Attached to this sheet is a copy of what can be called a ‘representative sample’ of a letter that requests that a person’s name be removed from the rolls of the Mormon Church. Some introductory comments are necessary.

First, there are some folks who leave Mormonism, come to Christ, and have no desire whatsoever to have their names removed from the rolls of the Mormon Church. We know of some folks like that. However, most of the time a person who finds out the great deception they have been under in the Mormon Church have a great desire to have their names removed from the Church’s membership rolls. They can’t handle the idea of still being counted as one of the “Saints.’ However, it has been proven more than once in the past that the Mormon Church does not like to remove anyone’s name from their roll. In the past people have spent great amounts of time, even money, in trying to get their names removed. Others have found that the LDS Church has “excommunicated’ them, even though it was they who requested that their names be removed. Some have suffered loss of friends and loved ones because of the stigma associated with “excommunication.”

In recent years, certain lawsuits have demonstrated that the attached letter should make removal of one’s name a simple, easy process, if done correctly. Certainly there will be some who encounter more resistance than others - however, generally, we have found that following the outline here given will result in action being taken within a month’s time, or even less. The Mormon Church has no right to maintain your membership in an organization that you do not want to be a part of.It is important to include each of the following elements to assure a smooth procedure:

2. Make your intentions clear. This means that they must understand exactly what it is you are saying - you want your name removed from the rolls. Let them know that you do understand what this means in their eyes (see second paragraph of the letter).

3. Give a positive testimony of your salvation in Christ. This letter can be an opportunity of witness, and even if you are confused at this time and have feelings like ‘I’d just like to get this over with,’  you won’t regret having taken the time to share with these men later.

6. Sign your name! May sound simple, and it is, but it is important. If you are a parent, and are including the name(s) of your children, make sure they sign as well. The signed names must correspond to the name(s) listed at the beginning of the letter.

If the above procedures are followed, there should be no problem in having your name removed, and that quickly. If there should be a problem, we would like to hear about it. You may wish to contact a Christian lawyer as well, if need be. Be assured of our prayers and support at this time, and if you should need any information, counsel, whatever, just let us know. We would be happy to help.

Bishop Jones

Phoenix 20th Ward

Address

City, State, Zip

Dear Bishop Jones:

This letter is being sent in triplicate to Bishop Jones, State President Robinson, and to the Office of the First Presidency in Salt Lake City. These letters are being sent by certified mail, return receipt requested.

I am writing to ask you to remove my name, <give full name as it appears in the signature at close of letter>, from the roles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do this with full understanding of the consequences as taught by the LDS Church. I ask this due to my having found the real Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. I have found that Jesus is not the spirit-brother of Lucifer, and just one of many gods, but that He is the eternal God of creation who died on the cross for me. By simple faith He has become my personal Savior, and all my sins have been washed away. I now know that my salvation comes as a free gift of God (Romans 6:23), and that there is absolutely no way that I can earn it, and that even to attempt to do so is to insult the One who offers salvation to me. I have been born again, saved by grace, which is totally inconsistent with the teaching of the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 25:23.

I have also found that the LDS Church has not been honest and open with its people. Joseph Smith was not a true prophet of God, as he violated the Biblical standards of a true prophet as laid down in Deuteronomy 13:1-3 and 18:20-22. He violated the first passage by proclaiming, “...you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you...” (The King Follett Funeral Discourse as recorded in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-348). This is in direct violation of what God has said in Isaiah 43:10: “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” This teaching is causing people to follow after ‘another god’ as Deuteronomy 13:2 said would happen. This alone makes Joseph Smith a false prophet. However, it is quite easy to list a number of false prophecies of Joseph Smith that allow him to qualify under the teaching of Deuteronomy 18:20-22. Some of these would include Doctrine and Covenants section 111, 114, and 124:59-60. The most amazing, however, is the entire Book of Abraham, which is, in reality, the Egyptian Book of Breathings taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, all of which is totally pagan material.

I am taking this action of my own initiative. This is my right as a citizen of the United States. I am not to be excommunicated. No communication from the LDS Church is to contain the word “excommunication," - as I am the one initiating the action. Should the word appear in any of the letters from the LDS Church concerning this matter, legal action would definitely be in order. Also, I am hereby requesting that no elders, home teachers, or any other representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints visit my home to attempt to persuade me against this action. I trust my request will be honored.

It is my hope that you, too, Bishop Jones, will come to know Jesus Christ in a personal way. He is the ‘way, the truth and the life.’ He is not an organization. Accept Him by faith, and the gift of eternal life can be yours.

I sign my name in witness of this request that my name be removed from the rolls of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

(Signature of full name)

Name and Address

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints teaches that there are three levels of heaven: the celestial (the highest), the terrestial (the middle), and the telestial (the lowest). The clearest teaching concerning this is found in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Mormons refer to 1 Corinthians 15:40-41 as Biblical support for this teaching. But did Paul believe in three levels of heaven? Lets examine that.

“There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.” 

“There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.”

Paul is here discussing the connection between our physical body, and the spiritual body we will have at the resurrection. He maintains that there is definitely a connection between the two, but the future, glorified body will far transcend our current physical body in so many ways. To make his point, he brings in a number of illustrations. One is the seed and the plant (vs. 36-38), another that of the flesh of the animal kingdom (v.39). When we come to the verses under discussion here, we see that he is continuing with the same train of thought here comparing the glory of heavenly bodies with the glory of earthly bodies. This verse simply continues his comparison - there is no reason to believe that all of a sudden he decides to talk about different levels of heaven! The very next verse substantiates this quite well:

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” 

Notice the continued parallelism - perishable, imperishable; dishonor, glory. Since it is therefore obvious that Paul is describing the nature of the resurrection body, and not different levels of heaven, what about the passage at 2 Corinthians 12:2?

An Examination of Joseph Smith’s “Explanation” of Facsimile #2 in the Book of Abraham

In 1835 Michael H. Chandler arrived in Kirtland, Ohio. In his horse-drawn wagon he carried four Egyptian mummies. Along with the mummies were included displays of the papyri rolls found on the mummies themselves. Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, was fascinated by Chandler’s exhibit, so much so that his fledgling Church purchased the entire display from Chandler for a large sum of money: $2,400.00. Joseph Smith said:

Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus...and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc...(Documentary History of the Church, 2:236, emphasis added).

It should be remembered that at this time the study of Egyptian was, on a scholarly level, in its infancy. Smith was claiming to be able to translate what was, for all practical purposes, an unknown language. Of course, he had claimed this same ability in translating the Book of Mormon, which was said to have been written in “Reformed Egyptian.” That Smith was indeed claiming to translate in the normal sense of the term can be seen from his own words:

The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients (DHC 2:238).

Over the next nine years Smith continued to work on his translation of the Book of Abraham. The work was included in the Pearl of Great Price when it was accepted as Scripture in 1880.

The Book of Abraham is unique amongst the books of LDS Scripture: it is the only book that contains illustrations in the form of three “Facsimiles,” each with an “Explanation” provided by Joseph Smith. Since the actual papyri were thought lost (some of the original papyri were found in 1967 and turned over to the LDS Church), the “Facsimiles” provided the only means of testing Joseph Smith’s translation, and his understanding of the documents that were before him.

 In this small tract we cannot discuss all the evidence that now exists regarding the Book of Abraham, the papyri that have been found, and the various explanations put forward by defenders of Joseph Smith. Instead, we wish to look at just one aspect of the Book of Abraham, Facsimile 2 (found on the front of this tract), and even more specifically, one section of this drawing and what it really means.

Pearl of Great Price, marked and explained by Joseph Smith as figure 7:

Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.

Is this indeed a representation of the one true God sitting upon His throne revealing the grand Key-words of the priesthood? Was Joseph Smith a man ahead of his time, able to decipher Egyptian writings in a time when scholarship was just starting to get a clue on the topic?

The object that Joseph Smith included in the Book of Abraham is, in reality, a “hypocephalus,” a common item of Egyptian funeral literature (all of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are drawn from common Egyptian funerary documents). It was placed under the person’s head, and was to aid them in making the journey through the netherworld by bathing their bodies in light. Many examples of this kind of hypocephalus are to be found. One of the many pagan gods pictured in this hypocephalus is shown above as it appears in the current edition of the LDS Scriptures. Egyptologists tell us that this is the god “Min.” Min is an “ithyphallic god,” that is, a sexually aroused male deity, as the picture clearly indicates. Min is the god of the procreative forces of nature. Joseph Smith told us that the Egyptian god Min was in point of fact the one true God.

And what is Min doing? Joseph tells us that he is revealing the grand Key-words of the priesthood, with the sign of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove before him. In reality, he is holding up the “divine flail” in one hand and is being approached by the figure Joseph Smith identified as the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. In point of fact, Joseph’s hypocephalus was damaged at the border so that only the head of the “dove” was visible. So, Joseph had to restore the picture. Did he do so correctly? No, he did not.  The figure to the right provides us with the proper scene from another hypocephalus (Leyden AMS 62). The being that is approaching Min is not the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove; it is yet another ithyphallic figure, specifically, a serpent, probably the Egyptian God Nehebka, presenting to Min the wedjat- eye, the symbol of good gifts.

The single LDS scholar who has written the most on the Book of Abraham, Dr. Hugh Nibley, has written of Min:

As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking promiscuity, which is hardly relieved by its ritual nature...His sacred plants were aphrodisiacal...and he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those of his immediate family; he had the most numerous and varied religious entourage of all the gods, consisting mostly of his huge harem...The hymns, or rather chanting of his worshippers were accompanied with lewd dancing and carousing...to the exciting stimulus of a band of sistrum-shaking damsels (Abraham in Egypt, p. 210).

It must be remembered that Joseph Smith said that this figure represented God sitting on His throne!  Incredible as it may seem, intelligent, well-read LDS are fully aware of the true nature of the hypocephalus, including the presence of Min and Nehebka (the vast majority of LDS, however, are not).  How do they explain this? Mormon Egyptologist Michael Dennis Rhoades said,

Joseph Smith mentions here the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove and God ‘revealing through the heavens the grand key-words of the priesthood.’ The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation throughout the representation, may stand for many divine generative powers, not least of which might be conjoined with blessing of the Priesthood in one’s posterity eternally (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273).

In other words, since the God of Mormonism is sexually active, begetting children in the spirit-world (indeed, God’s power is often described by Mormons as being made of the power of the priesthood and the power of procreation), and Min is obviously sexually active as well, this then is the “connection.”

We believe that Joseph Smith was utterly ignorant of what was represented in the Egyptian papyri that lay before him. Incapable of translating the figures, he made things up as he went along, claiming God’s direction and inspiration as his guide. In the process he demonstrated his own inability as a “prophet, seer and revelator,” for he grossly misidentified each of the items not only in this Facsimile, but in the other two as well.

Joseph Smith’s defenders today seek to find any connection whatsoever between LDS belief and Egyptian religion, even to the point of seeing in the sexually aroused Min a picture of God upon His throne. But to grasp at this straw is to ignore the Biblical testimony to the one true God. Isaiah saw God upon His throne in Isaiah 6:1-10, but instead of an incestuous god, surrounded by lewd dancing girls, the angels surrounded His throne and cried, “Holy, holy, holy.” God describes the gods of Egypt as “idols” that tremble before him (Isaiah 9:1); these false gods will literally be captured by God in His wrath (Jeremiah 43:12). God reveals the worship of these gods to be an abomination that brings His wrath (Jeremiah 44:8), and mentions one Egyptian god by name in speaking of the punishment he will bring against Egypt (Jeremiah 46:25). Those who worship such gods are “defiled” in God’s sight (Ezekiel 20:7-8). The Bible has nothing but contempt for the gods of Egypt, which would include the abominable figure of Min, identified by Joseph Smith as his God.

We will gladly admit that there is a similarity between the pagan god Min and the Mormon doctrine of God developed in the later years of Joseph Smith’s life. What is equally clear is that the God of the Bible is not similar to either Min, nor the LDS God. As God Himself said:

 “To whom will you compare me?” Isaiah 40:25

"As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:4-6).

"For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,..."(New American Standard Bible)

"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords),..." (New International Version)

Is the teaching of the LDS Church today consistent with that of the early 1830’s? If the Mormon Church’s claim to be the “only true church on earth today” is to be believed, one would expect consistency in teaching from the beginning until today. However, based on the earliest works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (then “The Church of Christ”), the answer to the above question is an emphatic no. Since the first version of the Book of Mormon was published (1830), an evolution of theological thought can be clearly traced.

On page 186 of the original Book of Mormon (B.of M.), in the book of Mosiah (15:4-5), we find an example of the relationship of Jesus Christ and God the Father, from the original Mormon perspective.

...thus becoming the Father and Son: and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of Earth; and thus the flesh becoming subject to the spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God,... (emphasis ours).

This verse teaches two fundamental concepts that were present in Joseph Smith’s original theological ideas: monotheism (the belief in one God), and the spiritual nature of God the Father. We also note that Joseph Smith attempted to emulate the doctrine of the Trinity in this passage and in the process produced a view that is not only contrary to modern LDS teaching, but to the actual Christian doctrine of the Trinity as well.

Another example is found on page 544 (Ether 3:14) of the same version quoted earlier, which states:

Behold, I am he which was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son (emphasis ours). 

A third example is found in the book of Alma, page 253 of the first version, which asks,

...Is there more than one God? And he answereth No. Now Zeezrom saith unto him again: How knowest thou these things? And he saith An angel hath made them known to me (Alma 11:28b-31). 

From these examples, it is clear that at the time the Book of Mormon was first published, Joseph Smith believed that God the Father and God the Son were different manifestations of a single God. Even the Preface to the B.of M., written by the three witnesses concludes by stating:

And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. 

When combined, these examples undeniably show a monotheistic belief on the part of Joseph Smith which differs greatly from the polytheistic (a belief in many gods) concepts he developed later in his life. For the Book of Mormon, there is only one God, not three, or many more.

A departure from the monotheistic view established with the B.of M. can be traced to the 1851 version of the Pearl of Great Price. By placing parallel passages in the books of Moses and Abraham side by side, an evolution of thought is clearly demonstrated within the Pearl of Great Price itself.

In 1835 a series of lectures was published that was contained within the same volume as the original “Doctrines and Covenants.” In the preface of the work we read the following:

The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work....There may be an aversion in the minds of some against receiving any thing purporting to be articles of religious faith, in consequence of there being so many now extant; but if men believe a system, and profess that it was given by inspiration, certainly, the more intelligibly they can present it, the better. 

The “Theological class” spoken of in the quote referred to a class of Elders in Kirtland, Ohio. The “articles of religious faith” refers to the “Lectures on Faith.” The preface concludes with the endorsements of Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and F.G. Williams. Represented in those “Lectures on Faith” are the following attributes of God the Father:

-They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: (Lecture Fifth, page 53). 

We here observe that God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life; (Lecture Second, page 12) .

The “Lectures on Faith” were removed in the 1921 edition of Doctrines and Covenants. The reasoning behind the removal is not consistent with the endorsements that supported the lectures prior to that point in time such as,

...that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine;... (1835, Doctrines and Covenants, page 256)

Q. Does the foregoing account of the Godhead lay a sure foundation for the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation?

A. It does. (1835, Doctrines and Covenants, page 58) 

It becomes quite apparent that the “founding fathers” considered the “Lectures on Faith” to be theologically true, concise in its presentation and “profitable for doctrine.”

So when did the doctrines in these important areas change to present day LDS beliefs? In the middle to late 1830’s Joseph Smith’s beliefs about God changed tremendously. He developed the concept that “God was once a man.” This great swing in belief created a ripple affect in the Mormon concept of the attributes of God. To demonstrate this, specific citations from LDS sources relevant to individual attributes of God will be quoted, even though they may not be the earliest writings of those views.

First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret. If the vail was rent to-day, and the great God, who holds this world in its orbit, and upholds all things by his power; if you were to see him to-day, you would see him in all the person, image and very form as a man;... (Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pp.613-14, 1844 

We are now, or may be, as perfect in our sphere as God and Angels are in theirs, but the greatest intelligence in existence (God) can continually ascend to greater heights of perfection (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 93,1852).

God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end (Wiltord Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120, 1857).

He is our Father- the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333,1859).

So where does one turn to determine the very character of God? Does one stand with the beliefs of the LDS Church in the early 1830’s, or does one stand with the attributes of God as presented by the current church doctrine? And if God were to have chosen Joseph Smith to be a prophet, why would that prophet teach such utterly contradictory concepts of God within the space of less than twenty years?