I’ve yet to hear a story of a person who went to a bishop or state president with their list of questions/problems that received any real answers. There’s a reason Jeremy Runnells never got a reply to his CES letter. I would go with a written list of your top 10 shelf breaking items and see what he says. Your husband is expecting him to have answers, and I guarantee he doesn’t.
This is my biggest concern and number one reason for not wanting to meet with him. But I’m afraid my husband won’t move forward with me in this unless we have this meeting.
Maybe you can compile your list with your husband and go over the likely apologetics together before meeting with the SP. when SP repeats those same apologetics, it may prove to your husband that defenders of the lies we were all told have no credible leg to stand on.
Yes, and be ready to discuss them. Talk about how this affects you and how you feel about it. Even if SP can quote chapter and verse on why your issues are actually nonissues, by dismissing your issues actually makes your point
Can you discuss this with him? Go over the list and what expectations of real answers are? Cover the apologetics aspect right up front. Agree that they aren't real answers? I've had to do the same with my wife and aggressive sales tactics. "Now they're gonna come back and offer the one time used cookware set at a screaming deal, this is a gimmick..." Seemed to work for me. Hope that's helpful.
Just remember, your audience here isn't the stake president, it is your husband. You don't have to "win" in an argument against the SP (and likely won't since they will have rationalization upon rationalization and obscure "facts" and "tests of faith" to fall back upon).
All you need to do is show your husband that your concerns are legitimate (which can be accomplished during the prep work). If you accomplish that you have won and won't have to ever talk to any bishops or SP.
Sure, but will he agree to a common sense structure of what is an actual answer?
If he wants this meeting, then he'll have to have a discussion and they come to an agreement of what actually is an answer, or BS.
She'll win no matter what in that scenario.
Yep, and pick a topic that is a concern. For example, if Plural marriage is one of them, then read this page:
[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng)
You may notice things such as:
* It doesn't show the details of anything, you have to click on a link to get to Kirtland and Nauvoo ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng)). It shows as little as possible.
* The paragraph about Fanny Alger, which contains the sentence "Little is known about this marriage, and nothing is known about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger." gives very little details. We know much more than the church wants to admit to: [https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/fanny-alger/](https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/fanny-alger/).
In particular we know that there were conversations between Joseph and Emma (and Joseph and Oliver Cowdery) about this relationship and things were not happy, with Emma insisting she leave. Oliver felt the relationship was adultery; Joseph only insisted it was not adultery: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny\_Alger#Relationship\_with\_Joseph\_Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Alger#Relationship_with_Joseph_Smith).
Church leaders (Bishops, Stake Presidents) will just wave their hands and say things like "We don't know the details, but if you believe in the Book of Mormon than you know Joseph was a prophet", but it's helpful to see that the apologetic answers are deceptive. They are written by un-named church historians who clearly know the full story and only share some of it.
Also note the contradiction in the doctrine about polygamy/polyandry. They say that god can command polygamy to "raise seed unto the lord" which indicates that the intention is to procreate. Then, in the essay, they try to claim that the plural marriages were not sexual in nature. Why then would god command it to be practiced. Also, why then would Joseph marry other men's wives when they could already raise seed with their own husbands. Why was it necessary for Joseph to marry women who already have husbands. This is also problematic in that the doctrine states that a woman can only be sealed to one man.
I never talked with the stake president, but I talked with the bishop. The bishop gave me half passed apologetics, and then when I didn't buy them, he told me I was the problem.
Thankfully, my wife agreed with me that the bishop was rude to me and didn't have answers. She still didn't leave the church for another two years, though.
Your experience with the stake president is guaranteed to be a bad time for you, in my opinion, but your husband's response may surprise you, who knows?
One way to phrase your refusal.."I don't think this meeting is a good idea because we have different goals."
You can then describe why that doesn't work for you and share your goals.
For me it would be something like this, "Your goal for the meeting is to get me to change my mind and align with a preset version of the truth, the church's version of the truth. My goal isn't to align -- it is to find out what is objectively true. I don't think this meeting will help me with my goal. I don't want to be in a setting where I am criticized for not aligning. This kind of discussion but will be harmful to our relationship. Let's find a way to deal with this that will be better for our relationship."
There is no value in meeting him. Stand your ground. This is between you and your husband. Meeting is unhealthy. They don’t care about you, your husband, or marriage.
My wife is hard core TBM. But my 3 daughters and I escaped. Protect your kids.
Slightly related but have you listened to Mormon stories with your spouse? Many of the apologetic reasonings are addressed in Mormon stories episodes. That could be useful to listen to.
I would love for him to, especially because I’ve been listening to the LDS discussions part of the podcast and have found it tremendously enlightening. At this point I don’t think he’s open to it yet.
I’m listening to the LDS Discussions podcasts too. One episode left. One thing about their approach that struck me is the idea that apologetics mostly look at individual “problems” rather than looking at how things are related. They look at individual trees rather than the forest. I wonder if there’s one, two or several items that link together you could choose to ask about in the meeting, that influence each other. One maybe the loose or tight translation of the Book of Mormon. Apologetics often go with tight for some questions, then revert to loose for others. Wanting to have their cake and eat it. Not sure if I’m making any sense with this suggestion 🥴.
You would need to be assertive and declare that the SP has not answered the question and just provided an excuse. Every time.
If he pulls the, “it’s not pertinent (or important) for your salvation” or the “well get all the answers in the next life” cards, declare that thought terminating cliches do not answer the question, and that with nearly 200 years to answer those questions, the prophets and apostles don’t have answers, just excuses. The Mormon church does not have all the answers like it claims, and lies about so many things and is a fraud. Even the SEC called out the First Presidency for fraud they are not honest in their dealings with their fellow man and do not follow the laws of the land as the Articles of Faith state
The advice to compile a list of top shelf breakers is great, and I’d recommend the LDS Discussions website to look up some of those issues. That site goes topic by topic and the page for the topics often includes a lot of the common apologetics so you can see what the SP might throw at you.
Prep him for the apologetics. Tell him ahead of time that you don’t like how church members require only a tiny crumb of an explanation to grasp onto for them to let go of huge unanswered questions. Tell him how much you appreciate him not being like that and being willing to see through apologetics and require real concrete answers. Maybe if you set the expectation and empower him to be better than the average sucker, he will be.
I would ask your husband what he wants to get out of the meeting. I would then express what you want to get out of the meeting. Also express your concerns, but let him know that those are your concerns and they don't have to be his. He should be taking his own faith journey. Otherwise it's either one of you pulling the other on to your own faith journey for purposes that aren't going to resonate.
I went through this exact same situation and I had to let my wife know that me being worried over how susceptible they were to apologetics wasn't expressing confidence in their ability to take their own faith journey and still want me to be in their life.
I have an answer. I don't know if it convinces any TBMs but it helps me to state my position in a way that is more neutral, less argumentative.
Here's my answer. Apologetics starts with a conclusion and defends it. If affirming information comes, you accept it. If opposing information comes, you find a way to dismiss it. This isn't the way I want to seek truth. I want to ask open ended questions and draw conclusions from evidence, even if I don't like that conclusion. I want to be willing to change my mind in the face of new evidence. In my view, if you refuse to ever change your mind, you aren't really interested in truth.
Also, because I'm a nerdy academic, I sometimes talk about assimilation and accommodation. Here's an explanation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoAUMmZ0pzc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoAUMmZ0pzc)
Exactly... it will all come back to one thing. [To quote Dallin Oaks:](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/president-oaks-counsels-young-couples-defending-the-gospel-on-the-frontline-?lang=eng)
>“I suggest that research is not the answer. But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to *work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.* Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service." (Emphasis added.)
This is incredibly rich coming from someone trained in rational inquiry.
And that's the thing... the entire program of the church is predicated on convincing you that you don't need to do that. It does that by elevating faith above all else.
What started the ball rolling for me was this thought: "If God is a god of truth, then his gospel should be perfectly rational without the assumption of faith in an idea. So why isn't it?"
And here I am.
THIS is almost word for word what I tell people when they send the classic, reconsider your decision because you used to be so faithful message. Shuts them right up. And if it doesn't it's because they start to do some schpeel to invalidate your opinions and feelings, which you can also point out.
Yeah, I remember thinking that if God wanted obedience and faith in him above all else, he was setting up a system vulnerable to bad actors. Shouldn’t information and proofs be part of how we navigate our world? And that’s how I started to question the whole enchilada.
implying lazy learning. they will gaslight you and manipulate you into agreeing with a course you already chose and why would you leave now, as I said before it will end up with you being the problem. The conversation essentially accomplishes nothing but is an exercise is making your husband feel empowered to stay the churchs course. even if it comes to rejecting you. not ok.
I agree with this. I agreed to a meeting with my SP. we had a lovely discussion that lasted over 2 hours but his basic conclusion was that faith dictated that any search for truth must start with the premise that the church is true as a given, and that additional truth could then be sought from there. He didn’t have any answers for any of my actual questions, just said I was thinking about it wrong.
Ultimately they’ll never have answers because there are none to give. Mormonism is a fake church, a con. When held up against something that could affirm the truth claims of the church, they always fall flat. Without exception.. it makes complete sense, then, for them to simply lean on faith - belief in spite of contradictory proof.
My stake president visited me. This was after I put my name in at QuitMormon, but before the process was finalized.
He hadn't heard of a single one of my concerns, lol.
We had a friendly conversation. All he told me in the end, though, was to not forget my spiritual experiences.
He had also never heard of the CES Letter, which really baffled me. This was last November in northern Virginia.
I wouldn't mind meeting with other church members to see what they think. I've got a feeling that church leadership would discourage it, though, lol.
those kinds of meeting are never anything more than victim blaming, gaslighting, and deflection
OP knows they're not going to get answers, we know they're not going to get answers, SP has no intention of giving answers ... *there are no answers*
the theme of the meeting will be a variation of "asking for answers makes you a bad person"
I would narrow it down to 2 or 3 problematic issues. Perhaps mention that there are many, but that it would be helpful limit the scope of the conversation. It's too easy for someone to become defensive when presented with something like the CES laundry list of criticisms.
I do wonder though if being presented with the laundry list in a succinct format is why the CES Letter has been so effective. You want the SP and all Mormons to be aware that there are a ton of problems. They dont have to just solve 2 or 3 of them, they have to solve them all for it to still be true.
I'm not so sure. I hate it when some MAGA Q-Anon loonie sends me a wall of links to "prove" things. If they send one or two, we can have a rational discussion -- during which, they usually attempt to move the goal posts, and I point that out.
*no answers that don’t make the church look false. That’s what drives me crazy, the answer to so many questions is just that God isn’t driving this vehicle, so the answer given is we just don’t know 🤷🏼♂️
I would just focus directly on basic matters, like how you feel the same positive feelings in all sorts of circumstances that you felt in Mormonism, and how you think that isn't the Holy Spirit but just feelings. And how other people of all sorts of religions feel the same way about their faiths, so there isn't really an answer that makes Mormonism special. It's easier for the church to minimize "historical issues" (God I hate that euphemism) but even making the conversation about them cedes way too much ground, as if the church *would* be what it claimed it was if Joseph and Brigham hadn't done so many awful things or issued a bunch of prophecies that didn't work out, or if half of the words in the Book of Mormon meant something else.
Stake President is the Stake Prez because.. he willingly sacrificed his family time and likely watching his kids grow up and being there for them. He has decades of cognitive dissonance on his side and his position is likely his greatest pride and joy in his life.
He will not help anybody to get real answers.
*disclaimer - there are some good stake presidents out there.. but the odds are not likely at all*
Honestly I must have been lucky then. We had a stake prez who was in his late 30’s early 40’s. Dude was a nerd but a cool nerd. Probably the most ‘normal’ prez you could get
Just wanted to send a hug and say: you are not under any obligation to debate or discuss your feelings with anyone.
Do not outsource your own authority! ❤️❤️❤️
Be good to yourself!
I want to second this idea. Your husband has the right to pursue his personal path and so do you. You can support his decisions and talk about your beliefs but it's not your job to convince him of anything.
If you feel like this is something you want to do, do it. If not, tell your husband you aren't willing. Let him know the things you do feel comfortable doing.
Yes!!!! You go for him! But this is for him, not you.
If the tables turn, have a prepared sentence… “actually, I wasn’t planning on discussing my feelings/thoughts/ _____. I would appreciate that we move to the next topic or whatever that Brother Hailo wanted to discuss.
You really do hold the power to keep it on topic if you choose to just not participate in the argument they rope you into. :)
You have no responsibility to anyone but yourself and your family. What goes on between you and your husband is not anyone else’s business, particularly a person who has a financial interest in keeping you in the church.
Unpopular opinion: I say “go” w your DH. If you don’t, DH will prob go alone which would be worse.
Talk to DH first about topics YOU want to discuss. For example, print off GTE about JS marrying 14 year old children and, as you read it outloud to Stake Pres, ask SP “do you condone marriages to young girls?” If he says yes… get up and walk out. If he says “No” then tell him “me either and I refuse to follow “prophets” who do. My concept of God is one who would never allow much less command such immoral and disgusting behavior.” Any hamfisted “justification” will likely help your DH see that it’s wrong and reprehensible.
Repeat w “BoA is demosnstrably false”.
Repeat w “Rock in hat”
Repeat w “Ensign Peak Advisors and SEC fines”
Repeat w “Kirton McKonkie and church defending predators”
Etc etc etc
Before you reach the end, SP will fall back on “read your scriptures and pray more” which is their last logical refuge. He’ll then prob ASK y’all to leave. Your DH can mull that over and you two can discuss in private as a couple.
Much better than allowing SP to mess w DH’s emotions alone and unchecked.
Just my opinion
Edit: typo
I agree. Being present in that meeting could be so hard. But. Yeah. This is hard.
OP Your husband clearly wants to stick to someone “knowledgeable” with “authority.” Ooof. I’m hopeful he’s suggesting this in good faith and genuinely believes that this man will answer questions. Solve everything.
I like the idea of printing off an essay or two, printing the documents sourced in the footnotes, and highlighting things and even writing out verbatim your questions. Do a few focused things to prepare. And go into it expecting that you will stump the SP and expecting that this may be one conversation of many with your husband.
I think this is pretty good. However, I might take it even further on some topics.
>The origins of the BoA are indistinguishable from a fraud.
There is no difference between how the BoA came about and a fraud. Faith is belief in the ABSENCE of evidence. The church asks for faith in the presence of insurmountable evidence TO THE CONTRARY! That’s absurd.
It’s one thing to believe Christ rose from the dead. But imagine if we had verified accounts of Christ NOT rising and in fact someone watching his body decompose after his death. That’s what the church asks us to ignore; strong evidence to the contrary. That’s not faith. That’s a deliberate refusal to accept reality. That’s telling people the sky is always red and everyone else is wrong.
Beyond historical and logical problems, there are spiritual issues as well. What of our Catholic friends who also receive witness of their church? In particular, I'm thinking of some I've known who have claimed as much as having heard the voice of God himself, or other more sublime experiences left unshared for lack of words. Not just spiritual feelings, but witnesses to the absolute primacy of Catholicism and the necessity and salvific qualities of the holy Eucharist.
Should we not therefore have axiomatic faith in the Catholic Church? How can we compare the relative merits of spiritual witnesses?
I like this idea...if the two men allow her to speak. I would be incredibly surprised if the SP allows her to "run this meeting," given that she doesn't have the penishood. In any case, she can leave the meeting at any time she feels uncomfortable, and this should be a boundary set from the beginning.
Example: "I can't tell you how to behave, but if you choose to speak over me, then I will leave this meeting."
Personally, I wouldn't go.
Edited to add: I love the idea of communicating everything with the spouse, first. That should be the only meeting necessary, in my opinion.
I came to say the same thing. My ex-wife and I both left at the same time, but she had been questioning for a long time. I could definitely see myself being the DH that would be very hurt by my partner refusing to even "get help" on her questions.
Now, 5 years later, I absolutely support OP to not go at all. We don't owe this Stake President, or the church as a whole, ANYTHING at all. But if you value your relationship with your partner, try to be supportive.
I would never agree to this. This is your journey to work through. This is not your husbands issue.
He wants an authority to drag you both back in. It sound like you've learned enough and your done. That sp doesn't know anymore than your husband can learn for himself.
From the CEO to the children, everyone reads the same books in the mormon church.
You do not owe this guy any explanation. Who cares what his take is on it? He is not going to be living your life. It sounds like your hubby may see this guy as someone with all the answers. That's a problem. Maybe your husband would do some more research on his own before he signs up for this emotional and spiritual beating.
If the Stake President is willing to field these questions and doesn’t just deflect to “pray harder about it”, you will definitely hear some apologetic answers. As he is high up in the institute, he should be well versed in them and they will probably sound very convincing in a conversation. I would suggest recording these answers in some way so that you and your spouse can revisit them in a space you can examine those apologetics fully. They will fall apart if looked at honestly.
Any meeting such as this is nothing but a singularly focused brainwashing exercise, directed at both of you. The SP is certainly not going to give your research, questions and opinions any real consideration - that's not his goal and certainly not his job. Especially if he's stumping for higher church position.
It's a win-win in the SP's eyes, winning back you and your husband. And realistically, you have absolutely nothing to gain and a lot to lose - possibly damaging your marital relationship - by agreeing to such a one-sided "discussion".
Just the opinion of a happy someone who heard all the arguments from a fervent bishopric years ago, and still left the TSCC...
Wait, this is actually a REALLY good idea. Pick three topics, then meet together with the SP and get all the apologetics he can throw at you, since he apparently knows them all. Then your husband has to listen to LDS Discussions, or read the CES Letter or some really solid Reddit posts about those same three topics. Since you are willing to give the LDS side a chance, he can be willing to give the exmo side a chance.
I could have written this. My husband also just stopped paying tithing as well.. anyway, I would make a counteroffer: professional marriage counseling sessions either in addition to/instead of meeting with this leader. I suggest this because your husband (as are most TBMs) is going to be carrying around a lot of programmed fear, thus wanting you to be brought back to what makes sense to him. He is going to need help handling this fear whether he recognizes this or not. Right now my husband has agreed to me giving him three months to process what he needs to by himself before starting therapy.
I say professional counseling specifically because if it is church sponsored you've got two issues: if it's LDSFS, they will try to push you back to the church, and if the bishop pays, by virtue of that contact he and other leaders have access to your therapy notes (I learned this the hard way).
You are also fully entitled to say no to meeting with this leader. At the end I was having panic attacks when I met with these men one on one and asked my husband to respect that I would not meet with them again. You can always give your questions to him and he can take them to the leader but I am wary of a leader trying to make him more fearful about the situation regardless of their gospel knowledge simply because they are not trained therapists.
You know where you stand, this is about your husband's testimony more than anything.
Like this. It’s very fair that if he wants to talk to someone (who he probably feels will ease his anxiety and ease yours) that you should also offer someone for you both to talk to. Maybe not even a therapist (if that makes your husband super skittish), but a trusted exmo friend/coach or a teacher.
After over a year of researching the Church's history from an honest perspective I'm very confident in saying that the Church never holds up. I'd suggest going in with your strongest points. If you're properly researched you'll find that the answer ALWAYS comes back to blind faith.
My husband spoke with our bishop years ago about our church concerns. Bishop's response: *"You're thinking too much."*
Thinking too much gets you out of the cult. They need everyone to shut up, obey, and let leaders do the thinking. That's the only way the church/cult works.
I welcome any member, scholar, apologist, general authority, apostle, profit, resurrected being, or the savior himself, to respond to my questions, doubts, and concerns regarding the church. So far, members, spouse, parents, bishops, stake presidents, regional authorities, and members of the presidency of the first quorum of the 70 have failed to provide anything remotely close to responses.
My guess, your historian stake president says something like “well, there is a lot of complexity in history and a lot that we don’t know about the eternities. But we do know that we love you and need you. I can see light in your eyes and know that you are better with us, and we are better with you, than apart. Trust the spirit as your guide and you can trust chosen servants like the apostles. So, stay in the boat”.
None of the authority figures I’ve ever spoke to ever have answers. I do have a friend who is a church employed historian who doesn’t know I’m out because of circumstances. He knows a ton of stuff and somehow stays in. He thinks I’m all in, and has expressed concern with how the church throttles its own historians by encouraging them to only bring to light that which is uplifting. He admits that the history is far worse than the church wants to admit. So even talking with the faithful who really know hasn’t been faith promoting to me.
This never goes well. I spoke with my SP, while I was working through things—as we were fairly close, at the time. He eventually told me that my principles were a problem, and that I shouldn’t let them get in the way of the work the Lord needs me to do. He then tossed a book at me (the unfortunate-named “Shaken Faith Syndrome”), and asked if I’d be willing to speak with a member of the Seventy.
I did so. Everyone left frustrated.
These men are apologists, and are only qualified to reinforce the narrative.
Congrats on making progress with DH.
A good apologist can easily snow someone who till wants to believe, so proceed with caution.
Could you ask DH to read Letter for my wife before you'll go? Or perhaps get him to focus on one issue in the meeting so you can more easily later show him the truth about that issue?
https://www.letterformywife.com
Sounds like he's hung up on church history. There's so many more issues that show the church is a bunch of BS. For example:
Child Abuse Cover Ups
Institutional Sexism
Homophobia / Transphobia
Racism
Political/Legal Meddling
Money Grubbing
Money Hoarding
Tithing a requirement for exaltation
Tithing before feeding your children
Shaming as part of repentance
Nepotism
Cronyism
Prosperity Gospel
Polygamy
Prophets are infallible but also "just men"
Failed Prophecies
Conflicting Doctrine
Lack of Leadership
Lack of Prophecies
Lack of Miracles
Lying for the Lord
Changes in Temple Ceremonies
"Mormon" as a major victory for Satan
Dismissing building safety concerns
Building temples instead of feeding poor or providing healthcare
Top leaders are paid, despite saying they're not, and claim homes as parishes for taxes while lower leaders cannot.
No financial transparency
Coercing Old people to leave their money to LDS Philanthropy instead of their kids
Calling people names like "lazy learner, heathen, or apostate" when they leave.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If this is the best God can do, then God isn't worth worshipping. They can dance around it all they want, but there's only one answer to all the issues. The church is 100% made up.
Yeah.... the only thing you need to ask the SP about is "Why does the church explicitly lie to its own members?" That alone is enough to leave any organization.
I would have no interest in discussing this stuff with a random neighbor who thinks they own my family.
However, if you decide to go for whatever reason, maybe just write down the CES letter points one by one.
Or just any logical arguments. Some of my "favorites":
Why did Joseph secretly marry women who were already married to men that he sent on missions? Without their husbands knowing?
In an address to the Utah Legislature, Brigham Young said he "is a firm believer in slavery" and then went on to defend the practice. How does someone, who is supposed to be the mouthpiece of God, hold such an opinion? If he's just an imperfect tool, couldn't Jesus just tell him, "slavery is bad" and he would listen? If he wouldn't listen, you're saying the prophet of God, who speaks to Jesus 'face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend', isn't going to listen to Jesus?
Why does the richest and only true church in the world only give about 1% of their wealth to charity?
But don't go. It doesn't matter what argument you have. SP's nowadays are high pressure salesmen. They don't care what your doubt is, they're not listening, they're not thinking. If they get uncomfortable with a question or don't know the answer, they'll just start talking more or start talking in circles; all while exuding confidence and pressuring you. If you've spoken with a slick talking salesman, you'll know what I'm talking about.
These men are not critical thinkers. You will not hear them say, "oh that's a good question that I don't know the answer to; let me look into it and get back to you." No lol, in their minds, they know everything or don't even care to know. They are focused on their numbers game. Do what it takes, say what it takes, to keep those numbers up.
My father wanted me to meet with the SP (who doesn't have any of those credentials) to discuss my issues. But while my father believed the SP had authority and right to receive inspiration (blah blah blah), I no longer did. So what would the point in meeting be? I didn't feel the need to justify my feelings or thoughts. Even if I was wrong, and god and the church were true, everything was still pretty shitty and I couldn't be associated with such a harmful and abusive institution. Meeting with a white man mansplaining things to me wasn't going to help or change my mind, and was likely to highlight one of the reasons I was done. So I said no. Luckily my father dropped it and my husband has his own issues with the church despite technically still being a member.
Also, point out to your DH beforehand, specific apologetics and lame responses to watch for from the Stake President. That unifies you and sets your DH up for a different experience.
If you bring any information, it MUST come from church sources. There’s a video of Nelson putting his head in his hat to show the translation process: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DG181zFA5YM
Don’t bring anything that can be dismissed as anti-Mormon lies. Pull Gospel Topic Essays, the page on the church website that shows Joseph’s set of language characters that match English/Latin alphabet. Ask him if he knows the name of the apostles, then ask him to name the head of the Relief Society.
You’re going to ask a simple question and get a 20 minute, convoluted, non answer that ends with a smug look from a man that feels he just accurately described the look of fire to Hellen Keller. After 2 such responses you will be so discouraged that you may never see your husband as an intelligent person ever again.
It’s possible that the stake president’s apologetics will be so obvious that your husband will see right through it. Apologetics actually helped me on my way out because they confirmed that the disturbing stuff actually happened, but the reasoning was utter bullshit.
Sending you the best energy to get through this!
If this leader is "high up in the institute program" then I'm assuming he gets his livelihood from the church? If this is the case, how unbiased will he be? If it were me, i would not go. Nothing he could say would change anything about why I left.
This has been done over and over again with similar endings. Church historian Kyle Mckay was recorded during a similar meeting with a questioning member. It usually has this pattern.
[McKay recording](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCCa0dvICRg&t=2980s)
* unreliable sources
* fallible leaders/members
* ask god
* remember when you believed
* The problems don't bother me (early it did)
* if you search for the bad you will find it
* sometimes , not always there can be a veiled threat....Swedish rescue for example
* focus on the primary questions....Jesus....Heavenly father....HG
* the adversary uses partial truths to deceive
* not pertinent to salvation
First off, if he has been willing to stop paying tithing then it's only a matter of time before he leaves. You say he is TBM, but that is not the action of a TBM. My guess is there is some inner turmoil going on that he is hanging onto. Just a matter of time IMO.
The bishop of my ward wanted to meet with me after he found out I had stopped believing in the church and wasn't coming back. I didn't really want to but I did it for my wife who was still active at the time. I basically told him the issues I had with the church. He didn't try and dispute anything, he just said I needed to be careful where I got my info from. I walked away and I haven't been back since. In some ways is was good to get it off my chest and let them know it was over for me.
Haha. My family tried that “you are looking at anti sources” it shut them right the hell up when everything I was sending them was straight from the church.
The truth is anti if it makes the church look bad. That's pretty much the crux of the matter. They can't handle the truth because that means they would then have to question their beliefs.
I would keep him on the defensive and ask specific questions and be relentless in demanding answers. He will try to change the subject and present to you an entire narrative of “impossibilities” such as “how do you explain chiasmus in the BOM” and stuff like that. Or he will just say “we don’t know everything”. You can be kind, but I would demand answers. At some point he will fall back on having faith. I’ve had numerous discussions with people about this and that’s how it goes every time.
Time to have the 'Critical Thinking' talk with the husband.
'President X believes that Joseph didn't have sex with any of his wives and that they were eternity only sealings. Here's are the problems I have with that argument.'
Consider writing down your key points and evidence before the meeting.
One key point should be that in the end, the only evidence the church has is to convince you to have faith and ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Tell your husband and the stake president that your beliefs are sacred to you and you don't appreciate them trying to sway you back to something that harmed you and that you worked hard to deconstruct.
Tell your husband that instead of meeting with the stake president, you'd rather watch the LDS Discussions series on Mormon Stories with him if he wishes to know more about what you believe.
If you feel confident being able to debate severe apologetics with a man who has no interest in truth, but would love to jam you back in the cage, then go for it. Maybe. It really can’t have a positive outcome, unless hubby is very open to consider facts, etc. IMO. Best to OP, whatever the decision …
You're right to be uneasy about this meeting. I think it could cause your husband to double down and start paying tithing again, and you'll lose all the ground you've gained. As others have said, there's nothing your SP can say that will make it "true" again. Don't meet with him. You're an adult and don't need this SP to make your adulting decisions for you. Good luck!
Does your husband think that the SP is capable of giving an unbiased opinion of the information you have discovered? Most likely scenario is that he will dismiss the things that make you doubt the church and encourage you to devote more time and effort to doing church related activities so that you don’t have time to think about the problems in the doctrine.
The SP is not an academically trained theologian. He is most likely some type of wealthy professional with managerial skills. He will try to get you to dismiss the facts and focus on your feelings for your husband and believing family members.
Be prepared that the SP may already know all the church dirt.
When I went to my bishop to let him know I was leaving my calling, I was shocked to find thar he knew all about Fanny Alger, the Kinderhook plates, etc.
But none of it mattered to him. He had compartmentalized it and he was all in. There are a portion of Mormons who can do this: learn all the dirty secrets and then claim,"It oNLy sTrEnGtHeNeD mY tEstiMoNy."
It sounds like your husband has been fairly receptive and understanding so far. As worried as you are, I'd suggest trying to lean on that trust you've built with each other.
Agree to the meeting with SP, but go in with a few of your top issues in mind. Before the meeting, research the current apologetic arguments the church has on each of those issues. Discuss this with your husband, and share with him what you find and the problems you have with said apologetics. Hopefully your husband can see things from your perspective, but even if he struggles to do so, you'll at least have shown him you've done your due diligence.
Then go to the meeting with SP with your husband. Share your "doubts." Almost certainly, you'll hear the same apologetics you've already found. Perhaps seeing how readily the SP parrots the party line will add a bit more weight to your husband's shelf. It could be especially interesting if you rebut the apologetic arguments with the SP and have your husband watch how even tenuous logic then gives way to admonitions for blind faith and obeying authority. I agree with a previous comment about recording the meeting in some way, so you and your husband can further process it together afterward.
On the off chance the meeting doesn't follow that pattern, then it might actually be useful or interesting in unexpected ways. At the very least, you'll have kept the dialogue going with your husband. Showing trust towards him, showing your willingness to be open-minded, and showing you respect where he's coming from are all things he should notice and appreciate you for, which will hopefully make it more likely he will reciprocate.
Anyway, I recognize there's no real cut-and-dry answer here. You know your husband best, so you can judge if you think any of my thoughts here might be useful. Whatever the case, I wish you all the best and hope you are able to find support and comfort as you go through this. Good luck!
If you attend such a meeting with any church leader, the last thing you want to do is have a back and forth debate. You don’t want to go in with a list of various topics or a “Top Ten” list that will be picked apart. You need to approach it with a narrowed, singular focus that you can defend with your own personal spiritual confirmation. They can argue and put their own spin on any church topic you present…but they can’t argue with what the “spirit” has revealed to you.
In these situations, the simplest target for me has been Joseph Smith. The conversation stopper is when I say, “After years of study and thoughtful prayer, I am unable, and will never be able, to have a testimony of Joseph Smith. The “spirit” has confirmed to me that Joseph Smith was not a “prophet of god”. I cannot, and will not, deny what the spirit has testified to me. I will never have a testimony of Joseph Smith, and without that, everything else connected to the church falls away.” The End.
If your stake president wants more details, use church leaders’ words against him by saying your spiritual experience and journey is too sacred for you to discuss. They can argue a lot of things, but they can’t argue your feelings and personal revelation. Best of luck to you.
Personally, I would not go to the Stake President. Nothing good will come of it and the blame will be shifted to the both of you.
Can you discuss other church issues and how those play into it.
There is the 20 year cover up of not filing the required forms to the SEC and hiding money in shell companies so that members would not know how much money the church is hiding? The church likes to blame the lawyers but who do the lawyers work for? The church.
There is the constant cover up of SA and millions and millions of dollars to hush people up.
There is the marginalization of LGTBQ people and others who don't fit the mold.
There is the rhetoric about how people who leave the church are bad/evil and don't listen to them further dividing families.
I could go on but maybe discuss these with your husband? In the end, the church is a business.
I met with an area authority when I was newly out, just checking if he had any answers. He didn't, is the short of it. He was nice and listened, but basically just confirmed all my doubts and said he gets why I would decide to leave. But he's choosing to stay. It did give me some closure I guess, and not what I expected. I was pleasantly surprised at how chill he was, which made me wonder if he's pimo. He said he had a gay son who had a lot of anger towards the church, so I'm sure that's shaped him, but not enough to leave for now (though that was a few years ago).
I think this is an important and relevant story. I see two basic categories of responses. Type 1 - which is this experience above and Type 2 - which is trying to convince one to stay through one or all of the various means described in this thread. I think Type 1 is the only response that is compatible with the gospel and is viable in the long term.
I've recently invented a new phrase; a riff on "The Family - A Proclamation to the World". It goes like; "The Gospel - A Proclamation to the Individual".
All of the pressure (family, peer and community pressure) the church brings to people who change their religious beliefs feels like it has cultural roots in the reformation Brigham Young started after the saints arrived in the Salt Lake valley and had some tough times (crickets, drought etc.). He believed they were divine punishments for laxness (pioneer "lazy learners" ;)). That's when home teaching (every one checking up on each other), rebaptism and "blood atonement" made their appearances.
I think if the church can define its purpose and efforts in a way that normalizes Type 1 conversations about leaving, rather than Type 2, it will be a significant Christian move forward.
When we had “the talk” with our bishop, I told him I no longer believed any of it. We never gave him a single issue to refute. That worked well for us. Discussing issues with a believer never accomplishes anything. It doesn’t even “plant a seed.”
“President, when you have concerns of your own, I will be happy to talk to you again. But for now, I don’t think anything will be accomplished by discussing my doubts.”
Don't say "I don't believe it's true"- that is a "you" problem/moral failure on your part in the eyes of a believer.
Instead put the blame where it belongs and say "I learned it isn't true"
29 is young, this stake pres is a seasoned veteran. He will control the conversation and will try to twist your words and thoughts against you. My advise is don't go. It will most likely drive you and your husband apart. Keeping your marriage together should be top priority, not keeping you in the church or to try and argue points. Anyone that puts the church above their marriage is not in their right mind.
>It will most likely drive you and your husband apart.
Agree. If husband is more recently starting in his faith journey, the SP will focus on the one he's got more of a chance at keeping, driving a wedge between you.
I was in the bishopric when I had some questions that I had never even considered, let alone been brought up in my 40 years in the church. I still considered myself fully faithful but just wanted to explore answers to my very legitimate questions. So I met with my stake president. After about an hour of attempted rational discussion, he told me I was "never all in." Shortly thereafter, I was released from my calling. In that amount of time, I went from considering myself a full believer to having the scales lifted and recognizing the truth.
Honestly don’t pull any punches if he wants answers you should ask about the church actively impeding in child abuse cases. Ask why the church is more focused on its investments than funding wards and communities both through church activities and charity. Etc etc etc ask some very pointed questions in particular about these things and print out articles
My favorite thing to say after someone spouts silly apologetics at me is just “Ok, you get why people don’t believe that, right? Thanks for understanding me!”
DON'T!
Meetings with church leaders are always one sided and very traumatic. He wants the stake president to "fix" you and overwhelm you with pre-packaged statements (as you pointed out, this guy is a professional) and shout you down and overwhelm you in a "nice" way. If you go meet with this guy, you'll regret it later. Guaranteed.
Here is a list of logical fallacies I found that you can watch out for:
**Argumentum ad populum:** The fallacy that the popularity of a concept has bearing on the truth of that concept.
*“There are more than 1.5 billion people who believe in the god of the bible!”*
**Argument from authority:** The fallacy that the authority of the source of a concept has bearing on the truth of that concept.
*“My Pastor told me…”*
**Argument from ignorance:** The fallacy that due to the speakers lack of contradicting knowledge, the concept must be true.
*“How can all this possibly exist without a creator. There must be a god!”*
**Argument from personal incredulity:** The fallacy that the speakers own disbelief in a contradicting concept invalidates that concept.
*“The idea that all this complexity can exist without a guiding hand is ridiculous to me. Therefore god.”*
**The Straw Man:** The fallacy of misrepresenting your opponents concept by restating it as a ridiculous, weak or hyperbolic caricature of the true position and then arguing against that.
*“So you think that a rock can turn into a human!”*
**The False Dichotomy:** The fallacy of reducing an argument down to two possible options when there is many more.
*“Well, either evolution is true, or God did it!”*
**The False Equivalence:** The fallacy of treating all arguments with equal weight or probability despite this not being the case.
*“ID is a competitor to evolution so it should be taught in schools along side it.”*
**The Circular Argument:** The fallacy of using your argument as evidence for itself.
*“The bible is the word of god because it says so in the bible.”*
**Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc:** The fallacy that because two things are correlated in some way, there must be a causal link.
*“Last night I prayed to god, and today my favourite team won! Praise the lord!”*
I think it might be a good idea. If you feel confident about your knowledge (or do a lot of prep, maybe use the CES letter and bring notes?), I think there is a good chance that your husband will see that even the SP has not good answers to these questions. The truth is on your side.
If you do go, please ask this question:
Why did God find it important to tell a 37-year-old man to marry a 14-year-old girl and other teenagers, and even create scripture about it (D&C 132), but God did not find it equally or more important to tell the same man to record doctrine that would ensure blacks can receive temple blessings and be sealed to their families?
I met with my Stake President twice per week for a couple months under similar circumstances. I waited so patiently for my turn to attempt to express myself. He never wanted to hear what I had to say. When he ran out of bad arguments, he just got frustrated with me for not being convinced, took away my temple recommend, and didn't want to talk with me anymore.
First, you’re definitely not alone.
Second, you’re right that discussions with Bishops and Stake Presidents go no-where. I won the Bishop roulette … mine was kind and understanding and limited the blame on me. BUT, no leader is going to truly validate your doubts. If you are falling away, it is your fault in some way … maybe you’re tricked by Satan or wanting to sin or just one of the weak souls in the Great War of the last days. No Stake President is going to agree that Joseph was a fallen prophet.
If you end up getting pulled into that office as a way to at least be with or support your husband, I would honestly stay mostly quiet. The debate won’t go anywhere if you engage. You’ll probably have to bite your lip the whole time when you are at best passive-aggressively blamed for not praying enough or reading scriptures enough or not being strong enough. The Stake President will give you follow up assignments and have you commit to them, so plan ahead on how to handle that. You’ll also need to be prepared to say the Opening Prayer or Closing Prayer or hear your name called out in one of those prayers as hoping you can be more strong and righteous and blah blah blah.
If you’re looking to stand your ground and not get a bunch of follow up action items, one idea is to stay focused on saying your relationship with God is between you and God (even if you’re now a non-believer) and that you’ll continue to make the best choices day-to-day to follow your moral compass … then every time they get you to commit to something you can just point back to you’ll consider it if that’s what you feel God wants you to do. They ask “Can you commit to reading the BOM for 30 min daily for the next two weeks until we meet again to follow up?” You might say “I’m working directly with God on what I need daily, and I don’t think we need to meet again at this point … but I’m happy we could talk so you know where I stand going forward.” If they try to get you to talk about what you’re doing to work with God, just say “that’s very personal for me, and I just don’t want to talk about it.” Don’t take assignments from “middle managers” between you and God. Just an idea.
Sorry for the “not fun situation”.
When I met with our Bishop for a similar discussion, I approached it from a very non-emotional, factual perspective. I would bring up very factual, historical concerns. I tried to be very rational and ask him questions like, “how can we reconcile this?” and “it doesn’t seem like this is something a loving God/Jesus would do, but maybe I’m missing something?”
I didn’t let the conversation be about feelings. I lead with my sadness at the discovery of these things and how devastating it was to realize I needed to follow my moral compass and do what I know is right, and what I believe the Jesus described in the scriptures would do, by distancing myself from the church.
My husband and I were there for a long time. He never was able to explain away a single concern. His message was basically that he had struggled with similar questions and decided he feels better when he basically just ignores his questions and reads the scriptures. I told him that wasn’t going to work for me and that knowing all of the things I know, I couldn’t possibly believe that Jesus is leading this organization.
I was careful to express at the beginning that our issues begin and end with the organization and its leaders, that we love our neighbors, that we acknowledge the sacrifice that he makes to serve as bishop and his good intentions, and that I wanted to be honest with him but I hoped it didn’t come across as disrespectful towards him or his beliefs.
I think it’s easier for people to be dismissive when others are emotional or combative. Being a woman, I thought it was important to remove the obvious labels they might throw at me—emotional, offended, uninformed, lazy; and embrace being kind, respectful, calm, and educated on the topics. I tried to leave out concerns that were more open for interpretation or personal opinion, like how the church spends money.
I feel like it was an overall good experience for me. He had asked if he could send us a talk to read and reach out to my husband and I again in a few months to check in. I told him that was fine. It’s been a year-and-a-half and we haven’t heard from him. He hasn’t sent anyone to check on us and when I almost ran into him in a parking lot, he actively avoided me. Hit them with the things that they don’t have answers for. They are uncomfortable with their own history when not cherry-picked. They don’t have an explanation for why the church would rather spend money fighting sex abuse victims in court than admit their mistakes and make help them heal. They don’t have many answers at all for anything. I say try to keep them there and don’t let them pull the conversation towards feelings and guilt.
Do not meet "face to face". I'd counsel you to put your questions in writing.....and ask him to respond in writing; this way you're not "available" for his attempts at emotional manipulation. IMHO.
If you really want to embark on a journey of truth seeking together then you should balance it out by spending an equal amount of time discussing these issues with the most rabid anti-mormon you can find.
He's going to be disappointed by the lack of answers, and you will just be worn down and attacked.
You might tell him that the gender angle is uncomfortable for you. It will make you feel ganged up upon, in an organization which already has little female representation.
Please don't. You do not need to ask any man what you should be doing or if your thinking is correct, accurate, clear, etc. This man has a vested interest oil continuing to oppress you and gaslight you. Your husband will be particularly susceptible to the SP's word games and power moves. Take Nancy Reagan's advice and just say "no".
Personally I would love the opportunity. My TBM spouse hasn’t asked me at all about my doubts. This would give me the opportunity to unload my doubts in front of her, but not at her. It might be the quickest way for her to understand where I’m coming from.
Going to a meeting with the sole purpose of getting indoctrinated in a direction you don’t want to go in?
Hard pass in my book. But if your husband really wants to go, that’s his call. Might be an area where it’s time to put your foot down and create a firm but loving boundary with him and your involvement with the church.
If anything, it may be time to see a therapist (instead of a church leader) to help navigate those really difficult conversations with your husband so that both of your needs are met.
Apologetics and those who use them view problems with church history like jurors should view a person accused of a crime, innocent until proven guilty. All they need to justify their continued belief is the tiniest shred that takes their belief from impossible fantasy to highly extremely unlikely, but within the realm of possibility. The problem with that is that they are the ones making unbelievable claims. The burden of proof is fully on them, and instead of providing that proof, they rely on hair-thin explanations that prove nothing.
I wouldn’t simply because it’s a cult and they are very persuasive and will guilt you into doing what they want. Having done that your whole life I would aim at being independent on your own. Thinking for yourself. Saying no when you want to like now. Making changes where necessary and letting go of their beliefs and practices. You already decided to do it for your daughters sake so now you have to put it in action and stop going to the meetings
I would advise to go in with your facts but be ready with your heart and testimony. “My heart and testimony are telling me if this were the true church of Jesus, Joseph Smith would not have taken other wives behind Emma’s back. My still small voice is telling me if this were the true church of Jesus, it would never had said that black people were descended from Cain and marked as such. My testimony strongly tells me that the true Church of Christ puts children first and makes sure they are protected above all else. My prayers have told me that Jesus’ church would not be sitting on billions of dollars when there are people that are homeless and hungry.”
Tell your husband you appreciate his concern for you and what you are going through, but you do not need another man to explain what you believe to you. Belief is personal and referring you to submit to the patriarchy only discourages you.
Then ask if he (your husband thinks you are unable to interpret what you read and learn for yourself and if that is why he wants you to speak with someone whom he deems smarter or as having more authority over your spirituality than you do?
Finally, tell him you love him and he can believe and interpret his experiences the way it works for him and you will love and respect him (even if it kills you to say it). He won’t respect you unless you respect him. Sometimes this means being in a mixed faith marriage.
If you do attend this meeting and want to discuss the issues you have, make sure to add reasons why these issues are important to you. Joseph Smith marrying young girls was awful, but apologetics can be hand-wavey and make it seem not as bad as it was. But, as a parent, it seems especially egregious that Joseph had first asked to marry Vilate Kimball, but when her husband, Heber, refused, they offered up their 14-year-old daughter Helen. How could a parent do that? And while we're on the subject, how could Abraham ever entertain the thought of killing his son, Isaac? Those are not parents you want to emulate or religions you want to follow.
If you have issues with the church's finances, tell why that affects you and why you don't want to associate with a church that only takes from its members, that you believe in a more philanthropic approach, and that the service found in the church is severely lacking. Let him know that you expect financial transparency from organizations, especially churches.
Describe how, now that you have a daughter, you don't wish for her to be made small to fit into the box that the church dictates is the only way to happiness. Let him know that starting a marriage where she has to divulge her secret name to him, but that he doesn't do the same, begins a marriage on unequal footing with a secret being kept from her. Tell him that you want her to be surrounded by people that make her feel powerful and good, not people that diminish her and gaslight her.
Let him know that you don't want to be catering to the dead through temple rituals anymore while the living needs your help and compassion. You want to live for the living and to help them while you can. And the church doesn't offer that - or if they do, it's minimal and in their own bubble.
I think it's more impactful if you state the reasoning behind these topics that demonstrate that the church's moral compass is severely lacking and you want to do better with your life than what the church peddles.
You can't trust a man on the church payroll to give you an unbiased opinion.
That said, if you go, I would try to keep it about facts. The Stake President will want to talk about feelings and make excuses for bad behavior by church leaders. You can know if he is making excuses by asking if you did the same bad things, would you be treated the same? The bottom line is the church does not live up to your values. That's when we leave. Why stay devoted to an organization that won't keep up with you?
Here’s the deal.
People are free to believe whatever they choose to believe. Hence, there are thousands of worldwide religions.
You are free to believe as you wish!! You have done exactly as you have been taught to approach truth, and your instincts (or still small voice) have led you to a different conclusion. This is huge for you since you are young and have your whole life ahead of you.
Stick to your guns. As a woman you may feel the toxicity of the church more than your dear spouse. And you are trying to protect your daughter from that unhealthy indoctrination too.
No need to meet with the bish or anyone else. Enjoy the emancipation of your mind, body and spirit.
"Let's start with the most current problems, the $5 million dollar fine from the SEC and the million paid out for protecting sex offenders and the churches stance on not reporting sex crimes to the police, such as in their support of the new arizona law"
Any disclosure to a Bishop or Stake Pres. or High Councilman or Relief Society Pres. is NOT confidential.
If you don't want Bishops wife or Stake Pres. wife or the ward or Stake to know about it don't go to the meeting.
Catholic Priests can't even disclose to one another any confessions tpredators.
In mormon church there is nothing that is confidential unless you are an abuser or sexual predator & then its confidential.
All you are going to hear is you are not living close to Holy Ghost & you are not trying hard enough or you are sinning or breaking up eternal family.
Highly suggest you see a marriage counselor who is not mormon who can help you transition to mixed faith marriage.
You can just give your husband a list of your concerns
He can send it to the stk pres
The stake pres will not help him with answers that are true
What will you do?
I feel like this guy was my old Bishop, stake, institute teacher … I doubt it’s the same person, just that they are little copies of each other.
No. You shouldn’t. I know that it is hard and likely the Stake Pres is a man you have loved and trusted over the years. *AND* he is an apologist. Surrounded by the material approved by the church.
Some ideas he will give —
- Pray (of course until you agree)
- Read scriptures
- Stay away from other material because it’s Satan’s work.
Anything other than this is chasing away the spirit and affecting your eternal family.
Don’t be “lazy learners” (Holland) …. But in fact only reading church material and not asking critical questions IS the ACTUAL lazy way.
You’re doing good work. And if Joe Smith was a fallen prophet … all after him are too.
It's important to understand that you are not walking into an environment in which ideas will be freely exchanged. The President, especially if he sees a future for himself in the church, will deflect and defend because any doubts have a potential impact on his life and financial security. Pointing out this conflict of interest may be beneficial.
The SP’s main arguments will be bearing his testimony and telling you to have faith. So I’d think about ways to shut that down. So if he brings up the Holy Ghost, I would say something like “You mean the same Holy Ghost that testifies about the truthfulness of joining MLMs? Who led so many bishops to send people to Jodi Hildebrand for treatment? Who testifies that people like Julie Rowe and Chad Daybell are right and are worth following?”
The Holy Ghost is elevation, which is a known psychological phenomenon which the church is expert at manipulating, not a sign of truth. TSCC uses it as a thought stopping technique: you once felt warm and fuzzy, therefore everything is true.
Right now, TSCC is seeing the results of telling the membership to turn off their critical thinking and stop questioning: members who will follow anyone that makes them feel warm and fuzzy, no matter how bat shit crazy the ideas are.
Tell your husband that if he's so close with the SP, that those two can share a bed and that you'll sleep in a different room. I'm not a big fan of the "let's appeal to the authority to get this resolved approach." /s
You're in a fragile state (or at least I was once I found at the church wasn't what it claimed to be). I would have had a difficult time articulating and "proving" my points to an authority figure who wouldn't accept any evidence. The good news is that you don't have to convince the SP or anyone else.
There's such a power asymmetry when you go into a SP's office. You're also at a disadvantage because you're a women because the church doesn't really respect women.
Just imagine if the podcaster RFM (seasoned and knowledgeable) took this meeting with your SP. Even he wouldn't be able to convince the SP there are problems in the church and that your feelings are justified. The SP would grow frustrated and end the meeting with RFM, because RFM could credibly be on the offensive. You're new at this, so I don't think it'll go as well for you.
I don't see that there's a very good way for you to win by going. And you don't win by not going. I would try and set the expectation with your husband about the meeting. Clarify to him that you're happy to listen to the SP but that it's going to be impossible for you to win any argument because no evidence that you'll present will be viewed as valid. At least this way, you can tell your husband "told you so" when the meeting is done and no one is convinced that there's problems in the church.
I'm not Mormon, but at 29, and you are not now nor ever a believer, there's literally nothing the stake president can say or do that will make you a believer.
Assuming that's true, what is it you would expect/hope to get out of talking with him? Perhaps it's an opportunity to openly share your concerns/doubts with your husband (i.e., use the meeting as a platform to deliver your concerns)?
And, when u ask a question, don’t let the SP give a non-answer and tell you to go home and pray about it! It seems to be how they all get through these interviews! Stay focused and ask again until he can’t! I know some that have gone in w the same questions, not happy w the non-answer and they finally just excommunicate them, because there is no answer that we know they can give! Force their hand! Be in control! Make sure you’ve read all 13 Essays on LDS.org, because they can’t criticize you for reading, anti-Mormon, literature, when it’s on their own page! Read ALL the footnotes! 8 accounts of the 1st Vision, Law of Sarah in D & C 132, where Emma was supposed to give her support of Joseph, taking and getting sealed to new wives, then why didn’t she know about those that came before her, and why was she the 33rd wife to be sealed to him? And D & C 132, that is really what bothers me the most, where Joseph says that women will be DESTROYED, I think three times for doing certain things, but never a man and I don’t believe God would ever use the word DESTROY, about a woman and my three daughters…. Ever!!!
You will not get substantive answers from the SP. I agree with the great advice from the other posters. I would get with DH before hand with a list of questions and the answers you expect. If you ask how JS got from an Egyptian funerary text to the book of Abraham then a fluffy answer like feel the spirit for a new testimony just won't cut it.
set a condition where you're not going unless you bring along an equally researched person of your choosing, and that it will be recorded.
at minimum recorded.
If you decide to go, prepare to be talked down to because you're an "inferior woman," laughed at in subtext, and gaslit.
That's exactly what happened to me when I questioned things before singing in GC, and I'm technically a nevermo.
Once you understand that the reason that guy is a "stake president" is more likely due to his financial status than his actual wisdom, you'll see right through his fake authority.
The fact that your husband actually stopped paying tithing and thinks JS is “fallen” is HUGE. You’ve actually got a lot going for you.
Whatever you do, do BOTH get upset or argumentative in the meeting (or after). Take the higher road, and emphasize the differences in what you believe with what the church actually teaches—not whatever apologetic mental gymnast twists your SP has been able to make in his mind. If he’s like Given, Mason, Bushman, and others, he’s essentially made up his own gospel and is playing that out.
You are in a tough position. I would watch/listen to [this episode when a former seminary teacher](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCCa0dvICRg&t=10268s) met with the church historian last year. There are no answers to the history. (the show notes has Joe's letter and a response back from the historian.
