miserable lives, without Mormonism to divide them from their Family and Friends, right?

    Plus, he also mentioned that “save Jesus only, that Joseph Smith was the most important man that ever lived on the earth, ever, and that he was greater than Moses, Abraham, etc. He was, the greatest Prophet to ever live.”

    Now, with all of this said, if the Mormon Church isn’t the “one and only true Church on the face of the earth”, than what the heck is Ballard rambling about? His words simply become incoherent rhetoric, that are completely meaningless.

    Let me ask the question, What is the “main” purpose of temples? To do work for the dead, right? Why do we need to do that? Because the Mormon Church is the only true Church on the face of the planet and everyone that has ever lived, needs a Mormon Baptism, initiatory works, a new name, to be endowed and sealed, etc.

    If the Mormon Church isn’t indeed the only true Church on the earth, than what is the purpose for temples? Why spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year, every year, building structures around the world that in reality, are worthless and meaningless. What a waste of money or is it?

    Appearances are everything and even if the Church isn’t growing by leaps and bounds, in order to continue growing at all, it has to have all the appearances of growing by leaps and bounds, right?

    If the Mormon Church stopped building temples and even sold a few that aren’t accomplishing hardly a thing, what do you think the membership would think of that? It would be faith demoting, for sure. It would rattle a few people that would wonder what was happening. That’s my opinion.

    In many cases, especially this one, perception is reality and that’s what the Mormon Church is “literally” banking on. Of course, what they spend on temples and buildings each year, hardly even touches their bottom line, so why would the Mormon hierarchy care what they are spending.

    They are hoping the long term gain of tithe payers, which always spikes in an area where they build a temple, will compensate them for the cost of the temple. In many places, they are finding this not to be the case.

    You see, if that premise, that the Mormon Church has banked on since 1820, when Joseph was first supposedly told these words, isn’t true, then everything begins to unravel quickly and crash to the ground.

    The Mormon Church can’t exist without this teaching since it is one of their most important, precious beliefs that they have, since it came directly from the lips of Jesus in The First Vision. God the Father and Jesus Christ, spoke directly to Joseph Smith, in the flesh, in the woods, wouldn’t that be extremely important?

    So was Jesus lying? Was he speaking in parables? did Joseph here him wrong? Was it written wrong? Was Joseph still shook up from his experience with Satan, right before the First Vision and therefore misunderstood?

    Considering that this has been in the official cannon of “Mormon scriptures” for a very long time, plus, with the 2nd witness of this teaching being The Book of Mormon, and also confirmed by the D&C, the answer is obviously no.

    Now, a few quotes from Hinckley to give us even greater insight into what would happen to the Church if The Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith were discovered not to be true.

    “Do we as Latter-day Saints really understand and appreciate the strength of our position? Among the religions of the world, it is unique and wonderful.”

    “We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.”

    When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.”

    “That is the way I feel about it. OUR WHOLE STRENGTH RESTS ON THE VALIDITY OF THAT VISION. IT EITHER OCCURRED OR IT DID NOT OCCUR. IF IT DID NOT, THEN THIS WORK IS A FRAUD. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.

    “Reflect upon it, my brethren and sisters. For centuries the heavens remained sealed. Good men and women, not a few—really great and wonderful people—tried to correct, strengthen, and improve their systems of worship and their body of doctrine. To them I pay honor and respect. How much better the world is because of their bold action. While I believe their work was inspired, it was not favored with the opening of the heavens, with the appearance of Deity.”

    “Upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this Church.”

    “In all of recorded religious history there is nothing to compare with it…”

    “It is easy to see why people do not accept this account. It is almost beyond comprehension. And yet it is so reasonable…”

    (Even Joseph Smith said that he wouldn’t believe it if he hadn’t lived it. But, we are supposed to believe it, when even Joseph Smith wouldn’t have, had he lived when we now live?)

    “I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its history. My response was that without that history we have nothing. The truth of that unique, singular, and remarkable event is the pivotal substance of our faith…”

    Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith,” Ensign, Nov. 2002, 78Loyalty

    Finally, the video clip and this quote was shared at the Joseph Smith extravaganza birthday bash, from this past July, in reference to those of us that question the validity of the First Vision.

