East Valley Tribune - Metro Phoenix's East Valley region

Metro Phoenix's East Valley region

Saturday, Nov 21, 2009| 12:25 pm

Search:

Publish your Stuff

Log in| Become a member| Help

Cop Shop| Chandler| Gilbert| Mesa| Queen Creek| VarsityXtra| Education| Dining| Valley| Nation & World| Get Out| Multimedia| Special Reports| Coupons Veterans Day| Senior Life| Celebrities| Games| Weather| Traffic| Info Center| Crosswords| Comics| Weird| Find a rack location| Send feedback| Help Desk

Faith, conflict and excommunication

Lawn Griffiths, Tribune Columnist

October 5, 2007 - 10:46PM , updated: November 7, 2007 - 9:29PM

Digg| Save| License| Print| E-mail| Decrease text size Reset text size Increase text size

Mormons have called themselves “a peculiar people,” a group set apart and forged by the adversity of the church’s history and grounded by its distinct teachings.

Read Lawn Griffiths' Blog 'Beyond Belief'

Known for wholesome family life, close-knit support of each other, a model welfare system and detailed order in all they do, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also have a natural desire to be accepted and to belong. The church works hard for legitimacy as a bona fide Christian faith. But detractors pore through the church’s considerable writings and cannot reconcile their findings with “accepted” or orthodox Christian tenets and practices.

Church leaders say they don’t need others to give them a Christian seal of approval.

The made-in-America church can’t seem to fully shake its polygamist past, and it raises eyebrows about secret temple rites and afterlife attainment of “exaltation” and “godhood” through full obedience on earth.

“The Excommunication of Lyndon Lamborn” could be the title of a movie coming soon to a theater near you.

The critics of Tribune articles about the Mesa man going public with his ouster from the church for apostasy have dismissed them as a gimmick to sell newspapers — and dismissed Lamborn as one isolated, disgruntled member out of 13 million Mormons. From the moment I first read Lamborn’s e-mails and then sat down and interviewed him, I recognized him as a highly educated, articulate and sincere man who had put his 49 years of life into trying to live the Mormon way. His church assignments across 30 years are unimpeachable, as a missionary, Boy Scout leader, teacher and more. The engineer and father of three doesn’t come across as strident or a publicity seeker, nor someone vindictive. He says he wanted to leave the church quietly through the stroke of authorities’ pens.

Unlike so many people who come to me dissatisfied with their own church, Lamborn, a fourth-generation Mormon, arrived equipped with a large body of written work, references for his investigation, and a solid narrative of his quest to find truth. He believes that claims of the church are refuted by evidence.

Lamborn’s stake president wrote him Sept. 2 that he intended to have bishops in the wards (eight in all) announce his excommunication for apostasy on Sept. 23. Lamborn believed that rare step was planned because, during a disciplinary council on Aug. 19 with 15 church leaders, “I was pretty much in your face with the brethren. ... I wouldn’t consent to any rules.” He was informed that even with excommunication, he could attend regular meetings and services, but could not “give a talk” and “offer a public prayer.” Lamborn said it made no sense that he couldn’t pray for his friends inside a chapel. He even suggested they could get a court injunction to “prevent me from coming because you have no authority over me.”

Those announcements to priesthood and Relief Society groups in wards were never made. I spoke with stake President R. James Molina two days before the scheduled announcement and told him that Lamborn had contacted the Tribune and was furious over the plan to make his excommunication public. That Sunday, Lamborn said he asked Molina about the change of plan. Molina told him he had been undecided all along about having the announcement read and that, with the Tribune article Sept. 23, any announcement was unnecessary because word would surely get around.

Molina chose not to tell the Tribune why he canceled, or delayed, the announcement.

So many of the more than 1,400 online comments made on two articles I wrote about Lamborn revolved around whether Mormons are able to freely investigate the church’s history and teachings and how much pressure there is to be loyal or unquestioning. Some wrote of being disciplined, of being warned against sharing concerns and doubts about the church with others, and of being excommunicated themselves. But a great many defended the church. An example is “James,” who said the Book of Mormon is “the plainest and purest message of the gospel of Jesus Christ ever written.” Unlike the Old and New Testaments, “there is something sweeter about the Book of Mormon,” he said. “As I have read it over the last 40 years, my life has been filled with joy because of it.”

