« On Damage and Danger | Main | Moroni's Pitch »

October 04, 2007


LDS Truthseeker

Thanks for sharing more of the story Lyndon. I think you were very courteous to the church and did your best to leave quietly but the church forced all the publicity on themselves. The church looks bad because of this, not you. You certainly don't seem like an 'anti-Mormon' to me but just another average member that found out the real disturbing truth about our church's history and opted to share the truth with those that seemed interested in it. Why should any person be made to feel bad by seeking, discussing or sharing the truth about historical issues?

Will the church ever begin to address these issues? How many more people must leave or be kicked out of the church before they start addressing the concerns of its members?

I just wish I could be a little more brave about sharing the truth with others that I care about. Well done Lyndon.


Truthseeker, everybody thinks that the defendant is guilty after the prosecution rests. Organizations are entitled to set reasonable limits on what their members say and do on the organization’s property and during their meetings. Although, as Equality said before, it is very troubling (and I mean, very, deeply troubling) that Lamborn’s bishop shared his confidences with other people, it doesn’t appear Lamborn was excommunicated for what he said to his bishop or his brothers so much as what he was teaching at church.

I wonder what the other side has to say. It seems more like a game of one-upmanship than anything.

The most surprising thing for me is that he still wants to go to the Mormon church. I’m surprised every corporation in America isn’t lining up to find out how the Mormon church can be so ruthless (as alleged by Lamborn) and yet produce such a loyal consumer. It’s like a frustrated Ford owner screaming at the dealer that he was sold a lemon and then threatening to sue if the dealership tried to stop him from purchasing another. Is it just me or does the whole situation seem really strange when you step back and think about it?



Yes, that is strange. Mormonism produces many paradoxes, doesn't it?

Emily Carr

Yes, Mormonism produces an astonishing number of paradoxes, as well as bad analogies. Does your Ford dealer call you in ask about your deepest most personal beliefs and sexual practices? Does your Ford dealer have undue influence over your extended family, yadda yadda yadda. dpc might come up with a more convincing comparison, unless, of course, he believes that picking a belief system is just like buying a car . . .


I could see the point of protesting a lemon, yet still demanding to buy a Ford if all of your extended family owned only Fords, and if you would likely lose standing in your neighborhood and business dealings if you drove anything other than a Ford, or if you lived in Detroit and would probably be vandalized if you bought a "foreign" car, or if you really, really, liked the air conditioning systems in Ford vehicles, then yeah, I could see why someone would still want to own a Ford even if they had a terrible personal experience with one car.

But, that analogy is not a good one. Religion and the church one belongs to are usually vastly more important in one's life than the brand of car one drives. If you can't see this, you have no idea of the personal anguish and hell that a disaffected mormon has gone through.


Emily, I’m not trying to make a convincing analogy. I’m just trying to highlight what a strange situation the whole fiasco is. If Lamborn had told the Stake High Council to shove it, that it would be a cold day in hell before he ever took one step inside a Mormon church, that he was determined to show once and for all the deception and immorality of the church and that he would try to convince its members not to support such an evil enterprise, that I can understand. That makes sense. That is normal. But threatening to sue to be allowed to attend a church whose tenets you don't believe in? This whole situation is just plain bizarre, regardless of where your particular sympathies may lie. I guess the desert heat does strange things to the people of Arizona.


I would love it if mormons would start acting with real compassion and love instead of only memorizing scriptures about compassion and love.


I’m Canadian, so all this seriousness about religion has never made sense to me. Call that unloving and uncompassionate, but that’s how I feel.

