Not very appealing

By "appealing" President Morris' decision to excommunicate me from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would either have to "confess" to and "repent" of commiting "apostasy" (something I would never do, for I have never been an "apostate") or I would have to question and undermine the Church's legitimacy and authority by claiming that President Morris erred in his decision-making (something I am equally loathe to do). 

I'd rather just not appeal it. (I love Tim Malone's approach to this matter, hypothetically speaking.) Groucho Marx quipped: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." In that same spirit, why would I want to "re-join" an organization that kicked me out for no good reason?

Most people perhaps do not appreciate the violence "excommunication" implies and perpetrates upon "believing" Mormons. Latter-day Saints are conditioned to believe that "priesthood leaders" hold the "keys" to salvation itself. Being cut off from them -- and whatever "blessings" they offer -- is tantamount to being severed from Christ. Church leaders have, in effect, made themselves "gods" to the people.

That proposition, alone, ought to give one pause.

Either way, the Church has turned itself against me, making me its "enemy". What choice do I have now? If I "float", I'm a witch! If I sink, I'm innocent! That's some consolation.

I can either "shut up" and take my "medicine", and let the truth be suppressed and this blasphemy of "unrighteous dominion" run its course -- and maybe, someday, be invited back into the Church's "good graces" -- or I can "speak up" now and tell the truth -- and forever remain "excommunicated" from the faith I loved with unbounded devotion (until April 9th of this year).

Just saying anything at all -- that isn't obsequious mercy-begging from the powers that be -- is "interpreted" as "proof-positive" that I am an apostate, or headed that way, justifying the leadership's "pre-emptive" decision. It is equivalent to asking me: "Do you beat your wife? Or have you stopped? Yes or no?" Whatever I say "confirms" my "guilt".

For those of you who don't believe this paradox is real -- that the Church and the truth could ever be at odds with each other -- I assure you, it is and they are -- which ought to be readily apparent to all who sincerely and diligently seek to know the truth (and who have access to information).

To those who wish to maintain their "faith" in all things LDS, I say "Stop reading my blog!" If you think the LDS Church could ever be justified in forcing out a near-life-long believer in Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, a faithful, temple-going, priesthood-holding, returned-missionary father of seven -- dissolving (as they suppose) his temple sealing to wife and children, canceling his covenant with God, and revoking his membership in the Church, thereby jeopardizing his salvation and that of his family -- if you think such a threat of spiritual violence could be legitimately carried out for merely telling the truth, even against one who has held nothing back in supporting and sustaining this Church and its leadership in the cause of Christ first proclaimed, then I say unto you "Go back to sleep! I have no business with you here."

But if you want to know what would compel someone to risk everything -- even forfeit one's membership in the LDS Church -- then read on.

What would Jesus do?

Jesus was excommunicated from His own church for teaching true history and doctrine. He pissed off those who were the alleged "ecclesiastical leaders" of his day by telling them they were the children of those who persecuted and stoned the prophets and that they themselves would reject the Heir of the kingdom. (Luke 20:9-19.) Essential truths must be taught and received in their purity and fullness, even at great risk to the messenger, for anyone to be saved. Our salvation depends upon gaining proper "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning." (D&C 93:24-25.)

Those who know me know I take the truth very seriously. I am (or was) a convert to the LDS faith. I joined the Church at 15 because I discerned the truthfulness of its message. I have embraced and taught those truths and doctrines in LDS quorums, Sunday schools, seminaries and sacrament meetings -- not, primarily, as a leader or teacher, but as a fellow member of the Church who frequently makes "comments". I have thereby borne my testimony of the truth repeatedly. And I have not changed my tune. I continue to embrace and teach the truth, whenever and wherever I can.

So what gets you excommunicated from the LDS Church for apostasy these days?

Apparently, not very much.

You can advocate that women be ordained to the priesthood and not get excommunicated. You can deliver podcasts that openly support the LGBT community and a phalanx of doubting Mormon dissidents. You can write books that literally blow away the myths and pretenses that surround Mormonism. You can maintain blogs that proclaim Denver Snuffer to be a prophet of God and disparage current leaders of the Church. And, apparently, that won't get you excommunicated.

But you can't teach what I taught?

Who's lyin' for the Lord?

