"...and the Truth Shall Make You Free?"

[Edit: After posting this yesterday, I went to bed thinking about things I left unsaid and yet still have in my heart, so here you have the updated version.]

My memory isn't the best, especially when it comes to certain aspects of my childhood.  (I chalk it up to my numerous head injuries from bike accidents and football in my adolescence.)  I do have two very vivid memories of my childhood ward, however.  The first was a pair of cowboy boots I would wear to primary every week.  For some reason I thought they were the coolest things ever--probably because my older cousin gave them to me.  The other memory consists of people from the ward.  In particular there was a young, returned missionary named Keith.  He was a great guy and kind of the "darling" of the ward.  He was also that area's most eligible bachelor and probably every young, single adult female's object of adoration.  (He was probably that for some of the older sisters as well.)

For many reasons I looked up to this guy.  He ended up marrying a young woman from outside of our ward, much to the chagrin of most of the members.  But even more shocking, especially for the time (this was the early eighties), he'd married an African-American.  I couldn't have been more than five or six years old (which is why I find it strange I remember this) but I distinctly recall hearing members of our ward say things about these newlyweds: "Interracial marriage is a sin." "How could he marry a black woman?"  "Doesn't he know marrying someone of a different color is wrong?"  Etc.  I remember looking at this young lady and thinking, "But she's really nice and she's really pretty.  Why wouldn't he marry her?"  For a young kid I spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about these comments and this wonderful couple.  The more I thought, the less the comments and snide remarks made sense.  Didn't the Church teach about love?  If two people from different races love each other, why shouldn't they be able to get married?

Obviously at the time I was too young to know if the Church had any sort of stance on interracial marriage.  I didn't understand the historical weight racial issues carried.  I also had no idea that it had only been five-or-so years prior that worthy black males were officially able to receive the priesthood.  I didn't think about race because, frankly, it didn't matter to me.  My parents taught me to love everyone, no matter how they look, what they believe, where they're from, what language they speak, what sexual orientation they have.  As a child all I understood were the basic teachings of the gospel: we are all children of a loving Heavenly Father; "As I have loved you, love one another"; and of course, the Church is true.  If we were all children of God, why would members say such unkind things about a woman's skin color?

Fast forward twenty-five years to where I'm preparing a pre-packaged lesson from the aaronic priesthood manual for the priests of my ward.  The class was on choosing an eternal companion and there was a quote from Spencer W. Kimball that said:

"We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question" (Emphasis mine.  "Marriage and Divorce," in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

There it was as plain as day--confirmation in a Church published manual, from a prophet of God, nonetheless, about the Church's view on intermarriage.  Now, of course President Kimball didn't say it was a sin as I'd heard those members say many years ago, but the recommendation doesn't mince words about marrying someone of the same race, economic, social, education and religious status.  This quote was also given a year before the ban on blacks and the priesthood was lifted.  However, the memory of Keith and his wife popped into my head and solidified even more as I looked at my wife who is from a different culture and has a different skin color than me.  Needless to say, I conveniently "forgot" to read this quote from the manual as my young men's group consisted of a mixture of boys from different races.  I thought it best to avoid any uncomfortable conversations about the Church and racial issues.

This year I read the Church's essay on blacks and the priesthood.  My feelings were . . . mixed.  At first I felt grateful that the leaders of the church has decided to set the records straight once and for all.  The essay says some wonderful things:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriage are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.  Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

"The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed.  It affirms that God is 'no respecter of persons' and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous--regardless of race--is favored of Him.  The teachings of the Church in relation to God's children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: '[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." 

As I read I felt both relieved and at the same time torn.  Here the Church is doing something it should have done ages ago by recognizing a great falsehood that had been perpetuated throughout all levels of Mormonism.  But at the same time this public recognition takes a shotgun and blows a gaping hole in another widely propagated tenet--the teachings of the modern day prophets cannot steer the members astray.  From the time I could sing the primary hymn, "Follow the Prophet," I learned the oft repeated theory that God would remove the prophet from his calling before he could ever lead the church astray.  And here, on the Church's own website they admit that the reasoning behind racial issues and the priesthood was never based in revelation but prejudice.  The essay then reiterates the current stance of the Church:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.  Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."  (Race and the Priesthood, www.lds.org)

Of all my faults and failings, I feel God blessed me with one redeeming quality and that is my heart.  I love people.  Always have.  I've never cared about color, religion, sexual orientation, or any other aspect that makes people "different."  I love people because they are people.  So when I found out about the racial restrictions on the priesthood, it never sat right with me.  I never understood the reasoning behind it.  But I distinctly remember sitting in aaronic priesthood, listening to the explanations--that those with black skin are the descendants of Cain; that they denied the priesthood in the pre-mortal life; that it was a test from God--and feeling a pit in my stomach as I thought about all of those explanations.  And at the same time I thought about the other more basic principles of the gospel that I was taught--that every human born on this earth is a child of God, that God is love, full of mercy, full of forgiveness.  How could a loving Father deny so many of his children the blessings of the priesthood?  As these thoughts and doubts churned in my mind, I had to decide to ignore my heart and the unfairness of the situation and accept the explanations because . . . well, because they were spoken by prophets and leaders of the church in the past and "God would remove them from their callings before allowing them to lead us astray."

This essay was a huge sucker punch for me.  It was my first realization that things aren't quite as they seem within the Church.  If one of the greatest silver bullets "anti-Mormons" used against the Church was actually true (racism being the driving force behind blacks not receiving the priesthood), then how can any of us be certain about any other "truth" we've been taught?  What about the hard issues that everyone always avoids, such as  polygamy?  Well, as it turns out, the Church in its fervor to be proactive, released essays on polygamy as well.  (I suggest reading Rational Faith's post on Disgracing God to Save a Prophet by Lori Burkman, an extremely well-thought analysis of the polygamy essays.  She said it way better than I ever could.)  Better blogs than this have already written about these essays and about the problem with the "truths" we have been taught.  (See this great blog post on Pure Mormonism and this one by Anonymous Bishop.)   However, I feel like I need to add my voice to the many others that are unhappy with the current situation with the Church.  I want to let it be known that I am not ok with the fact that we have been taught things that aren't true.  I'm not ok with the fact that the majority of members refuse to see that all is not well in Zion.  I'm not okay with the fact that so many things are passed off as truths when they are indeed the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

At the end of the day, with all of the facts on the table, my question is . . . what is truth?  And if this is truth, then where does that leave all of us who used to believe but now don't?  Where does that leave all of the people I taught on my mission who had these questions and who received the customary (and now, as it turns out, false) explanations from my very mouth?  Where does that leave the people who did and said things in support of these falsehoods?  I never felt comfortable with these "doctrines," and yet as a missionary and young men's president I taught them as doctrine.  I taught them as God's truths.  I read them in manuals and heard them preached by men and women I respected and admired.  And now, the very Church I trusted, the religion I represented as a missionary has admitted (in a roundabout way) that these things are incorrect.

While I am in full support of the Church being open and honest about its history, at the same time I find myself constantly fighting against feelings of anger and betrayal.  Because on the one hand the Church has taught (and continues to teach) that the leaders "will not and . . . cannot lead [you] astray," while on the other hand minimizing the inconsistencies and contradictions that arise when analyzing issues such as blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, blood atonement, Adam-God theory, etc.  In essence, the message we are receiving is, "Believe us, but don't believe our predecessors."  However, if God is the same yesterday, today and forever, he NEVER would allow ANY of his prophets to lead us astray, if that were a true principle of the gospel.  If the leaders of the church today can say the leaders of yesterday weren't inspired, how can we be sure that the leaders of tomorrow won't do the same concerning the leaders of today?  Will we see more LDS.org essays in fifty years that attempt to brush the things that are happening today under the rug?

Either way, I do believe that one day we will know the truth--and the truth will make us free.

"Some people think that the truth can be hidden with a little cover-up and decoration.  But as time goes by, what is true is revealed, and what is fake fades away."