Other said that true faith can remove all doubt. Other said Lamborn fell victim to the influence of heretical materials.

Lamborn said he believes that the church went into “damage control” when he first shared his doubts with his bishop and stake president. He revealed he had discussed those same concerns about church teachings with his five brothers, all of whom had gone on two-year church missions and were active in their wards. “The following week, all the bishops of my brothers had received a phone call, and each of my brothers got a visit from the 'men in black’ over the next 30 days,” he said. “They were each questioned about their beliefs.”

Many Mormons say that Lamborn could not have been easily sheltered about the church’s polygamist history as he had claimed.

“Polygamy is not hidden. ... Polygamy is discussed openly in the church, and it is in all of our history books,” wrote Jean White of Maricopa. “Many members can trace their heritage to polygamist homes.” She said during the early years of the church, a time of persecution, “there were many parentless children and widows who had lost children and mates. We were a hunted people at times.”

“We are not ashamed of our history,” White said. “When the government said it was outlawed, it was discontinued.”

Most of Lamborn’s friendships are with church members, relationships he wants to keep. “They know me and trust me and are tolerant of the fact that I may not believe the way they do and vice versa,” he said. He talks about “recovery from Mormonism” but says he has no immediate plans to embrace any other religion.

“I am sure the correct path will present itself to me in time,” he said.

Comments

Reader comments: This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Responsibility lies solely with the comment author.

Please add your comments, but follow these guidelines to keep this a safe, credible place for discussing the news:

  • Stay on topic.
  • No personal attacks, racial slurs or insults; no vulgar, lewd or threatening comments.
  • Report abusive comments.

Reader comments (64)

This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Responsibility lies solely with the comment author.

My comment disappeared! What's going on?


View more comments:  1|  2|  3|  4|  5|  6|  7

BrainScrubber

Bravo Bushman, thank you for taking to the time to post, it was a refreshing. Great link too!

Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

GG

Real Motives,
I appreciate your comments. I am aware of what the Proclamation states, it hung on my wall for many years.

I have also read 132 many times. It says that polygamy was to raise up seed, there are no children listed by JS other wives on familysearch.org. It also says something about virgins, JS married other mens wives.

I have heard all the stories of polygamy in the bible so therefore it must be OK. I personally do not believe that it was commanded by God in the bible. I don't believe it was commanded of God to JS.

You state that Lyndon was EQ President 4 times and that he should have read 132 before. How many lessons do you think he taught on Polygamy that he needed to research 132? Since when has 132 been included in the reading assignment for SS? Sure, they hand pick a verse here and there but I have never discussed polygamy in a SS class. It can't be talked about in the open. The ONLY wife that is ever discussed is Emma.

Polygamy was just the tip of the iceberg for me. If I don't believe that polygamy was "commanded" by God through JS, then what else did he say that I don't believe anymore? It started there for me and has been crumbling ever since. Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

Faithful but ignorant?

I am trying to follow the logic here, please help me:


1. For over 30 years Lyndon bears testimony that he has received a witness from GOD that the Book of Mormon is true during the period when there was no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon or even contradictory evidence against the Book of Mormon.

2. Lyndon bears testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet as he has received a witness from the holy ghost and because the Book of Mormon does increase testimony of Jesus Christ.

3. How are any of the discoveries that Lyndon says he’d found over the last two years change 1 & 2?

4. Was Lyndon faking it all those years?

5. How does more information and details about Joseph Smith’s polygamy change number 2 when with or without it he still claimed that he knew from God that he was a prophet?

6. How does the lack or whatever new evidence change number 1 when he said that the holy spirit had testified of the truth of the Book?

7. Why should we trust his conclusions on Mormon origins now?


GG,

I am not the person you directed the comment to, but over the years I have talked about DC 132 in priesthood many times.

Didn’t Lyndon originally claim that he didn’t know about polygamy at all? Meaning, he didn’t know that Abraham, Moses and others were not polygamists and Joseph Smith and others in Nauvoo?

