Why does the church lie about miracle stories?

Growing up I frequently heard about how important it is to be honest. I was reminded that God sends liars to hell. I was told that Honesty was the best policy. Being honest became a key component of my identity. That's not to say I never lied, but every time I lied it hurt me on a spiritual level. I felt guilt and shame and knew I had let myself and God down every time I lied or stretched the truth. As an adult I still feel strongly about honesty, I still strive to be honest and feel guilt in my core when I'm not.

Previously I've talked about lying in this post. I listed multiple sources explaining how God feels about lying, and discussed examples of Prophets and Apostles caught in lies.

In this post I want to explore a few miracle stories that we know are either lies or exaggerations with no mention of what was exaggerated.

Brigham Young pulled up the sandstone foundation of the Salt Lake temple after Johnston's Army came to town.

 In 1993 the church released a video called Mountain of the Lord. The church news discussed the video here. In the article about the video it says that President Hinckley (first counselor at the time) said that everyone who's seen it was pleased with it. The article continues and explains multiple top leaders of the church were involved with the creation of the video. In the video around the 30 minute mark, it shows how the church buried the Salt Lake Temple foundation before Johnston's army came to town. After resolving things with the army the saints uncovered the buried sandstone foundation and found it had cracked. At the 37:30 minute mark we see Brigham Young declare that he wants the temple to stand through the millennium, so he's decided they will remove the entire foundation and start over. This is very faith inspiring. The leader of the church is willing to throw away a few years of work on the foundation of the temple to make sure it's built right. Nothing is too hard or not worth doing when doing it for God.

The problem, however, is that the foundation was never removed or at least not removed in the way the film depicts. This article, by the church no less, shows that the church did renovations in the 60's. They have pictures of the sandstone foundation under the granite. They knew in the 60's that the foundation hadn't been completely removed and replaced with Granite like the film suggests it was. The article by the church even links to an older article by a newspaper in 1891 that confirmed the sandstone foundation was never moved. It wasn't dug up and relayed, it wasn't replaced, it was never touched. 

Gordon B. Hinckley was the acting prophet when this film was created. Benson wasn't doing much as the prophet in his last few years. Hinckley saw the film and approved of it. He was called as an apostle in 1961, before the 1963 renovations happened. He would have been around the temple when those renovations happened, he would have been aware of the church news story about the sandstone foundation still being there. He was born in 1910, only 17 years after the construction on the temple was completed. He was born in Salt Lake City. As someone who grew up in Utah, I'm aware of most, if not all of the Utah miracle stories that surround the church. I was aware of the 40 year construction. I was aware of the stories about sacrificing to build the temple. I can't believe that as someone born in Salt Lake, as a member of the church, Hinckely wouldn't have heard stories about the temple. I can't believe that as an apostle he wouldn't have known about the sandstone foundation in 1963. So, why would he approve a film that ignore historical facts that he must have known about, just to tell a slightly more miraculous version of the story where the foundation is cracked and removed?

Lorenzo Snow told the saints in southern Utah that if they paid tithing it would rain.

The film The Windows of Heaven was created in 1963 and shows the story of Lorenzo Snow, the prophet in 1899, going to Saint George to tell the saints, that if they paid their tithing, God would bless them with rain for their crops. The film shows how the saints at the time were struggling because of a drought and then shows that the saints got plenty of rain for their crops because they started paying tithing. At the 3 minute mark the Prophet gives the saints a promise that they will get rain if they pay tithing.

This film and story has been used for decades to teach the principal of tithing and the blessings that we get from following it. The book Teachings of Presidents: Lorenzo Snow, (I believe was released in 2013) tells the story and even has a foot note to this page which shows rain in St. George. The story in the church's book claims that the rain in August 1899 was a blessing for tithing, but if you look at the annual totals, St. George didn't see increased rainfall in 1899 or 1900. And really didn't see significantly different rain levels until 1905. Even this paper from 2025, on page 5, confirms that the promise of rain wasn't fulfilled. I'm not a farmer but I imagine that getting 2.9 inches of rain in a single month when all the ground around is dry, isn't really a blessing, depending on how fast it comes it could have just caused flooding. Also, having lived and farmed in Utah, you need the rain in May, June, July and August. If you only get rain in August, all your crops will already be dead. St. George could potentially grow crops year round, so getting rain in August isn't the end of the world, but again, looking at the rainfall data, you can see August was an anomaly, they didn't get much rain the rest of the year or the next year. So pointing to that one month as confirmation of the miracle, is deceptive at best.

Now, the church is teaching a different story. This article by the church doesn't mention the drought or the promise of rain. It links to The Saints vol. 3, which also contains the story but doesn't talk about the drought or the promise of rain.

The Transfiguration of Brigham Young after the death of Joseph Smith

Do I even need to type out anything here? The church has been playing this tune for almost 200 years now. Brigham was the correct successor to Joseph because of the transfiguration miracle. I don't think it's unfair to say every member older than 30 knows about this and how important it is. Now if you read Saints Vol. 2, page 565, it mentions one person recalling this, not another apostle, not the secretary who was taking notes, which can be seen here, just a random member. 

Even the official church history written while Joseph was alive and concluded shortly after his death, shows that Brigham spoke about how the church no longer needed a prophet because it could and should be led by the 12 as a quorum. Pages 298 - 301, in all the notes from the meeting, no one who was actually there, who was speaking or taking notes, wrote that Brigham appeared like Joseph. The notes are clear that the church was to be led by the 12 and that not Brigham nor anyone else would be a prophet or guardian of the church.

 

Seagulls saved the saints from Crickets

This wikipedia page sums up everything about this story better than I can. It shows how the story was exaggerated and isn't really a miracle at all.

Here are a few examples of the church exaggerating this "miracle": search on lds.org, here, here

 

As a church that teaches the importance of honesty, by requiring it to get a temple recommend (question 9), by teaching it as a gospel principal, teaching it as a priesthood principal and by having multiple scriptures and conference talks about it, it is beyond hypocritical for the church to have ever backed these stories I discussed above.

 

If the church is willing to lie about these things, for decades or even centuries, why do we think we can trust the church to be honest about anything? What else are they lying about but we haven't discovered yet? Leaders don't have to be perfect, but if we can't trust them, that's a major problem. God can't put people in places of authority who aren't honest, if he does then his work and his glory will be destroyed because people will leave the church and won't make covenants because they won't know when they are being told the truth and when they are being lied to. How do we know covenants are important if we don't know we can trust the leaders? The fact we can find dishonesty in the top leaders of the church is proof the church is not God's church, if she even has one.

Joseph Smith: adulterer, con-man, prophet?

In Jacob 2:24 it says "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me" the book Joseph Smith wrote says that having multiple wives is an abomination. But it wasn't more than 10 years before Joseph apparently forgot this and started fooling around. D&C 132 is all about polygamy and it says in the chapter heading that it was recorded in 1843 but likely known to some degree by 1831. It's interesting that a god who doesn't change thought polygamy was an abomination when talking to the Nephites but is ok with it 1800 years later. Now to be fair Jacob said polygamy is only ok if building large faithful families and D&C 132 says it's only ok if the first wife approves of it. So let's take a look at just a couple of Joseph's wives and whether or not the rules were followed. 

So, let's go back in time to 1831 when the church assumes Joseph must have known some of the details surrounding polygamy. In 1831 Joseph and Emma had a girl working in their house named Fanny Alger [1]. Joseph was between 28 and 32 and Fanny was between 16 and 20. Emma claims she saw Fanny and Joseph in the barn together [2] and Oliver Cowdery called it a "dirty, nasty, affair" and even brought Joseph to the church high council on charges of Adultery. Joseph never denied the relationship but also never called it adultery. Emma didn't know about it and Joseph never had kids with Fanny, so whatever it was, it wasn't in line with the laws outlined in D&C 132.  

In 1842 Joseph was hiding from the law and from his wife. This letter[3] to one of the girls he married, Sarah Ann Whitney, and her parents, gives specific instructions for how she can meet up with him where he's hiding and how to avoid Emma in the process. He also tells the Whitney's to destroy the letter. The fact we have the letter seems to me like evidence the Whitney's didn't implicitly trust Joseph. If nothing was happening in this meeting that a married man would be ashamed of if his wife found out, then why did he go to any trouble to hid the meeting from Emma? 

The next point I want to talk about happened in 1843. Polygamy was a bane to the church. Rumors followed the church everywhere and inside the quorum of the 12 it wasn't a secret that Joseph had been married to more than a few women. Outside, accusations were leveled and Joseph in front of groups of people would publicly deny that he had more than one wife [4]. Apologists for the church claim that he wasn't lying because his polygamous wives weren't wives they were sealed to him or living with him [5]. So even if he could in gods eyes have sex with them in the eyes of the United States he couldn't without committing adultery. In the church we believe in keeping the laws of the land, but I suppose in this case it was fine to ignore them since God hadn't yet provided a way to keep his commandments. Amidst all this, Joseph married two more women, this time sisters, Emily and Eliza Partridge. He had a secret wedding where Heber Kimball presided. Not more than a few weeks later Emma agreed to let Joseph marry someone, so he could keep God's commandment. It just so happened that Emily and Eliza also worked in the smith house and Emma was ok with them marrying Joseph. So instead of coming clean about already being married to them, Joseph had another wedding to them but this time let Emma attend [6]. This man lied to his wife. He withheld the truth from her. He married women behind her back and if he was keeping the commandments outlined in the Book of Mormon and the D&C then he was having sexual relations with them. Emily and Eliza were Josephs 20th and 21st wives. Emma was sealed to him a few months after Emily and Eliza were sealed to him. His first legal wife wasn't even sealed to him until he had been sealed to 21 other women [7]. 

If Joseph was willing to lie to his wife. If he was willing to lie to friends and neighbors about polygamy. If he was willing to sneak around behind Emma's back and if he was basically acting like a cheater, then how can we trust that he didn't also lie about the first vision? There are 4 first vision accounts written by him or dictated by him that have major contradictions in them. How can we trust they were real and not fabricated when they appear to change the way a fish story does with time. They get more fantastic as more time passes. How can we trust the story he tells about the origin and translation of the book of Mormon? All the meetings with angles always happened when he was alone. He was alone when retrieving the plates. He hid the plates from sight from everyone, including Emma. And even the witnesses of the plates only claim it was a vision, not a physical experience. As an omniscient being God would have known these kinds of things would happen in Joseph's life, if called as the prophet. Even if God allows prophets to make mistakes, wouldn't God vet the prophet a little better and find someone who wouldn't end up looking like an adulterer, liar and con-man? With billions of people on the planet you would think God could find someone who wouldn't abuse power like Joseph Smith did. Joseph's actions look no different from every other cult leader's actions, especially when he started telling his followers he needed to marry their wives and daughters to himself. That's cult tactics 101. Cult leaders never last long before they start having sex with all the women. Why would God call Joseph Smith as a prophet when we can't see any difference between him and a cult leader? It's literally destroying God's ability to save his children, which he says in the scriptures is "his work and his glory" If my work and my glory was to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, I would not go within 500 miles of Joseph Smith to find a leader for my church. And I'm a dumb human. Why would a god do something a human wouldn't?  

1 - Saints vol 1 Ch 25

2 - https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger/Discovered_in_a_barn

3 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-newel-k-elizabeth-ann-smith-and-sarah-ann-whitney-18-august-1842/1

4 - https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/9944/rec/1

5 - https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Hiding_the_practice

6 - Saints vol 1 ch 40

7 - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2004/10/when-emma-met-joseph

Agency

In the LDS gospel we believe that God created us with the ability to act for our selves but only when we have a choice between good and bad (2 Nephi 2:16). The great battle in the pre-earth life was fought because two opposing plans were presented. Satan suggested that no one would have the ability to make a wrong choice and Jesus said that he would atone for our mistakes so that we could have the ability to choose for ourselves (Moses 4:1-3). This was so important to God that he literally threw away 1/3rd of his children because they wanted the easy way back to his presence (D&C 29:36-37). Which to put that in perspective a Google search links to articles that say our best guess is that 107 billion people have lived on the planet (google). So, if the second coming happened now that would mean God cast out, never to see again, over 53.5 billion spirit children, over the issue of whether or not we should have the ability to choose for our selves. Agency, in LDS doctrine, is a big deal!

Some people argue that appending threats to a choice removes your ability to choose (when choices are disguised as threats). If I tell you that you can choose to eat a candy bar or a celery stick. But, then I add the threat that I'll kill you if you pick the candy bar, do you really have a choice? Is it a choice when God says you can keep my commandments or burn in hell? Does anyone really feel like they were able to make a choice with a threat of eternal damnation appended to the choice? Doesn't this sound like a real choice, you are free to smoke cigarettes if you want, but you risk contracting lung cancer if you do. Smoking now is an informed choice, there is no threat here, just the natural risk associated with a behavior. Here's another example, if you keep the word of wisdom you will be blessed with health, if you don't then you won't get that blessing. Now you have a real choice, you can keep the word of wisdom and get the blessing or you can ignore it and lose the blessing. By adding the threat of never seeing your family again or of going to hell, you no longer have a real choice. 

Despite how important agency is, LDS doctrine adds to every commandment the threat that you won't get to see your family after death or will suffer torment in some kind of personal hell, because you weren't obedient during this life. As members we have very little real agency about which commandments we keep or how. Even the temple recommend questions remove our agency. For example: if you don't keep the word of wisdom or the law of chastity in the way the bishop or stake president thinks you should, then you aren't allowed to go to the temple. Many members believe that if you don't have an active recommend when you die, then you won't be worthy of the celestial kingdom. Thus your entry into heaven is barred by the interpretation and scrupulosity of your respective leaders and your willingness to obey what they think. Real agency would simply ask whether or not a member felt worthy to go to the temple and would leave the interpretation of commandments between the member and God.

Some questions aren't important for our salvation

Growing up in the Mormon Church I was told on various occasions that some questions we might have in this life would never be answered. The reason for this, I was told, was because those questions had no bearing on our ultimate salvation so God wouldn't waste time explaining them to us. See the sources below for 1, 2 and 3. In these sources we read the words of prophets who said there are things God hasn't revealed and that's because they aren't important to our salvation so we shouldn't worry about getting answers to those things. And because of that there are some things for which the church doesn't have an official stance. At the time this seemed reasonable to me. I was ok with the idea that we just had to have faith or wait for science to provide some answers because God wasn't going to. This included answers to questions like the age of the universe, the age of the earth, evolution, dinosaurs and other mostly non-religious questions I had. 

Two years ago when my faith transition started the questions began to include things like, why did Joseph marry women who were already married? Why did he marry teenage girls? Why did he promise eternal life in exchange for a marriage? Why are some elements of the book of Mormon not found in archeology like horses, metal swords, armor, etc..? These questions felt much more important, I needed answers to these or else I couldn't make myself believe the book of Mormon was a non-fiction religious book, I needed answers to these or else I couldn't believe Joseph was a prophet. So, in a sense, answers to questions like this are directly related to my salvation, and the salvation of anyone else who loses faith over the same questions.

Recently I've learned about something called the pure language of Adam, or the Adamic language [4][5]. Supposedly, this is the language God and Adam spoke in, in the garden of Eden. This language interested JS enough that he prayed about it and had a Q&A with God about it. God told JS a few of the words and their meanings [6]. This seems beyond trivial. How does knowing the pure language of Adam pertain to JS's salvation or that of anyone else? Why would it matter for our salvation to know what language Adam spoke in when the world was created? Who cares how to say Angel in Adamic? How does that help us get closer to God? Why would it even matter if we know how to say Son of God in Adamic? It doesn't help us have faith, it doesn't help us come closer to God. And yet, when Joseph asked God this seemingly unimportant question, God answered. God gave Joseph a revelation that included various words and their meanings from the Adamic language [6]. 

My take away from this is that when we have questions, no matter what they are about, we should be able to get answers. If members take questions to the quorum of the 15 then instead of telling us "it's not something God has revealed" they should be able to take the questions to God and they should get answers.  

Sources:

1 - https://scriptures.byu.edu/#:t11176 look for "does not pertain" BY says you shouldn't talk about things that don't pertain to salvation.

2 - https://scriptures.byu.edu/#:t383 second paragraph.

3 - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng page 29, the last paragraph before the new section mentions more things that haven't been revealed.

4 - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/latter-day-saint-history-1815-1846-teacher-material/lesson-10?lang=eng search for Adamic, BY spoke in tongs and JS said it was Adamic.

5 - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-moses/moses-6-1-47?lang=eng search for Adamic, Bruce McConkie talks about how it was the pure language given to Adam.

6 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/sample-of-pure-language-between-circa-4-and-circa-20-march-1832/1

Evolution of a miracle

 TikToker El_Urim_Tumim posted this video which outlines how President Nelson has evolved his story about an attack when he was in Mozambique into a miracle story. My thoughts are based on the points made in the video.

May 30 2009 - Elder and Sister Nelson were visiting a mission and while having dinner the mission home was robbed, the Mission President's wife had her arm broken, others got some cuts and bruises. Former missionaries said this is common and people usually use machetes for these types of robberies. link

June 1 2009 - Blair Packard, mission president, says Elder and Sister Nelson were not specifically targeted and it wasn't an act against the church, their guards were not involved. Said they were robbed by armed gunmen. link

November 21 2009 - Only intention was to harm Elder Nelson and kidnap Wendy. Mission President's wife gets outside and shouts for help, breaks her arm, others get cuts and bruises. Wendy felt peace right before the bad guy came in. link

March 27 2017 - Accomplishing the Impossible: What god does, what we can do page 25 (excerpt) - Elder Nelson says he was dining with a member family, bad men stormed in and announced they wanted to kidnap Wendy and kill Elder Nelson. A gun next to Elder Nelson's head failed to fire, Sister Nelson was miraculously released from their grip, they disappeared as quickly as they appeared. He knows angels saved them. No mention of the mission president's wife making it outside to get help, no mention of other things from the house being stolen.

Seems to me at this point either the mission president lied about what happened or Elder Nelson lied about what happened. Can both of them be telling the truth here? Why would one say Elder Nelson wasn't a target but then Elder Nelson says he was the sole target? Why would the Mission President say his wife got outside and got help and the other say angels saved them? 

One clear reason for Elder Nelson to improve the story is that it makes him look more important. God saved him from a gun, armed evil men attacked him with the purpose of hurting him but then were miraculously foiled. This take makes it seem like Elder Nelson is someone special that God is watching over. The first account makes it seem like Elder Nelson just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The (not so) secret SCMC

 SCMC stands for Strengthening Church Members Committee. The Wikipedia article says that this committee is for monitoring members who are critical of the church or the leaders, other members may report critical members to the committee and the committee will forward the information to local leaders for discipline. In this video a church employee tries to lie about the existence of the committee and then when cornered admits it exists but has to pass the interviewer on to someone else. It also shows where the interviewer continues with Jeffrey Holland and discusses the existence and purpose of the committee but if you watch the whole clip, which FAIR recognizes as legitimate, you can see how uncomfortable Holland is to be discussing it. Now Holland's reasoning for the existence of the committee is primarily to guard against polygamy. This seems strange when you think about it. The church no longer practices polygamy and ended it over 100 years ago. So why would the church, currently, need a committee to protect the church against polygamy? The Wikipedia article's claims about monitoring members for criticisms seems much more likely. This reddit post outlines and provides sources for several instances of the SCMC passing information on to a Stake president for discipline. The podcaster RFM discusses when he called the church office building and confirmed they had a file about him. 

It seems especially strange that a church, with a book, which discusses in depth the evils of secret combinations, would then create committee's that it tries to keep secret from members or the world.

If God is running the church and if the church has revelations and the spirit of discernment then why is this committee needed? Couldn't a bishop receive inspiration that a member in the ward needs correction?

If the church is God's church, and if God doesn't like secret combinations, and if God is willing to cast out 1/3 of the hosts of heaven so that we can have our agency, then why would he allow a mostly secret committee like this, which seems to have the sole purpose of denying people their agency to speak critically of leaders, operate? Can God not defend himself and his leaders from criticism?

How I used to believe the church was true and why that doesn't work anymore

When a scientist wants to understand something, they use the scientific method to work towards finding truth. The scientific method follows a few basic steps: observe something, ask a question, make a hypothesis, create an experiment to test the hypothesis, and then analyze the results. If the findings confirm the hypothesis, then the experimenter may want to do more tests or report the results if they are confident in them. If the findings do not support the hypothesis, then they will analyze what was wrong with the question or the experiment and repeat the process until they find truth.

In the church we like to think we use a similar process to find out if the Book of Mormon, and consequently the Church, is true. You should read the Book of Mormon and then pray about it to ask God if it is true. If you get a confirmation (a good feeling), then that means the book is true. If your answer is that the Book of Mormon is not true or if you do not get an answer, then you are told to redo the process because you did something wrong—perhaps you weren’t worthy of an answer or you weren’t listening properly. Instead of figuring out what is wrong with your test or what is wrong with your question, you are supposed to assume the answer is, “Yes, it’s true,” and that you messed up the experiment.

There are more problems with this process than just the presupposition that the Book of Mormon is true. This method ignores the fact that the church split into multiple sects after Joseph Smith died. Therefore, a confirmation that the Book of Mormon is true is not a confirmation that the LDS church is God's only church, but rather it would be a confirmation of the truthfulness of the book itself. If all of these different sects teach that the Book of Mormon will let you know that their church is true, then really we must ask if any of them are true. Another flaw in this method is that it is based on circular logic. The Book of Mormon gives the instruction to pray about the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon tells you what you will feel to know that the Book of Mormon is true. Again, for this to work, you are required to assume beforehand that the book is teaching truth in order to determine whether or not it is teaching truth.

Let's expound on this: I believed that President Nelson was a prophet because Brigham Young was a prophet, and he was one because Joseph Smith was one, and he was one because he translated the Book of Mormon, and I knew the Book of Mormon was true because it says the spirit will tell me it's true if I pray and feel good, and I know that the feeling when I pray comes from the spirit because the Book of Mormon tells me that the feeling is from the spirit, and I know that feeling is from the spirit because the Book of Mormon is true, and I know the Book of Mormon is true because I feel something, and that something I feel is spirit and I know that the feeling is the spirit because the Book of Mormon is true and because I felt something that tells me it is true... Can you see the circle in this logic?  Instead of having a clear test that anyone can do to find out if the Church is true, the only way to find out if Mormonism is true is to already believe some aspect of Mormonism is true before you test anything.

Once I looked into the history of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, I started to question whether or not they were actually prophets. They both did things which don't align with the commandments taught in the Bible or the Book of Mormon, which makes it hard for me to believe they were actually prophets. When that belief crumbled I could then see that assuming the Book of Mormon is true so that I could use 'Moroni's test for determining truth' was circular logic, I had to believe Joseph was a prophet to determine whether or not he was a prophet. I wanted another way to evaluate the truthfulness of the Church, so I decided to heed the scripture in Matthew that teaches, “Wherefore by their fruits, ye shall know them.” Through my study of church history, I could see that the fruits of the newly restored church were mixed at best with some good parts and some bad. Even the fruits of the modern church are mixed. They do some good around the world—feeding people, digging wells, providing education—but there are also bad fruits—hoarding money, gaslighting the members, discriminating against minorities, covering up sex scandals

Because of the many hypocrisies committed by the leaders past and present and the problems with how the current church operates, I am no longer willing to assume that the Book of Mormon is true and therefore cannot trust in the promise written in Moroni to give me answers. Looking at the fruits of the church as the Bible teaches has also left me with doubts. I now feel I can only rely on the scientific method in my search for truth.

When members or investigators still have doubts after following Moroni’s challenge and looking at the fruits of the Church, they are directed to live a principle in order to gain a testimony of its truth. General Conference is filled with stories of people who, despite their skepticism, decided to follow the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Tithing and received blessings as a result. These blessings became a confirmation that the principle was true.

I have tried to live the gospel my whole life, but I have always felt miserable at church, never felt secure financially and struggled to be happy. So, last year I decided to do my own experiment. My hypothesis was that if I stopped living the principles the church taught, then surely I would notice that my life was worse. I started drinking coffee, and I have felt better and more focused. I see that the Word of Wisdom as taught by the church is not true. I haven't given tithing to the church in almost 18 months, and I've gotten a raise, a promotion, my stocks have increased in value, and my 401k is booming. I have more money to do fun things with my family, and I have less stress in my life worrying about how I'm going to pay bills. I am saving more, and I have even paid off my mortgage. Giving tithing to the church is not a true principal. I have been giving what I was giving to the church to my local food bank and a few other charities I believe in, and I am happier about the money that I give. Finally, I stopped going to church. I'm in a mixed faith marriage so Sundays are still incredibly difficult, but I no longer feel constant shame and guilt about every little thing in my life. I am happier, less stressed, and richer even though I'm not living the commandments.

Based on my tests, I can only conclude that my life is better without the LDS church controlling it.

Leaders of the church are liars. Would God actually call liars to be leaders?

A note, as you read this if you believe in the church you will feel dark not because the spirit is warning you it's bad, rather because you will experience cognitive dissonance. When you believe something strongly, like for example that the earth is flat, if someone presents you evidence that contradicts that belief, like a picture of a globe earth, your brain naturally will fight against that information by making you feel sick, sad, dark, angry or other negative emotions. Read more here

What do the leaders of the church and the scriptures teach us about lying?

• Proverbs 6:16-19 - These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

• John 8:44 - Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

• Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

• Proverbs 12:22 - Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight.

• 2 Nephi 9:34 - Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell

• Spencer Kimbal - conference "I would say: Never lie and never cheat. A liar is a weakling. A cheat is both a weakling and a thief."

Those are just a few examples from the scriptures of how God feels about liars. These are people that are an abomination to him, children of Satan, a weakling, numbered among adulterers, murders and sorcerers, and will be thrust down to hell.

In D&C 20, Joseph said that God told him how the church should be organized. Anyone who holds the office of Teacher, has the following command: 54 - And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

God specifically says in D&C 68:19 "as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices" so people called to the higher priesthoods still can act in the lower levels. So an apostle still has the duty to make sure lying isn't happening in the church.

So by the above we know that God thinks liars are an abomination and Apostles still have the duty to make sure no one in the church is lying. 

Finally, how does the church define lying?  "Lying is intentionally deceiving others." (among many other things described here)

So lets look at some examples of Prophets and apostles that are liars.

Gordon Hinckley - 

• In this video he claims that members have access to budgets and financial information and that the church feels only the people who make contributions should have access to that information. There is no where that any member can see the budgets or financial information of the church. I've looked and can't find anything, many others have looked and only find information from public companies owned by the church, no financial information can be found for the church.
  

Jeffery Holland - 

• In this video Holland is deceptive about what used to happen in the temple. He could have led with "we used to have penalties" but instead led with "we don't have penalties"
  

Russel Nelson - 

• Has told the story about being on an airplane that was going down for 20+ years now, here's a recent video where he relates the story. In the book "Russell M. Nelson: Father, Surgeon, Apostle" he relates the following details, it was November 12th, 1976 on a flight between SLC and St. George for a Inauguration at Dixie College. It is federal law that pilots report problems with their flights. So with the details provided in the book it's possible to verify this story. On page 1090 of the Civil Aeronautics Board reports it says "Second incidence occurred Nov. 11, 1976 involving Piper PA 31 N74985. Pilot experienced rough engine on scheduled flight between Salt Lake City and St. George. 3 passengers on board. Engine was feathered and precautionary landing made at Delta, Utah, per instructions in company manual. Investigation revealed cylinder base studs sheered. As result of occurrence Sky West change maintenance procedures by checking torque studs at each 100 hour inspection. No damage to aircraft. No injuries to crew or passengers." (the day is one day off but nothing was reported for the 12th or for a few weeks after, so maybe Nelson just forgot the day by one day) a "rough engine" is not an exploded engine or a death dive. Also the report indicates that a "precautionary landing" was made, if you have a failed engine you don't make a "precautionary" landing you make an "emergency" landing.

• This article tells of a time Elder Nelson was attacked, he says the bad guys broke in and tried to kill him but the gun failed to fire, and were going to kidnap Wendy Nelson, but then disappeared as quickly as they came. But then in this article it says someone called for help and help came, also it says it was a robbery and abduction, nothing about a gun or killing Elder Nelson. Finally this article simply says it was a robbery

• This tells of how President Nelson fabricated details to a "miracle" story he's shared a few times. The family of the woman in the story contacted the publisher and told them most of it was made up. They removed the story from the online article they published and may or may not have removed it from the book.
  

Joseph F Smith - 

• Some portion of a letter book that contained the description of the first vision that was written in 1832, was cut out of the book. It was later stored in the vault of the first president who was Joseph F Smith. Whether or not he cut it out, he eventually became the president and would have had access to the vault and likely would have looked at everything in there, since he was the church historian prior to becoming an apostle. Keeping the first vision account hidden was dishonest, if he was the one that cut it out so that he could hide it, that's even more dishonest. FAIR is the churches apologetics group, so finding an answer on that site is like finding it on LDS.org. Here's an answer that corroborates my above statements.

Joseph Smith - 

• Polygamy - Was married to Eliza and Emily Patridge without telling his wife. When Emma finally agreed to practice polygamy she picked them as plural wives. Instead of confessing his lies to Emma, Eliza and Emily were married to Joseph a second time. (bottom of the 6th section here) (this website is run by faithful members and even they have found evidence of polygamy teachings going back to 1831)
  
• Is a failed prophecy the same as a lie? If God told him to say it then it should have happened, if it didn't happen then I think it's fair to think he lied about the fact God told him to say something. This wikipedia page has a list of fulfilled and failed prophecies, the fact there are any failed prophecies means he must have lied at least about some of them if not all of them.
• There are 4 distinctly different versions of the first vision. Either Joseph saw God and Jesus or he saw an angel. One of these is a lie otherwise the most important details of why he went into the grove and who he saw in the grove would be consistent.
• He was a known conman in his area practicing something called glass looking. This confirms he was known as a glass looker and was tried for it, it says it's not conclusive whether he was convicted or not. The fact he was known for glass looking though tells you that he was known for telling people where to find treasure using the same seer stone he used to translate the book of mormon, which seems deceptive to me. Here (Isaac Hale testimony, should be the first one on the page) he told his father in law he would stop, why stop if it was honest work, why not convince his father in law it wasn't something he needed to stop?
• Joseph started a bank and was deceptive about the funding they had. When the bank failed lots of people left the church. Here and here are more info, at the end of the second one it asks the question why people didn't disclose the fraud before the bank failed, while that is an interesting question it ignores the possibility that they were in on the fraud and were going to make money until the bank failed and once it failed they no longer were going to gain anything so their best option was to make sure Joseph also didn't gain anything.

In the temple recommend questions it asks if you are honest with your fellow men and clearly these men haven't been honest about these things. None of them have ever issued apologies which means they also haven't repented. 

This website and this website have dozens more examples of leaders of the church lying or at least being deceptive.

Wilford Woodruff and President Nelson (around 1:58) have said that God wouldn't allow the prophet to lead the church into error. Is setting an example of lying or deceiving not leading the church into error?

If God doesn't like liars, which I think we established, then why would he tolerate prophets and apostles who are dishonest? Wouldn't God be holding the leader of his church to a higher standard than the members of his church? We are told that as members of the church we have to live a higher standard than people who aren't members (just one example), so it seems reasonable that God would hold someone like a prophet or apostle to an even higher standard than a member. If I answer the temple question about honesty in the negative then I don't get a temple recommend. How can a prophet or apostle get revelation for the church if they aren't completely honest or at least repenting when they do lie? Reason would suggest they can't. President Nelson has been lying about the various miracle stories for 20+ years. That means his message last Thanksgiving, which he said was revelation, wasn't. God wouldn't have woken him up in the night to tell him to give that message since he's been dishonest and hasn't repented. This also means that dropping the use of the word Mormon wasn't revelation from God. This also means that Come Follow Me wasn't revelation from God. Shorter church wasn't revelation. It means the policy banning children of Gays wasn't a revelation. It means the church has been in apostasy since shortly after it was formed or it means the church never was God's church.

Jesus said that by your fruits will you know them. Lying is not a good fruit so how can LDS leaders be God's chosen leaders when their fruits are bitter?

Counter arguments:

Some might want to argue that apostles and prophets have had the second anointing, like this former stake president, and thus the apostles can lie all they want and God will still communicate with them. Based on my own study I don't believe God would give someone the second anointing if he wasn't sure they would live a Christ like life despite having no further consequence for sin.

Some also might want to argue that Judas was deceptive but Christ called him as an apostle. While I agree that is a potential hole in my argument, there is this which discusses old documents found that suggest Judas was commanded by Christ to betray him. There is also  the fact that the gospels weren't written until 50 to 100 years after Christ died, the stories were likely embellished and changed, so perhaps Judas either wasn't real or what actually happened morphed. It's almost impossible to know at this point.

Would the Spirit lead you down the "wrong road"?

In 2013, the church published a video of Jeffrey Holland telling a story of when he and his son were driving home from a hike and came to a fork in the road. Holland and his son prayed separately and each felt prompted by the Spirit to take the right fork. They drove down the road until it soon ended. Holland quickly turned around to get on the correct road. Confused, his son asked why the Spirit told them to go down the wrong road. Holland replied that sometimes we are lead the wrong way so that when we correct it, we can know for sure that we are on the right path.

In other words, sometimes God will purposefully give us a false answer through the Spirit just so we can know for sure that it is actually the wrong answer when it doesn't work out.  I mean thankfully the wrong path in the story did not endanger them, but sometimes we feel guided to "wrong paths" that do cause us harm. Were those orchestrated by the Spirit too?

Also, aren't we supposed to doubt our doubts and have faith? The Spirit clearly indicated to Holland and his son the way they should go. Why didn't they have faith enough to continue forward on the path?  If the Spirit told them to go that way, isn't it likely that there was a reason?  Maybe a person who needed help was just ahead, and they missed it in their haste to turn around.  If the Spirit really told them to go the wrong way, does this mean we are not only allowed to, but should question promptings of the Spirit when we are presented with new information?

How does this work if God is not the "author of confusion, but of peace"?(1 Cor 14:33) 

Both Holland and his son were certain that they were inspired by the Spirit which path was the right one.  To me the explanations as to why they were inspired to go down the wrong road are limited to this: either Holland missed something, or God intentionally confused him.  Either there was a poor soul a little further down the road whom Holland could have helped, but missed, or God used confusion to try and teach a lesson.  

I think the real answer, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that often the things we attribute to a holy, whispering being are really just our own thoughts and feelings.

Radio Free Mormon's podcast #13 shares many more incites on this video.

-J.

Why do we lie?

The church teaches the following in the Gospel Principles manual. Gospel Principles: chapter 31: Honesty

"There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth"

Why do people lie? why do you lie? why do any of us lie? In every example I can think of, when a lie is told there is something to be gained by the liar. There is something that gets avoided, perhaps a punishment is avoided, there is a consequence that is avoided. The result of a lie is something positive for the one that told the lie. 

As my shelf broke and I read the CES Letter and investigated its sources and dug in and learned disturbing fact after disturbing fact I started to ask myself. "The church says teaches that anti-mormon material is made up of lies and that ex-mormons are bitter angry people, so if these people are lying, what are they getting from the lie? what reason do they have to lie?" It seems to me that the only party that gains something here is the church. if they are able to make their members believe that all anti-mormon material is just lies or that ex-mormons are angry bitter people they keep their members from finding the truth. 

The typcial ex-mormon experience is this. 1. you find out some disturbing truth about the church. 2. you go and corroborate from church resources that it is in actuality true. 3. you share it with your family and friends. 4. you get told that you are a liar or that you're being deceived by Satan and that you need to forget the fact and just believe the church is true. 5. You are either persuaded for a time to "stay in the boat" or you have the courage to stand up and say "enough is enough".

There are people who have left the church or don't believe and have lied to get stuff out of the church, a name that comes to mind is Mark Hoffman, I'm not saying that there aren't bad people out there. what i am saying is that Jeremy Runnells doesn't seem like he is lying, he does allow his emotions and frustration leak into the CES Letter but you can corroborate everything that he points out.  

I ask myself, why did I have to go outside the church to learn the churches history? The church teaches a whitewashed version of its history. The only reason I can think of as to why they would teach a whitewashed version is because the church fears something in their history. Something that they want to hide because they know that if members learned about it they would leave. Which is exactly what is happening. people are leaving the church in droves and its pretty consistently because they grew up believing one thing and then discovered that its actually not the truth. For me I grew up believing the church was a certain way and then I woke up from the stupor that they had lulled me into and I walked away.

For me, it was a particular struggle, to discover that the leaders of the church had lied, probably because I felt like the church had turned me into a liar, because I defended their lies on my mission or in conversations with people. 

Here is just one example: Holland lied in a BBC interview about the penalties that used to be part of the temple covenants. Jeffrey R Holland Lying On Camera I have saved the timestamp in the link so you don't have to watch the whole thing. He very clearly tries to get away with "telling only part of the truth".

Why would he lie? because he knows that the church is weird and he's trying to protect some public image of the church. one of the biggest tells of a cult is that it has secret teachings that you don't learn about until you're already in the cult. the temples serve that purpose. its a "sacred" place that you're told you have to go if you want to gain salvation and you can't go there unless you get your "worthiness" permit. You can't learn about it in detail before going because what you learn there you promise never to talk about with anyone. all hallmarks of a cult.

 

To sum up, the church stands to gain a lot by painting anything negative or not faith promoting as a lie or as untrustworthy.

Kill, don't kill, who knows?

In 1 Nephi 3:7 it says "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them."  

In Exodus 20:13 it says "Thou shalt not kill" which is pretty straightforward. There are no conditions placed on it. If you interpret the bible literally then you shouldn't even fight in a war. But even if you interpret that loosely to mean you shouldn't kill someone unless they are trying to kill you or someone you are protecting that's still pretty clear that killing should be avoided. 

In 1 Nephi 4:10-11 it says "And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him. And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property." 

Once again we have a changing, inconsistent, confusing Mormon God. First Nephi says that God always provides a way to keep his commandments. A few hundred years earlier, God said don't kill and didn't give any conditions. Then God changes his mind and says "go ahead and chop that guy's head off, he tried and failed to kill you and stole your stuff, and who cares it's only one guy, it's better that he dies than your kids dwindle in unbelief." 

Just think about that logically for a second. God could have provided all kinds of other ways to preserve the scriptures for the Nephites. He could have had Laban stay passed out drunk for a day or two while Nephi got the plates and left. He could have provided copies of the plates, certainly some scribe somewhere was copying the plates if they were important. Nephi already knew how to write. Lehi knew how to write. God could have made it possible for them to copy the plates as a scribe or something. Heck, God doesn't have a problem sending angels down with flaming swords to make people keep commandments, why couldn't he send an angel to make Laban give Nephi the plates? Why was his only option breaking one of his own commandments?  

Get out of the Boat!

Matthew 14:22

Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.” “Come,” he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!” Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?” And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” 

Jesus wasn't afraid of getting out of the boat. He charted his own course and only got back in the boat if it was convenient for him. When Peter wanted to get out of the boat, Jesus said "come." He didn't care that Peter was in or out of the boat, only that he was learning and growing. When Peter started to sink into the depths, Jesus didn't say "I warned you it was dangerous out here; you should have stayed in the boat." Instead, Jesus took him by the hand and helped him navigate the rough seas. If anything, he reprimanded him for not having the faith to navigate life outside the boat on his own. They only got back into the boat when it was convenient. Peter left the boat and learned how to rely on the Lord in ways his companions never did because they stayed in the boat.  

The Jesus of the bible wanted us to love God and love our neighbors. He encourages us to leave what is comfortable, when we are ready, and try something new, so we can grow. If we sit in the boat our whole lives, then we miss out on things that could bring us greater joy, deeper connections and a more authentic relationship with God. Some might think that staying in the boat is what God commanded, or that things people do outside of the boat are going against God's will. Jesus said that the great commandments are to love God with all your heart, might and mind and love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:30-31). 

If you really love someone, and if they really love you, is that relationship based on conditions? Do you really feel love for someone that gives you a list of things you have to do or things you can't do? Do you have real relationships with someone like that, or is that just a relationship that causes constant fear? Fear of not being good enough or doing enough or fear of doing the wrong things? A relationship like that stunts your growth because you don't try new things because you are afraid. 

You develop your strongest relationships with the people who love you unconditionally and who encourage you to be your best self. God loves us unconditionally, he wants us to be our best selves, and we can only find out who we really are and become our best selves by getting out of the boat and walking through the rough seas while reaching for Jesus' hand only when our faith starts to fail us. 

Compare those thoughts with this, "Brothers and sisters, stay in the boat, use your life jackets, and hold on with both hands. Avoid distractions! And if any one of you have fallen out of the boat, we will seek you, find you, minister to you, and pull you safely back onto the Old Ship Zion" - Russel Ballard