The LDS church one ups itself

I did not think I would live to see it happen, but I believe this church has just one-upped itself in level of deceit and deception.

When I was going through my faith crisis, I was looking for reasons to stay, as opposed to reasons to go. I had known about lots of the historical problems and had found ways to resolve them. True Brigham was racist, Joseph may or may not have been an adulterer, the Book of Mormon had some problems, but I was willing to accept lots of the “they were just flawed human beings” type answers. I could have done that, but the part that bothered me most was not all that stuff from the past, the racism and polyandry, it was bad, but it was in the past. What bothered me most was the continual deception and telling of half-truths by the LDS church. The cover up was far worse than the crime. That was bad, but the Church has just one-upped itself.

If someone lies to you and comes back within a few hours and admits to their lying and apologizes, it does not excuse the lie, but most all good-hearted human beings would be willing to forgive.

Now if the person lies, and then a few days later you catch them in the lie and confront them about it, and when you do they admit to it and apologize, that would be harder to forgive, but as I am the forgiving type, I would in almost all cases be willing to extend the olive branch. 

The next level up is when they lie, they are caught in the lie, confronted about it, and still continue to deny that they lied for several hours/day/years until some other external threat comes and they finally confess. That is a lot harder to forgive, and that is exactly what the church has been doing for the last hundred or so years. The church has essentially been denying racism, polyandry, and all this stuff for a hundred of years, denying, or purposely avoiding, which is the same thing. It was only recently that the church finally made confession, and really it was the outside authority of the internet which had so thoroughly exposed the church that we can hardly say “made confession” when in reality what happened is the church was forced to confessed due to the barrage of truth reaching the members from sources such as mormonthink.com and the CES letter. 

The church was forced to confess after a century of denial and avoidance. That is a hard sin to forgive. But I am a forgiving person, and I just may have been able to do it. I was just warming up to being more NOM (New Order Mormon) over the past few weeks I have been remembering lots of the good lessons I learned in church (“lift where you stand,” “by small and simple means are great things brought to pass”, and many more) I felt maybe with a good full confession, this relationship could be restored. If they had said “look we messed up really bad, we have been less than honest, and in many cases outright dishonest for the past few hundred years about these issues, and we are sorry.” I would have said it would have been nice if you had said this before (like a hundred years ago), but you know, things could work. But instead they dropped one foot deeper into the mud of pride and deceit.

If a friend lies to you, doesn’t confess, is confronted with the lie, and continues to deny for a lengthy time before finally being forced to admit, that is bad, but what makes it worse is when some other person confronts them about the lie and confession (say a whole bunch of media outlets all reporting on how you have denied the truth for over 100 years) and instead of admitting to what happened you say, “Oh yeah, we have said this all along,we have been completely honest about this for the 100 years.” That is when you know that person has not repented. To use the church language, that person is full of pride and stiffnecked, there is no humility or honesty left in them. They are just as deceitful and full of B.S. as they have been from the first, because it isn’t about honesty, it isn’t about telling the truth, all they are saying is whatever they can say and get away with. That is how you know they would not have told anything if they had not had to, they would not have confessed if  they had not been confronted, they would not have done anything except they were backed in to the corner.

Anyone who says the church has been upfront about these issues all along knows they are being completely dishonest. Maybe there was reference to these issues in some obscure ensign article, or 150 years ago a seventy said such and such at the pulpit. But look through every church student manual, Sunday School manual, etc. etc. and you will find no reference to Joseph Smith having a 14 year old wife when he was 38. It will be Joseph and Emma, Joseph and Emma, and that is it. If not outright lies, the church has at least not told the whole truth, which according to how I learned about honesty in Sunday School, is the same as lying. 

The church has to know that people are hurting right now. Hurting bad. I just read a heartbreaking story about a Stake President and Bishops in Honduras learning about the truth they had been told to fight as lies for years. Can the church not see that people have given their entire freaking lives to this, given years and years, hours and hours, and their last drop of income to this, all based on lies? How incredibly insensitive can a church be? To drop this truth on them, they have to know it is going to hurt like hell (Not that the truth hurts or is bad, but rather the fact that they have been dedicated to a lie). And then to tell these people who are, in the spiritual sense, bleeding and writhing in pain, “oh, well we have known about this all along, we have always been honest about this.” That is to just spit in their face. That is more than adding insult to injury, that is adding injury to injury.