I think Real Motives has something here that we should take a close look at. It’s curious how you characterize DC 132. If you were a Mormon, you’d have to admit that DC 132 is also studied and is the bases for “eternal marriage” not just polygamy.

Are you claiming that Lyndon who was EQ pres 4 times wasn’t familiar with the scriptures for eternal marriage?

I did a quick search of gospel manuals and Ensign articles at www.lds.org and DC 132 is everywhere referencing marriage over the last 40 years at least.

Lyndon’s claims just don’t add up. He was a stalwart member but didn’t crack open the manuals, Ensign articles, or the Doctrine and Covenants?
Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

GG

Faithful but ignorant,
I am not qualified nor do I have time to respond to the questions at the start of your post. But I will try to help you understand where I am coming from.

I was under the impression that Lyndon was aware of polygamy in the church. What I understood was that he recently found out that JS was involved in polygamy. Up until a few years ago, I was not aware that JS had many wives. Now, please don't accuse me of being ignorant. I know that I am not alone in this. I am tired of hearing that I should have known, so don't go there please. That is not the issue here.

I realize that 132 does talk about "eternal marriage" and that is what is discussed in SS and other classes. But I have never studied the scriptures as a group in a class that talks about polygamy, Emma, virgins, etc. Maybe that is something that is only taught to the PH?

I am not claiming that Lyndon wasn't familiar with the scriptures for eternal marriage either. Please don't put words in my mouth.

This is why there is no room for people like me in the church. I have been a faithful member for many years. People like you can't even try to understand people like me. Why can't we just agree to disagree? Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

Mayan Elephant

Oh for cryin out loud, faithful but ignorant?:

for the love of god, the issue is not that lamborn or anyone else knew that polygamy existed. the issue is that one grows up in the church learning some pretty little whitewashed version of church history where the poor women were being married to benevolent men that just wanted to help the widows.

later in life, in histories not available in the ensign or in d&c 132, one may stumble across the details, including the marriage of smith to helen mar kimball, age 14.

and yeah, it might change what one thinks of smith and the church to find out he was marrying young women after pulling the old vision trick where he told helens dad - "an angel will kill me with a sword if you dont give me your daughter as a secret wife."

hey, what do you care if lamborn believed smith was a prophet and now he doesnt? does that make a big difference in anything?

i am sure lamborn, like many others in the church, stood up and said "I KNOW" about a lot of things. so what? is your accusation that he was lying then or that he is lying now? and what does that say about every testimony spoken by any mormon on any given day? we know the cliches - "i know this church is true, i know joseph smith is a prophet, i know the book of mormon is true, i love my mom and dad...... " does every person repeating those words know everything about smith and the book of mormon? or are they lying when they say the know, if in fact they dont really know or there is an element of faith in their belief?

isnt it ironic that a temple recommend interview is supposedly private, confidential and personal. but, it has become a litmus test for being a member. if you cant give the yes and no answer to those questions, you are not a 'stalwart' member, regardless of how much one has given to the church or how much family one may still have in the church. Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

JayBo


I have two interesting thoughts,,

First, Mormons claim that the reasoning behind polygamy was due to more women than men. Everybody has agreed that the census says otherwise. Well I wonder did the census factor in the number of Morman men to Morman women? Remember these chic's couldn't be with anybody but a morman dude.. so they may have a slight point,, there may have been more Mormon Women than Men,,, however that justified (to them) I would love to hear them elaborate on the polyandry.

That topic has been asked before in these posts, but no answers.

Second. I believe Lamborn when he says he did not know about the extra wives,, I asked a close lds friend this weekend what she knew about the wives, and at 38 years old all she knew was the "hunted" theory and believed that J. Smith was sealed after his death to other women.

She also got mad at me for looking at these anti-mormon sites,, (tribune) and said if I wanted to learn about her Religion, she can schedule some missionaries!

She's so cute.

So for those who dont believe Lamborn, Ask your Mormon friends or co-workers if they knew.
I think you would be surprised.

Parents cant teach what parents were never taught.
This just goes on and on,, I agree it will be interesting now with all the quick information from the Internet.


Jay.

Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

TOM

I married into the church years ago and for a very long time was pressured to convert by my inlaws. My wife (at the time we were dating) had "left" the church saying she had never really believed in its teachings.
Her family has always blamed me for her inactivity and the record will never be set straight because she fears her family will disown her if she speaks her mind and the church will ex-communicate her.
So it is easier for her to let me be the blame than to be honest with her family.
The church creates this division with a culture of you are either with us or against us.
Its realy kinda sad in that we are not realy close to her family and my family actualy knows my wife better than her own family.
Thier whole life is about the church at family gatherings they try to out "Morman" each other by what positions they hold or how much money they tithe.
My wifes family has always been good with us they love my kids and all but there is always this feeling that we dont realy belong because we are not practicing.

Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

Real Motives

GG:

I would like to believe that there is room for you in the Church. If Lyndon had simply refrained from teaching his conclusions (which are opposed to Church beliefs and doctrines) he could have continued being a member.

I say to you please continue/come and fellowship with us. Believe as much as you can and continue to seek God.

Jaybo:
I have heard similar stories about polygamy. My parents taught me that plural marriage is an eternal principle and for that reason alone it was revealed. James’ post about Jesus Christ claiming that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a plural marriage seems to be a confirmation of that.


Mayan
I suppose a question to Lyndon would be, “If he doesn’t know whether or not God exists, how could his position be superior for happiness than those who do profess they have truth from God?”

I know that you are an apologist for Lyndon, but I feel its reasonable to ask Lyndon to clarify his original statements: “Which is it? You didn’t know about plural marriage or you didn’t know about all of the ages of the wives or circumstances of it?”

And, once you found out, how does it change anything? Lyndon still claimed for 30 years to have truth from God that Joseph Smith is a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true apart from any earthly knowledge.

The last question would be that since there is no conclusive proof either way, and Lyndon doesn’t claim to believe in God, how credible is his claim whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ is God’s church?

To me, Lyndon’s claims are like the dialogue below: (Lyndon is like the Doctor)

Doctor: “I don’t know whether or not surgery can cure you. I don’t know if it can be known.”

Patient: Ok

Doctor: “But by all means, do not have surgery”

Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

DAISY

The reason all of us believing Mormons aren't defending any of this is simple.

Everyone in the world can work themselves up into a ridiculous frenzy about our religion... and it's not going to mean a thing, or change a thing....

Your time could be spent doing something so much more worthwhile. Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

Equality

RM,

Lyndon HAS clarified this question about what he was taught regarding polygamy in comments to the initial story at the site. He also has clarified it in an email that he graciously allowed me to post in its entirety at my blog Equality Time (www.equalitysblog.typepad.com). I post it here for your edification:



In following up on the story about the excommunication of Mesa, Arizona church member Lyndon Lamborn, I emailed Lyndon asking for more details about the circumstances surrounding his excommunication. He kindly responded and, with his permission, I post his response here. The words are entirely his (with a few minor editorial revisions to clean up typos or protect the identity of those whose permission for revealing their identity I did not obtain). Some of his words are stronger than what I would have chosen to use, but I think his story is important, and it has garnered enough interest, to share it here uncensored and not watered down. The words following the jump are Lyndon's own, and it is my understanding they were originally written in response to further media inquiries. My thanks to Lyndon for allowing me to share this with the readers of Equality Time.

Lyndon Lamborn--In His Own Words

After reading “Under the Banner of Heaven” and “Studies of the Book of Mormon”, I was having some serious doubts regarding the foundation of the church. I brought up these doubts to Bishop Palmer in late September 2005. The conversation eventually came around to with whom, if anyone, had I been discussing this information? I replied that I was connected with an e-mail discussion group that included my five brothers, all returned missionaries married in the temple. I expected this information to be confidential and private between us. Early the following week, I was astounded to get a phone call from my oldest brother Vern, who had just had a visit from his bishop asking about where he stood with his beliefs in the church. It turns out that Palmer had contacted all the bishops of my brothers and each one was visited by local leaders to determine what, if any, doubts they might have regarding church teachings.
From the very beginning of my research I decided to not be ‘in the closet’. I informed my wife of the books I was reading and offered them to her to read if she chose to. I talked to friends, Bishop Palmer, and President Molina on multiple occasions to update them on my progress. I also spoke to my mother regarding my misgivings with church origins, and gave her the book “Mormon Enigma” for Christmas. On several occasions, I mentioned to friends at church that I had been researching church origins as a hobby and asked if they would like me to share my research with them, the answer was generally in the affirmative. Basically, I took to heart the advice of Thomas Jefferson who taught that however discomfiting a free exchange may be, truth will ultimately emerge the victor. English philosopher John Stuart Mill said that any attempt to resist another opinion is a “peculiar evil.” If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. If it is wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in its collision with error. There can be no objection to discussion of facts, and yes, opinions as well. Only error fears examination. Ironically, I believe it was my church missionary training that contributed heavily to my sharing attitude.

