Dear Elder and Sister Renlund,

In your recent worldwide devotional, you belittled and condescendingly dismissed members of the church who leave. You characterized them as lazy, doubtful, wishy-washy whiners who are self-centered and self-destructive.

In your remarks you compare the doubter to someone stranded at sea that is rescued by an old fisherman. The fisherman gives the person some crackers and water. After some time, the person realizes the food is stale and the water tastes old. For some reason, the rescued person is suddenly ungrateful and realizes they would have preferred an unopened bottle of Perrier and chocolate croissant. The person realizes the old fisherman can’t hear and is dirty and unkempt. The boat is dented and well-worn and may have some fundamental design flaws or is operationally unsound. The person challenges the old man about the boat, but he claims it’s okay, he’s been sailing a long time, he knows where he’s going and how to operate the boat. For some reason, the rescued person questions why they climbed into the boat and demands to get back in the water. So, the old man incredulously lets the person climb back into the water and leaves them to presumably die. This parable requires quite the suspension of disbelief and is absurd. But what it does do, is set up the rest of your talk to show that people who investigate church history and leave are ungrateful petulant children that deserve to drown in the ocean.

You talked about a man named Steven who was concerned about the four different accounts that Joseph Smith gave of the first vision story. You referred Steven to someone else who could answer his concerns. When you saw Steven again, his concerns were resolved on that issue, but now he was worried about polygamy. Then it happened again with the priesthood ban. You labeled him as a “perpetual doubter” playing whack-a-mole with church history. He’d find an answer but in doing so would find another question. You said he started focusing on the dents in the boat and not the capability of the boat. This was presented with a cartoon of someone playing the game and drew laughter from the audience as if to say, “Silly Steven, get it together! Why aren’t you like us who never question anything?”

You then said, “While further intellectual information may temporary resolve an intellectual concern, further information is not the complete solution.” Which means that even if there is more information available, you shouldn’t attain it; you need to have faith and feel the actual answers, not the answers you can validate with information that is available. Why would someone not want to attain more information if it is available?

You continued by saying the following about the insecure and immature doubters: “Doubt, unless changed into inquiry from reliable, trustworthy sources has no value or worth. A stagnant doubter, one content with himself, unwilling to make the appropriate effort to pay the price of divine discovery inevitably reaches unbelief and darkness. His doubts grow like poisonous mushrooms in the dim shadows of his mental and spiritual chambers. At last, blind like the mole in its burrow, he usually substitutes ridicule for reason, indolence for labor, and becomes a lazy scholar.” This is what I take issue with. You frame the talk as though they doubt about trivial matters. But the doubt is a believing member confronting the possibility that his/her whole life may be a lie, or that all the decisions they’ve made influenced by church teachings could have been for nothing.

Steven found that there were multiple versions of the First Vision. Most members of the church that I knew in my nearly 30 years as member were not aware that there were multiple versions of the First Vision. Nor that someone removed “a strange version” recorded in 1832 of the First Vision in Joseph Smith’s notebook that differed greatly from the 1838 canonized version, or that it was later taped back into the notebook after Sandra and Gerald Tanner publicly criticized the church for hiding it (and the cellophane tape is visible on the Joseph Smith Papers website). From Joseph’s earliest account, he does not claim to have seen two separate personages. This is the first recorded account known to LDS scholars and is in his journal with his handwriting nearly twelve years after the vision was to have occurred. The four main versions of his vision differ greatly in who he saw, what they said, and even how old he was. One can’t help but think if they saw God they’d remember if there were one or two people, if there were a host of angels, if there was a pillar of fire, or not. This is not trivial, this is the basis of the entire religion, a critical piece of the foundational truth claims of the prophet of the restoration.

I’ve heard the stories of countless members who eventually left the church after finding problematic history. Like myself, they sought out “reliable, trustworthy sources”. They only read books sold at Deseret Book, the church’s approved retailer. They verified claims that were difficult to believe by looking up sources on the Joseph Smith Papers, journal entries, Journal of Discourses, and conference talks. They read articles on church approved websites like FairMormon that attempt to explain difficult things within Mormonism. In researching they become exposed to other troubling things, the historical whack-a-mole game that you laughed about. Each troubling and verifiable aspect of history makes their heart sink with despair. This isn’t the church they were taught about in primary, Sunday school, seminary, institute, BYU, priesthood or relief society.

You said that you’ve read all the Joseph Smith papers and helped write the new history of the church “Saints”, and that you know that Joseph always acted in accordance with one chosen by God as a prophet. That you know all the potential issues and you’re fine with them, so anyone else can be too. But not everyone can be okay with contradictory versions of the First Vision. Not everyone can pick just one and say, “that’s the one I believe”. Not everyone can be okay with what they learn about polygamy and polyandry once they’ve read accounts by those involved and how it affected them.

What you don’t do in your talk is discuss why people are troubled with history that they read from “reliable and trustworthy sources.” In the essay Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo on LDS.org you can read that Joseph Smith married women as young as 14. You learn that he married women who were already married. You learn that many of his plural marriages were done without Emma’s knowledge. From church endorsed scholar Todd Compton, you learn that Joseph secretly married the Partridge sisters, Emily and Eliza, neither sister knowing he’d married the other. Then, when Joseph taught Emma polygamy and she reluctantly accepted it if she could choose his wives, she chose the Partridge sisters not knowing he was already married to them.

Emily Partridge recorded in her journal that a second sealing ceremony was performed for Emma’s benefit, since she didn’t know they had already been sealed to her husband. She wrote, “I do not know why she gave us to him, unless she thought we were where she could watch us better…to save the family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed…[Emma] had her feelings, and so we thought there was no use in saying anything about it so long as she had chosen us herself…Accordingly…we were sealed to JS a second time, in Emma’s presence.” Emily later recorded, “We remained in the family several months after this…She sent for us one day to come to her room. Joseph was present, looking like a martyr. Emma said some very hard things …She would rather her blood would run…than be polluted in this manner… Joseph came to us and shook hands with us, and the understanding was that all was ended between us. I for one meant to keep this promise I was forced to make.”

When reading D&C 132:61 it says that if a man marries a virgin and desires to espouse another, he is justified with his first wife’s consent. In D&C 132:63 it clearly states that the purpose of polygamy is “to multiply and replenish the earth”. One can’t help but have questions like:

If the first wife had to give consent, why did Joseph marry women behind Emma’s back?

If the purpose of polygamy is to “multiply and replenish the earth”, why would Joseph be sealed to women who were already married?

Why would Joseph marry Helen Mar Kimble at the age of 14, who was a mere three years older than his adopted daughter Julia Murdock Smith?

As far as historians can tell, Joseph likely did not father children with his polygamous wives. So why wasn’t he obeying the command to participate in polygamy by multiplying and replenishing the earth?

In researching polygamy, you can find statements by some of his wives that they did act as husband and wife in every aspect. Emily Partridge recorded that she slept with him. Joseph’s property caretaker in Macedonia, Benjamin Johnson, recorded a time when Joseph and Emily traveled there and “occupied the same room and bed with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge.” If they weren’t raising children together and Emma wasn’t giving her consent to many of the marriages, then Joseph wasn’t following the commandment of plural marriage. So why was he doing it?

Can you see how complicated the issue becomes? Not only is it about understanding why God would command his prophet to do those things but understanding if Joseph was a prophet or a philanderer abusing his power and elevated status with his followers. Those aren’t easy questions to resolve, especially if one has spent decades in the church. And when learning about Joseph’s other wives, more problematic issues arise. So when you say don’t pay much attention to the dents in the boat, the boat can save you, what you’re really asking is: don’t pay attention to whether or not Joseph was commanded to marry additional women in secret and lie to his wife about it or how he had sex with other women (including married women), just follow the teachings of the church that he founded because he’s a prophet. That’s not trivial. That’s not a dent in a boat. That’s a shipwreck.

Some honest truth seekers turn to friends and family who immediately dismiss their concerns. They say just pray, read the scriptures, have faith, “doubt your doubts”. But how can one doubt troubling information that was found on LDS.org? Like the essay about how the Book of Abraham papyri is an Egyptian funerary text that doesn’t contain the name Abraham at all, yet Joseph claimed it was written by the hand of Abraham and recounted his story? Should one doubt the information on the church’s website?

When the honest truth seeker attends church or your devotional, they’re told doubters lack faith. During your devotional you told them that those who seek answers to problematic history and can’t quickly get over it are lazy, inadequate, faithless, self-centered, and equated to blind moles filled with poisonous mushrooms. It’s not the member’s fault that Joseph slept with married women. It’s not the member’s fault that there are multiple First Vision Accounts. It’s not the member’s fault that the Book of Abraham wasn’t a translation of ancient scripture. Yet they’ve been praying more than ever to make sense of church history. They’ve been studying out of the best books, studying with prayer and faith they’ll find an answer. They’ve stuck to church-approved and church friendly sources and uncovered troubling information about the founding prophet and subsequent prophets.

Many honest truth seekers will go to their bishop for guidance. They’ll tell their bishop they are struggling with the Book of Mormon because they have found passages identical to the Bible that were mistranslated in the King James Version that Joseph had in his home. If the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, why don’t these verses differ? Why is that translation error from the Bible in the Book of Mormon? Could it be that the Book of Mormon wasn’t a translation of ancient scripture like it was purported to be, but a 19th century invention? And then they found out that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by looking at a brown stone in his hat while the plates were hidden in a tree trunk in the forest and he sat in his house. They found out that Joseph was found guilty for fraud for leading Josiah Stowell on a wild goose chase digging for buried treasure that Joseph claimed to see in that same brown stone in a hat. This wasn’t the prophet they were taught about at church, of course they’re shook up and discouraged by this.

The bishop often doesn’t know anything about this. He may claim it’s “anti-Mormon lies”, and counsel the honest truth seeker to take it with a grain of salt. But when the honest truth seeker explains to their bishop that they read it on LDS.org and in Rough Stone Rolling by faithful scholar Richard Bushman who contributed greatly to the Joseph Smith Papers Project (a project YOU personally support and have read all its volumes), the bishop may acknowledge that the honest truth seeker knows more than he does on the subject and he can’t help them, and encourage them to keep reading the book they aren’t so sure is actually ancient scripture, or to pray to know Joseph is a prophet even though he was found guilty for fraud with the same rock he translated the scriptures with. How’s that to help resolve one’s concerns?

Now the seeker of truth is more discouraged than ever. They attend church but they no longer feel at peace. They hear stories in Sunday school of letters written from Joseph to Emma while in jail and how romantic they are, and how great their marriage was. But they don’t read the other letters Joseph wrote to his other wives, they don’t talk about a hysterical Emma being calmed down by multiple neighbors after discovering her husband in the barn at night “celestializing” with their young live-in helper Fanny Alger many years before the doctrine of polygamy was introduced to Joseph. They don’t hear about Emma fighting with Joseph and throwing Fanny and later the Partridge sisters out of their house when she’s discovered what they’ve been up to or can’t bear to share her husband any longer. The honest truth seeker knows there is much more to the story, but they can’t ask any questions in these settings because no one in the room knows that but them.

The truth seeker no longer feels peace in the temple. They have read about Freemasonry and recognize that the key aspects of the ritual were borrowed from the practice that began hundreds of years after Jesus Christ walked the earth. They learn of troubling rituals that have been changed or omitted from the ceremony, including covenants that are no longer made, despite Joseph Smith teaching that the ordinances of the gospel were established before the foundation of the world and were unchanging.

They feel alone at church and after months of painfully attending, can’t do it anymore. They talk to friends or family again who get upset when they bring up these issues. They confess they haven’t been to church for weeks because it was taking a toll on their mental health. Their friends and family tell them that if they were going to church, they wouldn’t be doubting. It doesn’t help. They’re judgmental and dismissive and refuse to hear their reasons why they’re so distraught. They send them conference talks about people who doubt. They’re told to watch talks like yours with the promise “this will help!” or “he knows about polygamy and it doesn’t bother him!”

After a faithful member has dedicated much of their time, money, and energy into sustaining and growing the church, they can feel utterly betrayed upon learning this troubling information about their church’s leaders and history. There are many, many other challenging aspects of church history that I didn’t mention here, but those that I did are enough for some people to throw their hands in the air and logically conclude that this is not the church that they were taught their entire life that it was. And you can’t blame them. Yet you do. I repeat what I said before: It’s not the member’s fault that Joseph slept with married women. It’s not the member’s fault that there are multiple First Vision Accounts. It’s not the member’s fault that the Book of Abraham wasn’t a translation of ancient scripture. And yet you act like it is. You’re blaming the member for your church’s history. Can you not see how ridiculously pointless that is?

Using your analogy, the dents in the boat are polygamy, polyandry, multiple conflicting vision accounts, 19th century Bible translation errors in the Book of Mormon, priesthood ban, temple changes and violent rituals, peep stones, incorrect “translation” of Book of Abraham, etc. How can one trust the boat will get them to shore? How can one trust a boat made of these verifiably true aspects of church history are on the right path when they fly in the face fundamental truth claims of the church? Well, no wonder the guy jumped ship.

While I commend you for admitting the boat has “dents”, the church doesn’t like to admit what those dents are. By reducing the seriousness of the issues around foundational truth claims to mere bumps and dents, you’re signalling to members that there’s nothing to see here. All is well in Zion. Zion prospereth. The Emperor has new clothes when in fact he does not. In the movie Fight Club they say “The first rule about Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club.” When it comes to Church History, apparently the first rule of Church History is: you do not talk about specific Church History.

I will share with you a different parable of a boat:

“A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant ship. He knew that she was old, and not very well built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense.

“Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms, that it was idle to suppose that she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance money when she went down in mid ocean and told no tales.

“What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in nowise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts.”

William K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief (1874)

So, I write to you, Brother and Sister Renlund, and to all leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I implore you: stop blaming the members for reasonably doubting the veracity of church history upon discovering troubling information. They are grieving the death of their once beloved beliefs. For the honest truth seeker, remaining in a church that continues to pretend that its contradictory, unsavory, and troubling past is a trivial matter not to be studied or understood is dishonest and unhealthy. When you belittle and condescendingly dismiss honest truth seekers and shame those who leave, you set the tone for their friends and family to shun them, disown them, unfriend them, pity them, and worst of all, shame them. The fact that they can no longer believe as their friends and family do frequently means that their relationships will be damaged; often irreparably so.

For a faithful member, nothing is scarier than an apostate and “anti-Mormon” information because of talks like yours. They won’t listen or believe anything that their hurting friend or family member says about the disturbing information they learned from “reliable and trustworthy” sources. And they won’t trust them about anything else. The mere fact that they don’t share the same beliefs means that their former friend, father, mother, son, or daughter lacks all credibility. The honest truth seeker will be marginalized in their family and community for no longer conforming to what they feel is wrong. This has been my own sad experience.

To close, I leave you with the words of your beloved peer and friend Elder Uchtdorf:

“This topic of judging others could actually be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges, or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following:

Stop it!

It’s that simple. We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and His children. God is our Father. We are His children. We are all brothers and sisters. I don’t know exactly how to articulate this point of not judging others with sufficient eloquence, passion, and persuasion to make it stick…Nevertheless, we must let go of our grievances. Part of the purpose of mortality is to learn how to let go of such things. That is the Lord’s way.”

Sincerely,

Jake Garrett