tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3232227013750423042024-03-13T04:58:55.160-06:00Of Darkness and Light(Isaiah 5:20)Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-27768065282521994882015-12-14T19:39:00.003-07:002017-01-08T22:27:54.543-07:00The Four-Letter “C” Word<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Many critics of the LDS church opine that it is a cult, or
at least cult-like. I have not heretofore referred to the Church with these
terms, perhaps because the thought of having been in that kind of organization
is so repulsive. However, I gave it more thought after I ran across one
definition of a cult in a text that was unrelated to the Church. After an
informal evaluation, I thought it may be an interesting exercise to more
formally evaluate the Church with these criteria on this blog. I will first
give that definition, in its entire and original form, and then add my thoughts
about whether and how the LDS church fits. </span></div>
<br>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">According to the widely recognized skeptic, Michael Shermer
(<a href="http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Why People Believe Weird Things</i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">,</i> 2002), a cult consists of the
following core elements:</span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Veneration
of the leader</i>: Glorification of the leader to the point of virtual
sainthood or divinity.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Inerrancy
of the leader</i>: Belief that the leader cannot be wrong.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Omniscience
of the leader</i>: Acceptance of the leader’s beliefs and pronouncements on all
subjects, from the philosophical to the trivial.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Persuasive
techniques</i>: Methods, from benign to coercive, used to recruit new followers
and reinforce current beliefs<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">.</span></i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></i></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Hidden
agendas</i>: The true nature of the group’s beliefs and plans is obscured from
or not fully disclosed to potential recruits and the general public.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Deceit</i>:
Recruits and followers are not told everything they should know about the
leader and the group’s inner circle, and particularly disconcerting flaws or
potentially embarrassing events or circumstances are covered up.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Financial
and/or sexual exploitation</i>: Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest
money and other assets in the group, and the leader may develop sexual
relations with one or more of the followers.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Absolute
truth</i>: Belief that the leader and/or the group has discovered final
knowledge on any number of subjects.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Absolute
morality</i>: Belief that the leader and/or the group has developed a system of
right and wrong thought and action applicable to members and nonmembers alike.
Those who strictly follow the moral code become and remain members; those who
do not are dismissed or punished. </span></li>
</ul>
<br>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I will now assess whether and how the LDS church fits this
definition. However, before doing so, given the numerous changes to Church
doctrines (<a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#doctrine">example</a>)
and practices (<a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/temple.htm#oldcer">example</a>)
since the time of its founding in the early 1800s, arguably for the specific
purpose of making it more mainstream and less cult-like (e.g., <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng">Official
Declaration 1</a>), I think it only practical and fair to analyze the
organization in its current form separately from Joseph Smith, Jr.’s original
organization.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Veneration of the
Leader:</i></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> As Joseph Smith, Jr. founded the LDS church, let us begin with him.
On the one hand, Smith was/is explicitly not prayed to or worshipped (<a href="https://www.mormon.org/faq/worship-joseph-smith">source</a>). Yet it is
certainly difficult to argue that he was/is not perceived as an especially
sacred person doctrinally (e.g., D&C 138:53-57). Indeed, considering the
oft-repeated statement that he “has done more, save Jesus only, for the
salvation of men in this world than any other man that ever lived in it…” (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/135.3?lang=eng#2">D&C
135:3</a>), he is the de facto fourth member of the Godhead. In the LDS church,
a testimony of Smith’s divine calling is as important as a testimony of
Christ’s divinity.</span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">In practice as well, many members commonly have graven
images and paintings (<a href="http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product3_715839595_10557_3074457345616706178_-1__3074457345616990827">example</a>)
of Smith in their homes, just as beautiful and maintained as are their images
of Christ. Several hymns literally “praise” Smith. If any doubt his virtual
sainthood, simply read the lyrics to the popular LDS hymn, “<a href="https://www.lds.org/music/text/hymns/praise-to-the-man?lang=eng">Praise
to the Man</a>.” In every sense of the word, Smith was and is venerated by the
membership.</span></div>
<br>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Current Church presidents may be venerated to a lesser
degree than was Smith, but I do not find it to be much less. Consider how many
talks and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ensign</i> articles plead with
members to <a href="https://www.lds.org/search?q=%22follow+the+prophet%22&lang=eng&domains=all">follow
the prophet</a>. The popular children’s song entitled <a href="https://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/follow-the-prophet?lang=eng">Follow
the Prophet</a>, contains the lyrics, “Follow the prophet. Don’t go astray.
Follow the prophet. He knows the way.” Even though the current leaders of the
Church rarely speak of any personal revelations in the same tone as did Smith,
it is official doctrine that the Church president is the only person on earth who has the
authority to speak on God’s behalf (<a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/the-living-prophet-our-source-of-pure-doctrine?lang=eng">example</a>).
It is probably safe to say that the average LDS member believes that the
current Church president is the most important person alive (at least the
office is the most important office). Therefore, I argue that this element has
been toned down in the current practices, but for all intents and purposes, it remains
just as present as it was in Smith’s day.</span><br>
<ul>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<ul>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Inerrancy of the
Leader:</i> Interestingly, there is seemingly contradictory evidence on this
topic. Joseph Smith, Jr. admitted to having flaws, and even warned followers
about expecting too much of him. He is often berated in his “revelations” (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/3?lang=eng">D&C 3</a>,
for example). But at the same time, these alleged revelations continually
upheld that Smith was God’s servant, and although there were sometimes threats
of removing his authority, Smith got away with whatever he wanted in reality.
Regardless of what he said about himself, though, Smith’s followers have
essentially stated that he was without error in his leadership of the Church.
For example, Wilford Woodruff, president of the Church at the time, said,</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span>“I say to Israel, the Lord will
never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead
you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were
to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any
other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of
God and from their duty” (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng">Official
Declaration - 1</a>; Harold B. Lee said similar things in 1968).</span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><br>
<ul>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">T</span>his statement, in essence, suggests that the leader, though
human perhaps, is infallible at directing God’s work and, in turn, directing
all people on earth. Indeed, even in the face of blatant error in judgment, the
leaders are granted complete immunity. Consider the repulsive example of racist
doctrines and treatment of persons of African descent—the LDS church has still <a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#apologize">never apologized</a>
for these. On the contrary, these errors are excused with statements such as, “<a href="https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/all-are-alike-unto-god_eng.pdf">limited
understanding</a>.” The Church never concedes and calls it what it is—complete
and unbridled racism posing as revelation. </span><br>
<br></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Regarding more modern Church practices, in addition to the
massive efforts aimed at public perception of the past leaders’ inerrancy,
there is much evidence that it also applies to current leaders. Perhaps most
telling is the requirement that members not associate with people who are
critical of the leaders (among other things; <a href="http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/recommend.shtml">source</a>). To be
worthy of entering LDS temples, members must deny associations with critics of
the Church. At a minimum, then, it appears that much effort is exercised to
preserve the perception of the leaders’ inerrancy.</span><br>
<ul>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<ul>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Omniscience of the
Leader:</i> Because early Church members left behind everything they knew to
join the LDS community, abandoning previous associations, trying out a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration">new economic system</a>,
even <a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/politics.htm">giving up their
political affiliations</a>, and following Smith and other early leaders as
mayors and even facing the prospect of making <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/02/joseph-smith-campaign-for-president-of-the-united-states?lang=eng">Smith
the President</a> of the United States, it is safe to say that early members
viewed Smith as being correct in far more than just his interpretations of
scripture. He was their leader in all things.</span><br>
<br></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Modern leaders may be less involved in areas of members’
lives, but the foundation of this element remains. Because spiritual wellbeing
is believed to be tied to virtually all other areas of life, there is little
room for disagreement with a current church president on matters as diverse as <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng">diet</a>,
personal appearance (e.g., <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng">ear
piercings</a>), <a href="https://www.lds.org/youth/article/out-of-the-best-books-movies-or-music?lang=eng">choice
of media</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/10/in-good-company?lang=eng">associates</a>,
and so on.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Decades ago, leaders had stricter positions about topics
such as <a href="http://www.lds-mormon.com/birth.shtml">family planning</a>, <a href="http://www.livescience.com/46867-mormon-church-gender-roles.html">gender