It did not take too long for my openness with my doubts and sharing of information to land me in the office of President Molina for the final time. I had just returned from Peru. Our Inca trail guide happened to be LDS, and when he asked me if I was LDS, I realized as I said ‘yes’ that I never wanted to answer that question in the affirmative ever again. My friends in the tent could see it in my face, they told me later. It was a defining moment for me. Ignoring the conclusions of my studies would be hypocritical and, in my eyes, it would be a greater sin than putting all of that behind me and carrying on as if none of it existed. Molina and I agreed to have my records removed. I decided that leaving quietly was the most polite course of action. At the end of our discussion, I left Molina’s office with the impression that I would sign some papers, nobody would have to know, and that would be the end of it. I informed my e-mail discussion group of this planned course of action (verify with Vern or others if you wish).
Well, I was surprised to receive, about 10 days later, a summons to a disciplinary council instead of some standard papers to sign. I assumed this was a formality and treated it as an exit interview. I really did not hold anything back as I spoke to the 15 men of the disciplinary council. Finally, I felt strongly that I should not have to apologize for simply being honest with myself. I made the following points:

• Each of them in their lives could expect to have loved ones become disaffected with the church, and they should remember that family relationships are infinitely more important than choices in belief systems. Religious fanaticism should never shred families!
• Each of them is called upon to bear witness as part of their responsibilities, and they should use extreme caution to avoid bearing false witness. I described the unreliable nature of the truth test in the Book of Mormon, and the reasons why the basic tenets of Mormonism must be based on faith, not knowledge.
• I boldly told them that I was not amenable to any set of rules regarding my deportment as I continue to attend church as a visitor. You have two choices, I told them, “either accept me a brother or get a court order to bar me from entering the church”. After having paid such a dear price to discover the deceptions that had consumed my soul for 40+ years, to have these men sit there and pretend to have some sort of power over me was simply too much to bear. Wasn’t it enough that I have to endure the anguish knowing that my actions would pain my family? I felt it appropriate to dispel this illusion of power in order that they understand the depth of my convictions.

In retrospect, it was probably this last statement that motivated the Stake leadership to take the extreme measure of announcing my excommunication to the adults of the stake. From my viewpoint, the announcements really would not bring with it a substantive change. Those with closed minds would dismiss any information contradicting the orthodox view regardless of what announcement is or isn’t made. Those that are opened-minded will continue to have an open mind, and listen to what I have to say from an objective viewpoint despite any announcement. That rational church leaders continue to think that such announcements actually protect the church is frankly a surprise to me.

When the announcements were not made on Sunday as promised, I chatted with President Molina to get a reason for the cancellation. He said that he has been undecided all along about the announcements, which contradicted the letter I received. He also indicated that with the newspaper article, the announcement becomes unnecessary since the word would surely ‘get around’. I believe the cancellation of the announcement was a win-win and a sound decision of the part of Molina. It spared my wife the embarrassment and shame among her peers, and it protected the church from the threat of legal action, which I found out later had happened in other cases such as mine. In any case, the promise of an announcement and the anguish it caused me and my family merited the Tribune article.
This episode shows what an "abusive parent" the church can be. The church is fine with closed-door tactics to beat you up. Starting at a very young age, the youth are interviewed for 'worthiness' by the bishop. You are called in to a closed door meeting, and interviewed (interrogated) about your 'worthiness'. Meanwhile, your real parents wait out side, not participating in this invasion of privacy.