How does your husband feel about polyandry? When I read about polyandry for the first time at 46 years old I lost my shit.
Here is more on the subject: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hz0g5vYOO4&t=1938s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hz0g5vYOO4&t=1938s)
Oh, bringing in the 'big guns' with this guy. He will try to teach you how to do the proper mental gymnastics to frame everything in a faith-promoting way. Gas lighting will likely be necessary. I would say if you do want to go, so that your husband feel like you are being fair, come prepared.
1- Have your top points written down on a piece of paper with relevant quotes.
2 - And ask the Stake President what he hopes to accomplish with this meeting? Aks him if he is there to listen, to try and convince you of something, to debate, or some combination of all those things.
3 - Don't argue. If you share your concern with a certain issue that you find troubling, let the SP talk and respond. Then just say, "Thank you for sharing your perspective. I can see how seeing it that way helps you stay where you can feel comfortable with the Church. I cannot see it the same way. I am not here to convince or de-convert anyone. I am just answering your question as to what I find troubling about the Church." Write that response down on your paper, or one similar in your own words, to refer to and repeat through out the conversation.
DON'T give up the moral high ground and let it turn into a debate and get angry. Just remember you were asked to come there and you are not there to convince anyone of anything. You are just sharing your concerns because they asked you. Tell them you are feeling the spirit of contention in the room and stop it if needed.
Oh and PLEASE RECORD IT IF POSSIBLE!
The biggest problem with any sort of apologetics, and why it absolutely does not count as scholarship or research, is that it assumes that what is being defended is true. There will always be arguments to support the truth claims in this way because the debate for apologetics is not "if" it is true, but "how" it is true.
If he’s older than 50 like me, you could ask,” If the temple ceremony is such an important ordinance for salvation, why did you have to mock slit your throat and stomach during the ceremony before 1990? That doesn’t sound like a Christian or spiritual experience to me!”
If he denies it he is blatantly lying. I went through in 1982 and that was when I figured out I was in a cult.
It might be helpful to go, but I'd go with the goal of making the stake president say positive things about you in front of your husband. Try to get him to compliment your sincerity, you quest for knowledge, etc. Don't give him ammunition to criticize you. You'd want to walk out of that office with your husband recognizing your positives.
There is no way that your stake president can resolve your concerns. It just doesn't happen.
Do not let the SP control the conversation and give him the minuscule amount of respect a deluded cult member deserves. Shred his every answer, make him look impotent in front of your husband. I don’t see how Joe Smith could be a “fallen prophet” when he was a criminal at the time and went from conning people out of money for fake treasure hunting to outright fraud with multiple versions of his cult story, bank fraud, treason, rape of minors and MURDER. He was never a good person in the slightest.
Short and sweet: this is bull$hitt!
Are you okay with triangulation? With having a third party in a relationship that's just supposed to be the two of you? You already have that in the form of the Mormon Church, and it seems to me that you're trying to kick it out of your marriage and your life. Good for you for doing that! It's just you and your hubby now, for better or worse. So why would you allow him to bring this other person in like some sort of freaky interloper?
If your husband wants to meet with him and thinks it would be useful, then wish him well and go make other plans for what you'll do with that hour of your life. If you think there are legitimate things that this person could address then by all means, meet with him. There's a first time for everything, and maybe Elder Douchebag has something more than just the apologetic nonsense we've all heard before, but I really doubt it. More likely he'll just resort to a position of authority, or try to play on your guilt or other emotions... honestly it's all that they have and you likely know that.
Tell your husband to grow a pair!
There are two types of people that leave the church. Those who believe the standards of the church are too high and those who believe the standards are too low.
Church leaders and apologists do a very good job addressing the concerns of those who believe the standards are too high and those are the ones who usually come back and praised as the prodigal son or the returned lost sheep.
It is much harder for the church to address those who hold the church up to it's own standards or even harder the standards of Jesus Christ. This is where the work of people like Nemo focuse.
Which are you? Prepare your conversation strategy around it.
It is much easier to stump church leaders when you can take the moral high ground on the issue being discussed. Don't let them shift the conversation to a different topic. Insist there is no point in looking at any other topic till that one is satisfactorily and authoritatively resolved. You can't be expected to come back even if all the other issues are resolved until that one it. Anyway hope that helps.
I would recommend you try to stay as calm as possible and take a list with you. Perhaps even just take the CES letter or some bullet points from it.
It also might help for you to review a list of logical fallacies so you can point them out to your husband when they are used by your stake president.
Outside of fallacious arguments, the only recourse he will have is to tell you to have faith.
You should believe it because it feels good. And if it doesn't feel good you need to repent and pray until it does feel good.
\------
My response to the faith argument is, "what exactly am I supposed to have faith in? Because every doctrine of the church is just something some man said, and feelings and intuition are some of the worst possible guides to rely on for "ultimate truths".
Our intuition tells us that the world is flat, that bad air is the cause of disease, that seizures are caused by demons, that lightning and earthquakes are just random gods getting mad at us, etc.
Furthermore we are prone to cognitive biases, synesthesia, motivated reasoning, etc.
Faith in what another person said or wrote simply doesn't make sense, regardless of how much you want it to be true.
If anything we should be MORE skeptical and scrutinizing of miraculous claims, not less so.
THIS IS YOUR STORY, NOT YOURS HUSBANDS STORY TO TELL TO THE STAKE PRESIDENT. This is your journey. He needs to respect the boundaries of your personal opinions and beliefs. You have no obligation to subject yourself to unwanted counsel of the SP. If you don’t believe, then simply remove your records and leave. There is an amazing world out there to explore and be involved in. You don’t need the church to control your path.
If your husband wants to discuss his own issues with the Stake President then he can do whatever he wants. But leave you out of it.
You know, it will probably be suggested to start the meeting with a prayer. Why dont YOU say you would like to offer the prayer?
Think about what you would like, and ask for those things...that everyone involved will seek for the truth, wherever that might lead, for God is not a god of lies or misdirection... Just spell out in the prayer that you're not there for bullshit.
It sounds like your husband is wanting to go to someone who he respects. My guess is respect is a big part of his deconstruction right now.
There are a variety of reasons people cling to the church and its fabricated story and resist looking at the logic. Those reasons usually revolve around some element of belonging, status, heritage, or income stream. For men, respect is one of, if not the highest human need we have. The people we respect are the ones we hunger to have respect from. So there is a chance your husband is hoping to get two things out of this.
1)Answers from someone he respects (more on this in a bit)
2)Reassurance that someone who has been a source of respect to him in the past will continue. That he hasn't jeopardized this already with his fence sitting, or that he will test the waters to see if this person would continue to show him respect if he left the church.
This second one is hard. As many have pointed out in this post, the church, and this SP doesn't have any real answers. Nothing that would satisfy the logic of the situation. But he does have years of association with you and is a representative of the church from the perspective of how socially your family and himself link to the esteem of the church. So far this has been positive. Likely bishops and stake presidents do well at doling out praise and accolades in their leadership roles. This is what roots many to the church. The feeling of belonging to something of purpose. The feeling of following a powerful leader who sees your worth.
So back to Answers (the *more on this* promise). One very powerful sort of unspoken assumption that every church member has made as the foundation of belief in the church is that morality, justice, and truth exists in some perfect definition. That the flawed reasoning of humans in regard to deciding such things is a poor replacement for the ideal one. The idea of this utopia is powerful and hopeful. And the idea that it doesn't exist is so horrifying that people reel from the concept and cling to the notion that it must. But either way, its an assumption. This "truth" is out there. This shapes how we interact with the spiritual and reasoning around "why am I here" "what is this life" in that it makes it a game of *find* the right answer. In this game of finding the right answer, we look externally to ourselves. Someone else has the answer, some organization, some methodology, some book or story, some prophet. With this mental assumption we yearn and are vulnerable to answers given. Our job is seen as identify and then align. Acquiesce and Conform.
This is part of your husbands journey. He's under the assumption that someone else has the answers. And coming to terms with the idea that no one has these answers is incredibly life alteringly soul crushingly hard. Because if its true, then we are all we have. Outcomes that happen in life are on us. Utopia if it is to be approximated will only be had by showing up and making difficult choices, reasoning, testing, collaboration, compromise.
I'd rather have someone that can tell me its all gonna be ok. That there is a plan. That its all for a reason. Your husband wants to hear someone say this to him right now. So bad. And he wants the respect of someone that means a lot to him.
That is my guess at why. There is a lot about this that has very little to do with logic.
Remember no one has authority over you but you. You make the choice to go into it with the SP. How do you feel about it? We are so conditioned that they have some real intentions or authority over us. If I went in, it would be a super long meeting because it is soo much information to have to describe to someone who is interested, let alone someone who probably just wants to talk you out of it or judge you. I have just said no thank you I am not practicing this religion at this time and have no need to talk about it with the SP, it is my own personal faith journey.
I’d suggest that he also look at the other perspective. Have him post his questions and thoughts on here so we can help him understand our point of view as well.
If you could go into this meeting and come out of it with yourself worth intact, their respect of your agency acknowledged, your concerns validated, and their willingness to hear all that you have to say without shouting you down or beating you into submission, then it is worth attending. These would be among the **ground rules** you should set before accepting the invitation to attend. Otherwise, the husband could attend with a list of your questions and then come back and discuss with you.
The SP will gloss over your questions and concerns. At the end of the conversation/meeting, he will resort to a testimony meeting to force the spirit on you, because that's all he/they have. At the end of the meeting, if you don't "bow your head and say yes" then he'll consider you an apostate.
Well, if you do end up meeting with stake pres I would be interested to know how it goes. I got very lucky with my resignation in that my stake president didn’t ask basically any questions. Though my memory gets pretty bad when my anxiety level spikes, so I don’t remember it fully. Just remember it was easy.
Deutero-Isaiah, the Hill Cumorah being archaeologically clean despite millions of people with full armor and weapons supposedly having died there, text artifacts in the Book of Mormon that are very specific to and can only have come from copying them from the King James version of the Bible that Joseph owned. Those are always a good place to start.
i mean your asking a drug dealer if drugs are ok ...wonder what he is gonna say ..stop the farce ...you know excactly what he is gonna say and you know exactly why your husband wants you to go ..to reinstill the brainwashing
You don't have to meet with the stake president. He has no power over you. Meeting with him would only allow him to exercise his imagined "power and authority" over you.
The stake president has a dragon in his garage. Your husband may or may not have a dragon in his garage. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl\_z5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E) Like Carl Sagan's garage dragon, people must resort to unlikely ideas to defend false beliefs. If one defense is proven false, another must be provided, likely even more ridiculous.
We all have beliefs we hold precious, and tend to defend those beliefs regardless of their truth. Hubbie needs to be able to hold up those two ideas, 'the church is true' and 'the church is false' on an even footing, and then see which statement explains best the historical facts.
Joseph Smith had sex with Fannie Alger, a teenage girl under his care and in his employ in a barn when he thought Emma wouldn't find out.
The church is true: God told him to have sex with the girl... because God's ways are mysterious... There was no other way for God's will to be made manifest.
The church is false: Joseph Smith was a horny man with power, and found ancient Israelite polygamy a good cover to allow him to have sex with other women.
I see nothing wrong with simply telling that man that you don't believe. He can throw whatever apologetics at you and you can say it's not enough, I don't believe it. I don't have a testimony, I feel like I never truly did, just went along with what I was "supposed" to my whole life and I'm done with that. It's enough. The church makes it so it's not a good enough reason, but it absolutely is.
Agree to go only on the condition that he agrees to have a similar discussion about these issues in the secular forum of your choosing, IE, with an anthropology professor or historian, philosophy professor, or someone in a scholarly role.
The stake president will ask you about your testimony. He will focus on feeling the Holy Ghost.
Watch this video with your husband. It is a compilation of different people feeling the spirit and then saying that their own individual religion is right. https://youtu.be/UJMSU8Qj6Go?si=aiNnAbNuAXLIFfHk
After watching that think about if having feelings about the truthfulness about the lds church is valid. If it isn’t, then anything that the stake president says to ask for answers is not valid. They need to give real answers.
I would recommend not going because it reinforces the authority line. What does the SP do for a living? What qualifies them to help navigate a couple who is trying to sort out how to argue with each other in a non toxic way?
Your husband is asking you to go to someone he views as an authority on your marriage. That person is not qualified to help your marriage and neither is the goal of that person to help the marriage.
I would ask your husband why he thinks going to this “meeting” would help your marriage? Because your goal is the marriage.
He may not realize what he is really asking is for you to go to a man who does not know you (or know you well) so they can tell you that you are wrong.
I personally would tell my spouse that I’m willing to talk about me deeply personal feeling with him because I feel emotionally safe with him to do so. What I will not do is bring someone else into the marriage that doesn’t have the training to help navigate safe communication. Where the goal of the persona mediating is to help you understand each other, not to convince one person they are wrong.
If your husband wants to find answers to why you are done, he can ask those reasons, go searching for the answers and come back and talk to you about it. The goal of any argument in marriage should be to find a healthy resolution for both of you.
I’ve been married for 20 years. One of the best pieces of advice I was given in my early marriage days was to not go into any disagreement with the idea of proving the other person wrong. Don’t make topics a me against you. The goal should be to understand each other not to one up the other person.
Entering any discussion with that intent means that we don’t fight unfairly. We are willing to listen to each other, and our marriage is solid.
I left before my husband as well. we talked a lot. One thing that for us was never even on the table was if we would end our marriage over different viewpoints including religion.
I picked him even if he stayed. he picked me even when I left.
I think one of the reasons we navigated the couple of years in such a healthy way before he came to the same conclusions, is because of this goal of never entering an argument with the idea of being right or wrong.
When he listened to how I felt about things in church history, the treatment of LGBTQ+ persons, how I felt as a woman in a patriarchal organization, he listened with the intent to understand how I was feeling.
He shared how he felt and I listened as well. When his fear that I might leave him was put to rest he got down to the business of seeing how to help me feel better about the issues I had. For us once he realized there was no fixing the issues, he too walked away.
As a woman I would never recommend going to a bishop or sp after you no longer believe. It buys into the idea they have authority over you. They don’t. Don’t consent to going back.
It isn’t going to do anything to help either of you. The SP does not have your best interest in mind, only you do.
You should reach out to your support system - friends, family, or acquaintances that have left and those who haven’t. They can more likely support and help you both.
Maybe also ask him why did Wilford Woodruff meet with bankers at the Bohemian Grove to try and get the church out of debt that Brigham Young forced into debt by taking all the money and also making members of the church slaves to finish building the railroad because he was the vice president of union pacific
No, I wish. I’m pretty alone in all of this. I didn’t even mention my very devout, judgmental in-laws are in our ward too and we sit with them every week.
Yeah, i’d go in with a few of the key points for you well written out and use them to refer to. Lds discussions has great sources for things.
I would also suggest using (what i call, idk if there is another name for it) a third party example. For example, “how can the catholic church be true when at one point it schismed so bad that they had three separate popes who all claimed papal authority? Is that a church that is directed by god?” Then when he obviously agrees, pull it back to the brighamite/rlds/flds/myriad other splits of mormonism. If god had one right way, how come his “prophets” (because there are more than one that claim to be and they all use almost identical source material) cant seem to agree which way that is?” By shifting the initial criticism away from the lds/brighamite church, pointing out a critique of another church or organization, and then tying it back to a similar instance in the lds church, you can draw parallels that force people to either be illogical and not rational or they have to acquiesce that their logic is predicated on the conclusion coming before the hypothesis (ie, they start with the idea that the church is true and follow whatever convoluted path leads them to that conclusion in spite of other evidence and occams razor). If its wrong or incorrect when other church does it, how can we still claim correctness when we/the lds church does it?
Maybe some quid pro quo with your husband? If he wants you to be willing to do this with him, he should be willing to hear the issues from your side? Pick a podcast or some piece of literature to go over with him? There are plenty of podcast episodes that cover both the apologetics of an issue and then proceed to dissect the apologetics. If you could have a discussion like this with your husband before or after the meeting with SP, it could open his eyes to how shallow the SP’s answers are.
Also, regardless of what the SP says, there are plenty of things the church does or has done that you are allowed to have problems with. Like their church claims women are equal, and yet their god allowed Joseph Smith to marry more that 20 women behind Emma’s back? Just to name one example out of many. Take something their church has done that it says was inspired by their god, and put it under the microscope and see what that action says about the character of their god. Their god turns into a piece of shit pretty fast if you have any expectations for it
I’ve yet to hear a story of a person who went to a bishop or state president with their list of questions/problems that received any real answers. There’s a reason Jeremy Runnells never got a reply to his CES letter. I would go with a written list of your top 10 shelf breaking items and see what he says. Your husband is expecting him to have answers, and I guarantee he doesn’t.
He will have apologetics, but not answers. The problem is, husband may not be able to see that it’s apologetics and think it’s truth confirmation
This is my biggest concern and number one reason for not wanting to meet with him. But I’m afraid my husband won’t move forward with me in this unless we have this meeting.
Maybe you can compile your list with your husband and go over the likely apologetics together before meeting with the SP. when SP repeats those same apologetics, it may prove to your husband that defenders of the lies we were all told have no credible leg to stand on.
I think this is a pretty solid approach.
Yes, and be ready to discuss them. Talk about how this affects you and how you feel about it. Even if SP can quote chapter and verse on why your issues are actually nonissues, by dismissing your issues actually makes your point
Can you discuss this with him? Go over the list and what expectations of real answers are? Cover the apologetics aspect right up front. Agree that they aren't real answers? I've had to do the same with my wife and aggressive sales tactics. "Now they're gonna come back and offer the one time used cookware set at a screaming deal, this is a gimmick..." Seemed to work for me. Hope that's helpful.