I first noticed "little fibs" creeping into the Mormon "narrative" several years ago when my family last toured the Beehive House in Salt Lake City. We were surprised when our young guide suggested that Brigham Young was married to only one wife. (Really? Did she think she could "get away" with that one? She appeared incredulous when we insisted that other rooms undoubtedly housed other Young wives.) If you think this is an aberration, search the currently used LDS study manual on Young's teachings. You will find no mention of polygamy or plural marriage there, even though he taught it as a major tenet of his faith. (In fact, Young said all would be damned and fall short of celestial glory who did not embrace "the principle". I'm not even going to look it up, this is so "common knowledge".) Yet the doctrine and practice of "plural marriage" have been effectively "correlated out" of Mormon history now taught by the Church. 

If it's true doctrine, why isn't it taught in Church anymore?

In fact, the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been lying about polygamy (and encouraging its members to do so) almost from the faith's inception. Any serious student of the LDS faith will be confounded by (A) the plethora of anecdotal evidence indicating Joseph Smith was a dedicated polygamist and (B) the dearth of physical evidence corroborating the same. Joseph denied ever being a polygamist whenever he spoke publicly on the subject and regularly excommunicated those he found practicing it. No child of his with any suspected plural wife has ever been found (though he fathered several with his wife, Emma). Still, dozens of women claimed (mostly after Joseph's death) that they were first sealed to him at his invitation. Famous members and former members of the Church accused "Brother Joseph" of proposing marriage or "spiritual wifery" to them -- even if they were already married to other men! -- and, ultimately, that (and the "cover up") is what got Joseph and Hyrum killed. That's the truth.

Brigham Young (and other Church members) engaged in polygamy, first secretly, then flagrantly (despite the Book of Mormon's general condemnation of the practice) and encouraged the saints to lie about it to government officials and other "outsiders". Whole Mormon communities were rendered "fatherless" as Latter-day Saints pretended to be bastards and orphans rather than "give up" their (polygamist) fathers to prosecution. 

Was this being totally honest? 

Those who followed Brigham Young, the erstwhile "Lion of the Lord", were expected to be "lying for the Lord". While polygamy has been discontinued among most "Mormon" sects today, "lying for the Lord" continues as a "tried and true" tradition among Church leaders, manifesting itself in many subtle forms, mainly by what they don't say (hiding financial statements, concealing short-comings and failures, playing "politics", etc.).

One "lie" is the practice of allowing members to misinterpret, misunderstand or misrepresent actual Church history and doctrine. Some leaders believe some misunderstanding is, in fact, beneficial to promoting and preserving burgeoning faith and testimony, inasmuch as too much knowledge of actual events, they believe, would destroy faith. Maybe so. Would reading the above link promote faith in the LDS Church? I don't think so. But burying the Church's true history will only lead investigators to distrust the Church's narrative about everything else it claims. Open doors and bright sunshine are the best disinfectant in this case. The Church should acknowledge its "sins"...and move on.

Some leaders (like my former bishop) think that if the "average" person knew Joseph Smith translated the entire Book of Mormon by looking at a brown stone he found while digging a well, placing that stone in his hat, and holding his hat over his face, they would lose all faith in Joseph Smith's prophetic ability. (I disagree. That scenario sounds even more fantastic...and credible...to me!) Better, they say, that the average "believer" remain harmlessly deceived into thinking Joseph handled and translated directly from the gold plates using the Urim and Thummim provided by Moroni...until they are able to "digest" real "meat". (I disagree. Sustaining lies eventually only weakens faith.) Consequently, everything taught by the Church today, whether spoken over the pulpit in sacrament meeting, sung in Primary, published in Church magazines or broadcast during General Conference, is "milk" -- "homogenized" and "pasteurized" to be non-controversial, inoffensive, and, largely, devoid of the deep, inspiring doctrines or the actual Church history that first attracted me to the faith. 

I want authentic religion, practiced by real people (flaws and all). The Church strives to present a perfected, "correlated" image. It projects an "aura" of prophetic continuity, even infallibility; meanwhile, revelation of the kind Joseph Smith received is all but non-existent in the modern Church. Is that a result of our wickedness? Or God's doing? I do not know. Knowing my own nature (and that of others in the Church), however, I suspect the former.

