Search, Ponder and Pray – Conclusion

Tags

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

After having dedicated so much of my life to it, a hard pill to swallow for me was the fact that the church really isn’t anything unique or special in the big picture. As I’ve read and studied, I’ve learned that hundreds of organizations, religious and otherwise have been founded and promulgated based on the very same techniques that the Joseph Smith used and that the LDS church continues to use. It’s pretty much a textbook example of a religious leader gaining a following, the growth and development of a movement and its continued successes and failures.

Thousands of years ago, Plato described “Philosopher Kings” who control their followers by encouraging blind faith. They are the wise few who tell the people only what they think will do them some good. Isn’t that exactly what Boyd K. Packer articulated in his speech?

“What good fortune for governments (and religions) that people do not think”

While the LDS church claims on one hand to encourage scholarship and intellectual study, in practice it is another thing entirely.  They really say…

“Seek the truth. But remember that truth is whatever the church leaders say it is. Trust them. Obey them. Do not question them.”

President David O. McKay taught that this is ungodly:

“Ours is the responsibility … to proclaim the truth that each individual is a child of God and important in his sight; that he is entitled to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly; that he has the right to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. In this positive declaration, we imply that organizations or churches which deprive the individual of these inherent rights are not in harmony with God’s will nor with his revealed word.” (General Conference, April 1954)

The church, however, follows the same pattern described by many writers throughout human history as someone such as Mohammed, Buddha, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones and many, many more set themselves up as gurus. What follows is a pattern of strict obedience, blind faith based on emotional rather than rational experience. More often than not, that leader is a charismatic individual who develops a belief system, establishes oaths of secrecy and controls the beliefs of others. He sets up a theocracy. He falls under the spell of his newfound power and often misuses this power sexually with one or more of his followers. Then, power becomes the issue instead of truth.

Mormonism has left many good names destroyed in its wake. For example, since polygamy was illegal in Illinois, and directly contradicted LDS policy, those who accepted Smith’s secret, illegal, immoral practice (such as Young and Kimball) were of an immoral or criminal bent.  But today Mormons ironically view William Law, William Marks, and others (the honest, moral men who opposed polygamy) as “sinners” and “mobocrats.” At least that’s how I was told to teach it in Seminary. And because Law opposed Smith’s illegal, immoral, secret, contradictory polygamy practice, Smith assassinated his character and excommunicated him in absentia; but Law, the honest man in the case, has become the “bad guy.” Others who left the church (such as Thomas Marsh, Joseph Wakefield, Simonds Ryder, Emma Smith, the three witnesses, etc) have had their character attacked in Sunday School and Seminary lessons for hundreds of years.

Innocent people, whose only crime was that they wanted to follow God, were shot at Haun’s Mill, spent their lives in sorrow and loneliness as plural wives, went bankrupt in Joseph’s Kirtland fiascos, and had their wives taken from them by Joseph so he could “marry” them. Financially strapped young couples are today giving ten per cent of their gross income right now because they want to obey their religion. Others neglect their families, refuse scholarships and delay personal relationships to devote time to callings or missions that they believe are from God.

If the church were held up to the same mediocre standards that public corporations are held too, what it does would be in violation of the law. A well-known rule of fair dealing with regard to securities basically says that if you misrepresent OR OMIT any material fact that would sway a decision maker who is contracting with you, you have violated the law.

So, if the church extracts:

• A promise of secrecy
• A promise that you will pay them of 10% of your gross
• A promise that your will devote all your time and talents for the rest of your life
• THEN, as a legally organized corporation that extracts these promises from you, should they not be legally bound to provide full disclosure to you regarding their claims to authority?

I think so.

In fact, I think the church should be held to a higher standard rather than a lower one given its claim to moral authority.

There is NO WAY, as a 19 year old drama student at New York University, that I would have sacrificed a scholarship and two years of my life to proselyte in South America had I known that the church had omitted to tell me that Joseph Smith in his 30’s had married 14-year olds, that he had married other men’s wives, that the Book of Mormon fails to describe any pre-Columbian civilization, that the Book of Abraham and Kinderhook plates provide strong evidence for Joseph’s preference for pretended translations, that there are several conflicting versions of significant events such as the First Vision, priesthood authority, and the “translation” of the Book of Mormon!

In fact I should have been told all of this before the age of 8 when they asked me to make that lifelong commitment. Investigators should be told both sides of the story before they get baptized.

The church is an amazing success story when it comes to image marketing and it’s a great social organization for those who find a place in it. I think it has done the greatest job at marketing itself for something it really isn’t. Upon closer inspection, I’ve come to believe the church’s primary interest is in maintaining authority and control rather than the welfare of my family or me. The needs of the organization far outweigh the needs of the individual and as Elder James Faust himself said, you have to swallow “all of it.”

There’s no place for “cafeteria Mormons” who have a difficult time with Mormonism’s cafeteria historians.

I’ve found that the “good stuff” of the church is just as available and abundant other places without the arrogance of being the only ones who are right. I don’t have to believe in “follow the prophet” to be a good father. I don’t have to participate in temple ceremonies to be a good neighbor and love my fellow man. I don’t have to be assigned to people in order to serve others.

The Church is preoccupied with exteriorities. It prizes righteousness over holiness, image over inspiration. The Church is an increasingly judgmental, puritanical, and authoritarian corporate entity. Mormonism, is no longer a mystery. It is a machine.

One of the main selling points of Mormonism is having “all the answers”. It’s the Cliff Claven of religions. But history tells us that this sort of belief system is not only unhealthy, it is dangerous.

If we’re absolutely sure that our beliefs are right, and those of others are wrong; that we are motivated by good, and others by evil; that the King of the Universe speaks to us, and not to adherents of very different faiths; that it is wicked to challenge conventional doctrines or to ask searching questions; that our main job is to believe and obey – then the witch mania will recur in its infinite variations down to the time of the last man. (Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World, Page 413)

The only thing I’m certain of is that Mormonism’s answers are essentially meaningless to me. I see no point in basing my life on illusions. Having the “answers” never made my life any better and I don’t believe it will make my children’s lives any better. I’m starting to think the only reason I ever cared at all was because “the church” told me to. I was never allowed to ask the questions in the first place.

Perhaps the church is useful for some or at some level of spiritual development just as the myth of Santa Claus is useful and pleasurable to children at a young age. But can we expect our children to behave as if they still believe in Santa once they uncover the truth? Is that desirable or even healthy? Is it healthy to expect them to never figure it out or to never question? Can God anticipate any less for His children to grow and develop?

Right now I believe I will never have all the answers. No religion or philosophy is capable of answering all the questions I might have. Yet recognizing that I will never have all the answers is no reason to stop looking for them. There’s joy in the hunt.

The most important questions to me are:

• Did I love?
• Did I help others with the talents, gifts and blessing I was born with and was fortunate enough to develop?
• Is the world a better place for my having lived here?
• What will benefit my family most in the long run?

While most of what I’ve mentioned is exposing the underbelly of the church, I don’t discount that there are benefits and good things to be harvested from my years of participation in the church. There are mostly good people in the church who sincerely believe and are committed to their belief, as I was. Nothing I’ve said discounts their personal spiritual experiences in any way. I just don’t agree with their interpretation of those experiences.

Still, knowing what I know, I find it morally difficult to be a party to the deceit and cover-up that has characterized “faithful” church history and doctrine. Even by the church’s own teachings, that is how the adversary operates. I think the benefits and good things pale in comparison to the truth once you discover the man behind the curtain.

It is the nature of most people to decide the truth of all things at a very young age. That was certainly true in my case. From then on life became a struggle to support and strengthen those “truths.” We preserve this view at all cost. We exaggerate supporting evidence; we belittle, discount and ignore detracting evidence. It is painful to shift a paradigm. It causes personal discomfort, even suffering to redraw the map that guides our lives. It is even harder to disappoint those we love should they choose to not go with us on that journey of personal and painful growth.

It is a shattering and devastating event to alter core beliefs. Mormonism was not just a way of life, but a set of core defining values taught to me from my earliest memories. I have fought for those beliefs, sacrificed greatly of my time, talents and money. I’ve put my family second as I devoted my all to the building up of Zion. I’ve followed leaders with all of my conviction, to find out they don’t really speak for deity, in fact they lie in the name of Jesus Christ.

I choose to actually live the 11th article of faith:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

While this is a fundamental teaching of the church, most Mormons would see it as applying only to worshippers of other faiths. When one of their own feels that the church has defrauded them, they are coerced into compliance in various ways. This is especially ironic in light of recent remarks made by Elder Russell M. Nelson:

“Each religion should be free to propagate itself among present and future generations, so long as it does not use coercive or fraudulent means. Its practices should not interfere with the peace of society. Each religion has a right to present its message in an orderly way to all who are interested. How can we have freedom of religion if we are not free to compare honestly, to choose wisely, and to worship according to the dictates of our own conscience? While searching for the truth, we must be free to change our mind—even to change our religion—in response to new information and inspiration. Freedom to change one’s religion has been emphasized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. One’s religion is not imposed by others. It is not predetermined. It is a very personal and sacred choice, nestled at the very core of human dignity.” (Freedom to Do and to Be, Russell M. Nelson, International Scientific and Practical Conference “Religious Freedom: Transition and Globalization”, Kiev, Ukraine, Thursday, 27 May 2004) http://www.lds.org/newsroom/voice/display/0,18255,5004-1-121,00.html

The LDS church is dead in my heart. I’m exhausted with it and desire to become more connected with humanity than the LDS church allows. My family will deride and ridicule me and not recognize my leaving as my “personal and sacred” choice. I know none who will have the courage to search, ponder or pray about these things themselves.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.  We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.  The bamboozle has captured us.  It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.  Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.  So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new ones arise. (Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World, page 240)

Rare is the person who will look this monster in the face and say, “I will change my life, my paradigm, my life map. I’ll admit I was wrong all those years and I’ll face the consequences of those that will scorn and ridicule me”. I hope for the courage to become that sort of person.

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

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

Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 9) – Apostasy

Tags

Apostasy, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDS, Mormon doctrine, Mormonism, search ponder pray

In order for there to be a need for Joseph Smith, the church’s doctrine of the apostasy has to be true. Otherwise, there’s no need for a restoration. I was instructed to teach about the apostasy on my mission. It was the lead-in for the discussion of Joseph Smith.

If the apostasy were a true concept defining the 1,800 years prior to Joseph Smith, then none of the characteristics of the apostasy would be present in the restored church. I think it’s only fitting to examine the church based upon its own reason for existing. A typical human problem is that we often assume that our position is correct in such a way that we do not apply the same standards of reasoning to it as we do to things that challenge it.

The apostasy was characterized by a loss of “priesthood authority,” the teaching of “false doctrine” and “changing of the essential ordinances and scriptures.”

“The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost. While many good people and some truth remained, the original Church was lost.” (http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,844-1,00.html)

Shouldn’t we examine the church with the same critical eye that we use to examine the original church? If it is true, it will pass the test.

“The gospel as the Mormons know it sprang full grown from the words of Joseph Smith. It has never been worked over or touched up in any way, and is free of revisions and alterations” (Hugh Nibley, No Ma’am, That’s Not History)

Ordinances changed

The LDS church has changed many ordinances over the course of its history. For example:

The Sacrament

Christ himself instituted the sacrament to symbolize his gift to us. Wine represented his blood and was apparently very symbolic of the olivepress, or the Garden of Gethsemane where he would suffer. Just any liquid does not carry the same symbolism. The process of winemaking was clearly a symbolic reason Christ chose wine. Water, while still a liquid, loses this symbolism when used in the Lord’s Supper. Of course, LDS prophets can change ordinances by revelation. So how do we know the leaders of the ancient church couldn’t have received the same revelation to change the ordinance of baptism to sprinkling? Both were changed for apparently the same reason: fear and self-protection (Joseph Smith switched to water when he feared wine used in the Sacrament would be poisoned. In about 250 A.D a man named Novation, was baptized on his deathbed. He had never been immersed. His friends laid around him many bed sheets and poured water all over him, trying to immerse him in his bed. He was afraid that immersing in the water would cause his death. This type of baptism was later allowed in such cases of necessity and later became common practice).

The D&C 20:76-79 also instructs us how to perform the Sacrament. It says that the congregation kneels and the prayer is recited. I once asked my mission president why we don’t kneel like the modern scriptures tell us to. I was essentially told to stop asking silly questions – we do it the way the brethren tell us to. Why can the modern brethren change things but the ancient brethren supposedly lost their authority for doing so?

The Temple

When Joseph Smith restored the temple ceremony, it was taught that it was the same ceremony that was performed anciently and he merely restored it. Here’s a quote from the LDS Ensign Magazine (From Page 22 of the August 2001 Ensign):

“The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.””

That ceremony, however, has been changed significantly since its inception in the 1800’s. I witnessed one of those changes myself in 1990. No matter what anyone says, when I went through the temple in 1984 it was a different ceremony than it is now. Parts that were explained to me in 1984 as essential were removed. The washing and anointing ordinance was further changed in 2005 so that the naked touching was removed and patrons are now only “symbolically” anointed on the head. Isn’t that what happened in the apostasy? I understand the ability of the current prophet to receive revelation but why can he change saving ordinances as circumstances warrant when leaders of the ancient church are assailed for doing the same thing?

I think Mormons will say that there is continuing revelation and we receive truth “line upon line,” but the paradox is that leaders of the ancient church were also receiving knowledge line upon line. Why aren’t they afforded the same leeway as the LDS General Authorities? If Joseph Smith received the temple ceremony from God, why couldn’t God get it right the first time?

The changes are all probably good, but doesn’t any reason for the change reek of the church’s own doctrine of apostasy?

“We explained briefly the Apostasy and the Restoration: that there is vast evidence and history of an apostasy from the doctrine taught by Jesus and his Apostles, that the organization of the original Church became corrupted, and sacred ordinances were changed to suit the convenience of men…” – Apostle David B. Haight, “Joseph Smith the Prophet,” Ensign, Nov. 1979, 22

“As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering.” – W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982

“Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations…. He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.” – The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208

False Doctrine

The church claims essential doctrine was changed during the apostasy. A lot of the early doctrine of the LDS church has changed too.

Original Sin

Infant baptism is the most common type of sprinkling and is condemned in the book of Mormon. The error in baptizing infants is that it follows the doctrine of “original sin.” This doctrine holds children of Adam accountable for his original sin thereby rejecting the concept that Christ died for all our sins.

If that is such an evil concept, why then were people of African descent denied their saving ordinances in the LDS temple based solely on the supposed sins of their forefathers? Wasn’t Christ’s sacrifice powerful enough for them? It seems just as blasphemous as the concept of original sin. Wouldn’t the LDS denial of saving ordinances to Negroes for over 140 years be as much an affront to Christ’s saving grace as the assumption by Catholics that infants need baptism?

The church apparently flip-flopped on this doctrine twice. Joseph Smith is reported to have given the priesthood to a black man, but under Brigham Young’s leadership this was changed. Blacks were then allowed the priesthood once again in 1978 under Spencer W. Kimball.

Why didn’t LDS leaders lose their priesthood over the false policy of racism that permeated the church for generations? The following quotes are just a few examples:

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 10:110)

“Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them… Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned…” Bruce R. McConkie (Mormon Doctrine, p. 343)

“I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing – what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

“Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa–if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.” (Apostle Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems – As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)

Money

Part of the apostasy included the selling of “indulgences” to believers. In its most corrupt form, “indulgences” meant that people had to pay money in order to receive ordinances or to receive remission from their sins. This was one of Martin Luther’s points of contentions when he started his opposition and reformation of the church. Is it wrong to demand money before saving ordinances are performed? Why then is it OK for the church to require a full payment of tithes before a person can receive their saving ordinances in the temple? I know tithing is seen as a commandment of God. So why was it so bad for the ancient church to require obedience to the commandments (collect tithes in the form of indulgences) before they allowed saving ordinances to be performed? It seems to me that the LDS church is doing the same thing. I was shocked to discover that a full payment of tithes hasn’t always been a requirement for a temple recommend. In other words, Joseph Smith didn’t restore it. Why doesn’t this teaching propel the church into apostasy?

Money is also uniquely secret in the LDS faith. While most other faiths and other non-profit organizations publish their financial statements, the LDS church fails to live up to it’s fiduciary responsibility and reveal to followers what their money is being spent on. There is no reason this shouldn’t be done in the form of public financial statements as it is done in other religions and as it was done in the church’s past.

Adam-God Doctrine

Brigham Young clearly and repeatedly taught that Adam is our God. He claimed that Adam is the father of our spirits as well as the father of Jesus Christ.

In a discourse delivered April 9, 1852, Brigham Young stated:

I have told you the truth as far as I have gone…. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp. 50-51)

Heber C. Kimball, first counselor to Brigham Young, declared that:

“There is but one God that pertains to this people, and he is the God that pertains to this earth–the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world…” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 1)

Yet these statements can’t be dismissed as Brigham Young (and others) speaking as a man and not a prophet. Brigham Young pronounced:

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent It out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

In an interview with The New Yorker on January 21, 2002 President Gordon B. Hinckley had this to say about Brigham’s doctrine:

“But Hinckley did not seem interested in discussing matters of theology. When I asked him to characterize God’s connubial relationship, he replied, “We don’t speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don’t know what he meant by that.” Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was called, he said, “There he is, right there. I’m not going to worry about what he said about those things.” (Lawrence Wright, The New Yorker, January 21, 2002)

Why didn’t this clearly false doctrine propel the church into apostasy? We clearly don’t hold our own leaders as accountable for their teachings as we do others’. Why can’t Catholics point to their past and say “I’m not going to worry about that?” Mormons instead believe that the very fact that those false doctrines were once taught means that those leaders lost their priesthood authority and direct line to God.

Blood Atonement

Joseph taught the doctrine of blood atonement, as indicated by Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. (10th prophet):

“But man may commit certain grievous sins — according to his light and knowledge — that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone — so far as in his power lies — for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

This is the doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it.” (McConkie, Bruce R., ed. Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pp. 133 – 135, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1955)

Brigham Young clearly explained the doctrine of blood atonement in a sermon given on September 21, 1856:

“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins.

“I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them…
“I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54); also published in Deseret News, 1856, p. 235)

In a public discourse President Young acknowledged that the church had use for some very mean devils who resided in early Utah:

“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; under such circumstances. I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247)

In his book, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Dr. Quinn presented compelling evidence showing that “blood atonement” was endorsed by church leaders and actually practiced by the Mormon people. Quinn gave the names of a number of violent men who served as “enforcers” for Brigham Young. In addition Quinn wrote:

“During this period Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders also repeatedly preached about specific sins for which it was necessary to shed the blood of men and women. Blood-atonement sins included adultery, apostasy, ‘covenant breaking,’ counterfeiting, ‘many men who left this Church,’ murder, not being ‘heartily on the Lord’s side,’ profaning ‘the name of the Lord,’ sexual intercourse between a ‘white’ person and an African-American, stealing, and telling lies…

“When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed ‘if they were far away from the Gentiles.'”(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 246-247)

Whether these things actually happened or not is irrelevant. We can clearly see that these were teachings of the leaders of the church. So, if individual members actually “followed the prophet,” the church bears some responsibility for that.

The fact that the current prophets have tried to distance themselves from these teachings is further evidence that they are false doctrine. Doesn’t teaching false doctrine make one a false prophet?

Clearly Mormonism has a good long history of teaching false doctrine and changing ordinances, which are the hallmarks of an apostate religion by its own definition.

Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 8) – Spiritual Witness

Tags

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God, Religion and Spirituality, search ponder pray

Back when I was a teacher in the MTC, I remember the MTC President, Ed J. Pinegar, telling the missionaries several times that they had to divulge what was going on with their fellow missionaries so that their leaders could receive inspiration to help them. He coined the phrase “there’s no inspiration without information.”

I think the LDS counsel on how to gain a testimony and the admonition in Moroni 10:4 need to be coupled with this wise advice. We need to consider all the information before we can ever hope to receive inspiration. In other words, the searching and pondering need to come before the praying.

While I fully admit that I previously held strong positive feelings and beliefs with regard to the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, I now feel that that “inspiration” was based on partial and misleading information. This is information that is purposefully kept from the public by those who have the most to gain by hiding it – the leaders of the church. Dallin H. Oaks said at a conference for church educators,

“Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of the official church literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature. Neither has any responsibility to present both sides.” (Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy; Extensions of Power, in appendix five)

I think it’s clear that the Mormon Church’s mission is not to uphold the truth. As mentioned, both sides publish propaganda so shouldn’t it be left to the individual to search both sides of an argument in order to search, ponder and pray? The testimony gained from false information is a false testimony.

Nevertheless, regardless of what the church has tried to hide, I am still left with the impressions and personal feelings regarding the church that led me to be a faithful believer for 38 – 39 years. What should I do with those? The church tells me that they are a personal witness from God that the Church is true. If that is the case, then I think it’s only fair to examine what that means.

First, if my feelings are a valid indicator of the truth, then others in different belief systems would not have the same feelings that I have had. They have to be exclusive to members of the LDS church or they at least have to be more powerful than the feelings that followers of other faiths have. Second, if these feelings testify of truth, they would not be present when something is untrue or false.

I read a book entitled “The Varieties of Religious Experience” by William James, which does a convincing job of describing religious experiences, and the phenomena that have fostered the hundreds of religions we have on the earth today. I don’t know why I found it so surprising but there are hoards of people who describe religious experiences in the same way the LDS do…”a still small voice,” “a burning in the bosom,” ”peace, love and forgiveness.”

In talking with others, I find it fairly easy to conclude that the witness of the spirit is not an exclusively LDS phenomenon nor is it any less powerful in other faiths. If it testifies of the truth, then the truth is far more expansive than LDS doctrine would allow.

Conversations with believers of other faiths lead me to the same conclusion. Either God gives this feeling and witness to many more people than the LDS church would have me believe or all those people really don’t feel what they say they do. Isn’t that an arrogant assumption? My ward gospel doctrine teacher once asked the class if it was arrogant to claim a witness greater than the one claimed by others. Of course, the overwhelming response was “definitely not!”

I wanted to respond to the contrary but it’s not an atmosphere where honest inquiry and questioning could take place. I would have just been labeled as a troublemaker. In any case, it IS arrogant to believe that your feelings are more powerful or more significant than the same feelings that are described by billions of other children of God on this earth. There’s absolutely no foundation to claim otherwise.

The difference is how those feelings are interpreted. The LDS church taught me that they are evidence of truth. I believed it. I don’t believe it any longer. I don’t think it diminishes my or anyone’s spiritual experience to admit that others have these feelings too and they are special and wonderful – part of being human, but that they don’t mean something is true. Galatians 5:22-23 describes the significance and meaning of the spirit as:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”

I think a child probably feels the spirit of joy and love greatest around Christmas time with stories and anticipation of Santa Clause. Yet, those feelings in no way indicate the truthfulness of a man in a red suit.

I once brought a close non-member friend of mine to a fireside in the downtown San Diego Convention Center. The big draw was Paul H. Dunn, a well-known LDS General Authority. I felt the spirit as he talked of his war experiences and professional baseball career and I think my friend did as well. Years later it was revealed that Elder Dunn lied profusely during his entire career as a speaker and well-known LDS leader. How could I have felt the spirit when the stories he told were lies?

I think the standard LDS answer would be that the spirit was witnessing the truth of the principles he taught rather than the truth of each individual story. If I buy that explanation, I would also be able to say that the spirit witnesses at Christmastime that love, giving and generosity are of God. Doesn’t that then allow me to further say that the witness of the spirit that I feel when reading the Book of Mormon testifies that some of the principles taught within are good and not necessarily that the book itself it true?

I recall a personal event that gives me deep insight into the workings of the Spirit…

I was a “zone coordinator” and teacher at the MTC in the late 80’s. As zone coordinators, we basically managed 15-25 teachers and we were automatically the second counselor in an MTC Branch.

One time, at a zone coordinator’s meeting, we were asked to practice giving the new first discussion. We all sat in a circle and our director would point to one of us whereupon that person would begin reciting the discussion until the director pointed to someone else. Everyone but me spoke the same language, Spanish. My target language, Portuguese is similar enough to theirs – in the same language family, but I could understand them better than they could understand me.

He pointed to me precisely at the beginning of the First Vision Story “I saw a pillar of light…” or “Vi uma coluna de luz…”

I poured it on. I knew I was acting the whole thing as if I were emotionally touched by the story. And why not, I was onstage right? It’s a natural instinct. But it was a total act.

Don’t get me wrong, I believed it at the time but I knew I was being less than genuine to get a reaction or to impress. I figured if the church could hire non LDS actors for their “spiritual” videos like “Together Forever” then I could, as a member, do even better.

Afterwards, our director went on and on about how strong the spirit was while I was speaking even though they couldn’t understand every word.

And THAT my friends is how the spirit works. It’s an act. Sometimes it’s fake but even when it’s genuine it’s an emotional reaction to something nonetheless. How could it possibly signal truth?

I think this quote from Edwin Way Teale says it well:

“It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.” – Edwin Way Teale (1889-1980), Circle Of The Seasons, 1953

I find it much more rewarding now to see the range of human emotions God gave us and to recognize that we all experience them. Me, my Catholic, Protestant and Muslim acquaintances all feel them and they’re special and good but they don’t testify of the truth. They’re a gift to ALL MANKIND.

How else could we explain individuals such as Mozart, Rembrandt, Plato, Mohammed, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Edison and others who it could be said were inspired by the spirit of God but were some of the most morally depraved individuals on the earth? It clearly doesn’t only come to those who are “worthy” as the LDS church teaches. Heck if that were true, Joseph Smith would definitely NOT qualify to be close to the spirit.

Lastly, I know I’ll be censured for allowing “so called evidence” to pollute my testimony, but isn’t basing one’s testimony on the witness of the spirit still basing it upon evidence? How is a conclusion based on human feelings supposedly sent from the creator any more worthy evidence than actual physical evidence such as DNA, biology and other natural principles that the creator formed?

Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 7) – The Testimony Shelf

Tags

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, search ponder pray

So, let’s take a bit of a breather from the facts for a second. Let’s see what we have:

We have a charismatic founding Mormon leader who pretended to know things that he clearly didn’t know. This is a man who took advantage of his position and abused his power with his female followers. We have subsequent leaders who were willing to lie and fudge in order to cover their similarly unpopular and immoral behavior.

We have a series of church leaders making confident and bold truth claims for decades only to be replaced and downgraded by the advice to followers to just “rely on the Spirit.”  This of course comes only after the actual evidence that surfaced failed to sustain and support those truth claims.

We have leaders calling for “no middle ground” and saying that the gospel and especially the Book of Mormon is either 100% true or it’s all a fraud.

Everything in the Church — everything — rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon…

Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, or else he did not. And if he did not, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those.”
(Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” New Era, June 1995, Page 64)

“We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith. When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.” That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud.

I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its history. My response was that without that history we have nothing. The truth of that unique, singular, and remarkable event is the pivotal substance of our faith.”
(Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith,” October 2002 General Conference)

Therefore, what am I to do when I discover the Book of Mormon and the Mormon leaders to be so greatly lacking in trustworthiness? Should I actually call the leaders’ bluff and say the whole thing is indeed a hoax and a fraud? Or, should I disregard the Mormon Church’s black & white thinking and try to find my own middle way?  Is there a way  to not throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Once the foundation of my testimony  eroded, that whole “testimony shelf” came crashing down on me. There are things that had bothered me about the church over the years but that weren’t big enough alone to make me doubt. These are things less about history and more about doctrine and practices. But they became more distasteful to me as I realized they were symptoms and signs of a corrupt system rather than just humans operating under a perfect God.

Family

The Mormon church gets a lot of airplay for being “family-friendly” and “family-oriented.” Mormons and non-Mormons alike buy it.

I didn’t and I don’t. Many others don’t buy it either.

• It’s not very family-friendly for parents and other loved ones to have to sit outside the temple while their own children’s wedding takes place without them.
• It’s not very family-friendly for parents of young children to spend enormous amounts of time on their church callings.
• It’s not very family-friendly for a mother of 6 young children to have to sit alone each week while her bishop husband sits on the stand.
• It’s not very family-friendly for those older children to have to babysit and care for their younger siblings.
• It’s not very family-friendly for those younger children to have teir older siblings as parents.

I don’t believe Mormonism was very family-friendly to my family of birth nor to my wife and children.

I have wanted to be a Dad ever since I was a teenager and place a high value on my family. So, a few years ago I spent considerable time studying the biographies of several latter-day prophets such as Gordon B. Hinckley, Ezra Taft Benson, Howard W. Hunter, Spencer W. Kimball, etc. to see how to be a better father. I wanted to find out more about these men and what made them tick. Hopefully, so I could become a better man of God, more like them. What I found, however, was very little of what I wanted to emulate. Here were men I am supposed to admire but who spent very little time with their families. Most of them fully admit, almost in a bragging way, that their wives single-handedly raised their children as they were constantly away on church assignments. Basically I was shocked that I was letting men who were lousy parents counsel me on good parenting practices. They offer excellent lip service to families in talks and meetings but in actual practice they don’t measure up in my opinion.

In the August 2001 Ensign, Russell M. Nelson proudly echoed this sentiment that in the church fathers are dispensable:

I remember when I was a resident in a large hospital in Boston. I was off duty every other night and every other weekend. On nights off, I arrived home to my wife and our four children after the babies’ bedtime. I departed in the morning before they were all awake. In order for me to attend sacrament meeting, I had to trade hours of duty with some of my Jewish or Seventh-day Adventist colleagues. They were willing to cover for me temporarily on my Sabbath as I covered for them on theirs. Incidentally, I enjoyed some of my very most successful home teaching experiences on those highly prized nights off.

I pay tribute to Sister Nelson, this magnificent wife and mother who has always been supportive. When people have asked her how she managed with 10 children with so little time available from her husband, she has responded with a twinkle in her eye, saying, “When I married him, I didn’t expect much, so I was never disappointed.

You young women can learn much from Sister Nelson’s example. Sustain your husbands in their important work, and don’t be selfish in your expectations. (Russell M. Nelson, “Identity, Priority, and Blessings,” Ensign, Aug. 2001, 6)

Frankly I don’t see his familial neglect as anything admirable. And why wasn’t he with his wife on his “highly prized nights off” rather than off home teaching? It is true that in the church wives shouldn’t expect much from their husbands but is it really “selfish” for the wives to want it? As I look around at local leaders I see the same practices. Time spent in church service is time away from their families and I don’t think it is a stretch of the imagination to see that their families suffer. I believe mine did. They would consider their family blessed, I know, but the horror for me was that I could see the writing on the wall. I was headed in that direction and I didn’t want to go there.

When I say I could see the writing on the wall, I mean I was already spending a couple of nights away from home or on the phone for my church calling. As a Seminary Teacher I spent every night preparing a lesson. Later as an Executive Secretary to the bishop I was spending about two nights a week and all day Sunday on the calling. One of my patriarchal blessings (yeah, I’ve had three) promises I’ll have even more leadership callings. This is all time that I would rather be spending with my family. At one time my wife was Relief Society President while I was Executive Secretary. We were rarely at home with our kids at the same time. Yet in the church, positions like these are badges of honor, callings from God and we’re counseled heavily not to refuse them. I didn’t like my callings and I didn’t like the time they took away from my family. It certainly is at odds with a system of belief that claims to be so “family oriented.”

Latent Homosexuality

As a young gay man I’ve obviously had internal battles in my life for which I’ve failed to find any comfort let alone answers within the gospel. If God runs the church, am I so worthless that he couldn’t reveal simple answers about life and human behavior that would help me? I experienced the occasional mocking and snide comments in Elder’s Quorum by people who had no idea of my personal pain. There was the occasional reference to homosexuality in hushed revolting tones by the General Authorities. But mostly I experienced apathy.

Why was I being told what color of shirt to wear, what I could and couldn’t drink, how many earrings my wife could wear, what movies to watch, and who I needed to visit, become friends with and when, but I was left out in the cold when it came to substantial things that would help me in my spiritual life? It seemed that the church is “straining at gnats.” I shelved those thoughts.

One-Size-Fits-All

I’ve also had the chance to travel in my life and actually live abroad both on my mission and later. I often felt like the gospel was an odd fit and not really easily compatible with the cultures I encountered. In essence, it was a great find for some people but it just didn’t mesh culturally, spiritually or logically with the vast majority of people. In other words, it wasn’t universal.

Many of the instructions and guidelines in the Church Handbook of Instructions are rules that serve the institution of the church rather than the individual and are clearly created by aged, white North American men. For example, is it really true that the piano, organ and occasionally the violin and flute are the only instruments in the world capable of conveying God’s spirit? Yet, those are the only instruments allowed in any LDS sacrament meeting in any part of the world. Additionally, the North American white man’s suit, white shirt and tie are the expectation and sometimes the requirement whether you’re in Brazil, Japan or Nigeria. It isn’t appropriate everywhere. Is the God of the Chinese, the Russians and Peruvians an old man with North American tastes and preferences?

Even in the U.S., the church’s standardized use of the Scouting program as the vehicle with which to teach young boys character and prepare them for manhood is rigid and inflexible. It’s much easier to create a standardized program and require compliance than it is to mold programs to meet individual needs. Molding, however, isn’t allowed in the church. If a young boy’s interests lie elsewhere or the scouting program isn’t serving his needs, he and his parents are guilt-tripped into compliance both socially and institutionally. It’s part of the “follow the prophet” mantra. The prophet said this is the “inspired” program for young boys and so it is, regardless of that one boy’s needs. The implication is that something must be wrong with the boy if he has no desire or inclination towards scouting. Clearly, scouting isn’t the only way available to teach values. The fact that there’s an institutionalized program isn’t even the problem. The problem is that individual adaptation is not allowed.

This “one size fits all” mentality permeates the church and it has always bothered me. I shelved those thoughts.

Internal Doctrinal Issues

Teaching Seminary was probably what made me put more things up on that “testimony shelf” than any other. I taught the Old Testament one year and Church History (D&C) the next. I read those scriptures daily to prepare for lessons. Often the lessons in the manual required mental gymnastics to convey the message the church wanted rather than the one actually in the book of scripture.

The Old Testament is full of examples of prophets who lie, cheat, fornicate and yet still maintain God’s approval. God orders the killing of (or actually kills them himself) hundreds of thousands of people, which is hard to rationalize under any scenario but especially in light of 9/11. The 9/11 terrorists were religious men who mistakenly thought they were doing God’s will. How is that any different than Deuteronomy13: 6-10 where God commands the killing of someone who chooses a different religion? If God is the same yesterday and today, how could these biblical characters maintain the spirit of God with them and do these horrible things in the name of God? (See also Exodus 22:20, Exodus 32:27-28, Numbers 31:14-18, Leviticus 27:28-29, 2 Kings: 2:23-24, 2 Samuel 6: 6-7, Deuteronomy 3:3-6, Deuteronomy 22:20-21). How could I be unworthy for temple attendance by drinking a cup of coffee, when the men who received the Old Testament and modern temple ordinances from God did all these atrocious things in the name of God?

In similar fashion, I found that the Church uses scriptures and science only when it benefits the organization’s claims. As an illustration, word-print studies that show several authors contributed to the Book of Mormon are held up as evidence to the LDS faithful, while similar studies that attribute Genesis and other Old Testament books to multiple authors are ignored (LDS believe it was Moses only). Science is applauded when it seems to coincide with an LDS claim and ignored when it doesn’t. I shelved those thoughts.

Likewise, the Word of Wisdom isn’t taken literally. If it were, LDS wouldn’t be eating very much meat at July 24th picnics and hot chocolate would be forbidden while iced coffee would be OK. The Word of Wisdom speaks against “hot drinks,” so why are iced tea and iced coffee not OK? They’re not hot but they contain caffeine. Hot chocolate contains caffeine. Why is that OK? Recent medical studies touting the benefits of tea, wine and coffee in moderation are ignored, of course. I have always found it odd that someone who drinks tea is excluded from temple attendance while an obese, food addicted bishop is likely doing the excluding based on “the Lord’s law of health.” The whole thing is nonsensical if you actually read it.

While scriptures such as these aren’t taken literally when it’s inconvenient to do so, much more significant biblical teachings are interpreted literally hard-line when a metaphorical interpretation would make more sense. The story of the flood, the tower of Babel, not to mention other fantastic Biblical and Book of Mormon stories that contradict solid scientific information and common sense are accepted at face value. I put those thoughts on a shelf and trusted in LDS leaders.

LDS Love

There are also several teachings by leaders of the church that I believe do more harm than good. Elder Russell M. Nelson taught the following:

“Divine love is also conditional. While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us-and certain divine blessings stemming from that love-are conditional.”

“Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly ‘unconditional’ can defend us against common fallacies such as these: ‘Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless …’; or ‘Since ‘God is love,’ He will love me unconditionally, regardless …’ These arguments are used by anti-Christs to woo people with deception.”

“The full flower of divine love and our greatest blessings from that love are conditional-predicated upon our obedience to eternal law. I pray that we may qualify for those blessings and rejoice forever.”
(Russell M. Nelson, “Divine Love,” Ensign, Feb. 2003, page 20)

Interesting that the Prophet, Seers and Revelators can’t agree on this notion.

I testify that he (Jesus Christ) assisted in the creation and management not only of this planet, but other worlds. His grasp is galactic, yet he noticed the widow casting in her mite. I am stunned at his perfect, unconditional love of all. Indeed, ‘I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me.'”
(Neal A. Maxwell, “Jesus of Nazareth, Savior and King,” Ensign, May 1976, page 26)
“A person’s ability to love unconditionally can have powerful effects. Seeing another person in an eternal perspective, knowing that he is of infinite worth, helps us to look beyond his weaknesses.”
(“Unconditional Love-The Key to Effective Parenthood,” Family Home Evening Resource Book, Building a Strong Family, page 238)

I think unconditional love is something a parent can’t deny. I don’t care what Elder Nelson believes, I love my children unconditionally and I believe God feels that same conviction towards me. There are many other LDS quotes that prove Elder Nelson is wrong, but the point is that the church leaders contradict one another so often that the church really isn’t the steady guiding North Star that the leaders would like you to believe that it is.

The proof is often in the practice and I’d have to say that the practice in the LDS church in this one point leans more towards Elder Nelson’s perspective – love and acceptance are conditional. As far as loving God coming before loving family, I cannot see how there can be a conflict if you’re talking about true acceptance and regard for another person, and concern for their well-being. As the Bible and other wise men have said, God IS love, and I believe that all loving action brings us closer to God and exemplifies god-like behavior. Loyalty to a church or religion might lead one to alter ties with a family member, but not love of God.

LDS Marriage

The LDS marriage ceremony is void of anything referring to unconditional love such as “for better or worse.” Instead, it’s made clear that our eternal love is dependant upon the behavior of our spouse. It’s no wonder that many LDS marriages end in divorce when one spouse expresses a disbelief in the gospel. We basically marry the church and not each other. Without the gospel, the other spouse loses all his or her value since you can’t make it to the celestial kingdom alone. This perpetuates a behavior where people who are married to a non-member or unbeliever are tortured mentally and depressed over the loss of blessings. It’s a shame that unconditional love isn’t a more powerful force.

All too often, the church creates a pretend disease and then steps in with their pretend cure. But without the church, that problem never would have existed in the first place. Take the spouse married to an inactive or non-member for example. In many religions it’s not an issue, especially if the non-believer is willing to go along with the religion to a point. In Mormonism, however, it’s a serious source of tension and discord if both spouses aren’t temple recommend holding believers. The believing spouse then seeks out the comfort of the church even more devotedly for refuge from her lack of “priesthood in the home” or to compensate for her lack of eternal blessings. She resents the other spouse for not giving these things to her. Yet, it’s the church that created the “problem” in the first place by teaching that those things need to be present for a happy marriage.

There are millions of couples in the world with deep, abiding love who have never heard of the priesthood or the temple. The wife isn’t just enduring until she’ll be sealed to a worthy man in the afterlife (as one of many plural wives most likely). I fail to see where the comfort is in that for her or her children.

In fact, rather than solve a complex issue of family life, the doctrine of temple marriage often only creates more confusion and frustration. Where’s the comfort for the man who marries a young widow who was sealed to her first husband? He’s unable to be sealed to his wife and knows that all his children will go to her first husband in the afterlife. I bet that does wonders for their relationship and intimacy. Where’s the comfort for the woman who marries the widower knowing that she’ll be just one of many wives sealed to him? How is this family friendly and supportive of life’s most difficult questions? Sometimes the church creates more problems than it solves.

Most religions believe in eternal families. They believe in an afterlife surrounded by loved ones in peace and happiness. But the LDS church has repackaged and marketed that belief as their own glorious doctrine. The irony is, however, that the under the LDS system, far fewer families will be eternal since it’s rooted in performance-based criteria which very few earthly souls will ever meet. LDS doctrine even has families broken up as unworthy brothers and sisters fail to make the cut. So who really believes in eternal families?

Sexual Abuse

The teaching that chastity can be “taken” from someone rather than only surrendered is emotionally damaging and abusive to people who have suffered sexual abuse.

In Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball quoted Heber J. Grant as saying,

…There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity — realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world.

I beg to differ but I’d rather have my son or daughter’s life than have her lose it as Spencer W. Kimball counsels,

Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.

Yeah, there’s “no condemnation” but it’s clear that church leaders believe that virtue can be “stolen.” Imagine the thoughts that an abuse victim suffers when he or she learns that it would have been better off to be dead than have someone “take” their chastity. Imagine the guilt this perpetuates in an already suffering individual who needs comfort and refuge only to find that the church provides none for them. In that sense, I do believe the church is damaging.

The October 17th, 2003, Deseret Morning News headline reads “90% of Provo rapes not reported to police.” In the report, a BYU police officer explains that LDS religious beliefs are the reason:

[BYU Police Officer Arnie] Lemmon said most Provo residents are religious and have a tendency to stigmatize discussion of sexual assault and sometimes to demonize the survivor.

[The Mormon rape victim] said something that blew me away. She said, ‘I should have died before I let him do that to me,’  Lemmon said. “I was troubled that she had to believe that.”

Lemmon read from a letter written by a BYU rape victim who shared a similar belief. “I’m a perversion to the good saints of my church,” wrote the victim, who said she wished she were dead. Tragic thoughts like these are common among rape victims in Provo, Lemmon said.

This type of blaming the victim is also evident in a talk by Richard G. Scott. At the end of an attempt to comfort abuse victims he offers the following:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure. (See D&C 138:1-4.) Forgiveness can be obtained for all involved in abuse. (See A of F 1:3.) Then comes a restoration of self-respect, self-worth, and a renewal of life. (Richard G. Scott, “Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse,” Ensign, May 1992, 31)

An untrained priesthood leader is supposed to assist a childhood abuse victim ascertain their level of responsibility for being abused! Those few sentences undo whatever compassion Elder Scott was trying evoke and make it apparent that leaders of the church are just old men in suits trying to sound authoritative about which they know very little.

Critical Thinking Discouraged

Mormonism encourages premature, inappropriate and inauthentic commitments, which creates enormous levels of guilt, shame and loss when the growing healthy soul finally begins to question those commitments and begins to dismantle them. For example, is eight years old really old enough to make a commitment that then will be held over the child’s head for the rest of his or her life? Perhaps they’re able to decipher right from wrong at that age but later they’ll be persuaded to make decisions based on the covenants they made at a mere eight years old. They’ll be told that they already committed to believe and follow the church’s instructions and so the guilt trip follows.

LDS converts are baptized without a solid awareness of what will be expected of them in the future. Home teaching obligations, temple ordinances such as the endowment (not to mention garments!) and other LDS teachings that deeply affect personal time and space, are conspicuously absent from the missionary discussions. On my mission, we were encouraged to baptize people quickly who had no real grasp on the huge commitment they were getting themselves into.

In a similar move, the church encourages marriage for young people still learning who they are, as well as marriage for people who shouldn’t marry, or shouldn’t marry until later in life.

I think Mormonism stunts growth by denying people the opportunity to explore, practice and learn. It promotes rigid, defensive, judgmental personalities–painful to be and painful to be around.

It creates self-critical personalities, who often then battle depression.

Another flawed idea is that when someone “doesn’t get it”, they must be living unworthily – yet another tool to keep questioning minds closed. I once heard my bishop declare from the pulpit that he’s never known anyone who doubted their testimony that was keeping the commandments. Uh, yeah, I’ll go talk to him! The more I think about it, the less I am able to differentiate that line of thinking from what cults do to program their members not to leave. How is it any different? If you disagree you’re bad!

The church also teaches contradictory and conflicting messages such as the “The Glory of God is Intelligence”, but then they label intellectuals as “The enemy of the church.”

Women

Mormon women are marginalized, and most certainly not seen as equals with men in the church. Just because many women in the church say they’re fine with the oppression doesn’t mean it’s not there. Many women clearly are fine with it and don’t want anything more. But the church’s lip service to impartiality of the genders is belied in the actual day-to-day practice of Mormonism. Since power can almost always be boiled down to the money, I wonder if there are any LDS women who are authorized to sign checks on behalf of the church. I doubt it.

Women often feel guilty, depressed or just unworthy when they don’t fit the mold of LDS womanhood. Perhaps she doesn’t like cooking or sewing. Perhaps she can’t sing or play the piano. Perhaps she can’t have children or is only able to have one or two. God forbid she should only WANT one or two! I’ve been in several bishopric meetings in different wards where a woman in the ward was ridiculed behind her back for daring to express an opinion. I shelved those thoughts.

Why can’t a woman open a Sacrament Meeting with prayer (at least they can’t in my stake) and why couldn’t they even pray in Sacrament Meeting until 1978? Why does a man (priesthood leader) always speak at general women’s meetings but I have yet to see a woman speak at a stake or general priesthood meeting? It may have happened but it’s definitely not a regular occurrence. The message then is “women need to learn from the men but the men have nothing to learn from the women.”

The priesthood often trumps women’s decisions in their leadership callings. The women are told to ask the Lord for inspiration and submit suggestions but then that inspiration is minimized as the priesthood does whatever it wants or whatever it was going to do in the first place.

Prophetesses are spoken of in the Bible. Why can’t a woman hold the priesthood? I know, I know, a man has the priesthood while a woman has motherhood. Still, a man gets the priesthood AND fatherhood. A woman only gets motherhood. Many women will say they don’t want the priesthood, but what about the woman who does? Is she bad? And what about the man who doesn’t want it? In fact, most LDS women today would be shocked to find out that in the early days of the church women often gave blessings and anointed the sick, ordinances reserved for men in the modern church. They were previously done, however, with the knowledge and blessing of the prophets. Wouldn’t it be even more family oriented for my wife to join me in naming and blessing our newborn infants rather than sitting passively in the congregation while male friends and relatives participate in this rite of passage?

The current LDS policy only remains exclusionary because the leaders say so. There’s no scriptural basis for it. Just like there was no scriptural basis for the racist policies that kept the priesthood from blacks and discouraged interracial marriage.

Leadership

I’ve been told that “Our leaders are human beings with weaknesses like everyone else and they make mistakes too.” OK, then if they’re human, why don’t they behave like humans are expected to and humbly admit mistakes, repair damage and behave in an open, adult and non-manipulative way?

If repentance is one of the basic principles of the gospel, why are there no examples of our leaders repenting for their behavior as leaders? Isn’t leading by example the most powerful way to teach? Wouldn’t that tend to draw others to Christ more powerfully than the “all our decisions are inspired” image they staunchly uphold?

They can’t stand up in General Conference and claim special links to divinity by saying,

• “Follow the brethren. They’ll never lead you astray.”
• “When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done”
• “Whether it be by my own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same.”

These are not the statements of men asking to be accepted as ordinary humans. It is hypocritical of them to make these statements and then turn around and wonder why they’re not given the benefit of the doubt. Their own statements require a higher standard, I believe. “Where much is given, much is required.”

Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Unfortunately the evidence doesn’t corroborate their stories.

I have some level of sympathy for these modern leaders. They’ve attained a position that they’ve always revered and upon arriving they must be suffering incredible cognitive dissonance. The fear they must experience if they ever allow themselves to humbly admit that the emperor has no clothes is surely much more intense than mine. No, they most likely formulate a rationale in their mind to support their claims to higher contact.

Instead of the extraordinary claims common in the early days of the church, for example, modern General Authorities hedge their bets by claiming that they’ve had experiences that they can’t talk about because they’re “too sacred.” I’ve had special experiences that I could easily label as “too sacred to talk about” if I wanted to and thus self-justify my high calling and position. It would be a good tool!

It’s interesting that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and all the ancient prophets always spoke freely of their sacred experiences. In fact, their calling was to witness of these occurrences. Temple ceremonies are explained in detail in the Old Testament and Joseph Smith never failed to produce details of spiritual experiences with God and angels. In John 18:20 Jesus says that everything he has ever spoken has been in public, never in secret.

Actually SACRED and SECRET were not synonyms as used now in the church. Secrecy is repudiated in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (See Deut. 13:6, 2 Kings 17:9, Job 20:26, Ps. 10:8, Luke 8:17, Luke 11:33, John 7:4,  2 Nephi 9:9, 3 Nephi 9:9, Ether 8, Ether 11:15, D&C 42:64 and Moses 5:51 among many others). Why then this sudden secrecy with today’s modern “special witnesses?” Aren’t they refusing to do what they’ve been called to do; that is, witness regarding something special that they’ve experienced?

I have yet to hear something truly special from a modern church authority that can’t be heard every fast Sunday in my own ward.

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

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.

Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 4) – Lying For The Lord

Tags

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Honesty, lying, Mormon, search ponder pray

• Can I trust the leaders of the church to tell me the truth?
• Should I trust them to help me formulate my image of God?
• Can they be trusted to present a truthful, accurate view of the past?
• Can I trust them to provide counsel which is my personal interest rather than only that which benefits the church organization?
• Are the Past and current leadership trustworthy enough to put major life decisions about my personal identity in their hands?
• Could God really be behind lying?

Leaders in the LDS church have time and again deliberately lied about or denied church history and doctrines which, while true, have the potential to hurt the faith of its members.

In fact, in the same talk I referenced in Ch 1 of this series Apostle Boyd K. Packer stated that LDS scholars and historians are in peril of damnation if they choose to reveal the whole truth about the LDS church:

“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful…

“The writer or teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment…The Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy…

“That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith – particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith – places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities…Do not spread disease germs!” (Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271)

Apostle Dallin H. Oaks concurred:

“My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors.” (Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii f28)

Why does ANYTHING need to be sacrificed in order to maintain integrity? If it does, perhaps it is ill gotten “integrity.” Packer claims that God has “made it clear” that some things are to be given only to “those who are worthy.” Where did God make that clear other than to him and his colleagues? I find Packer and Oak’s rationalizations repulsive and immoral.

This outright censorship of the truth has been a cause of consternation for LDS historians, scholars, and scientists with views that may be considered “not very useful” by church leaders. For example, D. Michael Quinn expressed his frustration in an address to a student history association at Brigham Young University:

“General authorities in recent years have criticized Mormon historians for republishing in part or whole out-of-print Church publications such as the 1830 Book of Mormon, the Journal of Discourses (edited and published for thirty-two years under the auspices of the First Presidency), and statements taken from former Church magazines published for the children, youth, and general membership of the Church. It is an odd situation when present general authorities criticize historians for reprinting what previous general authorities regarded not only as faith promoting but as appropriate for Mormon youth and the newest converts.

“Elder Packer specifically warns against historians using “the unworthy, the unsavory, or the sensational,” from the Mormon past, merely because it has been previously published somewhere else, and he berates historians for their “exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told.” But this raises the question of personal honesty and professional integrity. If a historian writes about any subject unrelated to religion, and he purposely fails to make reference to pertinent information of which he has knowledge, he is justifiably liable to be criticized for dishonesty…

“The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials. (D. Michael Quinn, On Being A Mormon Historian, 1982, pp. 2, 8-10, 13-14, 16-22; revised and reprinted in 1992 in Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, pp. 69-111)

Quinn’s speech was subsequently praised by Newsweek as a “stirring defense of intellectual integrity.” The church did not take kindly to his stance however, particularly since he continued to publish historical findings which were accurate but not flattering to early church history. Quinn was ultimately excommunicated from the church in 1993. (http://trialsofascension.net/mormon/lying.html)

Following the church’s example, perhaps in everyone’s next bishops interview members can answer every question with only those facts that will cause him to have faith in them and believe that they are completely worthy of temple attendance… We should leave out any facts that may cause doubt. After all, as Body K. Packer said, “some things that are true are not very useful.”

Lying about Polygamy
The early practice of polygamy is one clear example of this kind of blatant dishonesty between leaders and the general membership of the LDS church. I mentioned earlier how I found the way Joseph Smith practiced it repulsive and immoral I find the lies that have been told regarding it just as unethical.

Would God command Joseph to secretly take his wife’s fellow presidency members in the Nauvoo Relief Society (as well as many others) as his own plural wives? Could it be proper or godly for him to publicly deny such behaviors and privately practice them? Would a true prophet ever secretly take other men’s wives because of his position, stating that he was either testing the faith of their husbands, or offering these women a greater chance for exaltation in the eternities because of his position of authority? It is well documented that Joseph married several women even before telling Emma. Would it be proper to keep such information from his own wife?

The first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (1835) included a section denying any practice of polygamy:

“Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 247)

It is interesting to note that this section in the Doctrine and Covenants was in every single edition until 1876, when the Doctrine and Covenants first included section 132 justifying plural marriage.

Note that from the current heading of D&C 132, the church effectively admits the first section was a lie:

“Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.”

It is also clear that on May 26, 1844 Joseph lied about practicing polygamy, despite proof to the contrary:

“I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this…I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are – whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me…What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411)

John Taylor also lied about the practice thus deceiving many English converts. In 1850 he published:

“We are accused here of polygamy,… and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;… I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. ‘Doctrine and Covenants,’ page 330… Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death,…”‘ (tract published by John Taylor in England, in 1850, page 8; published in “Orson Pratt’s Works,” 1851 edition).

Since Taylor quoted from the “Article on Marriage” in his debate, which specifically forbade more than one living wife, while he was simultaneously a “husband” to seven living “plural wives,” his statement was indeed a lie.

Mormon converts in England had heard the rumors about Nauvoo polygamy, but the apostles like Taylor, who were overseeing the missionary work there, steadfastly reassured them that the rumors were false.   Then, in 1852, when the main body of Mormons had settled in Utah, seemingly safe from prosecution, they reversed themselves and publicly admitted polygamy.   That reversal caused European Mormons to leave the church, because they were disgusted at having been lied to by church leaders for years.

Should they have just put everything up on a shelf and remembered the “feelings” they had when Taylor preached to them? Should they have just “not worried about that?”
Both the laws of the state of Illinois and the published laws of the LDS Church stated that plural marriage was fornication and prohibited.  Yet Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor and other church leaders practiced polygamy and polyandry illegally and lied about it both to the world and their own Mormon community. Evidence is also pretty strong that subsequent LDS leaders continued to sanction polygamous marriages even after the 1890 Manifesto. The lying continued.

To me this fact is well documented enough to make their word on anything questionable. Here we have the first three or four leaders of the church who are proven liars in order to protect themselves from criminal prosecution and to continue promoting an image of the church that was untrue. The modern LDS church, however, wants me to disregard the facts and not “worry about that.” I think that’s a request far too great given the fact that I’m also required to “sustain the brethren” and accept their word as if from the mouth of God.

The modern church is also party to the lies as they continue to downplay the part polygamy played in the early days of the church. Ask yourself, for example, how much respect Gordon B. Hinckley showed the thousands of people who made almost unbearable sacrifices for the “eternal principle” of plural marriage, when he eliminated all references to it in the Sunday School manuals? When he eliminated it from the new teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? When he refered to it as “not doctrinal”, even though it is STILL in D&C 132? When he pretends to think that only between “2 and 5 % of people” were ever involved with it?

Checking out www.JosephSmith.net and see if it’s not just a complete whitewashing of history. There’s no mention of his plural marriages or of his deception with his wife.

To denigrate plural marriage is to denigrate those who followed it and their heartbreaking sacrifices. Modern prophets are retroactively as uncaring toward their feelings, as Joseph Smith was 160 years ago, and it is not right. Many of those women spent their entire lives without the affection they longed for. Many of them were married to men they hardly knew, and were denied the opportunity of marrying a man they had fallen in love with. And the real irony is, as anyone who has spent time in Utah knows, the descendants of those polygamous families are the backbone of the present church. Without that “not doctrinal” doctrine (as they call it), current prophets wouldn’t have half the church they have right now to preside over.

Denigrate plural marriage, which for fifty plus years was touted by church presidents as having “redemptive properties” and being essential for entrance to the Celestial Kingdom, and you have just denigrated all of those descendants’ heritage, and made a mockery of their ancestors’ sacrifices (as well as of the whole church itself). And I say that’s just wrong and dishonest. It is shameful.

Temple Ceremony
It’s a well-known fact that the LDS endowment ceremony is similar in many respects to the Mason ceremony. The same penalties, signs, procedures and obligations of secrecy are used in both ceremonies. Since Joseph became a Mason before introducing the endowment ceremony into the LDS theology, he took the Masonry oaths not to divulge those signs oaths and covenants to anyone. He, of course, broke that oath and not only introduced the oaths to other men, but he also inducted women into his adaptation of the ceremony. Joseph Smith’s dishonesty in this practice outraged fellow Masons in the Southern Illinois area.

In fact, this is one of the factors that led mobs of men to seek Joseph Smith’s life. They were angered that he had broken the oath he took upon becoming a Mason and sought to inflict the penalties agreed upon during the induction ceremony. He must have known that his life was in danger for doing this. One of his plural wives’ (Lucinda Pendleton) first husband (William Morgan) was a noted leader of the anti masonry movement and was killed for printing a book revealing the masons’ secrets. It’s interesting to note that when Joseph eventually was martyred, according to Heber C. Kimball his last words “Oh Lord, my God” with his hands upturned are the exact words and sign used in the Mason’s distress call for help. He was asking for help from the very men he had lied to and betrayed.

“Joseph stood at the open window, his martyr-cry being these words, ‘O Lord My God! This was not the beginning of a prayer, because Joseph Smith did not pray in that manner. This brave, young man who knew that death was near, started to repeat the distress signal of the Masons, expecting thereby to gain the protection its members are pledged to give a brother in distress.” – Heber C. Kimball, Mormonism and Masonry, p. 16-17

Church Membership and Growth
In October 2003 General Conference, James E. Faust spoke to members such as myself who harbor doubts. In this talk he said:

“Another powerful evidence of the divinity of this holy work is the remarkable growth and strength of this Church worldwide. It is a unique institution. Nothing quite compares to it.”

Data published by members of the church and easily available to Faust directly contradict this assertion on several levels (www.cumorah.com). Yet this false information provided by church PR is also often reported in the media.

A recent LDS Church News article entitled “Church Fastest Growing in Nation” claims that a Glenmary study “shows The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the fastest-growing faith in the nation during the 1990s.” In reality, the Glenmary study found that the LDS Church ranks twenty-third among the 149 participating U.S. faiths in overall growth rate, but first among denominations with over one million adherents. The Glenmary study was prominently misquoted with the “fastest growing church in the U.S.” claim being made in the Ensign, in three separate articles in the LDS Church News, and once in the lds.org “The Church in the News” website news.

World trends are even more sharply different than the church’s claim. There are 650,000 active Seventh-day Adventists in Kenya alone, but only 500,000 Latter-day Saints (of which approximately 170,000 are active) in all of continental Europe, Asia, and Africa combined. After more than a decade of proselyting in Russia with the largest full-time missionary force of any denomination, LDS membership has risen to only 11,000, with a fraction of those members remaining active. The same period has seen the number of active Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia rise to over 120,000, with some 275,000 individuals attending conferences. There are more active Jehovah’s Witnesses in the countries of Georgia or Armenia than active Latter-day Saints in all of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Russia together. There are less than 100,000 active Latter-day Saints in all of Europe, including the United Kingdom. In comparison, there are over 1.4 million proselytizing Jehovah’s Witnesses in Europe, and 2.7 million who attend Jehovah’s Witness conferences. In 1954, there were 7.7 Mormons per Witness publisher. By 1994, this had been reduced to 1.9. Given that the Mormons are generally viewed as the world’s most successful new religion and had about an 80-year start on the Witnesses, this is an astonishing achievement.

The way membership is counted adds to the misleading information. The LDS church, for example, counts even inactive members and those who don’t report themselves as LDS. Many other denominations have clear performance-based definitions of what constitutes a member (Jehovah’s Witnesses count only a baptized individual who participates regularly in proselytism; Adventists count only enrolled, active Sabbath School members, etc.). LDS membership statistics, however, have no obligatory correlation to activity or even religious self-identification of members as Latter-day Saints.

Therefore, official LDS membership statistics must be interpreted with caution, and should not be considered to be reflective of the actual strength or commitment of church members in the absence of activity rates or other performance-based data. Population-based studies consistently demonstrate that only a fraction of those on LDS membership rolls even identify the LDS Church as their faith of preference.

Studies investigating church growth using relevant independent parameters show that “real” LDS growth is modest, with high attrition. The CUNY American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) queried the self-identified religious affiliation of a large cohort of U.S. citizens in 1990 and 2001. The study found that the LDS Church had one of the highest turnover rates of any U.S. faith. Because of high turnover, the actual growth rate in the number of Americans identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints between 1990 and 2001 was found to be similar to the overall population growth rate, for a net real growth rate of close to zero.

From the data, the CUNY authors observe:

“Some groups such as Mormons…appear to attract a large number of converts (‘in-switchers’), but also nearly as large a number of apostates (‘out-switchers’).” (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm)

An independent survey conducted by USA Today in March 2002 demonstrates similar findings. A comparison of USA Today survey data on self-reported religious identification in all fifty states to official LDS Church Almanac data reveals even more strikingly that the percentage of individuals in almost every state identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints is significantly lower than official membership figures, often dramatically.

Activity rates, convert retention rates, and other meaningful measures of member activity are virtually never given to the media. The impression is given that the stories of exceptional members are in some way typical or representative of church membership as a whole, when the fundamental reality that the large majority of members — 70-80% in most nations outside of the U.S., Canada, and the Pacific — are completely inactive.

The LDS media is generally silent on quality objective research and news which fail to adequately validate glowing public relations images. For example, a LDS Church News article in December 2001 proclaimed proudly that Latter-day Saints would be counted separately on the 2002 Chilean census, and conveyed excited anticipation about the data the upcoming census would bring. Rodolfo Acevedo, director of LDS public affairs in Chile, is quoted in the article as stating:

“This has not only given us the opportunity to remain apart from the other traditional registrations of the past, but we will also be able to see exactly how many Chileans claim membership in the Church.”

The Chilean newspaper La Tercera reports that the Church had lobbied heavily to be added to the Chilean census prior to this announcement. Now that the final census data has been released, demonstrating only 103,735 Chileans over age 15 identifying themselves as members of the LDS Church compared to 520,202 official members in 2002, no church-sponsored periodical has made mention of the census or its findings. No LDS Church News article has cited religious census data on the number of LDS adherents in any of the countries that include Latter-day Saints on the census. In every case, there is a large discrepancy between official church membership figures and the number of individuals identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints.

The 2000 census of Brazil lists 199,645 individuals who have identified themselves as members of The LDS church. The church claims 867,000. As a former missionary to Brazil, I’m sure the church has baptized 867,000 people but obviously only 25% recognize the church as their religion of choice. The others have moved on to other religions or can’t even remember the name of the church well enough to answer the survey correctly. Of the 199,645 who do claim membership, even the most optimistic activity rate of 50% would give the church 100,000 active LDS members in that country.

Perhaps it’s only self-deception and not outright lying on the part of church leaders. Still, the church’s claims regarding membership and growth mislead the public as well as its own membership especially when used a reason for the truthfulness of the church as Faust did and is often done. As a person whose main concern was the church’s deliberate distortion of facts, I found Faust’s talk having the opposite effect.

It’s also interesting to note that in another context the church has basically admitted that it is insignificant in the world. When questioned about the danger of church buildings being the target of terrorists the church’s official reply was:

“The state Department of Public Safety confirmed little intelligence has been found that makes Temple Square or other LDS Church sites terrorist targets,” said spokesman Derek Jensen.

Gregory Dunn, the managing director of security for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said church buildings in other countries are as safe as they are in Utah.
“It turns out the church just isn’t really that well known in the places where the risk is greatest,” he said. “The church carries a lot of anonymity in many places of the world.” (LDS Official: Churches Not Terrorism Targets, KSL News web site, Nov. 4, 2004; http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=130618)

Less than Honest Prophets and Members
LDS church leaders have apparently changed their views regarding the doctrine that God was once a man. Despite multiple statements affirming this doctrine by early church leaders, President Gordon B. Hinckley deliberately disguised the issue in discussing it with the press. For example, in a Time interview on August, 1997 he said:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet.

Hinckley: Yeah

Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it. (Time Magazine original transcript, Aug 4, 1997)

He doesn’t know that we emphasize it? He needed to go to church more but he surely knows it’s taught. He later hinted in conference that he had been misquoted in the media, but that’s not the only time he minimized this teaching in public. The news sources have released transcripts of the interviews in order to clarify that he wasn’t misquoted.

In another interview prior to the 2002 Olympics, Hinckley said that I should be able to see the church’s financial records:

REPORTER:
IN MY COUNTRY, THE…WE SAY THE PEOPLE’S CHURCHES, THE PROTESTANTS, THE CATHOLICS, THEY PUBLISH ALL THEIR BUDGETS, TO ALL THE PUBLIC.

HINCKLEY:
YEAH. YEAH.

REPORTER:
WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOUR CHURCH?

HINCKLEY:
WELL, WE SIMPLY THINK THAT THE…THAT INFORMATION BELONGS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE CONTRIBUTION, AND NOT TO THE WORLD. THAT’S THE ONLY THING. YES.

I’m still waiting. Anyhow, it is clearly a less-than-honest answer.

Many of the GA’s talks are reworked from he thoughts of well-known philosophers and writers. President Benson’s sermon on pride plagiarized the writings of C.S. Lewis, from Lewis’ book Mere Christianity, specifically the chapter, “The Great Sin” (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1952, revised and enlarged). A line-by-line comparison of the text of both documents provides clear and convincing evidence. His sermon borrowed heavily, and without attribution, both in terms of wording and concept, from Lewis’ earlier work.

David O. McKay seems to have stolen his famous “No Other Success…” from Benjamin Disraeli. Hugh B. Brown’s famous talk on the oak tree came directly from the teachings of the Rosicrucians. The Mormon Church has a parasitical habit of taking from others and claiming to own it. Or, as in the case of Paul Dunn, they just make it up and claim it’s true.

Steve Benson (grandson of Prophet Ezra Taft Benson) described a firsthand experience with Apostle Dallin H. Oaks in which he was requested to hide the truth:

Oaks expected me to cover for him after he lied in public about what we had talked about in private. In an on-the-record interview with a newspaper reporter, he blatantly misrepresented the truth about Boyd K. Packer’s involvement in the excommunication of Salt Lake author, Paul Toscano–who had attracted scowling Church attention for, among other things, suggesting that members need not perpetuate a Cult of Personality by standing up when General Authorities walked into the room.  (Steve Benson, Conversations Behind the Mormon Curtain: A First-Person Account of Meetings Between LDS Apostles Dallin H. Oaks, Neal A. Maxwell, and Steve and Mary Ann Benson, November 21, 2002)

I also find it increasingly distasteful as I discuss these issues with members how quickly they are able to lie and justify their leaders’ behavior. Take the temple changes and DNA issues for example.

Mormons deny that temple ordinances have changed in any significant way since their inception. Despite the fact that Joseph Smith himself said that God “set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever,” the LDS Church has continuously changed the temple ceremony over the years. It quietly made many drastic changes in April 1990 by removing all the penalties, which were taught as essential when I received them the first time in 1984. Previously the church had changed the ordinance in various ways most notable in 1931 they removed a death oath or covenant that patrons took offering themselves up to avenge the blood of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

The Watchtower (JWs) employ similar tactics in denying they claimed the world would end in 1975. Many JWs quit their jobs, took their kids out of school and became full-time missionaries as the world was about to end. Today they deny they ever taught that. JWs will deny it, or if cornered, will comment that it was just some over zealous members. They lost 1/3 of their membership just after that event (or non-event).

Current JWs are totally unaware of what really happened in 1975. Mormons do this with the changes in the temple ceremony. Some will still deny it even though they experienced the modifications personally as it is too sacred to talk about. Younger Mormons do not know there were any changes. I know it has changed and I think it’s dishonest for someone to tell me that having to pantomime your own death is insignificant. If it was insignificant, I deserve an apology for being coerced into doing something so disgusting for no apparent reason.

One of the other dishonest arguments I’ve heard is that it’s not church doctrine that American Indians are Lamanites. That’s just plain dishonest

Having grown up in the church, I have a hard time not laughing painfully when I read that. The problem is, of course, that church doctrine is whatever you want it to be at the time. Somehow I’m supposed to believe that the prophets didn’t know what they were talking about in the past even though they spoke authoritatively and with confidence. Yet I’m supposed to believe other things they have revealed when they clearly couldn’t tell the difference between a revelation and an opinion. The obvious question is…why believe ANYTHING they say?

Add to all the institutionalized lying the church’s slick version of (or omission of) events and details such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the fate of the Martin/Willie Handcart Company, The Mark Hoffman affair, the Danites, the Council of Fifty, the Strengthening the Members Committee, post-Manifesto Polygamy, the Law of Adoption, the United Order, speaking in tongues, females performing ordinances & magical thinking in the early church, Joseph Smith being ordained King.

Compare the church’s official version and explanations with the descriptions offered by historians and you can only conclude that the church is lying or omitting pertinent information.

So, the questions remain:

• Can I trust the leaders of the church to tell me the truth?
• Should I trust them to help me formulate my image of God?
• Can they be trusted to present a truthful, accurate view of the past?
• Can I trust them to provide counsel which is my personal interest rather than only that which benefits the church organization?
• Are the Past and current leadership trustworthy enough to put major life decisions about my personal identity in their hands?
• Could God really be behind lying?

In being honest with myself I have to say “no” to all the above.

Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 3) – Polygamy and Polyandry

Tags

Joseph Smith, Mormon, Polygamy, search ponder pray, Todd Compton

It “is a repulsive anachronism, a dangerous plague spot, a gross offense to the nation’s moral sense,” said the New York American in 1904.

One would think these comments are current statements against gay marriage but in fact they are arguments made against the Mormon practice of polygamy in the nineteenth century. Interesting that Mormons now find themselves on the wielding end of the same sword in light of their vigorous prior defense of their right to marry any way they saw fit. Hypocrisy in action.

The church has tried to divorce itself from the polygamy issue, but it can’t remain completely absolved when its early leaders extolled polygamy’s virtues, taught it as God’s higher law and even preached the evils of monogamy from the pulpit at general conference. Even today, the doctrine remains in the Doctrine and Covenants.

That Mormons practiced polygamy in the early days of the church is well known. What a lot of people don’t know, though, is that Joseph Smith was heavily involved in polygamy himself. This included taking at least 11 women that were already married to other men at the time (i.e., polyandry). These women stayed married to their first husbands while at the same time being married to Joseph. In his book, In Sacred Loneliness, Dr. Todd Compton wrote:

“Polyandry is one of the major problems found in Smith’s polygamy and many questions surround it. Why did he at first primarily prefer polyandrous marriages? A common misconception concerning Joseph Smith’s polyandry is that he participated in only one or two such unusual unions. In fact, fully one-third of his plural wives, eleven of them, were married civilly to other men when he married them. If one superimposes a chronological perspective, one sees that of Smith’s first twelve wives, nine were polyandrous. So in this early period polyandry was the norm, not the anomaly…

“Polyandry might be easier to understand if one viewed these marriages to Smith as a sort of de facto divorce with the first husband. However, none of these women divorced their ‘first husbands’ while Smith was alive and all of them continued to live with their civil spouses while married to Smith…

“In the eleven certain polyandrous marriages, only three of the husbands were non-Mormon (Lightner, Sayers, and Cleveland) and only one was disaffected (Buell). All other husbands were in good standing in the church at the time Joseph married their wives. Many were prominent church leaders and close friends of Smith. George W. Harris was a high councilor…a position equivalent to that of a twentieth-century general authority. Henry Jacobs was a devoted friend of Joseph and a faithful missionary. Orson Hyde was an apostle on his mission to Palestine when Smith married his wife. Jonathan Holmes was one of Smith’s bodyguards and served as a pallbearer after Smith’s death. Windsor Lyon was a member in good standing when Smith united with Sylvia Lyon, and he loaned the prophet money after the marriage. David Sessions was a devout Latter-day Saint.” (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 15-16)

How could Joseph’s marriage to women who were already married to upstanding members of the church possibly be justified? It all sounds so very Warren Jeffs and David Koresh like. According to Brigham Young, the purpose of polygamy was to propagate life through worthy families:

“There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty. To prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can. This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, 1977 edition, p. 197)

Clearly this could not have been the purpose for many of Joseph’s marriages, since Joseph’s wives were already married to righteous men. Perhaps the purpose of polygamy was instead, as Jedediah Grant (Second Counselor to Brigham Young) claimed, a trial of faith:

“What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph asked him for his money? He would say, ‘Yes, and I wish I had more to help to build up the kingdom of God.’ Or if he came and said, ‘I want your wife?’ ‘O yes,’ he would say, ‘here she is, there are plenty more.’…If such a man of God should come to me and say, ‘I want your gold and silver, or your wives,’ I should say, ‘Here they are, I wish I had more to give you, take all I have got.’ ”

“Did the Prophet Joseph want every man’s wife he asked for? He did not…the grand object in view was to try the people of God to see what was in them.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2 (1855), p. 13-14)

As a father of daughters, I personally have no use for that kind of prophet or that kind of God.

When Joseph Smith III grew up, and accepted leadership of the RLDS movement, he went to Utah to find out for himself whether or not his father was polygamy’s instigator. He interviewed dozens of leading Utah Mormons, including many of Smith’s “plural widows” and most intimate friends, who all informed him that Smith was the instigator, and that the relationships were indeed sexual. Several of them swore legal affidavits to that effect, and some swore that Smith had fathered children by them. Those testators included such leading Mormons as Eliza R. Snow, Angus Cannon, Zina Huntington Jacobs, Sylvia Sessions, Benjamin F. Johnson, and Mary Rollins Lightner. In short, those Utah Mormons testified to Smith’s plural relationships to combat Emma’s claim that Young, not Smith, began polygamy.

After the 1890 Manifesto, and after most of Smith’s original polygamous wives and friends had died, church leaders began to reverse their hard-line pro-polygamy rhetoric. It became politically expedient to advance the notion that Smith’s “plural marriages” were not sexual at all—that they served a noble purpose, such as providing husbands for widows whose original husbands had been ‘murdered by persecutors,’ or that Utah had a shortage of men, so Mormons simply combined women and children with a single husband. There’s not a shred of truth to either of those ideas. Not a single one of Smith’s “plural wives” was a widow, and in fact, at least eleven of his well-documented “wives” were CURRENTLY MARRIED TO OTHER MEN AT THE TIME THEY WERE ‘SEALED’ TO SMITH. Also, Smith’s first documented attempts at “plural marriage” came in 1833 (with 16-year-old Fannie Alger) and 1838 (with the married Lucinda Morgan Harris) long before any Mormon men died leaving widows to be cared for.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, the wife of Adam Lightner, testified:

“Joseph said I was his before I came here and he said all the Devils in Hell should never get me from him, I was sealed to him in the Masonic Hall…by Brigham Young in February 1842 and then again in the Nauvoo Temple by Heber C. Kimball…” (Affidavit of Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, as cited in No Man Knows My History, p. 444)

In a speech given at Brigham Young University (see Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? pp. 215-216), Mrs. Lightner said that Joseph claimed an “angel” came with a “drawn sword” and told him that if he did not enter into polygamy “he would slay him.” She frankly admitted that she “had been dreaming for a number of years that I was his [Joseph’s] wife.” Since both Joseph and her were already married, she “felt it was a sin.” Joseph, however, convinced her that the “Almighty” had revealed the principle and while her “husband was far away,” she was sealed to him.

In a “revelation” received through Joseph, his wife Emma was told that:

“…if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord they God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.” (D&C 132:54)

Is it not rather obvious this was Joseph attempting to convince his wife Emma to allow him to be with other women – with her consent – and doing it through a supposed revelation?

His other wives documented in their diaries how Joseph Smith proposed and the events surrounding the plural marriages. Joseph fairly consistently involved the woman’s family by promising salvation to all her relations if she accepted his proposal. If she was already married, he sent the husband away on a mission before proposing. The decision usually had to be agreed upon within a day or fairly quickly after being told that God had revealed to him that He had “already” given her to Joseph and that God would smite them both if she refused his advances. Imagine being a 15-year-old girl being put under this pressure by a man you revered as a prophet and who was making you responsible for your entire family’s salvation! This happened to Helen Mar Kimball.

Emma had a very difficult time with Joseph’s polygamy. It is no surprise that she chose to separate herself from the Saints prior to their exodus to Utah.

Plural marriage, the secrecy of its early practice, and the ensuing social and political circumstances that emerged from its practice, are probably the greatest factors leading to the murders of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum, and the subsequent upheaval of that era of Mormon history. Subsequent litigation and national disenfranchisement would force (or heavily induce) the church to abandon the practice of plural marriage.

I don’t see God in any of the methods in which it was carried out. It left a trail of suffering on the part of polygamous wives who dreamed of romantic love with one man only to be told that they were unreasonable in their expectations and left them to settle for a lonely existence. They had to satisfy themselves with occasional conjugal visits from a man who was more like an acquaintance than a provider and loving companion.

Particularly heart wrenching is the story of the husband who lost his wife to the prophet. The whole lifestyle as practiced by Joseph Smith and those who came after him is disgusting and I find it offensive to be associated with it even if only historically.
In fact the actual doctrine has never been abandoned by the church only the practice of it has (D&C 132).

Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 2) – The Book of Abraham

Tags

Book of Abraham, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, search ponder pray

There is not one thing that led me out of the church.

Rather, it was the accumulation of facts that led me to observe that Joseph Smith was untrustworthy as a man. Nothing proves Joseph Smith a fraud more than the Book of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham has been proven a false translation. When I say “proven,” I mean that there are people in neither the LDS camp nor the “anti-Mormon” camp (and in both camps) who are scientists that have verified that what Joseph Smith claimed with regards to the Book of Abraham is false.

Unlike the Book of Mormon, we do have the original documents Joseph Smith used to “translate” the Book of Abraham and unfortunately for Joseph, we can now decipher these writings. This was not possible in Joseph Smith’s day so he felt safe in deciphering the papyri any way he saw useful.

In July of 1835, an Irishman named Michael Chandler brought an exhibit of four Egyptian mummies and papyri to Kirtland Ohio. The papyri contained Egyptian hieroglyphics, which intrigued the prophet Joseph Smith. As prophet and seer of the Church, Joseph was given permission to look at the papyri scrolls in the exhibit, upon which he pronounced a marvelous discovery:

“…with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. – a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

Wilford Woodruff recorded in his diary on February 19, 1842 that the Book of Abraham was literally written by Abraham himself. This would make the Book of Abraham the only existing original copy of a scriptural book. It would also date the record of Abraham (about 2,000 B.C.) to some 500 years prior to the Book of Genesis believed by Mormons to be authored by Moses, between 1440-1400 B.C.

The Book of Abraham is believed by the LDS church to have been written by Abraham himself, as shown in the preface to the Book of Abraham.

With the later discovery of the Rosetta Stone, however, it finally became possible for scholars to decipher the Egyptian language. After many years of studying the Rosetta Stone and other examples of ancient Egyptian writing, Jean-François Champollion deciphered hieroglyphs by recognizing that it was written in three languages (hieroglyphic, demotic and Greek). Knowing Greek, he was able to decipher the messages in Egyptian.

LDS scholars don’t even refute this point. Egyptian can be read. As a Mormon I didn’t know this.

Once Egyptian was deciphered, this enabled the experts to objectively evaluate Joseph’s translation of the papyri. The papyri themselves were thought to have been destroyed in the “Great Chicago Fire” in 1871. However, Egyptologists could still study the three Facsimiles included in the Book of Abraham as well as Joseph’s translation of these Facsimiles. M. Theodule Deveria of the Louvre in Paris performed the first such study. Deveria recognized the three Facsimiles as common Egyptian funerary documents and concluded that Joseph’s interpretations of the Facsimiles were nonsense.

In 1912, Reverend Franklin S. Spalding sent copies of the three Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham to some of the world’s leading scholars of Egyptology. All eight of the scholars that responded were unanimous in their condemnation of Joseph’s translations as being incorrect. For example, Dr. Arthur Mace, Assistant Curator for the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York explained:

“The Book of Abraham, it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication. Cuts 1 and 3 are inaccurate copies of well known scenes on funeral papyri, and cut 2 is a copy of one of the magical discs which in the late Egyptian period were placed under the heads of mummies. There were about forty of these latter known in museums and they are all very similar in character. Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end. Egyptian characters can now be read almost as easily as Greek, and five minutes’ study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture.” (F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr., As a Translator, 1912, p. 27)

Dr. James H. Breasted of the Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago, declared:

“It will be seen, then, that if Joseph Smith could read ancient Egyptian writing, his ability to do so had no connection with the decipherment of hieroglyphics by European scholars…The three fact-similes in question represent equipment which will be and has been found in unnumbered thousands of Egyptian graves…The point, then, is that in publishing these fact-similes of Egyptian documents as part of an unique revelation to Abraham, Joseph Smith was attributing to Abraham not three unique documents of which no other copies exist, but was attributing to Abraham a series of documents which were the common property of a whole nation of people who employed them in every human burial, which they prepared…

Fact-simile Number 2 represents a little disc…commonly called among Egyptologists a hypocephalus…These did not come into use until the late centuries just before the Christian era. They did not appear in any Egyptian burials until over a thousand years after the time of Abraham. They were unknown in Egypt in Abraham’s day.

Fact-simile Number 3…This scene again is depicted innumerable times in the funeral papyri, coffins and tomb and temple walls of Egypt. No representation of it thus far found in Egypt, though we have thousands of them, dates earlier than 500 years after Abraham’s age; and it may be stated as certain that the scene was unknown until about 500 years after Abraham’s day.” (Ibid., pp. 24-27)

Thus, based on the evidence provided by the Facsimiles alone, scholars overwhelmingly concurred that Joseph’s translation of these Facsimiles was incorrect. Further, it was determined that Abraham could not have possessed these Facsimiles because at least in the case of Nos. 2 and 3, they did not exist until long after Abraham’s day.

Every detail of Joseph’s interpretation was incorrect.

Another piece of the puzzle fell into place in 1938, when Dr. Sidney Sperry allowed the publication of portions of Joseph’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. The Grammar was a working document used by Joseph and his scribes during the translation of the Book of Abraham. Sperry had discovered the Grammar three years prior in the official church history vault, where apparently they were deposited in 1855 and forgotten about. The Grammar quickly proved to be a problem for the LDS church, and it is understandable why they were hesitant to publish it themselves.

Professional Egyptologists again went to work examining the Grammar, and quickly concluded that it bore no resemblance to any correct understanding of the Egyptian language. For example, I. E. Edwards stated that it was:

“…largely a piece of imagination and lacking in any kind of scientific value…[and reminded me of] the writings of psychic practitioners which are sometimes sent to me.” (Letter of I. E. Edwards, Keeper of the Department of Egyptian Antiquities, June 9, 1966)

In 1966 the original papyri were rediscovered in one of the vault rooms of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. On Nov. 27, 1967 the Salt Lake City Deseret News announced that the papyri had been presented to the LDS church. On the back of the papyri were drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area. It was also noticed that Facsimile No. 1 from the Book of Abraham was identical to the facsimile found in one of the papyri scrolls.

All told, 12 papyrus fragments were discovered. By piecing the fragments together, it was determined that the papyri constituted two original scrolls. Egyptologists concluded that the Book of Abraham scroll was in fact known as the Book of Breathings and could be dated to the time of Christ, or approximately 2,000 years later than the time of Abraham. The Book of Breathings consisted of instructions along with a series of magic spells to be recited by the spirit of the corpse after burial, in order to teach itself to “breathe,” and thus prepare for its existence in the afterlife. There was no indication of Abraham whatsoever in the scroll.

At that time it was also possible to compare the Book of Abraham papyrus with the Grammar that had been published that same year. It was found that the Book of Abraham papyrus began with Facsimile No. 1 and was immediately followed by Egyptian. These Egyptian figures matched identically, and in order, the figures in the left column of the translation manuscripts. The same Egyptian characters in all three manuscripts correspond to identical passages of adjacent text, indicating a deliberate juxtaposition with the text of the translation manuscript. In addition, where there were tears and missing sections in the papyrus, contrived non-Egyptian figures were written next to certain passages in the manuscripts. This provided further evidence that these papyri were in fact the originals used by Joseph to create the Book of Abraham. More importantly, it demonstrated that Joseph’s translation of the Book of Abraham text could not possibly be correct, since the Egyptian characters had absolutely nothing in common with the transcript text to which they were aligned, and the non-Egyptian characters were meaningless.

Regarding the LDS apologists claimed that Joseph was only constructing the Grammar for the purpose of translating additional papyri after completing the Book of Abraham, and that it was a “failed effort”, it is clear that this was not the case. In fact, Joseph was intimately involved with the creation of the Grammar and used it for inspiration during the translation process:

“This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with Brothers Oliver Cowdery and W.W. Phelps, and during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter.” (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 286)

The LDS church chose Hugh Nibley as the primary scholar to work on a sanctioned translation of the papyri. Nibley posited that the inconsistencies in the Facsimiles might have been due to errors by Reuben Hedlock, the Latter-day Saint who prepared the original woodcut engravings of the scenes in 1842. However, to do so Hedlock would have needed access to the papyri, as demonstrated by the blatant transposition of so many unrelated elements into the Facsimiles. It is unfathomable that Joseph would have permitted such creative license, and in fact journal entries show that he was directly involved in the process:

“Thursday, March 1, 1842 – During the forenoon I was at my office and the printing office, correcting the first plate or cut [note: this would be “Facsimile No. 1″] of the Records of Father Abraham prepared by Reuben Hedlock, for the Times and Seasons…” (History of the Church, Vol. 4, p. 519)

“Friday, March 4, 1842 – At my office exhibiting the Book of Abraham in the original to Brother Reuben Hedlock, so that he might take the size of the several plates or cuts, and prepare the blocks for the Times and Seasons; and also gave instructions concerning the arrangements of the writing on the large cut, illustrating the principles of astronomy [this would be Facsimile No. 2]…” (Ibid., p. 543)

In any case, the erroneous translations provided by Joseph demonstrate a blatant misunderstanding of the true meaning of the papyri. They also indicate that Joseph was more than willing to fabricate a false story of translation and set it up as religious truth.
Church apologist say that we have no evidence that Joseph Smith used those papyri in his translation:

 “One explanation is that it may have been taken from a different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith’s possession. In other words, we don’t have all the papyri Joseph Smith had—and what we do have is obviously not the text of the book of Abraham.”(Michael D. Rhodes, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, July 1988, 51)

Yes, we do know which papyri Joseph used in his translation. We have his word. He even published his source in the Pearl of Great Price. If we can’t rely on his word that that’s how he translated them, then he again has proven himself untrustworthy.

Even though JS himself said he was “arranging” the Egyptian Grammar, the apologists ask me to disregard it since it wasn’t written primarily in his own hand. They then ask me to accept as true the 1838 version of the First Vision, even though that, like the grammar, was not written in his own hand.

Still, it’s obvious here that even LDS scholars admit that what we do have in no way matches Joseph’s “Book of Abraham.” To me, this fact set the stage for evaluating later truths I would uncover. Was I willing to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt when he so clearly lied about the Book of Abraham?

Related Reading

• …by his own hand upon papyrus by Charles M Larson
• Mormons: Still Believing in Things Shown to Be False (atheistrev.com)

Search, Ponder and Pray (Ch 1) “The truth is not uplifting it destroys”

Tags

Boyd K. Packer, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Exiting Mormonism, Mormonism, search ponder pray

One major thing I learned growing up in the church was to love the truth. I loved the church because it was true, not just because there was a lot of good in it. The truth was something I felt I possessed and truthfulness carried a lot of weight in my intellectual and spiritual belief in the church.

On my mission to the Catholic country of Brazil, there was a rumor among the missionaries that the Pope in Rome had historical evidence in a Vatican vault that proved the LDS church was true. I remember being skeptical of the rumor at the time, but I also felt indignant over how evil it would be for a religious leader to hide such facts or to hide any truth from the world. I was sure that my prophet, my faith, my leaders lived by a higher law. I certainly believed I lived by a higher law while I taught the LDS gospel. In other words, I believed in the truth as the highest of all values taught in the church. I thought the church and the truth were one in the same until the following experience.

Once, while teaching early morning seminary I was at a teacher in-service training organized by the local CES Institute coordinator. We were shown a video of a talk by Boyd K. Packer instructing all CES teachers who were teaching church history. Here’s a bit of that talk that bothered me at the time:

“I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting it destroys. . . . Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting”. –Boyd K. Packer (Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, page 103)

This went against everything that I believed all my life. According to Elder Packer, there was some truth to be afraid of. It just didn’t sit right with me. I had been taught otherwise my whole life. The scriptures I read still point to the truth as being on God’s side, not against Him.

Exodus 20:16 – Thou shalt not bear false witness…

Isn’t part of bearing false witness telling only ½ of the story?

2 Nephi 28:28 – And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.

So is the church on sandy foundation or built on a rock? If it’s on a rock, then there’s nothing to be afraid of. If it has a sandy foundation, I can see why the GA’s might harbor ill feelings towards the truth.

If “truth” needs to be protected to the point of lying to cover it up, it cannot be truth. If a doctrine cannot be mentioned because it will look bad, there is something wrong with it. If it is cast in a bad light because it is being taken out of context and/or is misunderstood, you don’t recommend covering it up. You correct the context and explain it. Far better for “enemies” to misrepresent the truth and its defenders uphold it in the light of day than for so-called defenders to bury it and lie.

Let’s not forget D&C 93:24 stating that truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were. Not just things as we wish they were, as they are faith promoting, as approved by the First Presidency, or as it supports our version of things.

In conflicting doctrinal and historical situations, we are taught in the church that we should just revert back to our testimonies and put things on a shelf to be answered sometime in the afterlife. Sometimes we’re encouraged to find out for ourselves although that advice is heavily coated with the warning not to search out information contrary to what the church teaches. The stress is definitely loyalty above inquiry.

For example:

“The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein. The book of Revelation declares: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:15-16).

They who are not for me are against me (2 Nephi 10:16). Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.

– President Gordon B. Hinckley. “Loyalty,” April Conference, 2003.

In other words,

“search, ponder and pray but the answer you’re going to get is what we tell you it is so why bother. Just pray about it, get a good feeling and don’t worry about the rest.”

You have to make up your mind before you are able to investigate because investigating would put you on that “middle ground.”

I did just that and went along for several years continuing my service and belief in the church with gusto. My primary reason of doing so was love for my family and fear for my family. My family and the church are so integrated that anything that affects my feelings for one is bound to have ramifications with the other. The church teaches us that they are so intertwined that love for one cannot truly exist without a love of the other. I’m told that if I love my family, I’ll be active in the church. If I love the church, I’ll have more love for my family. I definitely love my family – my wife and kids are my main reason for existing and so I reasoned that my love for the church had to be as strong.

I thought I knew just every dirty little secret that anti-Mormons tried to throw at the church. I thought I knew all the responses as well. I couldn’t imagine what Elder Packer was so fearful of because I certainly didn’t know anything too harmful to the church. My problem was, however, that I was only hearing certain issues through the filter of the church.

Sometime after my Mom died in 2002 some of the things I had been putting up on that “testimony shelf” began to fall down and cause me to question the church’s truthfulness. Perhaps part of my testimony was strengthened by the expectations and love my Mom always had for me and without her I felt free to explore the gospel more deeply. If so, it was an unconscious connection.

Speaking of love for my family, I know I loved my Mom and upon her death I thought (as I was always told) I would find comfort in the fact that we’d been sealed as a family in the temple, but I didn’t. Instead, I wondered about the other good people I knew who would lose their loved ones. Would THEY not have their loved ones with them again in the after life if they disbelieved the gospel? I’m talking about GOOD people who just don’t believe in Mormonism even after being given the chance. Would God really make them suffer (or make me think they would suffer) based on a simple ceremony? Their familial love didn’t include the element of the church. Was their love any less?

The stories of non-members who have gone through near death experiences relate that they too get to bask in the love of their family members. What if love were the only requirement? Isn’t that a more comforting thought than “I get to see my loved ones and you don’t?” The weight of proof, whether it be spiritual or temporal, would have to be extremely great and clear for God to make such a grand judgment, I think. I also think it would have to be extremely great to put up with some of the other things that were falling off of that shelf of mine.

I wanted to confirm for myself that the evidence was as great as I had always believed it was. So, I began reading remembering all along Gordon B Hinckley’s words,

“There is no middle ground”

See also:

Search, Ponder and Pray (Introduction)