Archive for the ‘Mormon Culture’ Category

A satirical meme emphasizing this series’s main point from the perspective of a Mormon Critic.

compiled by Fred W. Anson and “Team PFAAS”
As we explained in Part One of this series, if you’ve been following the Presidency of Russell M. Nelson it’s been one misstep and snafu after another. In my opinion, it’s no coincidence that LdS Church’s growth is now stagnant and about to start to go negative (evidence for this claim from objective third party analysis and statistics based on official LdS Church data that’s been captured by a Mormon Archivist can be found by clicking here).

His predecessor, Thomas S. Monson may have been boring but at least he wasn’t actively destroying the LdS Church like his successor is. It’s to the point that it now seems like just about every time that he makes a public appearance, an address, a policy change, and/or a revelation, President Nelson adds another chink to the destruction of the LdS Church. So, the destruction that was once passive is now active thanks to the current LdS Church President. So, in no particular order other than to group events by incident, here’s what we’ve seen so far:

10) President Nelson, the leader of the world’s richest church stuns the world by telling poor Africans that paying a tithe to the LdS Church is the answer to their poverty.
2018-04-16 This stunning teaching came right on the heels of denouncing the African tradition of paying a bridal dowry – a long-standing African practice that is ideally intended to help young married couples avoid destitute poverty and ensure the success of the marriage. As the Encyclopedia Brittanica explains:

“One of the basic functions of a dowry has been to serve as a form of protection for the wife against the very real possibility of ill treatment by her husband and his family. A dowry used in this way is actually a conditional gift that is supposed to be restored to the wife or her family if the husband divorces, abuses, or commits other grave offenses against her. Land and precious metals have often been used in this form of dowry and are frequently inalienable by the husband, though he might otherwise use and profit from them during the marriage.

A dowry sometimes serves to help a new husband discharge the responsibilities that go with marriage. This function assumes special importance in societies where marriages have regularly been made between very young people; the dowry enables the new couple to establish a household, which they otherwise would not have been able to do. In some societies a dowry provides the wife with a means of support in case of her husband’s death. In this latter case the dowry may be seen as a substitute for her inheritance of all or part of her husband’s estate.

In many societies, dowries have served as a reciprocal gesture by the bride’s kin to the groom’s kin for the expenses incurred by the latter in payment of bridewealth. These exchanges are not purely economic but instead serve to ratify the marriage and consolidate friendship between the two families.”
(Encyclopedia Britannica, “Dowry”

And as an African national, has noted well of the African dowry system:

“Marriage in African way thus entails that certain things must be observed, not for the sake of it, but for the very reason that they define the whole spectrum of African identity. This includes African religions and philosophical life, political life as well as African economic systems. Marriage is never viewed as an accident. Accidents get people unaware, and disorganize the entire society. Marriage on the other hand is a planned social action that involves various stakeholders. In view of this, it is an expression of community beliefs, thoughts, and entire heritage that cannot be wished away because of the advent of new civilization or modernity.”
(TheRt. Rev. Johannes Angela, Bishop ACK Diocese of Bondo, “POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF DOWRY PAYMENT ON WOMEN AND THE GENERAL SOCIETY”

And so it against this historical and cultural backdrop that LdS Church President, Russell M. Nelson played the role of the ham-fisted, Ugly American, ignoramus when he boldly announced that African should stop paying marriage dowries since that isn’t the Lord’s way (even though the practice can be found in the bible) especially when they could be paying a tithe to the LdS Church instead. From the LdS Church produced, “Church News”:

“President Nelson denounced the practices of paying a dowry or paying a bride price for marriages. He emphasized that cash or commodities shouldn’t be given to the family of a bride or groom.
“That’s not the Lord’s way,” President Nelson said. “The Lord’s way is to be married in the temple, for time and all eternity, with your children sealed to you.”

He added that if he’d had to pay for his wife, “I would have missed five children, because only with my last five was I out of debt.”

He also said tithing can break cycles of poverty in poor nations and families.

“We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation,” he said. “That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing.”’
(Tad Walch, “London and Nairobi Stops of President Nelson’s World Tour Highlight Church’s Cultural Diversity”, Deseret News, 2018-04-23)

An African Mormon and his daughter holding the Book of Mormon. (credit: LdS Church Newsroom)

11) Doing and saying nothing in the face of the revelation about the $124-Billion Church-owned Ensign Peak Advisors fund being brought to light by a whistleblower.
2019-12-17 The Washington Post publishes an article entitled, “Mormon Church has misled members on $100 billion tax-exempt investment fund, whistleblower alleges”. From the article:

“[Whistleblower David A.] Nielsen’s complaint is sharply critical of church leaders for continuing to ask for tithes, even from members who are struggling financially, while the church sits on a fortune. “Would you pay tithing instead of water, electricity, or feeding your family if you knew that it would sit around by the billions until the Second Coming of Christ?” he wrote in a 74-page narrative that accompanied his complaint.

He suggests church leaders favor continuing to collect tithes to avoid “losing control over their members’ behavior” by releasing them from their financial obligations. In June, the church raised the monthly charge paid by most families to cover the cost of their children serving as missionaries from $400 to $500 per month.

Leaders have consistently tried to downplay speculation about the extent of the church’s wealth. Quoting a former church president during the speech last year, [high-ranking cleric in the church, Bishop Gérald] Caussé, said: “When all is said and done, the only real wealth of the church is in the faith of its people.”
(Jon Swaine, Douglas MacMillan, and Michelle Boorstein, “Mormon Church has misled members on $100 billion tax-exempt investment fund, whistleblower alleges”, The Washington Post, December 17, 2020)

And as was noted at the time of the Washington Post article the SEC Publicly reported holdings of the Ensign Peak Advisors fund was $124-Billion, thus making the LdS Church, by far, the richest church in the world (see https://sec.report/CIK/0001454984).

So, in the face of this bombshell revelation, what does President Nelson do? Answer: Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Yes, that’s right the Lord’s Prophet, the man who, according to Mormon dogma, has been set aside to lead the Lord’s Church with clarity, honesty, and precision does nothing and says nothing. Rather, he leaves the dirty work to underlings like the Church PR Department and Ensign’s president, Roger Clarke.

The silence was deafening.
And telling.
It didn’t go unnoticed.

12) In direct contradiction with and opposition to 188-years of Mormon History, all of his predecessors, official, correlated LdS Church manuals, and even himself, President Nelson states that the Restored (past tense) Church is still in the process of Restoring (present tense).
2018-10-30 In a video interview recorded as part of the Concepción Chile Temple dedication ceremony, President Nelson said the following:

“We’re witnesses to a process of restoration,” said the prophet. “If you think the Church has been fully restored, you’re just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come. … Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest. It’s going to be exciting.”
(LdS Church Newsroom, “Latter-day Saint Prophet, Wife and Apostle Share Insights of Global Ministry: President Nelson says process of Church restoration continuing”)

This is in direct contradiction with the stance of every Mormon Prophet who preceded him – all of whom have stated plainly and explicitly that with the establishment of the LdS Church on April 6, 1830, Christ’s Church was restored (past perfect tense). Further, this claim has been consistently and regularly reflected and reiterated in official, correlated church literature – which has never stated that the LdS Church is still restoring (present tense). Consider:

“The fullness of the gospel has been restored, and the true Church of Jesus Christ is on the earth again. No other organization can compare to it. It is not the result of a reformation, with well-meaning men and women doing all in their power to bring about change. It is a restoration of the Church established by Jesus Christ. It is the work of Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you can receive blessings that were absent from the earth for almost 2,000 years”
(“True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference”, 2004, p. 136)

“Testify that although other churches teach some truths and do many good things, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church on the earth because it is the only church that has the complete gospel of Jesus Christ and the priesthood authority to perform ordinances in the name of Jesus Christ. It is Jesus’ Church. It has his name and his law, and it is led by his appointed representatives. Express your gratitude to Joseph Smith, the prophet through whom the Lord restored the true Church”
(“Preparing for Exaltation Teacher’s Manual”, 1998, p. 99)

“Latter-day Saints hold that Christians in the broadest sense are those who base their beliefs on the teachings of Jesus and who have a personal relationship with him. Within that definition they recognize Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and Latter-day Saint Christians, with the understanding that Latter-day Saint Christianity is the restored fulness of Christ’s gospel”
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:271)

“The context of Nephi’s division of churches into one of two camps, those belonging to the Lamb of God and those who are disciples of the devil, comes only after the Church of Jesus Christ was restored in April of 1830”
(BYU Professor Emeritus Joseph Fielding McConkie, Here We Stand, p. 152)

What’s more even shocking is that even President Nelson himself has publicly affirmed that the LdS Church is, past tense, restored:

“The keys and offices of the priesthood have been restored, including the offices of Apostle, Seventy, patriarch, high priest, elder, bishop, priest, teacher, and deacon. And women who love the Lord serve valiantly in the Relief Society, Primary, Young Women, Sunday School, and other Church callings—all vital parts of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness.”
(Russell M. Nelson, “Closing Remarks”, Fall General Conference 2019, bolding added for emphasis)

A meme reinforcing and affirming President Russell M. Nelson’s, Fall General Conference 2018, Four Invitations to Women – including the 10-day fast from Social Media.

13) Social Media Fasts for Everybody! (Except for dudes, of course, they’re special!)
2018-10-06 After being applauded by Mormon parents everywhere for calling Mormon youth to fast from Social Media in Fall General Conference 2018 he calls on the women of the LdS Church to do the same:

“I invite you to participate in a 10-day fast from social media and from any other media that bring negative and impure thoughts to your mind. Pray to know which influences to remove during your fast. The effect of your 10-day fast may surprise you. What do you notice after taking a break from perspectives of the world that have been wounding your spirit? Is there a change in where you now want to spend your time and energy? Have any of your priorities shifted—even just a little? I urge you to record and follow through with each impression.”
(Russell M. Nelson, “Sisters’ Participation in the Gathering of Israel”)

So who’s missing from this picture? Answer: The men of 2018.
(it comes across as a bit misogynist, doesn’t it?)

Oh, and by the way, the timing couldn’t have been worse to engage in this kind of gender directed Social Media exclusivity as this call to women came at the height of the #MeToo movement as a commentator noted so pointedly:

“For over a year since the #MeToo movement began, women have turned to social media with stories of sexual harassment and calls for reform that have powerfully reshaped our society. In recent weeks, women have flooded Facebook and Twitter and Instagram with pleas to #BelieveWomen, as Brett M. Kavanaugh gained a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court amid turmoil over accusations of sexual assault. And with just weeks to go before the Nov. 6 midterms, women are sure to make their presence known online in an election largely centered on female candidates’ surging campaigns and female voters’ intensifying anger.

At this time, the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued an unusual demand: Women, get off social media.

Russell M. Nelson, the 94-year-old who became president of the church in January, proclaimed Saturday that all Mormon women should try a 10-day “fast” from social media.

His call for a fast has nothing to do with politics, many Mormons say. Still, the timing is a cause of consternation to some.”
(Julie Zauzmer, “In the time of #MeToo and the Year of the Woman, Mormon Church president tells women to get off social media for 10 days”, The Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2018)

Nor was the bad timing lost on Mormon women, as a politically active Latter-day Saint who was working the November 2018 mid-term elections noted at the time:

“Crystal Young-Otterstrom, a Mormon who has been active in Utah’s Democratic party for more than 15 years, said many women are talking about the conflict and deciding to do what’s best for their own lives, even if they agree in principle with the fast. That includes opting in on a limiting basis or deciding to put off their fast to a late date, as Nelson didn’t specifically say fasts should immediately begin…

Young-Otterstrom, who is also the director of the Utah Cultural Alliance, is more bothered by the timing. Utah’s November ballot is rich with important ballot measures — including education funding gerrymandering, and Medicaid expansion. Women, who are often the swing voters on Utah issues, need to be part of the online dialogue, not shut out, she said.

In addition, she said, “asking women in particular to be silent, especially in this time of #Metoo and continued gender conflict in our religion and our state, seems not well thought through.”

Young-Otterstrom also hopes that Nelson, who issued a similar call for a fast by church youths in June, will eventually extend the request to Latter-day Saint men.

“I certainly hope that if (church leaders) are going to make a suggestion to one member, they would make it to both,” she said.”
(Jennifer Dobner , “How Mormon women reacted when their prophet urged a social media fast”, The Guardian, 13 Oct 2018)

And care to guess who is still missing from this picture at this time of writing – 3-years later after President Nelson’s calls to the youth and the women of the LdS Church do Social Media fasts? A: Still the men.
(it comes across as really, really, really misogynist, doesn’t it?)

If that’s not bad, to make matters worse, Mormon Critics were quick to note that the Social Media Fast for women came right on the heels of a very public civil suit being filed against President Nelson’s daughter and son-in-law:

“(KUTV) — At least six people are suing the daughter and son-in-law of Russell M. Nelson, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Neither Nelson nor the Church is named as defendants in this 79-page lawsuit filed in federal court on Wednesday. The allegations of sexual abuse stem back to the early 1980s, accusing Jon and Jane Doe of holding “touching parties” and sexually abusing kids as young as one year old.”
( Jim Spiewak , “Daughter of LDS Church president at center of decades-old sex abuse cover-up allegations”, October 3rd 2018, KUTV)

Ultimately the lawsuit was dismissed by the Utah Courts on June 11, 2020, on a technicality because the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the Utah legislature lacked the legal authority to extend the statute of limitations to 35 years. However, as one source explains:

“The allegations are public and controversial because the lawsuit alleges that President Russell M. Nelson’s daughter and son-in-law were involved in organized sexual abuse in a Mormon congregation in Bountiful, Utah during the mid-1980s.