Filling the "voids" in this watered-down "religion" are deep-seated traditions and the philosophies and commandments of men, masquerading as "faith" and "doctrine". One such tradition is "follow the prophet". Whereas Joseph was content (within bounds) to "allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may" (Article of Faith 11), the cult of "follow the prophet" demands that all "power and influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood", in direct violation of the Lord's word (see D&C 121:41-42), and that exercising "control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men" (v. 37) is justified upon receiving "a little authority, as they suppose", rather than relying solely upon persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness and pure knowledge.

An example of this brutish, bumbling "unrighteous dominion" is when, as a substitute teacher in Primary, I attempted to teach children that "we 'follow the prophet' only inasmuch as he follows the Savior". My bishop condemned me for changing the words to that favorite Mormon song and for teaching the children to sing "Follow the Savior, He is the Way!" "Why confuse the children?" he asked, before never letting me teach in Primary again. (To his credit, the bishop was probably directed by Salt Lake to prohibit me from serving.)

The cult of "follow the prophet" will follow a prophet anywhere, even to the telestial world (see D&C 76:99-101).

Another way Mormon leaders "lie" is by suppressing or ignoring true doctrine or the expression of revelations and experiences received by others that fall outside of the leader's own experience. Since most LDS leaders have never seen an angel, heard a heavenly voice, beheld God or experienced the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost -- indeed, most LDS leaders apparently have never even been "born again"! -- they question and condemn those who have and who teach others to strive to do so. These leaders "brand" others as liars and/or "gospel hobbyists" or accuse them of committing sin so they can say they have been deceived by "angels of light". It befuddles and confuses these leaders why anyone would think that teaching about the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost is either "vital" or "important", for neither they nor their "faithful" forefathers ever experienced such. So it must not be part of the LDS faith today, they conclude. Clearly the scriptures are being misinterpreted, they imagine. Consequently, they reject, persecute and push out all who stand up and say "You're mistaken."

Nephi never would have made a "good" Mormon.

Even as the Jewish sects of Christ's day had grown "stale", devoid of inspiration and true religious practice (while select individuals continued to receive revelation and guidance from heaven), the Church today has abandoned its "charismatic" roots. More often than not, visitors at Church will hear Mormons "thank God for a prophet" who "receives modern revelation" and who "talks to God" on their behalf, but they will not hear stories celebrating one's own personal communion with Deity or the understanding unfolded by that supernal experience. Our church has become a faith largely devoid of "the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing,  interpretation of tongues, and so forth" (Article of Faith 7) primarily due to the wickedness and disbelief of those claiming to embrace the faith (see Moroni 7:37-38) and the fact that those things are no longer taught or expected! (See 2 Nephi 28:14.) Instead, modern "Mormonism" is now a body of "believers" who recast coincidences and fortuitous circumstances and the works of men (accidents avoided, healings received after visiting the doctor, building permits for temples and chapels being granted) as "miracles" and "signs" of God's handiwork -- while the very same "blessings" are enjoyed by those who are not of the Mormon faith, who don't believe in God, and who neither embrace nor practice His restored gospel. 

By paring down the Mormon religion to a prescribed set of rules and "acceptable" religious experiences, "approved" spiritual manifestations, and "orthodox" beliefs, Mormons have embraced, as it were, a catechism of orthodoxy which precludes interaction with the Divine outside of those "accepted" bounds. Anyone who notices this -- and comments or acts upon it -- is branded an "apostate".

Welcome to the club!

As Denver Snuffer recently explained: 

"The church has constructed the perfect mousetrap for its members' minds. In the trap, anything said by anyone which can be construed to be "criticism" is then equated with "evil speaking."

And "evil speaking" is equated with "apostasy" and apostates are excommunicated. Voilà! There you have me.

What brought this about? 

Jesus said "the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). He consequently taught true doctrine and history and was excommunicated -- and ultimately killed -- for doing so. I maintain a blog devoted to revealing important truths. My blog necessarily supports the teachings of those who reveal truth. Denver Snuffer is one (I believe) who teaches true history and doctrine. Snuffer, also, has a blog. He has, likewise, been excommunicated from the LDS Church for doing so. The Church denies and condemns Snuffer's teachings. (Arguments can be made both for and against what Snuffer teaches.) In my mind, the evidence squarely falls on the side of Snuffer's arguments. Because I will not deny what I know and believe to be true, I am, likewise, labeled an "apostate".

