Best products from r/mormon

So sorry to hear you had struggles with good male role models. I actually think Mormon men make pretty great role models, and my dad was very much present in my life, and the LDS church really urges guys to have a very active role in their kids lives. Also, the church takes a lot of time making sure teens have good experiences, and I actually really liked several things about being a teenager (but others not so much). On the good side, I had very cool youth leaders (similar to youth pastors) that came up with great activities and were very easy to relate to. They always heard me out on my questions and so there were great role models throughout the church. Leadership is particularly important for men in Mormonism, and while this is sometimes at the expense of girls getting leadership opportunities (for example, many congregations will spend quite a bit of their yearly budgets getting boys involved in outdoors programs and other activities where they will have chances to be leaders and learn skills. Girls often are left with whatever is left over. But this is starting to change.) On the problematic side, leadership does conduct worthiness interviews with teens. Some leaders keep this brief and casual and really only bother to dig into things if the kids bring it up. Others, like the leaders I had growing up, will specifically ask about certain things like masturbation, porn use, sexual activity, etc to really probe and dig into whether or not the teens are doing what they were supposed to. I struggled a long time with feelings of being unworthy, I felt pretty worthless and struggled a lot with my self esteem once I started to get interviewed like that. That, I would say, was a downside and left me with resentment and I, after seeking some help dealing with some of the residual feelings I had from those years, realize that my general distrust of men stems from those interviews and some of my mom's attitudes and actions, because I was convinced that every man was more or less a sexual predator at heart based on what the leadership would often say was something they were making sure people weren't doing to justify what they would ask in interviews, and what my mom would say about men in general and more targeted comments at me. It's something I still struggle with quite a bit. So yeah, pros and cons, haha.

So when it comes to politics, Mormons are generally conservative, and generally republican. In some regions of the US Mormons tend to be slightly more progressive and liberal compared to their Utah counterparts, but are still very generally Republican. Utah is very conservative, especially outside of Salt Lake County. A lot of this is actually discussed in that same research I talked about above. That said, Millennial Mormons, across the board, are generally more progressive and liberal than their parents were, and LGBTQ issues are a big topic there. Basically just look at the general trends in the US, adjust them to be slightly more conservative, and that's more or less where Mormons tend to stand. See some conversation around this here and here. And while I haven't read it myself, if you're interested in further details on this topic, it's worth getting The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church where most of this research is documented.

There is a great summary I've heard about Mormon politics that is pretty well stated in this article:

>If you gave the typical Mormon a quiz on being a conservative, he or she would ace it. Socially conservative mixed with the small government views of the Mountain West, most Mormons hold conservative positions on the major issues of the day.
>
>That said, there are some nuances. On abortion, Mormons support the view of the LDS Church, which permits abortion in the case of rape or the life of the mother. Mormons are more supportive of allowing abortion in these cases than the average American (that’s right: in these cases, Mormons are the most pro-choice). But on abortion in general, Mormons are among the most pro-life, opposing abortion because the mother is in poverty or has other private reasons for making her decision.
>
>Mormons are also more in favor of immigration, particularly compared to the average Republican. One reason is the exposure to other cultures. Mormons are more likely to see immigration as a good thing if they’ve gone on a mission, particularly a foreign mission.

I've noted these trends as well. In my experience, Mormons are not only more likely to support immigration policy, but general policies that allow for countries to mutually benefit instead of pushing for the US to get the best deal, for example. I've also noticed that Mormons tend to be much more supportive of Muslim and Jewish communities than some Christian conservatives I know of (I have family who are in other Christian denominations that are VERY negative in how the talk about Muslims, in particular). Mormons don't frame religious freedom from a Christian perspective as much as some religious conservatives do, in my experience.

As for what modern revelation means, and whether that will cause the LDS church to move in a more secular direction, it's hard to say. But that has been the trend, over time. Policy has tended to change in progressive ways over time, as I mentioned before, where the practice of polygamy and allowing for Black members of the church to have priesthood and go to the temple could be seen as progressive advances, potentially motivated by external pressures. But that does not take the whole picture into account, as many LDS members are very adamant that those changes were due to revelation, and that the revelation should be trusted even if it seems to follow a trend. I think there is merit to both sides of that argument.