This process continues for your entire life in Mormonism. Always behind closed doors. If you ever cross the church leadership, you will be called in and spiritually beat up to 'get back in line'. If you publicly question the church leadership, you are called in before the high council, and beat into submission again, or ex-ed. Like the old Rush song....."conform or be cast out".

The Mormon church is happy to bully you, threaten you (you will lose your eternal family !! ), and brand you with a scarlet letter, as long as it can do its dirty work without the outside world seeing in. But like a parents who abuse their kids, the church backs off when daylight is shown on their misdeeds. Abusive parents are often model citizens on the outside, and beat the crap out of their kids when they think no one is looking.

Luckily, the Tribune saved the day. The church's dirty tactics were brought into the light of day. Now, with the outside world looking in, local church leaders are suddenly silent on this matter. Funny how the leaders went from raging bull to silence in a matter of days. What changed? Only the light of day being shown on the church and its tactics. Just like an abusive parent, the church backed off with the thought that others were looking.

Many church members continue to feel the church policy to announce apostasy is justified, because it is needed to protect church members. Disaffected members, even those that have held very high offices in the church, that have had discussions with true-blue Mormons (TBMs) uniformly experience the same reaction when bringing up inconvenient facts and information. The TBMs immediately shut down and the Kevlar armor comes up like a force field. TBMs already have individual impenetrable armor, they have no need of an announcement to ‘protect’ them from anything or anybody. To believe differently is simply denying reality. The announcement tactic is pure cruelty and nothing more.
When examining the road I have travelled, some themes emerge. The church policy, as implemented by my leaders, has chosen clumsy ‘damage control’ tactics over familial relations at every turn. From the first visit with Bishop Palmer and subsequent interrogation of my brothers to the action of President Molina to block my attempt to leave the church quietly, the church agenda is crystal clear to me. Any dissenter must be painted as a monster to protect the obedient sheep, and this is to be done at all cost. This policy is as antiquated as its geriatric leaders, and is incompatible with a free-speech society endowed with critical thinking skills. It will generally do more harm than good, which is abundantly evident by the public outcry over my case.

From start to finish, my journey is the end result of perfect implementation of church policy:

• Teach Lyndon only the faithful history – this was done perfectly.
• If Lyndon discovers all the skeletons, reassure him that more intelligent people than Lyndon have already worked it all out. Both Palmer and Molina told me this, in virtually the same words.
• If this strategy does not work, put Lyndon on ‘restriction’, which will insulate him from the active members of the church. Do not allow him to have any church responsibilities.
• If Lyndon continues to attend and begins to influence others to think for themselves, hold a Disciplinary Council and excommunicate him for apostasy. This will surely drive him away and keep him from influencing other members.
• If Lyndon is unwilling to submit to the basic rule of keeping his mouth shut after excommunication, announce to the congregations in the area that he is an apostate and cannot be trusted.

I am only the symptom, the disease is church policy. My story is not about the failure of Palmer and Molina to treat me fairly. It is about poor church policy. It is about the religious fanaticism that permeates the church, which allows good men and women to act irrationally and with cruelty and feel no remorse. Brigham Young felt no remorse for the victims of the Mountain Meadow Massacre. The Al Qaeda feels no remorse for the WTC attacks. This is the hallmark of fanaticism. Only a fanatic would choose to sacrifice family relations to ‘protect the good name of the church’. Only a fanatic would ostracize a family member because of a religious belief. Only a fanatic would suggest that a questioning member stop researching and trust others to find the answers. Only a fanatic would assume that religious belief choices would break up a marriage. Luckily, I am blest to have a wife that believes in me. She may not choose my path, but our relationship, partnership, and love goes much deeper than individual religious choices. I count myself very fortunate in this respect.

Interestingly, damage control is not a stranger to the LDS church, or other churches for that matter. In the spring of 1844, Joseph Smith faced losing everything after William Law published the first and only edition of the ‘Nauvoo Expositor’, which exposed the secrets of polygamy. Smith knew it was all true, which is why he had to destroy the press. This touched off a string of events that ultimately led to his death. In more recent history, we continue to see the trend as the church closed the historical archives in 1980, purchased forged documents from Mark Hofmann in 1984-5 (some of which were for solely for concealment), and the charge from BK Packer that only the ‘faithful’ history should be taught to the Saints.