At least I can be honest in that way. I sympathize with those who undergo a painful paradigm shift and change their outlook on the world. Any process that makes you look beyond provincial understandings is generally a good thing. I don’t believe, however, that such a process necessarily leads away from Mormonism into secularism. The people most affected by such a process are those who have to change their view the most. That’s why people who have left always point out how TBM they were before they left. They take the church so seriously that when it fails to live up to the ideals they have set for it, their whole world comes crashing down around them with the resultant disillusionment and anger. Although this anger is directed at the church, I really believe that the anger is really meant for God. One of my favorite quotes by Jean-Paul Sartre on God is: “The bastard! He doesn’t exist!” Why would a loving God set us up for such failure and disillusionment? Wouldn’t life be much simpler for His children if the scientific evidence was just a little bit more in favor of their religious beliefs? That’s why I believe that the future of the Church are those who try not to define the outer limits of their faith, but work on the core beliefs. That’s where its strength will come from. The teachings of the Book of Mormon are valuable whether or not Helaman is a figment of someone’s fertile imagination. People who look beyond the historical issues and the political issues and really look at what Joseph Smith was teaching or what the Bible says or what achieving nirvana means are people who will build perspective and understanding. I agree that it’s difficult to live in a confining social institution like the Mormon church, but it allows for its members to combat alienation and anomie that comes with living in our highly urbanized modern society. That’s why Islamic fundamentalism is such a powerfully binding force. It brings 1400 hundred years of tradition and melds it into a modern shape that brings meaning and purpose to its adherent's lives. We talk about compassion and love, but what do they really mean. In my experience, some of the most compassionate, loving people I have met are Mormons. I don’t think compassion and love are a function of religious belief, I think they are a function of a person’s inner goodness. Let’s not lump people into categories just because of how they relate to the divine.


Thanks for your comments, dpc. I appreciate your sharing your point of view. I do take slight issue with this part of your last comment: "that’s why people who have left always point out how TBM they were before they left. They take the church so seriously that when it fails to live up to the ideals they have set for it, their whole world comes crashing down around them with the resultant disillusionment and anger."

In my experience, I would say this is often true, but not always. It is perhaps more common to find this among vocal critics of the church and those who post on message boards and blogs, etc. Even there, though, I encounter many who never really had a strong testimony of the church before leaving--they were simply raised in it and it was a big part of their lives, even though they were not ultra-TBM. I think most people who leave the church do so fairly quietly (they really do "leave it alone"). The folks who populate the Internet message boards and blogs are probably not representative of the whole population of former Mormons. But I have only my own anecdotal evidence to support my theory, so I could be wrong about that.



"That’s why I believe that the future of the Church are those who try not to define the outer limits of their faith, but work on the core beliefs. That’s where its strength will come from."

This is a beautiful thought. I wish the church could offer such a thing for its members...I can have a core belief that the church is not the One True Church, or that God as described by the scriptures and the Church is not real...yet I can't openly discuss that in church with anyone. There is no room in the Church for people who feel as I do. You write "I don’t believe, however, that such a process necessarily leads away from Mormonism into secularism"...I don't think someone like me can remain entrenched fully IN Mormonism the way the church is set up now. Conformity is key. That much is clear. It's too bad we can't be open at church with each other without fear of punishment or banishment.


I'm fascinated by your story Lyndon. I learned when I was very young not to trust church leaders with anything. Thus, while I've been on a 6 year journey learning the things you are learning, I have never, and will never confide in a church leader. Too much conflict of interest.

You have my admiration for your principles. It sounds from your description like the situation centered around Mr. Molina's ego and your unwillingness to accommodate it. That is always good to see.



I agree with you on that last point. The people who fall into that category generally tend to be those raised in the Mountain West where the distinction between the Mormon religion and the Mormon culture are blurred and repression (peer pressure?) is rife. I think the pressure to conform is a lot less in the hinterlands. And that is why I would never, never, never move to Utah, even if someone offered me a million dollars. I'd be there about two weeks and you'd see my picture in the Deseret News with a caption reading "LDS Church excomunicates bitter apostate."


dpc said:
"threatening to sue to be allowed to attend a church whose tenets you don't believe in? This whole situation is just plain bizarre, regardless of where your particular sympathies may lie. I guess the desert heat does strange things to the people of Arizona."


What is so confusing about not wanting to be excluded from your culture? The religious services and activities of the Church are the very heart of LDS culture, whether you are in Utah or not. Indeed, in places where the Church does not have a strong presence, the only place you can get LDS culture is at church services. I think that is where Lamborn is coming from.

Now, whether or not the LDS Church has a right to exclude people from facilities it owns is a whole different question.



Thanks for posting this story. I wondered what the details were behind the highlights provided in the newspaper. Fascinating stuff. And bizarre, too. Being called in simply because your brother disbelieves? Maybe if it is done in just the right way, but somehow I find it hard to believe that was the case here....

LDS truthseeker

Why is it OK for the church and its missionaries to intentionally deceive people yet wrong for someone to share the truth with fellow members?

On the church property? It's not like he was getting up in testimony meeting and saying stuff. Would it make any difference if he gave people the info at their homes instead of in the church parking lot or wherever he did?

After living your whole life in the church and giving who knows how much time and money to the church and the fact that his wife and children are still active members, why is it a wonder that he still wants to be somewhat involved with the church?

It is an altruistic motive to want to share the truth with others - the missionaries do the same thing - they just don't share ALL the truth. Sharing the truth is admireable and not something to apologize for - EVER!



Lamborn himself said above that he never wanted to identify himself as LDS again. Why would he threaten to sue to go to the meetings? If he just wants to experience LDS culture, then why worry about spreading his truth? If my friends are staunch Republicans and I'm a Liberal Democrat, wouldn't it strain our friendship if I kept harping on about universal health care and legalizing illegal immigrants and how evil George Bush is, especially if I knew that all of those issues were sensitive points to those friends?

LDS Truthseeker

Pilate's question "What is truth?" remains unanswered. Even He who is the one who must have had the ultimate answer remained silent.

Lamborn was sharing his interpretations of the facts, not the ‘truth.’ If the truth were so cut and dried, like you maintain, there wouldn’t be so much discussion on these issues. Facts by themselves are meaningless unless organized into a narrative. If history were just a list of facts, no one would ever read it. A good historian is a good storyteller. They have to interpret and evaluate the difference sources and arrange the facts into a logical compelling sequence of events. Even Lamborn states that he was sharing his ‘convictions.’ (Sounds like a religious term to me). Lamborn’s new found religious beliefs (or more properly, disbeliefs) are just as irrational as any religious believer’s. And nobody shares ALL the truth because nobody has ALL the truth. And just what would you like the missionaries to say? To share your interpretations of the facts? Is that the only truth there is? How would a typical first discussion go? We would like to tell you about an experience, the conflicting versions of which indicate that it mostly likely never occurred, that happened to a 14-year old boy, by two beings, the existence and nature of whom are hotly disputed. We have a book of purported ancient scripture that only really addresses nineteenth century Protestant ideas and concerns and that is completely irrelevant today. And by the way, it was the product of a fevered religious mind who automatically wrote it and most likely plagiarized from an earlier source. That our organization (that does good only accidentally) is oppressing women, (American) minority groups and homosexuals and enforcing social norms under the thinly-veiled disguise of divine approbation. Investigators and members have every right to investigate the claims of the church. I don't expect the Ford dealer to sell me on a Toyota. I have yet to hear of anyone complaining the Mormon church filters their internet content or forbids them to read certain books. I think that the church can excommunicate those who evangelize its members to their interpretation of events. There are countless stories of NOMs who hold, for lack of a better term and only when judged from orthodoxy, heretical beliefs and that haven’t been subjected to church discipline. There is a big difference between ‘I’m not sure if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God’ and ‘Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God and here’s why.’


"Lamborn’s new found religious beliefs (or more properly, disbeliefs) are just as irrational as any religious believer’s."

This is an absurd statement. Lamborn's disbelief in, say, the Book of Abraham, is based on a rational analysis of the facts concerning that book. A religious believer's belief in the Book of Abraham is not based on a rational analysis of facts but rather on a subjective personal experience. Belief in the absence of contrary evidence may be rational to a degree. But belief in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence is anything but rational.

LDS truthseeker

"If the truth were so cut and dried, like you maintain, there wouldn’t be so much discussion on these issues. "

The problem is there is no discussion by the church on these issues. The issues need to be debated on obscure forums like this one since they refuse to discuss these types of concerns in church.

I would not expect the missionaries or the church to lie. I asked the question as a youth, 'why don't we have modern-day Egyptologists look at the papyri and prove Joseph right?' I was told that everything was lost in the great Chicago fire - a lie. I asked do Egyptologists support Joseph’s interpretations of the facsimiles. I was told yes - another lie. Perhaps I can chalk up those answers to misinformed missionaries and gospel doctrine teachers.

I agree it's not cut and dry but why can't the established facts be told and then the church give their side? Why do I have to wait until some nonmember or informed rebel like Lyndon to tell me that Joseph put his face in a hat with a common stone to translate the BOM? By looking at all the pictures in the Ensign I would naturally be lead to believe that Joseph used the plates and the urim and thummim to translate the BOM.

I should be hearing these things from the church first. Had the missionaries been upfront with my family we'd never have joined. If they want to give me back the $50k or so I've paid in tithing then I'll shut up and stop railing on the church.



"I should be hearing these things from the church first."

I hope that you don't work in sales if this is your expectation for private organizations to conduct their affairs!

I have raised this question many times and no one has answered it. Just why exactly is the church required to give the 'established facts' and then give their side, when we would never expect any other private organization or individual to do the same absent some kind of contract, legal or fiduciary duty? It doesn't make any sense to me. It is puzzling that it comes from people who chant the mantra of rationalism.

You had ample opportunity to investigate the claims of the church before you joined. I haven't seen a single thing discussed anywhere on the Internet or in any book that hasn't been discussed for the past 150 years. None of these historical issues are new. And religion is not the only place for myths and misperceptions to abound. Science has its own set of myths as well. Galileo and the Wilberforce-Huxley debates come to mind. I don't throw out science merely because my high school teacher repeated misrepresentations on matters they had not fully investigated. Growing up, my family discussed a lot of these historical issues. I discussed many of these things with my friends from church. Why didn't we discuss it at church? Any time used at church to discuss contentious historical issues is time taken away from lessons on developing divine attributes and learning to be better people. Any continued activity within a religion is not based on one being convinced of the historical validity of events, but based on one's experiences and relationship with the divine. Any one trying to validate religious belief with modernist ideas(and I use the term in its philosophical sense) is bound to be sorely disappointed.


Lamborn's convictions that Joseph Smith was not a prophet or that the Book of Mormon was not divinely inspired are clearly irrational, the same as belief in those types of things is clearly irrational. Although reasoned analysis may have play a part in reaching those conclusions, there are several leaps of faith needed to come to the conclusions that he did (to say nothing of the gaps in his reasoning).


"I hope that you don't work in sales if this is your expectation for private organizations to conduct their affairs!"

Hey, if you don't expect more from a church that claims to be the one and only true and living church on the face of the whole earth with which the Lord is well pleased, and which teaches its members to "do what is right, let the consequence follow," and which expects its members to be completely honest in all their dealings with their fellow man, and that claims to be holding to a higher moral standard than "the world" and "Babylon"; in short, if you think the church that is led by ongoing regular revelation from Jesus Christ Himself should not be held to a higher standard than purveyors of automobiles, then you have a point.


dpc said:

Lamborn's convictions that Joseph Smith was not a prophet or that the Book of Mormon was not divinely inspired are clearly irrational, the same as belief in those types of things is clearly irrational. Although reasoned analysis may have play a part in reaching those conclusions, there are several leaps of faith needed to come to the conclusions that he did (to say nothing of the gaps in his reasoning)."

I disagree. His conclusions on those points are held not based on "faith" but on the most reasonable (i.e., "rational") analysis of the facts, the most reasonable and likely interpretation of which leads to the conclusions he has reached. That others may come to different conclusions is a testament to their ability to not look at the facts rationally but instead to look at facts in light of their preconceived belief about what the facts will show. John Fowles argues that the difference between a believer who knows "all the facts" and a disbeliever who is equally informed is that the believer gives Joseph Smith and the church the benefit of the doubt and makes positive inferences wherever possible. A disbeliever, on the other hand, does not give the church and Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt, and makes negative or positive inferences based on what is most reasonable under the circumstances. This leads a person relying on reason alone to reject Joseph Smith's and the church's foundational truth claims. Only one who is already converted looks at all the facts and still believes. That's why the church doesn't want to share "all the facts" until AFTER people are already "converted" and have a preconceived bias in favor of Joseph Smith and the church.



I’m sorry; your argument about the higher standard makes no sense to me whatsoever. What is the higher standard? And why should we accept that as the higher standard? How does the church inform potential converts of all the historical issues? Do we make them attend classes and explore historical minutiae for several years and then ask them if they want to join? I don’t believe that the process of joining a church is usually based on that. Should the church have classes in the philosophical inconsistencies of the religion? Maybe it should provide Egyptology classes so that investigators can better appreciate the problems with the Book of Abraham. What practical purpose would it serve to have the missionaries relate the four or five different versions of the First Vision? Maybe instead of distributing the Book of Mormon, they could hand out copies of Grant Palmer’s book with promises to come back and refute his arguments. In fact, starting off from your conclusion that the church is a fraud, the only way the church could be true is if it actively sought to prove itself a fraud. Another paradox? That’s why I’m confused by your argument. In my mind there is a difference between a ‘true’ church and a ‘perfect’ church. I’ve always thought as the church being true because it has a mechanism for accepting new revelation and being able to change itself depending on the circumstances. Would anyone be truly surprised if they announced that women will now be able to be ordained to the priesthood at General Conference or would people view it as a sign that the church had lost its way? Some would, but not many. Is the church perfect? Of course not, and few would argue that it is or should be.

John Fowles argument sounds great until you realize that it is based on circular reasoning. One has to start out as a disbeliever to ultimately arrive at being a disbeliever and one has to start as a believer to end up as a believer. How does one go from being a believer to being a disbeliever? At what point do you stop giving the benefit of the doubt? What motivates the change? Why would a person say, “You know what, I’ve been giving the benefit of the doubt, but now I’m not going to anymore.” Plus there are people who move from being disbelievers to believers. At what point do they say, “I’m going to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt.” Do people do this because they haven’t been given all the facts? The process of religious conversion and deconversion is not so simple as that. People don’t just look at the ‘facts’, use a bit of reason and decide whether to join a religious group or not. It’s a lot more complicated than that.


"It’s a lot more complicated than that."

On that we agree. Thanks for your thought-provoking comments. I really do appreciate them.


Higher moral standard? I remember when Hinckley said just that - that we need to have higher moral standards than the rest of the world. In fact a Catholic friend of mine was watching conference with me when he said that. He was offended by that remark - I wasn't. But the church doesn't follow that counsel in regards to being more open than other churches that's for sure.

I admit it's not practical to give details of viewpoints that go against the church to investigators but it still doesn’t make it right to keep such things hidden. You might say all these issues are talked about in some church media somewhere but the reality is if the members don’t know about them then they are not really open about them. Why would I go looking for other versions of the First Vision unless I knew there were others? And how do you explain the deceptive photos of Joseph translating the plates – no hat, no stone found in a well and the plates in full view of Oliver. If that’s not deceptive then I don’t know what is.

The big problem for me is that the culture of the church is to lie to protect the innocent. I had discussions with an older man just back from a mission and he knew of some of the historical problems such as the stone in hat. I asked him if an investigator asked him point blank by what mechanical process did JS translate the BOM, would he tell him what he believed to be the method? He said no. I ask is that ethical? He’s a good man that puts the church above ethics as he was conditioned to do so.

Why doesn’t the church talk about these issues to investigators? The answer is obvious – no one would join the church if the knew ALL the facts about the church’s history. I guess I must admit I would do the same thing if I cared more about the church than the truth.



I apologize for the late response.

You said:
"Lamborn himself said above that he never wanted to identify himself as LDS again. Why would he threaten to sue to go to the meetings? If he just wants to experience LDS culture, then why worry about spreading his truth?"

You are characterizing as unambiguous something that is not. Later, in the q&a section, Lamborn states that he vacillates on whether or not he wants to socialize with the LDS community. I don't know why, exactly, he vacillates, but I do know that the process he has gone through results in a lot of contradictory feelings and personal needs. It's traumatic to lose your beliefs and your culture at the same time.

Lamborn's vacillation is also understandable given the fact that his wife is still a believing member. Important aspects of orthodox Mormon marriage are severely compromised by the expulsion (or withdrawal) of one spouse from the flock, and how couples deal with the problem will vary greatly from couple to couple--completely cutting all ties to the Church isn't always the best option when keeping the marriage together is a priority.

It is easy to make heartwrenching decisions when you only have to make them in theory, but it is not easy to make those decisions in real life. Real life contains nuanced problems that are hard to predict. You and I don't know what dynamics are driving Lamborn's decisions in this regard, but the automatic conclusion that his choices are "bizarre" or hypocritical in some way seems unnecessary.


Flexible God

I think the only reason that Prez. Molina decided to announce publicly his excommunication for apostasy was not to sheild members, but to control them--

Remember one of the questions in the temple recommend interview:

Do you associate with, or symphasize with any apostates or apostate groups?

This question, combined with the announcement of Lamborn's apostate status, is an effective tool to keep members scared of talking to him, lest they become non-temple worthy...


Hi all,

Great blog here, I just wanted to take credit (responsibility? ;) for the Q&A section underneath Mr. Lamborn's more lengthy narrative. Thanks, keep up the good work!


This is very informative and I am glad that there is someone out there like Lyndon to spread the truth about the Mormon cult.


Very interesting stuff, I am an active member, return missionary and most distinctly a believer. I understand why Lyndon left though there are a lot of things about the church that are shady. That we don't know or are hard to believe. I admit I question things all the time. But here is the conclusion I come to almost everytime. If I were not a member how would I conduct my life? I believe in God so I would have to choose some other path or venue to declare my belief. And when it comes down to it there is no better place to be than living an active believing lifestyle than in the Mormon faith. If a person is to follow the precepts they would come closer to god than any other way. I know that is true.
Now is the church wholly entirely true. hmmmmm NO. But is it a great way to live if possible, absolutly. And really that is what all of this is about... our relationship with God. Not how we connect with God. I personally believe that this is the best way to get back with him. And for that knowledge 10% is a bargain.


Hello All,

Lyndon, I am an RM, temple married and recently coming to terms with many of the things you have gone through and boy is it tough! I think the hardest thing is what to do when there are children invloved. I would be curious to know how your children have reacted to your separation from the church and how has that had an impact on your actions.

I have an uncle who I haven't had much association with but he is struck with constant delusions of grandeur. It is interesting to me how so much of what my uncle says is extremely intelligent and very believeable, but it is just a little thing here or there that are needed to catch him in the lie, but those things are hard to catch because he is so insistent and persuasive. I truly believe Joseph Smith was just such a type of person. IMHO he highly influenced so many around him and made believers out of so many. He was so theologically intelligent and remarkable in his writings, but the degree of his disillusionment was equally as incredible as the stories he told. Thanks for helping me understand things better. It is difficult to explain, but since learning what I have learned I have experienced a greater peace of conscience than I have ever before. It is a refreshing feeling but not an enviable one.


I listened to Lamborn's illegally recorded church court. I do not trust what anyone says when they are the only one in the room who knows it is being recorded. He tries to appear gracious in the court setting, but his few seconds of smug solo commentary spoke volumes.

Lyndon Lamborn discovered some less than flattering facts about Mormonism and he threw out the baby with the bathwater. First off, I have to say that I dated a girl in High School who had three brothers who were Baptist Preachers. To answer their questions, I studied and learned about the criticisms that threw Lamborn for a loop. For example, Lamborn appears stuck, like many, on Joseph Smith's polygamy. Surely that disqualifies Joseph Smith as a prophet? Not too fast. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all had plural wives. When companionship was scarce a drunkend Noah slept with his daughters. Jacob's twelve sons of Israel killed the entire male population in the town Shechem as revenge for the kidnapping of their sister. They did this by convincing the men to be cicumcised then killed them when incapacitated. (This makes the Mountain Meadow Massacre pale in comparison). Yet Judaeo Christians look at Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Noah as great prophets. Lamborn simply set the standard too high for Joseph Smith et al and got caught "whiting the sepluchure of the prophets" in his mind when the facts are out there for anyone who wants to read a few books. He wants to blame the church for his failure to study other facts, but he could have read about this in high school like I did back in 1982. Lamborn's other criticisms are all old news and have all been answered. Space does not permit an answer to all the problems Landon had with Mormonism but sufficeth to say, they aren't any bigger than the ones I find in biblical christianity. When one sets their mind to it, any idea, orgaznization, nation or movement can be critically attacked.