Another change that has recently happened was that the LDS church had a pretty strong, if mostly cultural, stance that people weren't really gay, but giving in to temptation or allowing sin to cloud their judgement. This is a position made clear in the book by Spencer W. Kimball, who served as an apostle and then President of the LDS church, called The Miracle of Forgiveness, where he claims that practices like masturbation or inappropriate thoughts would lead someone to homosexual behavior (see a brief discussion on this here). It was quite clear that it was not something that was an inherent part of a person, but rather something they learned through sin. Even more recently, Apostle David Bednar stated "there are no homosexual members of the church" where he basically says that homosexual attraction is merely a temptation rather than an actual part of a person's identity. While this stance is not necessary gone in Mormonism, it is no longer a punishable offense for someone to say they are gay and openly identify as gay, as shown in the "Mormon and Gay" site I linked above, where someone can be both Mormon and Gay. Many people speculate that, with that subtle shift, it could be an indication that leadership in the future may be more open to the idea of homosexual relationships eventually being allowed under certain situations. Personally, I think that there is doctrinal space for the idea of "for life only" marriages between gay couples in Mormonism, and it will be interesting to see if that happens. But, that sort of speculation is hardly a reason to decide to stay or go. Ultimately, if you feel the conviction that the LDS church is god's church, then that is the standard that the LDS church requires to join.

Excellent points.

> If your brother came to you and said, "I had a spiritual experience in which God told me that I needed to sell all my stuff and move to Canada because vampires are eating their way north from South America." What would you say? According to OmniCrush you would say something like:

We can even use a more concrete example, such as described here by /u/bwv549 where a friend of his claims to have spoken with Jesus and has special knowledge about a destructive flood coming to Utah valley. Besides cases like this, adherents of almost every single religion can describe to you the supreme feelings of peace or love they've experienced while worshiping (many do interpret this to mean that their religion is the true one [see here and here as well]).

Check out this passage from Dr. Steven Novella's book in the section on neuropsychological humility:

> Perception Is Constructed

> The bottom line is this: Your real-time perceptions are not a passive recording of the outside world. Rather, they are an active construction of your brain. This means that there is an imperfect relationship between outside reality and the model of that reality crafted by your brain. Obviously, the model works well enough for us to interact with that reality, and that's actually the idea. Constructed perception is not optimized for accuracy but rather for functionality. ...
>
> Now you have crafted an image, but it doesn't mean anything yet. The next area of the visual cortex assigns meaning to the image--is that a tree or a whale? Okay, it finds a match, then makes further adjustments to the basic processing so that the image it constructed matches better with the thing it thinks it's seeing.
>
> Did you catch that? Visual processing is a two-way street. The basic visual information is processed up the chain as your brain constructs a meaningful image, and then the brain communicates back down the chain to tweak the construction so it fits better. Essentially, if your visual association cortex thinks you are looking at an elephant, it communicates back to the primary visual cortex and says, "Hey, make that look even more like an elephant." It changes what you actually see, not just how you interpret it. This all happens automatically, outside of your awareness. ...
>
> If you think that's it, think again, because so far I've only been talking about visual processing. Our brains are simultaneously processing auditory information, sensation from our bodies, vestibular information about gravity orientation and acceleration, and feedback from our muscles to tell how we're moving. Our brains favor continuity and internal consistency over accuracy, so all these streams are compared in real time and further adjustments made so they all fit together nicely. In a way, our brains are constructing a narrative about what is happening, and making that narrative make sense to us.
>
> Also in the stream, however, are our prior knowledge and expectations. We know elephants are big, so when we see a small elephant our brains tend to assume it is big and therefore must be far away. ...
>
> The lesson here is that even the most basic components of your existence are actively constructed by your brain. Each component can be disrupted and erased.
>
> How does all this affect critical thinking? Well, just as with memory, be wary of saying, "I know what I saw [or felt (my addition)]." Hmm...no, you don't. You have a constructed memory of a constructed perception based on filtered partial sensation and altered by your knowledge and expectations.

This (among a number of other biases to be aware of) has very significant implications for testimony development. Mormons either grow up learning (or accept based on hearing the testimonies of others, such as the missionaries) that a god exists and that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth of all things to them and then come to embrace (through elective/religious faith it seems) that Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are valid heuristics to reach objective truth. However, just because the Church as an organization formally embraces a more logical process for reaching objective truth than many other faith traditions does not mean that that process has ever been demonstrated to be reliable (especially to the point of having sufficient confidence in it to warrant being willing to commit your entire life to that ideology by following specific guidelines and spending a significant amount of both time and money).

