|
March
22, 2007
Dear Bishop,
You may find
it peculiar that I would deliver a letter to you as opposed to scheduling an
appointment to talk with you about this matter, but after careful consideration,
I thought it best to write a letter first. I am doing this because, as will be
evident, the nature of what I am about to disclose to you will no doubt be
startling and unsettling. I didn’t want to unload something on you in person
that you’re not prepared for. This will give you some time to think, ponder,
and pray on the content of my letter. When you’ve digested it all, I’m sure
you’ll want to meet with me.
I’m sure
by now your curiosity is boiling over, and I really want to get right to the
point. Doing so may prove to be difficult, however, but I’ll do my best. Over
the last seven weeks a great change has occurred in me. I’ll summarize it
succinctly: I fear I have completely lost my testimony of the church.
I can only
imagine what’s going on in your mind right now. I think I know, actually.
I’ve been through it myself. Once the shock of such a statement subsides,
you’ll undoubtedly desire an explanation, which I’ll attempt to give you
below.
Before I
explain the circumstances of this radical change of heart and mind, I need to
describe for you the conditions in which the doubts emerged. They came to me at
a time when I can not remember being more devoted to the faith: I was reading,
praying, researching family names, holding family home evening, and prayerfully
approaching my duties as Sunday school president and gospel doctrine teacher. I
was especially passionate about and energized by the latter. I mention this
because I anticipate that you will be curious to know if this loss of faith is a
result of some type of sinful behavior. The only member besides my wife that I
have shared this with is Brother Allen, and that was his first question to me in
one of our e-mails. I must categorically and emphatically insist that the reason
for my doubts has nothing to do with the consequence of unrighteous actions or
desires, nor is it a feeble attempt to discredit the church and its teachings in
order to justify a new lifestyle without religious pressures or constraints.
Believe me, I know the difference. I’ve been guilty of the latter as a younger
man.
So what is
this, then? Simply put, it’s the arrival of new information. To be honest,
while I have been very confident in the faith and have felt very welcome and
integrated within the church in general, I have had little seeds of doubts over
the years that have gnawed away at my soul. Some were of a doctrinal nature;
others were historical. I had always been able to lock them away, however, and
concentrate on the good and uplifting feelings I’ve had in meetings, councils,
in the temple, and elsewhere in church settings. Through these spiritual
experiences, I have formed what I considered to be a testimony of the gospel.
Even so, the little concerns were still there waiting to be unlocked.
Perhaps the
most challenging and disconcerting of these issues for me was the denial of the
priesthood to the black race until 1978. I was recently reading an article in
the USA Today about Mitt Romney’s campaign. It was addressing the issues
around his religious affiliation and how that might affect his chances for the
Republican nomination for president. The article then mentioned several
traditional sticking points of Mormon history and doctrine and specifically
listed this issue. After years wrestling with the topic and trying to be content
with the patent answer, “We don’t know why; only the lord does,” I was
pushed over the edge by this article. I couldn’t ignore the great paradox any
longer: A church that is the representation of an infinitely compassionate,
merciful, and just Lord would allow access to the fullness of priesthood
blessings to all races, except blacks. In spite of our article of faith
declaring that we do not adhere to original sin doctrine and the numerous
passages in the Book of Mormon summoning “both black and white, bond and
free” to accept the gospel, we had this awful policy that contradicted our
sacred values. Never in my life have I heard any acceptable explanation for the
doctrine.
Conflicted
to the point of no return, I decided to do my best to investigate the matter. I
had to find some answers – even if only a small nugget that would provide some
level of intellectual relief. Armed with a little better information, I might
then be able to let faith shoulder the rest of the burden and move on again. I
wasn’t too hopeful, though, for I had doubts that I would find anything
substantive. Much to my surprise, however, I found that there was an abundance
of information about this topic. It had been there for years, right under my
very eyes. All I had to do was type in a few key words into a search engine and
I found links to myriad sources.
I then read
several comprehensive and meticulous research papers by LDS scholars and
historians that were carefully annotated and referenced. Far from being opinion
pieces, these papers drew almost exclusively from general authority statements,
sermons as contained in the Journal of Discourses, letters, proclamations, and
articles in official church publications. The truth is, volumes have been said
about the origins of and reasons for this doctrine, and what has been so
emphatically proclaimed by our past leaders on the subject would absolutely
shock and repel almost any modern member of the church. I do not intend to go
into details here, for that is beyond the scope of this letter. Suffice it to
say, I was left with the painful conclusion that there was absolutely no
evidence that this racist doctrine came by revelation. Rather, it was likely a
policy initiated by Brigham Young. In fact, before Brigham’s presidency, there
were black elders in the church, one
of whom served 3 missions and was a member of the Quorum of the Seventy in
Nauvoo. His name was Elijah Abel and his story is fully documented and
verifiable. There is so much more I could say, but I’ll resist the urge.
Again, my
purpose in writing this is not to convey details, but to explain what I am going
through right now and how I’ve come to this place. This priesthood issue only
opened the door for further investigation and is only one of many, many problems
for me. I was certainly disheartened as I continued to read on, topic by topic,
but my desire to understand the truth of things for myself was stronger than
ever. Indeed, my appetite for information was unquenchable, and I spent almost
all my spare time reading, pondering and praying. I was able to withstand the
discomfort of each new realization because I have always been very open-minded,
and am not easily offended by contrary ideas. As I opened my mind to the
possibility that things may not be as they seem and commenced to honestly,
objectively, and critically examine my faith, I found a seemingly endless supply
of information that challenged the validity of almost everything that I
understood to be infallible truth. There is overwhelming evidence that much of
what we think we know about our history is not the real story – everything
from the official accounts of the First Vision and priesthood restoration to the
translation of the Book of Mormon; from the true nature and extent of the
practice of plural marriage to the complicated and convoluted origins of the
temple ceremony. In fact, I can hardly find a single aspect of our early history
that hasn’t been compromised in some way.
By now, you
must be wondering where I am getting all this. I can assure you that I know the
difference between scholarly integrity and vitriolic anti-mormon rhetoric. My
sources are not of the God-Makers variety. The volumes of materials I have been
pouring over for the last seven weeks are mostly from present and past LDS
historians that have been researching church history for decades, some of them
spending years in the church historical archives examining original documents,
journals, manuscripts, and other early church literature. What I have learned
about these historians is that many of them had stumbled across this disturbing
information inadvertently and found themselves in a quandary. Do they stay true
to the spirit of their occupation and report on history as they find it,
complete with all its blemishes and contradictions, or do they stay loyal to the
ethic of defending the church’s image at all costs? I found that some
subscribed to the latter, while others forged ahead and reported what they’d
found, sometimes at the risk of losing employment with CES or BYU and even their
fellowship in the church. These are not your garden variety, bitter apostates
aiming to exact revenge on the church. Many of them are still active in the
church in spite of their many questions about the controversial issues.
When these
historians and scholars write, they meticulously cite their sources, some of
which include the original 1830 Book of Mormon, early editions of the official
history of the church, the original Book of Commandments (later the D&C),
early church publications like the Times and Seasons, general authority journals
and letters, and sermons found in the once treasured, now all-but-abandoned
Journal of Discourses. What the reader finds are innumerable and
well-substantiated discrepancies, revisions, and contradictions that sometimes
radically alter doctrinal understandings and foundational historical narratives.
I can’t
tell you how much I have read, pondered, and poured my heart out in prayer to
know the truth. Even so, I have come to the painful conclusion that the church,
like all the others on the earth, while well-intentioned and a source of
strength and truth for so many of its members, is simply the creation of men.
Still, I can not deny the numerous spiritual manifestations, and I have had to
grapple with that reality. After much studying and thinking on the matter and
talking with many people about this, I am convinced that the phenomenon we call
the “witness of the Holy Ghost” is something that is not unique to those of
the LDS faith. So many others have identical “burnings,” and they too attach
meaning to those rapturous feelings, but their conclusions often directly
contradict our own claims. In short, I believe the feelings
I’ve had were real, but the idea that these feelings necessarily lead to the
conclusion that everything I’ve been taught must be true is an erroneous one.
I could say much more about this, but I’ll stop for now.
Again, it is
not my desire to persuade you one way or another by issuing a laundry list of
concerns and arguments, nor do I think it would be very appropriate to do so in
a formal interview. I fear it could only lead to hurt feelings and possible
contention. If you really want to know the full scope of my concerns, I could enumerate
them on paper for you. I’ve already written two essays, one on my findings on
the priesthood issue and one on the nature of testimony. I did this mostly for
therapeutic reasons – a way to get my thoughts and feeling out so I could make
sense of them. You’re welcome to read these papers if you’d like. I
certainly don’t expect you to, and I doubt that you or any other priesthood
leader would ever want to approach the subject in such an academic manner. I
know your concerns are spiritual in nature.
The problem
for me, though, is that the academic dimension is
the root of my spiritual dilemma, and I don’t think that all the testimony
bearing in the world will help the matter. I’ve already been consulting the
counter-arguments of the “best” academic minds in the church like the
scholars from FARMS at BYU. In my opinion, these scholars frequently fail to
address the core issues and arguments posited by those they review. Instead they
strike all around the periphery, and often resort to character attacks on their
opponents.
To
summarize, I can no longer tell you that this is the one true church on the face
of the earth. In fact, I don’t think I could get past the first few questions
of the temple recommend interview. Again, I know it must be difficult for you to
believe this. I can hardly believe it myself sometimes. I reaffirm that I have
been pondering and praying more intently and honestly than I ever have before,
asking God for wisdom. Ironically, the result of this fervor has guided me in a
direction I hadn’t expected.
As for my
future, I haven’t figured everything out yet. I am not at a point where I can
declare my intentions concerning church membership. For
obvious reasons, however, I would humbly request that you release me from my
calling. I feel bad asking for this release; I pride myself in serving well and
making a difference where I can, but I can’t imagine continuing on as if
nothing is the matter. I won’t be able to stand the hypocrisy, and my
discomfort will be obvious to those that know me.
That said,
I’m sure you will want to meet with me. I sincerely hope that we can approach
things in a spirit of understanding and love. I’m sure we will. If you want
another point of view on this before we meet, you might benefit from speaking
with Brother Allen. He could give you a brief history of our discussion and
provide you with his perspective. He has been very understanding and supportive,
and has no doubt been praying for my welfare.
I apologize
for the length of this letter and appreciate your time. I’m very sorry to drop
this on you, but it’s to the point now where I feel compelled to make you
aware of the problem.
Sincerely,
Ray
Anderson
|