-Ismail Haniyeh 

Why Excommunication Is Not the Answer

Before I left on my mission, I received and invite along with a good friend who had received his call at the same time go and share our testimonies in our favorite seminary teacher's class.  This was an amazing honor and we were pretty stoked to bear testimony of the gospel (and invite the cute seniors to come to our farewells).  This was obviously a time when life was so much more simple.  It was easy to be a believing member.  I'd grown up in very faithful family.  I'd read all of the standard works.  I faithfully watched General Conference and had advanced honorably through the ranks of the Aaronic priesthood and now had the Melchizedek priesthood.  The next step was one that would change my life forever.  The world was full of possibilities and there was this sort of "spiritual high" both my friend and I were riding as we went to the seminary building that day.


Three Strikes, YOU'RE OUT!

We'd arrived a little early and were waiting in our former seminary teacher's office.  Since my friend had entered the office before me, he took the big, comfy, executive chair behind the teacher's desk.  I, in turn, sat in the ordinary, slightly-uncomfortable seat on the other side.  The situation seemed very reminiscent of an experience both he and I had gone through just weeks prior--our missionary worthiness interviews.

Spinning around slowly until he faced me, my friend leaned against his desk and, in his best Mr. Rogers impression, said, "Brother Buron, I appreciate your presence here today.  I want you to know you are loved.  Now . . . what can I do for you today?"

Not missing a beat, I said, "Well, bishop, thank you so much for meeting with me.  I . . . I have to confess a grievous sin."  I broke into fake sobs.

He pushed a box of tissues across the desk and looked at me expectantly.

Sniffling, I grabbed a tissue and dabbed at my eyes.  "Bishop . . . I . . . No, I can't say it."

"Go on, son."

"I . . . I watched football . . . on Sunday."  My voice caught and I looked down at my shoes.

"I see."  My friend reached into the desk and pulled out a sticky note and pen, hastily scribbled something on the paper, and then folded it in half.  Sliding the paper across the desk, he looked me in the eyes and said, "Always remember that I love you.  The Lord loves you."  

My shaky hand reached for the folded piece of paper.  I opened it and gasped.  It said: "EXCOMMUNICATED."

We both burst out laughing.  It was such an unexpected punishment for something so dumb.  Nobody could ever get excommunicated for something so inane as watching football on Sunday, right?

Excommunicated for blogging?

Attitudes About Excommunication

In the past few months there have been increasing accounts of LDS bloggers who have had to sit through disciplinary councils with well-meaning brethren who, in essence, slip them that folded piece of paper, but for real.  One story in particular made my jaw drop.  (Read what happened by visiting To the Remnant and Pure Mormonism.)  

As I've read about these excommunications and what these saints have had to endure, I've wondered about the basis and purpose of such harsh discipline.  I've also wondered about the implications the decision to excommunicate has, not only on those who lose their membership but also on those who decide to depress the detonator on someone's eternity.  There are, of course, those who say that the excommunicated brought this fate upon themselves.  These people were too outspoken about their questions and doubts and were obviously given the opportunity to repent by their leaders before being excommunicated.  They had it coming, right?  Do we really feel that way?  "They got what they deserved."  I was so appalled by what I saw on social media after Kate Kelly's excommunication.  "It's about time."  "Hopefully she'll take this as an opportunity to repent."  "Finally!"  "She was just trying to stir up trouble."  There were comments full of malice and hatred towards her.  Others bore their testimonies of the need for excommunication in certain circumstances.  Some of my friends even laughed and made light of the situation.  Is this really how we should react as fellow saints?

Members are quick to point out that excommunication is about love--giving the person an opportunity to repent and come back to the fold.  But . . . is that truly the case?  In the eternal scheme of things, does "I love you, but you're doing something wrong so I'm going to let you figure things out on your own and you can come back to us later" really fly?

A few years ago I attended a special priesthood training where Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder L. Whitney Clayton made themselves available for a Q&A of sorts with the leaders within a certain region.  The questions the local leaders asked were thought provoking and the questions they received from both Elder Oaks and Elder Clayton were, in my opinion, inspired and also very pragmatic.  One person asked how to know when excommunication was the right option for discipline.  Elder Oaks's reply was brief, but resonated with truth.  

(I quote from memory) "Brethren, excommunication should be avoided at all cost.  I want you to remember that we are interested in saving souls, not condemning them.  Too many of our precious brothers and sisters who are excommunicated from the Church never come back.  This is something that weighs heavily on our minds.  Therefore, my advice to you is to avoid excommunication if at all possible and to find another way to help these brothers and sisters return to the loving arms of their Savior."

I believe that is what the Savior would want.  I am very aware of his laws and the need for obedience.  "Justice" is an idea we get jammed down our throats in Sunday School, Priesthood and Relief Society.  But I believe the Savior is much more merciful than we give him credit.  I feel like he would do everything within the reach and breadth of his power to leave the 99 and save the one sheep that is lost.  Instead, the Church seems content to corral the 99 and nine and push away the 1 who is seen as a "threat."

I'm sorry, you can't stay because you ask too many questions about taboo subjects.

Who Is Acting As Judge?

Those who must appear before a "council of their peers" aren't standing face to face with the Savior.  They're facing men.  Sure, men who have been appointed to act as judges in Israel, but when push comes to shove that calling doesn't exclude them from being human.  As humans they are susceptible to their own biases, life experiences, personalities, points of view and personal flaws (we all have them).  I'm sure the Lord knew this could lead to unrighteous dominion, which is why I assume the process was made to be governed by a system of checks and balances.  One man might be swayed by his own prejudices when it comes to judging another, but a whole council of men would surely be able to balance that out, right?  And isn't that why the Church has a manual of instructions it gives to its leaders?

In theory, yes.  But there's a huge part of the Mormon culture that negates this system.  We have placed our leaders on pedestals so high that they have become untouchable and out of reach.  They have spiritual stewardship over us and therefore the right to receive revelation on our behalf.  The leader's words are law because they were spoken with the gift and power of the Holy Ghost.  And what happens if the Spirit whispers something different to us?  Excommunication.  That's a huge amount of power and one that very few "normal" members are willing or unable to refute.

Lord Acton is quoted as saying, "Power tends to corrupt.  And absolute power corrupts absolutely."

John F. Lehman, Jr., added, "Power corrupts.  And absolute power is kind of neat."

The power to nullify someone's temple covenants, eternal marriage and affect their eternal standing is not neat and it is not something to laugh about, like my friend and I did that day in our seminary teacher's office.

Judgement Based on Law or Whim?

I am an imperfect human.  I'm the first to admit it.  I also happen to be a very guilt-ridden person, which means I have had many opportunities to confess to my bishops.  Thankfully, I've always had wonderful bishops--good and honorable men.  My current bishop is an absolute gem and a man I deeply respect.  I've had to talk to him on occasion and his response has always been one of love and support.  He's awesome.

A while ago, one of my best friends called me.  I could tell he was upset by the sound of his voice.  He explained that he'd done something and felt he needed to talk to his bishop.  His bishop put him off for a week or two, but thanks to my friend's insistence, the bishop finally saw him.  On the phone my friend told me what he'd done.  I almost laughed because it was something that I considered a complete non-issue compared to some of the reasons why I had to talk to my bishops.  But his conscience wouldn't let him rest until he confessed.

During the interview, the bishop asked if he could see my friend's recommend.  After my friend passed his recommend over, the bishop put it in his desk and said, "You can earn this back with your worthiness."

When I heard this my jaw nearly dropped to the floor.  Here is my friend--a GREAT man with a heart of gold who goes out of his way to serve, not only in the church, but in his community; who bends over backwards to fulfill his calling; who is the only person I know other than my father who home teaches because he loves the families he visits and isn't looking for numbers; who takes his only day off to serve in the temple--and he's told he's not worthy for something that he probably didn't even need to go and confess in the bishop in the first place.  That was when I realized that not all judges in Israel are the same.  Had my friend gone to see my bishop, he would have received the counsel to GO TO THE TEMPLE in order to benefit from the spiritual protection temple attendance would provide him. (He'd counseled me to do that on a number of occasions, and I found it to be sound advice.)

So, here we have one bishop who takes away a temple recommend because of a minor mistake and tells the person he can earn it back with his worthiness, and on then you have another who urges the "transgressor" to go the temple because he needs the spiritual blessings.  I'm no statistician but there seems to be quite a discrepancy between those two punishments.

The Church has officially stated that excommunication is handled by the local leaders and the general authorities do not influence these decisions.  Therein lies the problem with allowing men to stand in judgment over other men.  One man's "you're not worthy" is another man's "you're doing the best you can."  What if you're called into a disciplinary council and you have to stand in judgment in front of my friend's bishop?  (The irony of me judging my friend's bishop is not lost on me here.)  You very well might end up leaving the high council room being told, "you can earn your membership with your worthiness."  Or, if you have my bishop you would receive a hug and counsel and possibly be put on probation, but he would be by your side with love and support from that point on.

I think that (thankfully) the majority of LDS bishops are like my bishop.  But there are definitely those who aren't and who may be more focused on exacting justice and 'saving their flock' than, "[avoiding] excommunication if at all possible and to [finding] another way to help these brothers and sisters return to the loving arms of their Savior."  And if you can be excommunicated for writing a blog that asks searching questions about doctrine and Mormon culture; for supporting gender equality; for supporting equal rights for our brothers and sisters who identify with the LGBTQ community; for asking the Church to be more open and honest about how it uses tithing money; for having looked into historical facts that you were told by the Church were false and then the Church turns around and admits are truths . . . then I guess getting excommunicated for watching football on Sunday isn't as crazy as it once used to seem.

And that, my fellow brothers and sisters, is a very scary thought.

I See London, I See France . . .

I see Mormon underpants.

No really, I do.  I see them everyday.  (Unfortunately, they aren't as cool as the ones above.)  I've worn them everyday for the last sixteen years.  They aren't flashy.  They aren't always that comfortable.  They're just glorified boxer-briefs and undershirts.  Throughout the years I've had some nonmember friends ask me about them, and for the most part they are satisfied with my reply, "Before I tell you about my underwear, let's talk about yours."  Actually, I usually just say they are a way for me to remember certain promises I've made to the Lord.  That's it.  I've never felt the need to show them what they look like or "justify" the reason why I use them.  It's none of their business.  Plus, I made solemn covenants to my Savior that I wouldn't reveal certain things about the garment and I intend to honor those covenants.

Which was why I was so surprised when a friend posted this to his Facebook page:

At first I thought it was a joke.  Then I clicked the link and watched in stunned silence as the newscaster-like voice of the narrator explained about sacred vestments used in other religions, and then segued that into a description of the ceremonial temple robes and undergarment.  I literally felt like I was outside of my body, my mind screaming, "Why did they do this?  Why have they put something so sacred on display for the world to see?"  I felt like someone had poured a cold bucket of water down my back.

But that didn't prepare me for how I would feel when I read people's comments.  I was aghast and mortified, but these brothers and sisters were applauding the Church's decision to make the video. Some of their comments are as follows:

Divine Pearl

Wow this is a simple and beautiful way of showing that Mormon garments aren't too terribly different from other faiths. 

1313jen

This is an excellent video, it is what people from other beliefs needed to know and see, that temple garments are not something "magical". I just loved this video, it's clear and shows the real "why" members of the church use garments.

J PumpkinKing

GREAT video! And very informative!  I hope this will help people not of our faith to better understand us.

Tom

Magic Mormon Underwear or Sacred Temple Garments? We prefer them to be referred to by the latter. :)

And my favorite:

Drew1House
It is interesting to me that people who wear these choose to have a negative view of this. #1 do you think the church would somehow produce a video like this without the explicit knowledge and input from the first presidency and the 12? #2 LDS Living is owned by Deseret Book as of several years ago. Thus their employees are working for the church though indirectly. People have accused them of releasing something on here incorrectly... Really? #3 How can you say you support and follow the prophet and take issue with the decision to produce and release this through LDS Newsroom. #4 By the way... If it was not intended to be released to NEWS sources... Maybe they would have released it in a very different manner? Maybe in a doctrine section of LDS.org? Dontcha think?

These types of comments go on and on ad nauseam.  To be fair, there were a few comments here and there by people who felt very uncomfortable by the video.  But their concerns were quickly dismissed by more "faithful members" who would tell them to "follow the prophet" and, yes, even pull out the erroneous non-doctrine quote that "a prophet would be struck dead before he would be allowed to lead people astray."  I spent a good ten minutes reading comment after comment about how wonderful it was that the Church decided to make our lives easier by explaining the sacred garment in such a flawless manner.  And I do have to admit, all those pesky non-Mormons were sure getting annoying with all of their questions about our undies!

All joking aside, the more comments I read, the sadder I began to feel.  Person after person applauding this video where the Church reveals one of the most sacred symbols of our temple worship--like literally throwing pearls before swine--and the membership stands and applauds and condones without even batting an eye.  I couldn't help but wonder, "What is becoming of us?"  

I'm reminded of a story.

There used to be a haughty and vain emperor who prided himself on his costly clothing.  The emperor unknowingly hires two swindlers and charges them to make him the finest clothing anyone had ever seen.  The swindlers promised to make him clothing from the very finest fabric, so fine that anyone unworthy or hoplessly stupid could not see it.  The people in the emperor's court were unable to see the fabric the swindlers were speaking of but feared they would be shunned or ridiculed as unworthy or stupid.  And so, all of them acted like they did see the cloth, all the while praising the swindlers.  The emperor was also unable to see any fabric, but he didn't want the rest of his court to think he was unworthy or stupid, so he acted like he was seeing the finest fabric money could buy.

Finally, the swindlers finish the suit.  The emperor was so excited to show off his new suit that he decided to wear it in his procession and show it to his people.  The townsfolk all knew by that time that anyone who couldn't see the suit was either unworthy or stupid.  And so, they congratulated the emperor on his beautiful new clothing, all the while he paraded down the street with his jiggly-bits for all to see.  Finally, a young child blurted out, "The emperor is naked!" and started to laugh.  The emperor hears this, but decides the boy is unworthy or stupid, and he continues on his way.

We've all know how this ends.  The suit was nothing more than a ruse, one that the emperor willingly fell into because nobody from his court dared to stand up and tell the truth.  As he paraded his nakedness around his kingdom, the townsfolk were also too afraid to be seen as stupid, and praised the emperor for his new clothes.  The only person with courage enough to finally recognize and declare the truth was a little boy whose youthful exuberance and innocence had yet to be squashed by the influence of adults.  He was the only person to point out the proverbial "[naked] elephant in the room."  His was the only voice of reason.

In a very real sense, I feel as if the Church is parading around thinking it's wearing it's very finest clothing (Meet the Mormons, City Creek, the I'm a Mormon campaign, etc.), but in truth all it is showing is nakedness.  And yet, the members (like those quoted above) think this is the greatest thing to happen since changing the ages for prospective missionaries.  Our leaders have decided to place something very sacred to us on center stage where anyone can see.  They chose to show the ceremonial temple robes as well as the garment on YouTube, filed somewhere between the keyboard playing cats and twerking videos.  They showed people buying garments and became defensive about the fact that people who don't know better call them "magic underwear."  (Which, according to the video should offend me deeply.  But, I'm much more offended about the fact that the Church thought it was ok to make a video showing the entire world something they made me covenant I would never reveal.)  And what do we members do?  We flood the internet with cookie cutter phrases such as, "This was truly inspired," "This is further proof that the Church is true," or "I'm so glad I'm a member."  Are we truly that mechanical and unthinking when it comes to the Church?  Or is it that people are truly miffed by this video but refuse to verbalize their discontent?

Church leaders should be held accountable for the things they are doing.  There are people out there who have become disenchanted with the corporate Church and are able to see past the hip, modern facade the Church is trying to create for itself and recognize things for what they truly are--pomp and fanfare for doing a whole lot of nothing.

Lastly, I can guarantee that garments aren't "magic" underwear.  If they were, they would most definitely fit better and overall be more comfortable.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Excommunicated Saints

Dear members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,

This is just a friendly reminder that you are daughters and sons of a Heavenly Father who loves you, and you love Him.  He sent his Only Begotten Son to atone for your transgressions in order to help you receive a remission of your sins and one day return to live with Him in Celestial glory.  

You have been given a body which allows you to experience life.  Within that body you have been given a marvelous brain that helps you to do myriad things, not the least of which is the ability to learn and, yes, even question what you learn.  You have also been given a heart--a power plant that pumps blood but that also serves as the central "feeling" organ.  Your heart is able to experience countless emotions--some good, some bad, but all very real.  Lastly, your body harbors a spirit that is able to discern truth from deceit and light from darkness.

It is important you know that you have been given freedom to choose what to do with this precious life your Father has given you.  You are free to decide what to believe, what to feel, how to interpret your life experiences . . . as long as all of those things coincide with official "Church" doctrine.  You see, even though God gave you a body and a brain and a heart and a spirit, that doesn't mean you know how to use them properly.  No, you are a natural man.  You love sin.  You are too susceptible to the fiery darts of the Adversary.  You are precious, but you are weak.  You cannot be trusted to think or feel on your own.  

Therefore, we will do those things for you.

Don't worry.  All will be well in Zion as long as you do what you're told.  You say you have doubts?  Well, we say: "Doubt your doubts."  You see, your brain, even though it has been given the ability to study and analyze, will only steer you astray.  Intellect is your great enemy.  Your heart is telling you that something isn't right?  Well, why have you let Satan into your heart?  Of course you have questions.  We all do!  But the best thing you can do with your questions is take them to the Lord and trust in the revelations He sends you . . . as long as those revelations coincide with the things that we have taught you.  If they don't, then your answer obviously came from the Devil and you must repent immediately.

But, our dear brothers and sisters, there's an easier way to get answers.  All answers can be found in the information we give you.  Some people say that it is wishy-washy and cookie cutter, but we say pish-posh!  Correlated material is the only way to go when you're looking to control the masses!  It's a win-win for all of us!

So, why tax your wonderful mind with such trivial questions as what we do with your tithing money and why our secret handbook of rules supersedes official scripture?  Why look into the alterations of official Church history or dig deeper into unimportant topics such as blacks and the priesthood, polygamy or homosexuality?  Why not do something more edifying.  For example, here's an idea . . . let's go shopping!  In downtown Salt Lake there is a wonderful place where you can shop your cares away . . . (just make sure you pay your tithing first, because . . . blessings!).  City Creek Center is for people just like you!*  (*As long as you are rich, good looking, impeccably dressed, and ready to spend, spend, spend!)

Or, you can go and watch the new hit movie, "Meet the Mormons"!  In fact, why no take a non-member friend because--hey!--everyone likes the movies!  And don't forget to tell them that this movie is definitely not for the purpose of proselytizing.  Not in the slightest!  We're not one of those "weird" churches that tries to coerce people into believing in us.  No way!  We're hip and cool!  Just check out our awesome websites!*  (And don't forget to like our Facebook pages and follow us on Twitter!) (*Be sure not to bring up homosexuality, that women are only as good as their wombs, or the fact that in order for them to be worthy they must give 10%.  We'll let two 18 year old missionaries handle that at a later date.)

The bottom line is, just do as we say and everything will be fine.  Don't be like those evil, sinful blogger people who seriously question the Church.  They think for themselves and most definitely do not follow the Prophet.  We've confirmed that these people openly support gay and women rights.  They read anti-Mormon literature such as the official history of the Church.  And many of them drink Coke and Pepsi . . . caffeinated.

But no worries, brothers and sisters, we are systematically seeking those people out and excommunicating them.  We're doing this for you, beloved members, because we cannot risk their evil influence--their "free-thinking" minds--to corrupt the flock.  We will find these people.  We will weed them out.  And you will be safe from their wily and cunning deceptions.

Remember . . . following your leaders is what will keep you safe in these perilous times.  We bear our testimonies of the truthfulness of conformity.  And we strongly urge you to conform of your own free will and volition . . . or you will be compelled to do so.

With love,

Your leaders.