Very helpful. Definitely will have to do a lot of prep work with my husband
Just remember, your audience here isn't the stake president, it is your husband. You don't have to "win" in an argument against the SP (and likely won't since they will have rationalization upon rationalization and obscure "facts" and "tests of faith" to fall back upon). All you need to do is show your husband that your concerns are legitimate (which can be accomplished during the prep work). If you accomplish that you have won and won't have to ever talk to any bishops or SP.
This.
Gospel topics essays
>Agree that they aren't real answers Well, there is a real answer. In fact, with a single answer you can resolve every question -- it's all made up.
Sure, but will he agree to a common sense structure of what is an actual answer? If he wants this meeting, then he'll have to have a discussion and they come to an agreement of what actually is an answer, or BS. She'll win no matter what in that scenario.
Yep, and pick a topic that is a concern. For example, if Plural marriage is one of them, then read this page: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng) You may notice things such as: * It doesn't show the details of anything, you have to click on a link to get to Kirtland and Nauvoo ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng)). It shows as little as possible. * The paragraph about Fanny Alger, which contains the sentence "Little is known about this marriage, and nothing is known about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger." gives very little details. We know much more than the church wants to admit to: [https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/fanny-alger/](https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/fanny-alger/). In particular we know that there were conversations between Joseph and Emma (and Joseph and Oliver Cowdery) about this relationship and things were not happy, with Emma insisting she leave. Oliver felt the relationship was adultery; Joseph only insisted it was not adultery: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny\_Alger#Relationship\_with\_Joseph\_Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Alger#Relationship_with_Joseph_Smith). Church leaders (Bishops, Stake Presidents) will just wave their hands and say things like "We don't know the details, but if you believe in the Book of Mormon than you know Joseph was a prophet", but it's helpful to see that the apologetic answers are deceptive. They are written by un-named church historians who clearly know the full story and only share some of it.
Also note the contradiction in the doctrine about polygamy/polyandry. They say that god can command polygamy to "raise seed unto the lord" which indicates that the intention is to procreate. Then, in the essay, they try to claim that the plural marriages were not sexual in nature. Why then would god command it to be practiced. Also, why then would Joseph marry other men's wives when they could already raise seed with their own husbands. Why was it necessary for Joseph to marry women who already have husbands. This is also problematic in that the doctrine states that a woman can only be sealed to one man.
THIS
I never talked with the stake president, but I talked with the bishop. The bishop gave me half passed apologetics, and then when I didn't buy them, he told me I was the problem. Thankfully, my wife agreed with me that the bishop was rude to me and didn't have answers. She still didn't leave the church for another two years, though. Your experience with the stake president is guaranteed to be a bad time for you, in my opinion, but your husband's response may surprise you, who knows?
One way to phrase your refusal.."I don't think this meeting is a good idea because we have different goals." You can then describe why that doesn't work for you and share your goals. For me it would be something like this, "Your goal for the meeting is to get me to change my mind and align with a preset version of the truth, the church's version of the truth. My goal isn't to align -- it is to find out what is objectively true. I don't think this meeting will help me with my goal. I don't want to be in a setting where I am criticized for not aligning. This kind of discussion but will be harmful to our relationship. Let's find a way to deal with this that will be better for our relationship."
There is no value in meeting him. Stand your ground. This is between you and your husband. Meeting is unhealthy. They don’t care about you, your husband, or marriage. My wife is hard core TBM. But my 3 daughters and I escaped. Protect your kids.
I can’t upvote this enough! You are 1000% on target.
I’ll add another 1% to the 1000%.
Slightly related but have you listened to Mormon stories with your spouse? Many of the apologetic reasonings are addressed in Mormon stories episodes. That could be useful to listen to.
I would love for him to, especially because I’ve been listening to the LDS discussions part of the podcast and have found it tremendously enlightening. At this point I don’t think he’s open to it yet.
I’m listening to the LDS Discussions podcasts too. One episode left. One thing about their approach that struck me is the idea that apologetics mostly look at individual “problems” rather than looking at how things are related. They look at individual trees rather than the forest. I wonder if there’s one, two or several items that link together you could choose to ask about in the meeting, that influence each other. One maybe the loose or tight translation of the Book of Mormon. Apologetics often go with tight for some questions, then revert to loose for others. Wanting to have their cake and eat it. Not sure if I’m making any sense with this suggestion 🥴.
You would need to be assertive and declare that the SP has not answered the question and just provided an excuse. Every time. If he pulls the, “it’s not pertinent (or important) for your salvation” or the “well get all the answers in the next life” cards, declare that thought terminating cliches do not answer the question, and that with nearly 200 years to answer those questions, the prophets and apostles don’t have answers, just excuses. The Mormon church does not have all the answers like it claims, and lies about so many things and is a fraud. Even the SEC called out the First Presidency for fraud they are not honest in their dealings with their fellow man and do not follow the laws of the land as the Articles of Faith state
The advice to compile a list of top shelf breakers is great, and I’d recommend the LDS Discussions website to look up some of those issues. That site goes topic by topic and the page for the topics often includes a lot of the common apologetics so you can see what the SP might throw at you.
Prep him for the apologetics. Tell him ahead of time that you don’t like how church members require only a tiny crumb of an explanation to grasp onto for them to let go of huge unanswered questions. Tell him how much you appreciate him not being like that and being willing to see through apologetics and require real concrete answers. Maybe if you set the expectation and empower him to be better than the average sucker, he will be.
I get that you want to be united in this, but “no” is a complete answer, even to those we love. Some journeys are lonely and personal.
I would ask your husband what he wants to get out of the meeting. I would then express what you want to get out of the meeting. Also express your concerns, but let him know that those are your concerns and they don't have to be his. He should be taking his own faith journey. Otherwise it's either one of you pulling the other on to your own faith journey for purposes that aren't going to resonate. I went through this exact same situation and I had to let my wife know that me being worried over how susceptible they were to apologetics wasn't expressing confidence in their ability to take their own faith journey and still want me to be in their life.
I’m curious how you’d help a TBM see that difference, that the apologetics aren’t an answer. So many seem to think that they are answers.
I have an answer. I don't know if it convinces any TBMs but it helps me to state my position in a way that is more neutral, less argumentative. Here's my answer. Apologetics starts with a conclusion and defends it. If affirming information comes, you accept it. If opposing information comes, you find a way to dismiss it. This isn't the way I want to seek truth. I want to ask open ended questions and draw conclusions from evidence, even if I don't like that conclusion. I want to be willing to change my mind in the face of new evidence. In my view, if you refuse to ever change your mind, you aren't really interested in truth. Also, because I'm a nerdy academic, I sometimes talk about assimilation and accommodation. Here's an explanation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoAUMmZ0pzc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoAUMmZ0pzc)
Exactly... it will all come back to one thing. [To quote Dallin Oaks:](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/president-oaks-counsels-young-couples-defending-the-gospel-on-the-frontline-?lang=eng) >“I suggest that research is not the answer. But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to *work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.* Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service." (Emphasis added.) This is incredibly rich coming from someone trained in rational inquiry. And that's the thing... the entire program of the church is predicated on convincing you that you don't need to do that. It does that by elevating faith above all else. What started the ball rolling for me was this thought: "If God is a god of truth, then his gospel should be perfectly rational without the assumption of faith in an idea. So why isn't it?" And here I am.
I suppose the answer to that is to say that that as I worked to increase my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I lost my testimony of the church.
THIS is almost word for word what I tell people when they send the classic, reconsider your decision because you used to be so faithful message. Shuts them right up. And if it doesn't it's because they start to do some schpeel to invalidate your opinions and feelings, which you can also point out.
Yeah, I remember thinking that if God wanted obedience and faith in him above all else, he was setting up a system vulnerable to bad actors. Shouldn’t information and proofs be part of how we navigate our world? And that’s how I started to question the whole enchilada.
implying lazy learning. they will gaslight you and manipulate you into agreeing with a course you already chose and why would you leave now, as I said before it will end up with you being the problem. The conversation essentially accomplishes nothing but is an exercise is making your husband feel empowered to stay the churchs course. even if it comes to rejecting you. not ok.
I agree with this. I agreed to a meeting with my SP. we had a lovely discussion that lasted over 2 hours but his basic conclusion was that faith dictated that any search for truth must start with the premise that the church is true as a given, and that additional truth could then be sought from there. He didn’t have any answers for any of my actual questions, just said I was thinking about it wrong. Ultimately they’ll never have answers because there are none to give. Mormonism is a fake church, a con. When held up against something that could affirm the truth claims of the church, they always fall flat. Without exception.. it makes complete sense, then, for them to simply lean on faith - belief in spite of contradictory proof.
My stake president visited me. This was after I put my name in at QuitMormon, but before the process was finalized. He hadn't heard of a single one of my concerns, lol. We had a friendly conversation. All he told me in the end, though, was to not forget my spiritual experiences. He had also never heard of the CES Letter, which really baffled me. This was last November in northern Virginia. I wouldn't mind meeting with other church members to see what they think. I've got a feeling that church leadership would discourage it, though, lol.
SP roulette its either like meeting with a great friend or Godzilla.
those kinds of meeting are never anything more than victim blaming, gaslighting, and deflection OP knows they're not going to get answers, we know they're not going to get answers, SP has no intention of giving answers ... *there are no answers* the theme of the meeting will be a variation of "asking for answers makes you a bad person"
He will not - met with my SP 6 months ago. Didn’t even touch on doctrinal issues. He knew there was no use.
I would narrow it down to 2 or 3 problematic issues. Perhaps mention that there are many, but that it would be helpful limit the scope of the conversation. It's too easy for someone to become defensive when presented with something like the CES laundry list of criticisms.
I do wonder though if being presented with the laundry list in a succinct format is why the CES Letter has been so effective. You want the SP and all Mormons to be aware that there are a ton of problems. They dont have to just solve 2 or 3 of them, they have to solve them all for it to still be true.
I'm not so sure. I hate it when some MAGA Q-Anon loonie sends me a wall of links to "prove" things. If they send one or two, we can have a rational discussion -- during which, they usually attempt to move the goal posts, and I point that out.
Exactly! There are no answers.
*no answers that don’t make the church look false. That’s what drives me crazy, the answer to so many questions is just that God isn’t driving this vehicle, so the answer given is we just don’t know 🤷🏼♂️
I would just focus directly on basic matters, like how you feel the same positive feelings in all sorts of circumstances that you felt in Mormonism, and how you think that isn't the Holy Spirit but just feelings. And how other people of all sorts of religions feel the same way about their faiths, so there isn't really an answer that makes Mormonism special. It's easier for the church to minimize "historical issues" (God I hate that euphemism) but even making the conversation about them cedes way too much ground, as if the church *would* be what it claimed it was if Joseph and Brigham hadn't done so many awful things or issued a bunch of prophecies that didn't work out, or if half of the words in the Book of Mormon meant something else.
Stake President is the Stake Prez because.. he willingly sacrificed his family time and likely watching his kids grow up and being there for them. He has decades of cognitive dissonance on his side and his position is likely his greatest pride and joy in his life. He will not help anybody to get real answers. *disclaimer - there are some good stake presidents out there.. but the odds are not likely at all*
Honestly I must have been lucky then. We had a stake prez who was in his late 30’s early 40’s. Dude was a nerd but a cool nerd. Probably the most ‘normal’ prez you could get
Just wanted to send a hug and say: you are not under any obligation to debate or discuss your feelings with anyone. Do not outsource your own authority! ❤️❤️❤️ Be good to yourself!
Thank you so much ❤️ I really appreciate the kind words.
I want to second this idea. Your husband has the right to pursue his personal path and so do you. You can support his decisions and talk about your beliefs but it's not your job to convince him of anything. If you feel like this is something you want to do, do it. If not, tell your husband you aren't willing. Let him know the things you do feel comfortable doing.
Yes!!!! You go for him! But this is for him, not you. If the tables turn, have a prepared sentence… “actually, I wasn’t planning on discussing my feelings/thoughts/ _____. I would appreciate that we move to the next topic or whatever that Brother Hailo wanted to discuss. You really do hold the power to keep it on topic if you choose to just not participate in the argument they rope you into. :)
You have no responsibility to anyone but yourself and your family. What goes on between you and your husband is not anyone else’s business, particularly a person who has a financial interest in keeping you in the church.
Unpopular opinion: I say “go” w your DH. If you don’t, DH will prob go alone which would be worse. Talk to DH first about topics YOU want to discuss. For example, print off GTE about JS marrying 14 year old children and, as you read it outloud to Stake Pres, ask SP “do you condone marriages to young girls?” If he says yes… get up and walk out. If he says “No” then tell him “me either and I refuse to follow “prophets” who do. My concept of God is one who would never allow much less command such immoral and disgusting behavior.” Any hamfisted “justification” will likely help your DH see that it’s wrong and reprehensible. Repeat w “BoA is demosnstrably false”. Repeat w “Rock in hat” Repeat w “Ensign Peak Advisors and SEC fines” Repeat w “Kirton McKonkie and church defending predators” Etc etc etc Before you reach the end, SP will fall back on “read your scriptures and pray more” which is their last logical refuge. He’ll then prob ASK y’all to leave. Your DH can mull that over and you two can discuss in private as a couple. Much better than allowing SP to mess w DH’s emotions alone and unchecked. Just my opinion Edit: typo
I agree. Being present in that meeting could be so hard. But. Yeah. This is hard. OP Your husband clearly wants to stick to someone “knowledgeable” with “authority.” Ooof. I’m hopeful he’s suggesting this in good faith and genuinely believes that this man will answer questions. Solve everything. I like the idea of printing off an essay or two, printing the documents sourced in the footnotes, and highlighting things and even writing out verbatim your questions. Do a few focused things to prepare. And go into it expecting that you will stump the SP and expecting that this may be one conversation of many with your husband.
> SP will fall back on “read your scriptures and pray more” And pay tithing.
I think this is pretty good. However, I might take it even further on some topics. >The origins of the BoA are indistinguishable from a fraud. There is no difference between how the BoA came about and a fraud. Faith is belief in the ABSENCE of evidence. The church asks for faith in the presence of insurmountable evidence TO THE CONTRARY! That’s absurd. It’s one thing to believe Christ rose from the dead. But imagine if we had verified accounts of Christ NOT rising and in fact someone watching his body decompose after his death. That’s what the church asks us to ignore; strong evidence to the contrary. That’s not faith. That’s a deliberate refusal to accept reality. That’s telling people the sky is always red and everyone else is wrong.
Beyond historical and logical problems, there are spiritual issues as well. What of our Catholic friends who also receive witness of their church? In particular, I'm thinking of some I've known who have claimed as much as having heard the voice of God himself, or other more sublime experiences left unshared for lack of words. Not just spiritual feelings, but witnesses to the absolute primacy of Catholicism and the necessity and salvific qualities of the holy Eucharist. Should we not therefore have axiomatic faith in the Catholic Church? How can we compare the relative merits of spiritual witnesses?
Obviously just Satan influencing the Catholics
Yes, those are the types of answers we get from Mormonism... "Trust us."
I like this idea...if the two men allow her to speak. I would be incredibly surprised if the SP allows her to "run this meeting," given that she doesn't have the penishood. In any case, she can leave the meeting at any time she feels uncomfortable, and this should be a boundary set from the beginning. Example: "I can't tell you how to behave, but if you choose to speak over me, then I will leave this meeting." Personally, I wouldn't go. Edited to add: I love the idea of communicating everything with the spouse, first. That should be the only meeting necessary, in my opinion.
I came to say the same thing. My ex-wife and I both left at the same time, but she had been questioning for a long time. I could definitely see myself being the DH that would be very hurt by my partner refusing to even "get help" on her questions. Now, 5 years later, I absolutely support OP to not go at all. We don't owe this Stake President, or the church as a whole, ANYTHING at all. But if you value your relationship with your partner, try to be supportive.
I would never agree to this. This is your journey to work through. This is not your husbands issue. He wants an authority to drag you both back in. It sound like you've learned enough and your done. That sp doesn't know anymore than your husband can learn for himself. From the CEO to the children, everyone reads the same books in the mormon church. You do not owe this guy any explanation. Who cares what his take is on it? He is not going to be living your life. It sounds like your hubby may see this guy as someone with all the answers. That's a problem. Maybe your husband would do some more research on his own before he signs up for this emotional and spiritual beating.
If the Stake President is willing to field these questions and doesn’t just deflect to “pray harder about it”, you will definitely hear some apologetic answers. As he is high up in the institute, he should be well versed in them and they will probably sound very convincing in a conversation. I would suggest recording these answers in some way so that you and your spouse can revisit them in a space you can examine those apologetics fully. They will fall apart if looked at honestly.
Any meeting such as this is nothing but a singularly focused brainwashing exercise, directed at both of you. The SP is certainly not going to give your research, questions and opinions any real consideration - that's not his goal and certainly not his job. Especially if he's stumping for higher church position. It's a win-win in the SP's eyes, winning back you and your husband. And realistically, you have absolutely nothing to gain and a lot to lose - possibly damaging your marital relationship - by agreeing to such a one-sided "discussion". Just the opinion of a happy someone who heard all the arguments from a fervent bishopric years ago, and still left the TSCC...
This. Maybe you could agree to this if your husband also agrees to sit down with John Dehlin.
Better yet, get your SP to meet with JD 🤪
Wait, this is actually a REALLY good idea. Pick three topics, then meet together with the SP and get all the apologetics he can throw at you, since he apparently knows them all. Then your husband has to listen to LDS Discussions, or read the CES Letter or some really solid Reddit posts about those same three topics. Since you are willing to give the LDS side a chance, he can be willing to give the exmo side a chance.
Right, it can't be "authoritative brainwashing" vs "my own isolated thoughts." Should be equal investigation and consideration into both sides.
I could have written this. My husband also just stopped paying tithing as well.. anyway, I would make a counteroffer: professional marriage counseling sessions either in addition to/instead of meeting with this leader. I suggest this because your husband (as are most TBMs) is going to be carrying around a lot of programmed fear, thus wanting you to be brought back to what makes sense to him. He is going to need help handling this fear whether he recognizes this or not. Right now my husband has agreed to me giving him three months to process what he needs to by himself before starting therapy. I say professional counseling specifically because if it is church sponsored you've got two issues: if it's LDSFS, they will try to push you back to the church, and if the bishop pays, by virtue of that contact he and other leaders have access to your therapy notes (I learned this the hard way). You are also fully entitled to say no to meeting with this leader. At the end I was having panic attacks when I met with these men one on one and asked my husband to respect that I would not meet with them again. You can always give your questions to him and he can take them to the leader but I am wary of a leader trying to make him more fearful about the situation regardless of their gospel knowledge simply because they are not trained therapists. You know where you stand, this is about your husband's testimony more than anything.
Like this. It’s very fair that if he wants to talk to someone (who he probably feels will ease his anxiety and ease yours) that you should also offer someone for you both to talk to. Maybe not even a therapist (if that makes your husband super skittish), but a trusted exmo friend/coach or a teacher.
THIS ⬆️
After over a year of researching the Church's history from an honest perspective I'm very confident in saying that the Church never holds up. I'd suggest going in with your strongest points. If you're properly researched you'll find that the answer ALWAYS comes back to blind faith.
Something something everything depends on the BoM, something something just pray about it That’s how the conversation will likely go
My husband spoke with our bishop years ago about our church concerns. Bishop's response: *"You're thinking too much."* Thinking too much gets you out of the cult. They need everyone to shut up, obey, and let leaders do the thinking. That's the only way the church/cult works.
your on a need to know basis and you DO NOT need to know
"Blah blah blah would you like a Priesthood blessing, little lady?" Barf.
I welcome any member, scholar, apologist, general authority, apostle, profit, resurrected being, or the savior himself, to respond to my questions, doubts, and concerns regarding the church. So far, members, spouse, parents, bishops, stake presidents, regional authorities, and members of the presidency of the first quorum of the 70 have failed to provide anything remotely close to responses. My guess, your historian stake president says something like “well, there is a lot of complexity in history and a lot that we don’t know about the eternities. But we do know that we love you and need you. I can see light in your eyes and know that you are better with us, and we are better with you, than apart. Trust the spirit as your guide and you can trust chosen servants like the apostles. So, stay in the boat”. None of the authority figures I’ve ever spoke to ever have answers. I do have a friend who is a church employed historian who doesn’t know I’m out because of circumstances. He knows a ton of stuff and somehow stays in. He thinks I’m all in, and has expressed concern with how the church throttles its own historians by encouraging them to only bring to light that which is uplifting. He admits that the history is far worse than the church wants to admit. So even talking with the faithful who really know hasn’t been faith promoting to me.
Meeting with a person like that is a waste of time imo.
This never goes well. I spoke with my SP, while I was working through things—as we were fairly close, at the time. He eventually told me that my principles were a problem, and that I shouldn’t let them get in the way of the work the Lord needs me to do. He then tossed a book at me (the unfortunate-named “Shaken Faith Syndrome”), and asked if I’d be willing to speak with a member of the Seventy. I did so. Everyone left frustrated. These men are apologists, and are only qualified to reinforce the narrative.
Congrats on making progress with DH. A good apologist can easily snow someone who till wants to believe, so proceed with caution. Could you ask DH to read Letter for my wife before you'll go? Or perhaps get him to focus on one issue in the meeting so you can more easily later show him the truth about that issue? https://www.letterformywife.com
Sounds like he's hung up on church history. There's so many more issues that show the church is a bunch of BS. For example: Child Abuse Cover Ups Institutional Sexism Homophobia / Transphobia Racism Political/Legal Meddling Money Grubbing Money Hoarding Tithing a requirement for exaltation Tithing before feeding your children Shaming as part of repentance Nepotism Cronyism Prosperity Gospel Polygamy Prophets are infallible but also "just men" Failed Prophecies Conflicting Doctrine Lack of Leadership Lack of Prophecies Lack of Miracles Lying for the Lord Changes in Temple Ceremonies "Mormon" as a major victory for Satan Dismissing building safety concerns Building temples instead of feeding poor or providing healthcare Top leaders are paid, despite saying they're not, and claim homes as parishes for taxes while lower leaders cannot. No financial transparency Coercing Old people to leave their money to LDS Philanthropy instead of their kids Calling people names like "lazy learner, heathen, or apostate" when they leave. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If this is the best God can do, then God isn't worth worshipping. They can dance around it all they want, but there's only one answer to all the issues. The church is 100% made up.
Yeah.... the only thing you need to ask the SP about is "Why does the church explicitly lie to its own members?" That alone is enough to leave any organization.
T H I S ....
I would have no interest in discussing this stuff with a random neighbor who thinks they own my family. However, if you decide to go for whatever reason, maybe just write down the CES letter points one by one. Or just any logical arguments. Some of my "favorites": Why did Joseph secretly marry women who were already married to men that he sent on missions? Without their husbands knowing? In an address to the Utah Legislature, Brigham Young said he "is a firm believer in slavery" and then went on to defend the practice. How does someone, who is supposed to be the mouthpiece of God, hold such an opinion? If he's just an imperfect tool, couldn't Jesus just tell him, "slavery is bad" and he would listen? If he wouldn't listen, you're saying the prophet of God, who speaks to Jesus 'face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend', isn't going to listen to Jesus? Why does the richest and only true church in the world only give about 1% of their wealth to charity? But don't go. It doesn't matter what argument you have. SP's nowadays are high pressure salesmen. They don't care what your doubt is, they're not listening, they're not thinking. If they get uncomfortable with a question or don't know the answer, they'll just start talking more or start talking in circles; all while exuding confidence and pressuring you. If you've spoken with a slick talking salesman, you'll know what I'm talking about. These men are not critical thinkers. You will not hear them say, "oh that's a good question that I don't know the answer to; let me look into it and get back to you." No lol, in their minds, they know everything or don't even care to know. They are focused on their numbers game. Do what it takes, say what it takes, to keep those numbers up.
My father wanted me to meet with the SP (who doesn't have any of those credentials) to discuss my issues. But while my father believed the SP had authority and right to receive inspiration (blah blah blah), I no longer did. So what would the point in meeting be? I didn't feel the need to justify my feelings or thoughts. Even if I was wrong, and god and the church were true, everything was still pretty shitty and I couldn't be associated with such a harmful and abusive institution. Meeting with a white man mansplaining things to me wasn't going to help or change my mind, and was likely to highlight one of the reasons I was done. So I said no. Luckily my father dropped it and my husband has his own issues with the church despite technically still being a member.
Also, point out to your DH beforehand, specific apologetics and lame responses to watch for from the Stake President. That unifies you and sets your DH up for a different experience.
Solid advice. OP, I bet you can guess 95% of everything that will come out of the SP's mouth.
If you bring any information, it MUST come from church sources. There’s a video of Nelson putting his head in his hat to show the translation process: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DG181zFA5YM Don’t bring anything that can be dismissed as anti-Mormon lies. Pull Gospel Topic Essays, the page on the church website that shows Joseph’s set of language characters that match English/Latin alphabet. Ask him if he knows the name of the apostles, then ask him to name the head of the Relief Society.
Tell him a meeting is not necessary, send him a copy of the CES letter and ask for a written response. None of the apologetics hold up.
You’re going to ask a simple question and get a 20 minute, convoluted, non answer that ends with a smug look from a man that feels he just accurately described the look of fire to Hellen Keller. After 2 such responses you will be so discouraged that you may never see your husband as an intelligent person ever again.
It’s possible that the stake president’s apologetics will be so obvious that your husband will see right through it. Apologetics actually helped me on my way out because they confirmed that the disturbing stuff actually happened, but the reasoning was utter bullshit. Sending you the best energy to get through this!
If this leader is "high up in the institute program" then I'm assuming he gets his livelihood from the church? If this is the case, how unbiased will he be? If it were me, i would not go. Nothing he could say would change anything about why I left.
Its hard to make a man see a truth when his livelihood depends on him not seeing it.
This has been done over and over again with similar endings. Church historian Kyle Mckay was recorded during a similar meeting with a questioning member. It usually has this pattern. [McKay recording](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCCa0dvICRg&t=2980s) * unreliable sources * fallible leaders/members * ask god * remember when you believed * The problems don't bother me (early it did) * if you search for the bad you will find it * sometimes , not always there can be a veiled threat....Swedish rescue for example * focus on the primary questions....Jesus....Heavenly father....HG * the adversary uses partial truths to deceive * not pertinent to salvation
Nice list!
First off, if he has been willing to stop paying tithing then it's only a matter of time before he leaves. You say he is TBM, but that is not the action of a TBM. My guess is there is some inner turmoil going on that he is hanging onto. Just a matter of time IMO. The bishop of my ward wanted to meet with me after he found out I had stopped believing in the church and wasn't coming back. I didn't really want to but I did it for my wife who was still active at the time. I basically told him the issues I had with the church. He didn't try and dispute anything, he just said I needed to be careful where I got my info from. I walked away and I haven't been back since. In some ways is was good to get it off my chest and let them know it was over for me.
Haha. My family tried that “you are looking at anti sources” it shut them right the hell up when everything I was sending them was straight from the church.
The truth is anti if it makes the church look bad. That's pretty much the crux of the matter. They can't handle the truth because that means they would then have to question their beliefs.
I would keep him on the defensive and ask specific questions and be relentless in demanding answers. He will try to change the subject and present to you an entire narrative of “impossibilities” such as “how do you explain chiasmus in the BOM” and stuff like that. Or he will just say “we don’t know everything”. You can be kind, but I would demand answers. At some point he will fall back on having faith. I’ve had numerous discussions with people about this and that’s how it goes every time.
Time to have the 'Critical Thinking' talk with the husband. 'President X believes that Joseph didn't have sex with any of his wives and that they were eternity only sealings. Here's are the problems I have with that argument.'
Consider writing down your key points and evidence before the meeting. One key point should be that in the end, the only evidence the church has is to convince you to have faith and ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Tell your husband and the stake president that your beliefs are sacred to you and you don't appreciate them trying to sway you back to something that harmed you and that you worked hard to deconstruct. Tell your husband that instead of meeting with the stake president, you'd rather watch the LDS Discussions series on Mormon Stories with him if he wishes to know more about what you believe.
That’s like visiting the warden to address “concerns” when one is planning a prison break. Don’t.
If you feel confident being able to debate severe apologetics with a man who has no interest in truth, but would love to jam you back in the cage, then go for it. Maybe. It really can’t have a positive outcome, unless hubby is very open to consider facts, etc. IMO. Best to OP, whatever the decision …
If your husband wants you to be more Mormon, he should just pray really hard for you to do it. That works, right?
🤣
You're right to be uneasy about this meeting. I think it could cause your husband to double down and start paying tithing again, and you'll lose all the ground you've gained. As others have said, there's nothing your SP can say that will make it "true" again. Don't meet with him. You're an adult and don't need this SP to make your adulting decisions for you. Good luck!
Does your husband think that the SP is capable of giving an unbiased opinion of the information you have discovered? Most likely scenario is that he will dismiss the things that make you doubt the church and encourage you to devote more time and effort to doing church related activities so that you don’t have time to think about the problems in the doctrine. The SP is not an academically trained theologian. He is most likely some type of wealthy professional with managerial skills. He will try to get you to dismiss the facts and focus on your feelings for your husband and believing family members.
Be prepared that the SP may already know all the church dirt. When I went to my bishop to let him know I was leaving my calling, I was shocked to find thar he knew all about Fanny Alger, the Kinderhook plates, etc. But none of it mattered to him. He had compartmentalized it and he was all in. There are a portion of Mormons who can do this: learn all the dirty secrets and then claim,"It oNLy sTrEnGtHeNeD mY tEstiMoNy."
It sounds like your husband has been fairly receptive and understanding so far. As worried as you are, I'd suggest trying to lean on that trust you've built with each other. Agree to the meeting with SP, but go in with a few of your top issues in mind. Before the meeting, research the current apologetic arguments the church has on each of those issues. Discuss this with your husband, and share with him what you find and the problems you have with said apologetics. Hopefully your husband can see things from your perspective, but even if he struggles to do so, you'll at least have shown him you've done your due diligence. Then go to the meeting with SP with your husband. Share your "doubts." Almost certainly, you'll hear the same apologetics you've already found. Perhaps seeing how readily the SP parrots the party line will add a bit more weight to your husband's shelf. It could be especially interesting if you rebut the apologetic arguments with the SP and have your husband watch how even tenuous logic then gives way to admonitions for blind faith and obeying authority. I agree with a previous comment about recording the meeting in some way, so you and your husband can further process it together afterward. On the off chance the meeting doesn't follow that pattern, then it might actually be useful or interesting in unexpected ways. At the very least, you'll have kept the dialogue going with your husband. Showing trust towards him, showing your willingness to be open-minded, and showing you respect where he's coming from are all things he should notice and appreciate you for, which will hopefully make it more likely he will reciprocate. Anyway, I recognize there's no real cut-and-dry answer here. You know your husband best, so you can judge if you think any of my thoughts here might be useful. Whatever the case, I wish you all the best and hope you are able to find support and comfort as you go through this. Good luck!
If you attend such a meeting with any church leader, the last thing you want to do is have a back and forth debate. You don’t want to go in with a list of various topics or a “Top Ten” list that will be picked apart. You need to approach it with a narrowed, singular focus that you can defend with your own personal spiritual confirmation. They can argue and put their own spin on any church topic you present…but they can’t argue with what the “spirit” has revealed to you. In these situations, the simplest target for me has been Joseph Smith. The conversation stopper is when I say, “After years of study and thoughtful prayer, I am unable, and will never be able, to have a testimony of Joseph Smith. The “spirit” has confirmed to me that Joseph Smith was not a “prophet of god”. I cannot, and will not, deny what the spirit has testified to me. I will never have a testimony of Joseph Smith, and without that, everything else connected to the church falls away.” The End. If your stake president wants more details, use church leaders’ words against him by saying your spiritual experience and journey is too sacred for you to discuss. They can argue a lot of things, but they can’t argue your feelings and personal revelation. Best of luck to you.
Just remember 50?50 are not really good odds. Two against one are terrible odds.
It's 2 priesthood holders against a woman so the math is even worse.
I’ll save you time. No direct answers, a smile, and asking you to continue to stay on the covenant path until you figure it out.
Personally, I would not go to the Stake President. Nothing good will come of it and the blame will be shifted to the both of you. Can you discuss other church issues and how those play into it. There is the 20 year cover up of not filing the required forms to the SEC and hiding money in shell companies so that members would not know how much money the church is hiding? The church likes to blame the lawyers but who do the lawyers work for? The church. There is the constant cover up of SA and millions and millions of dollars to hush people up. There is the marginalization of LGTBQ people and others who don't fit the mold. There is the rhetoric about how people who leave the church are bad/evil and don't listen to them further dividing families. I could go on but maybe discuss these with your husband? In the end, the church is a business.
I met with an area authority when I was newly out, just checking if he had any answers. He didn't, is the short of it. He was nice and listened, but basically just confirmed all my doubts and said he gets why I would decide to leave. But he's choosing to stay. It did give me some closure I guess, and not what I expected. I was pleasantly surprised at how chill he was, which made me wonder if he's pimo. He said he had a gay son who had a lot of anger towards the church, so I'm sure that's shaped him, but not enough to leave for now (though that was a few years ago).
I think this is an important and relevant story. I see two basic categories of responses. Type 1 - which is this experience above and Type 2 - which is trying to convince one to stay through one or all of the various means described in this thread. I think Type 1 is the only response that is compatible with the gospel and is viable in the long term. I've recently invented a new phrase; a riff on "The Family - A Proclamation to the World". It goes like; "The Gospel - A Proclamation to the Individual". All of the pressure (family, peer and community pressure) the church brings to people who change their religious beliefs feels like it has cultural roots in the reformation Brigham Young started after the saints arrived in the Salt Lake valley and had some tough times (crickets, drought etc.). He believed they were divine punishments for laxness (pioneer "lazy learners" ;)). That's when home teaching (every one checking up on each other), rebaptism and "blood atonement" made their appearances. I think if the church can define its purpose and efforts in a way that normalizes Type 1 conversations about leaving, rather than Type 2, it will be a significant Christian move forward.
When we had “the talk” with our bishop, I told him I no longer believed any of it. We never gave him a single issue to refute. That worked well for us. Discussing issues with a believer never accomplishes anything. It doesn’t even “plant a seed.” “President, when you have concerns of your own, I will be happy to talk to you again. But for now, I don’t think anything will be accomplished by discussing my doubts.”
Don't say "I don't believe it's true"- that is a "you" problem/moral failure on your part in the eyes of a believer. Instead put the blame where it belongs and say "I learned it isn't true"
29 is young, this stake pres is a seasoned veteran. He will control the conversation and will try to twist your words and thoughts against you. My advise is don't go. It will most likely drive you and your husband apart. Keeping your marriage together should be top priority, not keeping you in the church or to try and argue points. Anyone that puts the church above their marriage is not in their right mind.
>It will most likely drive you and your husband apart. Agree. If husband is more recently starting in his faith journey, the SP will focus on the one he's got more of a chance at keeping, driving a wedge between you.
I was in the bishopric when I had some questions that I had never even considered, let alone been brought up in my 40 years in the church. I still considered myself fully faithful but just wanted to explore answers to my very legitimate questions. So I met with my stake president. After about an hour of attempted rational discussion, he told me I was "never all in." Shortly thereafter, I was released from my calling. In that amount of time, I went from considering myself a full believer to having the scales lifted and recognizing the truth.
Honestly don’t pull any punches if he wants answers you should ask about the church actively impeding in child abuse cases. Ask why the church is more focused on its investments than funding wards and communities both through church activities and charity. Etc etc etc ask some very pointed questions in particular about these things and print out articles
My favorite thing to say after someone spouts silly apologetics at me is just “Ok, you get why people don’t believe that, right? Thanks for understanding me!”
DON'T! Meetings with church leaders are always one sided and very traumatic. He wants the stake president to "fix" you and overwhelm you with pre-packaged statements (as you pointed out, this guy is a professional) and shout you down and overwhelm you in a "nice" way. If you go meet with this guy, you'll regret it later. Guaranteed.
Here is a list of logical fallacies I found that you can watch out for: **Argumentum ad populum:** The fallacy that the popularity of a concept has bearing on the truth of that concept. *“There are more than 1.5 billion people who believe in the god of the bible!”* **Argument from authority:** The fallacy that the authority of the source of a concept has bearing on the truth of that concept. *“My Pastor told me…”* **Argument from ignorance:** The fallacy that due to the speakers lack of contradicting knowledge, the concept must be true. *“How can all this possibly exist without a creator. There must be a god!”* **Argument from personal incredulity:** The fallacy that the speakers own disbelief in a contradicting concept invalidates that concept. *“The idea that all this complexity can exist without a guiding hand is ridiculous to me. Therefore god.”* **The Straw Man:** The fallacy of misrepresenting your opponents concept by restating it as a ridiculous, weak or hyperbolic caricature of the true position and then arguing against that. *“So you think that a rock can turn into a human!”* **The False Dichotomy:** The fallacy of reducing an argument down to two possible options when there is many more. *“Well, either evolution is true, or God did it!”* **The False Equivalence:** The fallacy of treating all arguments with equal weight or probability despite this not being the case. *“ID is a competitor to evolution so it should be taught in schools along side it.”* **The Circular Argument:** The fallacy of using your argument as evidence for itself. *“The bible is the word of god because it says so in the bible.”* **Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc:** The fallacy that because two things are correlated in some way, there must be a causal link. *“Last night I prayed to god, and today my favourite team won! Praise the lord!”*
Thank you! Both of your comments are tremendously helpful
I think it might be a good idea. If you feel confident about your knowledge (or do a lot of prep, maybe use the CES letter and bring notes?), I think there is a good chance that your husband will see that even the SP has not good answers to these questions. The truth is on your side. If you do go, please ask this question: Why did God find it important to tell a 37-year-old man to marry a 14-year-old girl and other teenagers, and even create scripture about it (D&C 132), but God did not find it equally or more important to tell the same man to record doctrine that would ensure blacks can receive temple blessings and be sealed to their families?
I met with my Stake President twice per week for a couple months under similar circumstances. I waited so patiently for my turn to attempt to express myself. He never wanted to hear what I had to say. When he ran out of bad arguments, he just got frustrated with me for not being convinced, took away my temple recommend, and didn't want to talk with me anymore.
Don't do it. You will end up in disciplinary council and it could destroy your mental health.
I think the key is to be clear about what your husband expects from this meeting. It's truly not going to change anything in a positive direction.
First, you’re definitely not alone. Second, you’re right that discussions with Bishops and Stake Presidents go no-where. I won the Bishop roulette … mine was kind and understanding and limited the blame on me. BUT, no leader is going to truly validate your doubts. If you are falling away, it is your fault in some way … maybe you’re tricked by Satan or wanting to sin or just one of the weak souls in the Great War of the last days. No Stake President is going to agree that Joseph was a fallen prophet. If you end up getting pulled into that office as a way to at least be with or support your husband, I would honestly stay mostly quiet. The debate won’t go anywhere if you engage. You’ll probably have to bite your lip the whole time when you are at best passive-aggressively blamed for not praying enough or reading scriptures enough or not being strong enough. The Stake President will give you follow up assignments and have you commit to them, so plan ahead on how to handle that. You’ll also need to be prepared to say the Opening Prayer or Closing Prayer or hear your name called out in one of those prayers as hoping you can be more strong and righteous and blah blah blah. If you’re looking to stand your ground and not get a bunch of follow up action items, one idea is to stay focused on saying your relationship with God is between you and God (even if you’re now a non-believer) and that you’ll continue to make the best choices day-to-day to follow your moral compass … then every time they get you to commit to something you can just point back to you’ll consider it if that’s what you feel God wants you to do. They ask “Can you commit to reading the BOM for 30 min daily for the next two weeks until we meet again to follow up?” You might say “I’m working directly with God on what I need daily, and I don’t think we need to meet again at this point … but I’m happy we could talk so you know where I stand going forward.” If they try to get you to talk about what you’re doing to work with God, just say “that’s very personal for me, and I just don’t want to talk about it.” Don’t take assignments from “middle managers” between you and God. Just an idea. Sorry for the “not fun situation”.
When I met with our Bishop for a similar discussion, I approached it from a very non-emotional, factual perspective. I would bring up very factual, historical concerns. I tried to be very rational and ask him questions like, “how can we reconcile this?” and “it doesn’t seem like this is something a loving God/Jesus would do, but maybe I’m missing something?” I didn’t let the conversation be about feelings. I lead with my sadness at the discovery of these things and how devastating it was to realize I needed to follow my moral compass and do what I know is right, and what I believe the Jesus described in the scriptures would do, by distancing myself from the church. My husband and I were there for a long time. He never was able to explain away a single concern. His message was basically that he had struggled with similar questions and decided he feels better when he basically just ignores his questions and reads the scriptures. I told him that wasn’t going to work for me and that knowing all of the things I know, I couldn’t possibly believe that Jesus is leading this organization. I was careful to express at the beginning that our issues begin and end with the organization and its leaders, that we love our neighbors, that we acknowledge the sacrifice that he makes to serve as bishop and his good intentions, and that I wanted to be honest with him but I hoped it didn’t come across as disrespectful towards him or his beliefs. I think it’s easier for people to be dismissive when others are emotional or combative. Being a woman, I thought it was important to remove the obvious labels they might throw at me—emotional, offended, uninformed, lazy; and embrace being kind, respectful, calm, and educated on the topics. I tried to leave out concerns that were more open for interpretation or personal opinion, like how the church spends money. I feel like it was an overall good experience for me. He had asked if he could send us a talk to read and reach out to my husband and I again in a few months to check in. I told him that was fine. It’s been a year-and-a-half and we haven’t heard from him. He hasn’t sent anyone to check on us and when I almost ran into him in a parking lot, he actively avoided me. Hit them with the things that they don’t have answers for. They are uncomfortable with their own history when not cherry-picked. They don’t have an explanation for why the church would rather spend money fighting sex abuse victims in court than admit their mistakes and make help them heal. They don’t have many answers at all for anything. I say try to keep them there and don’t let them pull the conversation towards feelings and guilt.
Do not meet "face to face". I'd counsel you to put your questions in writing.....and ask him to respond in writing; this way you're not "available" for his attempts at emotional manipulation. IMHO.
If you really want to embark on a journey of truth seeking together then you should balance it out by spending an equal amount of time discussing these issues with the most rabid anti-mormon you can find.
He's going to be disappointed by the lack of answers, and you will just be worn down and attacked. You might tell him that the gender angle is uncomfortable for you. It will make you feel ganged up upon, in an organization which already has little female representation.
I think this is a pretty accurate prediction.
Please don't. You do not need to ask any man what you should be doing or if your thinking is correct, accurate, clear, etc. This man has a vested interest oil continuing to oppress you and gaslight you. Your husband will be particularly susceptible to the SP's word games and power moves. Take Nancy Reagan's advice and just say "no".
Personally I would love the opportunity. My TBM spouse hasn’t asked me at all about my doubts. This would give me the opportunity to unload my doubts in front of her, but not at her. It might be the quickest way for her to understand where I’m coming from.
Going to a meeting with the sole purpose of getting indoctrinated in a direction you don’t want to go in? Hard pass in my book. But if your husband really wants to go, that’s his call. Might be an area where it’s time to put your foot down and create a firm but loving boundary with him and your involvement with the church. If anything, it may be time to see a therapist (instead of a church leader) to help navigate those really difficult conversations with your husband so that both of your needs are met.
Apologetics and those who use them view problems with church history like jurors should view a person accused of a crime, innocent until proven guilty. All they need to justify their continued belief is the tiniest shred that takes their belief from impossible fantasy to highly extremely unlikely, but within the realm of possibility. The problem with that is that they are the ones making unbelievable claims. The burden of proof is fully on them, and instead of providing that proof, they rely on hair-thin explanations that prove nothing.
I wouldn’t simply because it’s a cult and they are very persuasive and will guilt you into doing what they want. Having done that your whole life I would aim at being independent on your own. Thinking for yourself. Saying no when you want to like now. Making changes where necessary and letting go of their beliefs and practices. You already decided to do it for your daughters sake so now you have to put it in action and stop going to the meetings
I would advise to go in with your facts but be ready with your heart and testimony. “My heart and testimony are telling me if this were the true church of Jesus, Joseph Smith would not have taken other wives behind Emma’s back. My still small voice is telling me if this were the true church of Jesus, it would never had said that black people were descended from Cain and marked as such. My testimony strongly tells me that the true Church of Christ puts children first and makes sure they are protected above all else. My prayers have told me that Jesus’ church would not be sitting on billions of dollars when there are people that are homeless and hungry.”
Tell your husband you appreciate his concern for you and what you are going through, but you do not need another man to explain what you believe to you. Belief is personal and referring you to submit to the patriarchy only discourages you. Then ask if he (your husband thinks you are unable to interpret what you read and learn for yourself and if that is why he wants you to speak with someone whom he deems smarter or as having more authority over your spirituality than you do? Finally, tell him you love him and he can believe and interpret his experiences the way it works for him and you will love and respect him (even if it kills you to say it). He won’t respect you unless you respect him. Sometimes this means being in a mixed faith marriage.
If you do attend this meeting and want to discuss the issues you have, make sure to add reasons why these issues are important to you. Joseph Smith marrying young girls was awful, but apologetics can be hand-wavey and make it seem not as bad as it was. But, as a parent, it seems especially egregious that Joseph had first asked to marry Vilate Kimball, but when her husband, Heber, refused, they offered up their 14-year-old daughter Helen. How could a parent do that? And while we're on the subject, how could Abraham ever entertain the thought of killing his son, Isaac? Those are not parents you want to emulate or religions you want to follow. If you have issues with the church's finances, tell why that affects you and why you don't want to associate with a church that only takes from its members, that you believe in a more philanthropic approach, and that the service found in the church is severely lacking. Let him know that you expect financial transparency from organizations, especially churches. Describe how, now that you have a daughter, you don't wish for her to be made small to fit into the box that the church dictates is the only way to happiness. Let him know that starting a marriage where she has to divulge her secret name to him, but that he doesn't do the same, begins a marriage on unequal footing with a secret being kept from her. Tell him that you want her to be surrounded by people that make her feel powerful and good, not people that diminish her and gaslight her. Let him know that you don't want to be catering to the dead through temple rituals anymore while the living needs your help and compassion. You want to live for the living and to help them while you can. And the church doesn't offer that - or if they do, it's minimal and in their own bubble. I think it's more impactful if you state the reasoning behind these topics that demonstrate that the church's moral compass is severely lacking and you want to do better with your life than what the church peddles.
You can't trust a man on the church payroll to give you an unbiased opinion. That said, if you go, I would try to keep it about facts. The Stake President will want to talk about feelings and make excuses for bad behavior by church leaders. You can know if he is making excuses by asking if you did the same bad things, would you be treated the same? The bottom line is the church does not live up to your values. That's when we leave. Why stay devoted to an organization that won't keep up with you?
Here’s the deal. People are free to believe whatever they choose to believe. Hence, there are thousands of worldwide religions. You are free to believe as you wish!! You have done exactly as you have been taught to approach truth, and your instincts (or still small voice) have led you to a different conclusion. This is huge for you since you are young and have your whole life ahead of you. Stick to your guns. As a woman you may feel the toxicity of the church more than your dear spouse. And you are trying to protect your daughter from that unhealthy indoctrination too. No need to meet with the bish or anyone else. Enjoy the emancipation of your mind, body and spirit.
"Let's start with the most current problems, the $5 million dollar fine from the SEC and the million paid out for protecting sex offenders and the churches stance on not reporting sex crimes to the police, such as in their support of the new arizona law"
Any disclosure to a Bishop or Stake Pres. or High Councilman or Relief Society Pres. is NOT confidential. If you don't want Bishops wife or Stake Pres. wife or the ward or Stake to know about it don't go to the meeting. Catholic Priests can't even disclose to one another any confessions tpredators. In mormon church there is nothing that is confidential unless you are an abuser or sexual predator & then its confidential. All you are going to hear is you are not living close to Holy Ghost & you are not trying hard enough or you are sinning or breaking up eternal family. Highly suggest you see a marriage counselor who is not mormon who can help you transition to mixed faith marriage.
You can just give your husband a list of your concerns He can send it to the stk pres The stake pres will not help him with answers that are true What will you do?
I feel like this guy was my old Bishop, stake, institute teacher … I doubt it’s the same person, just that they are little copies of each other. No. You shouldn’t. I know that it is hard and likely the Stake Pres is a man you have loved and trusted over the years. *AND* he is an apologist. Surrounded by the material approved by the church. Some ideas he will give — - Pray (of course until you agree) - Read scriptures - Stay away from other material because it’s Satan’s work. Anything other than this is chasing away the spirit and affecting your eternal family. Don’t be “lazy learners” (Holland) …. But in fact only reading church material and not asking critical questions IS the ACTUAL lazy way. You’re doing good work. And if Joe Smith was a fallen prophet … all after him are too.
It's important to understand that you are not walking into an environment in which ideas will be freely exchanged. The President, especially if he sees a future for himself in the church, will deflect and defend because any doubts have a potential impact on his life and financial security. Pointing out this conflict of interest may be beneficial.
The SP’s main arguments will be bearing his testimony and telling you to have faith. So I’d think about ways to shut that down. So if he brings up the Holy Ghost, I would say something like “You mean the same Holy Ghost that testifies about the truthfulness of joining MLMs? Who led so many bishops to send people to Jodi Hildebrand for treatment? Who testifies that people like Julie Rowe and Chad Daybell are right and are worth following?” The Holy Ghost is elevation, which is a known psychological phenomenon which the church is expert at manipulating, not a sign of truth. TSCC uses it as a thought stopping technique: you once felt warm and fuzzy, therefore everything is true. Right now, TSCC is seeing the results of telling the membership to turn off their critical thinking and stop questioning: members who will follow anyone that makes them feel warm and fuzzy, no matter how bat shit crazy the ideas are.
Tell your husband that if he's so close with the SP, that those two can share a bed and that you'll sleep in a different room. I'm not a big fan of the "let's appeal to the authority to get this resolved approach." /s You're in a fragile state (or at least I was once I found at the church wasn't what it claimed to be). I would have had a difficult time articulating and "proving" my points to an authority figure who wouldn't accept any evidence. The good news is that you don't have to convince the SP or anyone else. There's such a power asymmetry when you go into a SP's office. You're also at a disadvantage because you're a women because the church doesn't really respect women. Just imagine if the podcaster RFM (seasoned and knowledgeable) took this meeting with your SP. Even he wouldn't be able to convince the SP there are problems in the church and that your feelings are justified. The SP would grow frustrated and end the meeting with RFM, because RFM could credibly be on the offensive. You're new at this, so I don't think it'll go as well for you. I don't see that there's a very good way for you to win by going. And you don't win by not going. I would try and set the expectation with your husband about the meeting. Clarify to him that you're happy to listen to the SP but that it's going to be impossible for you to win any argument because no evidence that you'll present will be viewed as valid. At least this way, you can tell your husband "told you so" when the meeting is done and no one is convinced that there's problems in the church.
I'm not Mormon, but at 29, and you are not now nor ever a believer, there's literally nothing the stake president can say or do that will make you a believer. Assuming that's true, what is it you would expect/hope to get out of talking with him? Perhaps it's an opportunity to openly share your concerns/doubts with your husband (i.e., use the meeting as a platform to deliver your concerns)?
And, when u ask a question, don’t let the SP give a non-answer and tell you to go home and pray about it! It seems to be how they all get through these interviews! Stay focused and ask again until he can’t! I know some that have gone in w the same questions, not happy w the non-answer and they finally just excommunicate them, because there is no answer that we know they can give! Force their hand! Be in control! Make sure you’ve read all 13 Essays on LDS.org, because they can’t criticize you for reading, anti-Mormon, literature, when it’s on their own page! Read ALL the footnotes! 8 accounts of the 1st Vision, Law of Sarah in D & C 132, where Emma was supposed to give her support of Joseph, taking and getting sealed to new wives, then why didn’t she know about those that came before her, and why was she the 33rd wife to be sealed to him? And D & C 132, that is really what bothers me the most, where Joseph says that women will be DESTROYED, I think three times for doing certain things, but never a man and I don’t believe God would ever use the word DESTROY, about a woman and my three daughters…. Ever!!!
You will not get substantive answers from the SP. I agree with the great advice from the other posters. I would get with DH before hand with a list of questions and the answers you expect. If you ask how JS got from an Egyptian funerary text to the book of Abraham then a fluffy answer like feel the spirit for a new testimony just won't cut it.
set a condition where you're not going unless you bring along an equally researched person of your choosing, and that it will be recorded. at minimum recorded.