    In Gordon B. Hinkley’s, “My Testimony,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 51, he said the following:

    “I thank my Father in Heaven for the testimony I have of the reality of the First Vision. I have stood among the trees where Joseph knelt as a boy, and heard the whisperings of the Spirit that it happened as he said it happened. I have read the words of critics, who from 1820 until now have tried to destroy the validity of that account. They have made much of the fact that there were SEVERAL versions and that the account as we now have it WAS NOT WRITTEN UNTIL 1838. SO WHAT? I find security for my faith in the simplicity of his narrative, in its lack of argument, in its straightforward reasonableness, and in the fact that he sealed his testimony with his life’s blood. Could there have been a stronger endorsement?”

    (We could discuss in another thread why, exactly Joseph died, and what could have been the reasons as to why everyone hated him and wanted him killed. It wasn’t simply to seal his testimony of The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and the first vision with his blood, it goes much, much deeper that that.)

    And to attempt to finally wrap up this long post(sorry John for the length), I wanted to include Hinckley’s responses on Larry King, regarding what happens to people, that are “speaking out” like we are right now, or even discussing this kind of stuff, plus, how he feels about other religions. What we are all doing in this forum, is not allowed or encouraged by the Church.

    It’s kind of like when people used to have study groups in their homes, well, the Church put a quick kibosh on that, while officially outlawing them, didn’t they? Be warned, the same thing is coming for the Internet. The problem is, that it’s impossible to control over the Internet.

    However, for anyone that has anything they are questioning and wants to remain in the Church, I wouldn’t suggest using your real name on here or any forum, if you have any intention of not being disciplined and punished.

    Now, while we are on the subject, back to Hinckley on Larry King…..

    Larry King: Are people ever thrown out of your church?

    Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

    Larry King: For?

    Gordon B. Hinckley: Doing what they shouldn’t do, preaching false doctrine, speaking out publicly. They can carry all the opinion they wish WITHIN THEIR HEADS, so to speak,BUT IF THEY BEGIN TO TRY TO PERSUADE OTHERS, THEY MAY BE CALLED IN FOR A DISCIPLINARY COUNCIL. We don’t excommunicate many, but we do some. (So much for free agency eh?)


    Larry King: So you should refer to, and read from three books?

    Gordon B. Hinckley: Three books: Old testament, New Testament and the Book of Mormon.

    Larry King: That’s three books, right?

    Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes, yes, yes.

    Larry King: When someone only preaches the New Testament, are they in error?

    Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, I don’t know they’re in error. They’re going as far as they feel disposed to go.

    Larry King: And the Old Testament as far as they feel disposed to go?

    Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

    Larry King: And you’re saying to them, bring your faith with you, right?

    Gordon B. Hinckley: Sure.

    Larry King: You’re not saying, leave your Catholicism. (Let me jump in here and answer for Hinckley, YES, that is exactly what we are saying!!)

    Gordon B. Hinckley: I say this to other people: you develop all the good you can. We have no animosity toward any other church. We do not oppose other churches. We never speak negatively of other churches. We say to people: you bring all the good that you have, and let us see if we can add to it.

    (The statements that, ” We do not oppose other churches” or “We never speak negatively of other churches” is disingenuous at the least and a bold faced lie at the worst. All one has to do is read the First Vision or The Book of Mormon, which apparently Hinckley hasn’t done lately. Hopefully he’s taking his own challenge on that.)

    Hinckley on Larry King Sept 1998

    Well, I lied, one more thing for people to watch and consider, that to me, shows the deception that is currently in play. I told you that I’ve been pondering this exact issue for 6 months now.

    Anyways, this is the Stake President that appeared on the Today show a week or so ago. It’s about a 6 minute clip, but toward the end, Matt Lauer, asks Brent Belnap, the SP, a very specific question, about missionary work in developing nations.

    He says that “it has been controversial and a lot of people wonder if when the missionaries are preaching to these people, if they are teaching that the Church of Latter-Day Saints is the only path to God and salvation or are you presenting it as an alternative?”