The Church will not tell me why I was excommunicated. If you are in my (former) ward or stake, you may not even know I have been excommunicated! The Church intends to "quietly put me away", as it were -- they may say, to not embarrass or denigrate me or my family. But Church leaders believe the less attention the Church draws toward those whom it persecutes (or the less it explains why it's doing so), the less damage the Church will suffer itself. I think the opposite is true. The more the Church suppresses and "hides" the truth, the more damned the Church will be and the quicker it will be relegated to irrelevancy.

The truth cannot be suppressed forever.

I wasn't excommunicated for teaching that God is Love or that we all need to be personally saved by Jesus Christ (both of which doctrines are true). I was excommunicated, primarily (I believe), for believing the witness of Denver Snuffer, who teaches that the Church rejected God's offer to bring the saints back into His physical presence and continues to reject that opportunity now. Snuffer claims he has met Jesus Christ in the flesh and is telling people what they must to do to experience this for themselves. I believe him. The Brethren don't. That's why I was excommunicated.

If you want to know more, I recommend reading Snuffer's books: Passing the Heavenly Gift and The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord through the Veil. Ironically, despite being excommunicated from the LDS Church, Snuffer purportedly funnels all of the proceeds from the sales of those books to the LDS Church's missionary program. To summarize: Snuffer teaches that the Church went astray in the 1840s when the saints failed to build the Nauvoo temple, as commanded, in which the Lord promised to restore the "fullness of the priesthood" (DC 124:28) by which the saints would be brought back into His presence, as in the days of Moses (see DC 84:19-25), when God appeared to the elders of Israel on Mt. Sinai (see Exodus 24:9-11). Instead, the saints were driven from Nauvoo and were cursed, smitten and afflicted and "rejected as a church", as God promised they would be if they disobeyed Him (see DC 124:32).

So how did that all work out?

Honest students of Church history acknowledge that countless saints died of sickness, starvation, exposure and exhaustion after being driven from Missouri in the dead of winter, after which their partially-completed temple was destroyed by fire and, then, tornado. The Church was rent asunder, scattered into various sects. Those who made their way to the new "Zion" in the western wilderness, under Brigham Young's leadership, nearly starved to death for many years thereafter: living in muddy dug-outs, plagued by crickets and grasshoppers, menaced by Indians and the U.S. government. In the end, the Church capitulated to federal pressure to abandon polygamy and, later, to end its racist policies regarding priesthood ordination and church government. 

Were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and subsequent leaders of the LDS Church inspired of God? Undoubtedly! I cannot but read Brigham Young's words and not be inspired by them. But were horrendous, life-shattering mistakes also made by these men? Were false doctrines taught? Were the people lead astray and then blamed for their leaders' errors? 

Yes, they were.

To tell this tale -- or even to believe it -- is to risk being charged with "apostasy" and face excommunication.

So there you go! Either I tow the "party line", mind my manners, "follow the prophet" (or, as one local high priest put it "learn to bow and kneel to the scepter of their authority"), look the other way, keep the blinders on, pipe down and shut up, ignore reality, history, truth and right...or get kicked out.

Like Snuffer, I believe truth can never be "evil". I have asked Bishop Risenmay, President Broadhead, President Morris and several high councilman complicit in my excommunication why they were so blithely willing to "destroy" my association with the Church. I won't name those high councilmen who were "roped" into this circus and kept ignorant of the facts, which were never adequately presented to them. But Presidents Morris and Broadhead and Bishop Risenmay are either willfully ignorant or willfully determined to suppress the truth about the Church -- its history, origins, misadventures, errors, falsehoods, and true doctrines, to "serve the greater good" of furthering the work and building the kingdom, as they see it -- even if that foundation rests, in part, upon lies.

The work of the LDS Church, by and large, is founded on truth -- eternal truth -- but it is littered unnecessarily with falsehoods, fabrications and distortions. These misrepresentations include the suppression of teaching and believing true doctrine, which fundamentally damns those who might otherwise progress if they knew the truth and received it. 

How are we going to establish Zion on a foundation of truth and righteous if the real estate is otherwise encumbered?