I disagree that the only way to resolve that paradox is to place God in another temporal dimension. In fact, I think you could make a convincing case that God exists within time, not outside of time. Take pearl of great price as an example--1 year of god's time is X year's of our time. It's clear that it is not a different time dimension, but that he experiences time differently. This is perfectly consistent with our observable universe, as shown by Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. You don't have to be in a different dimension to experience time differently.

But more to the point, Blake Ostler has a very rigorous approach to this very question (of what it means to be omniscient, doesn't God know what we pray for, do we really have free will).

The formal theological term that proposes a solution to this apparent paradox is called libertarian freewill.

But the paradox gets at the very nature of God. Is God the greatest possible being--anything that we could imagine or state within an English sentence he could do? Or is God the greatest being actually possible? If God's omniscience and omnipotence is the first type, you run into problems with other paradoxes like this trite one: Can God build a rock so big he couldn't move it? You can construct thoughts that are illogical and impossible.

If on the other hand, God is the greatest being that is actually possible, then free agency and omniscience are compatible. God knows all things that can actually be known. Does God know what color shoes I will wear exactly 25 years from this second? No, b/c that is unknowable.

Anyway, I am writing too much. But look at all the examples of God's omniscience in the scriptures. How many of those examples are indicative of what, exactly, God knows other people will do and which are examples of God telling us what he plans to do (which he is in complete control of). The only real outlier I see is Christ telling Peter he will deny him thrice before the cock crows--and that is a fairly near-term prediction that could be explained by Christ's own knowledge of Peter and the situation.

Elder Oaks commented that “the historicity--the historical authenticity--of the Book of Mormon is an issue so fundamental” to Mormon theology that it cannot be ignored. What really happened, in other words, sets up the whole framework for the “claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church.”

One of the most beautiful things about Mormonism, you see, the thing that really sets us apart, is our belief that God’s work is not just spiritual, but literal. Not just metaphysical, but real. God’s kingdom is not something just for Heaven, but something that is literally happening right here, right now. We are taught to believe in the literal gathering of Israel. We are taught that God and Christ literally speak to Prophets. We are taught that angels literally put their hands on Joseph and Oliver and conferred the priesthood. We are taught that God literally restored his Church and this Church is literally the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth.
We are taught that our founding narratives—the First Vision, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and the restoration of the Priesthood—speak of real events.

So, in my mind, when apologists point to the idea that happiness justifies the Church's truth claims, they've kind of missed the point. As has been pointed out, just about every other religions can point to the same "evidence."

I wrote an essay where I wrestle with some of these ideas of historicity and the literal nature of Mormon doctrine. At the end of the day, I think it comes down to a matter of faith.

I also think that early Latter-day Saints might argue, even in the face of persecution, that their lives were "better." Jonathan Haidt, in his book The Happiness Hypothesis, claims that:

>happiness comes from between. Happiness is not something that you can find, acquire, or achieve directly. You have to get the conditions right and then wait. Some of those conditions are within you, such as coherence among the parts and levels of your personality. Other conditions require relationships to things beyond you: Just as plants need sun, water, and good soil to thrive, people need love, work, and a connection to something larger. It is worth striving to get the right relationships between yourself and others, between yourself and your work, and between yourself and something larger than yourself. If you get these relationships right, a sense of purpose and meaning will emerge.

So, inasmuch as Mormonism gives people a connection to something larger, a purpose, a place to love and work and struggle--a community--I would suggest that they felt their life was "better."

Edit: links

Well... good question. How do you know any strong sensation of peace, love, joy, rapture, inner quiet - comes from the Holy Ghost, or is of God?

I've never felt this sensation before either. Totally new to me. I've felt a good many different sensations when feeling the spirit. I do feel that particular sensation repeatedly when I visit this particular entry on that website, though. Even thinking about it right now is making just my fingers tingle.

Lots of exmos think that feeling good, or feeling emotionally touched, is the same as feeling the spirit. I've never felt that way. There are very distinct differences between when reading a touching story or watching a touching movie scene makes me cry and the spirit.

One time I went for a walk while thinking about the interrelatedness of things in the natural world, metaphysical stuff. As I contemplated, I had this incredible spiritual experience come upon me where everything seemed in perfect harmony - the trees, rocks, water, sky. Everything seemed just as it should be.

But I did not feel, nor believe, that experience to have been of the holy spirit. It was spiritual in nature, but not of divinity. Rather, a spectacular communion with nature and its cycles and hums.

This happened twelve years ago and just this year I read Eckhart Tolle's The Power of Now. I recognized the vibrant, living, in-the-present feeling as being conscious. It was nice to finally put a label on this experience! And know it was a well-known and desirable phenomenon.

But Being Conscious is not the same as feeling the Holy Ghost, even though it is a wonderful, peaceful feeling. When you feel the spirit, or God moving in your life, you feel a sense of something higher, something guiding you, something that loves you and wants good things for you. A power well beyond what is within.

Thanks for that long, detailed, and thoughtful reply. I agree that Joseph was self-contradictory throughout his life, and this seemed to not bother him very much. He wasn't particularly concerned whether his current teaching contradicted previous teaching. Whether that's a sign of divine calling or an ambitious (maybe reckless) thinker is open to interpretation.

> But how do we miss, "I Become What I Am" and "I Am What I Become"

I'm not an expert on Hebrew. I rely on the expertise of others. It made me think of this blog post which renders the name as, "He who causes to be." I think you'll enjoy that entire post quite a bit. (And probably that entire blog. His backlog is incredible.)

I personally disagree strongly with Joseph's later theology concerning God, especially the idea that "the glory of God is intelligence," and that the seeking of intelligence and knowledge is precisely what prevents us from being God ourselves. I actually think it is a dangerous theology that leads to Pharisaical behavior, overconfidence in our own righteousness, and a lazy spiritual life. It turns growing in the Godly life into a pursuit of a few secret rituals and discrete tasks which, if fulfilled, automatically confer Godliness.

A perfect example of this is from Nelson's recent BYU devotional where he said, "Let me say it as succinctly as I can: As you abide by God’s laws, you are progressing toward exaltation."

> the concept of God and Christology evolved over time in the early Christian world as well. Bart Ehrman, etc.

I am familiar with Ehrman's work. I think it's oversimplifying things to say "he has the historical evidence to support his claims." His claims are based on one reading of the historical evidence, but it's hardly the only supportable conclusion. Ehrman makes some great points, but sometimes he stretches the evidence too far, imo. (Way too far, in some cases.)

If you're interested in a counter view, I suggest the short volume Honoring the Son by Larry Hurtado, or his more expansive work, Lord Jesus Christ. He makes a convincing case, imo, that Ehrman's thesis of developing Christology is far too simplistic.

Personally, I think it is clear even from the gospels that the disciples were only dimly aware of Jesus's nature during his ministry. The synoptics are clear on this: the disciples didn't grasp Jesus's mission until after his resurrection. The resurrection changed everything. Immediately afterward the conception of God (especially as reflected in their worship) shifted and began to incorporate worship of Christ as God. It's true that the language used to describe Trinitarian theology shifted over time, but it's not at all clear to me that the early Christians held a low Christology. I think that reads too much into the text.

I've found that I've really enjoyed some books that address topics that are interesting to Mormonism without being related to it at all.

Karen Armstrong (comparative religion/religious history), Bart Ehrman (biblical textual criticism), Timothy Keller (I really loved "The Reason for God"), Joseph Campbell (mythology), have all helped me gain a greater understanding of religion in general.

Other books that cover science and history have been excellent as well. I had what could be called a spiritual experience learning about the magnitude of life and how it exists when I read Carl Zimmer's "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea". I would also suggest learning a bit about the origins of modern civilization by studying about Mesopotamia. I found a bit of interesting American history (that also briefly mentions the 19th century "burned over district" and Joseph Smith) in "Occult America: The Secret History of How Mysticism Shaped Our Nation."

My current read is "This is my Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology" by Charles R. Harrell, a BYU professor. It seems like the type of book that many Mormons would find offensive, while many Mormons would find it inspired.

I also enjoy reading scripture and seeing what it says without trying to make it fit what I think it should say, especially the New Testament. Honestly, I think that the New Testament inspires fewer wtf moments than any of the other books of scripture :)

Hang in there, man. Your story is a common one, and one I’m all too familiar with.

My wife’s reaction was almost identical. We are in a good place now, but it took us almost 4 years to get here.

Here are some resources that have helped:

• Natasha Helfer Parker’s book, One Family, Two Views: How to Fortify your Mixed-Faith Mormon Marriage
  
  
• Jon Ogden’s book, When Mormons Doubt: A Way to Save Relationships and Seek a Quality Life
  
  
• The “Mormon Mixed-Faith Marriage” Facebook group (good for both the believing and non-believing spouse)
  
  
• Natasha has her own virtual counseling practice, Symmetry Solutions - we have used their services and they are really good at understanding the Mormon mixed-faith paradigm and helping both spouses approach the marriage from a healthy standpoint.
  
  Best of luck, feel free to ask me any questions, I’m happy to discuss further.

>The Prophet has a $1 million dollar penthouse.

My previous post on the subject, including scripture, and details. let me know if it is not sufficient

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/p74k3/general_authority_ga_salary_stipends_living_wages/

>One is able to fly anywhere in the world for free, and be treated like a king by the members when one arrives. Not bad.

Source: Book of Mammon http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Mammon-Corporation-Mormons/dp/1451553706

>GA's make $150k and up according to Canada tax returns.

it's in my previous link as well. A little searching on /r/exmo should turn up the full post with tax documents.

>1/2 of tithing in New Zealand goes to pay Salaries in the church. 49%. 19% is used for building maintenance and charity.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2012/07/new-zealand-mormon-church-finances-a-case-study/

>0% of the humanitarian aide dollars in the UK donated for tsunami victims actually made it to tsunami victims. Maybe the U.S. used all their tsunami dollars + a bit extra, but there are no public records in the U.S.

http://mormonthink.com/tithing.htm under "Tsunami"

>Their children and grand children all get free educations at BYU.

I knew some personally who were there on a free ride. Employees of BYU also get free tuition. And my relatives qualify for that. Not really a question, but if you need me to, I'll find more.

And let's tack the 1.5 billion dollar mall on to this list. Build a mall, no tithing used; but the only money you have is tithing. Hmm... wonder how that works?

Take the tithing, put it in a bank; get interest off it (For three years), use the interest to invest in private for-profit activities. Everyone profits!

Here is a multi-volume work of the history if the LDS church written by B.H. Roberts. It's like 80 years old so it is a bit outdated in a few areas.

Rough Stone Rolling is a biography of Joseph Smith written by Richard Bushman. It is generally considered to be the pretty good historically and is pretty well cited.

I also find Wikipedia to be a pretty good starting point for studying different topics in LDS history. Apparently there does end up being some editing wars for a lot topics so you have to be careful.

A new 4 volume narrative history of the LDS church has also been announced and will start coming out next year. That might end up being good.

Edit: just realised I didn't read your post well enough. I just gave you general history sources when you were asking for specific leads. Sorry about that. I hope someone else the info you're looking for.

I went through a phase like this (but I'm not saying it's just a phase for you). Personally, I wasn't very happy. The birth of my son was a big reality check for me. I reevaluated everything and ultimately concluded that the church didn't do as much good as I previously thought it did, and I felt that I had a responsibility to truth and I didn't feel comfortable raising my son in the church if it wasn't 100% literally true. I also felt more and more guilty being associated with the church because of its homophobic doctrines - I wanted to set an example of acceptance for my son, especially considering that there's a decent chance that he may be somewhere on the LGBT spectrum.

My advice would be to keep going if you feel good about it and if it truly makes you happy. I'd also recommend being completely open and authentic - if the church doesn't accept you with open arms as you are, it's not worthy of you.

I'd also really recommend https://www.amazon.com/Combatting-Cult-Mind-Control-Best-selling/dp/0892813113. I think it's really important to understand mind control techniques. If you conclude that the church doesn't use them and you don't feel like they are at work in your life, great! No harm, no foul. And if it turns out the church has been using them on you, you can look at your situation from a more informed perspective. Again, you may still conclude that the church does more good than harm.

Good luck.

> Can you think of any parts of the Smith narrative that don't fit with the sex-and-power idea, outside of trivialities?

Have you ever read anything about Joseph Smith from a sympathetic perspective? I don't mean apologist literature. I mean work that is actually trying to understand Joseph Smith, rather than to support a preexisting thesis. Things like Rough Stone Rolling, In Heaven as it is on Earth, American Crucifixion, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, etc. When the events of Joseph Smith's life are put into their full, rich historical context, it quickly becomes apparent that J.S.'s motivations were complex and variegated. Certainly sex and power played a role, but so did sincere, intense religious belief, a desire to unite and redeem his family, and a firm conviction that God was working through him. For instance, the money digging events can only be understood when put into the context of early 19th century folk religion, as Quinn does in Early Mormonism. This is not an avaricious Joseph Smith, but someone who is trying to help lift his family out of poverty using methods of folk religion that were ubiquitous in the region.

>doesn't mean he had any interest in living with them

We know this isn't true. That he lived with them and slept in their beds is explicitly documented in some cases.

I recommend Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, an excellent biography of Emma by two faithful LDS historians.