    Well, guess what Brent Belnap says? You’ve got it, he says that it is more of an alternative and that people are free to choose, just like other Churches. Again, he is either lying, being disingenuous or not familiar with official Church doctrines, including the First Vision and The Book of Mormon. I don’t know why I continue to be surprised, but this one really surprised me, once again.

    While it is true that people can choose, he certainly neglects explaining the dire consequences of not choosing the Mormon Church. We are talking about someone’s salvation and Eternal Life, aren’t we? What happens to someone that has the chance to choose the Mormon’s and doesn’t? That’s another topic that deserves it’s own thread.

    If Mormonism is now just an alternative religion and place were people can simply add to the good they already have, I would say that things have changed dramatically and that they are throwing out The First Vision, Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon.

    I would suggest that people start saving themselves 10% of their income on this alternative and free up their time for Family or a hobby or something. After all, if it isn’t that big of a deal anymore, then we should treat it as such.

    He also didn’t take the opportunity to be honest and say, that he, and the Mormon Hierarchy, going all the way back to Joseph Smith, believe that they are the only true Church on the earth and that all of the other Churches are of the devil, Mother’s of harlots and whores of all the earth. I wonder why?

    It’s straight out of the most correct, powerful book in the whole world with the “fullness” of the Gospel. He didn’t mention that all of the other Churches are false, their creeds are abominations and their preachers are corrupt.

    Maybe he didn’t say it, because the Mormon Hierarchy doesn’t believe that anymore? Could it be? Are they actually going to go there? Will Mormonism one day just be another mainstream Christian sect? You have to believe that this SP, was prepped for this interview. It wouldn’t be allowed for him to just go on a national talk show, without the Hierarchy knowing about it and preparing him.

    Link to the Today Show video

    Well, by all intents and appearances, the Mormon Church appears to be going 100% mainstream already. Maybe that would also help explain their massive efforts in building up their real estate portfolio, while spending Billions of Jesus’ dollars and allowing alcohol to be served in Jesus’ mall?

    I guess the response that I would have liked to have heard, wouldn’t have gone over too well. Yet, it is reality and what the Mormon Church really believes, isn’t it? Like Hinckley mentioned as quoted above, “OUR WHOLE STRENGTH RESTS ON THE VALIDITY OF THAT VISION.”


    It’s pretty obvious to me, that they are heading in a vastly different direction than where they’ve come from, including sacrificing their very core values, in exchange for financial compensation. I would say that yes, they do sell their tokens for money, and lots of it.

    Hinckley also said that he, “knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its history. My response was that without that history we have nothing.”

    Again, he/they, can’t have it both ways. To once again quote Hinckley, completely “in context” by the way, “Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”

    So, according to Hinckley, the Church is not trapped by their history, rather, they embrace it and without it, they have nothing. “THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!!” EITHER IT’S TRUE OR A FRAUD, ACCORDING TO HINCKLEY.

    So, how does the Church, on a regular basis, omit, or not talk about about so many things in their history if they are indeed so proud of it and would be nothing without it?

    I beg to differ with that statement. In reality The Church is nothing, when a lot of their history is discovered, discussed and given relevance. That’s the problem. They are running from what they supposedly embrace and can’t live without.

    Well, I lied again, I just had a couple of other quotes pop into my head from a BYU Professor. He said, regarding the Book of Mormon, calling it the Anti-Mormon approach, “if Joseph Smith made the book up, then it’s peoples did not exist, it’s events did not happen and there should be no trace of them anywhere!!”

    Yeah, that about covers it, doesn’t it? I’m not hearing of too many traces out there or even good, solid leads to anything of substance in regards to Book of Mormon artifacts. Where is The Book of Mormon Exhibit? Where is the display in the Church’s History museum, showing off all of the remnants from the Hill Cumorah, from those great, legendary battles? Last I looked, back in July, still missing.

    Then he said, “if after a reasonable time of searching, material evidence is not found, then The Book of Mormon would be shown to be imaginary and by implication, Joseph Smith would be exposed as a liar and The Mormon Church unveiled as a hoax.”(Looks like he’s learned something from Hinckley, heading down the “it would then be a fraud road.”)

    Then he explains that “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of “Mormonism” and that if you can destroy that stone, all the rest that it supports, will come crashing down.”

    Link to my blog and the audio of this BYU Professor’s speech

    AMEN, I second that statement as well and I believe that what he describes is beginning to happen and it will only be a matter of time, before it happens big time.

    I completely agree with Hinckley, that “there is no middle ground.” “Either it’s all true or all a fraud.” After much intensive study and using one of Hinckley’s two options, I’ve obviously come to the conclusion that it is all indeed a fraud.

    It is a complete hoax, perpetuated on the world, beginning with Joseph Smith and continued on through Gordon B. Hinckley today.

    If what Hinckley says is true, that the Mormon Church has nothing without it’s History and that “there is no middle ground” and that “it is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing”, I would say they have big problems and it is nothing.

    First of all I would like to know why they have FARMS and partner up with FAIR, sharing links back and forth on their websites, etc. It should all be crystal clear, right? Why all of the confusion, if it is so clear cut?

    Why have organizations like FARMS at all, which are officially part of BYU, since 1997, when Hinckley spoke and said, “I wish to express my strong congratulations and appreciation for those who started this effort and who have shepherded it to this point?” He concluded by noting that he sees, “a bright future for this effort now through the university.”

    I’m just wondering where the inspiration is, from a supposed modern day, living oracle of God. Can’t he help Hinckley out with the location of the city of Zarahemla for example.

    Could Hinckley please explain to us why there is nothing inside or around the Hill Cumorah, that would lead us to believe that millions of people died there, along with their swords, breastplates, shields, helmets, clubs, bows, arrows, etc? Where is everything? How did it just disappear?

    Where are these caves and caverns in the Hill Cumorah that had rooms stacked with golden plates and Laban’s sword? Did God just twitch his nose and make it all disappear? Why doesn’t he do that with everything then, including the Bible artifacts and places?

    Why would it be a bad thing if these things were easily found. Who wouldn’t want to be a Mormon? Can you imagine? Oh yeah, I forgot, we need to live by spiritual proof, not actual proof than can be seen. Sorry about that. We shouldn’t be sign seekers.

    If there are actually two Hill Cumorahs, one of the theories now being championed, Hinckley should tell the world where the other one is and how the plates got to the one in New York, right? Then we can go excavate it and shock and amaze the world with complete proof of the validity of the BOM, once and for all.

    The problem is, that it has been stated over and over, even by the First Presidency in 1990, that THE HILL CUMORAH in New York, is THE HILL CUMORAH from the BOM which also includes the hill that the Jaredites called RAMAH. It is one in the same. Oops, big problem!!

    You see, they can never, ever, officially, embrace a “two Hill Cumorah” theory, because it would contradict every General Authority, all the way back to Joseph Smith, that ever said it was the ONLY HILL CUMORAH. Mormon Hierarchy, you have a big problem on your hands.

    Here is a link to a copy of that official 1990 letter

    Oh, I’m sorry, God wants to try peoples faith, I keep forgetting, so I guess he took all of the evidence back to heaven, right? Give me a break!!

    How can a “true Prophet, Seer and Revelator” of Jesus’ Church, the one and only true Church on the face of the planet earth, with all the keys to receive revelation, not even have a single clue about Book of Mormon geography or archeology?

    I guess that I hold the Mormon Prophet, to a higher level than most, but then that is what I was taught for my whole life. What good are all of those keys and titles that he supposedly holds, if you can’t receive revelation for something so simple and basic?

    Of course, that doesn’t stop him from receiving “important” revelations on “how many earrings” a woman wears, canceling Missionary Homecomings and Farewells, etc.

    If anyone doubts that this simple suggestion on earrings has not become a rule and commandment, just go listen or read Bednar’s talk and check out the example he uses. It blows my mind and leaves no doubt how important it is.

    After all, as Bednar said, “The young man waited patiently over a period of time for the young woman to remove her extra earrings, but she did not take them out. This was a valuable piece of information for this young man, and he felt unsettled about her nonresponsiveness to a prophet’s pleading.”

    You see,it has now gone from Hinckley “suggesting it”, to a dramatic,”Prophet’s pleading.”