I have had hopes that the institutional church could be repaired, that it would somehow be honest and make amends. That obviously Is not going to happen. To use the language of the church, the church is itself ‘past feeling.’ The church is a stone face that not only lacks a contrite heart and spirit, it has no heart at all.

There are good people, even great people who live in the church, people I love and admire. There are great lessons and morals that I learned in the church. But I cannot stay with the church because I love those people and love those morals. To stay with the church, is to stay with the person that insults and mocks the people I love. To stay with the church is to be a part of an institution that abhors (in practice, regardless of what they say), the morals I respect.

I love people and I love morals too much to sell myself to that whore who pretends to love both, but really is just using them to take their money, give them nothing, and lie to them about it the entire time. 

Elder Anderson

Elder Anderson, I don't think you thought through all of your comments about Joseph Smith the other day, so I decided to help you..

You quoted Neil A. Maxwell in your talk: “Studying the Church … through the eyes of its defectors,” Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said, is “like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.”

I would just like to point out to you that whenever you make a statement like that, make sure to follow it all the way through and realize the implications. Joseph Smith was a defector from mainstream Christianity, as was Brigham Young, and many of the current members of the LDS church. So does this mean that we are not supposed to learn about Christianity from Mormons? After all they are defectors or were founded by defectors, so if we follow your advice, we really should not learn about Christianity from them.

Also what about the American revolutionaries? What about Martin Luther? Are all these people supposed to be thrown in the waste basket of "defectors" and ignored?

Often it is the defectors of history that we most admire, because they were able to stand up for truth and honesty when everything and everyone around them told them just to stay with the group. Here are some famous defectors:

Moses defected from his Egyptian family and the ways of the Egyptians and went to Israel.
Jesus Christ defected from the current religious practices of the time.
Martin Luther defected from the Catholicism ("I cannot and will not recant").
George Washington defected from the British crown.
Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin did also. "Give me liberty or give me death!")
Joseph Smith defected from the religious teachings of his time.

In fact every large religious movement was started by a defector. So unless you want to throw out the testimonies of Moses, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, and even Jesus Christ, you probably should not throw "defectors" under the bus.

regards,

The Mormon Virgin.

Behind the Excommunications

The Face of Dogmatic in the LDS church. 

The extremely strange events of June 2014 beg a few questions and speculation.

This event on the surface makes no sense. I have seen some speculation as to why, but no one has really had any sort of sensible answer, but I have yet to read any decent explanation.

The church has been more open and less likely to excommunicate ever since the September six as the church has realized the public backlash that comes from excommunicating “thought criminals” in particular very public and even well-liked thought criminals, such as John Dehlin, and Kate Kelly.

That was one of the lessons of the September six, the other lesson which I thought the church had learned was that they end up excommunicating those who are in the best position to help the church. There is no other person who could have helped the church more during these years of increased historical visibility than D. Michael Quinn. Think about it, he is Gay, he knows all the issues better than most anyone, and he believes. What better mark of openness and understanding for the church to point to than that. He could have been a great asset. He would have been as good or better than Richard Bushman at handling the Swedish issue, and would have been able to address the issue of the historical “essays” much better as well. But the church excommunicated him. Excommunicated the person who could have been their best ally during the internet years. This is one of the many signs the church is not run by Prophets, Seers, or Revelators. 

D. Michael Quinn: the man who could have saved Mormonism.

The church apparently has not learned its lesson that the liberal elements in the church can be its savior. John Dehlin in particular has made enormous effort to help those stay in the church that desire to and who have had faith crises and would have otherwise left. He has been one of the church’s biggest advocates and has done more than anyone to try in some way resolve the historical mess the church has created by being dishonest about its history.

On every level, the excommunication makes no sense. Excommunicating the guy who started stayLDS.org? Can there be more irony than this?

Could it be that this is a local issue? Did two local leaders just feel (were inspired?) to get rid of these two troublemakers? This is the theory the church has claimed. This cannot be true. This had to be organized by Salt Lake, because in the LDS church everything is ordered by Salt Lake. Bishop’s are pawns of the Stake President and the Stake presidents of the General Authorities. Obedience is the first law of the LDS Church, to paraphrase LDS scripture.

First off, the chance that two completely independent excommunication letters were sent within a day of each other is essentially zero. Next, any church leader has to know that taking action against someone as public as John Dehlin or Kate Kelly is going to cause a huge public out roar. If they did not know this they would have to have an IQ of 27, have never used the internet, and require help to tie their own shoes. Honestly, would any leader bring that much public criticism to the church without first questioning Salt Lake?