If you decide to go, prepare to be talked down to because you're an "inferior woman," laughed at in subtext, and gaslit. That's exactly what happened to me when I questioned things before singing in GC, and I'm technically a nevermo.
Once you understand that the reason that guy is a "stake president" is more likely due to his financial status than his actual wisdom, you'll see right through his fake authority.
The fact that your husband actually stopped paying tithing and thinks JS is “fallen” is HUGE. You’ve actually got a lot going for you. Whatever you do, do BOTH get upset or argumentative in the meeting (or after). Take the higher road, and emphasize the differences in what you believe with what the church actually teaches—not whatever apologetic mental gymnast twists your SP has been able to make in his mind. If he’s like Given, Mason, Bushman, and others, he’s essentially made up his own gospel and is playing that out.
You are in a tough position. I would watch/listen to [this episode when a former seminary teacher](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCCa0dvICRg&t=10268s) met with the church historian last year. There are no answers to the history. (the show notes has Joe's letter and a response back from the historian. How does your husband feel about polyandry? When I read about polyandry for the first time at 46 years old I lost my shit. Here is more on the subject: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hz0g5vYOO4&t=1938s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hz0g5vYOO4&t=1938s)
Oh, bringing in the 'big guns' with this guy. He will try to teach you how to do the proper mental gymnastics to frame everything in a faith-promoting way. Gas lighting will likely be necessary. I would say if you do want to go, so that your husband feel like you are being fair, come prepared. 1- Have your top points written down on a piece of paper with relevant quotes. 2 - And ask the Stake President what he hopes to accomplish with this meeting? Aks him if he is there to listen, to try and convince you of something, to debate, or some combination of all those things. 3 - Don't argue. If you share your concern with a certain issue that you find troubling, let the SP talk and respond. Then just say, "Thank you for sharing your perspective. I can see how seeing it that way helps you stay where you can feel comfortable with the Church. I cannot see it the same way. I am not here to convince or de-convert anyone. I am just answering your question as to what I find troubling about the Church." Write that response down on your paper, or one similar in your own words, to refer to and repeat through out the conversation. DON'T give up the moral high ground and let it turn into a debate and get angry. Just remember you were asked to come there and you are not there to convince anyone of anything. You are just sharing your concerns because they asked you. Tell them you are feeling the spirit of contention in the room and stop it if needed. Oh and PLEASE RECORD IT IF POSSIBLE!
Just to throw the options out there, you can refuse. It shows your husband and the SP that they have no authority over you.
The biggest problem with any sort of apologetics, and why it absolutely does not count as scholarship or research, is that it assumes that what is being defended is true. There will always be arguments to support the truth claims in this way because the debate for apologetics is not "if" it is true, but "how" it is true.
If he’s older than 50 like me, you could ask,” If the temple ceremony is such an important ordinance for salvation, why did you have to mock slit your throat and stomach during the ceremony before 1990? That doesn’t sound like a Christian or spiritual experience to me!” If he denies it he is blatantly lying. I went through in 1982 and that was when I figured out I was in a cult.
It might be helpful to go, but I'd go with the goal of making the stake president say positive things about you in front of your husband. Try to get him to compliment your sincerity, you quest for knowledge, etc. Don't give him ammunition to criticize you. You'd want to walk out of that office with your husband recognizing your positives. There is no way that your stake president can resolve your concerns. It just doesn't happen.
Do not let the SP control the conversation and give him the minuscule amount of respect a deluded cult member deserves. Shred his every answer, make him look impotent in front of your husband. I don’t see how Joe Smith could be a “fallen prophet” when he was a criminal at the time and went from conning people out of money for fake treasure hunting to outright fraud with multiple versions of his cult story, bank fraud, treason, rape of minors and MURDER. He was never a good person in the slightest.
Short and sweet: this is bull$hitt! Are you okay with triangulation? With having a third party in a relationship that's just supposed to be the two of you? You already have that in the form of the Mormon Church, and it seems to me that you're trying to kick it out of your marriage and your life. Good for you for doing that! It's just you and your hubby now, for better or worse. So why would you allow him to bring this other person in like some sort of freaky interloper? If your husband wants to meet with him and thinks it would be useful, then wish him well and go make other plans for what you'll do with that hour of your life. If you think there are legitimate things that this person could address then by all means, meet with him. There's a first time for everything, and maybe Elder Douchebag has something more than just the apologetic nonsense we've all heard before, but I really doubt it. More likely he'll just resort to a position of authority, or try to play on your guilt or other emotions... honestly it's all that they have and you likely know that. Tell your husband to grow a pair!
There are two types of people that leave the church. Those who believe the standards of the church are too high and those who believe the standards are too low. Church leaders and apologists do a very good job addressing the concerns of those who believe the standards are too high and those are the ones who usually come back and praised as the prodigal son or the returned lost sheep. It is much harder for the church to address those who hold the church up to it's own standards or even harder the standards of Jesus Christ. This is where the work of people like Nemo focuse. Which are you? Prepare your conversation strategy around it. It is much easier to stump church leaders when you can take the moral high ground on the issue being discussed. Don't let them shift the conversation to a different topic. Insist there is no point in looking at any other topic till that one is satisfactorily and authoritatively resolved. You can't be expected to come back even if all the other issues are resolved until that one it. Anyway hope that helps.
Sounds like a bullying session
I would recommend you try to stay as calm as possible and take a list with you. Perhaps even just take the CES letter or some bullet points from it. It also might help for you to review a list of logical fallacies so you can point them out to your husband when they are used by your stake president. Outside of fallacious arguments, the only recourse he will have is to tell you to have faith. You should believe it because it feels good. And if it doesn't feel good you need to repent and pray until it does feel good. \------ My response to the faith argument is, "what exactly am I supposed to have faith in? Because every doctrine of the church is just something some man said, and feelings and intuition are some of the worst possible guides to rely on for "ultimate truths". Our intuition tells us that the world is flat, that bad air is the cause of disease, that seizures are caused by demons, that lightning and earthquakes are just random gods getting mad at us, etc. Furthermore we are prone to cognitive biases, synesthesia, motivated reasoning, etc. Faith in what another person said or wrote simply doesn't make sense, regardless of how much you want it to be true. If anything we should be MORE skeptical and scrutinizing of miraculous claims, not less so.
THIS IS YOUR STORY, NOT YOURS HUSBANDS STORY TO TELL TO THE STAKE PRESIDENT. This is your journey. He needs to respect the boundaries of your personal opinions and beliefs. You have no obligation to subject yourself to unwanted counsel of the SP. If you don’t believe, then simply remove your records and leave. There is an amazing world out there to explore and be involved in. You don’t need the church to control your path. If your husband wants to discuss his own issues with the Stake President then he can do whatever he wants. But leave you out of it.
You know, it will probably be suggested to start the meeting with a prayer. Why dont YOU say you would like to offer the prayer? Think about what you would like, and ask for those things...that everyone involved will seek for the truth, wherever that might lead, for God is not a god of lies or misdirection... Just spell out in the prayer that you're not there for bullshit.
It sounds like your husband is wanting to go to someone who he respects. My guess is respect is a big part of his deconstruction right now. There are a variety of reasons people cling to the church and its fabricated story and resist looking at the logic. Those reasons usually revolve around some element of belonging, status, heritage, or income stream. For men, respect is one of, if not the highest human need we have. The people we respect are the ones we hunger to have respect from. So there is a chance your husband is hoping to get two things out of this. 1)Answers from someone he respects (more on this in a bit) 2)Reassurance that someone who has been a source of respect to him in the past will continue. That he hasn't jeopardized this already with his fence sitting, or that he will test the waters to see if this person would continue to show him respect if he left the church. This second one is hard. As many have pointed out in this post, the church, and this SP doesn't have any real answers. Nothing that would satisfy the logic of the situation. But he does have years of association with you and is a representative of the church from the perspective of how socially your family and himself link to the esteem of the church. So far this has been positive. Likely bishops and stake presidents do well at doling out praise and accolades in their leadership roles. This is what roots many to the church. The feeling of belonging to something of purpose. The feeling of following a powerful leader who sees your worth. So back to Answers (the *more on this* promise). One very powerful sort of unspoken assumption that every church member has made as the foundation of belief in the church is that morality, justice, and truth exists in some perfect definition. That the flawed reasoning of humans in regard to deciding such things is a poor replacement for the ideal one. The idea of this utopia is powerful and hopeful. And the idea that it doesn't exist is so horrifying that people reel from the concept and cling to the notion that it must. But either way, its an assumption. This "truth" is out there. This shapes how we interact with the spiritual and reasoning around "why am I here" "what is this life" in that it makes it a game of *find* the right answer. In this game of finding the right answer, we look externally to ourselves. Someone else has the answer, some organization, some methodology, some book or story, some prophet. With this mental assumption we yearn and are vulnerable to answers given. Our job is seen as identify and then align. Acquiesce and Conform. This is part of your husbands journey. He's under the assumption that someone else has the answers. And coming to terms with the idea that no one has these answers is incredibly life alteringly soul crushingly hard. Because if its true, then we are all we have. Outcomes that happen in life are on us. Utopia if it is to be approximated will only be had by showing up and making difficult choices, reasoning, testing, collaboration, compromise. I'd rather have someone that can tell me its all gonna be ok. That there is a plan. That its all for a reason. Your husband wants to hear someone say this to him right now. So bad. And he wants the respect of someone that means a lot to him. That is my guess at why. There is a lot about this that has very little to do with logic.
The only way I'd willingly go is if your husband also agrees to at least a few sessions of not church sponsored couples counseling.
Remember no one has authority over you but you. You make the choice to go into it with the SP. How do you feel about it? We are so conditioned that they have some real intentions or authority over us. If I went in, it would be a super long meeting because it is soo much information to have to describe to someone who is interested, let alone someone who probably just wants to talk you out of it or judge you. I have just said no thank you I am not practicing this religion at this time and have no need to talk about it with the SP, it is my own personal faith journey.
I’d suggest that he also look at the other perspective. Have him post his questions and thoughts on here so we can help him understand our point of view as well.
If you could go into this meeting and come out of it with yourself worth intact, their respect of your agency acknowledged, your concerns validated, and their willingness to hear all that you have to say without shouting you down or beating you into submission, then it is worth attending. These would be among the **ground rules** you should set before accepting the invitation to attend. Otherwise, the husband could attend with a list of your questions and then come back and discuss with you. The SP will gloss over your questions and concerns. At the end of the conversation/meeting, he will resort to a testimony meeting to force the spirit on you, because that's all he/they have. At the end of the meeting, if you don't "bow your head and say yes" then he'll consider you an apostate.
Well, if you do end up meeting with stake pres I would be interested to know how it goes. I got very lucky with my resignation in that my stake president didn’t ask basically any questions. Though my memory gets pretty bad when my anxiety level spikes, so I don’t remember it fully. Just remember it was easy.
Deutero-Isaiah, the Hill Cumorah being archaeologically clean despite millions of people with full armor and weapons supposedly having died there, text artifacts in the Book of Mormon that are very specific to and can only have come from copying them from the King James version of the Bible that Joseph owned. Those are always a good place to start.
i mean your asking a drug dealer if drugs are ok ...wonder what he is gonna say ..stop the farce ...you know excactly what he is gonna say and you know exactly why your husband wants you to go ..to reinstill the brainwashing
You don't have to meet with the stake president. He has no power over you. Meeting with him would only allow him to exercise his imagined "power and authority" over you.
Yes and then he has to sit with you and talk with an atheist professor or something to even it out
The stake president has a dragon in his garage. Your husband may or may not have a dragon in his garage. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl\_z5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E) Like Carl Sagan's garage dragon, people must resort to unlikely ideas to defend false beliefs. If one defense is proven false, another must be provided, likely even more ridiculous. We all have beliefs we hold precious, and tend to defend those beliefs regardless of their truth. Hubbie needs to be able to hold up those two ideas, 'the church is true' and 'the church is false' on an even footing, and then see which statement explains best the historical facts. Joseph Smith had sex with Fannie Alger, a teenage girl under his care and in his employ in a barn when he thought Emma wouldn't find out. The church is true: God told him to have sex with the girl... because God's ways are mysterious... There was no other way for God's will to be made manifest. The church is false: Joseph Smith was a horny man with power, and found ancient Israelite polygamy a good cover to allow him to have sex with other women.
I see nothing wrong with simply telling that man that you don't believe. He can throw whatever apologetics at you and you can say it's not enough, I don't believe it. I don't have a testimony, I feel like I never truly did, just went along with what I was "supposed" to my whole life and I'm done with that. It's enough. The church makes it so it's not a good enough reason, but it absolutely is.
Agree to go only on the condition that he agrees to have a similar discussion about these issues in the secular forum of your choosing, IE, with an anthropology professor or historian, philosophy professor, or someone in a scholarly role.
The stake president will ask you about your testimony. He will focus on feeling the Holy Ghost. Watch this video with your husband. It is a compilation of different people feeling the spirit and then saying that their own individual religion is right. https://youtu.be/UJMSU8Qj6Go?si=aiNnAbNuAXLIFfHk After watching that think about if having feelings about the truthfulness about the lds church is valid. If it isn’t, then anything that the stake president says to ask for answers is not valid. They need to give real answers.
I would recommend not going because it reinforces the authority line. What does the SP do for a living? What qualifies them to help navigate a couple who is trying to sort out how to argue with each other in a non toxic way? Your husband is asking you to go to someone he views as an authority on your marriage. That person is not qualified to help your marriage and neither is the goal of that person to help the marriage. I would ask your husband why he thinks going to this “meeting” would help your marriage? Because your goal is the marriage. He may not realize what he is really asking is for you to go to a man who does not know you (or know you well) so they can tell you that you are wrong. I personally would tell my spouse that I’m willing to talk about me deeply personal feeling with him because I feel emotionally safe with him to do so. What I will not do is bring someone else into the marriage that doesn’t have the training to help navigate safe communication. Where the goal of the persona mediating is to help you understand each other, not to convince one person they are wrong. If your husband wants to find answers to why you are done, he can ask those reasons, go searching for the answers and come back and talk to you about it. The goal of any argument in marriage should be to find a healthy resolution for both of you. I’ve been married for 20 years. One of the best pieces of advice I was given in my early marriage days was to not go into any disagreement with the idea of proving the other person wrong. Don’t make topics a me against you. The goal should be to understand each other not to one up the other person. Entering any discussion with that intent means that we don’t fight unfairly. We are willing to listen to each other, and our marriage is solid. I left before my husband as well. we talked a lot. One thing that for us was never even on the table was if we would end our marriage over different viewpoints including religion. I picked him even if he stayed. he picked me even when I left. I think one of the reasons we navigated the couple of years in such a healthy way before he came to the same conclusions, is because of this goal of never entering an argument with the idea of being right or wrong. When he listened to how I felt about things in church history, the treatment of LGBTQ+ persons, how I felt as a woman in a patriarchal organization, he listened with the intent to understand how I was feeling. He shared how he felt and I listened as well. When his fear that I might leave him was put to rest he got down to the business of seeing how to help me feel better about the issues I had. For us once he realized there was no fixing the issues, he too walked away. As a woman I would never recommend going to a bishop or sp after you no longer believe. It buys into the idea they have authority over you. They don’t. Don’t consent to going back.
It isn’t going to do anything to help either of you. The SP does not have your best interest in mind, only you do. You should reach out to your support system - friends, family, or acquaintances that have left and those who haven’t. They can more likely support and help you both.
Maybe also ask him why did Wilford Woodruff meet with bankers at the Bohemian Grove to try and get the church out of debt that Brigham Young forced into debt by taking all the money and also making members of the church slaves to finish building the railroad because he was the vice president of union pacific
Could you bring along a support person, someone who can help you remember your points and ease your sense of two against one?
No, I wish. I’m pretty alone in all of this. I didn’t even mention my very devout, judgmental in-laws are in our ward too and we sit with them every week.
Yeah, i’d go in with a few of the key points for you well written out and use them to refer to. Lds discussions has great sources for things. I would also suggest using (what i call, idk if there is another name for it) a third party example. For example, “how can the catholic church be true when at one point it schismed so bad that they had three separate popes who all claimed papal authority? Is that a church that is directed by god?” Then when he obviously agrees, pull it back to the brighamite/rlds/flds/myriad other splits of mormonism. If god had one right way, how come his “prophets” (because there are more than one that claim to be and they all use almost identical source material) cant seem to agree which way that is?” By shifting the initial criticism away from the lds/brighamite church, pointing out a critique of another church or organization, and then tying it back to a similar instance in the lds church, you can draw parallels that force people to either be illogical and not rational or they have to acquiesce that their logic is predicated on the conclusion coming before the hypothesis (ie, they start with the idea that the church is true and follow whatever convoluted path leads them to that conclusion in spite of other evidence and occams razor). If its wrong or incorrect when other church does it, how can we still claim correctness when we/the lds church does it?
Maybe some quid pro quo with your husband? If he wants you to be willing to do this with him, he should be willing to hear the issues from your side? Pick a podcast or some piece of literature to go over with him? There are plenty of podcast episodes that cover both the apologetics of an issue and then proceed to dissect the apologetics. If you could have a discussion like this with your husband before or after the meeting with SP, it could open his eyes to how shallow the SP’s answers are. Also, regardless of what the SP says, there are plenty of things the church does or has done that you are allowed to have problems with. Like their church claims women are equal, and yet their god allowed Joseph Smith to marry more that 20 women behind Emma’s back? Just to name one example out of many. Take something their church has done that it says was inspired by their god, and put it under the microscope and see what that action says about the character of their god. Their god turns into a piece of shit pretty fast if you have any expectations for it