    Audio of Bednar on the importance of the earring commandment

    The Text of Bednar’s Earring Speech

    You would think that Hinckley would know everything that needed to be known about everything, including the Book of Mormon and that Jesus would tell him when and what to release to the world. You know, the milk before the meat thing?

    Then again, if it’s all a hoax, and a giant fraud, that may clear things up considerably and help us to understand all of these things very easily and rapidly.

    Again, given a choice, after much study and pondering and common sense, I’m gonna take Hinckley’s second option and declare again, that I’ve discovered the Mormon Church to be a complete fraud.

    The Mormon Church is without a shred of physical evidence to prove it’s validity, except a bunch of people with warm fuzzy feelings burning in their bosom. May I suggest some Tums or Rolaids. You may just have acid reflux or something.

    Of course, that is what they taught us we will feel from the time we were little kids, so we all naturally felt it and wanted to feel it. We were deeply programmed from our youth, those of us that were born into the Mormon Church that is. Interesting isn’t it?

    Take care everyone, sorry for this ridiculously long post, but I had a lot to say and I’m very passionate about these things, since I spent over 30 years, believing them with nothing but a burning bosom to prove them. I guess this is a blog and there are no limits and I just felt the need to write this. For those that don’t want to read it, that’s fine, they can just scroll down to the next response below mine.

    Again, John, I want to personally thank you and your comments for inspiring me and motivating me to write this post. I felt that it was worth my time. I didn’t know that I had it in me, as lately, I’ve just kind of been chilling and thinking about things while taking a little break from my writing. I guess you reignited the fire. Thanks again for that John!!

    I hope that all is well with you and yours and that you will be able to find the “true peace”, that you are seeking, whether in the Mormon Church or out of it. I only sincerely wish you the best. We all have to find that place in this world where we are happy and comfortable and sometimes that’s not easy to do.

    I feel like the Mormon Church has lied and betrayed me, along with my Family and Friends and is now driving wedges between us due to my “apostate beliefs.” Everyone is praying for my soul, which is now possibly possessed by the devil.;) They fear for me and know that we won’t be together in the next life, that is, unless I return to “the only true Church on the face of the earth. Remember, there are only 2 Churches and now a part of the whore of all the earth I guess. As Hinckley would say, isn’t it wonderful?

    The Mormon fire, in my bosom at least, has been extinguished big time. I now have an intellectual and emotional burning fire, to help as many people as possible to know what I now know.

    Now, I just use my brain and common sense, to wade through these inconsistencies and contradictions that used to require a very high degree of cognitive dissonance to try to understand. Now it all makes sense and is so much easier to comprehend, at least for me.

    Thanks for your time everyone, especially John. I wish everyone the best in their journey and studies. I hope that this post has helped at least one person out there, that is looking for clarity and understanding.

    With regards,

    Samuel the Utahnite

  31. Samuel November 18, 2005 at 12:29 am

    Sorry, here is that link again to the Today show video with the Brent Belnap, a Stake President. Hopefully this one works.

    Today Show Link with Mormon Stake President

  32. Samuel November 18, 2005 at 12:42 am

    Sorry guys, not sure why some of my links didn’t work, maybe John can fix them and erase this post. Here are the links that didn’t work.

    The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith

    Here is a link to a copy of that official 1990 letter

    I hope these work for you…


  33. Hellmut November 20, 2005 at 3:10 pm

    Somebody who makes such extraordinary claims has to meet an extraordinary burden of proof. Where are the fruits of Mormonism that would justify such a statement?

  34. R. C. November 24, 2005 at 10:02 am

    John, I love Scott Peck’s thoughts about this. Especially “Beyond the Road Less Travelled”. I think for me, he explains this better than anyone else has.

    Basically, we grow from no belief, to childlike belief (most Mormons–no offense), to disbelief (most former Mormons), to mature belief (he cites the Jesuits as an example).

    Maybe the cycle goes even further than that . . .

  35. clark December 5, 2005 at 1:55 pm

    Probably no one is reading this particular post anymore. But I found an old post of mine that I think tends to address the dichotomy issue of the two churches.

Comments are closed.