Some have asked if I intend to write a book – the answer is no. The great works of Grant Palmer, Simon Southerton, Fawn Brodie, Juanita Brooks, Arza Evans, Duwayne Anderson, and others treat the subject matter quite thoroughly. As pertaining to my personal experiences, I view my journey as being somewhat unremarkable compared to many that have preceded me, the ‘September Six’ being a prime example.
From the various people I have chatted with since the first article was published, it seems to me that the discovery process is universally all-consuming for members that feel compelled to find all the buried skeletons. Some complete their research in as little as 6 months, I took 2 years, others take much longer. Some complete their research and decide to stay in the church. Other disaffected members will tell you that the range of emotions during this period covers the full spectrum: denial, disillusionment, anxiety, anguish, distrust, astonishment, grief, incredulity, anger, understanding, exhilaration, and finally joy. It is a long roller coaster ride and takes effort, but is well worth it. After I became satisfied that the ‘restoration’ was a series of illusions, I documented my research so that I could remember what I had found to be the key points, along with the psychological aspects that are part and parcel to the LDS belief system. My summary is now on-line at http://www.mormonthink.com/lamborn.htm

It was not possible for me to really understand the mechanisms associated with LDS mindset or fully recover until I had thoroughly examined the psychology woven into the fabric of Mormonism. Outsiders scoff at the phrase ‘recovery from Mormonism’, but for me it has been and continues to be very real.
The positive realities of the LDS church are astounding. The emphasis on family, service, education, self-sufficiency, community involvement, scouting, disaster relief, etc., speak for themselves. What becomes really sad, and I know this happens regularly in the church, is when church members have to tell lies in order to continue to participate in the wonderful church programs and sense of community and fellowship. Meanwhile, those who cannot stomach intellectual dishonest really have no choice but to leave. Many have commented that a ‘reformation’ needs to occur in the church in order to stem this tide of disaffected members. The General Authorities in Salt Lake City (SLC) have to be very concerned with the rising number of resignations. I am told by a source that asked for anonymity that what used to be a staff of two people in the early 80’s processing resignations has had to be increased to 10 people to handle the work load, and that church authorities are briefed weekly on resignation statistics. (LDS church authorities may be willing to verify the staff size dynamics). Some have suggested that the resignations have reached ~100,000 per year, which is staggering.

*************Here is some Q&A [ET edit: I received from an interested reader]*****************
Mr. Lamborn,

Thank you so much for granting me the opportunity to ask you some questions regarding the circumstances leading up to your loss of faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and your subsequent excommunication.

Thanks in advance for your responses!

1. What was the extent of your knowledge of polygamy and its practice in the early Church prior to learning of JS's polygamy through Krakauer's book?

I had been told that most or all of the sealings of women to JS were after his death. My good friend Russell Bowers indicated that he had been told the same thing. I perpetuated this distortion while I was serving a mission and feel terrible about it.

2. At the time you found out about Joseph Smith's polygamy, what were your feelings regarding how you learned about it?

At first, I doubted the source. After verifying with several sources, I was disillusioned. Then came the hunger to know what other skeletons had been obscured from the view of a life-long member, returned missionary, 4-time Elders Quorum President, former Gospel Doctrine and current High Priest Group instructor, and former Stake Mission Presidency member.

3. If you had learned about JS's polygamy from official Church sources, i.e. a Sunday school manual, Conference talk, or CES manual, do you think you would have reacted differently to the information?

Absolutely. I may not have embarked on a research quest at all.

4. How did your ward leaders find out about your disbelief?

Regularly scheduled temple recommend interview with Bishop Larkin Palmer.

5. What conversations took place with your bishop?

I presented questions about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the translation process, etc. He urged me to trust more intelligent men that had already worked all these things out. No need for me to do it all on my own - just a waste of time. Just pray and believe.

Then he went into damage control mode. Who else had I been talking to? Was I affiliated with any apostate groups? I mentioned that I discuss things regularly with my brothers. The following week, all the bishops of my brothers had received a phone call and each of my brothers got a visit from the Men in Black over the next 30 days. They were each questioned about their beliefs. I was very angry with breach of confidentiality and potential for strained family relations. I wrote a letter to Bishop Palmer expressing my disappointment with him immediately. His defense was his charge to 'protect the good name of the church'. A completely unsatisfactory answer for me.

