Leaving Mormonism

In 2024 I decided to leave the LDS church, after having been born and raised in it. Now that I've finally studied the evidence from both sides, I can see clearly that it isn't the "one true church" as it claims. So I'm now an agnostic. Below I lay out the issues that I feel are most important, along with some related sources, in case it helps any others who decide to do more research into the church.

Some advice on how to evaluate the evidence: don't ask "does this prove that the church is or isn't true?" (The answer is always "no"). Instead, ask (1) "does this increase or decrease the probability that the church is true, and by how much?", (2) "given all the evidence, what is the probability that the church is true? Which aspects of it are probably true/not true?", and (3) "given that probability, how involved with the church do I want to be?" It doesn't have to be black-and-white.

See these posts for more thoughts on beginning an investigation of the church:

  • The story of a former BYU professor who left the church after 20 years of studying the evidence. Many of his posts (published under the pseudonym "Faenrandir") are linked below.
  • The Rationality of Faith. I wrote this several years ago and still agree with it.
  • A response to various types of advice that are given to people who are investigating the church, like "doubt your doubts" and "focus on the good."

The evidence

The bolded headings below are assertions of what I now believe. I include some brief explanation and links to related sources. When relevant I try to respond to the main pro-church arguments I’ve been able to find.

My goal is to provide some initial structure for your own investigation. You can decide which topics are most important (including topics I haven't listed, of course) and drill down as deeply as you feel necessary. If you'd like to read more pro-church sources, check out Mormonr, Mormonism With The Murph, and FAIR. If you're wondering about Christianity in general, I'd also recommend Bart Ehrman.

The Book of Mormon is not ancient

The Pentateuch and other Hebrew scriptures mentioned in the Book of Mormon had not yet been compiled in 597 BC. Deutero and Trito Isaiah, both found in the BoM, had not even been written yet. Even if these scriptures had been available when Lehi was in Jerusalem, they certainly would not have been inscribed on a set of brass plates.

The Book of Mormon describes (and is an artifact of) a highly literate culture, but such a culture didn't yet exist in the New World. Mesoamerica had an early form of literacy but was still primarily oral.

Most LDS scholars argue that the Nephites and Lamanites mixed into (and evidently became the rulers of) much larger existing populations in Mesoamerica. This argument is used to explain various problems such as the lack of Middle Eastern DNA in the pre-Columbian New World and also the BoM population sizes which would otherwise require an impossibly high growth rate. However, the BoM text contradicts a limited geography model, and it makes no mention of these large indegenous populations.

NHM/Nahom is the strongest archaeological "hit" the BoM has been claimed to have, and it isn't actually a hit.

The Book of Mormon text is clearly 19th century

The Book of Mormon is textually dependent on the KJV Bible and is filled with 19th century Protestant theology.

In Joseph Smith's time there was a commonly held belief that the "mounds"/pyramids in the area must have been created by some white race that had been killed off by the remaining dark-skinned Native Americans. There was also a somewhat common belief that the Native Americans were part of the lost tribes of Israel.

The replacement text for the lost 116 pages (1 Nephi-Words of Mormon) contains plenty of evidence that it was fabricated by JS as an escape from having to redo his earlier dictation.

Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon was not a miracle

It is entirely plausible that JS composed the BoM orally, without assistance (divine or otherwise). We likely overestimate the difficulty for JS to dictate the BoM because we're from a highly literate culture, whereas oral composition and storytelling were much more prevalent in JS's culture. JS was intelligent, but not impossibly so.

Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham translation was incorrect

We have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated, and the two have nothing in common. The text also contains various anachronisms, not to mention that Abraham may not have even existed.

The two main apologetic responses are (1) we have only part of the papyri and it's possible that the portion Joseph Smith translated from was lost in the 1871 Chicago fire, (2) "catalyst theory": the papyri simply got JS’s mind on the topic of Abraham, and then God gave him new revelation directly. Neither explanation is satisfactory.

Joseph Smith had a history of deception and coercion

Joseph Smith was hired by Josiah Stowell to lead a treasure digging expedition. The people would dig where Joseph Smith told them to, then Joseph Smith would look into his "seer stone" and explain that the treasure had been moved by a guardian spirit to a different spot. In the official church history, JS makes it sound like Stowell hired him simply for manual labor. He doesn't mention the seer stone.

JS married dozens of women, including teenagers (youngest was 14) and some who already had husbands, sometimes using his status as prophet to pressure them to agree. He deceived Emma and others about his practice of polygamy.

After the Nauvoo Expositor published about JS’s behavior as mayor, JS had the printing press destroyed.

Claims of exclusive authority were retrofitted

The First Vision shows up in the historical record starting in 1832. Joseph Smith claimed that the First Vision occurred in 1820; however, he also said it occurred during a revival—but there was no revival in 1820. The next one wouldn't be until 1824, after JS had already claimed to have been told about the existence of gold plates by an angel. Early members of the church don't appear to have even been aware of the First Vision.

The Melchizedek priesthood was supposedly restored in 1829 before the church was organized, but in fact church records state that "the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time" in a June 1831 conference. This occurred shortly after Sidney Rigdon joined the church. Rigdon was likely familiar already with the concept of a Melchizedek and an Aaronic priesthood as taught by Alexander Crawford.

The First Vision and priesthood restoration accounts were both embellished significantly over time.

In 1831—not long before the Melchizedek priesthood and First Vision were both introduced to the historical record—JS's authority was being challenged by Edward Partridge, Bishop of the Missouri branch of the church. The First Vision and Melchizedek priesthood bolstered JS's authority as leader of the church.

"Spiritual witnesses" are unreliable

There are people from other religions who report having the same kinds of spiritual confirmations that Latter-day Saints do, including those who belong to offshoots of the LDS church.

Miraculous experiences, even if truly divine, don't necessarily support the LDS church

I myself haven't had any experiences that I consider to be miracles, but I've heard stories over the years, sometimes from people I know well and trust. Are these experiences actually divine? I don't know. Maybe. Either way, I now believe that if God exists, he/she/it is probably nondenominational—so whether or not these miracles are really miracles, it doesn't make a significant difference in my evaluation of Mormonism.

There are many religions, and few people feel the need to investigate all of them. For the LDS church to even be worth considering, it needs to have positive evidence—not just explanations for opposing evidence. Especially when so many of those explanations are unfalsifiable (e.g. loan-shifting, loose translation, expansion theory, catalyst theory).

The main types of purported positive evidence I've seen are spiritual witnesses/miracles (unreliable), Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon (not actually a miracle), and a few archaeological parallels. On the second point, watching the John Hamer interview linked above is what finally made me decide that the church probably isn't true. The remaining evidence cements that conclusion.

I personally see little reason to continue regarding the LDS church as inspired by God in any way. However, if you're not so sure, I would at least make this suggestion:

Even if the church is inspired to some degree, perhaps the idea that it is the one true church—that the prophet exclusively holds "priesthood keys" for administering saving ordinances—was another instance of Joseph Smith projecting his own opinion as revelation, similar to how the D&C refers to local Native Americans as "Lamanites" or how JS thought he was actually translating the Book of Abraham from the papyri in his possession. If you apply the "maybe JS was acting as a man instead of a prophet" argument to other areas like polygamy, then it becomes even more applicable to his claims of exclusive authority.

Coming to terms with apostasy

For several years I had a big ol’ wart on the bottom of my foot. Eventually we applied a small amount of nitric acid to it. The wart didn't fall off immediately, but there was a fundamental change below the surface. After a while, the wart was gone.

I remember the first time I allowed myself to really, truly consider the possibility that the church might not actually be true. I didn't immediately leave the church, but something had changed inside of me, fundamentally and permanently. The process of investigation had begun.

Five or six years later, here we are. The journey hasn't been a lot of fun: I had to disentangle the meaning of my life from the teachings of the church and the belief in a resurrection. But I can say that the end result is marvelous. I don't have to live with cognitive dissonance anymore. I can follow my own conscience. My daughters will get to make their own decisions.

If you do eventually decide that the church isn't everything it claims to be, there are several potentially negative aspects of it worth reflecting on. For example:

  • Being active in the church often influences major decisions in many areas of life, such as education, career, marriage, and having kids. If the church isn't true, this influence isn't necessarily a good thing. For example, there are many women who gave up their careers because they were trying to follow prophetic counsel—only to have more recent prophets decide that maybe it's OK for women to work outside the home.

  • The church has never apologized for excluding blacks from the priesthood. They still teach that homosexual people should be celibate. Women are still prohibited from holding the main leadership positions.

  • The church has very little transparency around their finances. They admitted that one of the reasons they hid their investments behind a collection of shell companies was that they were afraid members would pay less tithing if they knew how rich the church already is. Their rationalizations for this illegal behavior are inadequate. From what we do know, the church only spends between 5.5% to 8% of tithing funds on humanitarian aid.

  • The church requires a large portion of members' time, especially for those who go on a mission—which is still considered a duty for male members.

  • And finally: the church is opposed to the enlightenment value of free information and open debate. They persecute scholars. They teach members to be intolerant of those who leave. Some people who leave the church get ostracized from their families and/or divorced.

On the flip side, there are some good things about the church. Most members are fine people. The social structure can be valuable. Fortunately, it's possible to still participate in your local ward/branch without buying into the whole program.

Published 29 Dec 2024

I write an occasional newsletter
about my work and ideas.

RSS feed · Archive

𝔗𝔥𝔦𝔰 𝔰𝔦𝔱𝔢 𝔦𝔰 𝔭𝔯𝔬𝔱𝔢𝔠𝔱𝔢𝔡 𝔟𝔶 𝔯𝔢𝔠𝔞𝔭𝔱𝔠𝔥𝔞 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔊𝔬𝔬𝔤𝔩𝔢 𝔓𝔯𝔦𝔳𝔞𝔠𝔶 𝔓𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔠𝔶 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔗𝔢𝔯𝔪𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔳𝔦𝔠𝔢 𝔞𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔶.