• About
  • Humor
    • Kiss Hank’s Ass
    • Appearance Of Evil
    • Crawling Over Or Under Or Around
    • Companions
    • Missionaries
    • Relief Society
    • Jesus Knocking
    • Crawling Over Or Under Or Around
    • The Good News
    • Women’s Role
    • LDS Sales
    • Atheists
    • Blind Faith
    • Creationism
    • Creationists
    • Idiot Atheists
    • Reason
    • The Brain
  • Rants
    • Believe
    • Cult
    • Essays Authored by Others
      • Coming out advice
      • The danger of the gay closet
      • The Blue Pill or the Red Pill?
      • The Language of Prayer
      • The Language of Prayer
      • This is NOT a Christian nation!
      • The power of words
      • Why “Love the Sinner” rings hollow
      • The Cost of Being Mormon
      • True Faith
      • The Spirit
  • Resources
    • An Examination of the LDS Church’s Position on Homosexuality
    • Baloney Detection Kit
    • Book Recommendations
      • Books Not Directly Related to Mormonism
      • Writings That Directly Challenge Conventional Mormon Thought
      • LDS Talks that Should make you go “Hmmm”
    • LDS Physician – Masturbation
    • Helping Latter-day Saint Families with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Children
  • Why I Left Mormonism
    • Search, Ponder and Pray (Introduction)
    • Ch 1: “The truth is not uplifting it destroys”
    • Ch 2: The Book of Abraham
    • Ch 3: Polygamy and Polyandry
    • Ch 4: Lying For The Lord
    • Ch 5: Book of Mormon DNA
    • Ch 6: Other Book of Mormon Issues
    • Ch 7: The Testimony Shelf
    • Ch 8: Spiritual Witness
    • Ch 9: Apostasy
    • Ch 10: But Wait, There’s More!
    • Conclusion

Dad's Primal Scream

~ Musings of a gay ex-Mormon father

Dad's Primal Scream

Tag Archives: Book of Mormon

“The Book of Mormon” Musical and Me

11 Tuesday Sep 2012

Posted by dadsprimalscream in Atheism, Belief, Book of Mormon Musical, Guilt, Happiness, Homosexuality, LDS Mission, Mormonism

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon Musical, Broadway theatre, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Missionary, Mormon

(Reblogged from April 2011)

I just got back from my New York trip to see The Book of Mormon Musical on Broadway!

I was so excited on so many levels…I love New York and I love Broadway.   I got to see 3 shows. But seeing the BOM Musical was the main push that led me to schedule the trip (that, and free flight vouchers!). And I had the perfect companion for this trip in Permaguilt, a regular visitor of my blog and an old friend.

The reviews of the new musical have been very praiseworthy overall but I think they miss the mark on a few levels.

This show is nothing if not irreverent. One Mormon reviewer detailed his experience watching the show of being verbally assaulted, bullied, humiliated and disappointed in the Broadway theatre community by their support and love of this show.  It’s not hard to imagine that a Mormon might feel that way. In fact I think I can understand EXACTLY the feelings he expresses.  That’s what it feels like to grow up gay in the Mormon Church. The difference is that I experienced that ridicule, humiliation and lack of understanding for 40 years.  This musical lasts 2 ½ hours.

Just as the Mormons constantly paid lip service to their supposed love for me, the writers and producers of this musical declare the play to be a love letter to believers.  And somehow, as starkly satirical and blasphemous as this show is in the telling, it somehow manages to portray affection for Mormons and for all believers that is respectful.

This is not a play against Mormons. It is a play that mocks fundamental believers of any stripe. It’s a love letter to humanity. It is that sort of universality in the message that will keep this musical around for a long, long time. Its only weakness being that 20 years from now it won’t be getting many royalties from high schools putting on this show. The themes, adult situations and vulgar language are far beyond the capability of making this a family-friendly show.

The premise is that 2 Mormon missionaries are sent to Africa. They are naïve but cocksure; they are unprepared for the real African world.

A few minor inaccurate details, which are easily chalked up to artistic license, will make some Mormons tell themselves that it’s not based on reality. To name a few, the actual mechanics of mission calls, transfers, companionships, for example, are adjusted to fit into a 2 ½ hour time frame. Elder Cunningham’s hair is too long for a missionary. Mormons don’t say, “Praise Christ.”  One-piece garments are rarely worn anymore.

But it’s surprisingly accurate in areas that only insiders would understand. During intermission I had a conversation with a couple sitting in front of me who were shocked when I explained that as a Mormon the mere portrayal of the garments on stage would have been the most offensive part to me up to that point. They had no idea that the play was accurate enough to include the off-hand esoteric nod to Mormon underwear.

I also would have immediately tuned out once the vulgar themes and cussing made their appearance.  Who wouldn’t squirm at hearing about female circumcision, childhood AIDS and infant molestation?  The F-word and C-word are ubiquitous throughout. If Mormons imagine they are the only ones who gasp in shock and think, “Oh no they didn’t!” they are kidding themselves. But these topics and words unbelievably actually have a place here.  To be afraid of them is to be afraid of the hard questions that face millions if not billions of souls on this planet. If smiley-faced believers can’t hear them or discuss them, they have no business addressing topics of salvation and redemption in the real lives of others.

Still, this musical is much more significant when it comes to the topics and ideas that it gets spot-on accurate and does so with amazing panache.

The “Spooky Mormon Hell Dream” and “Turn It Off” numbers are eerily insightful into the believing mind, especially the Mormon missionary mind. Anyone who has been guilt-tripped by religion into fearing themselves and their own humanness will be able to relate.

Upon entering the MTC, missionaries are bombarded with guilt trips and unrealistic expectations of perfection to the point that they begin to confess to the most trivial and bygone infractions. The feeling is that if they don’t properly repent they will not be “clean” or “worthy” of a successful mission, of the Celestial Kingdom, and of Eternal Life with their families. That’s hell for a Mormon. As I mentioned before, the Mormon version of Hell doesn’t exactly match the typical Christian one, but for the purposes of this show the number works remarkably well. And the trivial nature of the sins being repented of is only underscored by the inclusion of coffee cups and Johnny Cochran in the nasty, wicked things which Mormons despise along with Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Genghis Khan.

“Turn it Off”, my other favorite number, perfectly describes how Mormons (and other believers) manage to live in the land of cognitive dissonance and appear to be super-sparkly, smiley, cocksure Disney characters at all times.  The actual unwritten Mormon method is called “putting it on the shelf” where doubts or questions that contradict Biblical, Book of Mormon, or Mormon leaders’ teaching are placed into imaginary oblivion to be answered only in the afterlife.  In the musical, the missionaries sing about this specialized denial in a hilarious send-up to individuals who are outliers, unconventional and stuck in strictly conservative settings everywhere.  Feelings that contradict how life is “supposed to be” should be “turned off”, not pushed down deep inside but literally turned off. That behavior is obviously a cocktail for disconnection from reality and an artificial happiness…and later depression. One gay missionary leads the others in a rousing, show stopping encouragement for dealing with life by “turning it off.”  That’s how you prepare to serve a mission.

I have some added insight into mission preparation. I taught for three years at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah.  Not only did I teach there, but I became what was called “Zone Coordinator.”  A Zone Coordinator was essentially the title given to the supervisor of approximately 30 part-time teachers.  At that time, we also automatically became 2nd Counselors in the Branch Presidency, which made us leaders on Sunday over the same missionaries that our teachers were teaching. I had many young 19 year olds come to confess absurdly trivial infractions with trepidation and fear.

I think I get it when it comes to how missionaries are trained and how prepared they are when they enter the mission field. I was a missionary and I trained missionaries. Some things might have changed over time but nothing fundamental in Mormonism changes THAT drastically in 20 years. Your mileage may vary.

Missionaries are only exposed to the positive when they are trained.  What preparation exists regarding their target culture, challenges to Mormon theology, or teaching methods is always only framed in a positive light. There was little to no preparation on the meaty cultural challenges we would face.  Even the extreme poverty we’d encounter was anticipated with rose-colored glasses, “It makes the people so humble, faithful and ready to hear the gospel.”

During our practice teaching moments in the MTC, the scenarios that were presented in training were ones that I never encountered in the real world, but mock questions were presented which were easily solved by Mormon doctrine, scriptures and practices. For example, I never encountered a person interested in discussing our religion who was all that concerned with “authority” until we posed the whole “apostasy” story.  Likewise, work for the dead, pre-mortal life, and eternal families are all themes which give lifelong Mormons holygasms, but which very few people in the real world are truly concerned about.  Only when missionaries declare that Mormonism has the corner of the market on these ideas does anyone become slightly interested. Most believers of any creed, for example, are comfortable with the idea that they will see their loved ones after they die.  Mormonism repackages and markets this idea as uniquely theirs much the same way that bottled water takes municipal water and repackages it as pure with a pretty label; it’s actually available to everyone, but the costs of the new product are much greater.

And often, what followers hear is not what the preachers actually say. In the musical, for example, a young villager is enamored at the thought of going to “Sal Tlay Ka Siti” to the land of cleanliness and godliness to live a life free of pain and suffering. But of course, the missionaries promised no such thing. I dealt with this awkward misunderstanding often in Brazil as well…people who were much more interested and hopeful about literally escaping the physical poverty and hopelessness of their living conditions, than any sort of religious message.

This stark difference between a colloquial religion such as Mormonism and real life on much of the planet is portrayed accurately in the musical.

My Mission President even understood this when he instructed us not to teach the gospel to the folks living in the “favelas,” the local slums of Brazil.  I remember this instruction quite vividly because there was a Brazilian in our orientation group who challenged the Mission President on this one detail.  There was a very uncomfortable argument where the fresh Brazilian Elder asserted that the gospel was for everyone. The Mission President emphasized that not everyone was ready, prepared or even capable of being Mormon. As the musical portrays, it’s more accurate to say that Mormonism and most fundamental religions are actually the ones themselves incapable of adapting effectively to the needs and challenges of the masses.

It is very clear that Salt Lake City Mormonism has very little of any relevance to offer the villagers in Africa. It’s one-size-fits-all unless it’s modified and molded until it no longer resembles anything close to Mormonism…but the irony is that only then do the villagers relate to it. I found this to be true when I lived in Brazil and in Japan. It’s not just the cultural church but it’s also the gospel that fails to inspire folks who live in lands other than 19th Century America.

And that again brings me full circle to the idea that Mormonism didn’t work for me, but the Book of Mormon musical did.  It was surreal sitting on Broadway watching my history, my people and my past lampooned before hundreds.  Like many Jews feel regarding their religion today, I will always be Mormon whether I practice it and believe it or not. The deep belly laughs, the gasps and hilarious outbursts were as strong from fellow theatre-goers as they were from my travel companion and me…both post-Mormons and both gay.

It was wonderful to hear others laugh at and WITH me at my own silliness. It felt as healing as the day my big brother stood up for me on the playground by giving the bullies who were taunting me and calling me a sissy a dose of their own medicine. On Broadway, that return dose was a spoonful of humor rather than a punch of the same disgust and contempt originally dished out to me.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • Email
  • Tumblr
  • Google
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

So You Want Me to Give Mormonism Another Chance to Explain?

06 Sunday May 2012

Posted by dadsprimalscream in Belief, Book of Mormon, Critical Thinking Skills, Honesty, Mormonism, Religion

≈ 20 Comments

Tags

Book of Mormon, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, Mormonism

A reader, sjm,  stopped by the blog and left the following question under the So You Want to Convert to Mormonism? post:

I’m curious. After you did your “research” and exposed yourself to truth and saw the LDS’s lies or halfturths in the DOC and BOM etc., did you follow thru and research what God’s truth really was about the specific topics you felt lied to about? Or did you just give up and call all of God’s word a mere man made fabrication?

I already answered him briefly, but I think this deserves a post of its own with a little more detail because this is a really good question from the faithful Mormon perspective. I’ve been asked this a LOT, so I’ll do my best to answer sincerely and honestly rather than in my usually snarky tone.

1. Directly to the point of your question, the LDS church had 40 years to present “God’s truth” to me. I attended and taught in Primary, Priesthood, Sunday School, Seminary and Sacrament Meetings for ALL of that time without an inactive period. I find it curious to learn what some people consider “equal time”.

Let me repeat, in 40 years of having me as a captive audience not one Mormon lesson manual presented “God’s” side of Joseph Smith’s polygamous relationships with married women or 14 year old girls. Not one lesson manual discussed the Adam God theory, Law of Adoption, Blood Atonement, the Kinderhook plates, or Joseph Smith’s dubious “translation” method of putting his face in his hat… etc… I could go on… but the point is that I could study “anti-Mormon” literature for another 40 years and not even come close to the amount of opportunity that the Mormon church has had to present its side to me.

2. When you read my blog, the impression you could easily get is that I read some difficult material and threw in the towel overnight and said, “Well, then it’s not true!” That is certainly not how it happened. From the very first time something that made me go, “hmmm” to the day I confidently disbelieved was about a decade long period. The first eight years of that decade was probably just a series of things making me go, “hmmm” and me not doing anything about it. Once I started to actually check some things out I stuck almost exclusively to “faithful” sources until I ran into several experiences described in #3 and #4 below. And even then it took another 2 years of reading, checking and double-checking sources and quotes that I was certain had been taken out of context… until I concluded that the “faithful” explanations contained far more fabrications and half truths than the critics’.

3. Early on, my introduction to the difficult issues in Mormonism actually came from within what could be considered “faithful” sources. For example, I’d stumble upon a FARMS or FAIR article detailing the rebuttal argument to a critic’s “so called” facts. This most frequently was my introduction to the topic. I would read the apologists’ article and find it to be illogical and full of lies…and then I’d do more research to find out what actually sparked the rebuttal in the first place. This was how I was introduced to the Book of Mormon DNA issue for example. I remember specifically reading one of these articles that stated that it has never been a church teaching that the modern day native Americans were descended from the Book of Mormon Lamanites. Having grown up in the church I knew that to be a bold faced lie. It erased any credibility in that author’s argument thereafter. This was before I even knew about any DNA problems.

What it did from square one is tell me that church apologists were willing to lie and fabricate to maintain the essentials of their faith. Of course, they were writing to an audience that they thought was already in some stage of a faith crisis, so ANY shred of hope would provide that person with enough to cling onto. But for me it CREATED the faith crisis. I didn’t know anything about DNA or how it related to the Book of Mormon but I knew very well what the prophets had taught and what the vast majority of Mormons believed regarding the Lamanites.

4. Another problem I had with LDS sources or “faithful” explanations was their inconsistency. One “faithful” explanation for a particular issue sounded reasonable in a vacuum, but when you applied that same logic to another part of the gospel it fell apart.

Take your question for example. You imply that a person questioning Mormonism should research several varied sources before jumping to conclusions. But LDS missionaries regularly tell investigators to NOT seek out alternate sources when researching Mormonism. We often used the analogy “If you want to buy a Ford, you wouldn’t go to a Chevy dealer.” Not seeking out alternative explanations is regularly taught in LDS lessons. But suddenly if I discover something about DNA as it applies to LDS claims I shouldn’t take the word of a geneticist. I should circle back around and double-check what BYU religion professors have to say about it…

5. The truth should be laid out BEFORE extracting a lifelong commitment from someone. Do you get that? In my case that means before I was 8 years old. In the case of a convert that is before he/she is baptized. By not doing that, the LDS church has been untrustworthy and dishonest.

The onus for telling the truth is on the organization that claims to be the one and only true church on the face of the earth. The onus isn’t on the individual born and raised in the faith to go out digging and hunting to find out what really happened.

6. “Can I believe this?” and “Is this believable?” are two very different questions.

The answer to, “Can I believe this?” is almost always “Yes!” This is the question I believe most Mormons ask themselves. Humans can give themselves permission to believe just about anything.

“Is it believable” on the other hand requires taking a step back and approaching the topic from an independent perspective without assuming truth or falsehood. In scientific language that means developing a “null hypothesis.”

As I understand it, if you are honestly searching for truth on a particular topic you need to figure out the conditions and facts which would lead you to conclude falsehood.  And this needs to be done ahead of time…before the fact-gathering and investigation.

To put it more simply, an honest investigator of Mormonism would need to decide, “It’s not true if _______”. Then whatever that statement was would have to be something universal that could be repeated by anyone and everyone with the same result. Most Mormons I know couldn’t ever perform this hypothetical mind exercise and clearly Mormon scholars don’t. They start with the conclusion and then twist and turn things to match their testimonies. I believe this is far from an honest search for truth.

At some point I made the decision that I would follow the truth no matter where it lead me…in or out of the church (definitely still hoping that it was IN).

Your question to me implies that I should have settled for, “Can I believe it?” by giving the Mormon church a second chance to give me a reason to believe by adjusting their claims, reformulating teachings and presenting a different angle to things I’d been learning for 40 years. I frankly don’t see why Mormonism deserves that reconsideration any more than Islam, Scientology, or the Moonies.

See Also:

Believability

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • Email
  • Tumblr
  • Google
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

10 Random Link Bombs – I Wish I’d Written That!

21 Saturday Apr 2012

Posted by dadsprimalscream in Homosexuality, Mormonism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

authenticity, Book of Mormon, Gay Lesbian and Bisexual, Homosexuality, It Gets Better, Mormon, Randomness

In trying to clean out my drafts today I noticed that a lot of my unfinished posts contained links to other blogs or videos or news articles. I think many of them remain unfinished because I subconsciously recognize that someone else already said it better than I could.

I thought I had something to say, but in reality I just like how someone else already said it.

That’s what this blog post is all about… random links to articles, blogs and news articles where someone said, filmed or wrote it better than I ever could have:

1. It Gets Better With Mormon Family and Friends

It certainly must get better. People like this didn’t exist 10 years ago…that I know of. This entire Far Between project is truly awesome, but this particular “family and friends” video is amazing to me. Notice how they aren’t implying that their love will cure or change their loved one. They are instead advocating loving and cherishing their gay brothers and sister exactly how and where they are!

Stay tuned. I was interviewed for the “actually gay himself, but came out later in life” portion of this video project. I’m curious to see if any portion of my interview makes the cut.

2. Authenticity

Who doesn’t love a great TED presentation. Older gay men and former Mormons love to latch onto the concept of authenticity.

“However afraid we are of change, the question that we must ultimately answer is this: What’s the greater risk? Letting go of what people think, or letting go of how I feel and what I believe and who I am? e. e. cummings wrote, “To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody but yourself means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight and never stop fighting.” I’m convinced that choosing authenticity is one of the most courageous battles that we’ll ever fight.”

3. What Mormon Scriptures and history say about Socialism

Romney and fellow conservatives defy the teachings of the Book of Mormon. When Mormons Were Socialists: Why the Mormon Church’s Founders Would be Very Disappointed in Mitt Romney

“The slick, painfully monogamous, politically malleable super-capitalist Romney who shares “humorous” tales of layoffs would horrify the founders of his faith.”

“The prophetic message of the scripture is sharp; if Americans are obedient to God, we will be blessed with riches. If Americans set our hearts on riches and ignore the poor, we will be destroyed.”

4. How I traced my ancestry back to the Stone Age

“I recently had a genetic test to find out more about where my ancestors came from. The results confirmed what I already knew – I am from a family of European Jews. But there was also a surprise – a Neanderthal forebear. “

5. Oral Roberts’ gay grandson

6. The discussion about bullying and gay rights is more than a discussion about gays

To understand this video, you may first have to read the original blog post by Dan at Single Dad Laughing called I’m Christian, unless you’re gay.


7. Threats of Punishment Don’t Work

“In studies, scholars find that kids who live in threat of consistent punishment don’t lie less. Instead, they become better liars, at an earlier age—learning to get caught less often.”

8. Practicing

“Because we might have all the good intentions to be or look a certain way, or to end up in a certain place, but the harsh reality is that we become good at what we repeatedly do.”

9. Zach Wahls

You’ve probably already seen this viral video. But I think this dude rocks. As I’ve said before, I think straight allies can have a significant impact on change.

You can also meet the family here.

10. Instruction Manual for Life

If you’re like me, you sometimes find that these amateur cartoons can be irritating. Still, I like the way this one presents the fallacy of using the Bible to guide our morals and values. See also Kiss Hanks Ass

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • Email
  • Tumblr
  • Google
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

10 Things You Don’t Know About the Mormons

16 Monday Apr 2012

Posted by dadsprimalscream in Book of Mormon, Mormonism

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

Book of Mormon, History, Joseph Smith, Mormon, Mormonism

This was an actual episode of 10 Things You Don’t Know About on the History Channel H2. I came across it in my channel surfing this evening and had to blog about it. The show does a nationwide poll and comes up with 10 random facts on historical figures that the textbooks left out.

Here are the 10 Things You Don’t Know About the Mormons. 

How many of these do you know?

I love how in time portraits of Joseph Smith and Jesus keep getting more attractive. This is a gay blog so I chose the most attractive one ... and probably the more innacurate.

  1. Joseph Smith was a treasure hunter.
  2. The Book of Mormon says Indians were Jewish.
  3. Masonic rituals inspired Mormon rituals.
  4. Mormons were the victims of genocide.
  5. Joseph Smith’s wife threatened to take multiple husbands.
  6. Mormons agreed to leave the U.S.
  7. The U.S deployed troops to subdue the Mormons.
  8. Mormons massacred 120 innocent pioneers.
  9. Mormons owned brothels in Salt Lake City.
  10. Mormon banks financed mob-owned hotels and casinos in Las Vegas.

How many did you know?

There is only one fact that I didn’t know (#10) and two that I learned about just recently (#9 & #5). As a Mormon I only knew seven of the following. I’ve also added farther below the reported percent of the general public who didn’t know each fact.

Based on this, not a lot of people know very much about the Mormons. The one question (#2) that could be considered friendly or innocuous because it is taught by the missionaries was one of the questions at which the public fared the worst!

Scroll down for the answers and my guesses on how Mormons would fare on the poll…

 

  1. Joseph Smith was a treasure hunter. (78% didn’t know. I’m guessing about 60% of Mormons wouldn’t know.)
  2. The Book of Mormon says Indians were Jewish. (90% of the general public didn’t know. Only maybe 5% of  Mormons wouldn’t know this one. It’s a basic tenet of the faith)
  3. Masonic rituals inspired Mormon rituals.(75% of the general public didn’t know. I’m guessing the the same number of Mormons wouldn’t know, or wouldn’t admit it.)
  4. Mormons are the victims of genocide. (85% of the general public didn’t know. Only maybe 5% of Mormons wouldn’t know. They are very conscious of their victim-hood)
  5. Joseph Smith’s wife threatened to take multiple husbands (the program actually never gave this result. but I’m guessing 90% of the public or Mormons wouldn’t know this fact. I didn’t know this until a few months ago)
  6. Mormons agreed to leave the U.S (95% didn’t know. Probably 50% of Mormons wouldn’t know)
  7. The U.S deployed troops to subdue the Mormons. (82% of the general public didn’t know. Maybe 30% of the Mormons wouldn’t know and those would be the ones outside Utah)
  8. Mormons massacred 120 innocent pioneers. (81% of the general public didn’t know and I’m guessing the same number of Mormons wouldn’t know)
  9. Mormons owned brothels in Salt Lake City. (81% of the general public didn’t know. I’d bet 90% of the Mormons wouldn’t own up to knowing.)
  10. Mormon banks financed mob-owned hotels and casinos in Las Vegas (85% of the general public didn’t know and I’d bet the same number of Mormons wouldn’t know. This was the only one I didn’t know)

BONUS!

One more fact you probably didn’t know

Followers of the Mormon religion pride themselves on being kind, friendly and trustworthy. But did you know that wealthy recluse Howard Hughes believed that the Mormons were the only people he could trust? In fact, toward the end of his life, he took residence in Las Vegas and surrounded himself with an entourage of Mormons nicknamed the “Mormon Mafia“.

 

 

See also:

My List: 10 Things You Don’t Know About The Mormons

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • Email
  • Tumblr
  • Google
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

Search Ponder and Pray (Ch 10) – But Wait, There’s More!

03 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by dadsprimalscream in Belief, Critical Thinking Skills, Mormonism, Religion

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Book of Mormon, Mormonism, search ponder pray

While I’ve already detailed some of my major historical and doctrinal issues with the Mormon faith, there are so many to still touch on. What follows is a grab bag of issues that I found in my research. As a Mormon, these concerns were easy to dismiss when I encountered them a la carte. Some of these I knew about – some I didn’t. But when you now know the full back background of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s fraudulent behavior and when you look at ALL the issues, then it becomes obvious that these problems exist because it’s all made up.

The simple explanation is usually the best and once you allow that Joseph Smith made it all up, then the following concerns need no further mental gymnastics to explain. The pieces don’t fit because the original claims are untrue.

Book of Mormon Witnesses

The declaration that eleven other people saw the gold plates is always held up as an example of why Joseph Smith couldn’t have been deceitful. At closer inspection, however, it seems that the witnesses never actually “saw” anything as we would describe it and as it is portrayed in modern Mormon literature. Likewise, their additional belief in various spiritual fads shows that they were easily persuaded.

Most of the witnesses who are listed in the Book of Mormon believed in something called second sight. Traditionally this included the ability to see spirits and even their dwelling places in local hills and elsewhere.

Ezra Booth, an early Mormon convert for example, reported of Joseph

“He does not pretend that he sees them with his natural eyes but with his spiritual eyes and he says he can see them as well with his eyes shut as with them open.”

Grant H. Palmer recorded several samples of many New York and Pennsylvania stories of second sight and treasure digging:

“They are too numerous, too similar in content, and too diverse in origin to be dismissed as non-Mormon contrivances. The fact that the Smiths organized and participated in treasure digging expeditions indicates their belief in the physical reality of what they saw by second sight. Significantly none of the Smiths’ seeric ventures yielded any real, physical treasure. This is why when the family began telling of gold plates in mid 1827, people were skeptical about ‘their pretended revelations.’ The unsuccessful treasure episodes had created credibility problems.”

Martin Harris testified to Anthony Metcalf of Elk Horn, Idaho that “ I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.”

If we take the witnesses’ statements so seriously, shouldn’t we also accept other things that they witnessed just as powerfully? For example, Oliver Cowdery claimed that he saw Joseph Smith making love to 16 year old Fanny Alger and called it a “A dirty, nasty, filthy affair…” David Whitmer testified that Joseph Smith never as much as hinted that the priesthood had been restored until years after it had supposedly happened. Let’s accept those testimonies as well. At least those statements came from their own mouths. How can it be suggested that the witnesses are SO reliable that I should base my life on their testimonies, and then in the next minute tell me they are unreliable when they CLARIFY their experience?

The Stories were Changed

Moroni or Nephi

Regarding the angelic visitation where Joseph was shown the gold plates, it was originally recorded:

“He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi.” (The Times and Seasons Vol. III, pp. 749, 753)

In modern printings of the History of the Church, this has been changed to read “Moroni”. It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith lived for two years after the name “Nephi” was printed in Times and Seasons and he never published a retraction.

In 1853, Joseph’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel’s name was Nephi (Biographical Sketches, p. 79).

The name was also published in the Pearl of Great Price (1851 edition, p. 41) as “Nephi”. The original handwritten manuscript of the Pearl of Great Price dictated by Joseph Smith reveals that the name was originally written as “Nephi,” but that someone at a later date wrote the word “Moroni” above the line. All evidence indicates that this change was made after Joseph’s death.

Lastly, in 1888 J. C. Whitmer made this statement (it should be noted that a majority of the Book of Mormon is alleged to have been translated in the Whitmer home):

“I have heard my grandmother (Mary M. Whitmer) say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by an holy angel, whom she always called Brother Nephi.” (John C. Whitmer, “The Eight Witnesses”, The Historical Record, Volume 7, October, 1888, p. 621)

Why would the church feel the need to change Joseph Smith’s story? Perhaps because Moroni makes more sense than Nephi, given that it was Moroni who buried the plates in the first place. But Joseph originally said the angel was named Nephi, not Moroni.

First Vision

Multiple Versions of Joseph Smith’s First vision is another anti-Mormon argument I had heard before. As with every other claim contradicting my LDS leaders, I assumed I was being told the truth that there really was no substantial difference in the different version and so the church merely used the most well written and thorough explanation of that marvelous event. After study, I do think there are substantial differences which lead one to question if the event ever actually happened.

In fact, numerous individuals recorded that Joseph saw an angel rather than the Father and Son for his first vision:

William Smith – “He accordingly went out into the woods and falling upon his knees called for a long time upon the Lord for wisdom and knowledge. While engaged, it appeared in the heavens, and descended until it rested upon the trees where he was. It appeared like fire. But to his great astonishment, did not burn the trees. An angel then appeared to him and conversed with him upon many things. He told him that none of the sects were right…” (William Smith On Mormonism, by William Smith, Joseph Smith’s brother. pg. 5 (1883))

Brigham Young – “[When Mormonism began] the Lord did not come – but He did send His angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. II, p. 171).

John Taylor – “None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 167 (1879))

Church Historical Record – “The angel again forbade Joseph to join any of these churches, and he promised that the true and everlasting Gospel should be revealed to him at some future time. Joseph continues: ‘Many other things did he (the angel) say unto me which I cannot write at this time’.” (Church Historical Record, Vol. 7, January, 1888) [Note that in this quote the first reference to “the angel” was later changed to “the Holy Being” and the second reference to “the angel” was changed to “the Christ”]

The earliest known account of the First Vision was given in 1831 or 1832. As Joseph dictated to his secretary, Frederick T. Williams, he saw Christ but there is no mention of God the Father in his vision.

In the second known account of Joseph’s first vision, he related the tale to Joshua the Jewish Minister, which was recorded by his secretary, Warren A. Cowdery on November 9, 1835. This time, he described seeing two personages and many angels, and also pushed back his age at the time of the vision from 16 to 14.

Over the years Joseph’s story changed from an event in the year 1823 to 1821 to 1820. Depending on the account Joseph gave, it was either a spirit, an angel, two angels, many angels, Jesus, and finally, the Father and the Son. For such a momentous event, it seems to me that one’s recollection would be much clearer.

If something happened that Spring morning in 1820, there is no record of it in Joseph’s home town, despite his later claim that he was greatly persecuted for telling the story.
Joseph Smith’s behavior and the records available of Palmyra in the 1820’s lead one to believe the 1832 version of his first vision is truer than the official 1838 version. Records indicate for example that no religious revival occurred in 1820 but it was rather in 1824-25. (Grant H. Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, pp252)

My greatest question is why it took 18 years for there to be any documentation of God and Jesus Christ actually visiting Joseph Smith especially in light of the fact that he claimed to be persecuted for telling people about it. Joseph’s later claims of finding the gold plates are well documented in local diaries and other historical sources at the time but there’s nothing on the first vision. Yet he claims it created a stir.

Why also would Joseph Smith teach in an 1835 Lecture on Faith that God is a spirit if he had indeed seen God in the flesh?

“They are the Father and the Son–the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made of fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after His likeness and in His image.” Lectures on Faith 5

Nowadays the church insists that the validity of the church rests on the latest First Vision story being literally true. We’re supposed to discount the testimonies of all the people who knew Joseph Smith personally and rely on a version canonized by leaders who had no personal connection with Joseph.

Authority

I have to say I was shocked to find that there was any dispute regarding Joseph Smith’s Priesthood Authority.

The problem, as I found out, lies with the clear, simple telling of priesthood restoration events as currently done in the LDS church. Things simple didn’t happen the way we are told they did.

Early records in the Book of Commandments indicate Joseph’s ministerial authority was obtained in the same way described in the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses – by the voice of God. In none of these examples do we find otherworldly beings laying hands upon mortals to bestow priesthood authority.

The Book of Mormon clearly accepts the prompting of the spirit to be authority enough to baptize and ordain others.

Accounts of angelic ordinations from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John are in none of the journals, diaries, letters, or printed matter until the mid 1830’s. Early members of the church report never hearing of John the Baptist or the three original apostles restoring the priesthood.

David Whitmer, one of the three special witnesses to the Book of Mormon said:

“I never heard that an angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834…in Ohio. My information from Joseph and Oliver upon this matter being as I have stated, and that they were commanded so to do by revelation through Joseph.”

Early missionaries declared that they were called of God but never said their authority originated with heavenly messengers.

William E. McLellin , an early convert and apostle recorded:

“I joined the church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter and John doing so. I heard Joseph tell his experience of his ordination[by Cowdery] and the organization of the church, probably, more than twenty times, to persons who, near the rise of the church, wished to know and hear about it. I never heard of Moroni, John, or Peter, James, and John although I carefully noticed things that were said.”

False Prophecies by Joseph

Joseph’s prophecy of the Civil War (D&C 87) is often pointed to as evidence of his prophetic calling, even though it’s really just a plagiarized version of contemporary thought. However, I was not aware of the numerous specific prophecies from Joseph, which were never fulfilled.

The Government Overthrown

The plight of the early Saints after being driven out of their homes time and again is well known. Their wrongs were never redressed. Well more than “a few years” have passed since that time. Yet, despite the following prophecy from Joseph, the U.S. government continues strong.

“I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunger and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrated a foul and corroding blot upon the fair name of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 394, May 1843)

A Temple in This Generation

On April 30, 1832, Joseph prophesied that a temple would be built in Independence, Missouri before the current generation passed away(D&C 84: 4-5)

Allowing the widest possible latitude of 100 years for a generation, that still leaves the prophecy unfulfilled more than 70 years late and counting. There still is no LDS temple in Independence, Missouri.

Abridgement of D&C 137
In 1976, the 137th section of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a vote to be “sustained” as scripture. It is a narrative of a vision supposedly seen by Joseph in Kirtland, Ohio in 1836.

What the members who voted on this new addition to scripture were not told by “the Brethren,” is that whole paragraphs (216 words) of the actual revelation as recorded in The History of the Church had been conveniently left out of the version to be included in the Doctrine and Covenants. These were prophecies so obviously incorrect that even the average LDS reader would pick them up. Therefore, they went down the “black hole” of Mormon history.

First, at least seven of the twelve who were promised the celestial kingdom in the revelation were soon excommunicated or apostatized from the church: John F. Boynton & Luke S. Johnson (1837), Lyman Johnson (1838), William E. M’Lellin (c.1838), Thomas B. Marsh & Orson Hyde (1838), and William Smith (1845). How could they have ever attained the celestial kingdom under those conditions? Although a few of these men later returned to the church, the majority remained apart for life.

Second, in the revelation the vision of M’Lellin preaching and working miracles in the south never came true because he apostatized from the church without ever doing it.

Third, although Brigham Young did bring the Mormons west and was a great colonizer and orator, the vision of Brigham Young preaching to “men of color” in their own language, in some strange and faraway place in the southwest never took place, or at least there is no trace of it in the very detailed records and diaries concerning his reign as prophet.

Finally, Zion (Independence, Missouri) was never redeemed as promised, and has never been redeemed in the 150+ years since the prophecy was made. Is it any wonder that the Brethren chose to remove whole chunks of this revelation?

United Order

In D&C 104:1 (1834) a prophecy is given concerning the LDS institution, the “United Order” (a theocratic, communistic method of distributing and controlling property and goods):

“…I give unto you counsel and a commandment, concerning all the properties which belong to the order which I commanded to be organized and established, to be a united order, and an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come…”

LDS history reveals that this “everlasting” order had to be disbanded soon after because it failed. Mormons today do not practice a communal approach to property.

Mission to Toronto

In the work, An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer, (one of the “Three Witnesses” to the Book of Mormon who had disaffected by this time) related that in the winter of 1829-1830, Joseph Smith sent Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery on a mission to Toronto, Canada to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon. This mission was ordered by a revelation that Joseph claimed he had received from God.

Unfortunately, both the mission and the revelation were failures. This is yet another false prophecy, as the man anxious to buy the copyright to the Book of Mormon never appeared. As Oliver Cowdery related:

“We did not find him, and had to return surprised and disappointed…I well remember how hard I strove to drive away the foreboding which seized me, that the First Elder had made fools of us, where we thought in the simplicity of our hearts that we were divinely commanded.” (Oliver Cowdery, Defense in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter-Day Saints)

When Joseph was asked why the revelation had failed, he explained that:

“Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil…When a man enquires of the Lord concerning a matter, if he is deceived by his own carnal desires, and is in error, he will receive an answer according to his erring heart, but it will not be a revelation from the Lord.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 31)

But the question must be asked, if the “prophet” Joseph Smith cannot tell which of his revelations are from God and which are not, why should we trust any of them?

The Lord’s Coming

I remember having discussions with fellow missionaries in Brazil about the Jehovah Witnesses’ expecting the second coming to occur several times in the past and then reformulating that revelation to have a different meaning when it failed to occur. I couldn’t believe that they could buy into it! I had no idea my church could have fallen for the same thing. In History of the Church, volume 2, pp182, it reads:

“President Smith then stated…it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh – even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.”

Joseph Smith also wrote:

“There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes.” (History of the Church, vol. 5, p336)

When the Twelve Apostles were first ordained, some of them received promises that they would live until Christ came.

Of course none of the Apostles lived to see the coming of the Lord and Joseph’s statement of fifty-six years did not come to pass.

While sustained as “prophets, seers and revelators,” LDS prophets have failed to prophesy most major world events since the birth of the church – World War I, the Depression, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, natural disasters and the Moon landing. Even the Word of Wisdom is void of the simple and revolutionary health advice that would have certainly saved hundreds of lives at that time… Boil your water! Instead, it warns against drinking hot liquids. The pioneers who disregarded that counsel and hefted coffee and tea with them across the plains probably saved their own lives by disobeying the Word of Wisdom revelation.

Yes, there’s still more. A lot more. I advise checking out my book recommendations. Some of the most powerful reading I’ve done has been in the books from Act I that have little or nothing to do with religion. Many of the facts that I’ve gathered for this series of essays have been from Act II:

Book Recommendations; Act I

Book Recommendations; Act II

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • Email
  • Tumblr
  • Google
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 6) – Other Book of Mormon Issues

30 Friday Mar 2012

Posted by dadsprimalscream in Book of Mormon, Mormonism, Religion

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Book of Mormon, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, Mormonism, search ponder pray

I heard the teacher in Elders Quorum bear testimony of its truthfulness the other day. He said some things you often hear in such testimonies…

“I know there is no way JS could have written the Book of Mormon on his own. Years have past since Joseph Smith and still there is no reliable evidence against the Book of Mormon.”

Actually both of these are not true. There IS a possibility that Joseph Smith wrote the book on his own and he had several years to think about it not the limited days that the church claims. He also had a variety of resources to use as sources. Obviously the hoaxes of Joseph Smith mentioned earlier cast doubt upon his trustworthiness as a translator. So, how about the evidence? Here is what I discovered. Although I’d been a member all my life, I never heard any of these things discussed in my years of seminary or Sunday School.

Translation

While the church always refers to Joseph Smith as a “translator, “ the truth is he really didn’t translate in the true sense of the word. What he actually did was read. He also didn’t do it as is often portrayed in LDS art or film by studying the plates and giving the translation to a scribe on the other side of a sheet or barrier. What he actually did for most of the translation process was place his seer stone in his hat and then bury his face in the hat to read the words God placed on his stone to reflect what was written on the Golden Plates. The plates apparently didn’t even need to be in the same room according to reports. (An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Grant H. Palmer, pp1-6)

“I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 12)

This is significant because it means that what was originally written in the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith by God. According to the story, Joseph Smith merely related what God gave him. He wasn’t looking at ancient writings and interpreting them himself. He was looking at English displayed on his seer stone and reading God’s words to his scribe. One would expect God to make very few mistakes, if any.

This is also significant because it is not the story that the church teaches. I had never heard about a “seer stone” in a hat. Apparently the method of translation that the church teaches was used early on in the process until the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon were lost. From then on the rock in the hat became the method of choice.

Changes

The issue of changes made to the Book of Mormon was something I had heard about on my mission. At the time I easily laughed it away. Anti-Mormons were upset that the LDS church had changed the Book of Mormon since its first publication. The LDS reply that they were just misspellings or corrections to earlier typos is easily believable and reasonable until you look at what these changes actually are.

Bear in mind that the story is that Joseph Smith was “given” the words to utter to his scribe by God.

The original text of I Nephi 12:18 reads:

“…yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God, and Jesus Christ, which is the Lamb of God…”

The problem here is that the name ‘Jesus Christ’ was not revealed to the Nephites until II Nephi 10:3

 “Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ – for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name – should come among the Jews…”

In order to correct this contradiction, the text of I Nephi 12:18 was changed to read Messiah instead of Jesus Christ.

As another more recent example, the church quietly changed the term white and delightsome from 2 Nephi 30:6 to pure and delightsome in 1981. This, despite prophetic statements such as:

“[The Indians] are fast becoming a white and delightsome people…The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.”

During the same message President Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Indian girl who was both LDS and “several shades lighter than her parents…” He went on to say:

“These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.” (Spencer W. Kimball, Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-923)

The part that is even more odd to me about these changes is that the church denies making them:

 …enemies of the Church…have made the statement that there have been one or two or more thousand changes in the Book of Mormon since the first edition was published. Well, of course, there is no truth in that statement.” (The Improvement Era, December, 1961, pg. 924)

When Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon to be the “most correct book on the earth” (History of the Church, 4:461.) he did so BEFORE these changes that affect the meaning of the book were made. Why are there changes and mistakes in something that was received in the manner Joseph Smith and others claimed it was? If the mistakes are due to human error, how can we be sure that some of the doctrine and principles contained therein aren’t also inaccurate and the mistakes of men?

Mistakes

It appears, according to witnesses that Joseph didn’t have much freedom of word choice or phraseology. Therefore, it seems this was a perfect time for God to correct the mistakes that were made in the transmission of the bible. The church has often claimed that the Bible has not been translated correctly and that the Book of Mormon restores the authentic teachings of the Bible. Many of the mistakes particular to the King James Version (KJV), however, are unchanged when they are quoted in the Book of Mormon.

The brass plates were also said to contain many of the writings of Jeremiah. Nephi also talks about Jeremiah already being thrown into prison (1 Nephi 7:14), when this did not occur until the tenth year of the reign of Zedekiah, years after Lehi’s family were said to have left Jerusalem. If the dates are merely a little off, what else is a little off in the book?

Joseph Smith made heavy use of the KJV while creating the Book of Mormon, quoting extensively from Isaiah in various places, and the New Testament in others. The Book of Mormon perpetuates many translation errors that have now been clearly shown to exist in the KJV.

This suggests that these passages were read directly from the Bible and not from any divine source. Even if Joseph Smith encountered passages in his translation from the plates that matched Bible verses and then decided to consult the Bible, why wasn’t he inspired to correct those things that were translated incorrectly in the KJV?

Some have claimed that these errors are doctrinally inconsequential, but that’s not the point. It is not about the doctrine – it is the fact that the book contains errors unique to the KJV, which suggests the Book of Mormon was written after 1611.

Archaeological Evidence

2 Nephi 5:15 “And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.”

Archaeologists have not found steel, smelted iron, or brass in the New World. With all the wars and swords used by tens of thousands of soldiers up to Moroni’s time why can’t archeologists find one sword especially near the Hill Cumorah? The process to create steel or iron objects leaves obvious residue that has eluded archaeologists in the new world. Additionally, Nephi and his brother procured the brass plates from Laban in Jerusalem but there is no record of brass existing in Egypt or Palestine until Roman times.

The Smithsonian Institute says that there was no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, goats, elephants or camels before 1492 in America. These are all mentioned in the Book of Mormon. It seems odd that we can’t find evidence of horses (or chariots for that matter) while they are mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon. If it was actually a different animal, then why didn’t Joseph Smith just give it a new name like he did with “cureloms and cumoms” in Ether 9:19?

The Book of Mormon also does not describe food that we know that ancient Americans did have – chocolate, lima beans, avocado, squash and potatoes.

For the Book of Mormon to be correct, the Americas would be the only place in the world to have a large civilization raising pigs, goats and cattle that left no evidence that they had these animals (Ether 9:18). Ancient Americans did leave us with a great deal of artwork depicting their lives and none of it depicts sheep, pigs, horses or cattle. Granted, Moroni or JS could have written “horse” when he meant “deer” or “llama” which would be possible. But JS surely knew what a deer was and, as mentioned previously, he had no problems giving us the native name for animals such as “cumoms” so why say “horses” when it wasn’t a horse?

Thomas Ferguson, archaeologist, noted defender of the Book of Mormon, and founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation at BYU stated:

“Evidence of the foregoing animals has not appeared in any form — ceramic representations, bones or skeletal remains, mural art, sculptured art or any other form. However… evidence has been found in several forms of the presence in the Book-of-Mormon times of other animals–deer, jaguars, dogs, turkeys etc. The zero score presents a problem that will not go away with the ignoring of it. Non-LDS scholars of first magnitude, some who want to be our friends, think we have real trouble here. That evidence of the ancient existence of these animals is not elusive is found in the fact that proof of their existence in the ancient old-world is abundant. The absence of such evidence…is distressing and significant, in my view.” (Tom Ferguson, Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography, 1978).

Yale scholar and renowned Mesoamerica archaeologist Michael Coe said:

“The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever turned up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of the early immigrants to our hemisphere.” (Dialogue, Summer 1973, pp.46)

Twenty years later Coe again stated:

“I have seen no archaeological evidence before or since that date which would convince me that it is anything but a fanciful creation by an unusually gifted individual living in upstate New York in the early nineteenth century.” (Larson, The Quest for the Gold Plates, pp.70)

Why have linguists been unable to link any Native American language with Hebrew or Egyptian? Languages evolve rather slowly in the scheme of things and so one would expect to find significant similarities between languages that have the same root or family up to 1600 years ago. Yet, there is little to no resemblance between languages in the Middle East and languages found among tribes in America.

Interestingly, B.H. Roberts, an LDS General Authority, brought up the language problem to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve clear back in the 1920’s (Studies of the Book of Mormon, B.H. Roberts). His concerns were just dismissed.

Using English as an example, if we go back 1100 years, we don’t find ourselves speaking another language, we find ourselves speaking the dialect of Middle English.

Even LDS apologists admit to the following:

“Latter-day Saint students of the Book of Mormon should understand that long prior to Lehi’s day, Mesoamerica was already linguistically complex. Moreover, many archaeological sites were occupied continuously, or so it appears, for thousands of years without clear evidence in the material remains of any replacement of the culture of the inhabitants. That continuity suggests, although it does not prove, that many of those people probably did not change their tongues.”

“All this means that the old supposition by some Latter-day Saints that the Hebrew tongue used by Lehi’s and Mulek’s immigrant parties became foundational for all ancient American languages is impossible.”

“When we examine the social and cultural implications of what the Book of Mormon record tells us, we discover that it cannot possibly be a “history of the American Indians.” (Before DNA, John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, pp 17-18, http://www.lds.org/newsroom/files/Sorenson_Roper_DNA.pdf )

Why is that still missing from my Sunday School manual? It’s ironic that these scholars need to contradict modern day prophets who say otherwise in order to reformulate a belief in the Book of Mormon.

Several Possible Sources

Again, no one can prove with certainty that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon. It is, however, fairly simple to dispel the common LDS myth that the Book of Mormon contained dramatically new information for the 19th century and was something Joseph Smith would have been incapable of producing on his own.

View of the Hebrews

“A View of the Hebrews” authored by Ethan Smith (incidentally, Ethan Smith was an acquaintance of Oliver Cowdery’s father) is one of the pieces of evidence that Elder B.H. Roberts found disturbing during his investigation of the Book of Mormon. This book clearly shows that many of the ideas presented in the Book of Mormon were common themes and ideas accessible to Joseph Smith at the time the Book of Mormon was being produced.

 The Spaulding Manuscript

As the story goes, a retired Congregationalist minister, Solomon Spalding (1761-1816), wrote a biblically styled novel called The Manuscript Found. The Rev. Solomon Spalding was a lapsed Calvinist clergyman, a failed businessman, and the would-be author of a pre-historic American epic story explaining the lost civilization of the “Mound Builders.” Since as early as 1833 he has been credited by some writers as being the original author of a portion of The Book of Mormon.

Spaulding’s neighbors were the first ones to recognize the similarities. Later, LDS and Non-LDS scholars have argued the Spaulding authorship theories back and forth and each has presented scant facts in the case. While there’s not a lot of reason to believe the that Joseph Smith simply used The Manuscript Found as THE source for the Book of Mormon there is ample proof that the manuscript existed and was available while Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon.

Therefore, the idea of creating an epic story to explain the heritage of the American Indians was not a novel concept at that time.

The Bible

As mentioned earlier, Joseph borrowed liberally from the Bible in creating the Book of Mormon. Approximately 25,000 words in the Book of Mormon consist of passages from the Old Testament, mainly the same chapters from Isaiah that Ethan Smith mentioned in View of the Hebrews. Another 2,000 words were taken from the New Testament. (Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, p. 58)

His Father

Joseph even appears to have plagiarized his father. For many years his mother cherished the details of several of her husband’s dreams, and one of these was incorporated wholesale into the Book of Mormon as a vision by Lehi, the father of Nephi.

Evangelical Protestantism

Joseph Smith’s nineteenth century environment provided ample substance for use in writing a religious book. Alexander Campbell observed in 1831 that the book’s author was “skilled in the controversies of New York.” Jason Whitman likewise noted in 1834 that the Book of Mormon contained “artful adaptions” of popular western New York prejudices “against fine clothing,” a paid “regular ministry,” and “the institution of Masonry.” He further reported that the book followed (1) “the camp-meeting ground” and (2) the evangelical style of preaching,” (3) “conversion,” (4) “dissent,” and (5) that the “exhortations are strongly tinctured with the doctrines of modern [Protestant] Orthodoxy.” (An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, Grant Palmer, pp 95-96)

Automatic Writing

There is a lot of precedent for relatively uneducated people suddenly being seized by some kind of “spirit” and writing down large amounts of sophisticated literature, some of it religious and others not. This is called “automatic writing” by psychologists. They can’t explain how it works, but it clearly does. Perhaps Joseph Smith was in this category of people, as was Mohamed and other popular religious figures.

A study of how Mohammed received his inspired message provides many interesting parallels to Joseph’s experience. Some are even more dramatic; he was uneducated as Joseph was and yet his religious writings are considered, even by non-Muslims, to be literary masterpieces.

Many other persons are documented to have experienced similar phenomena. Joseph’s experience fits comfortably into this genre. Automatic writing, based on things he was familiar with (such as the things noted previously) could easily combine to produce the book and would account for even most of the inaccuracies.

Does any of this prove that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself or plagiarized other material? Perhaps none of these individual pieces of information do but I think taken as a whole, they cast deep doubt into Joseph’s claims. It at least contradicts the belief that the concepts contained in the Book of Mormon and the events surrounding the discovery of the book were new, unknown to Joseph Smith or unique to his time and place.

It shows that the common Mormon claim that “there’s no way he could have written that book on his own” is untrue; for others such as Mohamed have done it. How could Tolstoy become the world’s greatest novelist, yet never have studied writing? How could Tom Paine have written Common Sense and sparked the American Revolution, when he too was an uneducated man who spent most of his time in alehouses? How could Paul McCartney write all those hits, with no formal musical education? Homer wrote epics, but according to tradition, was blind, and therefore illiterate.

The Church claims that the 23 year old Joseph Smith, who had become a “passable exhorter” in the Methodist faith, and was the family storyteller by his mother’s own account, could not have written a book like the Book of Mormon are just ludicrous especially if you read that first edition. Even B. H. Roberts, a general authority conceded this.

The creation of the book could also have started as early as 1823 when Joseph reportedly received his first visitation from Moroni giving him years, not months, to formulate story lines and concepts in his head or on paper from experiences he was having at the time.

Putting myself in the position of an honest investigator of the Book of Mormon, I’d want to know these facts before praying. I’d want to know of Joseph Smith’s prior history of claiming to “see” treasure in the local hills and having none ever turn up. I think it is relevant to know the probability of his claims being true and the truth of the events surrounding the claims. Hiding those issues is dishonest.

Other Translations

The Kinderhook plates

On April 23, 1843 a set of brass plates was discovered in an Indian mound near Kinderhook, Illinois. When presented to Joseph, he pronounced them to be authentic ancient records:

I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.” (History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 372)

Also note this source entry from the diary of William Clayton, Joseph’s private secretary and scribe:

“I have seen 6 brass plates…covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.” (William Clayton’s Journal, May 1, 1843, as cited in Trials of Discipleship – The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, p. 117)

Unfortunately for the Mormon position, it was later revealed that the plates were forgeries. On April 25, 1856, W. P. Harris, who was one of the nine witnesses to the discovery of the plates, wrote a letter in which he stated that the plates were not genuine:

“…I was present with a number at or near Kinderhook and helped to dig at the time the plates were found…[I] made an honest affidavit to the same…since that time, Bridge Whitten said to me that he cut and prepared the plates and he…and R. Wiley engraved them themselves…Wilbourn Fugit appeared to be the chief, with R. Wiley and B. Whitten.” (The Book of Mormon?, by James D. Bales, pp. 95-96)

It was all part of a trick to expose the prophet’s pretended translations. Joseph Smith fell for it

For nearly 140 years, the LDS church defended Joseph’s partial translation of the Kinderhook plates (in fact there are several pages dedicated to the story of the Kinderhook plates in the 7-volume History of the Church) but as soon as they discovered beyond any reasonable doubt that the Kinderhook plates were fake (by means of scientific testing), they tried to distance themselves from the whole situation by claiming

“…there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever concluded the plates were genuine…”(Ensign, August 1981, pp. 66-70).

Apparently a partial translation of them as recorded by Joseph’s personal secretary and witnessed by several Mormon Elders was plenty of evidence for the nearly 140 years in which the LDS church defended Joseph’s translation of the plates.

Apologists claim that Joseph was not fooled and had no intention of translating the plates. However, if he had not been murdered in June 1844, it is very possible that he would have published a complete “translation” of these bogus plates. Just a month before his death it was reported that he was

“busy in translating them. The new work…will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to The Book of Mormon…” (Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844)

A broadside published by the Mormon newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor, in June 1843, verifies the fact that Joseph was actually preparing to print a translation of the plates. On this broadside, containing facsimiles of the plates, we find the following:

“The contents of the Plates, together with a Fact-Simile of the same, will be published in the Times and Seasons, as soon as the translation is completed.”

If, as apologists have suggested, I should believe that the totally loyal William Clayton may have entered comments in his diary that were totally unrepresentative of reality, on what grounds should I believe anything he put in his diary? And by extension, why should I believe any of the stuff in the Official History of the Church which came from Clayton’s diary?

The evidence is clear that Joseph did attempt a translation of the Kinderhook plates, and proclaimed them to be authentic ancient records. The LDS church believed the plates to be authentic as their own published accounts in History of the Church prove. They later tried to wiggle out of that claim when the hoax became obvious – or in other words, when science proved otherwise. (Stanley B. Kimball, “Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax,” Ensign, Aug. 1981, 66)

Greek Psalter

Another false translation is provided by Joseph Smith’s encounter with Henry Caswell, who had in his possession a document he believed to be a Greek Psalter and that was later confirmed to be such. He presented it to JS, said he thought it was a Greek Psalter, and asked JS for his opinion. After consideration, JS pronounced it to be, without doubt, a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics. Later after verifying through other means the document to be a Greek Psalter, Caswell said the following in response to Dr. Willard Richard’s assertion that, “Sometime Mr. Smith speaks as a prophet, and sometimes as a mere man”:

“Whether he spoke as a prophet or as a mere man, he has committed himself, for he has said what is not true. If he spoke as a prophet, therefore, he is a false prophet. If he spoke as a mere man, he cannot be trusted, for he spoke positively and like an oracle respecting that of which he knew nothing.” (Grant H. Palmer, “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”, pp. 34 – 36)

And therein lies the problem with Joseph Smith for anyone who continues to accept him as a reliable source of information on the basis of which to make important life decisions. Given his history of confident declaration of inaccuracies, it is not wise to believe what he said on any topic unless it can be independently verified. Any one of these pretend translations, when viewed in isolation,  might be easy for a believer to dismiss. People were trying to trap Joseph, of course. But they succeeded, didn’t they?

And then, when you look back at the Book of Abraham evidence there really is no reasonable explanation other than Joseph Smith claimed to be able to do something that he couldn’t.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • Email
  • Tumblr
  • Google
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 5) – Book of Mormon DNA

29 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by dadsprimalscream in Belief, Book of Mormon, Mormonism, Religion

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon DNA, Native American, Simon Southerton, Thomas W. Murphy

I remember learning in elementary school the theory that the Native Americans traveled thousands of years ago across the Bearing Straight from Asia. My mother became upset at this because it obviously contradicted LDS teachings. Science has come a long way since then and it has confirmed the earlier Asian migration theories rather than bolstering the Book of Mormon’s claim. Despite claims by LDS prophets and the Book of Mormon to the contrary, science does not support the position that Native Americans are of Hebrew stock.

Instead, it clearly disproves that view.

Natives of North and South America (and Pacific Islanders) have genetic alleles that can be traced exclusively to Asia. As noted by geneticist Simon Southerton the author of Losing a Lost Tribe:

“In the last decade scientists from several research groups had tested the mitochondrial DNA of over 2000 American Indians from about a hundred tribes scattered over the length of the Americas. It soon became apparent to me that about 99% of their female lineages were brought into the Americas in excess of 12,000 years ago. Almost all of these lineages are most closely related to those of people in Asia, particularly in southern Siberia near Mongolia. Several tribes in Mesoamerica (which included Aztecs and Mayans) had been tested and all but a couple of individuals out of about 500 had mitochondrial DNA of Asian origin. The small fraction of Native American lineages that were not from Asia appeared to originate in Europe, most likely Spain. DNA studies also showed that the female ancestors of the Polynesians came from South East Asia and not the Americas. Y-chromosome studies, which trace male migrations, strongly support the mitochondrial work, except that the European influence is higher (about 10% in the Americas).

“For two weeks I wrestled with the research. I collected more and more research papers but failed to find anything that supported migration of Jewish people before Columbus. Enough is known about the DNA lineages of Jews to be very confident that they are clearly distinguishable from Asian lineages. They would also be easily identifiable if they were present in the Americas in significant numbers. I struggled with the complete discrepancy between the research and my understanding of the Book of Mormon and the doctrine of the Lamanites. The Book of Mormon describes the occurrence of Hebrew civilizations in the Americas numbering in the millions. It is clear that the victorious Lamanites would have numbered in the millions in about 400 AD. I could not understand how such large numbers of people could have escaped detection…

“Soon after I came to the realization that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, I became deeply upset. I had firmly believed that it was true. I had not been looking for evidence to prove it wrong. I had been looking for research that could be viewed as supportive. It was a shock to have my belief shattered so quickly…”(Simon Southerton, DNA genealogies of American Indians and the Book of Mormon, March 17, 2000)

Consider also this conclusion (May, 2002) by Thomas Murphy that genetic research fails to show any connection between Native Americans and Israelite DNA:

“Some Latter-day Saints have expressed optimism that DNA research would lead to a vindication of the Book of Mormon as a translation of a genuine ancient document. The hope is that DNA research would link Native Americans to ancient Israelites, buttressing LDS beliefs in a way that has not been forthcoming from archaeological, linguistic, historical, or morphological research. The results, though, have been disappointing.

So far, DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. Genetic data repeatedly point to migrations from Asia between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago as the primary source of Native American origins. DNA research has substantiated the archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological evidence that also points overwhelmingly to an Asian origin for Native Americans. While DNA evidence shows that ultimately all human populations are rather closely related, to date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and the indigenous peoples of the Americas-much less within the time frame suggested by the Book of Mormon. After considering recent research in molecular anthropology, summarized here, I have concluded that Latter-day Saints should not expect to find validation for the Book of Mormon in genetics. My assessment echoes that of geneticist and former LDS Bishop Simon Southerton whose survey of the literature on Native American DNA also “failed to find anything that supported migration of Jewish people before Columbus.” (Thomas W. Murphy, “Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics”, American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon)

I don’t think it’s necessary to prove that the church has always taught the American Indians descended from the Lamanites. The Introduction to the Book of Mormon says it, scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants confirm it (See D&C 3:16-20; 19: 26-27; 54:8), prophets from Joseph Smith onward have taught it and the vast majority of LDS members believe it.

Yet, the go to argument apologists jump to is that we don’t really know who the descendants of the Lamanites are today. Here is another situation where I was asked to completely disregard the confident statements of past prophets and rationalize away the facts. It’s interesting that before scientific facts about the historicity of the Book of Mormon became known they were pretty confident. Now, not so much.

Some LDS scientists are also now trying to say that the Lamanites only lived in one small part of America – in a limited geography – and that there’s no reason to be alarmed by the inability to find traces of Hebrew DNA in Native Americans (“Who are the Children of Lehi”, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 12, No.1 2003). That argument fails to explain the population claims made in the Book itself as well as descriptions of migrations out of the Book of Mormon lands by Nephites.

Still others who so desperately and sincerely want to maintain faith but who honestly see the writing on the wall for the Book of Mormon claim that while it may not be historical, it’s still divinely inspired. Unfortunately, a modern apostle has condemned these people:

”Some who term themselves believing LDS…are promoting the feasibility of reading and using the BOM as nothing more than a pious fiction with some valuable contents. These practitioners…raise the question of whether the BOM, which our prophets have put forward as the preeminent scripture of this dispensation, is…history or just a story. The historicity – historical authenticity – of the BOM is an issue SO FUNDAMENTAL that it rests first upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ…

Those who take this approach assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable. If an account stands as a preeminent witness of Jesus Christ, how can it possibly make no difference whether the account is fact or fable – whether the persons REALLY lived who prophesied of Christ and gave eye witnesses of His appearances to them?

But he…said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, SATAN: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savorest NOT the things that be of God…” I suggest that we do the same thing and DESERVE THE SAME REBUKE AS PETER whenever we subordinate a witness of the Spirit…to the work of scholars or the product of our own reasoning…” The Historicity of the Book of Mormon, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute

I’m not sure why it is so evil to say that a story may be valuable yet untrue. It is odd since Jesus primarily told such stories as parables during his ministry. Are we to required to believe that the Good Samaritan, the unwise servant and all the other characters in Christ’s stories were real people?

Additionally, without knowing where these Jewish/American Lamanites now live (and that they were real), a major purpose of the Book of Mormon remains unfulfilled. For, as described in the scriptures, it was meant to bring these people back to Christ (D&C 3:20). So without knowing where they are, the Book of Mormon is unable to live up to its mission. The LDS church therefore should be the MOST interested in studies that try to find traces of Israelite DNA in Native Americans if they felt it was their mission to fulfill the book’s own promises.

As a young man, I remember the bold claims of church leaders that science would eventually vindicate all LDS claims especially those in the Book of Mormon. It’s interesting to see the change in the church’s confidence and attitude coming AFTER scientific findings that clearly contradict LDS beliefs. Suddenly, proof means nothing and suddenly “search, ponder and pray” means JUST pray.

“The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western Tribes of Indians… By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt…”. From a letter written by JS to Rochester, New York, newspaper editor N. C. Saxton, January 4, 1833. (Page 297, “Personal Writings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, edited by Dean Jessee).

In an official church publication, The Times and Seasons, Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon as

“the history of ancient America . . . from ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT by a colony that came from the tower of Babel [the Jaredites]” – Times and Seasons, (March 1, 1842).

Why shouldn’t he, when that’s what the Book of Mormon says?

In the future, I predict the church will likely do the same thing they did with the Kinderhook Plates. They will try to remove themselves from claims that the American Indians are Lamanites and pretend it was never taught. They won’t have the courage to come right out and say it but it will be a gradual change and most LDS won’t even notice. But I was alive when they taught it and I’ve read Joseph Smith’s bold claims

(I wrote that last paragraph 8 years ago and I believe we’re actually seeing this happen today)

Related articles
  • Search, Ponder and Pray (Introduction)
  • Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 1) “The truth is not uplifting it destroys”
  • Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 2) – The Book of Abraham
  • Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 3) – Polygamy and Polyandry
  • Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 4) – Lying For The Lord
  • Is This Russian Landscape the Birthplace of American Indians? (news.nationalgeographic.com)

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • Email
  • Tumblr
  • Google
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

Image – More Book of Mormon Musical Stuff

29 Friday Apr 2011

Posted by dadsprimalscream in Book of Mormon Musical, LDS Mission

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon Musical, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jon Stewart, Matt Stone, Missionary Training Center, Mormon, Trey Parker

So… I can’t stop thinking about the Book of Mormon Musical (As you know, you can leave the church, but you can never quite leave it alone. Hehe).

To get a flavor of the songs, you can hear the first musical number of the play here. It’s fairly tame.  In fact it’s so tame that this particular song could be sung in the MTC (Missionary Training Center).

Or watch Jon Stewart interview the playwrights Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

Is the play good to Mormons or not?  Is it good FOR Mormonism? Is it blasphemy or respect? Is it an anti-Mormon’s wet dream?

It’s human nature to care about what others think of you. On one level you want your image to be accurate.  On another level you don’t; you actually hope you are perceived better than what is actually true.

This is true in every sort of relationship.  Early on you put you best image forward only to relax in stages once you are accepted and appreciated at every level of the learning process. Organizations and religions are no different.  That the Mormon church prefers to portray itself in the best possible light is no crime. Mormons like to answer the dilemma of the glossy outer image contrasted with the messy truth with “Milk before meat!”

What I found hard to swallow in my own Mormon experience was that the meat was never, ever provided.  It had to be hunted down. But Mormon meat hunting is highly discouraged.  Once found, the meat is then denied, called superfluous and irrelevant.  In my opinion, one shouldn’t have to go looking beyond lesson manuals, General Conference talks and scriptures to find the truth.  But explore more you must.

Part of the milk that the Mormon young feed upon is the self-congratulatory idea that Mormons are highly admired and envied for their unwavering faith and dogged compliance to the rules and behavior of Mormonism.

Growing up, I heard countless faith-promoting stories that emphasized this. As the stories go, there is always a faithful Mormon out in the world who encounters temptations or a unique challenge. After much prayer, scripture reading and obedience the stock Mormon path is followed.   This might mean drinking milk at a cocktail party, getting temple married when no family can attend, refusing party invitations on Sunday, not playing with their sport team on Sunday, rejecting a date before the age of 16, refusing a marriage proposal by a non-Mormon, etc…

The end result is that the others “in the world” admire the Mormon for such strong faith and “sticking to what they believe in.” Mormons tell themselves this story regarding how others perceive them over and over again in a variety of ways.

I found reality to be quite different. The truth is that people are polite by nature. I certainly don’t tell my born-again Christian neighbors that I think they’re nuts. If they do something odd I might even say, “Good for you for doing what you say you believe in.” But in the end, I do think they’re nuts.

Here’s how it went down for me. Once I disclosed my doubts or post-Mormon status I invariably encountered a reaction along the lines of, “Congratulations!  Welcome to the real world!” I ran into colleagues at work who I’d had no clue were ex-Mormons.  Others told me stories of their bizarre encounters with Mormons.  In the end there seemed to be this collective exhale of breathe from many around me.  Like they didn’t have to hold in their true feelings of Mormonism anymore. And beyond that, most other people don’t think about Mormonism at all.  I just found a lot of apathy.

So, rather than be concerned regarding the tone or image that the Book of Mormon musical offers Mormons, I think they should be pleased that they are a topic of discussion at all.  When I was a freshman at NYU in the early 80’s not one of my classmates knew anything at all about Mormonism.  NOTHING. It wasn’t a blip on their radar at all. I had known there were folks in communist countries who hadn’t heard of the gospel, but these were my fellow Americans!

And I am not from Utah.

Having grown up in Southern CA I knew a bit about “the world” but everyone on my radar screen at least knew ABOUT Mormons. Not so, with my East Coast classmates. And how little they cared was an eye-opener too. It’s strange that I had that experience, and having lived in Brazil, Japan and other large US cities and still it wasn’t until I left the Mormon church myself that I realized the full extent of other side of the story.  Most people really just don’t ever think of or about Mormonism.  It’s lumped together with other odd American religions such as Scientology and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

So, I say Mormons should be celebrating the attention.  There’s no such thing as bad publicity, right?

Suggestions for Family Home Evening

Family Project 1:  Attend the Book of Mormon musical on Broadway as a family.  Pay close attention to the laughter.  What does that tell you about what the audience members think about Mormons? What are they laughing at?  Is it because they don’t understand or is it because they DO understand a bit too well? Can you laugh at yourself?

Family Project 2: Plan an experiment for the following week!  Each family member will pretend to be doubting or losing faith in Mormonism.  Select one or two non-Mormon acquaintances each for whom you will act out your role. Your target has to be someone you know well enough to join you in this conversation, but not someone who knows you well enough to know you must just be pretending.

What do they say about Mormonism when they feel safe to express their true feelings?

To make this work you must not even hint that you aren’t sincerely doubting Mormonism. So, come up with a valid reason or two.

Hint: Pretending to be offended, wanting to “sin” or just being lazy won’t fly in the real world.  Only active Mormons believe that those are reasons real people leave.  No, you have to establish a fake identity.  Study up on the Book of Abraham, Kinderhook Plates, Polyandry, Book of Mormon DNA, or read the Journal of Discourses to prepare with a sincere heart.

Tell your target non-Mormon that you are thinking of leaving the church and why.  Wait for their reaction….

Remember you’re not lying.  You are just playing a role, like any actor on TV or in a movie. Follow the George Constanza method of pretending, “It’s not a lie if you really believe it.” So go do your homework, get out there and live your role for just one week!

Return and report.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • Email
  • Tumblr
  • Google
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

Taking Things Out of Context

26 Sunday Sep 2010

Posted by dadsprimalscream in Belief, Critical Thinking Skills, Honesty, Mormonism, Religion

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Belief, Book of Mormon, Carl Sagan, Christianity, Critical thinking

This one needs a bit of background.  Not one believer in my family has ever spoken to me personally regarding my transition of belief to non belief.  On one level, that’s fine.  Perhaps they are fearful of confronting their own doubts or perhaps they’re afraid of introducing conflict into rare family social occasions.  But I think their lack of doing so should prevent them from then commenting on what I believe or on what my motivations were for leaving my former faith.

In one particular case, a believing brother and I have mutually agreed to not discuss each other’s beliefs with each other.  I’ll call that brother “Ich”.  He just violated that agreement in my opinion by commenting on a fellow non believing brother’s public blog on Christianity.  I’ll call that non believing brother “Wiz”.  My choice of pseudonyms is more satirical than anything.  See, those are their real nicknames. In “Ich’s” comment, in an insincere attempt to mask my identity, he refers to me by my real nickname.  A good rule of thumb:

1.  If you are sincerely trying to hide someone’s identity, you don’t use their real nickname as a pseudonym.

Since “Ich” chose to break our agreement by identifying me and referencing beliefs of mine in a public forum, I assume I’m able to clarify some points:

Years ago while I was still an active, believing Mormon I wrote some personal notes and collection of random historical and doctrinal facts that were troubling me at that time. It was a way for me to organize my thoughts.  This was a personal journal, not something I intended to share with anyone.  At some point my wife asked to read it.  Later my Dad and my brother, both non believers at the time, asked to read it. Just recently a niece asked me to e-mail it to her and I did with the same agreement. I gave it to them with the instructions that it was to be kept personal.  Apparently it has made the rounds with the family because “Ich” referenced it in his self-righteous slur on “Wiz’s” blog.

The irony is that “Ich’s” accusations of “Wiz” were that he and I were guilty of taking evidence regarding our religious beliefs  out of context.  Yet “Ich’s” entire reading of my document is completely out of context.

He called it a “manifesto” but it could hardly be considered a manifesto if its intention  were to keep it private.  I’ve only shared it with 4 people that I know of.  Each time at their bidding, not mine.  Each of those people assured me they would keep it to themselves and that they already agreed with me on many issues anyway so I wasn’t preaching disbelief to anyone. If “Ich” got his hands on it, then he did so dishonestly and therefore his eyes even seeing it is out of context from the start.

Assuming that the document is a “manifesto” for my leaving the faith is also out of context.  For one, I stayed in the LDS church for at least 18 months after writing it.  My conclusion at that time was to stay.  It’s therefore out of context to assume that that document in any way references any of my reasons for actually leaving the LDS faith 2 years later.

One thing believers like to do is throw out accusations of lies and “out of context” references with out ever actually providing specifics.  My brother “Ich” does this in his blog comment to me.  Since he has read and chose to reference  my document, it’s dishonest  of him to make claims of “key fact oversights” and sources which actually “disprove my claims” without specific references.  What exactly are they?

It’s also arrogant and self-righteous for a believer to assume he knows of my motivations for studying beyond the approved church manuals.  Again, people should be specific when throwing around accusations.  He claims I “wasn’t trying to disprove anything, [I] was trying to justify [my] behavior”  What “behavior” could he be speaking about?   At that time I was a worthy temple recommend holder. Being a true believer at the time, I was hardly “just reading books and seeing movies supporting [my] own bitter view of things”  My view was the church’s view and I just couldn’t imagine that I’d encounter anything I hadn’t heard before…or anything questionable to me.  He took the entire time frame of that document out of context.

Since we are apparently making the same lazy generalities and assumptions always leveled by believers against non-believers, I’ll be just as lazy as him and  say, “Back at ya”.  I don’t believe he’s really studied from independent and peer reviewed sources like he says he has.  He has merely  “just read books and seen movies supporting [his] own [naive] view of things”.   I spent 38 years of my life pouring over sources favorable to his point of view and found them to be “bold faced liars” and I’d be happy to provide  specific references of such.

I’d love to see specific sources any believer claims to have studied, but I have to say I only find sources with independent verification of the facts reliable.  In other words, a bunch of FARMS guys paid by the LDS church hovering over a plausible translation of “NHM” on a rock somewhere in Yemen does not a fact make.  What do real archeologists and real linguists say?  Or even real theologians? What do the full body of facts point to?

There’s a small yet significant difference between asking yourself, “Can I believe this?” and “Is this believable?”

The answer to the first one will always be “yes!” because it takes very little to convince the human mind of pretty much anything it wants to believe.  If you want to believe in the Bible and the Book of Mormon then the standard for giving yourself permission to do that is very low. It will almost always come down to a feeling. Feelings are easily manipulated and have been proven to be unreliable sources for the truth.

The second question starts off at square one with zero assumptions and without off-limit sources.  Each source can be analyzed and given proper weight.  The sum total of all the facts helps you decide if it believable or not.  When I did that, for example, I couldn’t find anything that put the Book of Mormon at anything better than highly improbable.

Can you believe it?  Absolutely.

Part of Image:Planetary society.jpg Original c...

Image via Wikipedia

Is it believable?  Hardly.

Another huge difference between me and a believer:  I don’t think I’m right with a full stop.  I’m open to changing my opinions and beliefs if anyone wants to provide some reliable evidence, but as Carl Sagan liked to say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • Email
  • Tumblr
  • Google
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

Awards

Recent Comments

Scientology-Lite | D… on Cult is as Cult Does (10 Frien…
mcpersonalspace54 on A Lil Bit O’ Coming Out…
dadsprimalscream on Divorce Guilt
Scott on Divorce Guilt
Scott on Divorce Guilt

Translate

Top Posts & Pages

  • LDS Physician - Masturbation
  • You Could Have Known I Was Gay Because...
  • Falling Out of Love
  • Porn for Mormons
  • Book of Mormon on Broadway - a Non Mormon Study Guide
  • My Neurosis... or Psychosis?
  • The Homo Bro Code
  • Counterfeit Marriage
  • Cancellation of Sealing

Links

  • Gay Dads
  • Reddit/exmormon
  • The Official LDS Site
  • MoHo Directory
  • Cumorah.com
  • Recovery From Mormonism
  • Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
  • It Get's Better
  • I am an Ex Mormon
  • Your Brain On Porn
  • The Skeptic Society
  • Born This Way
  • BYU Professor Discusses Homosexuality
  • Family Acceptance Project
  • More Men Like Me
  • Mormon Expression
  • What Do We Know of God’s Will For His LGBT Children? An Examination of the LDS Church’s Position on Homosexuality
  • Historical Essays on Mormonism and Homosexuality
  • Mormon Stories
  • Mormon Resignation
  • Timeline of Mormon Thinking about Homosexuality
  • The Gay Dad Project
  • Mr Deity

Other Blogs

  • Out of Obscurity
  • Dads Not Daddies
  • Gay Dads
  • My In-laws are Mormon
  • Gay Mormon Stories
  • No More Strangers
  • The Accidental Atheist
  • Single Dad Laughing
  • Gay Mormon Southpaw
  • Talk about Equality
  • LDS Main Street

Tags

Apostasy Atheism Belief Belonging Bible Book of Mormon Book of Mormon Musical Books Brazil Broadway theatre California Proposition 8 (2008) Child Custody Christianity Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Coming Out Confession Critical thinking Critical Thinking Skills Divorce Education Exiting Mormonism Family Fatherhood Friendship Gay gaydar Gay Lesbian and Bisexual God Guilt Happiness Homosexuality Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Honesty Humor Interpersonal relationship Japan Joseph Smith Laughter LDS Church LDS Mission LGBT Loneliness Love Marriage Masturbation Missionary Missionary Training Center Mormon Mormon Culture Mormonism Motherhood Movies Music New York City North Star Parenting politics Pornography Reality Reality television Relationships Religion Religion and Spirituality Repentance Respect same sex marriage search ponder pray Sexual abuse Sexuality Shame smile Television Thought Control Utah womanhood

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.com

Cancel
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: