Voices from the Dust: February 1996
from Saint Peter the Apostate (a████████@a██.com)
19 Feb 96, 7:23 p.m.
Sorry, I never made the apostle calling. I'm inactive L.D.S. I'll tell you what Mormons and loony fundamentalists have in common: they both believe that God and truth are on their side and that the Bible is the word of God. In the case of L.D.S. folks, they will add to the latter "insofar as it is correctly translated." I lived for many years in the Middle East where, in certain instances, Moslem fundamentalists thrive. My wish for all fundamentalists of whatever ilk, including the corporate Mormons, is that you will leave the rest of the world in peace and go to that hell which you are busy creating within the deep crevices of your minds. Sorry I can't be more charitable.
Um, are we on the same wavelength here, Pete? I can't tell whether or not I'm being chewed out.
from an anonymous reader (/dust/1996/02/voices-from-the-dust-february-1996.html)
19 Feb 96, 10:34 p.m.
I'm a few weeks new to the whole Internet thing, so hopefully I'm doing this right. I've had a problem with the Church since I was a little kid but never kicked up a fuss because I had to eat. Now that I have a family of my own, I'm proud of the morals and integrity that my family instilled in me and which was reinforced at church, but that still dosn't make the basis of the L.D.S. Church right! They still have a strong hold on me; I've been inactive for twelve years, but haven't taken my name off the rolls (due probably to what my mom and dad would say -- very devout). Anyway, I plan on stopping here as much as possible, and I'm looking forward to your story in F&SF.
Parental approbation is a toughie. I told my parents about leaving the Church in a letter, but it was still terribly hard for me. I have no idea how they'll react if they ever run across this Web site . . .
from an anonymous reader (/dust/1996/02/voices-from-the-dust-february-1996.html)
20 Feb 96, 1:46 p.m.
Actually, I have enjoyed reading the tales of your trials on your mission in Calgary. I am anxious to read the rest of the chapters on how you survived what I am sure was a very frightening experience for one so young. I have a 19-year-old daughter, and I shudder to think how she would react if she found herself in such a situation. Although I must tell you, even at nineteen, you must have been either somewhat naïve or a little stupid to not realize the consequences of your actions. I guess, though, that in many ways that is the beauty of youth -- none of us really think that anything bad can happen to us, so we don't always think through all our actions. I am an active Mormon, but I read both "pro" and "anti" literature -- and, yes, I still have a very strong testimony that the L.D.S. Church is the restored gospel on earth today. I was inactive from the time I was your age until about a year ago (which is about fifteen years -- yikes, I really am middle-aged), so I am not a silly goose, unexperienced and ready to accept anything and everything I am told. But that is another letter . . .
Anyway, I am also reading "The Road to Apostasy" and am anxious to read the next installment of some of the major experiences in your life. In the meantime, I wish you peace in this life -- and may you find what you seek.
Thanks. Your objectivity is rare and much appreciated.
from Jeremy Gilbert (v████@m██.net)
20 Feb 96, 2:23 p.m.
Great overall web resource. I await the completion of your essay about your life.
Me, too, Jeremy! :)
from an anonymous reader (/dust/1996/02/voices-from-the-dust-february-1996.html)
21 Feb 96, 11:43 a.m.
I thought I'd send you an email message to tell you how much I've enjoyed reading Terror on Flight 789 and the other material on your Mormon Matter Web page. You're a talented writer and a facile storyteller, as evidenced by your ability to turn your bomb-threat misadventure -- funny enough, but not Arthurian except by Mormon missionary standards -- into a full-blown comic cliffhanger. Your perspective concerning the L.D.S. Church, while sometimes revealing an edge of bitterness, is a breath of fresh air. You may have an axe to grind, but at least your credibility isn't compromised by the demagoguery and dogmatism so characteristic of most "mainstream Christian" opponents of the church.
I'm fifth-generation L.D.S. and a returned missionary, for what that's worth. However, I'd probably be inactive now but for my wife, who's a staunch member, and my kids, whom I'd run the risk of alienating if I stopped attending church. I don't lament it terribly; I love them very much, and I accept the fact that staying active in the Church (as well as paying a full tithe) is part of the price I have to pay to show that love. I'm sure some people would regard my situation as bordering on pathetic, but I'm equally sure that many people, both inside and outside the Church, can identify. At least I've failed at enough Church callings that my stake president would never consider asking me to be, say, bishop or elders quorum president (they're the ones I feel sorry for). Moreover, I've recently discovered rock-climbing and Las Vegas -- "Have Aces, Will Split 'Em" -- as sources of fun and freedom, and they inject a measure of fulfillment in my life that would not otherwise be there. (Isn't it funny how, from a Mormon point of view, I'm pathetic because I can't find complete fulfillment just from being a home-bound husband and father?)
Notwithstanding, I have to admit that my problems with the Church are less doctrinal in nature than they are practical. Although one can take issue with many points of Mormon doctrine (and the reputedly divine origin thereof), the concepts of eternal progression, pre- and post-mortal existence, and natural law (i.e., the idea that certain things are right, and certain other things are wrong, regardless of time or place, as a matter of nature) appeal to me on both an intuitive and an intellectual level. Certainly, the Church's teachings with regard to personal morality and individual responsibility contain valid concepts, which are painfully lost on most people these days. Like it or not, in many ways the core beliefs of the Church are the very embodiment of traditional American family values. One can question the utility of those values, especially if one concludes that the Church is not the kingdom of God on earth, but to attack the Church, as others have done, as some sort of sinister "cult" on the basis of its principles should be fairly ludicrous to anyone who has "been there" and "done that." Furthermore, I have felt spiritual influences, especially in the temple, that I still find difficult to ignore, and too many things happened with regard to my marriage to deny that a higher power had a hand in it.
No, what bothers me most is the chasm between what is professed in the Church and what is practiced. We preach humility and compassion -- which I think are the two defining characteristics of true Christianity -- but too often what we have is pridefulness and disdain for others. The "elite" among the membership tend to be absolute Pharisees, people who put up a false front of perfection (now there's a useless value) to enhance their image in the eyes of others but who would always cross the road rather than assist an injured stranger, especially if it threatened their pride. We talk about how God is no respecter of persons, but in the Church deference is almost always paid on the basis of wealth, education, or inflated ego. We say that agency is so important that it holds the very universe together, yet systemic guilt trips (e.g., home teaching) are the primary motivator for any member who cares little about reshaping his nose.
Two episodes in recent history should have provided ample fodder for critics of the Church, but I've seen few references to them, especially on the Web. First, you're probably too young to have idolized Paul H. Dunn -- I can still remember the sheer electricity in the M.T.C. when he came to speak to us missionaries -- but it was absolutely stunning later to find out that all of his tremendous, faith-inspiring stories about war, baseball, etc., were complete fabrications. And what happens to him? The Church shuffles him off to pasture as a General Authority "emeritus" -- a status usually reserved for people who are so old they can't function anymore. (About the same time, George P. Lee, the only Native American ever to be called as a General Authority, has the gall to criticize the leadership of the Church as being too old and too biased against other cultures, and what happens to him? Exed!)
The second episode involved the Mark Hofmann murders a number of years back, which put another black eye on the Church. The Church leaders so readily accepted the authenticity of the documents Hofmann was churning out -- all of which cast doubt on the official version of the origins of the church -- that they couldn't even say "See, we told you so" when the documents were revealed to be forgeries. Hugh Pinnock was one of the rising stars among the General Authorities at the time, but who has heard of him since then? His involvement in the Church's acquisition of Hofmann's documents has apparently left him in a cold, windowless office somewhere in the "telestial" floors of the Church Office Building.
I look forward to reading the rest of Terror on Flight 789, as well as the rest of your story about why and how you left the Church.
Thanks for the well-written, well-reasoned, and even at times moving discussion of the basis and extent of your beliefs. It's much appreciated. Eloquent and open-minded Church members are showing up far more frequently than I ever expected them to! (I laughed out loud at the image of the "telestial" floors of the Church Office Building.) Paul Dunn audiotapes, strangely enough, were a staple in my family from the time I was knee-high to a Mormon cricket, and I too was shaken when his stories were proven fabricated. I find it amazing that legions of outraged Dunn disciples never rose up and demanded his ouster (not that such an action would have accomplished anything). When the Church leadership turns a blind eye to transgressions, does that mean that blinders automatically fall into place over the eyes of the bulk of the membership?
from Levi Gunderson (l██████@p███████.com)
22 Feb 96, 4:20 a.m.
Well -- what can I say? I leave for a mission to Russia in a month and a half. You present an interesting viewpoint. I look forward to reading your essay "The Road to Apostasy." Here's hoping it's done by April 3!
P.S. Your dad taught at South Pasadena High School? I lived in Pasadena for ten years and attended Marshall High School for two years. Take care.
Good luck on your mission, Levi. I hope it's a better experience for you than mine was for me -- sincerely. (I'm pretty sure it was South Pasadena Junior High School, but it's a small world nonetheless!)
from an anonymous reader (/dust/1996/02/voices-from-the-dust-february-1996.html)
22 Feb 96, 3:11 p.m.
Regarding "from an anonymous reader, 21 Feb 96, 11:43 a.m.":
I was amazed to see someone else living my life too! I wonder how many of those in the Church believe as we do? I don't go the tithing or temple route anymore, but everything else is essentially the same as Mr. Anonymous except I disbelieve in more than he probably does.
Rather than go into my entire story here, a very abbreviated version is located at:
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft7.htm
I've been thinking about writing an article for Dialogue entitled something to the effect of "Potential Effects of the Information Age (and the Internet) on the Church." The only problem is it might get published and then the gig would be up with my family.
I think the Internet is having a tremendous effect on the Church, although it probably won't be shown for several years. Many "good Mormons" who wouldn't dream of visiting the Tanners' bookstore or going to the trouble of finding and reading any other source about the Church except for "Church-authorized" materials are having little problem in looking at the Church in a different light via the Internet.
Anyway, I've got tons more to say on the subject. If anyone is interested in writing such a piece, I'd be more than happy to be an anonymous source of information for you.
I think you've got a damn good point about the increased accessibility of material that casts a less than flattering light on the Church. I know I never would have been caught dead reading stuff by the Tanners back in the old days. But now . . .
Heck, I may just take you up on that article idea someday when my plate's a little less full.
from Jeremy Gilbert (v████@m██.net)
23 Feb 96, 10:39 a.m.
This is in regard to the last two anonymous responders (February 21st and 22nd).
First off, I am not L.D.S. but am deeply involved with people who are. I do have a bone to pick with the Church because of what it has done to my girlfriend and me and what I see it doing to other people around me.
I have to disagree with Mr. X of February 21st when he states that the problems of the Church are not so much doctrinal as practical. I've tried many times to compare the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but all L.D.S. people have been taught that beauitiful "correctly translated" phrase. It makes a religious debate extremely difficult because, if there is a conflict in the Standard Works, it is immediately assumed that that part of the Bible was incorrectly translated. I can see where this assumption comes. From the time you are seven, you are taught that the Standard Works of the Church are more correct than the "standard work" of almost three billion people in the world -- the Bible. The King James Version of the Bible was translated hundreds of years ago using inadequate techniques. I would associate myself with the United Methodists. We make up the second largest Protestant population in the United States. I have used the K.J.V. and the New International Version of the Bible in almost everything I have studied. There are differences between the two. How can the N.I.V. be any less correct than any other version of the Bible? It was more recently translated, from the earliest known transcripts of the books of the Bible -- often going back to the original Hebrew scrolls. I've been told that the K.J.V. is the most correct because it is the most free of political corruption, but when it was translated the Catholic Church and the government were so closely tied that they were inseparable. When the N.I.V. Bible was translated, we had a literal separation of church and state. Is it possible that the L.D.S. Church doesn't recognize this version because no members were included in the translating team? Maybe I've gone too far off the deep end on this one, but my point is that "correctly translated" is no more than a cop-out by the Church. That phrase allows the Church to put out all conflicts between the Bible and the other Standard Works. I'm not going to start arguing about whether or not Joseph Smith was correct on any or all accounts. I don't have the grasp of the Standard Works that lifetime Latter-Day Saints have. I will lose because of lack of proper knowledge.
I have to agree with Mr. X that the Church has many practical problems (e.g., corruption). Yes, that's right. The L.D.S. Church has 4.8 million members in the U.S. alone. Just like the early Roman Catholic Church, there are major problems. However, many of these problems can be traced back to the doctrinal beginnings of the Church. The Church's history is scarred forever by early practices such as polygamy and blood atonement which still occur today -- openly in fanatical sects of the Church but also in the underground of the main body of the L.D.S. Church. One thing the Church needs to do is recognize that these problems still exist and deal with them directly. I respect no one who runs from his problems or pawns them off to someone else rather than facing up to them. The major problems of the Church may be practical, but they stem from early doctrinal aspects, not present-day concerns.
Many of you may ask, "Who is this ass*@!%, who thinks he's so hot, to criticize our religion?" I may go too far at times in criticizing you, but remember that only recently did the Church make itself out to be Christian. In its beginnings, Christians were the scourge of the Church. My religion and many like it were subject to decades of criticism from the L.D.S. Church -- so be willing to take what you have dealt. Feel free to write me all you want. I will answer you, but I don't really want to get into a flamewar. Intelligent conversation via e-mail I encourage; hate mail I do not. I know that many of you will strongly disagree with me, but freedom of speech is what makes this country great.
Blood atonement practiced among mainstream Church members today? Frankly, I find this hard to believe. Do you have any evidence?
from an extremely witty anonymous reader (/dust/1996/02/voices-from-the-dust-february-1996.html)
23 Feb 96, 5:25 p.m.
Hi! My name is William Shunn. I am a moron and I am going to hell.
If I knew your real name, friend, then I'd offer to buy you a drink when I get there. I was hoping you could show me around. Oh, well.
from Kathy (/dust/1996/02/voices-from-the-dust-february-1996.html)
25 Feb 96, 9:43 p.m.
You are cool. Your page is cool. Someday I will spill my guts about the Church. The problem is, I'm sometimes afraid no one would believe me! Meanwhile, just read Secret Ceremonies if you haven't already, and keep up the #1 excellent work!
I'm certain that people will believe you, Kathy, and I hope I get to hear about your experiences someday. In the meantime, Secret Ceremonies will go onto my unmanageably huge reading list. :)
from Dave (/dust/1996/02/voices-from-the-dust-february-1996.html)
29 Feb 96, 12:03 a.m.
I have been an active L.D.S. member for five years. I have studied the teachings of the Church as well as the comments and stories of former members. I have reviewed the problems that have plagued the Church from its inception. After all this, I've also been a missionary and have had every bit of trouble that you, Mr. Shunn, have had, including seeing the inside of a jail for two horrible nights. I know in my heart still that Jesus Christ has pulled me through all of it. I know the difference between His spirit and that of the devil, and I choose to follow Jesus. I know that His close personal servants, such as Moses, Peter and Paul, and Paul H. Dunn, make mistakes and misjudgments. I will not fault them on it. I will not turn a blind eye on His church because of other men's mistakes.
Paul H. Dunn is a proven liar, and rather than censure him for it, the Church has quietly put him out to pasture. In other words, the L.D.S. Church is unwilling to take a public stance against lying. It's certainly reasonable to turn a blind eye to the mistakes of a lone man, but it's far more difficult to ignore the hypocrisy of an organization that claims to represent God on earth.
If you've really had such tremendous and faith-promoting trials, then I would suggest that an explanation of them would be of far more use to this discussion than cryptic claims of affliction and the not-so-subtle implication that I've fallen under Satan's sway.
from Serratia (s████████@a██.com)
29 Feb 96, 5:58 a.m.
I am breathlessly awaiting your next installment! It is truly amazing what peer pressure can do to a young mind made vulnerable by isolation and indoctrination. Glad to see you survived with both sanity and humor intact. Thanks for sharing!
Ain't it just? Sometimes I wonder about the sanity, but I have a testimony of the humor! ;) Hope you keep enjoying the story.
from Mohandas Grundi (m███████@s██.edu)
29 Feb 96, 9:42 a.m.
I personally believe that testimony is something that you cannot base on individuals (i.e., friends, relatives, and General Authorities). I reflect on the story of the boy who asked his father why he had fallen out of bed the night before. The father replied, "I guess you weren't in far enough."
Shunn, I think you're a talented writer. I'm a devoted member who finds your mission experiences funny. What were the leading factors in your falling away? Please don't tell me it was the anti-Mormon info of the Tanners, the published nonsense that has been refuted for years now. You're into journalism -- tell me about the validity of biased opinions or articles? I challenge those people who actually take the anti-Mormon literature seriously to thoroughly investigate the accusations. You see, there are many ways to falsify information. It doesn't take a genius to spread malicious lies about a group of people that only wish to worship God the way they wish to.
Let's take the example of William Martin, the author of Kingdom of the Cults. Here is a man who has professed to be a doctor but in reality is a man who never did receive a doctorate. He also professed to be a direct descendent of Brigham Young; however, the Church published his genealogy and it shows the two of absolutely no relationship. It makes me think of when the Lord said, "Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing."
The thing that interests me is that nobody ever says what they believe in, only that we're the church of the devil. If we're the church of the devil, then who's persecuting us? Think about it.
Don't forget your spiritual experiences, Shunn. You can't tell me you didn't have any that you built your testimony upon, or was your mission really in vain?
You know, I remember when I heard all the stuff on Paul Dunn. I remember saying, "Well, now I know why he was never called as an apostle." I also remember when the Native American General Authority [George P. Lee] fell away. It was just another prophecy being fulfilled -- that in the last days even strong members shall fall away.
I think in all of this I'm trying to tell you to remember the spiritual experiences that you've had. Remember those things that your now-forgotten testimony was once built upon. Remember that there is nobody on this earth who is perfect -- certainly not me and certainly not the rest of the world. Someone once told me that as soon as you take your testimony for granted, you can count the days towards your inactivity and even your apostasy. Apostasy is something that was prophesied by the prophet Joseph Smith. He said that once a person decides to become an apostate, they become addicted to the cause and it's very hard to get out. Look at the Tanners -- they've practically devoted their lives yo the cause, and, even though the information that they publish is so biased and refutable, it still has the ability to cause those whose testimonies aren't correctly cultivated to waver.
Anyway, I'm not writing to bash your page or in any way, shape, or form argue doctrinal points. I do feel that people need to find out what it's all about for themselves, but to do it the right way and not through the biased opinions, falsified information, and the half-truths that the anti-Mormons spread. Good luck in your writing career. You have a great talent.
I'm reminded of my own story, actually -- of the boy who woke up from a dream one day and realized that there was whole world out there which was more interesting, more tolerant, and ultimately more freeing than his small bed. Certainly there were pleasant moments in his dream, but there were at least as many nightmarish sequences -- the sort where you run and run but don't make any progress. I'm happy to be awake.
My apostasy is based almost exclusively on my own thoughts, feelings, and observations -- very little of it stems from things other people have written. The full details are forthcoming in the as-yet-unwritten portions of my essay "The Road to Apostasy," which I hope you'll watch for.
I'll tell you, since you've asked, the validity of biased opinions -- that's the only kind there are. That's the definition of "opinion." As for biased articles, I would contend that there are no unbiased articles, either. There are articles that strive for neutrality, but the writer's inclinations will almost invariably show through. I would contend that the only way to find the most workable truth is to study every side of the issue under scrutiny. Mormons must examine challenges to their faith, and anti-Mormons must listen to the arguments and testimonies of the faithful. Avoiding one type of information or the other promotes only close-mindedness.
I have not forgotten my "spiritual" experiences. I have also not forgotten that my agnostic sweetheart feels something she calls "rightness chills" when something strikes her as powerful and true -- most recently during a performance of Angels in America -- and that these sound suspiciously similar to the sort of thing I used to experience sometimes in church. Experiences like these are a phenomenon not unique to Mormonism -- not even unique to religious believers. I have not forgotten the way it feels to have a certain fundamental truth become apparent to me. I do not, however, subscribe to the fallacy that rightness chills mean Mormonism is God's true church.