The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, like the history of these old testament prophets is one of miracles--God's ability to bring to pass mighty works through very flawed folks. Landon admits he was treated well for years by the church and church members. But why the angst if the church was so wonderful? Joseph Smith explained that when one leaves and becomes and enemy to the church the spirit of the Lord is replaced with a commensurate spirit of apostasy. The more intelligent and spirit filled before the more obsessive and apostasy filled after. Like so many, Lamborn can leave the church, but he can't leave it alone. The angst is apparent in his ongoing rants about all the money he spent on tithing and all his time he wasted for the church. Like wolves that feed on the cancerous caribou, Lamborn's present attacks are an exercise in futility and will only serve to strengthen the herd.

My personal experience with Mormomism is that it (and God!) are at the root of all that is good in my life. I am the father of seven wonderful, healthy and happy children who are finding sucess in all their endeavors. I have a loving wife and sucessful business. our family works hard, plays hard and enjoys our time together. None of this would have happened without my upbringing in the mormon church. I lived the principles I was taught and God has blessed me with an abundant life.


DLounsbury ~

I found myself unable to maintain belief in the truthfulness of the church once I discovered those things (at age 34) that you say were easy for any high school student to find and read up on (which I find disingenuous to claim). You accuse Lyndon Lamborn and others like him of "simply set[ting] the standard too high for Joseph Smith et al" and claim he "got caught "whiting the sepluchure of the prophets" in his mind." I disagree with this. *The church itself* is the one setting the standard too high and making its members conform to standards that simply were not practiced in the early years of the church by the early prophets or members.

I resent the fact that if I smoke, drink alcohol or coffee, or use tobacco, I am denied a temple recommend that I'm taught is necessary for me to live with Heavenly Father again in the next life. Yet this was not a standard that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young had to live up to to enjoy the full benefits of all the ordinances and highest keys of priesthood power. Why?

If I get pregnant at BYU out of wedlock, I am faced with disciplinary action and expulsion and must quit that school and repent and be on formal probation and jump through countless hoops to square myself with God again. Yet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and their friends were able to simply desire another woman, married or otherwise, and she was theirs if they so wished. Why?

If I teach today that Adam was in fact God the Father, I'm accused of teaching false doctrine, and I face disciplinary courts by my leaders and will be reprimanded. Yet Brigham Young was able to and DID repeatedly teach this as doctrine and revelation to the entire membership of the church he led. Why?

If I don't pay a full tithe, I am taught that I will not be worthy in God's eyes to attend the temple and participate in the ordinances required of me to get to the celestial kingdom. But it wasn't always thus. Why?

Every single member today is expected to live up to a lot higher standard than the early members and prophets themselves lived. WHY? I recognize that all religions everywhere have issues that one could find fault with, but my point is that MY LDS CHURCH held me to such high standards and made me feel less than worthy in so many ways, that when I discovered that all the "sins" I had paid hardest for in my religion were all things that Joseph Smith himself engaged in without any problem whatsoever (if you discount the tar-and-feathering and his eventual demise, may he rest in peace)--well, it was just too much to swallow, and I was done.

And once I looked at my religion with open eyes and stopped constantly convincing myself that it was true regardless of all the inconsistencies that were giving me discomfort, I realized that I can't support an organization like this one. If God himself came to me today to tell me the LDS church is designed exactly as he wants it to be, I'd still be unable to support it because I find the sexism, racism, and homophobia distasteful and wrong enough to warrant my withdrawal.

I will not support such an organization.

Tom Zelaney

I would hope that Mr Lamborn will search out other faiths and evaluate their truth content for himself rather than rejecting all for the wants of one. I wish him success in his search.

Jeannie Fritz

Dear Mr Lamborn,
Thank you for your efforts to open the doors of the lies that the church holds so tightly closed. I thought your words were direct and well done, with the help of the Holy Spirit to say the very truths that need to come forth. My own journey took over 40 years to come to a close, because of a low self esteem and the cowardist to always back down to any doulbts being totally my fault and from a lack of "faith" LDS style. My concerns came slowly and yet I was direct in asking for thier solutions, always to be told it just was my lack of faith or lack of need to know. The church presents a face when you are searching, and a face once you join, with the special truths only coming into light as you mature or grow in thier eyes. I never could buy much of it, but held tight to my faith in GOD and JESUS dispite what they preached, and in so doing, I was slowly dragged along , being truely blind to the truths that are there , if one will but look. 3 years ago, with great sincere prayers and desire, I was slowly lead to find truths to help my escape. Then 2 years ago, I read the bible and found out for myself what truth realy is. You can recieve a testimony and a warm feeling but it is in your whole being, and not just one or two places. It is an awareness that your eyes have been opened and your faith and heart are bing lead by truth. It is a feeling of total Freedom and Warmth and JOY in a way only the Holy Spirit can light up your being. When you recieve it, it convicts you to continue the search in prayers and study. It took over a year to send in my resignation, and even then I felt free and Joyful, until it came back as undeliverable, I had sent it to the Church office for the Bishop. So I resent it again with fear, until it hit the mailbox unretractable, and again the joy and freedoms and peace overwhelmed me. Of course I got a letter from the Bishop.... who himself is on the Book of Abraham documentary saying that "IF the Book of Abraham isn't true the whole church is a lie." I immedicatly sent him an email and told him to please go through with what ever it took to make me free , even though I knew even before that , that I was free and in JESUS's care and had the real Love of GOD to lead my way. He accused me of reading anti mormon things, which I had not done. So I got online and looked for what the real beliefs of the Church were. I was sick, how had I who always knew and loved GOD and JESUS been so blindly lead astray ? It was then that I was SURE of the feelings and beliefs GOD had lead me to. I knew I was no longer following a blind faith full of wholes, and that no matter what happened I was free and Saved. My family wasn't at all happy and all made it clear they felt I was wrong, but I knew my own truths and freedom and JOY and I was willing to lose all to have GOD and JESUS CHRIST as my savior to pave my way back into GODS presence. I remember the day months later when the letter finally came. THE VERY BEST GIFT I ever held. GODS gift of HIS only son was the greatest, but this one I could hold and treasure. My freedom from the lies. My release from fear.
Mr. Lamborn, I found your youtube documentary today. I was amazed at how you spoke and the truths you revieled. I also knew how you felt , the JOY once it was done. Thank you so much for showing me and others the true gift of Freedom. Thank you for allowing me to know another who feels as I do. Thank you for your time and efforts to expose the lies. GOD bless you always. Sincerely Jean.

C. Jones

After years of little festering questions and doubts, I am only now beginning my journey of inquiry. Some of my children have preceeded me, and from that I take strength, yet the steps are difficult and the sadness is real. The more I learn, the more foolish I feel to have swallowed so much for so long with so little resistance. Things that are available today in print and on the web were not accessible 40 years ago. What other religion on earth makes you feel so wrong to question, punishes you for seeking the truth, and destroys your self esteem when you follow your thirst for knowledge, all the while teaching that knowledge is godlike, etc.? What other religion causes its former members to feel the need for support groups? Its power over us is remarkable, and difficult to separate from. I appreciate that someone could face the music with such grace, and give voice to the things that bother so many who have been faithful for so long, only to ultimately conclude we have been misled. Thanks for your courage and example. I hope I can be as well spoken, carefully researched and thought out, and as gracious to my ultimate jurors. I do know where this will end. And it shouldn't be that way. Cathy


i might describe members as Voluntary North Koreans....who obediently self-censor and obey all the unnatural and unjust restrictions imposed by the clergy such as "only listen to the official party line and disregard all other sources of information" If the church truly believes that "truth shall prevail" and "light dispels darkness" - why the paranoia about open discussion and debate? The Apostles used to have public debates in the tabernacle (eg Talmage on Evolution against the clergy). Now the members may not query anything without being branded as 'apostate' for thinking and researching? its disgusting and goes against core values of any decent religion. Then again, we could hardly expect the clergy to thank Martin Luther for telling the truth......DC 121:39 says it all.....the organisation is entirely self-serving and only benefits members to the extent necessary to build the dynasty/empire. Follow the Profits...
Thanks Lyndon - stuff the Thought Police!

The comments to this entry are closed.