When I went to the national Scout Jamboree with a refugee troop in my Salt Lake City ward, we were interviewed by the local press. They wanted to interview the Stake President. Before being interviewed he said he needed to call headquarters and ask. He did, they said he could not be interviewed. He was in a suit and tie and it was for something completely positive about the church. Is it possible to imagine that a  Stake President would do something that would draw loads of press and attention to themselves and the church without first consulting Salt Lake? I think not. These leaders almost for sure were under pressure from someone “higher up” whether this was officially, or more interestingly, some apostle or GA was informally pressuring them, but the chance that they acted alone is about as likely as me throwing skittles into a pond and having rainbows and unicorns come out.

Who is behind it?

Obviously I don’t know. But it might be helpful to look to the September Six. The September Six happened because the Prophet was incapacitated and so Boyd K. Packer exerted more influence in the quorum of the Twelve. Packer had to know that once Hinckley was at the helm, this was not going to happen. So he acted and acted fast. I see no reason to believe that this is any different. I do not know the health status of the Prophet, but I have heard he is having difficulties. It is not hard to imagine that the situation is much as it was in 1993. Packer also knows his days are numbered and needs to act. I don’t know. Could it also be Oaks? Maybe.

One thing is clear, there is a faction within the quorum of the twelve that is very conservative. There is a lack of love in the quorum. There was heated disagreement about whether to release the historical essays. Some of the conservative factions were less than excited. It is easy to imagine that faction being the one taking control of a somewhat unhealthy prophet and exercising “unrighteous dominion" (to say the least).

Ever more intriguing is the possibility that an apostle simply decided to do this on his own. What stake President or Bishop would say no to a call from Boyd K. Packer or Dallin H. Oaks? Seriously. If you are in power in the church, that word has real meaning, they do have power over people, particularly apostles over Stake Presidents and Bishops.

This was centrally organized because the church is centrally organized, and as much as they try to deflect the blame to local leaders, they know, and we all know that they control the local leaders.

Obviously the church has not learned the lessons from the September Six, in particular the “conservative” apostles, if they are behind this, have not learned the lesson. This is because those men must be so prideful and arrogant and disconnected from reality that they literally look at the blue sky, call it magenta, and think that it is so.

This will of course backfire on the church (the more liberal apostles already know this but as Oaks said about Packer at one time, "you don't stage manage a grizzly bear"). The flight from the church will only accelerate. 

The Light of The World Church

I was always a believer in Joseph Smith’s quote:  “Mormonism is truth…The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or … being … prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men.”

Actually accepting this always put me on the Liberal end of Mormonism, as I was willing to talk to anyone and go to any church. I felt I could learn just as much about God in a Buddhist temple as in an LDS sacrament meeting.

I visited just about every kind of religion you can imagine, but one of the most interesting experiences came when visiting La Iglesia Luz del Mundo [The Church of the Light of the World].

Small Placard in Salt Lake City

Their building was half a block from my SLC apartment. Late one night I was walking and I saw people coming in and out of the church, at 10 p.m. It was not Christmas or any other common Christian holiday.

From my apartment window I could see the church and checked periodically. By the time I went to bed they were still there, it was after midnight. This was curious to me to say the least.

The next day I walked by the church to see when services were. They have services  every day, 3 times a day. I decided to go to one that night at 8 p.m.

I want to press into the mind of the reader that this was a most curious experience which included many strange things visually and audibly and in just about every way, I will do my best to describe all of these details. Also an important note the church was entirely in Spanish (I am fluent). I was the only white guy present. This is significant in terms of culture and customs.

First, appearances: this building is a historic building in Salt Lake City, it even has the plaque marking it as a historic site. However, the lettering, billboards and decorations are painfully anachronistic and cheap looking (see picture of the name of the church for example).The letters are cheap black and white letters that are normally used on the windows of office buildings. And the letters are not even put on straight. Most American’s would find it unbearably tacky.

The juxtaposition of historic architecture and some tacky not perfectly straight lettering

The inside had the same anachronistic mixing of beautiful, turn of the century Gothic (and Romanesque) architecture, with tacky plastic lettering and fake flowers. They have a very ostentatious display, almost like the Vatican with a large gold chair and red carpet, but everything was so obviously plastic and fake it just came across as tacky (see pictures).

The ornate front of the church. The throne and fake flowers are just tacky. Notice the screen projector on top of the pipes. The organ is not used. Names and lettering on each side (also unevenly spaced).

Notice the date on the pillar: 6 April 1926

This symbol is throughout the church, not really sure what it means.

From the pictures you will likely also notice some other curious things (at least I did). If you look closely under the two names written down the pillars you will see two dates. Under Samuel, February 14, 2014, under Aaron, April 6, 1926. April 6? I wondered what the significance was. As it turns out, after talking to some members after the meeting I found out that April 6 1926 is the year the church was, listen closely, “restored.”

I asked, “Aaron formed your church on April 6?”

“No, we believe that Christ formed the church, Aaron was just called as an Apostle to restore the church.”

Sound familiar? Well if you ever taught the missionary lessons it should. It was uncanny how similar the language they used was to that which I used on my mission.

Apparently, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, Aaron Joaquin “restored” the Church on April 6, 1926 down in Mexico during a time of religion upheaval. He was persecuted for his beliefs, but he still kept preaching and stuck to his belief. He started a small congregation that grew and was ostracized by their neighbors. They were persecuted and even driven out until they formed their own city in rural Mexico. They built their city centered around the temple, a large ornate building they eventually built (not making this stuff up). Their temples are now throughout Mexico, Central America, South America, and a few in the United States.

As I learned more of the history, multiple times I felt like pinching myself and saying out loud, “Is this for real?” It was definitely a twilight zone experience. I felt like I was meeting Mormonism’s younger, Mexican brother. 

A picture of the main temple of La Luz Del Mundo church in Mexico.

I did feel like the cult of the leader was perhaps even stronger than in Mormonism. The other date on the wall, 14 of February, is the birthday of Aaron’s successor, Samuel. “Why 2014?” I asked. “Because that was the most recent celebration of it (strange, I know, maybe the guy is sensitive about his age).” So it turns out that the current Apostle’s birthday is basically the biggest festival they have (a little narcissistic perhaps?). These posters pictured below were outside recently (as it turns out Samuel began his ministry in 1964). Also, and most interestingly, what was the reason for them being there all night long?

Despite the fact of that they meet three times a day; they do not usually stay all night. What was the occasion? “The apostle of God is sick.” Yes that is right Samuel Joaquin had the flu or something, and so these people were doing 24-hour all-day all-night prayer sessions for him. People would leave to go to work, and they would sort of “take shifts” during the night, but there were people praying (and a lot more as you will soon see) all night long. Wow I thought, that is dedication, or at the very least, insanity. I am not sure when exactly Mr. Joaquin got better (I did not bother to check up), but one thing I am pretty sure of is that a lot of other people got sick from lack of sleep.

A poster recently outside the church. It says: "Apostle of Jesus Christ, Samuel Joaquin Flores, The Church in Salt Lake City, Utah, celebrates 50 years of communion apostolic anniversary."

Okay to the meeting. It was instantly apparent that it was an extremely conservative church. The congregation was separated by gender, women on one side (the speaker’s left) and men on the other. The women were all very modestly dressed. This was not like Mormon women who sometimes “push the limit” and show their knee caps or even (gasp!) some thigh. These women were covered quite literally head to foot. They all covered their hair with a sort of scarf and wore ankle-length dresses. Obviously no sleeveless dresses were around. There were none of the spicy Latina girls you would meet at the Catholic Church wearing miniskirts and low-cut tops. Not at all. Anyways enough about the women!

They read a letter from the “Apostle” about how he was under the weather and needed their support. They even put the letter up onto the projector screen (you can see the projector screen in the picture, but the screen is up).  After this there were three or four people who spoke. What was curious was that at the end of every speaker’s talk they would get super emotional and start to cry. Not only would they cry, but people in the audience would also start crying and appearing as if they were in emotional trauma. Some would even approach the stand and prostrate on the ground as if in pain. But all the emotion was so obviously fake. As soon as the speaker was done he would go down and start talking to someone (I would watch them) and they were perfectly fine, no tears or emotion in their face at all.

All speakers spoke way too long, and all were over-the-top ridiculously emotional. This was like Fast and Testimony meeting times 500 on the fake-emotion scale. At least in Fast and Testimony meeting some speakers show genuine emotion, and lots don’t cry at all. But here it was every single speaker.

Then it was time for a song. I like singing. I picked up the hymn book, turned to the song, stood up with the rest of the congregation (which is what they do apparently), and began singing along with them. I did not know the tune, but luckily neither did anyone else. It is against their religion to use musical instruments (they have the organ because it is a historic building and they can’t take it out), so everyone just sings whatever, but most Latinos do not have formal musical training, so it was pretty bad to say the least. And it gets worse.

These people sing. I mean they sing. They made that annoying guy in sacrament meeting who sings two decibels above the rest of the congregation combined seem like a muted sheep. These guys belted it out like there was an air-raid and they needed to warn their neighbor three blocks away. It was incredible. I actually liked it (as it turns out I am that annoying guy in sacrament meeting, so for once I fit right in). However, about half way through the song I noticed something strange.  I heard what sounded like dying cats. I also noticed the song was getting quieter. I looked around trying to figure out where the sound was coming from. I noticed some members had stopped singing and were crying out as if overcome with emotion. They had even fallen to their knees on the floor. Others had gone into the aisle way and were basically lying on the ground crying and moaning almost as loud as they had sung.

As the song progressed, so did the number who switched from singing to crying. It was like there was a sniper picking people off from the balcony. Pretty soon everyone was down for the count. Everyone except me of course. There I was, already singled out because I was the only tall white guy, but now I was the only person standing and singing. I was not going to fall down and start crying in fake emotion, so I just stood there alone and sang. Not knowing the song didn’t help. It was awkward to say the least.

After the song was over, everyone returned to their seats, and it was like nothing had happened. The tears gone, no pain or emotion were left on the faces.

And you can’t end a meeting any better than that.

I stayed and talked to a few people. One missionary guy talked to me about their beliefs. But after talking for all of 30 seconds I realized that, though he tried to make it a discussion, there was no room for questioning. What he said was the truth, no matter what.

I left the building feeling like I had left this weird wormhole out of the modern world. Then I remembered all the similarities between Mormonism. This really was Mormonism’s younger Mexican brother. Samuel Joaquin is basically their Brigham Young (likely with quite a few similarities).  I used to wonder what it would be like to live during the early days of the church. Perhaps now I knew.

I had shiver run down my spine. I was glad it was over and I will never again have to sing a made up tune A Capella in the middle of bunch of crying Hispanics. Praise Samuel Joaquin! 

My Joseph Smith Story: A letter to my family

“I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true (Joseph Smith History 1: 20).” This line is one that is brushed over when people tell the Joseph Smith story. I also had not really thought of the significance of it until recent years, but I have thought upon it much in the past months.

What makes it so incredible is not what is said, as what is not said. Here was a young boy, 15 years old, going to his mother and telling her that he had discovered the religion she belonged to was not true. I find it amazing that Joesph felt comfortable telling her, but even more her lack of negative response. There is no record of yelling, or even confrontation; what is more, it seems Lucy Mack Smith even believed her son.

I cannot hope to possibly have the same level of understanding and support that Joseph Smith experienced from his family as I reveal this story, but I would ask that you proportion me at least some level of the understanding that must have been in Lucy Mack Smith’s heart that day when Joseph walked in and said, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”

And so with that confidence in your love for me, I bravely venture forth.

I have learned for myself that Mormonism is not true. It was not an easy thing for me to find out or accept, and I do not expect it to be easy for you to accept that this is where I have arrived, but I promise you it cannot be much harder for you to accept me than it has been for me to accept this most bitter pill.

So the question remains, why have I done this?

Many aspects of Joseph Smith’s story still impress me, in particular his conviction in the face of opposition. Many of his friends and Church leaders he had known turned on him, but he stood by his convictions. “Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it (Joseph Smith History1:25).”

Martin Luther similarly declared in front of the diet of worms, “My conscience is captive… I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.”

These men of valor have always impressed me. Regardless of how the world felt about their convictions, they stood by them, for they knew they were right. How could I, pretend to follow them when I was unwilling to do the same thing and stand by my convictions?

It is not in spite of what I was taught growing up in the church, but because of what I was taught that I must make this change in my life. I was taught valor, courage, integrity, honesty, and to value the truth above all else. I cannot and will not step away from those values. I have done so in the past, but I do not want to again and that is why I am writing this letter. That is why I am taking this stand. I don’t want to pretend to believe something I do not. Many probably do, but I am not one of those. I want to live a life of integrity. Of honesty. Of courage. There is nothing courageous about living what you do not believe in because society around you expects it of you. Do what is right let the consequence follow is what I sung, and still believe. There are no ends that justify the means. Honesty and integrity are the keys to happy life and I ask you to help me have those virtues.

Mormonism was for me Truth. That is what it always was. Nothing more, and nothing less. Joseph Smith said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” Joseph also said, “Mormonism is truth…The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or … being … prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men.” Imagine the difficult position my own search for truth placed me in. My search to follow the words of Joseph Smith led me away from all I had known. Isolated me from my family, friends, and loved ones. It has not been easy, and I expect it to get more difficult. But I have known for some time I have needed to make this change, to follow the truth as I perceive it and do what I know is right or to follow societal norms of those around me.

On my mission I taught people to follow the truths I was taught from my childhood, and encouraged them to do what they knew in their hearts were right. I said they should follow the truth even if it meant changing habits, losing friends, and having to sacrifice relationships. These people were willing to leave all that they had known to follow the truth as I gave it to them. While I was on this mission I often wondered if I would have been as courageous as them; if I would have been willing to listen to random Americans and leave everything to follow the truth they taught. I always wondered and now have the opportunity to find out. For I have been “stopped in the streets” so to speak and learned truth. I know it and I know that I know it. I now need to finally decide.

I have put this choice off for far too long and have stayed in limbo for far too long. I want to be honest and open. Despite the many good aspects of the church and its members and the love I have for all those who embrace its creeds, I do not believe in what presently constitutes Mormonism or consider myself a current Mormon. I have made my decision. I have and will continue to seek truth and to follow it. I must finally do what is right and let the consequence follow, regardless of the relationships, friendships, connections, job prospects, or anything else I may lose. I must live a life of integrity. I must live my life to for myself and no one else!

So though I know you may disagree with my actions, at least I think you might be able to concur with my motives and desires to follow my principles and live honestly.

This is the first reason why I am stepping away. But that is not all. Perhaps if it was just that it would seem selfish to some extent. I don’t do this only for myself but also for others.

Stephen Covey has said that having continuity among our core beliefs and actions is a key to success. I concur completely, but it is even more than that, if we rob the world of the greatest gift we can give, namely ourselves.

I can no longer worry about whose sensibilities I am bothering, or what mask I am supposed to be wearing. I have spent far too many years of my life being the person the people around me expected me to be, and not being true to myself. William Shakespeare said, “To thine own self be true.” I have one gift to give this world. One gift alone. I have one life to give this one gift, and I can no longer avoid giving it. That gift is who I am.

This may sound like a cliché “be yourself” and all that. Clichés I have realized (for the most part at least) are statements that everybody knows are true, but nobody (or hardly anyone) understands or follows.

That is the number one reason why I made this decision. I leave with the hope that others in similar dilemmas might find the courage to follow the example I have set. That by doing so they may no longer live with the guilt and shame of being untrue to themselves and others.  

Now I know this letter may be difficult to accept. You may feel overwhelmed or even in shock. Though I truly feel sorry for the pain you are experiencing and can understand it completely, I do not apologize for what I have said. I stand by it. As Martin Luther said, “I cannot and will not recant!”

I thank you for taking the time to read these issues that I have been wanting to express for a very long time. This quote from Joseph Smith may be helpful, as you sort these things out in your mind and heart:

“I want the liberty of believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn't prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine.” – Joseph Smith

With love and appreciation for all the good things you have done for me throughout my entire life.

I remain your son and brother,

My Real Name

Barriers to Entry Volume 4: Love

Yes love. That magical word that makes us giddy when young and robs our bank account when we are not much older.

Love, despite its wonders, can be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It can send you on the highest of highs; can make you float above rational reality and even bring you to a beautiful union of sexual intercourse.

However it can also blind you, leading you n an exciting trail of discovery only to find out too late that you were actually going down a dark alley where you are left alone with your genitals locked inside a steel box called emotional trauma. Furthermore, the person who led you there also took the key.

This is the double-edged sword of Love.

To be fair, neither of these is my story, though I do know a good number of people who one of the above scenarios could describe.

My story with love is much more beautiful, but at the same time, much more tragic.

The most dangerous combination in this world is not cola and Mentos nor is it drinking beer and rum, no, those only give you some temporary discomfort, heck they may even kill you, but there are worse things; things that make people long for death.

The worst combination is a heart that falls deeply and fully in love and a brain to rational or stubborn to take action. This is a wretched mixing which will ruin your heart and leave you cold and alone. It will cripple your will and empty your hope. It will suck out your soul, your life, and your purpose and leave you alone at the end of a dark alley, your genitals in a locked box whose key is lost forever.

And this is the ultimate, “barrier to entry.”

Note: future entries will turn to lighter subjects, namely The Awkward Adventures of The Mormon Virgin