5. How did this issue reach a stake level?

The Stake President was in one of my High Priest Group lessons where I challenged the truth test of the Book of Mormon.

6. During this time, how were you discussing your new discoveries with other members of the stake and ward? How did other Church members react to your dissent?

I shared information with a few, reactions were mixed.

7. How did ward and stake leaders attempt to resolve your concerns with Church history? What materials, pro-, anti- or otherwise did you consult as you researched the truthfulness of the Church?

I was directed to the FAIR and FARMS websites, which I found to be of limited value. Some of the apologist arguments are good, but most are weak. I read the Comprehensive History of the Church, portions of the Journal of Discourses, Studies of the Book of Mormon by BH Roberts, Mormon Enigma, Insiders View by Grant Palmer, Keystone of Mormonism by Evans, No Man Knows My History by Brodie, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus.

8. At what time did you decide to surrender your Church membership? How did you let President Molina know about your decision?

During my third visit with Molina, he suggested that my membership records be removed. I think he was tired of dealing with me discussing issues with members and given them true history summaries. I was emboldened by the PBS program "The Mormons" to share more often.

9. Do you feel your excommunication was a preemptive strike to discredit you?

Yes - completely. I asked Molina for a quiet exit and got a summons instead.

10. Do you still wish to remain a part of the Church socially in spite of your excommunication?

I have mixed feelings. Sometimes I do, sometimes I think it is not worth the discomfort listening to the brainwashed drivel every Sunday. Time will tell.

11. How do you feel about being branded an "apostate"?

It is a badge of honor.

12. Did you at one time believe in the literal historicity of events and characters in the Bible and Book of Mormon? What are your feelings on those subjects now?

Yes, I totally believed. Now I think that people that still believe in the historicity of the book fall into one of three categories:
a. They have not examined the evidence.
b. They are incapable, intellectually, to grasp the conclusivity of the evidence. It is truly overwhelming.
c. They cannot be objective while examining the evidence. Ironically, it is a combination of fear and false pride (and perhaps mind control) that blocks the neural receptors and prevents normal objective evaluation of the data.

13. How do you feel about the moral teachings of the LDS Church?

Generally good stuff. A little too rigid with the sexual sins, though. Repression breeds obsession. Salt Lake County regularly rates in the top five for per-capita hits on porno sites for a reason.

14. What are your feelings towards LDS apologists and scholars who are familiar with the issues your raised but have not taken the same path you have?

In most cases, their desire to prove the church true at all costs has become a game to them, an obsession. Hugh Nibley admitted as much. Their desire to know the truth is either weak or been extinguished.

Thanks again for this opportunity -- I hope through this we can better understand the process believers go through when they discover information challenging to their faith. I think only through understanding and dialogue can we reach a point where disaffected believers are treated appropriately rather than branded as heretics and chased out of the Church.

On a lighter note, I had a co-worker come up to me and ask me what ‘excommunication for apostasy’ really accomplishes. It is akin to a boss, after reading a resignation, saying: “Hmmn, looks like you are quitting, well, just for that, YOU ARE FIRED!!!” Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007
View more comments:  1|  2|  3|  4|  5|  6|  7


More blogs

Publish your photos

Phoenix Light Rail Debut Phoenix Light Rail Debut
By Desertdawg from Ahwatukee

Vigilantes Kill 5 Vigilantes Kill 5
By BigAve from Gilbert AZ

Dinosaur Tracks Dinosaur Tracks
By BigAve from Gilbert AZ

Abby comes home Abby comes home
By Desertdawg from Ahwatukee

Publish your videos

More forums

Here's your chance to brag about an achievement for you or someone you know.

Publish your honors

Read the latest print edition

The e-Trib is an interactive online representation of the printed paper. Editions can be searched back to 2002.

Launch the e-Trib viewer

Already a member? Sign in here
Publish your stuff
Welcome, Please Log In
To login please enter your username and password in the form below and click on the login button.
Remember me
Retrieve Password
Resend Email
Enter the username and email address for your account to resend you your confirmation email: