Explaining Problems with Church (super short version)

This is actually from the letter I sent to our bishop in order to ask him to please finish processing our resignations. Of course, we know that it isn't legally necessary to ask anyone to finish processing our resignation but 

Why use this letter?

Do you have friends or family that are scared to listen to your explanation?
Or maybe once you start giving the details panic sets in?
Below is a very short and simple letter explaining the biggest foundational issues that make it impossible to continue to believe in the church as we've been told.
It is NOT the most shocking problems in church history, that's not the purpose of this letter.
It is also not referenced with links to source material, this is because the moment someone sees a link to anything they can perceive as being "anti" then they shut down.
It is simple and factual.

Abbreviated Explanation of Church Issues

If you would like to hear our case but without any "anti" or pressure, here it is.

To start, my question to you (or any other member that wants to understand why we left):
"If the church was not true, would you want to know the truth or would you rather continue your life believing regardless?"

Naturally the default response is "I already know it's true", yes, I get that, but this is clearly avoiding the question. 

To ask it another way, is it best for a faithful Muslim to know the truth about his faith rather than die faithful to it?  If the answer is "No, I wouldn't want someone that firmly believes (my faith or their own) to doubt" then there may be no reason to continue.  Does the "truth" matter even if it conflicts with what we've been taught each and every day/week at church events?


I, personally, would rather know the truth. Without all the varnish and editing.  The straight up truth. 

There is no sugar-coating Joseph's extramarital behavior.  I'm sorry.  The church won't even talk about Joseph's "wives" anymore.  But these were NOT widows, they were NOT old women, and many of them were already married to faithful brothers in the church.  Yes, this means that they were "married" to more than one man. This is not "anti" or disputed history, it is fact well preserved in the church's own documents. Why do you think that if you search for Joseph Smith in FamilySearch you will no longer even see his wives listed (other than Emma)?  It used to even have the birth dates and marriage dates to these women (which showed their ages as young as 14 years old) but they have removed these details.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, it's simply a very disturbing part of church history.
Either god overlooked all of that (and therefore adultery, polyandry, etc. are acceptable to god) and chose Joseph anyway or Joseph was committing the most serious of sins, some of which would easily have put him in life in prison like Warren Jeffs today.

I know this is really hard for you and you are disbelieving all this and claiming it is lies and "anti" material. It just isn't.  The unemotional and well-reference Wikipedia list of Joseph's wives gives all the references, names, etc. and many/most of it is even corroborated by church sources as well as by LDS historian and author Bushman (see his book "A Rough Stone Rolling").

This is enough to sink the foundation for me but only the tip of the iceberg, sadly.
Worse perhaps than the doubts about Joseph Smith as prophet is that it turns out the First Vision wasn't even canon to the gospel until well into the 20th century.  Did you know that? I sure didn't. Brigham Young himself absolutely didn't believe in the First Vision as it is taught today.  Why aren't we told that?  Before around the time of the Wentworth letter, the term "First Vision" didn't at all refer to Joseph seeing god, it referred to the visit from Moroni (sometimes also said to have been Nephi in Joseph's own writings).  This is confirmed in numerous journals of the faithful saints in that century.  Brigham Young taught, over the pulpit, in conference, for many years and never recanted, that God the Father is actually Adam.  Yes, literally.  It's called the Adam-God doctrine and it is carefully recorded in Brigham Young's own writings (see Journal of Discourses, you might need an actual copy, not an newly "edited" one).  How could a prophet of god believe that Jehovah appeared to Adam in the Garden of Eden while standing next to... Adam?  It makes the head spin.  Jesus and Adam appeared to Joseph in the First Vision?  Or was it just Jesus and a voice?  But the church membership in the 19th century simply never heard of a visit to Joseph by god and Jesus until many years after the church was founded and even then it wasn't widely published.

Who is Joseph Smith really?  Crud, I feel that the church has purged the embarrassing history to such an extent that we are being actively lied to.  These aren't sins of omission anymore.
But the rest of the details I won't even speak of.  I know that the faithful will continue to avoid history as "biased and anti" they will do whatever gymnastics they must to explain that those were "different times" and that they will consider me a sinner, twisted and under the devil's influence.  If that helps them feel satisfied, I'll take the punches.  But you know that isn't the case.

Again, I'm not out to pull folks down, I'm just very, very glad that I know the facts. And I'm grateful every day that I know it. I wouldn't undo that for any reason in the world.