And, further, the lawsuit alleges that President Nelson, a bishop and a stake president “used their influence in the church and in the community” to protect the abusers from church discipline. Also, as a result of the alleged coverup, the lawsuit alleges that other children were later severely and violently sexually abused by one of the perpetrators between 1988 and (1995?).”
(Anne McMullin, “Lawsuit Against President Nelson’s Daughter — An Introduction to the Allegations”, July 1, 2020)

And Mormon Critics were quick to point out that calling a Social Media fast would be an excellent way to keep the demographic most likely to create a buzz about the October 3rd lawsuit, specifically Mormon women, distracted and ignorant of the facts as they were unfolding on today’s main source of real-time news: the Internet.

So here’s the bottom line here: Even if the speculation and buzz surrounding the timing of President Nelson’s call to the women of the LdS Church to a Social Media Fast is baseless, never the less, the appearance of evil that it created, not to mention, the lousy judgment and common sense it represents, is hardly befitting a divinely call Prophet of the Lord is it? To be specific, it simply makes him look like he’s not what he claims to be, doesn’t it?

Putting things in perspective: LdS Church Membership relative to the World Population as of October 26, 2017.

14) In a stunning act of arrogant hubris, in the aforementioned Chile Temple Dedication event video interview, President Nelson declared himself and his fellow Mormon Prophets not just the Living Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the Living Prophet for the entire world. Yes, that’s right all 7+ billion of us currently residing on the planet.
2018-10-30 In the previously discussed video that was recorded during his Chile Temple Dedication tour, President Nelson also said the following:

“This is a global ministry. We’re prophets for the whole world–all of God’s children–not just the members of the Church.”
(LdS Church Newsroom video, “Interview With President Nelson and Elder Stevenson in Chile” @00:05:09)

So this is how the world’s “Living Prophet” acts? Hubris? Hyperbole? Self-Aggrandizing statements? Grandstanding for the cameras? Well, I hate to burst your bubble President Nelson, but you’re not my Prophet and you never will be – Jesus Christ is doing the job just fine. Oh, and He doesn’t need your help, thank you very much:

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” (Hebrews 1:1-2 KJV)

And while President Nelson’s claim elicited guffaws and eye-rolls from the small, minuscule, portion of those 7+ Billion persons that President Nelson claims to be the Living Prophet for who aren’t Mormon, most of us, simply ignore this self-proclaimed Living Prophet for the world and will, no doubt, continue to do so.

And why shouldn’t we? I could care less what Queen Elizabeth II has to say, I’m not British, and she’s not my queen. Nor is Russell M. Nelson my prophet. Never has been, never will be. Wake up smell the Postum, President Nelson. Please, before you do your own church even greater damage than you’ve already done so far.

In fact, as of this writing, this video only has 98,252 views – the majority of those, no doubt, Mormon. And the credibility of the LdS Church in the marketplace of ideas took yet another hit – all thanks to the overblown hyperbole, grandstanding, and ego-driven bluster of LdS Church President and Prophet Russell M. Nelson.

15) The unapologetic NAACP Follies
2019-07-21 At the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) President Russell M. Nelson continues the courting of the organization that was begun by other high-ranking Mormon Leaders in 2018 (see “First Presidency and NAACP Leaders Call for Greater Civility, Racial Harmony” and “Church and NAACP Leaders Meet in
Salt Lake City”)  by speaking at their annual convention.

While there is no denying that this was a historic occasion conspicuous in its absence was any hint of admission of responsibility or apology for the institutional racism of the LdS Church both religiously and in supporting secular racism in Utah.  If one was lacking this historical knowledge one could easily conclude from the content of President Nelson’s speech that the LdS Church has always been progressive in its racial stances. Consider this salient excerpt:

“At a press conference following that [2018] meeting, I explained that a fundamental doctrine and heartfelt conviction of our religion is that all people are God’s children. We truly believe that we are brothers and sisters—all part of the same divine family.

At that same press conference, President Derrick Johnson and I issued a joint invitation for all people, organizations, and governmental units to work with greater civility, to eliminate prejudice of all kinds, and focus on important interests that we have in common.

Simply stated, we strive to build bridges of cooperation rather than walls of segregation.

As recorded in the Book of Mormon, which we esteem as a scriptural companion to the Holy Bible, the Savior invites “all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he [denies] none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God” (see 2 Nephi 26:33).

May I repeat that last phrase: “All are alike unto God.” You who are gathered here in this room strive to make this heavenly truth an earthly reality. I commend you for it. And yet we all realize that, as a society and as a country, we have not yet achieved the harmony and mutual respect that would allow every man and woman and every boy and girl to become the very best version of themselves.”
(President Russell M. Nelson, “NAACP Convention Remarks By President Russell M. Nelson”, LdS Church Newsroom) 

This missed opportunity to do what the Southern Baptist Convention;  States of Virginia and Florida, as well as the US Congress; and several Roman Catholic clerics, have already done: Issue a formal, public apology for past institutional racism, was exacerbated by the fact that in May 2018, well-known Mormon Critic, Jonathan Streeter had exposed the crying need for a formal, public apology by the LdS Church via a well-known satirical fake apology on May 18, 2108 (see “No, the Mormon church did not apologize for having a history of racism; hoaxer says he meant fake message to spark discussion”).

That satirical apology was met with healing weeping and joy before the hoax was exposed.  And Mr. Streeter, very correctly, apologized for the disappointment and wound reopening that it unintentionally caused. But, still, the takeaway was still clear: The need for a public, formal apology from the LdS Church for its past racism remains so that healing can begin. Mr. Streeter made just this point in his follow-up video to the event:

June 1, 2020 President Nelson issues a Social Media statement denouncing racism in the wake of the infamous police brutality murder of George Floyd on May 25. 2020 and the subsequent violent riots that followed in its wake. Without any trace of irony or admission of culpability for the LdS Church’s past institutional racism, the statement contains these words, “The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children. Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent!” (Russell M. Nelson, “President Nelson Shares Social Post about Racism and Calls for Respect for Human Dignity”, LdS Church Newsroom) 

June 8, 2020 President Nelson and several high-ranking NAACP officials issue a joint statement denouncing racism, calling for its end, and calling for a greater age of racial peace and harmony. Yet again, there was no formal, public apology from President Nelson for past LdS Church racism.

The need for such an apology certainly hasn’t been lost on the NAACP as this Salt Lake Tribune article later reported on the very same day:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ century-long ban barring blacks from its all-male priesthood and from its temples kept the Utah-based faith at odds with the NAACP well after the ban ended in 1978.

Now, 42 years after that prohibition was lifted, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization and the church have become increasingly friendly, but their emerging partnership has not borne the fruits that some NAACP leaders had hoped.

While he supports the sentiments expressed in Monday’s article, Wil Colom, special counsel to the NAACP president, said the group “hasn’t seen very much” progress on joint projects.

The LDS Church has united with the historic black activists, the Medium piece said, to explore “ways to work together to improve self-reliance and upward mobility for inner-city and minority families.”

Indeed, the two organizations have collaborated on a handful of employment and education initiatives. But those were “minor efforts,” Colom said. They “do not befit the stature and magnitude of what the LDS Church can do and should do.”

The NAACP is “looking forward to the church doing more to undo the 150 years of damage they did by how they treated African Americans in the church,” Colom said, and by their “endorsement of how African Americans were treated throughout the country, including segregation and Jim Crow laws.”
(Peggy Fletcher Stack and David Noyce, “Despite joining President Nelson in call to end racism, NAACP would like to see the LDS Church do more”, Salt Lake Tribune, June 8, 2020) 

So when President Nelson has a golden opportunity to issue a formal, public apology so that both sides can bring some closure to the past and start the process of healing begin – as other institutions with racist pasts have done – what does he do, again, again, again, again, and again? Answer: Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And there it is, here we are only 3-years into his presidency and President Russell M. Nelson has already exacted a stunningly broad and long swatch of destruction in his wake, hasn’t he? If you’re a critic of the LdS Church, it’s really quite impressive, isn’t it? It’s wonderful. And if you’re a True Believing Latter-day Saint, it’s really quite concerning, isn’t it? It’s sobering. Perhaps, Victor Hugo had it right after all …

About the Authors: 
“Team PFAAS” is the nickname for the “Preaching From An Asbestos Suit” social media groups on Facebook and MeWe. These are coaching and support groups for Biblical Christians who feel called to the Mormon Mission field in general and Internet Evangelism to Mormons in particular. These groups were using as a group sourcing resource for this article as well as a point of accountability for the compiling, final author of this series, Fred W. Anson. 

Fred W. Anson is the founder and publishing editor of the Beggar’s Bread website, which features a rich potpourri of articles on Christianity with a recurring emphasis on Mormon studies. Fred is also the administrator of several Internet discussion groups and communities, including several Mormon-centric groups, including two Facebook Support Groups for Ex-Mormons (Ex-Mormon Christians, and Ex-Mormon Christians Manhood Quorum). Raised in the Nazarene Church, Fred later became an Atheist but then returned to the Christian faith during the Jesus Movement in 1976. 

(click here to read Part One of this two-part series)

A tongue in cheek suggested book cover for President Nelson’s autobiography based on his pattern of behavior thus far in his tenure as LdS Church President.

compiled by Fred W. Anson and “Team PFAAS”
If you’ve been following the Presidency of Russell M. Nelson it’s been one misstep and snafu after another. In my opinion, it’s no coincidence that LdS Church’s growth is now stagnant and about to start to go negative (evidence for this claim from objective third party analysis and statistics based on official LdS Church data that’s been captured by a Mormon Archivist can be found by clicking here).

His predecessor, Thomas S. Monson may have been boring but at least he wasn’t actively destroying the LdS Church like his successor is. It’s to the point that it now seems like just about every time that he makes a public appearance, an address, a policy change, and/or a revelation, President Nelson adds another chink to the destruction of the LdS Church. So, the destruction that was once passive is now active thanks to the current LdS Church President. So, in no particular order other than to group events by incident, here’s what we’ve seen so far:

1) Flip-Flopping on the November 2015 “Revelation” Regarding Baptizing the Children of Homosexual Parents.
2016-01-10 Then Highest Ranking Apostle of the Twelve, Russell M. Nelson, Publicly declares that the disastrous November 2015 Policy Change was a revelation:

“The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.”
(Russell M. Nelson, “An Evening with President Russell M. Nelson”, Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults, January 10, 2016, Brigham Young University–Hawaii)

2019-04-04 Now LdS President Nelson reverses the November 2015 Policy Change:

“Children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender may now be blessed as infants and baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without First Presidency approval, President Dallin H. Oaks announced Thursday morning, April 4.
In addition, the Church will no longer characterize same-gender marriage by a Church member as “apostasy” for purposes of Church discipline, although it is still considered “a serious transgression.”
(Sarah Jane Weaver, “Policy Changes Announced for Members in Gay Marriages, Children of LGBT Parents”, Church News, April 4, 2019)

2) Open, Public Practice of Mormon Necromancy
First, let’s define terms, in order to set the baseline/understanding that communicating with the dead is a form of necromancy. And that includes calling out to them.

nec·ro·man·cy
/ˈnekrəˌmansē/
noun: necromancy
the supposed practice of communicating with the dead, especially in order to predict the future.
(Oxford English Dictionary)

So with that baseline established, let’s consider President Nelson’s behavior in two different public meetings against the common, standard dictionary definition of the word, shall we?

2018-04-01 President Nelson, in Spring General Conference, opened the LdS Church to charges of practicing necromancy by calling on “God’s children on both sides of the veil” (the veil being a reference to the Mormon concept of there being a veil between the mortal and spirit worlds that is, “a God-given forgetfulness that blocks people’s memories of the premortal existence”, (see Guide to the Scriptures, “Veil”, LdS Church website).

“Our message to the world is simple and sincere: we invite all of God’s children on both sides of the veil to come unto their Savior, receive the blessings of the holy temple, have enduring joy, and qualify for eternal life.”
(President Russell M. Nelson, “Let Us All Press On”, April 2018 General Conference)

2018-09-16 President Nelson doubles down on his Spring 2018 General Conference necromancing behavior by repeating it before a stadium of 50,000 people:

“We invite all of God’s children on both sides of the veil to come unto their Savior, to receive the blessings of the holy temple and qualify for eternal life, so that they can have enduring joy now and forever,”
(President Russell M. Nelson, “50,000 Come to MLB Stadium to Hear President Nelson Share Vital Message to Those “on Both Sides of the Veil”’, LDS Living, September 16, 2018)

A photograph from the Thomas S. Monson era, “I’m a Mormon” campaign which ran from 2010 to 2018 – when President Nelson put an abrupt halt to it. (credit: LdS Church Newsroom)

3) Trashing the word “Mormon”
2018-08-16 President Nelson throws all of his predecessors – up to and including Joseph Smith – and 188-years of Mormon History under the bus by declaring the word “Mormon” anathema:

“The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months.”
(President Russell M. Nelson quoted in Sarah Jane Weaver, ‘“Mormon” Is Out: Church Releases Statement on How to Refer to the Organization’, Official LdS Church News website, August 16, 2018)

2018-10-07 President Nelson doubles down on his prior declaration regarding the word “Mormon” declaring it “a major victory for Satan” in Fall General Conference:

“The name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.

What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.”
(President Russell M. Nelson, “The Correct Name of the Church”, Fall General Conference, October 2018)

Unfortunately, the following guy, not to mention all of the Mormon Prophet who followed him prior to 2018, was born too early to benefit from President Nelson’s “keen” spiritual discernment and “stunning” Prophetic wisdom, and thus gave Satan one major victory after another for the 188-years of Mormon History prior to President Nelson’s revelation:

“Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.”
(Joseph Smith, “Discourse — Burden of the Prophet’s Ministry — Friendship”, “History of the Church”, 5:517); also see “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, p.316, bolding added for emphasis)

“Mormonism” is the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ; of which I myself am not ashamed.”
(Joseph Smith, “Letter to James Arlington…”, September 8, 1842, “History of The Church”, 5:156)

Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraced it felt himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, falls at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth…. “
(Joseph Smith, “To Isaac Galland, March 22, 1839,” Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 420-421, bolding added for emphasis)

And, then, of course, President Nelson’s immediate predecessor handed Satan a major victory when in Fall 2011 General Conference address he boldly challenged the LdS Church to:

“Dare to be a Mormon;
Dare to stand alone.
Dare to have a purpose firm;
Dare to make it known.”
(Thomas S. Monson, “Dare to Stand Alone”, bolding added for emphasis)

4) The Rome, Italy Temple Dedication Photo Op Fiasco
2019-03-10 As part of the Rome, Italy Temple dedication festivities, President Nelson participates in a photo op event in which he is photographed with a statue of Peter holding a key to the Kingdom of God. Mr. Nelson is gripping one side of the key thus causing the Internet to erupt simultaneously with laughs of derision that (their words) Nelson is trying to steal the key out of Peter’s hand and disgust that Nelson equates himself as Peter’s successor (thus setting himself as in competition and in opposition to the Roman Catholic Pope).

President M. Nelson with hand on the Keys of the Kingdom in the hand of the Apostle Peter’s hand at the LdS Church Temple Visitor’s Center in Rome, Italy. (credit: LdS Church Newsroom)

The photograph is promptly removed from the Church’s website within days but the damage had already been done in the marketplace of ideas.

5) The infamous “President Nelson Puts His Face in a Hat” video.
2020-05-30 The LdS Church releases a video of Russell M. Nelson explaining how the Book of Mormon was translated in which he sticks his face in a white stovetop hat like Jospeh Smith did to prove how perfectly natural, normal, and not weird such a thing is – thus proving that it is not natural or normal and how weird such a thing is
(see The Mormon Channel on YouTube or The LdS Church Media Library at the 00:03:49 mark)

The Internet, especially the Ex-Mormon corner of the Internet, explodes with a combination of shock and horror, mirk and laughter. The problem here is that President Nelson has now implicitly validated that for decades the LdS Church was indoctrinating the membership with wrong information regarding the Book of Mormon translation process and lied to entire generations of Latter-day Saints. As one Ex-Mormon commentator said well of this incident:

“Notice that President Nelson says “suggestions” when it’s a fact that is now accepted by historians and scholars on both sides. Also notice how uncomfortable he is and how he folds and squeezes his hands together as he attempts to disclose a foreign translation process that would shock and surprise the average Chapel Mormon.

After placing the hat near his face, Nelson then awkwardly tries to make the weird seem normal or plausible by taking a page out of Dieter Uchtdorf’s playbook in hilariously comparing this process to cell phones.

There’s no explanation from Nelson on the discrepancy between what he’s now saying versus how the Church indoctrinated generations of Latter-day Saints on the Book of Mormon translation. Also no explanation from Nelson about folk magic treasure digging and how Joseph and his family used the same method in conning people out of their money for buried treasure as he used for “translating” the Book of Mormon.

And just like that, kids, the keystone of our religion literally came out of a hat and we’re now being sold the idea that rocks were 19th-century iPhones.”
(Jeremy Runnells, “Debunking FAIRMormon, Book of Mormon Translation”)

President Nelson demonstrates how Joseph Smith would stick his head in his white stovetop hat to translate the Book of Mormon from the inserted Seer Stone. This is @00:03:49 in the video. (click to watch video)

6) The Surprised Prophet of the Lord
2019-10-06 In his closing remarks for Fall Conference 2019 President Nelson makes the following statement: “General conference next April will be different from any previous conference.” Given the context of the words, at the time the comment was simply taken exactly as it was given: Preparation and promotion for the bicentennial year of Joseph Smith’s First Vision – that is the year 2020.

“The keys and offices of the priesthood have been restored, including the offices of Apostle, Seventy, patriarch, high priest, elder, bishop, priest, teacher, and deacon. And women who love the Lord serve valiantly in the Relief Society, Primary, Young Women, Sunday School, and other Church callings—all vital parts of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness.

Thus, the year 2020 will be designated as a bicentennial year. General conference next April will be different from any previous conference. In the next six months, I hope that every member and every family will prepare for a unique conference that will commemorate the very foundations of the restored gospel.

You may wish to begin your preparation by reading afresh Joseph Smith’s account of the First Vision as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price.”
(Russell M. Nelson, “Closing Remarks”)

2020-04-04 In the ensuing months just prior to Spring General Conference 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic hits. As a result, the General Conference event is held virtually from a conference room with only a handful of people (mainly speakers) in attendance. As a result of this unusual and wholly situation, prior to the actual Spring General Conference event, President Nelson Fall General Conference words, “General conference next April will be different from any previous conference.” are reframed and recast to refer not to the Joseph Smith First Vision bicentennial year but a fulfilled prophecy from President Nelson.

It is within that existential context that President Nelson steps to the podium and plainly states that he’s just as surprised as everyone else thus blowing that stance all to heck and showing that while “Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.” apparently the Sovereign Lord doesn’t reveal them to LdS President and claimed “Living Prophet”, Russell M. Nelson:

“My beloved brothers and sisters, as we welcome you to this historic April 2020 general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for reasons you know, I stand before you in an empty auditorium!

Little did I know, when I promised you at the October 2019 general conference that this April conference would be “memorable” and “unforgettable,” that speaking to a visible congregation of fewer than 10 people would make this conference so memorable and unforgettable for me!”
(Russell M. Nelson, “Opening Message”)

I doubt that this one requires further comment, it kind of speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

A scene from Spring General Conference 2020. (credit: LdS Church Newsroom)

7) The COVID-19 Fast Fiasco
2020-03-26 President Nelson, a medical doctor, calls for a Worldwide Fast in the midst of a pandemic – at a time when having people’s immunity systems fueled and running optimally is critical to avoiding the COVID-19 virus. From the LdS Church press release:

“Prophet Invites All to Fast and Pray for Relief from COVID-19
In the new video message below, President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints invites the world to join him on Sunday, March 29, 2020, for a day of fasting and prayer for relief from COVID-19. See this video in Spanish and Portuguese.
(LdS Church News Room, “Prophet Invites All to Fast and Pray for Relief from COVID-19”)

COVID-19 infections continue to increase after the fast concludes. (see FDA COVID-19 Round-up for March 30. 2020, and thereafter)

2020-04-08 President Nelson Doubles Down and calls for another worldwide COVID-19 fast. From the LdS Church Press release:

“President Nelson Invites World to Participate in Fast on Good Friday: Prophet’s invitation is second fast for worldwide COVID-19 relief

Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is calling people of all faiths and beliefs to join a global fast for COVID-19 relief on Good Friday. He extended the invitation to the world during the Saturday evening session of the 190th Annual General Conference.

This is the prophet’s second invitation to join a worldwide fast. President Nelson first invited the general public to fast in mid-March for the same purpose.

President Nelson has again extended his invitation through his social media accounts, reminding all of the power in calling upon God in faithful prayer and fasting to bring about relief from the current global pandemic.”
(LdS Church News Room, “President Nelson Invites World to Participate in Fast on Good FridayProphet’s invitation is second fast for worldwide COVID-19 relief”)

COVID-19 infections continue to increase after the fast concludes (see FDA COVID-19 Round up for April 13, 2020, and thereafter)

Here’s the burning, common-sense question here given who we’re talking about: Why didn’t renowned Doctor Nelson, who is now not without considerable influence (to put it mildly) thanks to his new role simply put out this call instead? “I am a Medical Doctor as well as the leader of his church.  And in both roles it’s the same: Love for one’s neighbor dictates that we all mask up, social distance, and get vaccinated as soon as a good safe, COVID-19 vaccinate is available to us. If you truly love your neighbor, then you will wear a mask and get vaccinated when it’s your turn – it’s just that simple! I’m doing it and so can you.”

Doesn’t that make more sense than telling the world to potentially compromise their immune system and open themselves up to a potentially deadly virus during a pandemic? But hey, given his track record…

8) Ego-Stroking and Exalting Gratitude as an Idol: The November 2020 Thanksgiving Message
2020-11-13 The LdS Church publishes a video of hope and healing for the nations focusing on the Great Physician: President Nelson. Not God, not Jesus Christ, but President Russell M. Nelson:

2020-11-20 President Nelson gives a Thanksgiving Message and introduces a 7-day hashtag campaign that exalts and extols the power of gratitude to heal us and fix our woes and problems. Not God, not Jesus, but gratitude.

9) The infamous “Lazy Learners” and “Lax Disciple” General Conference Address.
2021-04-04 (Easter Sunday) For his “Easter Sunday 2021 Message” President Nelson chooses to give a pant kicking lecture to the membership that casts Mormon Critics and Doubters as “Lazy Learners” and “Lax Disciples”:

“Your mountains may be loneliness, doubt, illness, or other personal problems. Your mountains will vary, and yet the answer to each of your challenges is to increase your faith. That takes work. Lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith…

…choose to believe in Jesus Christ. If you have doubts about God the Father and His Beloved Son or the validity of the Restoration or the veracity of Joseph Smith’s divine calling as a prophet, choose to believe and stay faithful. Take your questions to the Lord and to other faithful sources. Study with the desire to believe rather than with the hope that you can find a flaw in the fabric of a prophet’s life or a discrepancy in the scriptures. Stop increasing your doubts by rehearsing them with other doubters. Allow the Lord to lead you on your journey of spiritual discovery.”
(Russell M. Nelson, “Christ Is Risen; Faith in Him Will Move Mountains”)

The Internet erupts with jokes about these insulting, dismissive faux-pas. Photographs of “Lazy Learner” Mormon Studies library (often filling an entire wall, even entire rooms) start popping up like mushrooms. A common theme on all the Internet posts is that the REAL “Lazy Learners” and “Lax Disciples” are the ones who allow the leaders of the LdS Church to do their thinking and studying for them rather than thinking and studying for themselves. A common point made is that the ONLY way to remain a True Believing Mormon is to be a Lazy Learner and Lax Disciple.

Frankly, with a Living Prophet, this blatantly and consistently unqualified, inept, and out of touch, who needs enemies? In fact, the LdS Church’s biggest problem is sitting in a corner office at 50 E North Temple St, Salt Lake City, UT 84150, isn’t he?  And every time he wanders out of the building he passes out ammo for Mormon Critic guns. And, consider this, we’re only to Intermission in this series, Part Two will give additional evidence for how and why President Russell M. Nelson is slowly but surely destroying the LdS Church one revelation at a time – and it’s even longer than this one was. (no joke!)

One Ex-Mormon’s pointed response to President Nelson labeling them a “Lazy Learner” in lieu of reality.

About the Authors: 
“Team PFAAS” is the nickname for the “Preaching From An Asbestos Suit” social media groups on Facebook and MeWe. These are coaching and support groups for Biblical Christians who feel called to the Mormon Mission field in general and Internet Evangelism to Mormons in particular. These groups were using as a group sourcing resource for this article as well as a point of accountability for the compiling, final author of this series, Fred W. Anson. 

Fred W. Anson is the founder and publishing editor of the Beggar’s Bread website, which features a rich potpourri of articles on Christianity with a recurring emphasis on Mormon studies. Fred is also the administrator of several Internet discussion groups and communities, including several Mormon-centric groups, including two Facebook Support Groups for Ex-Mormons (Ex-Mormon Christians, and Ex-Mormon Christians Manhood Quorum). Raised in the Nazarene Church, Fred later became an Atheist but then returned to the Christian faith during the Jesus Movement in 1976.

(click here to read Part Two of this two-part series) 

“A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold In settings of silver.”
(Proverbs 25:11 NKJV)

by Michael Flournoy and Fred W. Anson
In part one of this series we considered some of the harsh “scorched earth” methods, behaviors, and tactics that Christian Mormon Critics often engage in that either drive Mormons deeper into the LDS Church or ensures that when they leave it they go, Atheist, Pagan, whatever rather than anything Christian. 

In response, we outlined and considered a better way: God’s way: The way that we see Evangelism modeled in the New Testament. That model we summarized in the following five concepts:  

1. Love them
2. Listen
3. Promote the good they do
4. Curb your ego
5. Keep it positive

In Part One we briefly mentioned how in Mormon Culture, orthopraxy (the correct practice of what one believes) trumps orthodoxy (correct belief). In other words, Mormons won’t care about what you believe and why it’s better than what they already believe until they see that you care about them as a person. Treat them badly and no matter how right you are, they won’t listen and they won’t care.  

So that’s the concept and theory, now let’s talk about how to actually do in the real world, shall we? Let’s do orthopraxy! 

Keepin’ it Real: The Orthopraxy of Paul
Here’s how Paul described his approach in scripture: 

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.”
(1 Corinthians 9:20-23 ESV)

Paul didn’t shun outsiders. He embraced them to the point of joining their tribe, in a sense. His methods are bound to make my Evangelical counterparts uncomfortable, but it’s brilliant. It destroys the “us vs them” mentality.

This puts the Christian on the same playing field as the Latter-day Saint. It makes them a friend instead of a foe. It was this type of believer that had the greatest impact on article author Michael Flournoy’s journey from Mormonism to grace. 

In contrast, other Christians have told us that they refuse to respect a false religion. We’re not suggesting they should. However, there’s a difference between respecting falsehood and being respectful in dialogue.

Do the Mormons in your life know you love them? When was the last time you jumped to a Mormon’s defense when you saw them being mistreated? When was the last time you offered them an encouraging word? When was the last time you prayed for them by name and asked God’s mercy upon them? Are you preaching in a spirit of rivalry or out of love? When was the last time you challenged a fellow Evangelical for Mormon Bashing Latter-day Saints? 

Keepin’ it Real: The Orthopraxy of Jesus
Whenever we hear Christians speculate how Jesus would have evangelized Mormon we tell them that we already know because He showed in scripture. Let us ask you this, who does this sound like? 

    • They’re heretics yet they claim that they are the only true and living church.
    • They claim that all other churches are apostate.
    • The founding of their religion was strongly opposed, criticized, and denounced by the established church at that time.
    • Many members claim to be from the House of Joseph – descendants of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.
    • They have a view of God that differs from the larger mainstream orthodox church’s view.
    • They believe in pre-existence.
    • They claim that the current church’s scripture is corrupt – deliberately infused with an apostate agenda. That is, it’s truth intermingled with the vain philosophies of men, not God.
    • They claim to be the sole possessors of the original, pure and uncorrupted Bible – a bible which discards books in the established church’s canon, and that is very different on key points of doctrine relative to that canon.
    • They have additional sacred texts which, while not formally canonized, maintain a quasi-canonical status.
    • Critics claim that portions of their theology is syncretistic, incorporating outside cultures and religions.
    • They have their own priesthood system.
    • They have a temple system that deviates strongly from the Levitical system given in the bible.
    • They claim that their temple, rather than the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, is the correct place set apart by God for special ceremonies and worship.
    • Outside critics and scholars throughout history have disputed the veracity and historicity claims of their scripture as well as their origin story.

They, of course, are the Samaritans of Christ’s day – who did you think we were talking about? But joking aside, it’s not hard to see how much the Samaritanism of Christ’s day parallels today’s Mormonism. And in the fourth chapter of the gospel of John, Jesus, using the Mormons of His day, models for us how to reach Mormons of our own. So, let’s compare how Christ ministered to the Mormons of His day with the new model that was given in Part One, shall we? 

1. Love them
If there’s anything that we’ve learned in Mormon Studies, it’s that many Evangelicals love, love, love to Mormon Bash. Even if what they’re saying is bigoted, prejudiced, or downright wrong, bash they will – you know, almost as much as the Jews of Jesus’ day loved to bash Samaritans. Consider this:

Later authorities [such as Rabbi Jehuda the Holy a 3rd Century Rabbi] again reproach them [the Samaritans] with falsification of the Pentateuch, charge them with worshipping a dove, and even when, on further inquiry, they absolve them from this accusation, ascribe their excessive veneration for Mount Gerizim to the circumstance that they worshipped the idols which Jacob had buried under the oak at Shechem. To the same hatred, caused by national persecution, we must impute such expressions as that he, whose hospitality receives a foreigner, has himself to blame if his children have to go into captivity. The expression, ‘the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans,’  finds its exact counterpart in this: ‘May I never set eyes on a Samaritan;’ or else, ‘May I never be thrown into company with him!’
(Alfred Edersheim, “The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah”In Judæa and through Samaria – a Sketch of Samaritan History and Theology – Jews and Samaritans chapter) 

Yet in the face of this extreme – one might even say, excessive – bigotry and prejudice we see Jesus showing this morality challenged, untrusting, skeptical Samaritan woman love, respect, and acceptance. Put yourself in her place as you hear these words:

Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.

Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”

The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?”

Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”’
(John 4:9-15 NKJV)

In the face of an ugly and sarcastic verbal “shove” from the Samaritan Woman, how did Jesus respond? He offered her a gift, He showed her love and compassion.

2. Listen
One of the most stunning aspects of Christ’s encounter with the Samaritan, to us, is His restraint. His self-control and compassionate patience in listening to this woman laying out her self-righteous religiosity convicts and challenges me:

Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”

The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”

Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”

The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”
(John 4:16-20 NKJV) 

Wouldn’t Jesus have been well within His rights to blast away both at the woman’s compromised morality and her horrible theology at this point?  And really what could she do but just sit there and take it? After all, she was dead wrong and He was absolutely right, correct?  Instead, what did He do? He listened. Yes, He also spoke the truth but He did so in a spirit of love and compassion, not condemnation. He did as He has taught us: He turned the other cheek (see Matthew 5:38-40) and turned away wrath with a gentle answer (see Proverbs 15:1)

3. Promote the good they do
Notice Christ’s response in the face of the religious dogma that the Samaritan woman spews at him in the following exchange:

The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
(John 4:19-24 NKJV) 

Did you see that? Wouldn’t Christ have been perfectly justified in launching into an apologetic about how the false temple of Samaritanism on Mount Gerizim was unbiblical and the seat of, and the idol for, their false religion at this point? Wouldn’t He have been right in pressing in on her ignorance regarding what scripture really says about true and proper Temple worship?  But what does He do instead? He commends her. He implicitly commends her for her devotion to God in the midst of her ignorance. He commends her for being a true worshiper who is being sought by God. Yes, He commends her for her love of the truth. He found the good in the midst of the bad and promoted it.

In fact, this is a common pattern that we see throughout the Bible when it comes to how Christ presents the Samaritans. Yes, they were heretics. Yes, they were in a cult. Yes, they were following compromised scripture, false prophets, and worshiping in a false temple that was in the wrong place according to God’s Word. But even in the midst of this sick, dysfunctional mess, how does Jesus so often speak of them in public? Answer: They’re the-wrong-in-orthodoxy, but right-in-orthopraxy good guys – at least as compared to the right-in-orthodoxy, but wrong in orthopraxy guys that are in front of Him, that is.

Still, doubt us? Then lest us give you these three words: The Good Samaritan (see Luke 10:25-37). And let us pose just one question: Who was the good guy in that story, the two biblically orthodox, mainstream religious guys (the Priest and the Levite) or the fringe heretic (the Samaritan)? We rest our case.

4. Curb your ego
What comes next in this exchange is the real stunner to me:

The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”
(John 4:25-26 NKJV) 

And there it is, Christ’s first explicit declaration that He is the Messiah in the gospels. To a woman. A sinful woman. A half-breed Jewish/Gentile mongrel of the type hated by His people. A sinful mongrel who was born into the religious cult that she is still ensnared in.

Now, given that, wouldn’t the egotist have lead with the “little” fact that they are the Chosen One? Wouldn’t they have presented their credentials to gain the advantage? When she went into her previous tirade about the Temple and how wrong those apostate Jews are versus right we true God worshiping Samaritan, if you were Jesus wouldn’t you have been tempted to say, “Well, that’s all well and good, but hey lady, I’m the Messiah! How do you like them apples, little girl?” We confess, to our shame, that we probably would have.

But not Jesus, he checked His ego at the door and left it there. Yes, that’s right, God Almighty, Lord of the Universe, checked His ego at the door for the sake and out of His love for the Samaritan woman that was right in front of him. One word, and it falls far short: Wow!

5. Keep it positive
Rewind the tape again and consider how Christ first presented His message to the Samaritan woman: He offered her a gift, living water. He knew her need and met her exactly where she was at right then and there – physically (thirsty), spiritually (ensnared in a false religion), and emotionally (looking for love in all the wrong places). And what did He offer her? He offered her hope and life. Through the Messiah (Himself) He offered a way out.

Friend, is this the way that Christ first approached you? It’s sure the way that He approached us – Michael, the militant Mormon Apologist, and Fred the militant Atheist. And we are hardly unique, are we? After all, doesn’t Paul tell us that’s it’s the patience and kindness of God that leads to repentance (see Romans 2:4)?

One thing that we like about “The Chosen” TV series – in fact, maybe the thing we like most about it – is how Christ is portrayed as a genuinely warm, approachable, and attractive person. One can’t help but feel drawn to Him and His message as He is presented in this series. Do you think that real historic Jesus was any different? We don’t. As the saying goes, which draws more flies: Honey or vinegar? Based on your own reading of the gospels do you think that Jesus was vinegar or honey to those who heard His voice? Let’s consider what the text actually says in light of that hovering question, shall we?

Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work. Do you not say, ‘There are still four months and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest! And he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. For in this the saying is true: ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored, and you have entered into their labors.”

And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all that I ever did.” So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. And many more believed because of His own word.

Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”
(John 4:34-42 NKJV) 

Again for emphasis, “we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world”. Friend do you think that Christ’s words were honey or vinegar to these Samaritans? Were they honey or vinegar to you when He called you? For Michael, the militant Mormon Apologist and Fred, the militant Atheist, those words were honey in the midst of vinegar. We were drawn to Christ because He was far, far, far more attractive than what we currently had. Case in point: Fred is fond of saying that Atheism, for him, was like ordering a pizza and eating the box instead of the pizza. And Michael has said similar things about the Mormonism that was crushing him under the weight of ordinance, commandments, and constant, unrelenting unworthiness.

So my Mormon Bashing Evangelical friend, we will end this with this: Are you Christ to your Mormon friends and family members? Are you honey or vinegar to your Mormon friends and family? We encourage and exhort you: Be Jesus. Be honey. Be the Good Samaritan to the Samaritans. Be a Mormon in order to win Mormons.

An artistic, moving, and powerful depiction of the Woman at the Well story from “The Chosen” TV Series. (click to view)

 About the Authors
Michael “The Ex-Mormon Apologist” Flournoy served a two-year mission for the LDS Church where he helped organize three Mormon/Evangelical dialogues and has participated in debate at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Born into Mormonism, Mr. Flournoy converted to Evangelical Christianity in 2016.

Fred W. Anson is the founder and publishing editor of the Beggar’s Bread website, which features a rich potpourri of articles on Christianity with a recurring emphasis on Mormon studies. Fred is also the administrator of several Internet discussion groups and communities, including several Mormon-centric groups, including two Facebook Support Groups for Ex-Mormons (Ex-Mormon Christians, and Ex-Mormon Christians Manhood Quorum). Raised in the Nazarene Church, Fred later became an Atheist but then returned to the Christian faith during the Jesus Movement in 1976. 

“A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold In settings of silver.”
(Proverbs 25:11 NKJV)

by Michael Flournoy
In Disney’s “Hercules”, Hercules battles a monster called a hydra. During the fight he slices its head off with his sword. Bystanders applaud his victory until the beast revives with two heads instead of one. Hercules flies around on his pegasus decapitating one head after another. Each time he does, two more heads spring out until he’s faced with a far more dangerous opponent than before. Hundreds of dragon-like heads stare him down and his trainer Phil yells, “Will you forget the whole head slicing thing?”

I sympathize with Phil. 

I’ve watched Evangelicals debate Mormons for a few years now. I’ve seen them deploy the same flawed tactics over and over. Then they congratulate themselves while Latter-day Saints grow stronger in their faith and more distrustful of Christianity. As someone who knows the LDS mindset from first-hand experience, I can tell you that the sharpest, most direct tactic is not always best. 

Christians value directness and truth. We come from a society that is far more accepting of debate than that of our LDS counterparts. In fact, Latter-day Saints view contention as the devil’s tool. They value orthopraxy as much (if not more) than orthodoxy. This means that our tone can destroy a perfectly good argument. For instance, a common mantra in Mormonism is: “people can leave the Church, but they can’t leave it alone.”

So when an ex-Mormon comes across as angry or bitter, it doesn’t matter how valid his arguments are. He is fulfilling the words of the prophets and proving that life away from Mormonism is bleak. When I was an active member I compared Christians who slandered their former religion to married men who continued to gripe over an old girlfriend. It was an obvious sign that they weren’t fulfilled in their relationship.

The same is true for Christians who have never been Mormon. When we take the position that causing offense and hurting relationships is an acceptable way to promote truth, we alienate the LDS. To be fair, sometimes the blunt approach is exactly what’s needed. It depends on the situation and the personality of the one doing the witnessing. If you’re going that route, be sure to bring a first-class argument with you.

If there’s one thing Mormons love, it’s a bull in a china shop, rampaging blindly against strawman arguments. The LDS will wave that red flag all day, dancing gleefully as you miss their vital organs by a longshot. They’ll use the futility of your attempts to promote their own testimony or add fuel to their dislike for Christians. Worst-case scenario, it gives them an excuse to play the victim and cut off future dialogue with you.

Of course, the truth is offensive. Sometimes a Mormon will be offended no matter how accommodating you are. So where does the balance lie between being honest and being compassionate? It’s quite the juggling act. However, I have a few tips to assist in talking to Latter-day Saints. 

1. Love them
It sounds obvious, but I can’t state this enough. If you’re talking to Mormons to win an argument, validate yourself, or let out steam for hurt the Church has caused you, it’s time to leave the ministry. Now.

We need to be mindful of what happens when a Mormon abandons their faith. They experience a loss of family, identity, and culture. The last thing a Latter-day Saint needs is us as enemies. These are victims we’re talking about here! Mormons need to know there’s a new family waiting to embrace them with open arms. So commit right now to loving your LDS neighbors regardless of whether or not they leave the Church.

2. Listen
Latter-day Saints balk when we tell them what they believe right out of the gate. Instead, ask them to explain the particulars of their faith and why it’s meaningful to them. It might be cringy listening to someone pour out their soul about a false gospel, but it’s helpful. It builds a bond between you and the Latter-day Saint, which puts you in a better position to share the hope you have.

I can promise you this. A Latter-day Saint is far more interested in talking to someone who listens and respects what they say. 

3. Promote the good they do
One of the worst mistakes I’ve seen is when Christians bad mouth the LDS church for doing good. For example, we might find ourselves grumbling when they donate millions of dollars to charity. After all, what’s a couple million compared to the 100 trillion dollars in their vaults? But do you realize how petty that makes us look? When a Latter-day Saint brags about service their church has performed, the correct response isn’t, “Well, it’s still a cult”, or “why didn’t they give more?”

The best response is, “That’s really cool. Tell me more about it.” If you’re appalled by that, please reference point number one on this list. 

4. Curb your ego
Sometimes you’ll be in the middle of a discussion and realize the debate isn’t going well because the point you’ve been making is a strawman. In this scenario the temptation is to push ahead and keep hammering it in, forcing the Mormon to see the light through brute force. This is about as effective as talking louder to someone who speaks a different language. The drive to keep pushing is your ego talking. Don’t let it win. The best option if you’ve misrepresented Mormonism is to apologize. Believe me, losing the battle is better than losing the war. 

When you make a move like this, a Mormon can’t help but respect you. Remember when I said they value orthopraxy? Humbly apologizing when the situation demands will paint you as a true Christian in their eyes. They’ll see you as someone who’s fair and approachable. And that’s exactly the kind of person they’ll want to confide in if their shelf breaks someday. 