On my phone, and if I remember, I'll come back and share more later... But for now I would highly recommend this book: Navigating Mormon Faith Crisis: A Simple Developmental Map https://www.amazon.com/dp/B017V5LTXS/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_R.C1xbQY981H4

It helped me understand what I was going through when I was in a similar position and learn to reframe what it means to have faith and what it looks like for that faith to be challenged and grow.

Edit: if you need to chat or have questions for someone who has been in your shoes, pm me.

Joseph did posses a stone that he believed helped him see things which were hidden. His translation was initially through the Urim and Thummim, and as he learned to use that easier, he used his stone, and at some point probably no stone at all.


I don't have sources handy, so hopefully someone else will post some. A great book with tons of sourced info is Rough Stone Rolling. Fantastic book.

Most of what I am referencing can be found in the Righteous Mind. I highly recommend reading it if you have a chance. I don't know that everyone will outgrow this "fairness tendency", though I think that some do. There may be some inherent value in fairness, though less so in the joy which people derive from seeing their enemies or out-group suffer (which also appears to be very widespread). In many ways, I think I was one of the "good kids" and I did on one occasion turn in a roommate to the BYU honor code office for having a girl spend the night (in the living room, no sex was involved). In retrospect, probably a very bad and immature thing to do. As a freshman, it seemed like the right thing to do.

I don't know if I have good answers to your questions, just a few thoughts for consideration.

>I read the NT last year on my own

This really stood out to me. Good job doing your own research and coming to your own concluisions, I know it can be hard.

That said, I assume that you read the KJV NT, since you are BIC. I highly recommend books like Jesus, Interrupted, which are introductory books into the actual history of the New Testament.

As a teaser, did you know that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) weren't written until at least 40 years after Christ died? Mark is the oldest book, but Mark was used as a source by Matthew and Luke. Further, the Gospels are excellent examples of pseudepigrapha, or books inappropriately attributed to an author. I.e., the Gopels weren't written by the apostles named.

First off, I’m a different person than who you originally ranted at. Second, I’m active LDS and heterosexual and married with kids.

I’m asking these questions because you keep saying DOCTRINE in all caps as if there have been ANY spiritual principles that have remained the same throughout LDS Church history.

This is a verifiably false assumption. Even “Doctrines” change over time. There’s a great book called This is My Doctrine by BYU professor Charles Harrel that discusses this in far more detail than i am capable.

It makes me sad to see such cold-hearted fundamentalism as yours in mormonism.

I came her to post ths. I've never personally read it, but I hear good things. Here is the amazon link. https://www.amazon.com/This-My-Doctrine-Development-Theology/dp/1589581032/ref=sr_1_24?keywords=lds+doctrine&qid=1573148979&s=books&sr=1-24

>It is also not the case that anyone in any religion is primarily following their religion because their religion is well supported by evidence

That's simply not true. There are many cases of atheists who decided to test the claims of Christianity, but ended up converting because of the overwhelming evidence they found. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWPcwSYEHy4

Another: https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Life-Changing/dp/1401676707/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=evidence+that+demands+a+verdict&qid=1556943205&s=gateway&sr=8-1

>As a young man, Josh McDowell considered himself an agnostic. He truly believed that Christianity was worthless. However, when challenged to intellectually examine the claims of Christianity, Josh discovered compelling and overwhelming evidence for the reliability of the Christian faith.

Read the LDS "Gospel Principles" manual, located here.

You could also read "Rough Stone Rolling" to learn more about Joseph Smith and the Church's founding. Rough Stone Rolling is generally considered a reasonable account, by both ex mormons and active mormons.

Lou, have you read Jana Riess’ The Next Mormons? Because I think you’d appreciate her research.

Having read The Book of Mammon that sounds exactly like how the Church Office Building operates.

I'm not sure if your friend already owns or has read this book, but it is a really interesting balanced view of Joseph Smith. It talks about some of the more difficult issues in early Mormonism, but explains them in a way that leaves room for belief.

"Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman

https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400077532

Read these books in this order:

1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Harari. Overview of the history of humanity. Fascinating.
   
2. God: A Human History by Reza Aslan. Overview of the development of religion and ideas about God.
   
3. The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein. Overview of the archeology of ancient Israel and historical criticism of the Old Testament.
   
4. Authoring the Old Testament by David Bokovoy. Overview of textual criticism of the Old Testament.
   
5. Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Overview of textual criticism of the New Testament.
   
   This mini library is a sort of behind the scenes peek into humanity, religion in general, and the Bible specifically. You’ll never look at these things the same way again.
   
   Now, after reading these, return and report and give us word.