Introduction

In my faith deconstruction, I reached out to my local bishop to let him know where I was at:

Ultimately, I no longer was in a place to commit to the church at the level it desires of its members and felt the honest course of action was to have my records removed. To my surprise, he was extremely supportive and understanding and wanted to know how he could help. He recommended I read the Light and Truth Letter, which I have read a lot of it. I found it to be a very interesting read and wanted to share my thoughts on it.

As of Nov. 2024, I’m not getting my records removed (yet) but have decided to set a boundary in which I will not commit to the church fully moving forward.

I have not finished the Light and Truth Letter, and will update this post as I continue through the letter.

To Austin Fife

As someone leaving the church in spirit, I deeply appreciate the points made to appeal in a logical fashion. Despite not having finished the letter yet, I read the Epilogue: A Letter to a Former Member of the Church and was moved to tears by the spaciousness. I hope all members could learn from this as it’s all I hope for as someone trying to respectfully leave the church.

Thank you so much for the Light and Truth Letter. Although I ultimately disagree with the arrived outcome, I am very grateful, Austin that you shared your thoughts and feelings and hope that I can be as spacious with those I may not align with. My thoughts here are in no way an attack on you or your approach – rather, I hope to process in a way that’s meaningful for myself.

Manipulation and Fallacies Reaction: an unbalanced comparison

Of the chapters I have read thus far, this chapter felt most frustrating. I don’t have an issue with pointing out the formula for critics of the church and labelling it as manipulation. From my perspective, putting forth a compelling argument is manipulation.

However, I think it’s perfectly fine to call out critics of the church as manipulative.

The part that frustrated me was the omission of the fact that the church engages in far more egregious manipulation. The church has long had a history of avoiding the truth. As someone who is currently in the process of learning about the church’s history, it feels like this chapter completely collapses on itself by not addressing that point. From my perspective, the church engages in all the manipulation tactics outlined in this chapter. As I understand it, the church has only been more forthcoming about its history as the internet has forced its hand and due to social pressure.

In the Light and Truth Letter, a recurring assertion is the lack of examples provided by critics, so I’ll provide examples of the church being dishonest, from my perspective.

Example 1: tax fraud

An example that comes to my mind of the church being dishonest in recent years was when the church was charged by the federal government for committing tax fraud – and then in the following General Conferences, never mentioned this issue when the church auditing department delivered its report:

As a member in full fellowship who paid my tithing when this news was made public, I was extremely frustrated at the lack of transparency the church takes with its members. The church did issue a statement on this here: Church Issues Statement on SEC Settlement

The following is stated by the church in the above statement:

We affirm our commitment to comply with the law, regret mistakes made, and now consider this matter closed.

This – in my opinion – is a weak acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Additionally, being an entity based out of the United States, it is not noble for the church to do the bare minimum to continue existing. The church asks far more of its members with repentance than it is willing to give.

Example 2: misleading citing of sources

In my journey to better understand church history, I find myself frustrated by how consistently the sources cited by the church in its own documentation is misleading.

An example I recently encountered was when I heard that Joseph Fielding Smith hid the 1832 account of the First Vision. Curious, I wanted to see what the church said about it, and found this article: Was the 1832 account of the First Vision cut out of a letter book and restricted from public access?. In the article it states the following (as of Nov. 19, 2024; my own emphasis added):

Scholars with the Joseph Smith Papers have concluded that someone – likely a member of the Historian’s Office staff – removed the pages of the 1832 history from its bound volume sometime between 1930 and 1965.

In the Learn More section, we have a link to a BYU paper: How Joseph Smith’s First Vision Became All or Nothing

The paper states the following:

Tanner wrote to Nibley, asking for access to the entry. “The day my great-grandfather heard that remarkable account of the First Vision from Joseph Smith,” Nibley replied, “he wrote it down in his journal: and for 40 years after he never mentioned it to a soul. Therefore, when I came across the story unexpectedly I handed the book over to Joseph Fielding Smith and it is now where it belongs—in a safe. The prophet did not like to talk about the First Vision,” Nibley reasoned, “and those to whom he told the story kept it to themselves. It was only when inevitable leaks led to all sorts of irresponsible reports that he was ‘induced’ to publish an official version.”

Even if Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t remove the papers for the book himself, it’s misleading to lay the blame on “someone”.

Another misleading example I ran into was with the church’s Gospel Topics Essay on Race and the Priesthood where the following is stated:

At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.

If you follow the footnote, it takes you to the discourse in which Brigham Young vocalizes many racist perspectives: https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/e6a939a0-3402-4771-814d-4eaf2547e613/0/0

Some quotes:

In the kingdom of God on the earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in government they are the subjects the eternal servants of residue of children and the residue of children through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord have the privilege of saying to posterity of Cain inasmuch as the Lord [is?]

not one of children of old Cain as any right to bear rule in government affairs from first to last … it was taken from them by their own transgression and I and I cannot help it

I will not consent for one moment to have an African to dictate me nor my brethren with regard church and state government

I will not consent for a moment to have the children of Cain rule me nor my brethren when it is not right

And he states the following about his expressed views:

I have given you the true principles and doctrine

The misleading citation says more than the content cited

I want to be clear that although I find the content I cited troubling I find it far more troubling that the way the church uses it is misleading. It says far more to me that the church has to scrounge for quotes and data in misleading ways to support its points than what the content itself says. A more honest approach would be to totally omit Brigham Young’s horrible discourse altogether – or to draw attention to the bad parts, too.

The church should be held to a higher standard than critics

The examples I provided above aren’t very scholarly, but they are ones I have run into personally and recently. I think that any intellectually honest member of the church knows that the church has an established pattern of not being forward and transparent with potentially embarrassing content.

It was difficult to not view the chapter calling out critics as manipulative as an unbalanced criticism – because John Dehlin and the other critics of the church aren’t claiming to be led by God, asking us to give them 10% of our income and devote our entire lives to them. From my perspective, the church should be held to a higher standard, not the critics. I hope this chapter can be updated to more evenly outline the church’s manipulation tactics – or at least acknowledge that they exist.

An unscientific approach: starting with the answer before analyzing the evidence

This isn’t focused on a specific chapter, but throughout the letter, my impression is that the goal of the Light and Truth Letter is to prove the church is true rather than objectively analyzing the evidence. This is different than starting with a hypothesis and then letting the evidence guide you to the answer. I think it’s perfectly fine for it to be more convenient for the church to be true – but this prevents one from approaching it in an intellectually balanced manner.

The church teaches us to start with the answer first and to work all the evidence around it – and I feel the Light and Truth Letter is another example of that. In deconstructing my faith, one of the focuses of my approach has been to consider the evidence without an answer in mind.

Done for now

I plan on resuming this and updating as I continue the letter. I haven’t called out other chapters as I don’t have serious reactions for or against them – I’m pleased with the appeal to reason and logic attempted with the arguments. :)