Thomas Faulk’s Letter for My Wife presents itself as a heartfelt explanation of lost faith, but when you look beyond the tone, it becomes clear that it is something very different.

When reading his introduction the “liar” bells rang in my head when I read that his “faith crisis” started when he “read an article in the Ensign” that told him about the Joseph Smith papers, and,

“I began reading every Church-approved historical resource I could find. I pored over Joseph Smith’s journals, the Journal of Discourses, The History of the Church and early Mormon periodicals. It was all so fascinating. I intended to learn more about the history and to strengthen my testimony, but every so often I would run across well-known events that did not match the narrative I was taught growing up in the Church.”

Joseph Smith Journals

Okay, much of Joseph Smith’s Journals were published in the 1970’s and 80’s in books like The Papers of Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith’s Journals. I had these books growing up and had one them on my mission. I think I still have it in the basement by the church books. While the Joseph Smith Papers project brought out fully annotated volumes of Joseph Smith’s journals, writings from Joseph Smith’s journals were already available well before Thomas started losing his faith that lead to his famous letter.

Journal of Discourses

And the Journal of Discourses? It’s first edition was published in 1854. These aren’t exactly new releases that the church had been hiding for years. So why would Faulk just now start “reading that book” with all the fun releases by the historians at the Joseph Smiths Papers project?

Because it has been around for so long, and because Brigham Young was a colorful character who lived at a different time and different culture, the Journal of Discourses has been “sourced” for anti mormons as a way to stir up controversy for years.

I used my top resource assistant, ChatGPT, to do a comparison for me on the references to the CES Letter and Letter for My Wife, and to no shock, they both referenced Journal of Discources for the same arguments multiple times.

It’s almost as if he was studying the CES Letter first, and then “studying” the Journal of Discourses only as those same anti-Mormon talking points came up. Why else would he suddenly dive into a book published in 1854 when he supposedly had all the new Joseph Smith Papers releases in front of him?

Studying the Joseph Smith Papers project to “verify” anti-Mormon claims he had already accepted—that’s plausible. But I have a hard time believing he was studying these documents to strengthen his testimony.

Church Approved

He also drops the buzzword “Church-approved resources.” This identical phrase shows up constantly in anti-Mormon literature, including the CES Letter.

Critics use “church-approved” for two reasons:

1. To imply the Church is controlling information, brainwashing members, and hiding anything not on the “approved list.”

2. To make it seem like every statement ever made by a Church leader is official doctrine because it is supposedly “church-approved.” The list expands or contracts depending on the argument they want to make and the level of guilt they want the reader to feel for “not knowing.”

The reality is that there is no church-approved list. For teaching in Church settings, we stick to the scriptures, correlated manuals, General Conference, and specific Gospel Library resources. Class time is limited, and the focus should be on doctrine—not speculation or side topics that have nothing to do with salvation.

But members are absolutely free to study anything that brings additional light and truth.

“Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.” (D&C 130:18)

Strengthen My Testimony

What a strange term to use in this context. If Faulk truly had a solid testimony at the time he read that Ensign article, why would he say he was studying “to strengthen my testimony”? It sounds fishy. When our testimony is strong, we study because the gospel interests us and we want to learn more and feel enlightened, not because we are desperately trying to “strengthen” something that is already firm. That phrase only makes sense if one of two things is true:

1. His testimony was already struggling at the time. If he was reading the CES Letter and other anti-Mormon materials, this is very likely. He may have genuinely wanted to strengthen it.

2. It is a flat-out lie used to make his argument more convincing. He uses that line to make his narrative more convincing that church history is not what we think it is. It creates the image that he was genuinely seeking light and somehow “lost his faith” in the process. If he is lying about trying to strengthen his testimony in order to make the reader feel more empathy, then was the origin of his discovery really an Ensign article that supposedly led him to the Joseph Smith Papers? Or is he lying about that too?

Could Faulk have genuinely discovered all these controversies by reading original sources on his own? Possibly. But I’m skeptical. If he truly spent time in the Joseph Smith Papers, I’m convinced he would have been uplifted, because those volumes are filled with light, spiritual power, miracles, manifestations from God and remarkable historical testimony.

Deny The Spirit

Lastly, Faulk warns his wife that the darkness she feels while reading his anti-Mormon material isn’t actually the withdrawal of the Spirit, but just a “normal feeling.” Contrast that with what Lawrence Corbridge—Sam’s former mission president and later a General Authority—said after being assigned to review anti-Mormon arguments. He described a darkness and gloom settling over him as he immersed himself in those materials in this BYU talk.

So what was the gloom I felt several years ago while reading antagonistic material? Some would say that gloom is the product of belief bias, which is the propensity to pick and choose only those things that accord with our assumptions and beliefs. The thought that everything one has believed and been taught may be wrong, particularly with nothing better to take its place, is a gloomy and disturbing thought indeed. But the gloom I experienced as I listened to the dark choir of voices raised against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ—the gloom that came as I waded, chest deep, through the swamp of the secondary ­questions—is different. That gloom is not belief bias and it is not the fear of being in error. It is the absence of the Spirit of God. That is what it is. It is the condition of man when “left unto himself.”²² It is the gloom of darkness and the “stupor of thought.”²³

The Lord said:

And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.²⁴

Revelation from the Spirit of God supersedes belief bias because it is not premised only on evidence. I have spent a lifetime seeking to hear the word of the Lord and learning to recognize and follow the Spirit of God, and the spirit associated with the dark voices that assail the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Restoration is not the spirit of light, intelligence, and truth. The Spirit of God is not in those voices. I don’t know much, but I do know the voice of the Lord, and His voice is not in that dark choir, not at all in that choir.

In stark contrast to the gloom and sickening stupor of thought that pervades the swamp of doubt is the spirit of light, intelligence, peace, and truth that attends the events and the glorious doctrine of the Restoration, especially the scriptures revealed to the world through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Just read them and ask yourself and ask God if they are the words of lies, deceit, delusion, or truth.

I too believe that that darkness and gloom is the absense of the spirit and much prefer the light and love that comes from having faith in and believing the testimones of doctrines of the scriptures and prophets. Is that not good? Is that not from God, is that not part of our purpose here on earth to feel that joy?

Misquote of James E. Talmage

The last phrase of Faulk’s introduction is a quote he attributes to James E. Talmage, but it wasn’t actually Talmage’s own statement. He was quoting a newspaper editorial. Misquoting a Church leader out of context is not exactly the strongest argument.

Faulk uses this “quote” to support his narrative that the Church has been dishonest and has been hiding things from us so we won’t know the “real truth.” This narrative just isn’t true. Yes, the Church hasn’t emphasized and doesn’t go out of its way to teach everyone about the more controversial aspects of the past, and yes, there may have been individual historians who mishandled or withheld documents. But the reality is that the emphasis and focus of the Church has always been, and will always be, to bring us to Christ and to teach the doctrines that lead to salvation.

More Resources on the Introduction and Preface

Sarah Allen  provides lots more details about the author of A Letter to My Wife and his introduction and preface here.