Introduction Quote

Jim's insane "Short Conclusion"

Come on, Jim. More terrible than murder? Rape? Human trafficking? Child molestation? You seriously got your morality and priorities fawked up here. Cults tend to do this to people so I'm going to give you a lot of slack here.

I'm going to approach this with empathy and understanding as I used to be in your shoes. I remember the disdain that I had for Jerald and Sandra Tanner in the late 1990s for their work. I thought they were the most evil humans alive who were profiting off of the destruction of Mormon faith and testimonies. They were fighting the Lord's Restored Gospel and its truth with distortions and lies.

I was wrong about them. It wasn't until I experienced my discovering the LDS Church's truth crisis (aka "faith crisis") and subsequent faith transition that I finally began to see the reality and truth: the Tanners aren't evil; they are truth tellers. They are whistleblowers.

The Tanners evolved from the most vile and evil humans alive to among the most honest and best humans alive. It's still amazing to me to this day that I held these two diametrically opposite extreme positions.

I had the privilege and honor of spending an afternoon with Sandra Tanner at her bookstore in 2015. We talked about many things...her beloved Jerald, her childhood and story, her experiences in the 1960s, Mark Hofmann, and life. Here in front of me, this sweet lady who reminded me of my maternal grandmother, was the same lady that I had once hated and detested and branded as one of the most despicable humans alive. Yet, that day in her bookstore...I adored her. I still do. I respect and admire her for her honesty and resilience and dedication to do what is right while letting the consequence follow.

So, what happened? What changed? She was still the same as she's always been. I changed. I started thinking for myself while rejecting the false slanderous narrative that was programmed into me of what I was to think about her and so-called "anti-Mormons".

2018 Jim...you're not going to believe this but one day we're going to become friends and your mindset about me is going to soften and change. And my mindset about you is going to soften and change. Your father and his philosophy of getting to know people before hating them is the catalyst that brings us together to break fries at Cubby's.

One day you're going to defend me and my humanity to your tribe when there's no advantage to you in doing so. You're going to get a lot of hassle and flack for doing so but you don't care because you know it's the right thing to do.

One day you're going to help me by becoming my witness and defender in defending me from malicious and slanderous attacks by attesting and confirming that there really was a CES Director and that my CES Letter origin claims are true.

One day we're going to trust each other to the point where we both know that we can talk to each other freely and without fear of our private conversations ever being publicly leaked or outed. Neither of us will have any interest in hurting or embarrassing one another.

But these days haven't come for you yet and you still haven't met me. So, I'm mindful of this and I'm choosing empathy and charity over anger and hostility. You're completely and totally wrong about me and 2021 Jim agrees:

Here are just a few out of thousands of testimonials I get often from folks about how the CES Letter has saved their marriages and families while liberating their lives:

I shared the above testimonial to a Facebook group and got additional testimonial comments to the post below:

Other testimonials:

You often see couples sharing about how the CES Letter was influential to them and their marriages in Mormon Stories interviews. Ditto with Reddit Ex Mormon posts where it's common to see a post at least once or twice a week. Ditto with Mormon and Ex Mormon groups on Facebook.

I've not only experienced thousands of heartwarming testimonials online...I've talked to couples face-to-face in the real world. I've had dozens of experiences over the years at Sunstone and in random public places meeting couples telling me through tears and hugs that the CES Letter saved their marriages and families.

The real culprit that is destroying marriages and families is the LDS Church's truth crisis. Full stop.

The real "wrecking families for profit" is the pandemic GameStop / Tesla banking First Presidency and Q12 who care more about their secret $100 billion dollar slush fund than truly being honest and transparent to their members about Mormonism's founding and history. On top of their truth crisis, they have the nerve to slander and denigrate family members who leave the church.

I destroy your "jErEmY dEsTrOys fAiTh fOr pRoFiT" bullshit ad hominem attack in the Jim's comical but offensive ad hominem assaults and fInAnCiAl wEaLtH box answers.

I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't the right thing to do. I sleep very well at night. It is a noble cause to help save individuals, marriages and families by helping them to get through and out of the LDS Church's truth crisis intact. Whether these people stay or leave the LDS Church is not my goal; informed consent is.

I make no apologies for writing the CES Letter. I know in my heart that I did what was right and I'd still do it again. The CES Letter stands on its own and it has helped hundreds of thousands of people to make fully informed and balanced decisions as to whether or not they want to continue in Mormonism.

You're right, Jim...the members are worthy of so much more and LDS, Inc. and its leaders are not worthy of the members. The problem isn't me. I didn't create this truth crisis. The Brethren - past and present - have. I didn't write the Gospel Topics essays. I didn't hide the truth crisis from Latter-day Saints for generations. I didn't commit adultery with Fanny Alger or with little girls or foster daughters or take women already married to living men or lie about all of this to my wife for 10 years. I didn't treasure dig or make up the Book of Abraham or Kinderhook Plates or deceive people by creating a polygamous cult.

You're barking at the wrong tree. People are not leaving because of me. They're leaving because of the LDS Church's truth crisis that the Brethren are perpetuating and obfuscating. Go bark at that tall building on North Temple instead.

Jim's delusional & deceptive "Long Conclusion"

Let's break up all this absolute horseshit and debunk individually below:

You should have followed your original instincts. It was heartfelt and personal in 2013 and it's still heartfelt and personal today.

All you've done by butting in is weaken your hit piece even further with a bunch more bullshit misleading ad hominems and smears while looking like a complete dick.

"All of the above arguments were crowdsourced in the ex-Mormon subReddit, and while you disingenuously present all this material as if it’s all your own work"

This is bullshit and 2021 Jim Bennett knows this is bullshit and is just not true. I showed Jim in December 2020 my email correspondence with the CES Director including the email with the very letter that I sent to the Director on April 13, 2013.

I was approached by the CES Director on March 22, 2013. I wrote the letter between March 22, 2013 until the day I sent the PDF to the Director on April 13, 2013. Jim has seen the emails, the timestamps, the content of every email and the PDF that I attached and sent to the Director on April 13, 2013 (he read each and every page of the PDF). Jim has publicly come out to defend me. 2021 Jim Bennett has publicly expressed that I'm telling the truth here from Day 1.

As mentioned above, I wrote the letter between March 22, 2013 to April 13, 2013. During this time, I asked for feedback on my letter twice on Reddit. The purpose of my asking for feedback was to ensure a document that was worthy of the Director's time and efforts. I wanted to give him my best work filled with accurate and complete information and sources of my questions and concerns.

As you'll see reading each Reddit feedback post and all the comments in both posts, there is nothing of substance or value that I was able to use to create the letter. In fact, my rough draft was already close to 90% done by the very first Reddit feedback post on March 26, 2013. You'll see for yourself that 2018 Jim's "crowdsourced from Reddit" attack is a lie designed and engineered to smear me and the CES Letter. It's just not true and 2021 Jim Bennett is a Special Witness that it's not true.

Reddit Feedback Post #1 - March 26, 2013:

Link: Need Feedback! My TBM grandpa asked me to speak to his CES Director friend about my concerns. CES guy offered to talk to me. This PDF is a rough draft of what I'm sending over to both CES guy and grandpa. Need your feedback/advice, guys. Thanks!

Now, go to that link and read each and every comment. Notice that there's nothing on there of substance that I could've used to write the letter. There's no "crowdsourcing" going on here.

In fact, this Reddit post was posted 4 days after the Director had first emailed me on March 22, 2013. I had already written 90% of the letter by March 26th when I posted this Reddit post asking for feedback on my 90% completed letter.

You can see I'm telling the truth with comments from this Reddit post like the following:

These two comments show that by March 26th, I had completed every section of the letter except for the Witnesses section as well as the Scriptures section.

This is why Jim doesn't give you a direct link to these Reddit posts to back up his bullshit "crowdsourced from Reddit" lie and smear. Jim knows that if you read the comments like I'm telling to do here that you'll clearly see that I had completed 90% of the letter by my first "Feedback, please" March 26th Reddit post and that Jim's claim that it was crowdsourced on Reddit is clearly false and debunked.

Moving next to the next "Feedback, please" Reddit Post I made on April 11, 2013 - just 1-2 days before attaching the PDF and sending it to the Director.

Reddit Feedback Post #2 - April 11, 2013:

Link: Follow-up from TBM Grandpa's CES Director friend asking me to share concerns. Final draft of letter is done! Let me know what you guys think before I send.

Now, go to the above link and read each and every comment. Notice that there's nothing on there of substance that I could've used to write the letter. There's no "crowdsourcing" going on here.

It's obvious by this date that the letter was 100% completed and that I didn't get any crowdsourcing help in writing the letter between March 22, 2013 to April 13, 2013.

As you can clearly see with the evidence, screenshots and direct links that I provide, Jim is deceiving and misleading everyone about me and the CES Letter. Jim's entire smear hit piece is filled with distortions and falsehoods just like this one.

Jim Verifies CES Director

What Jim Thinks of Jeremy

"you haven’t even bothered to read many of your own arguments"

Wrong. What's actually happening is that you either misunderstand, misinterpret or don't even read the sources that you unjustifiably attack me as having not read.

I annihilate this deceptive go-to ad hominem attack that Jim constantly uses in his "Reply" in his failed attempts to discredit me and the CES Letter below in the "terrible scholarship and deliberate misrepresentation" section.

"Whatever sincerity was present in your initial letter has been drained out by the cold, corporate faith-destroying machine that your organization has become."

Testimonials from individuals, couples and families that the CES Letter and CES Letter Foundation helped save from the LDS Church's devastating and destructive truth crisis say otherwise:

I shared the above testimonial to a Facebook group and got additional testimonial comments to the post below:

Other testimonials:

You often see couples sharing about how the CES Letter was influential to them and their marriages in Mormon Stories interviews. Ditto with Reddit Ex Mormon posts where it's common to see a post at least once or twice a week. Ditto with Mormon and Ex Mormon groups on Facebook.

I've not only experienced thousands of heartwarming testimonials online...I've talked to couples face-to-face in the real world. I've had dozens of experiences over the years at Sunstone and in random public places meeting couples telling me through tears and hugs that the CES Letter saved their marriages and families.

The real culprit that is destroying marriages and families is the LDS Church's truth crisis. Full stop.

The real "wrecking families for profit" is the pandemic GameStop / Tesla banking First Presidency and Q12 who care more about their secret $100 billion dollar slush fund than truly being honest and transparent to their members about Mormonism's founding and history. On top of their truth crisis, they have the nerve to slander and denigrate family members who leave the church.

I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't the right thing to do. I sleep very well at night. It is a noble cause to help save individuals, marriages and families by helping them to get through and out of the LDS Church's truth crisis intact. Whether these people stay or leave the LDS Church is not my goal; informed consent is.

I make no apologies for writing the CES Letter. I know in my heart that I did what was right and I'd still do it again. The CES Letter stands on its own and it has helped hundreds of thousands of people to make fully informed and balanced decisions as to whether or not they want to continue in Mormonism.

I don't give a shit what your "cold" opinion is as you're an apologist for a harmful organization that has and continues to harm people and families. Whatever miniscule success your document has had has only been successful in keeping people trapped in a harmful organization that dupes them into thinking they're not worthy or enough and that their worth is measured by something outside of themselves instead of within.

My core message to these wonderful folks: you are worthy, perfect and enough. Right now. Today. You do not need to be fixed or saved. There is no shame or guilt needed just for being human. The natural man is not an enemy to god because there is no Mormon god. It's all as made up as the made up book this insidious idea came from. There is no test. There is no trial.

There is just life...that just is - with all its wonder, adventure, mystery, challenges, beauty, ugliness, pleasure, pain, hate and love.

"rEeLiNg fRoM iNfOrmAtIoN yOu dIdN't uNdeRsTaNd"

Look at what happened to Jim since he wrote this attack from his high horse years ago. He's since reeled from information he didn't understand then but he better understands now:

2021 Jim Bennett isn't even willing to defend the Book of Abraham anymore:

"I fully recognize that the Book of Abraham, intellectually, is probably the strongest argument against the Church. I'm not willing to leave the Church over it for reasons I've outlined in our discussions. There's no question that there are real challenges there and real problems there that I don't think the Church - we - have come to terms with."

-Jim Bennett, January 2021, Mormon Stories Episode 5

2021 Jim on the Book of Abraham

And here's what 2021 Jim says about Polygamy | Polyandry after reeling from information he didn't understand a few years ago:

"There's things that Joseph did that are really, sort of, profoundly wrong in the practice of polygamy."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"The difficulty here is that I'm defending something that, to some degree, is indefensible. And I recognize that. I'm defending something that makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable. I remember on Bill Reel's podcast being asked, 'Would you want your daughter working in Joseph Smith's household? Given that Joseph Smith proposed to all these women [girls] in his household?' And I said, "No! I wouldn't."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I want to be very clear. Polygamy is probably one the most difficult things for me to deal with. It is messy. It is difficult. It's impossible to deny that Joseph Smith did several things that are not just wrong but deeply disturbing. Particularly with regard to how he dealt with polygamy and plural marriage with his wife, Emma. It's clear that there's several incidents that he's not honest with her."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I acknowledge that Joseph lied to Emma about some of the marriages."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"The Church hasn't come to terms with polygamy...What we've done is just sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not there."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

The above comments were made by Jim Bennett in his 2021 Mormon Stories interview:

2021 Jim on Polygamy | Polyandry

"you now make a living, and quite a fat one, destroying the faith of others"

See Jim's comical but offensive ad hominem assaults and fInAnCiAl wEaLtH box answers for my annihilation of Jim's "jErEmY dEsTrOys fAiTh fOr pRoFiT" horseshit.

"terrible scholarship and deliberate misrepresentation"

You can clearly see from my entire debunking of Jim's asinine document that the one here who is actually spewing terrible scholarship and deliberate misrepresentations is Jim Bennett with his Jim Bennett Mormonism® Manifesto.

A common "terrible scholarship" line Jim often goes to in his entire document is his "sOuRcEs yOu dIdN't rEaD / dOn'T sAy wHaT yOu sAy tHeY sAy" attack.

The problem isn't that I didn't read the sources (I have) or that they "dOn'T mEaN wHat jErEmy sAys tHeY mEaN" (they do). The problem is that Jim uses this dishonest and misleading apologetic card to skirt and bypass the issues, questions and arguments while activating a more subtle backdoor ad hominem against me to create a fake, nefarious, deceptive and clueless Jeremy who didn't do his homework.

This is a card that apologists often play with critics by attempting to distract from the argument by turning the tables and accusing the critic of "not having read the source" or "taking the source out of context".

The following are perfect examples of how Jim misuses this backdoor ad hominem attack against me (links link to debunkings):

Elder Packer's immoral counsel. You claim I didn't read the talk (I did) to wiggle your apostle out of dishonesty.

Elder Oaks' immoral counsel. You claim I didn't read the talk (I did) to wiggle your apostle out of dishonesty.

Neil Andersen Nothingburger "scandal". You claim I didn't read or understand the talk (I did) to wiggle your apostle out of dishonesty.

August 1981 Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax Ensign article. You claim I didn't read this when I did. I just reject the Church's post-1980-debunked-by-science bullshit apologetics of throwing William Clayton under the bus.

LDS Egyptologists acknowledge Book of Abraham problems. This one is actually hilarious. You attack me by claiming I didn't read this source while admitting at the same time that you haven't even read this source that you're claiming that I didn't read. Not only have I read this source...I used this very same source to debunk your bullshit claims in this very same section.

"It deserves vigorous opposition, and that is what my reply now is."

And your "vIgOrOuS oPpOsItIoN" has failed completely. You've only strengthened the CES Letter by demonstrating to the world that you only have ad hominems, smears, deceptions, bad apologetics (aka Jim Bennett Mormonism®), omissions, obfuscations and falsehoods in your "arsenal" against it.

People can now see in this entire line-by-line debunking of your "vIgOrOuS" "Reply" that you do not have real answers or solutions to the LDS Church's truth crisis.

Your entire deceptive 372-page smear hit piece is a Mormon manifestation of the following quotes:

"They muddy the water, to make it seem deep."

Friedrich Nietzsche

"A mile wide and an inch deep."

Edgar Nye

Yeah? Well, you're delusional. In a few years time, you're going to come out with a Facebook post and Mormon Stories interview acknowledging that your document is a departure from Christlike principles:

"The complication stems from the most frequent criticism leveled against my own CES Letter reply, which is that it is too snarky and jokey, a criticism that, in hindsight, I find to be largely justified. I still maintain that my reply never attacks CES Letter author Jeremy Runnells ad hominem and reserves its snark for his arguments rather than his person, but I recognize that for many, this is a distinction without a difference. Since then, I have met Jeremy Runnells and found him to be a thoroughly delightful human being, so I cringe that these videos seem to have no reticence about mocking Church critics personally.

I'm not the tone police, and it would be hypocritical for me to claim these videos go too far, while my level of snark was just right..."

Jim's Snark

You know what Jesus didn't do? He didn't lie and misrepresent other people. He didn't smear or mock other people. He wasn't snarky and misleading. He hated hypocrisy and fraud while you've spilled tons of ink trying to defend hypocritical and fraudulent Mormon prophets.

Your document is one of the most disgusting, vile and unChristlike Mormon apologetic smear hit pieces I've had the misfortune of encountering. I'd bump FairMormon's TITS on top of the list but their entire blueprint and inspiration was your despicable document, which you've acknowledged and expressed embarrassment over. For you to try to claim here that your rancid garbage is "Christlike" or "non-ad hominem" in any way is just ludicrously delusional and laughable.

You're delusional. Your document is not only a departure from Christlike principles and conduct, it's the antithesis of Christlike discipleship, principles and conduct.

In fact, your document has been the direct inspiration and blueprint of the further deterioration and decline of Mormon apologetics. Exhibit A: FairMormon's TITS, which you've acknowledged and expressed embarrassment over in 2021.

See above previous box answer for more relevant debunkings of this.

...Jesus. What does a scripture verse about hurting little kids have to do with me or the CES Letter? Are you saying that adult Mormons losing their faith by discovering the LDS Church's truth crisis via Gospel Topics essay facts presented in the CES Letter are little children?

I'm not in the business of destroying families. I'm in the business of saving families from the LDS Church's destructive and damaging truth crisis.

Throwing a hostile biblical verse at me is about as relevant and effective as my throwing a hostile Quran verse at you:

"The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly." (Surah 5:33)

Jim's attack here is just fawking bizarre and stupid.

You say you wish me "no ill will" but your entire document is chock full of defamations, ad hominems, falsehoods and smears designed and engineered for one thing and one thing only: to slander and character assassinate Jeremy Runnells and his integrity.

Well, duh. Of course you think what I'm doing is profoundly wrong. You're in a paradigm that doesn't give you any leeway whatsoever to believe or assume otherwise. "Critics of my religion are doing the Lord's work", said no cult member ever.

Rock in the hat

It's not about weirdness, Jim (although it's batshit crazy). It's not about presentism. It's about folk magic, occultism and fraud.

It's about the Pandora's Box that this opens up in revealing just how awash and steep Mormonism's origins are in 19th-century-rural-New-England-folk-magic-occultism.

It's about how all of this destroys the founding narratives of the Church's origins and of the Book of Mormon.

I go over all of this in deeper detail in the Book of Mormon Translation section.

Joseph's disturbing polygamy

Oh, look...2021 Jim Bennett debunking 2018 Jim Bennett by saying the same thing I'm saying here:

"There's things that Joseph did that are really, sort of, profoundly wrong in the practice of polygamy."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"The difficulty here is that I'm defending something that, to some degree, is indefensible. And I recognize that. I'm defending something that makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable. I remember on Bill Reel's podcast being asked, 'Would you want your daughter working in Joseph Smith's household? Given that Joseph Smith proposed to all these women [girls] in his household?' And I said, "No! I wouldn't."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I want to be very clear. Polygamy is probably one the most difficult things for me to deal with. It is messy. It is difficult. It's impossible to deny that Joseph Smith did several things that are not just wrong but deeply disturbing. Particularly with regard to how he dealt with polygamy and plural marriage with his wife, Emma. It's clear that there's several incidents that he's not honest with her."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I acknowledge that Joseph lied to Emma about some of the marriages."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"The Church hasn't come to terms with polygamy...What we've done is just sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not there."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

The above comments were made by Jim Bennett in his 2021 Mormon Stories interview:

2021 Jim on Polygamy | Polyandry

The one here who is doing all the actual misrepresenting and misinterpreting on Polygamy | Polyandry is Jim Bennett. See for yourself: Polygamy | Polyandry section.

But...but it's not gibberish!

Ah yes, here's what Jim says about "gibberish" in reference to Joseph's "translations" and Egyptological claims regarding the facsimiles and the Book of Breathings (aka Joseph Smith papyri used by Joseph Smith for the Book of Abraham):

"It isn’t gibberish. Gibberish is defined as 'unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing.' What Joseph wrote was both intelligible and meaningful, whether or not it was an accurate translation."
- Jim in Kinderhook Plates section.

I'm just going to put these right here for your consideration. You decide if the following is gibberish or "intelligible and meaningful":

Source

Source

2021 Jim Bennett isn't even willing to defend the Book of Abraham anymore:

"I fully recognize that the Book of Abraham, intellectually, is probably the strongest argument against the Church. I'm not willing to leave the Church over it for reasons I've outlined in our discussions. There's no question that there are real challenges there and real problems there that I don't think the Church - we - have come to terms with."

-Jim Bennett, January 2021, Mormon Stories Episode 5

2021 Jim on the Book of Abraham

Jim's misleading cartoon lie and smear

Not only is this ad hominem...it's a blatant lie and unreal mischaracterization and deception of Jim's. I'm debunked Jim's misleading deception in the Testimony & Spiritual Witness section, which content I'm copying/pasting over here:

You not only completely ignore and miss the points I'm making here with my rhetorical questions but you completely twist my words and the intent of my rhetorical questions to give your readers the false impression that I'm not sure if Mufasa or The Lion King is real or not. Of course they're not real and I never claimed or assumed or believed or wondered if they were.

The fact that you took my two rhetorical questions about The Lion King and Mufasa, twisted it, and ran off with it demonstrates that you are determined to misunderstand me and misrepresent me at the expense of integrity, truth and facts. You pulled the same bullshit stunt by misapplying and twisting my "Ouija Board" comment by lying that I'm lying that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with an Ouija Board when I wrote or claimed nothing of the kind. This lie ended up in the TITS Show (a Kwaku / FairMormon video version of Jim Bennett Mormonism® Manifesto) as a further smear.

The real point that I'm making here with my rhetorical questions is that you can feel the Spirit consuming books and movies and talks that are 100% fictional and 100% made up. You argue that it's obvious that Mufasa is fake and no Spirit is needed but this Mufasa is an extreme example to convey a deeper point, which you ignore and distract your readers from with your "lOoK gUyS! jEReMy dOeSn'T kNOw mUfaSA IsN't ReAl lOLz" line of attack prevalent in this section and in your Jim Bennett Mormonism® Manifesto.

If you can feel the Spirit in such a completely fake movie like The Lion King with completely fake characters like Mufasa...what about the movies or books or talks that are not so obviously fake containing not so obvious fake characters, not so obvious fake events and not so obvious fake claims?

If you can feel the Spirit at 100% fiction, what do you do when you're dealing with Church movies, books and talks that contain 100% fictional claims and falsehoods mixed with actual people?

Some examples:

Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration Fictional Translation Scene

First Vision that contradicts Joseph's handwritten 1832 Account

Paul H. Dunn's lies

Fake Carthage Jail Account

Many people felt the Spirit watching films and talks like the above and walked away impressed that what they watched and heard was a true and accurate account of real events when they weren't.

My goal with starting out this thought exercise with my rhetorical questions from the extreme side of an obviously fake and 100% fictional movie and character (Lion King and Mufasa) was to ask how the Spirit is reliable in the not so obvious fictional movies, books and talks...especially within the realm of religious movies, books and talks.

This is a serious subject because people are basing their entire lives on Church books, movies and talks where they feel the Spirit but these books, movies and talks contain fiction that are just as fictional as Mufasa and The Lion King.

As part of Jim's long pattern throughout this section as well as throughout his Jim Bennett Mormonism® Manifesto, Jim gaslights me and misrepresents how I perceived and experienced the Spirit while lecturing me on what I should have experienced instead...despite Jim's own admission that he's atypical with his own spiritual experiences and his testimony is rooted in "suffering" instead.

Jim shows zero understanding or compassion or empathy on the shock and betrayal that members of the Church feel when they discover disturbing facts that rock their Mormon world. Rather than acknowledge my panic, Jim displays stellar Christlike discipleship by mocking me and smearing me with bullshit misleading cartoon mischaracterizations and deception.

2018 Jim's arrogant and misleading assumptions

Would you look at our little mind reader here? Not only is Jim arrogantly trying to tell us that my spiritual experiences while a believing Mormon are all invalid but Jim is telling me what I actually thought, felt, experienced and did during my own faith crisis - especially in the beginning stage of it.

Fawk, the arrogance of 2018 Jim Bennett.

Did you not read what I just wrote in the CES Letter, Jim? The very above quote? I said that among the first sources I looked to for answers were...drum roll...official Church sources. Yet, Jim bizarrely attacks me with bullshit claims that "I didn't give the Church the benefit of the doubt" or that "my first reaction was to completely turn on the Church" and "assume the worst possible interpretation".

How is going to the Church first for answers not giving the Church the benefit of the doubt? How is this "turning on" the Church? How is this "assuming the worst possible interpretation"?

What is Jim Bennett's problem and what universe is he living in?

Jim also tries to impose his little mind reading hobby again by falsely claiming that I didn't seek help from God. Dafuq? Did you live my own faith crisis on my behalf, Jim? Did we switch avatars in 2012?

I sought help from God. You have no fawking idea what I did but that sure doesn't stop you from bullshit mind reading and making completely incorrect assumptions about me.

Jim preaches about "benefit of the doubt" and "being charitable in our interpretations" and yet here he is giving me zero benefit of the doubt while casting the worst possible interpretation of my own lived experiences.

I had my dark nights of the soul seeking help from Heavenly Father. Jim has no idea what he's talking about and I can't breathe here with the insufferable haughtiness permeating from 2018 Jim Bennett.

Faith is an unreliable pathway to truth

...Okay?

What does my statement have to do with FAIR (FairMormon) and unofficial Mormon apologists being destroyers of Mormon testimonies?

My statement has nothing to do with FAIR (FairMormon) or Mormon spin doctors peddling their Philosophies of Men Mingled With Scripture.

It has everything to do with the unreliability of faith as a pathway to objective truth and reality.

I stand by my statement 100% as it's another way of saying what J. Reuben Clark said:

If we have the truth, no harm can come from investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.

Or George Albert Smith:

"If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak."

If evidence, logic, reason, science and reality debunk faith and religious beliefs? If faith can lead you to both correct conclusions as well as incorrect conclusions...how then is faith a reliable pathway to truth?

Read my above statement in its full and correct context in the "Anti-Intellectualism" section of the CES Letter.

Chapel Mormonism

I'll let 2021 Jim Bennett help you out here:

"Jeremy deserves a great deal of praise here. To the extent that his CES Letter has punctured the fragile illusion of a 'Chapel Correlated Mormonism' that is monolithic in belief and practice, he has done a good thing. It has never made sense to me that a church that teaches God 'will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God' is also a church that can never, ever change."

"As I’ve reached out and tried to find my way to connect to people like Jeremy and John Dehlin, I’ve discovered that not only do we not have the tools to bridge the widening divide, we aren’t even looking for them. Furthermore, there is a growing faction within the Church that wants a smaller, 'purer' Church where 'Chapel Correlated Mormonism' becomes the only lived reality, albeit combined with a rancid mixture of bigotry, misogyny, and violence. The nastiest messages I receive now do not come from people who have left the Church; they come from DezNat, a Twitter faction that doubles down on the very worst aspects of Latter-day Saint culture. If Jeremy Runnells, John Dehlin, and DezNat were all in a police lineup where I was being forced to choose which one is a likely agent of Satan, neither Jeremy nor John would be my first or second choice."

- Jim Bennett, August 2021, Response to Jeremy's Debunking

In Jim's 2021 Mormon Stories interview, he acknowledged and accepted that an "orthodox" Mormonism exists. This "orthodox" Mormonism is also referred to as "Chapel Mormonism".

Jim goes full cult

This is how cult members think and talk. This is very dangerous thinking that keeps people trapped in cults. 2018 Jim's terrifying statement here says more about him and his mental cage than anything else.

Let's show how this looks with other cults saying the same thing:

Scientology:
"What you are saying here is that when your long-unchallenged expectations encountered challenges, you questioned the Church rather than questioning your own expectations. It never seems to occur to you that your expectations might be the problem, not the facts."

FLDS:
"What you are saying here is that when your long-unchallenged expectations encountered challenges, you questioned the Church rather than questioning your own expectations. It never seems to occur to you that your expectations might be the problem, not the facts."

Moonies:
"What you are saying here is that when your long-unchallenged expectations encountered challenges, you questioned the Church rather than questioning your own expectations. It never seems to occur to you that your expectations might be the problem, not the facts."

Jehovah's Witnesses:
"What you are saying here is that when your long-unchallenged expectations encountered challenges, you questioned the Church rather than questioning your own expectations. It never seems to occur to you that your expectations might be the problem, not the facts."

Branch Davidians:
"What you are saying here is that when your long-unchallenged expectations encountered challenges, you questioned the Church rather than questioning your own expectations. It never seems to occur to you that your expectations might be the problem, not the facts."

NXIVM:
"What you are saying here is that when your long-unchallenged expectations encountered challenges, you questioned the Church rather than questioning your own expectations. It never seems to occur to you that your expectations might be the problem, not the facts."

Heaven's Gate:
"What you are saying here is that when your long-unchallenged expectations encountered challenges, you questioned the Church rather than questioning your own expectations. It never seems to occur to you that your expectations might be the problem, not the facts."

Mormon apologists redefine words and meanings

Notice that Jim doesn't dispute or try to debunk my above CES Letter statement.

Instead, Jim attempts to turn the tables by obfuscating, deflecting and distracting his readers from my above statement with irrelevant and nonsensical attacks.

My response to each attack:

• "Chapel Mormonism"
  See Chapel Mormonism
• "Witnesses"
  See Debunking Jim Bennett Mormonism®: Witnesses
• "Gibberish isn't gibberish"
  See But...but it's not gibberish!
• "Book of Mormon Map / geography"
  See Debunking Jim Bennett Mormonism®: Book of Mormon
• "Egyptian scholars" ad hominem
  See Debunking Jim Bennett Mormonism®: Book of Abraham
• "sOuRcEs yOu dIdN't rEaD / dOn'T sAy wHaT yOu sAy tHeY sAy"

The problem isn't that I didn't read the sources (I have) or that they "dOn'T mEaN wHat jErEmy sAys tHeY mEaN" (they do). The problem is that you are using this dishonest and misleading apologetic card to skirt and bypass the issues, questions and arguments while activating a more subtle backdoor ad hominem against me to create a fake, nefarious, deceptive and clueless Jeremy who didn't do his homework.

This is a card that apologists often play with critics by attempting to distract from the argument by turning the tables and accusing the critic of "not having read the source" or "taking the source out of context".

The following are perfect examples of how you misuse this backdoor ad hominem attack against me (links link to debunkings):

Elder Packer's immoral counsel. You claim I didn't read the talk (I did) to wiggle your apostle out of dishonesty.

Elder Oaks' immoral counsel. You claim I didn't read the talk (I did) to wiggle your apostle out of dishonesty.

Neil Andersen Nothingburger "scandal". You claim I didn't read or understand the talk (I did) to wiggle your apostle out of dishonesty.

August 1981 Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax Ensign article. You claim I didn't read this when I did. I just reject the Church's post-1980-debunked-by-science bullshit apologetics of throwing William Clayton under the bus.

LDS Egyptologists acknowledge Book of Abraham problems. This one is actually hilarious. You attack me by claiming I didn't read this source while admitting at the same time that you haven't even read this source that you're claiming that I didn't read. Not only have I read this source...I used this very same source to debunk your bullshit claims in this very same section.

Philosophies of men mingled with scripture

Notice that Jim doesn't even respond to or even attempt to challenge / rebut my statement. Jim proves my point.

Instead, Jim attempts to turn the tables with a childish apologetic version of "I know you are but what am I?"

I've done a line-by-line debunking of Jim's entire "Reply" to the CES Letter for everyone to see. Read and be the judge on the validity of Jim's above asinine and unsupported attack.

Translate doesn't mean translate

It's actually Jim who is the one misrepresenting the Book of Mormon translation process while attempting to distract people with bullshit irrelevant and nonsensical false equivalence fallacies.

I debunk Jim's attacks and assertions in the Book of Mormon section.

Notice that Jim isn't pointing to the damning Book of Abraham and Kinderhook Plates translations for which we have the original source material to compare Joseph's "translations" to.

Horses = Tapirs!

In case you missed it, this is Jim's obnoxious way of confirming my statement that yes, apologists say that horses aren't really horses, they're tapirs.

Source

Do a google search on the entire CES Letter website and you'll only find one single mention of "Tapir Dan" and it's not me directly calling him that:

"At the 2014 FairMormon Conference, Daniel C. Peterson - affectionately known as "Tapir Dan" by many for his theory that Book of Mormon horses could instead be deer or tapirs - presented his reflections on "That" Letter to a CES Director."

Jim is confusing me with other Post Mormons who may call him that. I do not refer to Professor Peterson as "Tapir Dan" and the only time I've associated this with Peterson was in my rebuttal to Peterson where I inform my reader that Peterson is known by others as "Tapir Dan" for his horses=tapir theory.

This is just Jim's misleading attempt to make me look like a dick or a Kwaku-like character who constantly or "gRaTuItOuSlY" hurls insults and misrepresentations at my opponents.

Mad at tapirs? Never!

I've seen the so-called "great deal of evidence" that Jim is claiming here. It's not evidence. It's bullshit Mormon apologetic porn that no one outside of Mormondom takes seriously.

It's the equivalent of Flat Earthers telling astrophysicists that they're wrong and they need to look at their "evidence" that the Earth is indeed flat.

Like the Flat Earthers, Mormon apologists are ridiculed and laughed at by professional scholars. In the case of apologetic claims regarding the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham? Reputable scholars in the fields of anthropology, archeology, linguistics, egyptology and more.

What's the opposite of antiquity and which would single-handedly debunk a claim of antiquity? Anachronisms.

Just on anachronisms alone is sufficient enough to debunk any claim that something is ancient or contains "marks of antiquity".

You know what Jim and I both know and agree on? The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms:

Book of Mormon Anachronisms

If I were to show you this picture of Abraham Lincoln and claim that it's an untouched and accurate historical picture, would you believe me?

If you're a rational and sane person, you would clearly see that the above picture is fake. Why? Because it's an anachronism. It has an iPhone in Lincoln's hand that did not exist in the 1860s. I could offer you all kinds of gold medal gymnastic apologetics in the world trying to make this picture authentic and true and all you'd do is laugh at me. I could take a position like Jim does and try to tell you that this will become less anachronistic over time and you'd start to wonder about my mental health.

This is how scholars and academics who are experts in their specific fields look at the Book of Mormon and it's people like Jim who are trying to tell them that they need to take the picture (aka Book of Mormon) seriously while offering asinine apologetics that they think are "evidences" in attempts to legitimize the work.

In the Testimony & Spiritual Witness section, Jim shared a video about Hebraisms to support, in his mind, the truthfulness and antiquity of the Book of Mormon.

What Jim doesn't tell you is that, for example, 19th-century Late War also has Hebraisms in the book and this in turn is one of many things about that book that discredits the Book of Mormon. This article goes into more details on the weaknesses of Hebraisms being used to defend the Book of Mormon. Many of these "remarkable" Hebraisms appear to be natural human literary forms and can be found just about anywhere you look for them, including in Solomon Spaulding’s Manuscript Found, James Strang’s Book of the Law of the Lord, and other Bible-inspired 19th-century pseudepigrapha.

Oh, since we're on pseudepigrapha:

Click graphic for more info and video

But do tell us more, Jim, about how I discard "a great deal of evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity" because I'm "upset about tapirs and chariots" (lol!). Dude, I love tapirs and chariots. Without the awesome tapirs and chariots there would be no awesome CES Letter 404 page.

Marriage doesn't really mean marriage

?

Oh, you want credit, Jim? Because you think you made me change something because of something you wrote?

It has nothing to do with you as you didn't really come on my radar until early 2019 after your 14-hour chat with Bill Reel and our lunch. The CES Letter was last updated in October 2017...roughly a year and a half before I really skimmed through your "Reply" and before we had met for lunch. I didn't start doing a serious detailed read with a fine tooth comb of your "Reply" until 2021 when I decided to debunk it. I already wrote about all of this in the Preface.

Sorry to disappoint you, Jim, but you and your "Reply" weren't as important or relevant to me as you assumed or hoped for. I added clarification on the apologetic argument because of my years of experience in dealing with FAIR and Brian Hales; even before you even knew what the CES Letter was.

This sentence is illustrating what the apologetic nonsense is - not my agreement with it. These plural marriages absolutely involved sex regardless of your delusional-head-in-the-sand wish that they didn't. I go over the details in the Polygamy | Polyandry section.

It's laughable how hard apologists try to make Joseph's plural marriages "sexless" when there's no dispute that Brigham Young and subsequent prophets, following Joseph's example, were married in their plural / polyandrous marriages in every sense of the word as children were produced.

Yesterday's doctrine / prophet =
Today's false doctrine / prophet

If the prophet is no better than a man then he's no better than me. And if he's no better than me then why should I follow him?

If a prophet can speak as a man, then how can you know for certain when the man is speaking as a prophet? If you can't know for certain, what is the point of a prophet?

The Parable of the Calculator: Useless Prophets

If I have a calculator that can be wrong at arbitrary times, I'm going to have to check the numbers the calculator is giving me by hand every time I do a calculation. After two or three times of doing that I'm just not going to use the calculator anymore. A calculator that can be wrong at any random time is useless as a calculator.

Similarly, someone who claims to speak for god and relay his will, but can be wrong even when they explicitly say they're speaking for god, is useless as a mouthpiece for god.

Discovering the Church's truth crisis in my thirties gaslighting

More bullshit Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting, ad hominem and revisionism.

2018 Jim is full of shit. Watch this video where Jim talks about how he first learned about some of the Church's truth crisis - not from the Church but from so-called "anti-Mormon" materials - and how he believed the rock in the hat was a lie for decades until recently in the last few years when he had a "oh, okay" moment after reading the 2014 Gospel Topics Book of Mormon Translation essay:

"I felt like a chump"

I guess Jim "dIdN't bOtHeR tO tAkE rEsPoNsIbIlItY fOr hIs oWn fAiTh" and he just "fOlLoWeD oRdErs".

Same with the Book of Abraham. Jim's views of the Book of Abraham changed dramatically in recent years after decades of belief in it:

"I fully recognize that the Book of Abraham, intellectually, is probably the strongest argument against the Church. I'm not willing to leave the Church over it for reasons I've outlined in our discussions. There's no question that there are real challenges there and real problems there that I don't think the Church - we - have come to terms with."

-Jim Bennett, January 2021, Mormon Stories Episode 5

2021 Jim on the Book of Abraham

I guess Jim "dIdN't bOtHeR tO tAkE rEsPoNsIbIlItY fOr hIs oWn fAiTh" and he just "fOlLoWeD oRdErs".

I debunk and blast 2018 Jim's deceptions and lies about my spiritual experiences and testimony in the Jim's hypocritical ad hominem attacks answer box.

I debunk and blast 2018 Jim's deceptions and lies about dIsNeY cArToOns in the Jim's misleading cartoon lie and smear answer box.

Jesus, 2018 Jim...how about a little compassion for your fellow Latter-day Saints who are just as much as victims as you were and are and who likewise feel like "chumps" because the Church has withheld its truth crisis from them? You even acknowledge in the above video that the Church has not been transparent to its members.

Stop victim blaming and gaslighting members and former members like myself for the abuse and fraud of Mormon leadership. The responsibility and blame rests solely on the so-called "prophets, seers and revelators" - past and present - for their truth crisis and generational cover-ups.

2021 Note: 2021 Jim Bennett is compassionate and way more understanding now than he was in 2018 when he wrote the above nonsense. From Jim's August 2021 response to this debunking:

Jeremy Runnells, then, has introduced me to an entirely new conversation. It’s a conversation between those in the Church and those who have left it, or are on the way out. It’s a conversation that is even now quietly taking place in thousands of mixed-faith marriages struggling to survive. It’s the legions of tear-filled conversations between an early-return missionary and their furiously disappointed parents. It’s the terror preceding the conversation between a gay teenager planning to tell his bishop father that he isn’t going to go on a mission. And it’s the heartbreaking conversation that adult children have with their elderly parents when they tell them they simply aren’t going to Church anymore.

There are good people in this Church, and there are times when conversations like these go well. But there are far, far, far too many times where they do not.

These are the kinds of conversations that Jeremy has introduced me to, and they are the kinds of conversations that interest me now...For my part, I want to move forward in the conversation to which Jeremy has introduced me, and for which I owe him a great deal. I hope he will continue to be a part of it.

Jim's polygamy gaslighting

Oh, look...a nice big spoonful of Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting.

No, Jim. Like the vast majority of Mormons I did not know that Joseph Smith had 30+ wives. I certainly didn't know that he married his own foster daughters, little girls, women already married to other men or Fanny Alger in the barn. I didn't get any of this from D&C 132 which states nothing about Joseph having already married women aside from Emma. I found this section strange and confusing as it presented a disturbing god who threatened to destroy elect-lady Emma if she didn't consent to polygamy?

Like any good, obedient cult member...I did what I was trained and indoctrinated to do about thoughts and information that conflicted with the Church's narrative: I turned it off.

This is actually funny because in the Prophets section, Jim tries to rebrand D&C 132 as a non-polygamy revelation of monogamy which he also rebrands the "New and Everlasting Covenant" as being. Yet here Jim repurposes D&C 132 to beat and bludgeon me with to make me look like I was a clueless Mormon when I wasn't...I was the very typical Mormon who thought polygamy started with Brigham Young and I certainly didn't know that it started with Joseph Smith.

I distinctly remember asking my wife, a lifelong member who was raised both in California and Utah and who was a 4.0 GPA student who graduated from seminary, if she knew that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. She expressed shock and surprise when I showed her the data. Ditto for my parents. Ditto for several of the other Mormons in my life that I asked. Ditto for the countless number of people I've talked to over the years who likewise expressed shock that polygamy started with Joseph Smith.

Jim can try all he wants to gaslight and do revisionist history but the reality is that the vast majority of Mormons grew up not knowing that Joseph was a polygamist let alone the other disturbing information associated with the practice and as Joseph practiced it.

Approved Church Books

More Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting and revisionism.

The ones who actually grew up in Mormonism and followed the teachings and counsels of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, unlike Jim and his homemade Mormonism sparked by his getting educated by "anti-Mormons" in the 1980s, were taught and counseled to be very careful and selective on the media, books and entertainment that they consumed. I was taught in my Wards, Church talks and by my family to avoid "anti-Mormon" literature and to stick with neutral and LDS-friendly books (aka - anything from the Church, Deseret Book, BYU, etc.).

This is what is meant by "approved" books. Jim just wants to play dumb and play semantic games in his attempts to gaslight us all on our lived Mormon experience in the Church. It's in quotes because the LDS Church, aside for missionaries, doesn't have a strict and literal line-by-line "approved" list of books. The quotes denote the more common and general counsel of "stick with LDS standards media" guidelines often taught to the youth of the Church; especially in its Strength of Youth pamphlets that Jim apparently hasn't read.

Those raised in Mormonism, especially since the 1980s, understand what I mean by "approved" books and media sources. Books and sources that do not contradict the Brethren and the teachings of the LDS Church. Books and sources that are not hostile or go against the Brethren and the teachings of the LDS Church.

Basically anything neutral or from Deseret Book so the Brethren can get their royalty checks.

Jim slanders and defames a missionary

Rather than simply acknowledging this or simply leaving this alone and moving on, Jim chooses to be an asshole by denigrating, belittling and undermining my missionary service, integrity and contributions to the Church.

This is a perfect example of how Jim's "Reply" document is really a smear hit piece designed primarily to defame, slander and mislead others about Jeremy Runnells and his integrity and character.

It's not about facts or truth. It's about defamation, obfuscation and keeping others distracted from the truth and from the LDS Church's truth crisis.

Jim peddling homemade Mormonism

More bullshit Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting, belittling and attempts to peddle alternative unofficial homemade versions of Mormonism.

Get off your high horse, Jim. Not every programmed Mormon had/has the luxury, ability or privilege that you did of getting educated by those "anti-Mormons" because you had the balls / rebellious spirit to disobey your leaders' counsel by reading The Godmakers "anti-Mormon literature" in the 1980s.

I didn't question my assumptions because I was indoctrinated by Mormonism not to question the Church, its leaders and its teachings. I was instructed to stay away from "anti-Mormon materials" or I'd lose my testimony.

Stop blaming me and gaslighting me for being stuck in a matrix that I didn't even know I was in. Stop blaming me for being an orthodox Chapel Mormon like the vast majority of members of the Church; past and even still present.

How am I supposed to feel?

More bullshit Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting, ad hominem and revisionism.

It's my fault, you see, for actually being an obedient Mormon following the program I was indoctrinated in from birth instead of straying from the path by cooking up my own homemade version of Mormonism at odds with the Brethren and the teachings of the Church; like Jim did.

Jim is playing dumb here by pretending to not know what "Chapel Mormonism" is. I debunk Jim's above attacks in the following answer boxes:

• Chapel Mormonism
• "Intellectually engaging" with the Church
• Jim goes full cult

Critical life decisions around LDS Church

Notice that Jim's misleading strawman of the LDS Church's truth crisis is compartmentalized and packaged to being just the rock in the hat, which Jim grossly and embarrassingly does not understand (as per his own admission).

Nothing from Jim about everything else that's been written in the CES Letter. No Book of Abraham (which Jim no longer even defends). Nothing about polygamy / polyandry (which Jim finds very disturbing and admits he wouldn't let his own daughter be in Joseph's household). Nothing about the score of other issues.

Jim not only bastardizes and misrepresents my CES Letter statement, he attempts to minimize it to his asinine strawman. Jim fails to address the statement by acknowledging here that he acknowledges in his 2021 Mormon Stories interview: the Church was not transparent about its history to its members for decades.

It's not about the rock in the hat, Jim. It's about the dishonest and lack of transparency of the organization that I based my life and critical decisions around. It was foundational in everything: my youth, what I did after I graduated high school (mission), where I went to college (BYU), who I married (my wife that I met in the Wilkinson Center at BYU), where I got married and who got invited (LDS Temple), what we taught our kids (Mormonism), how we spent our weekends, our time, our money, our media...everything.

I built my life assuming the LDS Church was on solid ground only to learn, to my dismay in my 30s, that its foundation is actually quicksand.

Jim's blatant cartoon lie and deception

This is Jim's blatant lie, deception, ad hominem and smear where he completely distorts, bastardizes and mischaracterizes rhetorical questions that I ask about the reliability of the spirit using the Lion King as an example.

I blast Jim and his cartoon lies here in the Jim's misleading cartoon lie and smear answer box.

I annihilate Jim's deceptions about the Spirit and the reliability of the Spirit - along with Jim's ad hominems attempting to invalidate and undermine my own spiritual experiences and Mormon experience - in the Testimony and Spiritual Witness section.

Jim goes full cult...again

This is how cult members think and talk. This is very dangerous thinking that keeps people trapped in cults. 2018 Jim's terrifying statement here says more about him and his mental cage than anything else.

Let's show how this looks with other cults saying the same thing:

Scientology:
"No, you are expected to challenge your expectations. You are expected to consider the possibility that it is you, not just the Church, that has gotten a great deal wrong."

FLDS:
"No, you are expected to challenge your expectations. You are expected to consider the possibility that it is you, not just the Church, that has gotten a great deal wrong."

Moonies:
"No, you are expected to challenge your expectations. You are expected to consider the possibility that it is you, not just the Church, that has gotten a great deal wrong."

Jehovah's Witnesses:
"No, you are expected to challenge your expectations. You are expected to consider the possibility that it is you, not just the Church, that has gotten a great deal wrong."

Branch Davidians:
"No, you are expected to challenge your expectations. You are expected to consider the possibility that it is you, not just the Church, that has gotten a great deal wrong."

NXIVM:
"No, you are expected to challenge your expectations. You are expected to consider the possibility that it is you, not just the Church, that has gotten a great deal wrong."

Heaven's Gate:
"No, you are expected to challenge your expectations. You are expected to consider the possibility that it is you, not just the Church, that has gotten a great deal wrong."

jErEmY dIdN'T hAvE a tEsTiMoNy

This is Jim's ad hominem attack where he denigrates and attempts to belittle me by claiming that I didn't really have a testimony because "it shattered like a glass the moment it came into contact with new information".

The "sHaTtErEd lIkE gLaSs" phrasing Jim is using here sounds so familiar...oh, that's right, Jim plagiarized this term from his fellow Mormon apologist Kevin Christensen's asinine and stupid ad hominem hit pieces; which we debunked twice:

Here's me talking about my testimony and apologetic attacks like Jim's that attempt to erase it:

Here's my Mormon childhood:

I'm the baby - 1981

1985

All ready for church

Rocking BYU gear at 5

Baptism day @ 8-years-old

Admiring the 6,000-year-old Grand Canyon

Here's some of my journal entries and Sacrament talks from my teen years sharing my spiritual experiences and testimony of the Gospel:

Here's my Patriarchal Blessing. If you believe that Patriarchal Blessings are revelations from the Mormon god, have fun explaining this one:

Here's an embarrassing essay that I wrote as a 15-year-old for my Southern California high school non-Mormon English teacher:

Click to see PDF

I attended University High School in Irvine, California. In addition to being one of the best high schools in the country, it also has one of the best Deaf & Hard of Hearing mainstream programs in the country. Why am I telling you this? Because I lived 33 miles away in La Mirada, California and I would drive at least 66-80 miles a day round trip in California rush hour traffic. Okay, great, right? Well...guess who had two thumbs and woke up at 4am just about every morning just so that he could make it on time to early morning Seminary 33 miles away in Irvine? This guy.

Oh but wait...there's more. Guess who was on the Varsity Cross Country, Track and Soccer teams and who would have practices and often would not get home (thanks to Southern California traffic) until 7:30 or 8 at night just to be able to eat dinner, do homework and sleep for 4-6 hours so that he could wake up at 4am to go to Seminary again? This guy.

So, jErEmY dIDn'T hAvE a tEsTiMoNy? This alone debunks your attack as no teenager without a testimony will get up that early to fight Southern California traffic for 33 miles just to get to Seminary on time every morning for years. My father never forced me to do this and even told me that I could chill out on this. I was the fundamentalist in the family so there was no chilling out happening. When my dad would be overseas, as he often is for business, I'd still show up to Church on Sundays, Scouts on Tuesdays, Mutual on Wednesdays and Seminary in the mornings.

Here's me at Scout camp with the BYU hat that I wasn't ashamed or afraid to wear often in majority non-Mormon USC territory (most of my high school friends and peers came from Protestant/Evangelical USC alumni families):

Here's me at my Eagle Scout Court of Honor (standing next to Congressman Ed Royce):

Jim, will a letter from Grandma do the trick in convincing you I really had a testimony?

"Jeremy, you have always been a very special grandson to Grandpa and I. Ever since you were a small child, your sweet spirit and big brown eyes have captivated our hearts. We have always looked forward to and have been thrilled to be able to visit you or have you come and visit with us. We have always felt your love for us. We have seen you grow not only in stature but also in your faithfulness in the gospel. You have developed into a very personable, handsome young man. We have seen you fight to overcome the difficulties of a hearing handicap, which we know has not been easy. You have always had the spirit of forgiveness in your heart and have held no animosity to those who may have offended you. This is a very endearing trait.

We know you love the Lord and try to keep his commandments at all times. You have had some very spiritual experiences and have shared them with us..."

- Letter from Jeremy's grandmother

Getting my Endowment - San Diego Temple

Here's just some of the pictures from the LDS Church history tour that I took with my dad and brothers in July 2000 right before I reported to the MTC for my Mission in New York City, which strengthened my testimony of the Restoration and got me even more excited for my missionary service:

Top left: Carthage Jail; Top right: Hill Cumorah;
Mid left: Nauvoo; Mid right: Carthage Jail;
Bottom left: Adam-Ondi-Ahman; Bottom right: Susquehanna River

This was a two week tour that started in Boston (also went to Salem where Joseph stayed with his Uncle) and took us through Vermont (Joseph's birthplace), New York (Palmyra, Sacred Grove, Hill Cumorah, Whitmer Farm in Fayette, Niagara Falls), Pennsylvania (Priesthood Restoration sites, etc.), Ohio (Kirtland, Kirtland Temple, Amish country), Illinois (Nauvoo, Carthage), and ended in Missouri (Independence, RLDS Temple, Temple Lot, Liberty Jail, Adam-Ondi-Ahman).

Here's pictures from my Mission in New York City:

Top left: Mission Farewell; Second Top: MTC; Third Top: MTC; Fourth Top: Statue of Liberty;
Bottom Left: Liberty Island; Second Bottom: World Trade Center pre-9/11; Third Bottom: Central Park; Fourth Bottom: Wall Street;

I seriously cannot believe I'm actually sharing this but if this doesn't change Jim Bennett's mind that I really had a testimony, dammit...that I was willing to embarrass myself like this...nothing will:

Here's a very nice note from my Mission President after receiving our wedding invitation sharing with my wife about my missionary service:

"He was one of our finest elders"

Here's my Mastery certificate from my Mission President that I earned on my Mission (which was not required):

Here's my Book of Mormon that I read around 8 times on my Mission and which I marked the hell out of:

Here's my three Missionary Journals that I wrote faithfully everyday on my Mission writing about spiritual experiences and my testimony:

Here's a picture of my last Missionary journal entry on the return flight home from New York City the day I was honorably released:

I was a very successful missionary who baptized close to a dozen people (rare for ASL missions), including families. I asked to stay longer in the field and was granted another transfer. I was a District Leader both in the MTC and in the field (highest you can really go as an ASL missionary) who achieved the President's Mastery Program (intense Gospel / Scripture study and memorization).

Here's pictures of me in Israel and Egypt where I studied the Gospel:

Top left: BYU Jerusalem; Top right: Jerusalem;
Bottom left: Sea of Galilee; Bottom right: Christ's tomb;

Egypt

Here's my amazing fiancée and I as EFY counselors at BYU Provo:

Here's my gorgeous and very lovely bride and I on our wedding day at the San Diego Temple:

Here's my graduation at BYU:

My family:

Now...I could bullshit you with words but I cannot bullshit you with pictures and videos. Ask yourself as you see the above pictures/video throughout my life and what I was doing in each of those stages if I was a person without a true testimony of the Restored Gospel; like Jim and his apologist buddies are trying to sell you.

Ask yourself if I look like the evil person that they desperately try to paint me as.

One thing you will never hear from my LDS family, friends, peers and leaders from my Wards during my teen (and adult) years along with my peers from my Mission is that I never had a testimony or I wasn't a believing Latter-day Saint. They all know I had a testimony and they wouldn't be able to deny this.

I had a testimony, Jim. I just did. Jim's arrogant and horseshit ad hominem attacks here trying to deceive others that I was the village idiot without a testimony are just completely and totally false.

As for Jim's assertion that you don't have a real testimony if it "shatters like glass" upon contact with disturbing information? Here's Jim talking about what happened to his testimony and belief in the Church upon contact with disturbing information in the 1980s:

"I felt like a chump"

And here's Jim sharing about how his testimony of the Book of Abraham basically shattered like glass in recent years:

"I fully recognize that the Book of Abraham, intellectually, is probably the strongest argument against the Church. I'm not willing to leave the Church over it for reasons I've outlined in our discussions. There's no question that there are real challenges there and real problems there that I don't think the Church - we - have come to terms with."

-Jim Bennett, January 2021, Mormon Stories Episode 5

2021 Jim on the Book of Abraham

Jim nearly left the Church in 2015 over its discriminatory November Policy against the LGBTQ (guess his testimony "sHatTeReD lIkE gLasS" upon first contact then too?).

I've already responded to Jim's playing dumb by pretending to not know what "Chapel Mormonism" is here.

Simply put, all of Jim's above claims and ad hominem attacks here are just complete and total bullshit. It is an attack without compassion or empathy for people who discover the LDS Church's disturbing truth crisis. This is what 2018 Jim doesn't get:

Fortunately, 2021 Jim Bennett gets it now. 2021 Jim would not write something like this today as he has compassion and empathy for people who are confronted by disturbing information. 2021 Jim understands me and others who have gone on faith transitions now because he's gone on a faith journey himself. 2021 Jim is now a bridge builder.

Jim's comical but offensive ad hominem assaults

More bullshit and deceptive ad hominem from Jim Bennett. Let's break this up and debunk individually:

"It isn’t...There is nothing even remotely funny about that."

Either Jim is misunderstanding what I'm saying here or he's intentionally trying to deceive his readers.

Here's the full statement from the CES Letter for clear and uninterrupted context:

So, putting aside the absolute shock and feeling of betrayal in learning about all of this information that has been kept concealed and hidden from me by the Church my entire life, I am now expected to go back to the drawing board. Somehow, I am supposed to rebuild my testimony on newly discovered information that is not only bizarre and alien to the Chapel Mormonism I had a testimony of; it’s almost comical.

I'm not saying that losing my faith or my faith transition is comical or funny. It was a fawking nightmare for me that I never, ever want to repeat but which I'm grateful to have gone through as it's given me the gift of the authentic life, based on evidence, reality and truth, that I now live.

Jim is trying to misrepresent and mischaracterize me as saying it's "comical or funny" by bastardizing my statement for his own nefarious purpose of denigrating me and making me look like an asshole - as evident by his bullshit "jErEmY dEsTrOyS tEStImOnIeS tO gEt rIcH!" ad hominem assaults.

I'm specifically pointing to the alien, bizarre and contradictory homemade versions of Mormonism like Jim's or FAIR that we're supposed to go to the drawing board and somehow incorporate into a new testimony in order to keep staying in the LDS Church. It's these contradictory homemade versions of Mormonism - at odds with the Brethren and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - that I find comical and crazy.

"It’s extraordinarily sad. You have chosen to not only abandon whatever faith you have yourself;"

I didn't abandon my faith. My faith abandoned me.

"you have devoted your life to making money by tearing down the faith of others."

I'm devoting my life to one thing and one thing only: my family.

The CES Letter Foundation could collapse tomorrow and I would shrug my shoulders and I would keep doing what I've primarily done for over 10 years: make my living in digital marketing, analytics, conversion rate optimization, eCom and trading. I would continue to carpool my kids to school and soccer games in my Honda Odyssey (without the stick family stickers). I would continue to walk and snuggle with my wife, Sheepadoodle and Labradoodle (not necessarily in that order).

Go look at my LinkedIn profile. Seriously, go look at it. Have fun trying to find anything CES Letter on there. Know why it's not on there? Because it's not how I make my living. The CES Letter Foundation and Project has always been a pain-in-the-ass side charity project for me that mostly has brought nothing but ridiculous hassles and hardship to my life. I've donated and given more than I've received.

There's no real money in Post Mormonism. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. Even the big players in the space do not make enough for the hassles and darts that constantly come their way. We do it because the LDS Church harms people and families and we believe strongly in helping these people to navigate through the LDS Church's truth crisis intact.

I don't care if people stay or leave the LDS Church. I don't care what your LDS membership status is. It has zero effect on my life. A person's "faith" is irrelevant to me let alone whether it's intact or not. If people lose their faith, it's because of the LDS Church's truth crisis; not because of me. There's no CES Letter without the LDS Church's truth crisis and Gospel Topics essays verified problems. The ones who are the most obsessed about the CES Letter and destroying faith (albeit unintentionally) are Mormon apologists.

Joseph is a failed translator

"Bad information", you say?

2021 Jim isn't even willing to defend the Book of Abraham anymore. Here's what Jim says about the Book of Abraham:

"I fully recognize that the Book of Abraham, intellectually, is probably the strongest argument against the Church. I'm not willing to leave the Church over it for reasons I've outlined in our discussions. There's no question that there are real challenges there and real problems there that I don't think the Church - we - have come to terms with."

-Jim Bennett, January 2021, Mormon Stories Episode 5

2021 Jim on the Book of Abraham

As for the Kinderhook Plates? The one who is dishing out bad information is Jim Bennett when even his own apologetic sources FAIR and Don Bradley - along with me! - are on the same team together against Jim Bennett in agreeing that Jim is just wrong about throwing trusted scribe William Clayton under the bus.

The one who is giving bad information about the Kinderhook Plates is Jim Bennett where he is peddling an asinine and ridiculous theory of a "secular" translation using the GAEL...which is hilarious because Mormon apologists talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the GAEL.

They'll hug and point to the GAEL when trying to separate Joseph Smith from the Kinderhook Plates fraud but they throw the GAEL into the pond when trying to separate Joseph Smith from the Book of Abraham fraud.

See the Kinderhook Plates section for Jim's shitshow.

See Book of Abraham section on how misleading and incorrect Jim is with his bad information and bad apologetics. As mentioned above, 2021 Jim isn't even willing to defend the Book of Abraham anymore.

Take Joseph at his word after lying about polygamy?

Source

Oh, look...2021 Jim Bennett debunking 2018 Jim by acknowledging and admitting that Joseph Smith lied to his wife, Emma, about polygamy along with offering apologetics that Joseph's public lies and denials were just "carefully worded statements" (lol):

"I acknowledge that Joseph lied to Emma about some of the marriages."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"There's things that Joseph did that are really, sort of, profoundly wrong in the practice of polygamy."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"The difficulty here is that I'm defending something [polygamy/polyandry] that, to some degree, is indefensible. And I recognize that. I'm defending something that makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable. I remember on Bill Reel's podcast being asked, 'Would you want your daughter working in Joseph Smith's household? Given that Joseph Smith proposed to all these women [girls] in his household?' And I said, "No! I wouldn't."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I want to be very clear. Polygamy is probably one the most difficult things for me to deal with. It is messy. It is difficult. It's impossible to deny that Joseph Smith did several things that are not just wrong but deeply disturbing. Particularly with regard to how he dealt with polygamy and plural marriage with his wife, Emma. It's clear that there's several incidents that he's not honest with her."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"The Church hasn't come to terms with polygamy...What we've done is just sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not there."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

2021 Jim on Polygamy | Polyandry

2018 Jim is the one who is seriously wrong and completely incorrect on this issue. There is no "sOlId eViDeNcE" to the contrary. There's only bullshit apologetic spin that falls completely apart upon further scrutiny and examination of the data and evidence.

We go further into detail in the Polyamy | Polyandry section.

Priesthood Restoration Backdating / Retrofitting

There goes Jim again with his Jim Bennett Mormonism®.

Notice that Jim isn't denying here the backdating or retrofitting of the priesthood restoration accounts. Instead, he's claiming that I'm giving the "least generous interpretation" of the backdating and retrofitting (lol...I'm not).

A key foundational pillar of Jim Bennett Mormonism® is, as Jim states:

"I think so many of our challenges and problems with the Church go away if we can charitably interpret the actions of leaders of the Church...who are just men...who are doing the best they can."

Once you understand this, you understand Jim's approach to the CES Letter and his methodology and strategy in dealing with the LDS Church's truth crisis.

Let's take this Jim Bennett Mormonism® idea for a test run:

Well...that test run didn't go so well.

The problem with Jim's "charity" and "generous interpretation" is that Jim overuses it and very liberally dispenses of it to the point of effectively destroying any litmus test for fraud. There is nothing that his religion and its leaders can do, with the exception of further mistreating the LGBTQ+ (Jim almost left the Church in 2015 over its November Policy), that will trigger Jim's litmus test alarm.

As we saw in the above video, Jim was very charitable toward his LDS leaders to the point where he boldly declared that no one was deliberately dishonest or deceptive. When John debunked Jim's unsupported claim and assertion by pointing to Joseph Fielding Smith ripping out and hiding the 1832 First Vision account, Jim's reaction wasn't that of introspection of his position and its weaknesses but rather an automatic "I want to be charitable to Joseph Fielding Smith."

With the Book of Abraham, Jim acknowledges that it's very problematic but rather than allow this problem to raise the red flag on Joseph Smith, Jim showers Joseph Smith with "charity" by clinging onto unsupported, unsustainable and absurd apologetics.

So, it's important to understand Jim's worldview and how he operates in relation to the Church, its leaders and its history to understand why he is constantly turning off alarm bells that otherwise would activate another's litmus test for fraud or raise red flags.

Further Reading:

• Debunking Jim Bennett's "Reply": Priesthood Restoration
• Debunking FairMormon: Priesthood Restoration
• LDS Discussion's Overview of the Priesthood Restoration Accounts
• LDS Discussion's Overview of Revelation, Part 1: Backdating Prophecy
• MormonThink's Priesthood Restoration

Dan Vogel's Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims - Part 1

Dan Vogel's Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims - Part 2

Jim's rock in hat cluelessness

You know what's absolutely amazing to me? Here we are in the Conclusion section and you still don't get the core problem with the rock in the hat.

But then again, you literally thought I didn't know if the Lion King or Mufasa was real or not and you literally thought I was saying that Joseph translated with an Ouija Board. It's like you have a literalism problem or something. I don't know.

Anyway, you think the rock in the hat is a presentism problem. Or a weirdness problem. Or a transparency problem.

The lack of transparency is a serious problem, yes. And yes, it's batshit crazy and weird; even to contemporaries in the 19th-century. But these are not the primary problems of the rock in the hat.

I talk about the existential threat that folk magic occultism and Joseph's fraudulent activities around it pose to Mormonism and its truth claims in the Book of Mormon Translation section.

Was Joseph Smith's treasure digging fraudulent?

Was Joseph Smith's Treasure Digging Fraudulent?

Mormonism was born out of 19th-century folk magic

Jim obviously doesn't want to go there so he gives his non-answer in numerical form.

Despite Jim's attempts elsewhere in painting this as a nothingburger or even admitting that he doesn't understand the problem here, it's obvious that Jim doesn't understand this problem.

Jim, it's not a presentism issue. It's not primarily a weirdness issue (although it's batshit crazy). It's not even primarily a transparency issue (although it's a serious problem and breach of trust that the Church kept this embarrassing skeleton in the closet hidden from members for generations).

It's a foundational issue. It's a product issue. It's a narrative issue. It's a truth issue.

“I will begin by saying that we still have pictures on our Ward bulletin boards of Joseph Smith with the Gold Plates in front of him. That has become an irksome point and I think it is something the church should pay attention to. Because anyone who studies the history knows that is not what happened. There is no church historian who says that is what happened and yet it is being propagated by the church and it feeds into the notion that the church is trying to cover up embarrassing episodes and is sort of prettifying its own history.

So, I think we ought to just stop that immediately. I am not sure we need a lot of pictures in our chapels of Joseph looking into his hat, but we certainly should tell our children that is how it worked... It’s weird. It’s a weird picture. It implies it’s like darkening a room when we show slides. It implies that there is an image appearing in that stone and the light would make it more difficult to see that image. So, that implies a translation that’s a reading and so gives us a little clue about the whole translation process. It also raises the strange question, ‘What in the world are the plates for? Why do we need them on the table if they are just wrapped up into a cloth while he looks into a seer stone?’”

– RICHARD BUSHMAN, LDS SCHOLAR, HISTORIAN, PATRIARCH
FAIRMORMON PODCAST, EPISODE 3: RICHARD L. BUSHMAN P.1, 47:251

LDS scholar and historian, Richard Bushman, in a December 31, 2020 Salt Lake Tribune interview (Red emphasis added):

Have you changed your mind over the years about any of the church’s founding events?

In terms of the particulars — the overall story about the First Vision, gold plates, translation and a set of revelations to form a church — my view remains pretty much the way it was. But I do think about some things differently.

The Book of Mormon is a problem right now. It’s so baffling to so many that Joseph was not even looking at the gold plates [to translate them]. And there’s so much in the Book of Mormon that comes out of the 19th century that there’s a question of whether or not the text is an exact transcription of Nephi’s and Mormon’s words, or if it has been reshaped by inspiration to be more suitable for us, a kind of an expansion or elucidation of the Nephite record for our times. I have no idea how that might have worked or whether that’s true. But there are just too many scholars now, faithful church scholars, who find 19th-century material in that text. That remains a little bit of a mystery, just how it came to be.

It not only substantively changes everything...it destroys the Church's founding narrative story about the origin story of the Book of Mormon and the validity of claims of Moroni and gold plates and Nephi killing Laban for plates that weren't used and Moroni and all the prophets laboriously writing and compiling and abridging plates and Moroni safeguarding and traveling with plates...all so Joseph could use his occult 1822-before-Moroni-treasure-digging-brown-rock-he-found-digging-in-his-neighbor's-well instead.

It changes the Angel Moroni to Moroni the "Treasure Guardian" and a random September night of retrieving gold plates into the night of the Autumnal equinox - an important day in folk magic. It explains weird stuff like Moroni appearing first to young Joseph three times in one evening to repeat instructions, the repetition of three annual visits to Hill Cumorah and the "thrice-repeated" shock - as described by Oliver Cowdery - that Joseph experienced when trying to obtain buried gold treasure (aka gold plates) buried underground in the presence of the treasure guardian but to his astonishment the plates unexpectedly disappeared (sinking treasure). Thrice-repeated instructions from guardians or spirits signified truthfulness in folk magic culture.

So, we not only have the problems of blatant contradictions and problems with Book of Mormon stories and characters but we have to deal with the glaring problems of Mormonism being birthed from and soaked in 19th-century rural New England folk occult magic.

Contrary to how Jim is framing this whole issue...the Church's lack of transparency of the rock-in-the-hat to its membership for generations is not the primary problem here. It's also not a presentism issue as even contemporaries of the day thought it was batshit crazy and fraudulent.

It's a symptom of a much greater problem of Mormonism: its birth, creation and remixing in 19th-century folk magic, occultism and freemasonry.

See the Book of Mormon Translation section for details.

Jim's deeply, deeply flawed First Vision apologetics

No inconsistencies, you say? That's hilarious...

Here's the blatant contradiction between the first vision accounts that Jim doesn't share with you:

1832 handwritten account by Joseph Smith:

Official 1838 First Vision account:

So, there's "nO iNcOnSiStEnCiEs" Jim? Right.

And this is barely the beginning. There's all kinds of other problems and inconsistencies between all the accounts.

It's not a presentism problem. It's an honesty and consistency problem. As one criminal attorney wrote: If Joseph were to testify all of his first vision accounts in a court of law while under oath? He'd be slapped with perjury and contempt of court for bearing false and contradictory testimony.

The one here who is "deeply, deeply flawed" on this issue is Jim Bennett. No matter how hard you try to put lipstick on a fugly pig...it's still a fugly pig.

We go over the details in the First Vision section.

The Parable of the Calculator: Useless Prophets

Jim pulled this same stunt in the Prophets section by trying to hilariously claim that these men have "been very, very right the vast majority of the time". Of course, Jim offers no evidence or list (there or here in this section) to support his absurd claim.

I think it's hilarious how Jim claims this but then goes crickets about producing a list of his imaginary things they've "been very, very right the vast majority of the time."

Of course, Jim throws in his common strawman that I'm arguing some kind of "fOrFeItUrE oF aGeNcY" when I'm doing nothing of the kind. It's not about agency. After all, there's precedent of the Mormon god imposing his will upon people or suffer destruction. It's about these men utterly failing the litmus test as so-called "prophets, seers and revelators".

Theists point to faith as a tool for discovering truth. However, the fact that faith can sometimes lead you to truth and faith can sometimes lead you to something that is not true demonstrates that faith is not a reliable pathway to truth.

Similarly, "prophets" who have been so catastrophically wrong and so morally blind for close to 200 years on so many important issues demonstrates that they are not reliable sources for truth. Jim is trying to gaslight us here by hilariously claiming "vast majority of the time" when the reality and truth is that for the vast majority of Mormonism's existence, the Church has been completely and totally wrong on race and other key issues.

This is not just about keeping score. This is about the kind of things that they've been so wrong about: racism, slavery, women, LGBTQ+, polygamy/polyandry, science (DNA, evolution, age of Earth/universe, space exploration, moon/sun inhabitants), God's name (Adam-God), Blood Atonement, Book of Mormon historicity, Book of Abraham, Kinderhook Plates, and on and on and on.

Source

If the prophet is no better than a man then he's no better than me. And if he's no better than me then why should I follow him?

If a prophet can speak as a man, then how can you know for certain when the man is speaking as a prophet? If you can't know for certain, what is the point of a prophet?

The Parable of the Calculator: Useless Prophets

If I have a calculator that can be wrong at arbitrary times, I'm going to have to check the numbers the calculator is giving me by hand every time I do a calculation. After two or three times of doing that I'm just not going to use the calculator anymore. A calculator that can be wrong at any random time is useless as a calculator.

Similarly, someone who claims to speak for god and relay his will, but can be wrong even when they explicitly say they're speaking for god, is useless as a mouthpiece for god.

Jim's deceptive "lousy scholarship" attack

No, Jim. What's "lousy scholarship" is lying about and misrepresenting your opponent's arguments and statements. Notice the hyperlink in the above CES Letter statement. Now notice that this hyperlink is missing in Jim's "copy/paste" of the above statement in Jim's "Reply":

If you had actually gotten the hyperlink in Jim's document like you do in the CES Letter? It would have taken you to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, which lists all of the immorality, violence and despicable behavior from the scriptures (and god).

Not only does Jim display bad / dishonest / lousy scholarship by omitting this critical hyperlink from his document, Jim misrepresents why I took out the original Scripture section. I replaced that section by moving its contents over to the Science section as well as condensing other content into the above paragraph with the critical hyperlink to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible website that outlines the problems as opposed to dedicating a whole chapter / section in the CES Letter to the same problem general Chrisitanity has and which I felt distracted from the more primary and unique problems of Mormonism.

Bad form, Jim. Bad form.

Jim's science falsehood

Notice that Jim doesn't include my hyperlink in his "Reply". You know...the link that proves my point and disproves Jim's falsehood. Here's a screenshot from Jim's relevant statement from his "Reply":

Where's the hyperlink? If you had the hyperlink in Jim's document like it's in the CES Letter, you would have been directed to the Church's D&C 77 scripture page where it states the following in the chapter heading:

"5-7, This earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years."

When you scroll down to verses 5-7:

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?
A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Funny how you didn't get this all-important hyperlink from Jim in his document, huh?

As for no death before the fall of Adam?

Source

Erect penis Min = Heavenly Father

This is Jim's attempt to gaslight us that Min, represented by a figure with an erect penis, isn't the god of sex (generation, procreation, fertility, etc.). It's hilarious that in the very same sentence as "fertility", Jim says, "not the god of sex". Even an LDS Egyptologist, in his translation below, states, "the seated god is clearly a form of Min, the god of the regenerative, procreative forces of nature..."

Source

Jim offers us his Jim Bennett Mormonism® teaching that "symbols can mean different things" over time as if that little theory absolves Joseph Smith from embarrassingly pointing to the erect penis Egyptian god of sex, Min, as Heavenly Father.

FAIR (FairMormon) pulled a similar stunt back in the day in 2013 when they tried to awkwardly sell the absurd idea that God the Father can be different gods in different cultures, including erect penis Min in the Egyptian one.

This was my response in Debunking FairMormon:

Again…by this logic, Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Aphrodite, Ares, Odin and the rest of the gods are all "God the Father.”

Joseph Smith wasn’t an ancient Egyptian and ancient Egyptians’ phallus god, Min, was not the Mormon or Christian god.

What’s absurd is Joseph’s claim that this Egyptian pagan god with an erect penis, Min, is Heavenly Father. This is like someone in the 19th century claiming that the ancient Norse god Odin is Elohim and Odin’s son Thor is Jesus Christ.

It wasn't just the critics who sensed the awkwardness of the Prophet Joseph Smith pointing to an ancient pagan Egyptian sex god with an erect penis as representing our Heavenly Father. The Church sensed it too.

The following are Facsimile 2 in different editions of the Pearl of Great Price. Notice the censorship of Min's penis in the 1902 and 1921 editions before the Church decided in 1981 that it would probably be a great idea to put the penis back on:

The ancient Egyptians had their own gods completely independent of Judeo-Christian theology. Their gods did not represent the Christian or Mormon god any more than Zeus or Odin represent Elohim and Hercules or Thor represent Jesus Christ.

It’s obvious from Joseph’s own translations and claims that he believed the Facsimile scenes represented Abraham and Judeo-Christian concepts and theology.

Deceptive "no substantive changes" to BOM

This is deceptive bullshit right here.

Notice that Jim doesn't include my hyperlink to FAIR (FairMormon) in the "100,000 changes" text in his "Reply" like it appears in the CES Letter. This very important and relevant hyperlink is missing in Jim's "Reply":

Now, why would Jim remove this little hyperlink that links to FAIR (FairMormon), I wonder?

Oh, look...from the FAIR (FairMormon) page that I link to that Jim omits:

Now you know why Jim didn't include my FAIR (FairMormon) hyperlink in his "Reply". It directly contradicts Jim's above blatantly bullshit, false and misleading "has not gone through any substantive changes" claim.

Here's a few examples of substantive and significant changes in the Book of Mormon that do indeed alter its meaning and message (you can compare to 1830 edition on LDS Church's Joseph Smith Papers to LDS Church's current edition of Book of Mormon):

Godhead
The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. Joseph Smith’s early theology also held this view. As part of the over 100,000 changes to the Book of Mormon, there were major changes made to reflect Joseph’s evolved view of the Godhead.

Racism
The Church made changes to the Book of Mormon to soften its racism:

And changes to the Chapter Headings:

Alterable Decrees
The evolving doctrines of the church necessitated editing the Book of Mormon's teaching that God's decrees are unalterable.

Correcting Errors

From Author to Translator
The original 1830 edition named Joseph Smith as "Author and Proprietor". After Joseph could not sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada, all subsequent editions named him "Translator":

Source: Joseph Smith Papers

Source: ChurchofJesusChrist.org

Funny how you didn't get all this pertinent information from Jim, huh?

Special thanks to MormonHandbook.com for some of the above content.

Still incorrect after all these revisions

According to Joseph Smith's testimony, there should not have been any reason to make changes in the Book of Mormon. Joseph stated that when he and the witnesses went out to pray concerning the book, a voice spoke from heaven telling them that the translation of the Book of Mormon is correct:

"...we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.'"
- History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55, Joseph Smith.

On another occasion, Joseph Smith stated:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth..."
- History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 461, Joseph Smith.

The errors in the Book of Mormon were originally blamed on the fact that it was originally written in "reformed Egyptian". In Mormon 9:31-34:

32. And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

34. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

And in Ether 12:23-26:

23. And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;

24. And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

25. Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

26. And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

Nowadays though? As evident from Jim's previous box answer? "iT wAs tHe uNinSpiReD pRiNteR's fAult."

Noah & global flood literal events?

Your Jim Bennett Mormonism® is adorable, Jim. But let's put it aside though right here for a second so that we can see what Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually taught/teaches on this subject, m'kay?

In modern-day revelation, Joseph Smith validated the story of Noah's Ark and the flood as an actual, factual and literal event. In the Book of Moses, chapter 7, in the Pearl of Great Price:

43. Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them up.

This is canonized scripture and modern-day revelation verifying that Noah's Ark and the flood really literally happened.

In the LDS Church's January 1998 Ensign article, The Flood and the Tower of Babel:

"There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets."

Here's the Noah page on the LDS Church's Gospel Topics section of its official website verifying and confirming that the Ark and flood were literal events.

LDS Discussions did a great debunking of Mormon apologetics (as employed by Jim and FAIR) on this issue.

MormonThink did a great overview outlining the many problems and issues unique to Mormon teachings and apologetics on this issue.

Jim's cute little magic trick in trying to gaslight everyone that there's no distinction "between the literal and figurative" is completely and totally demolished and debunked upon further scrutiny by looking at the actual evidence and official Church sources, including its canonized scriptures.

Tower of Babel literal event?

Your Jim Bennett Mormonism® is adorable, Jim. But let's put it aside though right here for a second so that we can see what Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually taught/teaches on this subject, m'kay?

Here's the Book of Mormon debunking Jim and his Jim Bennett Mormonism®:

33 Which Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered.
- Ether 1:33

Is Jim now trying to tell us that the Book of Mormon is not literal or historical? That the Jaredites were not an actual people? That they didn't, like the above scripture teaches, come from the Tower of Babel?

In the LDS Church's January 1998 Ensign article, The Flood and the Tower of Babel:

For some in the modern world, the historicity of the tower of Babel story, as with the Flood, is often discounted. One modern school of thought considers the account to be nothing more than an "artful parable" and an "old tale." But Latter-day Saints accept the story as it is presented in Genesis. Further, we have the second witness of the Book of Mormon. The title page of the Book of Mormon explains that the book of Ether "is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven." The book of Ether itself then tells of when "Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth" (Ether 1:33).

LDS Discussions did a great debunking of Mormon apologetics (as employed by Jim and FAIR) on this issue.

MormonThink did a great overview outlining the many problems and issues unique to Mormon teachings and apologetics on this issue.

Jim's cute little magic trick in trying to gaslight everyone that there's no distinction "between the literal and figurative" is completely and totally demolished and debunked upon further scrutiny by looking at the actual evidence and official Church sources, including its canonized scriptures.

BOM Translation Errors

I debunk Jim's misleading deception here in the Book of Mormon section in the 1769 Translation Errors answer box.

The one who doesn't understand and who is misrepresenting the issue here is Jim Bennett.

Jim's incorrect & unsupported Polygamy apologetics

Jim gets this completely and totally unsupported apologetics from fellow Mormon apologist, Brian Hales. There is no way for Brian to support his apologetic hypothesis and other scholars in the field of Mormon polygamy oppose Brian's "sexless polyandry" hypothesis. In fact, by Brian Hales' own admission, he stands alone in the field of polygamy scholars in his apologetics that there was no sexual polyandry:

Graphic from Hales' own presentation at 2012 FairMormon Conference

We discuss this further in detail in the Polyamy | Polyandry section.

Here's 2021 Jim Bennett's comments about polygamy | polyandry as practiced by Joseph Smith:

"The difficulty here is that I'm defending something [polygamy/polyandry] that, to some degree, is indefensible. And I recognize that. I'm defending something that makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable. I remember on Bill Reel's podcast being asked, 'Would you want your daughter working in Joseph Smith's household? Given that Joseph Smith proposed to all these women [girls] in his household?' And I said, "No! I wouldn't."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I want to be very clear. Polygamy is probably one the most difficult things for me to deal with. It is messy. It is difficult. It's impossible to deny that Joseph Smith did several things that are not just wrong but deeply disturbing. Particularly with regard to how he dealt with polygamy and plural marriage with his wife, Emma. It's clear that there's several incidents that he's not honest with her."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"There's things that Joseph did that are really, sort of, profoundly wrong in the practice of polygamy."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I acknowledge that Joseph lied to Emma about some of the marriages."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"The Church hasn't come to terms with polygamy...What we've done is just sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not there."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

2021 Jim on Polygamy | Polyandry

Angel with sword leverage

The one who is completely and totally wrong here is Jim.

Joseph used the angel with a drawn sword story as leverage on at least two girls that he sought to have an affair with (aka polygamous marriage). One of the girls was newly engaged and pregnant Zina Huntington Jacobs and the other Sarah Ann Whitney.

From LDS Discussions about Zina Huntington Jacobs:

Zina Huntington's story is very uncomfortable to read about, especially given that it was a polyandrous marriage. Zina lived in the Smith household for a few months in the winter of 1839-40 while recovering from an illness, and at that time “Zina received numerous courtship visits from Henry Bailey Jacobs, a friend of her brothers, who often accompanied Oliver to the house. Simultaneously, Joseph Smith in private conversations taught her the principle of plural marriage, suggesting that she become his spiritual wife.” (Bradley, Plurality, Patriarchy, and the Priestess: Zina D. H. Young's Nauvoo Marriages, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 1994), p. 90)

This proposal tormented Zina, who was falling in love with Henry, but knew that the person she viewed as a prophet proclaimed that God had commanded her to become one of his polygamous wives. From Zina’s autobiography:

“O dear Heaven, grant me wisdom! Help me to know the way, O Lord, my god, let thy will be done and with thine arm around about to guide, shield and direct.” (Bradley, Plurality, Patriarchy, and the Priestess: Zina D. H. Young's Nauvoo Marriages, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 1994), p. 90)

Zina would rebuff Joseph Smith’s proposal and marry her true love, Henry Jacobs, on March 7, 1841. At this point Zina was 21 years old, and was “convinced that by doing so she had circumvented any further overtures from Smith.”

However, the marriage would not be the end of Joseph Smith’s advances, with Joseph Smith even throwing their wedding day for a loop. From Emma Jacobs:

“A family tradition relates that Henry and Zina had asked Smith to perform their marriage. He consented but did not appear, and John Bennett officiated in his place. When Zina later asked Smith about his absence, he reportedly said that "he couldn't give to one man [the woman] who had been given him by the Lord. The Lord had made it known to him that she [Zina] was to be his Celestial wife." (Emma Jacobs to Oa J. Cannon, letter included in an untitled narrative written by Cannon about Zina, 22-23, Oa J. Cannon Collection, LDS Church Archives)

To be clear, Joseph Smith was so convinced that Zina was “given him” that he wouldn’t perform a marriage that was actually based in love to Henry Jacobs. Joseph would propose to Zina again just months after she became a married woman, this time sending a message through Zina’s brother Dimick:

“He sent word to me by my brother, saying, ‘Tell Zina, I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth I would lose my position and my life.’” (Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, p. 659)

At this point Zina was seven months pregnant with Henry’s child, and she was then placed in an agonizing situation: Stay true to her newlywed husband that she loved, or submit to the man she believed was a prophet of God and whose life she was told would end if she rejected him again.

The angel with a drawn sword story is effective, and is clearly why Joseph Smith used it on women who do not accept his first proposals. It also severely diminishes any concept of free agency, because as I’ve already mentioned above, if you believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet, then you also have to believe you are effectively murdering him by rejecting his proposal.

Zina would then be sealed to Joseph Smith, with her loving husband Henry standing as a witness. I cannot even imagine poor Henry standing as a witness as Joseph Smith takes his wife to be his polyandrous wife, knowing that upon death she will be Joseph’s along with the child who would be born soon after. But he went along with it because once Joseph Smith convinced people he was a prophet of God, that authority allowed him to get his followers to do things that you would be repulsed by if we swapped out Joseph Smith for David Koresh or Warren Jeffs.

It was clear that Zina was tormented by this decision, and she famously said the following:

“I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life for I never anticipated a gain to be looked upon as an honorable woman by those I dearly loved.” (Zina D. H. Young—Undated Biographical Sketch, in Zina Card Brown Collection, MS 4780, Box 2, Fd. 17 (on Reel 2).)

For Henry’s part, he rationalized giving his wife to Joseph Smith by stating the following:

“Whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man.” (Bradley, Plurality, Patriarchy, and the Priestess: Zina D. H. Young's Nauvoo Marriages, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 1994), p. 95)

As I said before, the idea of free agency is severely diminished when you view someone as a prophet, and this is a great example of how easily that claimed authority can be abused among the followers of a self-proclaimed prophet. It has happened throughout history, and Joseph Smith is no exception.

Following their marriage, Henry was sent away on missions, sometimes personally sent by Joseph Smith. While we do not have any record of Zina and Joseph Smith having sex – it was one thing for a polygamous wife to admit to sexual relations, but a polyandrous wife would be a whole different level – they were married while Henry was away for long stretches, so they idea that they did not have sex seems unlikely to me, and honestly makes no sense given the very premise of both Joseph Smith’s relations with other women and D&C 132.

From LDS Discussions about Sarah Ann Whitney:

Sarah Ann Whitney was the daughter of Newel K. Whitney, a well known early member who was a bishop in the church. The Whitneys were a connected family in the early church, and Sarah was the second counselor to Emma Smith when the Relief Society was founded.

Joseph Smith initially approached Sarah’s parents about the marriage, and they, much like the other stories, initially resisted but then agreed after praying about it. Sarah’s mother Elizabeth references that Joseph had told them the story of the “the angel… that the most profound secrecy must be maintained,” which would likely be a reference to the angel with a drawn sword. (The Woman’s Exponent 1878-12-15 vol. 7 no. 14 “A Leaf from and Autobiography” by Elizabeth Whitney)

They were married on July 27, 1842, which would put Sarah Ann Whitney at 17 years old and Joseph Smith at 36 years old. Joseph Smith provided Sarah’s father, Bishop Newel K. Whitney, a revelatory marriage ceremony to conduct the wedding, which included promises of exaltation for the entire family just as Joseph Smith promised to Helen Mar Kimball and family for their daughter in marriage. (Unpublished Revelations of the Prophets and Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Part 59 (pg 95))

The secrecy with this marriage really showed the lengths that Joseph Smith would go through in order to keep polygamy from not just his first wife Emma, but even family members of his brides. Helen Mar Kimball recalls that “Joseph was afraid Sarah’s brother Horace (eventual husband of Helen Mar) would disapprove of the marriage, so he sent him East on a mission before the marriage ceremony would occur.” (Letter From a Doubter)

Source

Schizophrenic god

Looks like the following scripture is bullshit then:

9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.
- Mormon 9:9-10

The Mormon god is the absolute worst marketer ever. Just on the topic of polygamy alone has done irreparable and permanent harm and damage to the one true church's image, brand and reputation. Just on the topic of polygamy alone has made the majority of the population equate Mormonism with the likes of Warren Jeffs and has made missionary work that much harder.

No explanation from Jim here on this damning inconsistency and the irreparable destruction and damage polygamy has done to the Church's image and credibility as well as its proselytizing efforts.

Wait until I die to get answers

Well meaning Mormon family, friends and ward members trying to rescue me during my discovering the LDS Church's truth crisis.

The idea to put questions and doubts on the shelf and wait for answers in the eternities is not a rare idea in the Church:

Finally, we can keep an eternal perspective, bearing in mind that “some blessings come soon, some come late, and some don’t come until heaven; but for those who embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, they come,” as Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught. “God expects you to have enough faith and determination and enough trust in Him to keep moving, keep living, keep rejoicing.” The Lord’s blessings always come, just like the sunrise each morning. Look to eternity instead of tomorrow.
- Waiting for Answers without Doubting, LDS Church website

In an address to CES, Elder Holland said:

"Not all gospel questions have answers - yet - but they will come."
- Be Not Afraid, Only Believe, Address to Church Educational System Religious Educators, February 2015

Sherri Dew said:

"All questions have answers. But some questions, be they personal, doctrinal, or procedural, may not be answered until later. Some may not be answered in this life."
- How to "Doubt Not but Be Believing" Even When Your Questions Remain Unanswered, LDSLiving

"Intellectually engaging" with the Church

More bullshit Jim Bennett mind reading, ad hominem and Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting.

I was told during my faith crisis by several Mormons, in and out of my family, that I was looking at the Church intellectually and this was causing my doubts. You don't know me, 2018 Jim, nor have you lived my life so you cannot possibly make this assumption and conclusion.

2018 Jim's arrogance and assumption here is a perfect example of how 2018 Jim has no problem whatsoever arriving to conclusions about things he has no fawking idea or business in arriving to conclusions with. He has no problem assuming he has the truth about things he cannot possibly know about. Jim does this all the time as well with his ad hominem "jErEmY dIdN't rEaD tHe sOuRce" or "jEremY dIdN't hAvE a tEsTiMonY" or "jErEmY nEvEr fElT tHe sPiRiT" bullshit prevalent throughout his smear hit piece.

In Jim's universe, because I didn't cook up my own version of Mormonism like he did and because I actually listened to and followed my leaders and followed my indoctrination by towing the line...that made me lazy and that I "didn't bother to intellectually engage with the Church".

I'm sorry I wasn't as cool as you were in the 1980s, Jim, when you disobeyed your leaders and went out and got educated by the "anti-Mormons", which allowed you to finally "intellectually engage with the Church" for the first time in your life:

"I felt like a chump"

Here's the little secret that Jim doesn't tell you about "intellectually engaging with the Church": the Church does not want you to actually intellectually engage with it. It just wants your obedience. Apparently Jim "intellectually engaged" and look what happened to him...he created Jim Bennett Mormonism®. When you actually intellectually engage with the Church, you're doing something very dangerous: you're asking hard questions and you're going to quickly find out that the Church doesn't have answers to many of the hard questions you ask it.

When you actually intellectually engage with the Church, you end up having to create and cook up a homemade version of Mormonism, like Jim did, if you want to stay or you just leave the Church altogether.

Intellectually engaging with the Church is where orthodoxy - or Chapel Mormonism - goes to die. The last thing the Brethren want is this. They want orthodox and obedient members; not heterodox members with annoying questions and concerns.

Source

Ignore and have faith anyway?

More bullshit Jim Bennett mind reading, ad hominem and Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting.

I was told during my faith crisis by several Mormons, in and out of my family, that I was looking at the Church intellectually and this was causing my doubts. I was told to just have faith that the answers will come in the eternities. You don't know me, 2018 Jim, nor have you lived my life so you cannot possibly make this assumption and conclusion.

2018 Jim's arrogance and assumption here is a perfect example of how 2018 Jim has no problem whatsoever arriving to conclusions about things he has no fawking idea or business in arriving to conclusions with. He has no problem assuming he has the truth about things he cannot possibly know about. Jim does this all the time as well with his ad hominem "jErEmY dIdN't rEaD tHe sOuRce" or "jEremY dIdN't hAvE a tEsTiMonY" or "jErEmY nEvEr fElT tHe sPiRiT" bullshit prevalent throughout his smear hit piece.

See previous box answer for more content.

Jim misunderstands faith

Religious faith and religious truth claims are not the same as everyday hope and past experiences. This is Jim's false equivalence fallacy and strawman.

Jim clearly doesn't understand what faith is and is not and how it is different from hope, trust and past experiences, as demonstrated by his above false equivalence fallacy.

Claiming that XYZ is God and ABC is this god's church and so-and-so book is this god's scripture are not the same as a hope that I'll get this job or a hope that my daughter will win her soccer game or a hope that my relative will make it out of the surgery alive.

Jim's example of depositing our money in the bank as an example of faith is just...absurd. We don't deposit our money in a bank because we have "faith". We deposit it because of trust and decades of past experiences as a society that the banks will follow tight regulations and oversights imposed upon them by various industry and government agencies to treat our money professionally. We also have a 4 letter word that isn't faith that helps a lot too: FDIC.

Donn Carter on Quora wrote an excellent debunking to asinine and false equivalence fallacies like Jim just committed when answering the following question, "How is hope for an atheist different from faith?":

I’m a lifelong atheist—and I’d say that I don’t have “faith in” anything.

But since faith can take on different contexts, I know I’ll need to explain.

To further confuse the meaning, there’s a significant difference between “religious faith” compared to just simply “faith.”

Then there’s the different meanings of “faith in.”

It’s kind of a confusing mess, so I can appreciate the question.

I’m not sure how it’s possible to be human and not have hope. I hope my car lasts me another 5 years…but I don’t have faith that it will. However, it might. I’m not a mechanic.

I hope when I have kids that they’ll be healthy and well adjusted. I can’t say that I have faith that they will, though. I’ll have something to do with it—so it’s partly in my hands when the time comes.

Hope is basically a wish…with no expected outcome.

Faith is believing something is real or true—or WILL BE real or true in the future. This has an expected outcome attached to it. Faith is also those belief without proof or evidence. This is why I don’t have faith. I have reasonable expectations based on past experience and I have earned trust in the people I know (maybe even earned mistrust in certain people). This is not faith.

But more on faith. “Faith in” god/s for instance may mean two things—maybe even simultaneously. Faith in god may mean believing that god/s exists—or/and that these god/s will be good to them.

To say that I have faith in my dad—would never be confused with, “Donn thinks his Dad exists.” No—it’s understood that I believe in my dad’s abilities to be decent or do a good job.

Moving on—I’m often accused as an atheist of also “having faith” by theists. They’re attempting to equate me with them. They argue that since I have “faith in” my girlfriend that’s the same kind of faith as having faith in a god. That she’s not cheating on me, that is.

Hold on, now! First of all, I trust that my girlfriend isn’t cheating on me — but I have a history with her. She’s honest and strong—and has been for several years. I have earned trust where she’s concerned. But I could still be wrong—she could be playing me for a fool. She could be an expert liar.

This alone should tell theists that faith isn’t a reliable tool to find truth.

But even more—let’s say I “have faith” that I’m going to pass the bar exam next year. I prefer to say that I’m paying attention in my studies and I’m doing well in that area and I have an eye for details. THIS is what will help me on the exam…not faith.

So, do those who believe in god have anything remotely like this? Many will say they do have a past with god—maybe even an earned trust—but they can’t demonstrate it. Not even to themselves. It’s wishful thinking.

But let’s reverse engineer the question on the theist side.

Most will not say they have hope god/s exist. Most will say they have faith and many may even say they know—when they don’t know. For some, faith and knowledge are the same—but they’re not.

So, just as faith and hope are different things to atheists—they’re also different for theists.

Because they have at least two different meanings…and more.

Jim's delusions

This reminds me of annoying cocky Christians, that I always saw on the trains in New York City, who think they have the truth and who tell everyone else what they "know" God thinks and loves while being assholes about it:

Subway preacher

Anyone who reads my entire debunkings of Jim Bennett's claims can clearly see for themselves that there is no "abundance of evidence" and that the bullshit that Jim peddles is unsupported mental gymnastics Mormon apologetic porn that is laughed at in academia outside of Mormonism (after they've already had their laughs watching the Book of Mormon musical on Broadway).

How are you betting your life?

"How were you betting your life?" & "Isn’t that a much riskier bet?"

I no longer need to bet my life on anything because I'm done with childish superstitions. When you say that the safer bet is with God...well, which god, Jim? And how do you know that your god is the true and correct one out of the long list?

We go over the problem of multiple gods, multiple religions and the fatal flaws of epistemology in the Testimony & Spiritual Witness section.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, Jim...so I'll try to make it simple: do you lose sleep at night that you're going to end up in the Catholic hell? The Hebrew sheol? The Islamic jahannam? The Swahili kuzimu? Thrown to the Egyptian's Ammit? Or any of the countless versions of hell cooked up by mankind in history?

I would bet that you don't lose any sleep whatsoever about all these other hells. Why? Likely because you can clearly see that they're laughable bullshit. Now just add one more hell - Outer Darkness (or the lesser degrees of glory) - to this laughable list and you'll begin to see what I see.

I believe in love. Kindness. Empathy. Compassion. Respect.

This is the life that we know for sure that we have. We may or may not have anything after this. We don't know but it's foolish to sacrifice today and what we have for sure for a "maybe". Those who argue Pascal's Wager ignore that they ironically reject competing gods and hells of other religions along with a host of problems with this idea. I just reject one more god and one more hell than they do.

"What if you're wrong?" // Richard Dawkins

I believe in today and this very moment. I believe in life before death.

I believe in evidence. I believe in asking questions. I really like the scientific method. Faith and feelings are not reliable pathways to truth as anyone can use faith and feelings to support any conclusion they create.

When Mormonism collapsed for me, I was a non-denominational Christian for a while until I realized that I hadn't applied the same scrutiny toward Christianity as I had to Mormonism. I deep dived into the foundations of Christianity and the bible and I did not like what I found down there.

I was a deist for a few years until I realized that my entire worldview was faith-based rather than evidence-based. I did a lot more reading and research on the subject and realized that deism is not supported by the evidence.

I currently identify as agnostic atheist. What this basically means is that I do not know whether or not there's a god or gods, but based on current evidence (and lack of it), I see no reason to believe there is one. I'm open to changing my views and position when there is evidence.

I do not see faith and feelings as reliable pathways to truth as anyone can claim anything is true based on faith and feelings.

"...the universe is a product of random chance, and that you need not make any effort to connect to a God who created everything..."

The origin of the universe is one of the greatest unanswered questions in the history of mankind. Humans have been debating it for thousands of years, and every religion attempts to posit a different explanation. Questions about the origin of the universe – or, indeed, the origin of reality in general – are more challenging for science to tackle head-on. The simple answer is: we don’t know. We may never know exactly how the universe was formed or what, if anything, came before it, although science does have a few ideas to explore. However, not knowing the answer does not give us free range to make something up.

It’s human nature to be uncomfortable with the unknown. Historically, humans have filled these uncertain areas with a deity or other supernatural claims to explain what they have yet to discover. This creates a “god of the gaps,” wherein God is invoked as an explanation in events that humans don’t yet understand. The problem with this, of course, is that scientific knowledge is always expanding, and the gaps continue to grow smaller. We have identified many of the natural causes behind these gaps throughout our history and have yet to come across God in any of them. It’s possible that this pattern will continue in the future, leaving little room for God as a weak explanation, and the current monotheistic ideas of God will become as outdated for future generations as the Greek pantheon is today.

"You are also betting that God will not hold you accountable for the faith of others that you are working diligently to destroy."

Which god, Jim? How do you know that the Mormon god is the correct god? Feelings? We go over this in the Testimony & Spiritual Witness section.

I'm not betting on anything. I'm not "wOrKiNg dIlIgEnTlY tO dEsTrOy" anything, let alone people's faiths. I do not care what people's faiths are. It has zero impact on my life on what people place their faith in or even if they're still in the LDS Church. I do not care.

I'm not running a Christian ministry. I have no better Jesus to sell you. I have no truer bible to sell you. You're never going to find me on the street at General Conference with stupid signs. In fact, you would more likely find me confronting the guys with the signs to tell them to fawk off and to leave the Latter-day Saints alone.

I just wrote the CES Letter in response to a CES Director approaching me in March 2013 asking for my questions and concerns. It's not my problem that the CES Letter is destroying the Mormon Church. The problem lies 100% at the feet of your so-called "prophets, seers and revelators" along with their truth crisis that they've kept concealed from members for generations. There is no CES Letter without an LDS Church truth crisis.

You act as if the CES Letter is evil because it's full of lies but it's not. I've demonstrated in my line-by-line fine-tooth comb debunkings of your hit piece that the actual document that is full of lies and deceptions is your own "Reply" smear hit piece.

There's a reason why Mormon scholar Patrick Mason said this about the CES Letter:

Nearly a perfect inverse...

It's not my problem that truth and Google are destroying Mormonism. As Billy Joel sings:

Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting & strawman

Except that we really are. Even 2021 Jim Bennett acknowledges that there are serious problems alone with the Book of Abraham and Polygamy | Polyandry - as demonstrated here.

Oh, look...there's Jim's "cHuRcH & pRoPheTs = pErFeCt" strawman and misrepresentation of my argument.

But gee, I wonder where we all got the crazy idea and assumption that the Church and prophets are never wrong?

"I never told you I was perfect, but there is no errors in the revelations which I have taught..."

- The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369.

"The Prophet will not lead you astray"

"We will not and cannot lead you astray"

"We will always teach the truth"

"They are the most perfect, inspired, unflawed leaders on Earth"

"When the Prophet speaks...Sisters, the debate is over"

Even Jim Bennett admits that members are indoctrinated that prophets are basically "born fully formed in perfection and they walk on air":

"born fully formed in perfection and they walk on air"

I'm so over Jim's Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting and "infallible prophets" strawman that I do not claim but Jim keeps misrepresenting that I do. We're just so beyond "mistakes", Jim. A mistake is an unintentional harm and then correcting it and apologizing for it. These men are deliberate in their harmful deceptions. They do not apologize:

"We do not give apologies" - Dallin Oaks

What these men, masquerading around as prophets, have done to generations of Latter-day Saints is just criminal. The tragic LGBTQ+ suicides. The divorces and ruined family relationships because of the Church's truth crisis and how it brands those who leave. All the ruined lives, lost time, lost treasure and lost opportunities from the fallout of the LDS Church's truth crisis and dishonesty.

It's time for the con to stop and for the green curtain in Salt Lake to open so that we can end further preventable human tragedy, suffering, suicides, divorces, broken families and carnage that these men and their truth crisis are causing.

wEaPoNiZeD aSsAuLt Fake Scandal

"wEaPoNiZeD aSsAuLt"? lol!

...You apparently skipped the title page, Jim:

You know that books are originally written first and are occasionally updated after they are originally written...right?

And that original content can and often do remain intact even in updated versions...right?

And not everything in the book is updated even in its updated version...right?

CES Letter originally written: April 2013.

Latest CES Letter update: October 2017 (as of October 2021).

It's all clearly right there in the title page in the beginning of the CES Letter.

This is just Jim's bullshit attempt to create a fake scandal here in his attempts to further denigrate me and convert me into an evil-mustache-twirling character who connives in destroying Grandma's tender Mormon testimony.

fInAnCiAl wEaLtH

"fInAnCiAl wEaLtH"? What fawking financial wealth? Is below minimum wage "fInAnCiAl wEaLtH" to you, Jim? Even 2021 Jim Bennett knows this smear is bullshit (starts at 5:15 mark):

The CES Letter project has never been about money. The donations I received help with making this huge burden somewhat less of a burden on me and my family. It's always been a side charity project that I've spent time and energy on over the years that I mostly didn't have.

If this was strictly a job or about money? I would have quit a long time ago. No character assassinations, deceptive smears and mud slinging (exactly like Jim's constant assaults all throughout his deceptive smear hit piece) is worth any money. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy.

I'm doing this to get rIcH? Get the fawk out of here.

I'm not the destroyer of faith. The LDS Church and its truth crisis are destroying faith. The 15 Brethren - past and present - are destroying faith. I didn't create or perpetuate this mess. I didn't write the Gospel Topics essays. I didn't marry 30+ women, including foster daughters, little girls, women married to other men while lying about this to my wife for 10 years. I didn't do the Book of Abraham fraud. On and on and on.

You're barking at the wrong tree, Jim. Go bark at that tall building on North Temple instead.

Do what is right

Here's what you don't get, Jim...

People aren't leaving over the CES Letter. They're leaving over the LDS Church's truth crisis...as verified and confirmed by the LDS Church's own damning Gospel Topics essays.

You're barking at the wrong tree. Go bark at that tall building on North Temple where your so-called "prophets, seers and revelators" hang out. They're the perpetrators of the LDS Church's truth crisis.

Of course it appears "disastrous" to your Mormon eyes, Jim. You're on the losing team here. The ones who left and see how wonderful life is outside of Mormonism? They're doing just fine and beg to differ with your "dIsAsTroUs" label.

These are among the thousands of testimonials about the CES Letter:

I shared the above testimonial to a Facebook group and got additional testimonial comments to the post below:

Other testimonials:

You often see couples sharing about how the CES Letter was influential to them and their marriages in Mormon Stories interviews. Ditto with Reddit Ex Mormon posts where it's common to see a post at least once or twice a week. Ditto with Mormon and Ex Mormon groups on Facebook.

I've not only experienced thousands of heartwarming testimonials online...I've talked to couples face-to-face in the real world. I've had dozens of experiences over the years at Sunstone and in random public places meeting couples telling me through tears and hugs that the CES Letter saved their marriages and families.

The real culprit that is destroying marriages and families is the LDS Church's truth crisis. Full stop.

The real "wrecking families for profit" is the pandemic GameStop / Tesla banking First Presidency and Q12 who care more about their secret $100 billion dollar slush fund than truly being honest and transparent to their members about Mormonism's founding and history. On top of their truth crisis, they have the nerve to slander and denigrate family members who leave the church.

I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't the right thing to do. I sleep very well at night. It is a noble cause to help save individuals, marriages and families by helping them to get through and out of the LDS Church's truth crisis intact. Whether these people stay or leave the LDS Church is not my goal; informed consent is.

I make no apologies for writing the CES Letter. I know in my heart that I did what was right and I'd still do it again. The CES Letter stands on its own and it has helped hundreds of thousands of people to make fully informed and balanced decisions as to whether or not they want to continue in Mormonism.

I don't give a shit what your opinion is as you're an apologist for a harmful organization that has and continues to harm people and families. Whatever miniscule success your document has had has only been successful in keeping people trapped in a harmful organization that dupes them into thinking they're not worthy or enough and that their worth is measured by something outside of themselves instead of within.

My core message to these wonderful folks: you are worthy, perfect and enough. Right now. Today. You do not need to be fixed or saved. There is no shame or guilt needed just for being human. The natural man is not an enemy to god because there is no Mormon god. It's all as made up as the made up book this insidious idea came from. There is no test. There is no trial.

There is just life...that just is - with all its wonder, adventure, mystery, challenges, beauty, ugliness, pleasure, pain, hate and love.

Jim's dirty drive-by shooting

See my above previous box answer for my complete annihilation of Jim's outrageous, despicable, deceptive and dishonest ad hominem and smear.

See Jim's comical but offensive ad hominem assaults and fInAnCiAl wEaLtH box answers for my annihilation of Jim's "jErEmY dEsTrOys fAiTh fOr pRoFiT" horseshit.

2021 Jim debunks 2018 Jim's above dirty drive-by character assassination attempt:

Jim's cringe attempt at poetry

You're welcome?

You're welcome? I only paid for your special daddy bonding time with the unreal defamation of name, integrity and character you assaulted and barraged me with in your entire hit piece filled with ridiculous amounts of ad hominem, mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, omissions, falsehoods, snark and smears.

I hope your bonding was worth contaminating the Mormon Marketplace of Information with misleading and deceptive apologetics along with your peddling of a fake and Machiavellian version of Jeremy Runnells you misled thousands of people with these last 5 years.

Personally? I think it's sad that the last thing your dad read was this grossly misleading and defamatory garbage hit piece.

Anyway, venting aside here...I'm sincerely sorry about your dad, Jim. I know he meant a lot to you. The late Senator's life philosophy of getting to know people before hating them allowed us to become friends and to let all of this now be water under the bridge in 2021. So, I guess it comes back in full-circle...just not in the way you expected.

While I'm really not happy with 2018 Jim, I know that 2021 Jim would no longer write this way and that 2021 Jim knows me and my heart better than his Past Self did. 2021 Jim now has a much deeper and better understanding and empathy for those caught in the current of the LDS Church's truth crisis. See Jim's 2021 response to this debunking.

While I see 2018 Jim, as the author of the "Reply", as a misleading Mormon apologist who is not fair or kind...I know that 2021 Jim Bennett is a bridge builder and gentleman who is kind, who is fair (as he stood up for me when it wasn't to his advantage) and who is working to be a force for good in this world.

"Church claims can withstand scrutiny"

I'll let my readers come to their own conclusions on the validity of Jim's "Church's claims could withstand scrutiny" statement and claim after they've gone through my fine-tooth comb debunking of Jim's entire document.

Weird flex but okay

Here's what Jim now says about the Book of Abraham (which he isn't even willing to defend anymore):

"I fully recognize that the Book of Abraham, intellectually, is probably the strongest argument against the Church. I'm not willing to leave the Church over it for reasons I've outlined in our discussions. There's no question that there are real challenges there and real problems there that I don't think the Church - we - have come to terms with."

-Jim Bennett, January 2021, Mormon Stories Episode 5

2021 Jim on the Book of Abraham

And here's what Jim now says about Polygamy | Polyandry:

"The difficulty here is that I'm defending something [polygamy/polyandry] that, to some degree, is indefensible. And I recognize that. I'm defending something that makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable. I remember on Bill Reel's podcast being asked, 'Would you want your daughter working in Joseph Smith's household? Given that Joseph Smith proposed to all these women [girls] in his household?' And I said, "No! I wouldn't."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I want to be very clear. Polygamy is probably one the most difficult things for me to deal with. It is messy. It is difficult. It's impossible to deny that Joseph Smith did several things that are not just wrong but deeply disturbing. Particularly with regard to how he dealt with polygamy and plural marriage with his wife, Emma. It's clear that there's several incidents that he's not honest with her."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"There's things that Joseph did that are really, sort of, profoundly wrong in the practice of polygamy."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I acknowledge that Joseph lied to Emma about some of the marriages."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"The Church hasn't come to terms with polygamy...What we've done is just sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not there."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

2021 Jim on Polygamy | Polyandry

Jim flaunts his fake bravado every now and then in his Jim Bennett Mormonism® Manifesto in attempting to mislead his readers that "All is well in Zion" and "there's nothing to see here".

As you can see from Jim's above statements...it's now quite the opposite of what Jim is trying to pretend here in his "Reply". There are legitimate problems and challenges to the LDS Church's truth claims.

I debunk Jim's above horseshit ad hominem and gross mischaracterizations and misleading misrepresentations of my spiritual experiences as a believing Mormon in the Testimony & Spiritual Witness section.

Jim's "feelings" contradictions

Okay, I have questions.

All of the above contradicts Jim's full assault on me and my spiritual experiences in the Testimony & Spiritual Witness section where Jim mocks and gaslights us that a spiritual experience is not feelings and yet here we see Jim gushing about feelings...feeling this...felt that...feel this...felt that.

Further, this entire experience contradicts Jim's Mormon Stories claims that he never had a "feelings" or "transcendent moment of emotional rapture" spiritual experience:

Well, actually, it is my business because it's hypocritical of Jim to bash me and attempt to invalidate and undermine my own Mormon spiritual experiences because of feelings and yet here we see Jim pointing to feelings as a foundational event in basically telling him that Mormonism is true.

Jim, you can keep your "deeply sad" and fake virtue signalling (that comes at my expense). I've annihilated your misleading bullshit attacks on my spiritual experiences and your Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting in the Testimony & Spiritual Witness section.

I had spiritual experiences as a Mormon. I still have journal entries and Sacrament talks about these spiritual experiences, which I share in this section. One of them, my hearing blessing with Elder Wickman on September 24, 1994, was foundational in my life and testimony. I had encounters, as perceived by my Mormon brain, with the Holy Ghost. You don't get to tell me that I didn't.

I mean...fawk...how arrogant do you have to be to have the nerve and audacity to even attempt to tell another person (and one you never even met and that you don't even know) what they did and did not experience or felt in their own religious journey?

Jim's "prophets" strawman and gaslighting

Gee, I wonder where we all got the crazy idea that the Church and prophets are never wrong?

"I never told you I was perfect, but there is no errors in the revelations which I have taught..."

- The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369.

"The Prophet will not lead you astray"

"We will not and cannot lead you astray"

"We will always teach the truth"

"They are the most perfect, inspired, unflawed leaders on Earth"

"When the Prophet speaks...Sisters, the debate is over"

Even Jim Bennett admits that members are indoctrinated that prophets are basically "born fully formed in perfection and they walk on air":

"born fully formed in perfection and they walk on air"

I'm so over Jim's Jim Bennett Mormonism® gaslighting and "infallible prophets" strawman that I do not claim but Jim keeps misrepresenting that I do. We're just so beyond "mistakes", Jim. A mistake is an unintentional harm and then correcting it and apologizing for it. These men are deliberate in their harmful deceptions. They do not apologize:

"We do not give apologies" - Dallin Oaks

What these men, masquerading around as prophets, have done to generations of Latter-day Saints is just criminal. The tragic LGBTQ+ suicides. The divorces and ruined family relationships because of the Church's truth crisis and how it brands those who leave. All the ruined lives, lost time, lost treasure and lost opportunities from the fallout of the LDS Church's truth crisis and dishonesty.

It's time for the con to stop and for the green curtain in Salt Lake to open so that we can end further preventable human tragedy, suffering, suicides, divorces, broken families and carnage that these men and their truth crisis are causing.

Jim Bennett Mormonism® Rebuke

You might want to educate your "prophets, seers and revelators" on the Only True and Living Jim Bennett Mormonism® then, Jim. Apparently they're doing it wrong too:

Source

Jim talking like the Catholics

Wait...I've heard this before. Where have I heard it...so familiar...oh yes! The Catholics say the exact same thing:

Whoa. I had to do a double take there to make sure the guy wasn't Mormon the first time I listened to this. He sounds just like one. Or is it the other way around and the Catholics think the Mormons sound just like them when they hear the same thing from Mormons? Weird. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The Catholics are just as sure as the Mormons are that they are God's chosen and that their religion is the only correct and true religion.

So, who's right? Who's wrong? How do you know? Because the ponder-and-ask-God-which-church-is-the-true-and-correct-one method sure as hell isn't reliable or working here.

Every religion cannot be right and true together. I explore the problems of Mormon epistemology and "one true church" claims in the Testimony & Spiritual Witness section.

Community / service just means...community / service

Stop the press! A person born into a Mormon Royalty family (Jim's grandfathers on both sides were Church presidents) and who was indoctrinated from birth in Mormonism has something shocking to announce to us all!

Jim Bennett: "Mormonism is fetching awesome, glorious and without equal!"

Jim...I agree with you. There are amazing good people in the Church. They came through for me in my own crises - even after I left the Church and while knowing that I wrote the CES Letter.

This isn't about the members. This is about LDS, Inc. and its leaders who have concealed their truth crisis from these good and decent members for generations. This is about an organization and system that takes from the members and sells them back under false pretenses and claims.

There are/were organizations that take/took good care of its members by bringing dinners and painting rooms...like the National Socialist German Workers' Party, Scientology, Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Ku Klux Klan.

It doesn't mean that these organizations are true, divine or even that they are moral or good. It just means that these organizations serve and take care of their own members and tribe.

Mormonism does community really well. I'll give it that. However, from the Post Mormon perspective? This community is fake and conditional. Just whisper that you're having serious doubts about the Church and you'll be blown away at how fast your "community" and "friendships", that you thought were sincere and real, evaporate faster than you can say, "Zelph!".

Jim, there's two kinds of people. Those who care about validity (is it true or false?) and those who care about utility (is it useful or not useful?).

You're obviously the utility guy. You get benefits and perks staying in this organization; which is fine and I'm not criticizing this. However, stop denigrating and looking down at the validators...the ones who do care about the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham and the Church's truth claims.

Not everyone cares about the cookies and repainted room. They care about the sand they've planted their lives on and how to replant their lives on solid ground that is based on facts and truth and not indoctrination and dogma.

I'm really sorry about your daughter's accident. I can't imagine. I'm so glad your ward rallied around you and your family during that crazy time. This is the Mormonism I love and that I think is beautiful.

Unfortunately, its truth claims collapse under light and close scrutiny and these same people often shun and ostracize. This is a reality that people face and adjust to every single day.

Oh, by the way...you know who else says "making good men better"? The same group that Mormons got their Temple rituals (and this quote) from:

Source

Jim "found" true church (that he was born into)

"despite your best efforts"...lol. If you say so, Jim.

Every religion has apologists who share how their own religion and faith tradition have "transformed" the lives of its members while bringing them closer to [insert name of god] in an intimate, personal, and undeniable way.

But I'm so glad, Jim, that the god and religion that you just so happened to have "found" and know is true just so happens to coincidentally also be the same god and same religion that you were born into and indoctrinated in. Mad props to your parents for putting you in the III Nephi pageant, centered around a Book of Mormon story, at the ripe age of nine-years-old.

Further reading: Testimony & Spiritual Witness