5. Keep it positive
It’s important to avoid phrases that come across as overzealous. Telling Latter-day Saints they worship Joseph Smith, believe in a different god, or aren’t Christians is a sure-fire way to get their walls up. What might seem obvious to you, is far from obvious to them. They’ll see you as a raving madman.

In fact, it’s usually best to keep the focus on the positive aspects of your beliefs. A lot of Christians are uncomfortable with this, because of how similar the LDS vocabulary is to ours. However, there are some definite appeals we can highlight. For example, in Christian culture, it is common for people to confess sins and build each other up. Many Mormons long for this kind of fellowship.

But wait, there’s more! In Christianity, God doesn’t send any of His children to hell. In Christianity, God’s love is unconditional, to the point that we can be saved in our sins. In Christianity, everyone who believes holds the priesthood. In Christianity, Christ’s entire life was a vicarious ordinance on our behalf. In Christianity, God’s revelation never changes.   

If a Mormon challenges you on these points, it opens the door to compare beliefs. Invite, don’t incite. 

In Conclusion
I think that when in appealing to his fellow critics in regard to their often horribly unbiblical (sometimes even cruel) treatment of Mormons one Mormon Critic summarized it well he said: 

The Golden Rule of Apologetics is: “Always treat your debating opponent’s evidence and arguments the way that you would want to have your evidence and arguments treated“

All too often I see Christians engaging in the exact opposite of this, in something that apologists call “Scorched Earth Tactics”. This is a tactic whereby one is determined to win the debate no matter what the cost. It’s like dropping napalm or salting the ground after each advance so nothing can grow in your wake. The end result is that all too often you win the debate but lose your debating opponent – forever.

This is a formula for failure since it can take Mormon years, even decades to shake off the mind control of the LdS Church, to unsnap psychologically, and to start considering the body of evidence through clear eyes rather than Mormon sunglasses. And then there are typically several years more after that before they transition out due to family, professional, and cultural entanglements. Therefore, it’s always best to strive to maintain a good relationship even if you’re at loggerheads as debating opponents. Think long, not short term, and always, always, always consider how to maintain the relationship without compromising your message or yourself.

That sounds so easy, doesn’t it? It’s not. It can be so hard to keep one’s passions, ego, and pride in check when engaging Mormons. And if you really like the person it can be hard not to soften your message to maintain the relationship.  It’s a balancing act. Which is why we so desperately need the mind of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit guiding us rather than our fallen human nature. So for those moments when you feel your adrenaline beginning to pump, your palms beginning to sweat, and your eyes beginning to bulge I would encourage you to remember (or better yet, memorize) what God has said to us through His word.
(Fred W. Anson, “Weak Arguments #13: “There’s NOTHING in Mormonism that’s true – it’s all wrong and nothing but a pack of lies!”, Beggar’s Bread website May 3, 2015) 

And in regard to Mormons and Mormonism this is what God through His word says to us: 

“Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.”
(2 Timothy 2:25 NIV) 

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”
(Colossians 4:6 NIV)

“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”
(1 Peter 3:15 NIV)

Brother and Sister Mormon Critic, I would rather lose the debate in order to win the Mormon over to Jesus, wouldn’t you? I would rather look like a fool than a sage if that’s what it takes. This isn’t about me, it’s about Him, isn’t it?  “He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30 NKJV). Can I get an amen? 

About the Author
Michael “The Ex-Mormon Apologist” Flournoy served a two-year mission for the LDS Church where he helped organize three Mormon/Evangelical dialogues and has participated in debate at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Born into Mormonism, Mr. Flournoy converted to Evangelical Christianity in 2016.

Following Jesus After Mormonism

“But there’s bear traps lying in those woods. Most of ’em already been used” (Steve Taylor, “I Just Wanna Know”)

by Fred W. Anson
This presentation, given as part of the Faith After Mormonism Conference on September 26, 2020, via webcast (due to the ongoing COVID-16 crisis) is based on the actual, real-life experience of a cross-section of Ex-Mormons who have successfully transitioned into mainstream Christianity. This is a map of where the post-Mormon bear traps lie based on their stated hard-won, real-world experience.

It also contains a treasure trove of wisdom borne out of their (often painful) Post-Mormon life experiences. The design and intent of this section isn’t to replace the Ex-Mormon’s old Mormon To-Do List with a new Evangelical version, but to invite them to learn from those who have gone before them.  This content also demonstrates clearly how while abiding in Christ may be as natural as eating, drinking, walking, and breathing, it’s not always passive.

Click the above image for the video recording of this presentation from the Faith After Mormonism Conference.

Accompanying PowerPoint Presentation

Click the above image for the PowerPoint Presentation and here for the handout. 

Supplemental Content
This is a grass-catcher collection of content that was compiled, “just in case” for the Q&A portion of the main presentation. This presentation, combined with the Main Presentation, represents a kind of mini-crash course or road map of resources and reference materials to assist in helping the Ex-Mormon successfully make a full transition into mainstream historic Christianity.

Click the above image for the PowerPoint Presentation and here for the handout. 

Bonus Content
Prior to this event, the presenter was interviewed by Russ East of KUTR “Truth Radio” on his “Passion For Christ” program. This interview touched on content that wasn’t covered in the Faith After Mormonism conference presentation and that may be of interest to transitioning Ex-Mormons.
Click here to listen to Part 1
Click here to listen to Part 2

About the Presenter
Fred W. Anson (Lake Forest, California) is the founder and publishing editor of the Beggar’s Bread website, which features a rich potpourri of articles on Christianity with a recurring emphasis on Mormon studies. Fred is also the administrator of several Internet discussion groups and communities, including several Mormon-centric groups, including two Facebook Support Groups for Ex-Mormons (Ex-Mormon Christians, and Ex-Mormon Christians Manhood Quorum).  

About the Conference
Our purpose is to provide hope and wisdom for people leaving Mormonism to explore a new faith home in historic, biblical Christianity. Through speakers, workshops, exhibitors, and individual interactions,
you will receive helpful resources and meet others on a similar journey.

The Presenter would like to acknowledge and thank the following people for their assistance in producing this presentation (in no particular order): Michael and Briana Flournoy; Tina Edgar; the Admins of the Ex-Mormon Christians Facebook Group (Jackie Davidson, Amy Fuller, Barb Griffin, and Michael Stevens); Charlotte Pardee and the Ex-Mormons for Jesus, Orange, California chapter; Ross Anderson for making all this possible; and as always, I thank my wonderful wife Sue, who not only keeps me honest and humble but even-keeled to boot!

But above all else: Soli Deo Gloria.
Thank you, Jesus, for saving a wretch like me from my own worst enemy – myself.

Dear Mr. Ex-Mormon Atheist, It may not be this, but it very often feels like this to those you’re processing your Post Mormon anger at in public.

compiled by Fred W. Anson
A few years ago, the good folks at the Zelph on the Shelf did a fantastic article entitled, “15 Things Ex-Mormons are Tired of Hearing” which was a superb compilation of the bad arguments that Ex-Mormons typically hear from True Believing Mormons (aka “TBMs”). As the author noted in her introduction, these are things that not only don’t facilitate constructive debate, they distract from it.

I loved the article. So did my friends. We ate it up!

Now my friends, like me, are mainly mainstream Christians and most are Ex-Mormons as well. And they suggested that we put together a list of the top 15 things that Christians are tired of hearing from ex-Mormon atheists/agnostics. So I slapped together a crowdsourced poll, posted it on the Internet, and the results will be discussed and considered over this short series of articles.

By the way, if you missed any of the prior segments of this series and would like to read it in order, from the beginning, click here for Part One, and here for Part Two.

5) “The Bible is just as credible as Mormon scripture is – as in not at all!”
And yet we have mountains of artifacts and manuscripts from the Biblical periods; the DNA evidence matches the historical record to a T; science generally supports rather than discredits the Bible, and; Archaeology validates rather than contradicts the biblical record. How is does that not, at the very minimum, make the Bible credible? Further, the theology of the Bible is in continuity with Old Testament theology rather than being a radical break from it as all Mormon scripture after the Book of Mormon is and it doesn’t contain the type of doctrinal errors and snafus that the Book of Mormon does. More than that, the Bible may be a challenging book to read due to its antiquity but at least it’s well-written, unlike the rambling repetitive prose of the Book of Mormon in particular and other Mormon scripture in general. And regarding science that so many Ex-Mormon Atheist point to as evidence for their claims, I would ask them to consider this from Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute:

I don’t believe there is an inherent conflict [between belief in God and science], but I believe that humans, in our imperfect nature, sometimes imagine conflicts where there are none. We see something that threatens our own personal view, and we figure that there must be some reason why that alternative view has to be wrong, or even why it has to be evil.
(David Masci, “The ’Evidence for Belief’: An Interview with Francis Collins”, Pew Research Center website, April 17, 2008) 

Again, I could be wrong here but I often think that many Ex-Mormons simply project their bad experiences with Mormon scripture onto the Bible and assume that they’re the same when, stated plainly, they’re not. I’ve also noticed that many Ex-Mormons coming out of the Latter-day Saint bubble are simply unaware of the vast body of literature that’s been built over the last 2,000-years in support of the Bible. Christian apologists are nothing new and can even be found in the pages of the New Testament (see Paul’s Mars Hill discourse in Acts 17 as one of many examples). So, there’s a lot more that could be said about this, but it’s probably been said better elsewhere. For example, I would recommend Joel Kramer’s excellent documentary “The Bible vs. Joseph Smith” to those interested in pursuing the subject further.

Click above to watch a documentary that compares and contrasts Biblical truth claims against the claims of Joseph Smith. 

4) “The Christians that I engage with are just as fanatically blind, irrational, and anti-intellectual as True Believing Mormons. Therefore, Christianity is just the other side of the same fanatical coin.”
Sadly, there’s some truth to this. Trust me, all too often I get just as irritated and frustrated with this as you Ex-Mormon Atheists do on this point. That said, please note my use of the words, “some truth”.  My Atheist friends, I would hope that you have been exposed to enough Christians to realize that what’s true of some isn’t necessarily true for all. Not all Christians are hunkered down in the Christian Tank in true Mormon fashion holding onto their closed minds and open Bibles and refusing to consider anyone or anything outside of said Tank, are they?

I would point to the work of well Christian authors like C.S. Lewis, Timothy Keller, John Lennox, Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, J. Warner Wallace, and Francis Schaeffer as evidence of this. Let me outline just a few key works briefly:

  • C.S. Lewis was an atheist who was converted to Christianity as a result of the transcendence of life articulated in works of literature – including non-Christian authors, including pagan authors. His book The Abolition of Man argues against what he perceived as the corrosive nature of modernistic relativism and for universal ethical absolutes (which he called “the Tao”) using not only Christian sources but pagan sources as well. In his book Mere Christianity he gets even more specific, making the case that Christianity is the most rational and moral worldview. He makes this not from Christian sources but from logic, reason, and historical evidence that is outside of the Bible.
  • Gary Habermas was a historian and a skeptic who was forced to concede that not only was the resurrection of Christ reasonable but compelling. He came to this conclusion using sources that are not only critical of the resurrection but antagonistic to it – an approach that he calls the “minimal facts” method. His book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (which he co-authored with Mike Liacona, one of his students) is a good introduction to Mr. Habermas’ work.
  • Lee Strobel was an atheist journalist who, angered by his wife’s conversion to Christianity, set out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ but in the end was forced to concede that it was not only possible but highly likely. As a result, he converted to Christianity. The book that outlines his journey as well as the evidence that he discovered, The Case for Christ, is good but, candidly the movie is even better.
  • J. Warner Wallace was, to use his own words, “an angry atheist” who took it upon himself to disabuse his Christian friends of their misguiding beliefs. Ultimately, using the skills that he had acquired as a trained Cold Case Detective for the Los Angeles Police Department, he was compelled to admit that the case for Christ was more cogent and credible than the case against Him. He has published his findings in the book “Cold Case Christianity“.

Now notice something here, my atheist friends, in all these cases they were outside of the Christian Tank and using the same epistemological tools that you do: logic, reason, and evidence. Further, not only that but in almost all cases not only were they hostile to the Christian worldview and belief system, they were also considering sources that were too. And yet when confronted with new evidence that contradicted their current preferred narrative, they changed their mind, didn’t they?

How is this fanaticism? How is this the same kind of subjective, thought-stopping, close-minded, anti-intellectual, feelings-centric approach to truth that you knew in Mormonism? Clearly, my atheist friends, these are not just “two sides of the same fanatical coin” are they? And clearly, not all Christians are as fanatically blind, irrational, and anti-intellectual as you say they are, are they?

Again, there are bad apples in all bushels so to broad brush and overgeneralize as you have in your argument is always going to get one into trouble, isn’t it? And if you doubt me, perhaps we should talk about the Ex-Mormons that we’ve seen who hold to and proselytize for atheism with the same blind passion and zeal that they did Mormonism back in the day. Shall I proceed, or would you like to just click through to just about any atheist Ex-Mormon discussion group and see it for yourself?1

Or put another way: Stone meet glasshouse.

Click above to watch an October 3, 2007 debate between Neo-Atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian Theist John Lennox.

3) “The God of Christianity is a moral monster. How can you worship such an egotistical hater and murderer?”
Unless I’m mistaken, your assertion is a variant of this famous quote from well-known Neo-Atheist, Richard Dawkins in his bestselling book, “The God Delusion”:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
(Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion”, p.31; Houghton Mifflin, 2006) 

There’s a lot there to unpack there, so for the sake of brevity (after all, entire books have been written in response to this statement from Mr. Dawkins), I will limit myself to just one portion – the “vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser” claim.

One of the key principles for properly interpreting literature – any piece of literature, including the Bible – is that the text must be interpreted within its historical context.2 When one fails to do so one is engaging in the fallacy known at “Presentism” which is defined as follows:

In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy in historical writing.
(Wikipedia, “Presentism (literary and historical analysis)”)

Yes, my atheist friends, I agree: To modern 21st Century ears and by today’s values, the language of the Biblical God can sound harsh, unreasonable, even immoral. However, Biblical Scholar Paul Copan explains, using the exaggerated war rhetoric in the Old Testament as a case study, by ancient standards, the biblical rhetoric was just par for the course:

Most Christians read Joshua’s conquest stories with the backdrop of Sunday school lessons via flannel graph or children’s illustrated Bible stories. The impression that’s left is a black-and-white rendition of a literal crush, kill, and destroy mission. A closer look at the biblical text reveals a lot more nuance—and a lot less bloodshed. In short, the conquest of Canaan was far less widespread and harsh than many people assume.

Like his ancient Near Eastern contemporaries, Joshua used the language of conventional warfare rhetoric. This language sounds like bragging and exaggeration to our ears. Notice first the sweeping language in Joshua 10:40: “Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.” Joshua used the rhetorical bravado language of his day, asserting that all the land was captured, all the kings defeated, and all the Canaanites destroyed (cf. 10:40–42; 11:16–23: “Joshua took the whole land . . . and gave . . . it for an inheritance to Israel”). Yet…Joshua himself acknowledged [later in the narrative] that this wasn’t literally so.
(Paul Copan, “Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God”, p.170. Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition)

Mr. Copan then goes on to compare and contrast the war rhetoric of other countries from the same period to Joshua’s:

Ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used “utterly/completely destroy” and other obliteration language even when the event didn’t literally happen that way. Here’s a sampling:

• Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later fifteenth century) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC.

• Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322–1295 BC) recorded making “Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)” and the “mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity).”

• The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (around 1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.”

• In the Merneptah Stele (ca. 1230 BC), Rameses II’s son Merneptah announced, “Israel is wasted, his seed is not,” another premature declaration.

• Moab’s king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of “Israel has utterly perished for always,” which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.

• The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701–681 BC) used similar hyperbole: “The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped.”

You get the idea. Let’s now return to the Old Testament text to press this point further. It’s true that Joshua 9–12 utilizes the typical ancient Near Eastern literary devices for warfare. But at the book’s end, Joshua matter-of-factly assumes the continued existence of Canaanite peoples that could pose a threat to Israel. He warns Israel against idolatry and getting entangled in their ways: “For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the Lord your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you” (Josh. 23:12–13).
(Ibid, pp.171&172)

Finally, in his chapter summary from chapter 17, (“Indiscriminate Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing? The Killing of the Canaanites (III)”) Mr. Copan further explains that the historical reality doesn’t match the rhetoric any more than the rhetoric of other leaders of the region and era did:

• The language of the consecrated ban [against allowing any living thing to survive] (herem) includes stereotypical language: “all,” “young and old,” and “men and women.” The ban could be carried out even if women and children weren’t present.

• As far as we can see, biblical herem was carried out in particular military or combatant settings (with “cities” and military “kings”). It turns out that the sweeping language of the ban is directed at combatants.

• The ban language allows and hopes for exceptions (e.g., Rahab); it isn’t absolute.

• The destruction language of ancient Near Eastern warfare (and the Old Testament) is clearly exaggerated. Groups of Canaanite peoples who apparently were “totally destroyed” were still around when all was said and done (e.g., Judg. 1).

• The greater concern was to destroy Canaanite religion, not Canaanites per se, a point worthy of elaboration (see the next chapter).

• The preservation of Rahab and her family indicates that consecration to the ban wasn’t absolute and irreversible. God had given ample indications of his power and greatness, and the Canaanites could have submitted to the one true God who trumped Egypt’s and Canaan’s gods, sparing their own lives.

• The biblical text, according to some scholars, suggests that peace treaties could be made with Canaanite cities if they chose to, but none (except Gibeon) did so (Josh. 11:19). The offer of peace was implicitly made to Jericho.

• The biblical text contains many references to “driving out” the Canaanites. To clear away the land for habitation didn’t require killing; civilians fled when their military strongholds were destroyed and soldiers were no longer capable of protecting them.

• From the start, certain (more cooperative) Canaanites were subjected to forced labor, not annihilation (Judg. 1:27–36; 1 Kings 9:20–21; Josh. 15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13; cf. Ps. 106:34–35). This was another indication that the ban wasn’t absolute.

• Joshua carried out what Moses commanded (Deut. 7 and 20), which means that Moses’s language is also an example of ancient Near Eastern exaggeration. He did not intend a literal, all-encompassing extermination of the Canaanites.

• The archaeological evidence nicely supports the biblical text; both of these point to minimal observable material destruction in Canaan as well as Israel’s gradual infiltration, assimilation, and eventual dominance there.

We have many good reasons to rethink our paradigm regarding the destruction of the Canaanites. On closer analysis, the biblical text suggests that much more is going on beneath the surface than obliterating all the Canaanites. Taking the destruction of anything that breathes at face value needs much reexamination.
(Ibid, Kindle edition, p.184)

So, yes, my atheist friends, if you engage in fallacious presentism then you can make this poor argument. However, if you limit yourself to proper historical and hermeneutical scholarship, this argument unravels.

Sadly, Mr. Dawkin’s Neo-Atheist work doesn’t appear to be interested in an honest, nuanced approach to the issues that he raises. Rather, he seems to prefer bombastic, over-heated polemics, hyperbole, and misrepresenting both those he disagrees with and his sources. I would hope that you can be better than that – more thoughtful intellectually honest, to be specific. As the saying goes, there really are two sides to every story.

In the last article in this series, we will cover the top two things that we’re tired of hearing from Ex-Mormon Atheists.

Click above to watch Bible Scholar and Christian Apologist Paul Copan address the question, “Is God a Moral Monster” at Apologetics Canada Conference 2012.

NOTES
1 I wrote about the dynamic of Atheist fanaticism in my article, “Why I Steer Christians Away from Non-Christian, Ex-Mormon Bulletin Boards”.

2 For reference, here are the Eight Rules of Interpretation from the book “Who Said Women Can’t Teach?” by Charles Bromley.

The Eight Rules of Interpretation Used by Legal Experts for Over 2,500 Years
1) Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.
2) Rule of Usage.
Don’t add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?
3) Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
4) Rule of Historical background.
Don’t separate interpretation and historical investigation.
5) Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.
6) Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which there is no precedent.
7) Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.
8) Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.

Again, if you missed any part of this series and would like to read it in order, from the beginning, click here for Part One, and here for Part Two.

Again, if you missed any part of this series and would like to read it in order, from the beginning, click here for Part One, here for Part Two, and here for Part Four.

compiled by Fred W. Anson
A few years ago, the good folks at the Zelph on the Shelf did a fantastic article entitled, “15 Things Ex-Mormons are Tired of Hearing” which was a superb compilation of the bad arguments that Ex-Mormons typically hear from True Believing Mormons (aka “TBMs”). As the author noted in her introduction, these are things that not only don’t facilitate constructive debate, but they also distract from it.

I loved the article. So did my friends. We ate it up!

Now my friends, like me, are mainly mainstream Christians and most are Ex-Mormons as well. And they suggested that we put together a list of the top 15 things that Christians are tired of hearing from ex-Mormon atheists/agnostics. So I slapped together a crowdsourced poll, posted it on the Internet, and the results will be discussed and considered over this short series of articles.

15) “Christianity keeps changing just like Mormonism does. You’re a hypocrite.”
Which, of course, is why the ancient creeds are just as respected, confessed, and venerated today as the day that they were issued, right? Sarcasm aside, no, the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith* have never changed. They are:

1) The Deity of Jesus Christ.
2) Salvation by Grace.
3) The resurrection of Jesus Christ.
4) The gospel of Jesus Christ, and
5) Monotheism.

As Christian Theologian, Matt Slick notes well,

The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, 3) Resurrection of Christ, 4) the gospel, and 5) monotheism. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these five are the ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential.
(Matt Slick, “Essential Doctrines of Christianity”, CARM website)

This type of systematized theology and boundary definition is impossible in Mormonism due to its doctrine of continuing revelation and the lack of an objective, unchanging standard that is the ultimate authority over even leaders. Thus, what was an essential doctrine in Brigham Young’s day, polygamy, can simply be shoved aside in Wilford Woodruff’s day.

To be fair, yes, on non-Essentials of the Christian faith there can and will change, but so what? How essential to salvation are things like women’s skirt length or whether men wear neckties or T-Shirts to Sunday Worship services? For that matter, how essential to salvation is whether our services are held on Saturday or Sunday? Christians can and will disagree on these non-Essentials and it’s simply no big deal. And if they change tomorrow (and they probably will), who cares?

Click on the above link to hear Theologian Matt Slick explain the Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith and how they’re practically applied. 

14) “Ex-Mormons who become Christians have just switched cults. Christianity is just as crazy as Mormonism.”
Thus says the kettle to the pot. From a Sept. 19, 2008, Wall Street Journal article:

“You can’t be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you’re drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god,” comedian and atheist Bill Maher said earlier this year on “Late Night With Conan O’Brien.”

On the “Saturday Night Live” season debut last week, homeschooling families were portrayed as fundamentalists with bad haircuts who fear biology. Actor Matt Damon recently disparaged Sarah Palin by referring to a transparently fake email that claimed she believed that dinosaurs were Satan’s lizards. And according to prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, traditional religious belief is “dangerously irrational.” From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced that a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more civilized populace.

The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that’s not a conclusion to take on faith — it’s what the empirical data tell us.

“What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians…

… But it turns out that the late-night comic is no icon of rationality himself. In fact, he is a fervent advocate of pseudoscience. The night before his performance on Conan O’Brien, Mr. Maher told David Letterman — a quintuple bypass survivor — to stop taking the pills that his doctor had prescribed for him. He proudly stated that he didn’t accept Western medicine. On his HBO show in 2005, Mr. Maher said: “I don’t believe in vaccination. . . . Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur [germ] theory.” He has told CNN’s Larry King that he won’t take aspirin because he believes it is lethal and that he doesn’t even believe the Salk vaccine eradicated polio.

Anti-religionists such as Mr. Maher bring to mind the assertion of G.K. Chesterton’s Father Brown character that all atheists, secularists, humanists and rationalists are susceptible to superstition: “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can’t see things as they are.”
(Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, “Look Who’s Irrational Now”, The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 19, 2008; p.W13)

Click on the above link to watch Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College argue that belief in God is more rational than atheism. 

13) “History shows that religion is the #1 cause of war and violence.”
Actually, no. In fact, history shows the exact opposite, as Rabbi Alan Lurie explains in the Huntington Post:

While clearly there were wars that had religion as the prime cause, an objective look at history reveals that those killed in the name of religion have, in fact, been a tiny fraction in the bloody history of human conflict. In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.

History simply does not support the hypothesis that religion is the major cause of conflict. The wars of the ancient world were rarely, if ever, based on religion. These wars were for territorial conquest, to control borders, secure trade routes, or respond to an internal challenge to political authority. In fact, the ancient conquerors, whether Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman, openly welcomed the religious beliefs of those they conquered, and often added the new gods to their own pantheon.

Medieval and Renaissance wars were also typically about control and wealth as city-states vied for power, often with the support, but rarely instigation, of the Church. And the Mongol Asian rampage, which is thought to have killed nearly 30 million people, had no religious component whatsoever.

Most modern wars, including the Napoleonic Campaign, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, the Russia Revolution, World War II, and the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, were not religious in nature or cause. While religious groups have been specifically targeted (most notably in World War II), to claim that religion was the cause is to blame the victim and to misunderstand the perpetrators’ motives, which were nationalistic and ethnic, not religious.
(Rabbi Alan Lurie, “Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?” The Huffington Post, 04/10/2012) 

Click on the above link to hear Science Journalist Trace Dominguez examine the idea that religion is the main cause of war and violence.

12) “If the Bible is so reliable why has it been changed more than the Book of Mormon has? Ever heard of ‘copies of copies of copies’?”
Yes, we have. We also know how to read and we know how to listen – and we have both heard and read your unnamed source, Bart Ehrman, who came up with that Thought Stopping cliche’. So what’s particularly interesting to us is that the 2005 paperback edition of “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman contained an appendix (“Appendix A” to be exact) which consisted of a “Bonus Interview” between Ehrman and the editors of the book. This interview wasn’t included in the hardcover edition of the book or any of the subsequent paperback editions up to and including all current editions. The reason for this is only known only to the publisher and Mr. Ehrman, but one question and answer sequence in the interview is particularly interesting:

Bruce Metzger, your mentor in textual criticism to whom this book is dedicated, has said that there is nothing in these variants of Scripture that challenges any essential Christian beliefs (e.g. the bodily resurrection of Jesus or the Trinity). Why do you believe these core tenets of Christian orthodoxy to be in jeopardy based on the scribal errors you discovered in the biblical manuscripts?

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions—he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not—we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement—maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.

The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. What he means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief. For the most part, I think that’s true.

But I was looking at the question from a different angle. My question is not about traditional Christian beliefs, but about how to interpret passages of the Bible. And my point is that if you change what the words say, then you change what the passage means. Most textual variants (Prof. Metzger and I agree on this) have no bearing at all on what a passage means. But there are other textual variants (we agree on this as well) that are crucial to the meaning of a passage. And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages.

From my point of view, the stakes are rather high: Does Luke’s Gospel teach a doctrine of atonement (that Christ’s death atones for sins)? Does John’s Gospel teach that Christ is the “unique God” himself? Is the doctrine of the Trinity ever explicitly stated in the New Testament? These and other key theological issues are at stake, depending on which textual variants you think are original and which you think are creations of early scribes who were modifying the text.”
(Bart Ehrman, “Misquoting Jesus” (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), pp.252-253, Appendix A) 

Once again for emphasis: “…the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants…” In other words, the quantity of textual variants isn’t an issue if the quality of the variants are such that the meaning of the text doesn’t change. One or one million, it makes no difference. And, according to Professor Ehrman, that’s the case with the Biblical manuscripts, isn’t it?

Now, give that, let’s compare and contrast that to the Book of Mormon in which the following variants occur between just the first two editions of the book, shall we?

1 Nephi 11:18
“the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of God” (1830 edition)
“the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of the Son of God” (1837 edition)

1 Nephi 11:21
“behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!(1830 edition)
“behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!(1837 edition) 

1 Nephi 11:32
“the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people, yea, the Everlasting God was judged of the world.” (1830 edition)
“the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; (1837 edition)

1 Nephi 13:40
“the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world.
“the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world;”

So in the course of just seven years, only two generations of carefully controlled and published manuscripts, as well as the same original author – Jesus Christ goes from being God to being something less than God. The quantity of variants is small but the quality of the variants is huge as Mormon Christology makes a huge shift by downgrading the deity of Christ.

So, yes, this something that we do in fact, see with the Book of Mormon. However, over centuries, multiple generations of manuscripts, and multiple transcribers – none of whom were the original author or who were controlling the distribution or publication of the text – this is something that we don’t see in the biblical manuscript base. Respectfully, my Ex-Mormon Atheist friends, you appear to be projecting the Book of Mormon onto the Bible when it’s simply not merited. That least that’s how it appears to many of us.

Link on the above link to watch a 2011 debate between Biblical Scholars Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace on the reliability of the New Testament text. 

11) “If there IS a God then all you have to be is good to get into heaven, right? So why are you harassing Mormons? They’re good people!”
Well, for a start, the belief that “all you have to be is good into heaven” isn’t Christianity, it’s Moralism. In fact, it’s the basis of all non-Christian, pagan religions – including Mormonism – that one can work one’s way into salvation. And the belief that the goal of Christianity is to make good people better then you’re teaching therapeutic deism, not Christianity. As Christian Pastor, Philosopher, and Theologian, Timothy Keller has said so well,

If you believe that all good people can go to heaven, not just Christians, you are moralistic. If you also believe that all the contradictory rules and teachings of the various religions don’t matter, that everyone’s personal view of right and wrong is enough, then you are therapeutic. And if you think you can get to heaven without the enlightenment of Buddhism, or the sacraments of Catholicism or the justifying faith of Protestantism, then you are a deist. We don’t really need divine intervention. We’ll climb the ladder ourselves, thank you.
(Timothy Keller, “Pharisees With Low Standards”, TimothyKeller.com website, February 27, 2009).

So respectfully, my atheist friends, this argument is a strawman. Biblical Christianity teaches that no one can work their way into heaven by being good. In fact, the Bible is clear that no one is good, except God. Rather, Christ was crystal clear that the only way to heaven is through Him and His atoning work on the cross alone, “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6 NKJV) 

Further, the Bible is clear that no one can come to God if they’re holding to another God or Jesus or another gospel:

But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!
(2 Corinthians 11:3-4 NKJV)

The Biblical word for this is “idolatry” and, as Christians, we believe that the fate of those who hold to a False Jesus and/or False Gospel will be severe:

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
(Revelation 21:8 NKJV)

Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
(Revelation 22:14-15 NKJV)

So you see, in regard to Mormons and Mormonism, we’re simply being as consistent with our worldview as you atheists are whenever you all attempt to dissuade them of what you perceive as false teachings and beliefs. There’s really no difference. We don’t attack you all for being true to your worldview and beliefs in your interactions with Mormons, why do you attack us for being true to ours?

In part two, of this series, we’ll consider more of the things that we Christians are tired of hearing from Ex-Mormon atheists.

Click on the above link to hear Christian Apologist Frank Turek answer the question, “Do morally good people go to heaven?”

NOTES
* For a more complete overview of the Essentials of the Christian Faith with live links to fuller, more complete explanations of the issues and specific doctrines in question click here.

Again, if you missed any part of this series and would like to read it in order, from the beginning, click here for Part Two, here for Part Three, and here for Part Four.

A Caution and a Path for Transitioning Ex-Mormons

by Fred W. Anson
Best selling author John Bradshaw is fond of saying, “You are a human being, not a human doing.” For those of us coming from legalistic, high-demand religious groups where personal performance is the yardstick by which value is judged these words sound like nonsensical gibberish. I mean, all after, doesn’t “doing” mean that you have the right to “be”? And if you do more won’t you be more? Isn’t, “The one who does the most and gets the most stuff wins!” the rule of life? Jesus said, “No!”

To the ever-increasing demands of “Do!” that the world screams at us Christ quietly says, “Abide”. Further, He says, paradoxically, that the key to bearing fruit is abiding:

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.
— John 15:5-8 (NKJV) 

This is something that those of us coming from high demand, performance-oriented, image-conscious religious settings tend to struggle with. The idea of simply “abiding” rather than constantly “doing” tends to be something uncomfortable – even repulsive – to us, doesn’t it? I mean, after all, didn’t Christ also say that nasty things will happen to those who don’t bear fruit? So the answer must be to go out there, find your new calling,  and get busy with it, right? I mean come on you need to be doing something to bear fruit, right? And doesn’t the more fruit you produce mean that God will love and bless you more? Isn’t that how this religion thing is supposed to work?

A: Yes, that is indeed how the religions of men work;
No, that’s not how the religion of Christ does.

Rather, Jesus calls us to know him, to abide in Him, and thereby bear good fruit through Him organically as our walk with Him unfolds under His divine tutelage. It is His work in us that slowly and naturally bears fruit like grape clusters on a vine ripening in the sun.

The Ex-Mormon Struggle
Not inconsequentially, in Mormonism, so much time is spent in constantly doing things that the member doesn’t have time to think, feel, or enjoy the kind of slow, genuine, quiet, intimate, steadfast, communion with Christ that taught in John 15. This is no accident, Mormon leaders encourage this from the pulpit, don’t they?  And constantly being crazy busy and uber-productive is a point of pride in Mormon Culture, isn’t it? As a result, downshifting from this constant swirl of activity can be challenging for many former members, can’t it?

This PowerPoint presentation, given at the Faith After Mormonism Conference on October 12, 2019, in Murray, Utah, gives the solution from both the words of Jesus in tandem with the practical, hard-won experience of Ex-Mormons who have made this, not always easy and frequently bumpy, transition, into “being not doing”.

Click the above image for the video recording of this presentation from the Faith After Mormonism Conference.

Main Presentation (with Bonus Content)
This is the main presentation that was given at the 2019 Faith After Mormonism Conference during the Saturday morning Workshop Sessions.

The Bonus Content section is a map of where the post-Mormon bear traps lie based on the hard-won, real-world experience of successfully transitioned Ex-Mormons.  It also contains a treasure trove of wisdom borne out of their (often painful) Post-Mormon life experiences. The design and intent of this section isn’t to replace the Ex-Mormon’s old Mormon To-Do List with a new Evangelical version, but to invite them to learn from those who have gone before them.  This content also demonstrates clearly how while abiding in Christ may be as natural as eating, drinking, walking and breathing, it’s not always passive.

Click the above image for the PowerPoint Presentation and here for the handout. 

Supplemental Content
This is a grass-catcher collection of content that was compiled, “just in case” for the Q&A portion of the main presentation. This presentation, combined with the Main Presentation, represent a kind of mini-crash course or road map of resources and reference materials to assist in helping the Ex-Mormon successfully make a full transition into mainstream historic Christianity.

Click the above image for the PowerPoint Presentation and here for the handout. 

Bonus Content
After this event, the presenter was interviewed by Russ East of KUTR “Truth Radio” on his “Passion For Christ” program. This interview touched on content that wasn’t covered in the Faith After Mormonism conference presentation and that may be of interest to transitioning Ex-Mormons.
Click here to listen to Part 1
Click here to listen to Part 2

About the Presenter
Fred W. Anson (Lake Forest, California) is the founder and publishing editor of the Beggar’s Bread website, which features a rich potpourri of articles on Christianity with a recurring emphasis on Mormon studies. Fred is also the administrator of several Internet discussion groups and communities, including several Mormon-centric groups, including two Facebook Support Groups for Ex-Mormons (Ex-Mormon Christians, and Ex-Mormon Christians Manhood Quorum).  

About the Conference
Our purpose is to provide hope and wisdom for people leaving Mormonism to explore a new faith home in historic, biblical Christianity. Through speakers, workshops, exhibitors, and individual interactions,
you will receive helpful resources and meet others on a similar journey.

The Presenter would like to acknowledge and thank the following people for their assistance in producing this presentation (in no particular order): Michael and Briana Flournoy; Tina Edgar; the Admins of the Ex-Mormon Christians Facebook Group (Jackie Davidson, Amy Fuller, Barb Griffin, and Michael Stevens); Charlotte Pardee and the Ex-Mormons for Jesus, Orange, California chapter; Ross Anderson for making all this possible; and as always, I thank my wonderful wife Sue, who not only keeps me honest and humble but even-keeled to boot!

But above all else: Soli Deo Gloria.
Thank you, Jesus, for saving a wretch like me from my own worst enemy – myself.

by Brian Horner
Like virtually all of the 19th century, American cults of Christianity, Mormonism began as an attack on the historically orthodox, biblical faith that it claims to have “restored”. While individual Mormons and Mormon leaders hold some diverse views on this matter, the basic idea they all share is that at some time shortly after the death of the last apostle, the authority of the gospel, the church and the Word of God (the Bible) was lost due to a universal, general apostasy and corruptions introduced into the Bible. The predicate to Mormonism’s alleged, “restoration”, is what Mormons are taught to regard as the “great apostasy”. The disdain that Mormon “prophets” and other leaders held for the vast majority of Christians who populated the orthodox Body of Christ throughout the ages –actually for the roughly 95% of the history of Christianity between this “great apostasy” and the initiation of Joseph Smith’s prophetic career in 1830—is palpable and obvious in their own words.

Mormonism begins with Joseph Smith’s alleged “First Vision” – an event, which Smith described with contradictory variations. But the basic message lies in every version: Mr. Smith claimed to have received this revelation from God (or the Mormon Gods “Heavenly Father” and his son “Jesus Christ”):

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.
(Joseph Smith – History 1:19)

Here Smith attributes an explicit condemnation of the Christian church as “corrupt” and “an abomination” to God himself (or by the Mormon Gods, including Jesus Christ).

Brigham Young, the second “prophet” of the LDS organization carried on this Mormon tradition teaching that, “The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to their knowledge of the salvation of God” (Journal of Discourses 8:171). He continued, “With regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world.” (ibid, 8:199). According to this Mormon “prophet”, Christians are totally ignorant heathens.

Young’s successor, John Taylor, confirmed this in his preaching. “What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing; yet these very men assume the right and power to tell others what they shall and what they shall not believe in. Why, so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God.” (Taylor, ibid, 13:225). Taylor taught the Mormon faithful, that Christians are fools.

Similar assaults against historically orthodox, biblical Christianity continued throughout several generations of Mormon “prophets”. Their message regarding this “great apostasy” was driven to the logical and common conclusion held by Mormons today as represented by B.H. Roberts, the most highly placed, official LDS historian within the organization. He said, “Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.xlii).

Dug's Special Mission_EDITED

This is consistent with both the message of the Mormon “prophets”, on this matter as well as the natural, even the necessary logical extension of the original, alleged “revelation from God” experienced by Smith and his successors, ever since. If Christianity had survived and was still alive and well in any form, anywhere on earth in 1830, then it would have been impossible to “restore” it with Mormonism. It is impossible to “restore” anything, in the sense that Mormonism uses the term, which already exists. This message is nothing less than the condemnation of the entire Christian church, allegedly from God himself. It has been carried down through the history of Mormonism to the present day and it is one of the key, essential claims that Mormons use to justify the existence of their religion. If Christ had remained with and in His church as He promised and God had not condemned the Christian church, as Mormons claim, then there would be no need for the existence of the entire Mormon religion. Its existence would simply be redundant as well as contradictory to the historic orthodox faith.

So what does all of this have to do with the Mormon rhetorical tactic of deflection? It serves as a topic that provides an excellent example of the kind of argumentation I want to describe here. I have debated this particular topic (and many others) with Mormons for decades. I have found that This topic is highly useful in exposing the falsehood of Mormonism since like so many things taught and believed by Mormons. Their view on this matter cannot be reduced to a matter of “faith”. It is a purely historical topic and the truth of any such claims as this can be easily determined by simply examining the historical facts.

Keep that in mind as we proceed, using this issue as an example of this kind of problem. After all, we are simply discussing the historical assertion of what Jesus, his apostles, and their churches taught. The issue is not the truthfulness or the meaning of what they affirmed and taught; it is simply a matter of identifying the teaching itself. Did Jesus teach the distinctively Mormon doctrines and practice of not? One can agree or disagree with what these doctrines meant or how to interpret them. The issue here is this: Were they actually taught it in the first place?

When Christians question or challenge the claims of Mormonism you can count on one thing: Mormons will almost invariably try to change the subject when they perceive that they cannot answer or defend the claims of their organization. The above doctrine of this supposed, “great apostasy” is an excellent example. The dialog usually follows this basic pattern, exemplified by Mark (a Christian) and Larry (a Mormon):

Mark: So let me be sure of our claim here; Joseph Smith received revelations from God about how the whole Christian faith had been corrupted and had decayed into an abomination to God. Is that right?

Larry: Yes that’s basically it.

Mark: “And now, at this point in time, we have Mormonism, which is the restoration of what was lost in this ‘Great Apostasy’, right?”

Larry: Correct. Joseph Smith was appointed by God to bring people back to the true gospel and God used him as the prophet of the Restoration. As a result, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s one true church, which is the only church on the earth today that retains the authority of the prophets and apostles who are still the foundation of the church, according to Ephesians 2:20.

Mark: Well that is pretty difficult to believe.

Larry: Why? Don’t you think that God wants his authority and the true gospel to be represented by his church?

Mark: Yes. But, if Mormonism is the restoration of the Gospel of Christ then we should be able to see that Christ himself taught the distinctive doctrines and practices that Mormons claim to have “restored”. I mean, you guys cannot have ‘restored’ something that never existed. And if it exists today, there was no need to “restore” it. Mormonism includes a whole bunch of things, in fact even requires lots of things that neither Christ nor his 12 apostles ever taught, like polytheism, the Mormon temple rituals, God the Father is a man living in outer space, and so on. Can you show me some reasons to think that Jesus or his apostles ever taught such things? …

At this point, Larry (or any Mormon) will almost always evade that question, and then cover his retreat with any of a variety of “red herrings” – a named logical fallacy, aka “Ignoratio elenchi”. This fallacy is deployed to distract the exchange or an audience from a point or a question. If successful, the Mormon will derail the conversation away from the question that he or she knows they cannot answer without causing irreparable damage to their religion’s public image.

In this scenario, Larry might respond to Mark’s question by ignoring it and launching a counter-question such as, “Can you prove that Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount”? Or he might ask, “Can you prove that Jesus walked on water”? or “Can you show me some reasons to think that the Hebrews migrated out of Egypt?” etc.

It is important to notice that there is no answer to Mark’s question in Larry’s response. Instead, he is trying to evade the question (avoid answering it) and then misdirect the conversation off onto a different topic, usually in such a way as to illustrate that no one can “prove” anything in the Bible to be true as long as someone refuses to believe it, just as we Christians refuse to believe that Christ ever taught the distinctive Mormon doctrines that their organization supposedly “restored” such as, for example, that dogma God the Father is a man living in outer space.

But the red herring fallacy is not the only evasion they use. Frequently the Mormon will deflect a direct question by attempting to abstract the subject matter to a level where he can technically “answer” the question by answering a question about the broader context containing Mark’s question. For example, the Mormon might respond to a challenge to show that Jesus and his apostles ever taught Mormonism’s distinctive dogmas by trying to show that the Bible elsewhere mentions other “gods” and that the Jews were indeed polytheistic, thereby proving that Jesus taught polytheism – a central dogma of Mormonism that are absent from the New Testament and Christianity for it’s entire history. This effort to broaden the issue is just another trick. It’s a bit more clever since it can be shown that indeed the Bible at least mentions other ‘gods’. It also describes the Jews practicing polytheism. But this deflection falls flat on its face in light of two simple facts so easily observed in the text of the Bible.

First, this “answer” simply ignores the obvious fact so evident in the context where these gods are mentioned, that they are repeatedly identified as false gods (Ps 115 and 135 are good examples). It also ignores the many explicit declarations by God that He alone is the only God that is, was or ever will be. (There are numerous examples throughout the Bible. Isaiah 44-46 contain clear and explicit revelations on this matter). Finally, it ignores the horrific punishment that God meted out on His people for their sin of practicing and teaching polytheism. Thus, the mentions of polytheism in the Old Testament are purely descriptive and not proscriptive. God tells the truth that some of His chosen people did indeed slip into this worldview. But pointing out that they sinned is not God’s endorsement of their sin of polytheism.

Secondly, this answer does not answer the actual question that was asked, pertaining to Jesus Christ, his apostles, and their churches supposedly teaching polytheism. If Jesus understood the Old Testament to actually endorse polytheism, as Mormons infer he must have, then we rightly expect that he would have made that point. After all, the number of Gods in existence must obviously be a critically important element of ANY coherent theology and we expect Jesus to have come with the truth on this essential point. If Jesus understood that there really are MANY Gods (one of the alleged, teachings of Christ that Mormons claim to have “restored”), then surely we should see some evidence of that somewhere in his own words, the words of his apostles or even their churches. Yet, no such evidence exists. The state of the evidence argues that the Mormon claim that Jesus taught polytheism to his disciples is therefore rightly regarded as false, by virtue of the lack of any reason to think he did!

I do not want to get down in the weeds of these particular Mormon doctrines here in this post. This issue of the Mormons claiming to have “restored” the original, authentic teachings of Jesus Christ supposedly lost to the earth in the alleged, “great apostasy” is only here as an example of the point I want to make, which is an examination of the tactics used by Mormons when responding to Christian challenges to the claims of their religion.

The larger point here is to be on the lookout for the distractions, deflections, evasions, counter-challenges, etc. used by Mormons in ways that, by virtue of their highly predictable commonality, appear to have been somehow ingrained into their subconscious. If you have ever debated Mormons and have not seen this behavior, consider yourself to be extremely unique. I have debated Mormons for decades and cannot remember even a single encounter wherein my Mormon correspondent did not quickly try to change the subject when it was clear that he or she could not allow him/herself to answer me honestly.

When challenging or questioning the claims of Mormonism, you will find or have already found that the deceptive practice of deflecting questions and responding with red herrings is a real problem. My advice is twofold:

BYU Professor Robert L. Millet. Click on the above image to see a video of Mr. Millett instructing Mormon Young People on how to deflect and evade direct questions and challenges from outsiders and critics.

1. Formulate your questions and challenges carefully and thoughtfully.
Another game Mormons seem to have been trained to play is to avoid answering your questions and challenges by parsing out words and/or quibbling with the form of the question rather than its intended content. They will frequently misrepresent your question (a straw man fallacy), in an effort to answer the question you “should have asked”, to quote Robert Millett, a popular BYU professor, and Mormon Apologist, instead of the question that you actually asked. There is nothing you can do to eliminate this evasion. But you can make it hard for them to use it effectively by carefully stating a well-thought-out challenge or question.

2. Do not be distracted by the tricks.
Pay careful attention to the Mormon’s response. Listen for a direct, honest answer to your question or challenge. This does not mean siphoning the response for only the answer you want. It means accepting an honest, truthful and valid answer to the question. As long as your question/challenge strikes at the heart of the Mormon claim in question, you are unlikely to get that answer. What you are far more likely to get is a deflection of some kind – perhaps very much like the ones illustrated above. In that case, your response should be to point out that you do not see how the deflection answers the specific question that you asked. Stay focused on your question or challenge. Repeat your question until you get an answer and always insist on an actual answer.

This is where forethought about your own question is important. You do not want to have to clarify the question after the Mormon evades it, because then you run the risk of being accused of “moving the goalposts” and your Mormon friend (or opponent) is not likely to let that slip and will use it constantly as an excuse to continue avoiding your questions. Also, see if you can get your Mormon friend to back up their answer, if it ever comes, by offering some supporting evidence and valid argumentation. (You will almost never get this far). When a direct answer, backed up by evidence and/or valid reasoning does not come, be careful in how you point out that failure. Expect it and don’t let it bug you. Just point out why the answer is invalid.

Unfortunately trying to lead someone who has been deceived –in some cases for an entire lifetime—to simply be honest with you and therefore with themselves will rarely end well. We human beings have a tendency to be defensive about the things we believe. A psychological condition called, “normalcy bias” will kick in and cause people to try whatever they can to get away from the facts that prove that they have been deceived. Moreover, a confrontation with factual reality that debunks closely held beliefs will frequently induce cognitive dissonance, causing many people serious intellectual and emotional distress. So be gentle if you can. Remember that 1st Peter 3:15 calls us to be prepared to have an answer (Greek: “apologia”) for the hope that is within us, but to do so with gentleness and respect:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
— Peter 3:15 NIV

About the Author
Brian Horner graduated with a Master’s Degree in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He now sails around the Caribbean serving various ministries and teaching apologetics when he’s not writing articles like this one.

“Darkness to Light” Unknown Artist

by Michael Flournoy
In my book, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, I wrote a chapter called, “Is Revelation an Achilles Heel?” After comparing the church to a game of chess, I nominated the king to symbolize the LDS testimony. I wrote,

In every chess game, there is one piece so important, that its capture ends the game: the king. The king is what enables the game to continue, is the point of the enemy’s attack, and the piece that must be defended at all costs. If the king is misplayed and put in a predicament, he becomes a hindrance or an Achilles heel. For every Latter-day Saint, there is something personal behind the doctrines, the key principles, the scriptures, and the atonement, which is the equivalent to the king in our game of chess: our testimonies. It is our testimonies that give life and utility to everything Mormonism has to offer, and our testimonies are also the most logical points of attack for our enemies.
(Michael Flournoy, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, p.193)

Even then, I knew full well that every Mormon’s strength was also their greatest weakness. Latter-day Saints are subconsciously aware that they would be sunk without their spiritual conversion. They typically shield their weak spot and talk about the doctrinal and social aspects of their faith instead, in exactly the way a chess player shields their king with less important pieces.

What is Spiritual Conversion?
I classify spiritual conversion as anything that convinces a Latter-day Saint that Mormonism is true. This is usually a specific event or a series of events. It may be a spiritual experience, or it may just be an occurrence that they interpret as a sign of Mormonism’s validity. Almost all the Latter-day Saints I have spoken with admit to having had an indisputable spiritual conversion.

The most popular spiritual conversion comes from reading The Book of Mormon and praying about it. Many members claim to receive a confirmation from the Holy Ghost that it’s the word of God through a burning in the bosom or some other subjective feeling.

But spiritual conversion is not limited to that experience. As I sat in an LDS class one day, a classmate explained that he was mowing the lawn one day, when an audible voice told him to stop. He immediately stopped what he was doing and discovered that he almost ran over a hollow den inhabited by baby rabbits. I’ve heard countless stories from LDS parents where they had an impression that their child was in danger, only to find their toddler wading into the street or near a swimming pool.

No matter the experience, whether it be a dream, an experience, or a strong feeling, it strengthens a Mormon’s spiritual conversion. Even if the experience doesn’t relate to the restoration at all, Latter-day Saints immediately jump to the conclusion that the church is true.

In reality, several explanations could be given for any of these events. Satan could be in the business of saving baby bunnies in order to deceive LDS people. Or God might mercifully intervene in their lives, despite them being Mormon. Or sensing a child in the street could be good old-fashioned mother’s intuition. Yet for Latter-day Saints, all signs point to yes. Mormonism takes all the credit, and it is glorified in their eyes.

These experiences are considered extremely sacred to Latter-day Saints, and in their eyes revealing them openly is casting their pearls before swine. It’s also their last line of defense, so if their spiritual conversion is overcome they will have nothing left. The LDS usually keep these experiences securely hidden under lock and key.

In fact, when I first departed from Mormonism my uncle told me he’d had experiences and knew without a doubt that the church was true. He did not tell me what the experiences were. Even if it meant bringing a family member back into the fold, putting his spiritual conversion out there was too much of a risk.

Apostates
If there is one group the LDS feel threatened by, it’s Ex-Mormons. I think I know why that is. Mormons are fully aware that many Ex-Mormons possessed spiritual conversions, and they left anyway.

Latter-day Saints cannot comprehend why someone would reject what they consider an unshakable witness. They sometimes feel like they have to minimize Ex-Mormons’ reasons for leaving. They’ll try to say the spiritual conversion either faded away or was overpowered by sin. They desperately want to believe that their spiritual conversions can’t falter.

As a Mormon, I believed the same thing. Apostates of the faith were blinded by mists of darkness and the enticing of sin and could not remember their own spiritual experiences. I believed my testimony would never falter. Even if the whole church dwindled and only one congregation remained on earth, my resolve was to remain faithful.

Knocking out the Leg of Spiritual Conversion
In theory, an Ex-Mormon has a much higher chance of disrupting spiritual conversion than someone who has never experienced it. However, because of trust issues between Latter-day Saints and former members, never Mormons can have an equal or an even greater opportunity.

It’s important to speak the spiritual language of Latter-day Saints. As a Mormon, I thought Evangelicals were overly objective, especially for their constant emphasis on relationship over religion. A relationship without some subjectivity is an alien concept to Latter-day Saints.

Sometimes when a Latter-day Saint pulls out their shiny apple, the one they claim exclusive rights to, your best move is to pull out their own shiny apple and eat it in front of them. Saying something like, “the Spirit told me [insert what He said here]” is sure to knock Mormons off balance a little, and an apostate doing it is especially worrisome! A similar tactic could be to share an experience that bolstered your testimony of Christianity.

I do not recommend sharing anything like this unless it is legitimately, and utterly true. We are not helping anyone, nor are we glorifying God if these stories are fabricated. If you are unable to speak the Mormon’s spiritual language, you might be better off attacking their social and doctrinal conversions instead.

If an Ex-Mormon has the opportunity to have an open conversation with an active Mormon, he or she should make it a point to use the broken pieces of their spiritual conversion if at all possible.

I had a family member tell me once that he always suspected I would intellectualize my way out of the faith. I replied that the reasons for my departure were just as much spiritual as they were intellectual, thwarting his attempt to distance my apostasy from my spiritual conversion.

Another relative asked how I could leave after all the spiritual experiences I’d had. I replied that I had indeed had spiritual experiences, but upon closer examination, they pointed to Christ’s divinity and not to Mormonism being true. She began sputtering off the plethora of experiences her testimony was built from in an attempt to shield herself from the threat my words posed. Ironically, she was in the same boat as me. Not one of them proved the church was true.

Using a Mormon’s spiritual language is key to undermining their conversion. Statements like, “I read and prayed over The Book of Mormon. I received a witness that it’s not true” are difficult for Mormons to deal with. God wouldn’t tell some people that Mormonism is true and others that it’s false. Latter-day Saints are faced with the fact that one testimony cannot overpower another, and it becomes a stalemate. However, on this front, a stalemate is actually a checkmate.

About the Author
Michael Flournoy served a two-year mission for the LDS Church where he helped organize three Mormon/Evangelical dialogues and has participated in debate at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Born into Mormonism, Mr. Flournoy converted to Evangelical Christianity in 2016.

Also Recommended: “The Three LDS Conversions: A Primer for the Befuddled”
by Michael Flournoy