roles</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">, and so on</span></span>. Although these latter positions
have softened in more recent years with society’s views, it remains clearly
held that members would do well to heed the Church leaders in all things.</span><br>
<ul>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<ul>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Persuasive Techniques:</i>
Obviously, the missionary system for both the early and current Church fulfills
the recruitment method element of a cult, not to mention the member missionary
program and <a href="https://www.lds.org/church/share/goodness?lang=eng">social
media</a> campaigns, as well as movies like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4003774/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Meet the Mormons</i></a>. Naturally, this
element does not a cult make per se, but it is certainly present within the
Church.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Regarding reinforcement of current beliefs, the Church holds
3 hours of meetings on Sundays, in addition to firesides and other devotionals;
Mondays are set aside for Family Home Evening, which includes reinforcement of
Church doctrines; Members are taught that every day should include scripture study,
guided of course by Church-publicized study aids and interpretations; High
school students are almost required to attend seminary, where beliefs are
reinforced each weekday; Home and visiting teachers must deliver a “spiritual message”
to each family each month, and each member (above a certain age) must also make
such visits to several families. Hours more of belief reinforcement may be
added if one considers that members are encouraged to also attend the temple,
do family history work, and constantly look for opportunities to share their
beliefs. It is undeniable that there is a great emphasis in the Church on
recruiting others and reinforcing beliefs.</span><br>
<ul>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<ul>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Hidden Agendas:</i> I
argue that this was and is clearly present in both the early and modern Church.
The phrase “milk before meat” encompasses this element. A social psychologist
would call the same thing the “<a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/compliance.html">foot-in-the-door</a>”
phenomenon—if you can get someone to commit to something relatively minor, they
are much more likely to commit to something bigger later. Following <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-3/lesson-21-we-receive-great-blessings-as-members-of-jesus-christs-church?lang=eng">promises</a>
of spiritual cleansing and the personal guidance of a member of the Godhead, potential
members commit to baptism, usually before having learned about all that will
thereafter be required of them (e.g., the Word of Wisdom, tithing, volunteering
in a calling, home or visiting teaching, temple attendance, etc.), and without
exposure to the troubling doctrines and practices of the past, and sometimes
present, Church (see this blog). They are later gently introduced to these
subjects with assurances that faith and prayer will make everything alright in
the end, and before they know it they are in temple ceremonies, dedicating
their entire existence to furthering the Church’s agenda. A less cult-like
approach would involve months or even years of education about Church doctrines
before baptism, so that it is clear that the investigator understands the
nature of the Church. Instead, it seems that a very basic understanding of the
more popular doctrines is all that is necessary for baptism; the rest comes
later.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><br>
<ul>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Furthermore, the secretive nature of the temple fulfills
this cult-like element. Call it “sacred” rather than secret, but the practice
is the same – investigators are sheltered from learning many vital agendas of the
Church.</span></div>
<br>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Deceit:</i> Very much
in line with the hidden agendas, even lifelong members are carefully kept away
from information that might cast doubt on the Church’s divinity. In Joseph
Smith, Jr.’s days especially, as he was quietly pressuring women into marrying
him, but <a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#lied">lying</a>
about it publicly and going to other extreme lengths to keep it secret (e.g.,
sham marriages; see Compton, 2001), deceit was an enormous part of the early Church.
Smith even went so far as to destroy a printing press that might make his
actions public. Only recently, as the internet has made it easier for the
troubling flaws of the Church and its leaders to be made public, has the Church
made <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng">attempts
to address these issues</a>. But even these attempts are largely superficial,
without actually addressing the core concerns, and often they even contain
inaccuracies to allow the deceit to carry on (<a href="http://ldsdarklight.blogspot.com/2013/03/mixed-messages.html">example</a>).
In any case, the Church does not seem troubled that its members believe false
things about the Church, as long as it keeps them faithful (<a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm">more</a>). Certainly, the LDS
church meets this criterion of a cult, both in the past and the present.</span></div>
<br>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Financial and/or
Sexual Exploitation:</i> The financial must be separated from the sexual here.
Financially, tithing is the obvious application for the modern Church, although
it arguably falls short of the severity of what I would consider a cult; All
churches require some form of financial support from members. What I find
bothersome about tithing in the LDS church is that consequences of not paying are
severe to the point that an otherwise faithful and true believer is not in good
standing with the Church without having paid an amount set forth by the Church.
Considering “other assets,” such as the hours of time members are required to
“volunteer” for callings, financial exploitation may be clearer. The LDS church
does not typically pay for things that they can order (“call”) a member to do,
such as cleaning Church buildings, babysitting children (“called to nursery
service”), marketing (“missionary service”), and so on. It would be difficult
to suggest that members do not invest a great deal of money, time, skill, and
other talent in the service of the LDS church. Naturally, they would insist
that they volunteer these things willingly, but all of these assets are given
under the vague promise of “blessings,” for which there is no objective measure
or proof.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In Smith’s days, the financial exploitation of members was
far more severe, especially during the failed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration">Law of Consecration</a>
experiment (not to mention the <a href="http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_kirtlandbank.html">banking fiasco</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">)</span></span>. Members gave literally all they had to
the Church, which then supposedly redistributed it in a manner it saw fit.
Smith himself earned no income, but all of his property came from his
followers. Thus, it is difficult to argue that this was not a form of financial
exploitation. </span></div>
<br>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Sexual exploitation is another matter entirely. I am aware
of no such exploitation in the modern Church, at least certainly not sanctioned
by the leaders or widespread in any way. Developing sexual relationships with
leaders is no issue of which I am aware. Joseph Smith, Jr.’s leadership, on the
other hand, was rife with obvious sexual exploitation. Not only did he take <a href="http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/">multiple wives</a>, but many of them
were very young, and many of them he took even though they were married already
(Compton, 2001). That he consummated his marriages is supported by the
historical records, and perhaps most damning is the fact that he kept these
practices <a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#lied">hidden</a>
for as long as he could. Despite attempts to explain this obvious sexual
exploitation away, I am unable to find a reasonable purpose for these marriages
(see the outline of my concerns). Clearly, sexual exploitation was apparent in
the early Church. If I am wrong about this, please, someone explain to me how. </span></div>
<br>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Absolute Truth:</i>
This element requires very little discussion, for this is precisely the
Church’s claim. It, alone, holds the authority, knowledge, and inspiration that
are necessary to pass this test that is earthly life. There are no
substitutions (<a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/04/what-constitutes-the-true-church?lang=eng">example</a>
of this position). It was so in the early Church, and remains so today. This
cult-like element is indisputably present in the LDS organization.</span></div>
<br>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Absolute Morality:</i>
Certainly related to the previous element, the Church leaders claim precisely
to have the system for right and wrong that applies to all of humankind,
without exception. Members who stray from this system (or even voice
disagreement) are disciplined, including <a href="http://www.religionnews.com/2015/03/01/ordain-womens-kate-kelly-loses-last-appeal-husband-resign-mormon-church/">excommunication</a>.
They are, of course, invited to return, but only after they have adjusted their
behavior and/or beliefs to again conform to the morality dictated by Church
leaders. The Church undeniably purports to hold absolute moral authority. I
know of no evidence to the contrary.</span></div>
<br>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In conclusion, I argue that the early LDS church met all
criteria for a cult. The modern Church has softened relative to many of the
early practices, but these elements are still at the core of the organization.
I, therefore, would describe the modern LDS organization as cult-like. Of
course, simply because an organization is cult-like does not mean that it is
necessarily a negative organization. On the contrary, the LDS church has done
and continues to do much good. Even so, I argue that these cult-like elements
are necessarily unhealthy for absolute truth. When transparency is the enemy,
and illusion is needed so that people will remain loyal to a cause, that cause
is not interested in truth. Such an organization is interested first in its own
existence, and only secondarily to its other purported goals. Because the
Church claims to be primarily interested in truth, but instead often works
directly against truth for the aim of ensuring its survival, I argue that the
good it does is overshadowed by the harm. There are far more healthy and
appropriate ways to do good in the world than through pseudohistory,
manipulation, and behavior compliance tactics with promises that cannot be
kept.</span></div>
Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-60495172403636168732015-11-17T18:26:00.000-07:002015-11-18T08:17:54.305-07:00Stirring Things UpEarlier this month, LDS leaders made changes to the official handbook regarding the children who have guardians or parents in same-sex marriages. These children may not be baptized, prepare for missions, or hold any standing in the Church until age 18, and only after they have moved out of the household of their same-sex parents, and after having officially stated that same-sex marriage is a sin.<br />
<br />
The Church’s official explanation for why they would do something like this is that they are protecting children from the uncomfortable situation that might arise when the child is on the records of the Church, but is not supported at home. See the official response <a href="https://youtu.be/iEEMyc6aZms" target="_blank">here</a> (by the way, notice how the interviewer hand-feeds these gentle and obviously scripted questions to Elder Christofferson).<br />
<br />
I find at least three concerning issues here. The first is that it appears that the child is being punished for having same-sex parents, not protected from discomfort. Second, the Church seems inconsistent with this bizarre practice of barring a child’s alleged spiritual progress based on the parents’ beliefs. Lastly, why is gender more important than love?<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, the claim is that this policy protects the child from
conflict. I cannot understand how the policy would accomplish that. If a child wants
to be a member of an organization that believes his same-sex parents are
committing a very serious sin, the conflict is inescapable – it will not go
away at age 18 or ever. At best, this Church policy only makes the conflict
worse by forcing an immediate choice – “Do I want the blessings of my chosen
faith, or do I want to live with my same-sex parents?” Had the policy not been
in place, a child whose same-sex parents did not oppose his decision could be
baptized, go on temple trips, and so on. Now that it is in place, the child is
forced to choose between his same-sex parents and his faith, even if the parents have no objections to his membership. Rather than
reaching out to the same-sex couple by showing acceptance to their child, the
Church has chosen to cut off the family for as long as the same-sex couple is
an issue. </div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Second, I find this policy wildly inconsistent. Why implement this stance in families with same-sex marriages, but not in
other families that do not fit the LDS ideal? For example, suppose a liberal
LDS couple (yes, they exist) teaches its children that same-sex marriage is
okay, even though the Church does not condone it. Why would their children be
allowed baptism, if we are using the reasoning provided by Elder
Christofferson? If the aim is to avoid children being taught things in the home
that are contradictory to doctrines, shouldn’t thousands of children be denied
baptism each year? Indeed, it sounds like the next question for the temple recommend interview should be, "Do you here and now condemn same-sex marriage as a sin comparable to murder?" I'd wager that a good proportion of members, particularly of the younger generation, would not pass the interview. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Children of parents whose lifestyles are not in accordance with Church doctrines are allowed to be baptized all the time. Indeed, suppose a teenager has alcoholic parents—do the missionaries say, “The Lord’s Word of Wisdom does not permit alcohol to be consumed. Because both your mother and father consume alcohol regularly, you are not eligible for membership in the Church.”? It’s ludicrous. <br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Lastly, I am an enormous supporter of the family. The family has
become a hot topic in recent years as opposing views wrestle over what the
family is and isn’t. On the one hand, some want to portray it as perfectly
normal for children to be from broken homes, raised by nannies, by helicopter
parents, and so on. On the other hand, others, like the LDS church, seem to
suggest through policies such as this one that the family is primarily about
genitalia, and the rest is secondary. The Church wants the world to think that children raised in same-sex
households are in grave danger, simply due to the fact of the same-sex union.
However, I believe that what is more important in a family is that the parents
are unified in their love and support of the children: nurturing their
interests and talents, and guiding them through life’s tough times. I argue
that such characteristics are far more important than the sex of the parents. Perhaps same-sex parents are not the ideal situation, but if the child is loved and nurtured, then that's a far better situation than many children have whose parents are straight.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Naturally, as society becomes even more accepting of
same-sex unions, and science continues to demonstrate that it is not an issue
of choice, morality, or sin, but a mystery of nature, I am certain that the LDS
church will be forced to follow the path it took regarding <a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm" target="_blank">race and worthiness</a>
– either face mutiny or change doctrines. If history is any indicator, the
Church will again choose the latter.</div>
Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-16313784844507206532015-02-13T16:03:00.002-07:002016-01-01T12:21:05.931-07:00Formula for FaithI came across <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/Mickey-goodman/prophet-or-predator_b_2575026.html" target="_blank">this</a> article a few days ago, and could not help but share it here. Reading the title, you might assume that it is the exit story of some disenchanted member of the LDS church who simply repeats all of the criticisms of Joseph Smith, Jr. Actually, it is a much more interesting story than that.<br />
<br />
In sum, a young woman and her mother were convinced through the Holy Ghost that a charismatic man (who was not Joseph Smith, Jr.) was a prophet, and became willing to do anything he asked, even far beyond the point of it becoming uncomfortable and apparently immoral. He was able to gain their loyalty through a combination of confidence, flattery, and promises of certain rewards for their obedience to him.<br />
<br />
Of course, I draw attention to the parallels of this story with that of the founder of the LDS church. All Joseph Smith, Jr. did was to confidently tell people that he had all sorts of supernatural powers, possessed ancient and sacred plates, and that he was the supreme authority of God on earth. He flattered his followers by claiming that they were the elect, chosen people. He promised them rewards of whatever they desired most - eternal families, mansions in heaven, eternity with their Heavenly Father, peace, and salvation.<br />
<br />
Just as the man in the story, Smith eventually convinced many of his followers to do extremely uncomfortable and seemingly immoral things.<br />
<br />
What I find disturbing is that so many people still cling to Smith for exactly the same reasons that the women in this story clung to "Adam". There is seemingly no difference between Smith and Adam. If my LDS friends and family members were in the position that these women were, it seems that they would still be following Adam, just as they are following Smith. <br />
<br />
If I were to pray about Adam and get a sinking feeling, his followers would likely tell me that the devil is working hard to keep me from believing, that I lack the faith and confidence in God to receive the correct answer, that I don't know what the Holy Ghost feels like, that my heart is not prepared to receive the answer, that I am receiving the answer in other ways I do not recognize (<a href="https://www.lds.org/new-era/2011/01/removing-roadblocks-to-revelation?lang=eng" target="_blank">source</a>). They would tell me to read Adam's "translations", to sing songs that praise him, and then to kneel and pray aloud with "real intent" until I finally did believe in Adam (<a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1972/10/how-to-gain-a-testimony" target="_blank">source</a>). <br />
<br />
In essence, there is no possible way of convincing an irrational human being that Adam was just a power hungry, manipulative, charismatic con artist. They have a hundred ways to explain away his deeds, most importantly their own conviction. There is similarly no way to convince some followers of Joseph Smith, Jr. that he was exactly the same thing. Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-74069461037590347032014-01-08T10:45:00.000-07:002014-01-13T14:47:18.266-07:00DesireApologists often state that the LDS practice of polygamy was a commandment from God, and that is the only reason that it happened. The Church would have us believe that Joseph Smith, Jr., in total innocence, approached the Lord in humble prayer to know if Old Testament prophets were justified in taking several wives (D&C 132:1), and that as a response Smith was commanded to begin taking more wives. In fact, in most of his proposals (of which we know much detail), Smith claimed that God had commanded him to marry these additional women. This applies even to many of the women who were already married to other men. For example, <a href="http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/05-ZinaHuntingtonJacobs.htm" target="_blank">Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs</a> was already married when Smith proposed to her. She wrote that Smith said he had been commanded to marry Zina, and that "an angel with a drawn sword had stood over [Smith] and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose 'his position and his life'" (Quoted in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/In-Sacred-Loneliness-Plural-Joseph/dp/156085085X" target="_blank">Compton, 2001</a>, pp. 80-81; see also <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400077532/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389202856&sr=1-1&keywords=rough+stone+rolling" target="_blank">Bushman, 2005</a>). Indeed, the current position of the Church is that the taking of multiple wives was a commandment (<a href="http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng" target="_blank">source</a>), and never something that members sought out of their own accord. <br />
<br />
These statements all make it seem as if polygamy was nothing but a trial for Smith and the early members of the Church. They seem to suggest that Smith was reluctant at best to take another wife, and perhaps that he pleaded with God to excuse himself from this commandment. On a few occasions, Smith publicly expressed disdain for the idea of multiple wives, and threatened others with excommunication if they practiced it (History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411; William Clayton's Diary, Oct. 19, 1843), even though he already secretly had multiple wives. <br />
<br />
These images of a reluctant and humble instrument of God notwithstanding, there are several pieces of evidence that tell us more clearly what was going on in Smith's mind where polygamy was concerned. Firstly, I find it very strange that Smith would specifically inquire about the practice. With so much else to take up his time and attention, and so many other principles that were pertinent to the salvation of humankind, why was he thinking about multiple wives? I believe that Smith had had his eye on his first plural wife, and was wondering how he might justify his desires for her while keeping in line with the doctrine he was preaching. After all, Fanny Alger, Smith's first plural wife married him while she was living with Smith's family (<a href="http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm" target="_blank">source</a>; see also Compton, 2001). It is not as if this commandment caught Smith by surprise, and he had no idea whom he would choose to be his Number Two.<br />
<br />
The second hint as to his true motivation is the sheer number of plural wives he took. For a man who was reluctant to practice polygamy to take at least 34 total wives during his life is very strange. If Smith was commanded to take more than one wife, why did he choose more than two? If a man has moral hesitations about paying tithing, does he decide to pay 90% instead of 10% of his income?<br />
<br />
The third hint that struck me recently is in the scripture where he dictated the alleged commandment. When Smith would recite a "revelation", it came fluidly, often uninterrupted. He would have us believe that that is because he was merely repeating what God had told him. Were this true, then the scripture should read exactly as God willed it. The more realistic and likely possibility is that he was speaking on his own accord, saying his thoughts as they streamed through his consciousness. Thus, mistakes would certainly be present, and he would often say things before having the chance to think them through. The latter would explain why the 132nd section of the Doctrine and Covenants (and so much other LDS scripture) seems to jump from topic to topic. More importantly, however, I think it also reveals some of his hidden motivations as he did not have the time and cognitive resources to edit his thoughts. What I find most telling is his word choice in verse 61. It states, "...if any man espouse a virgin, and <i>desire</i> to espouse another... then is he justified" (emphasis added). What a strange place for the word "desire"! If this truly was a commandment that Smith was so reluctant to follow, should not the passage read, "if any man espouse a virgin, and I command him to espouse another..."? The verse sounds less like a commandment from God, and more like a permission slip for Smith.<br />
<br />
If this truly were a dictation from God, He is essentially saying, "Take as many wives as you like! No problem!" This is a strange statement from a deity whose followers are already hesitant to follow his edict. It seems even stranger considering the strict conditions under which polygamy was supposed to take place. Jacob 1:15, 2:23-35, and 3:5 make it clear that plural marriage is a potentially damnable practice, so why would God write a blank check for the LDSs at that time?<br />
<br />
I see this phenomenon nowhere else in LDS doctrine. Nephi was supposedly commanded to kill Laban in order to fulfill the higher purpose (1 Nephi 4:10-11). Nephi was reluctant to follow this supposed commandment. Did God tell Nephi in that instance, "Slay him. In fact, slay as many people as you want."? Abraham was probably reluctant and heartbroken at the commandment to slay his son (Genesis 22). Did God tell Abraham "Offer your son for a burnt offering. If you desire to also burn your wife, or anybody you meet along the way, that's acceptable too."?<br />
<br />
I know of no other "commandment" where God explicitly states that there is no limit. Tithing is, by definition, 10%. Why did God not add in, "Just to clarify, 15% is okay too."? Why is this law of polygamy the only place where the Almighty specifically says, "you can have as many wives as you want."?<br />
<br />
The best explanation that I have is that it was never a revelation from deity, but this "New and Everlasting Covenant" was Joseph Smith, Jr.'s way of justifying his lust. He <i>desired </i>to marry many women, and that is exactly why he did it. This fact is stated in his own documentation of the alleged commandment. If there is a better explanation, please share it with me.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-71766174126133262712013-06-12T15:30:00.000-06:002013-06-12T15:30:01.793-06:00Supply & DemandI recently watched an interesting documentary that is entirely relevant to this blog. The film is entitled <i>Kumar</i><i><span style="font-size: small;">é</span></i><span style="font-size: small;">, and the idea behind it was to examine the role of a religious leader. In brief, the filmmaker is a fairly ordinary skeptic who decides that he will dress and behave like a wise and deeply spiritual leader, and simply see what happens </span>(<a href="http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Kumare/70177446?trkid=496624" target="_blank">Netflix link</a>). <br />
<br />
I highly recommend watching the documentary, but here is my summary. The actor, Vikram Gandhi, advertises his services, and gains a few followers. With no real basis for them, he makes up some completely ambiguous chants and yoga-like exercises and meditations to use with his followers. Many of them are searching for answers, which he, "Kumar<span style="font-size: small;">é" provides to the best of his knowledge as a completely ordinary person playing the role of a spiritual leader. Many of the followers express a deep connection to </span>Kumar<span style="font-size: small;">é, and sense his "purity" of intention. Many clearly put a great deal of faith in his every word, and even as he attempts to instruct them that everything he says and is is really an illusion, they continue to follow him and his ordinary wisdom. Something begins to happen as </span>Kumar<span style="font-size: small;">é connects with his dedicated followers and seeks to help them with their personal problems; He begins to understand the enormous responsibility that comes with his newfound power and influence. When the time comes to reveal to his followers that he is not, in fact, what he has pretended to be, and that he has no more knowledge or wisdom than any other person, he becomes intensely anxious, and is unable to tell them of the deception. After much more planning and soul searching, </span>Vikram<span style="font-size: small;"> eventually reveals to his congregation that he is not </span>Kumar<span style="font-size: small;">é, but an ordinary person. His followers have mixed responses, but overall lovingly accept him and acknowledge that his works were valuable. One woman even insists that he does, in fact, have psychic powers even if he does not recognize them.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">I wish to address several themes I gleaned from the film. First is the fact that the followers were searching for something - answers. Each of </span>Kumar<span style="font-size: small;">é's followers had some problem or need in their lives, and each believed that the problem could be solved or the need could be met through some "spiritual" methods. In other words, there was a clear demand for answers, and the followers believed they required someone to supply the answers.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">Second, </span>Kumar<span style="font-size: small;">é had the appearance of a man who had answers. He had none in reality, or at least not any better answers than anyone else might have. What was important was that he supplied <i>the illusion</i> that he had answers, and that is all that the followers really wanted. He grew a long beard, put on a robe, carried a staff, and spoke in simple terms. The followers wanted to believe that he was wise and had an advanced perspective on the universe, so he simply met their expectations, however uninformed or faulty. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">Finally, I find the interaction of the two positions fascinating. </span>Kumar<span style="font-size: small;">é hardly ever truly gave his followers advice, because he really didn't have any answers. He often redirected their questions back to them, asking them what advice they might give to themselves, for example. And yet, simply from the nature of the relationship, the followers needed him as some sort of symbol or direction, so remained dependent upon him. He, on the other hand, was told day after day that he was making a huge impact in their lives - the followers constantly remarked to him how he had changed their lives, how they admired him. By the end of the film, Vikram felt an overpowering need to be </span>Kumar<span style="font-size: small;">é for these people. Even though he had done nothing but provide some sort of superficial hope and safety for them, that was what they most needed. The <i>meaning</i> of what he had provided to them was far more valuable than the shallow words he had used. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">I argue that </span>Kumar<span style="font-size: small;">é could have used any manner of words or approach, but that as long as he provided the message of hope and validation, he would have gained followers anywhere. I believe that is what religious disciples seek first and foremost. The details are almost irrelevant. This is clearly evidenced by the deliberate ignorance of so many LDS at the significant problems with Church doctrines and history. As long as the LDS church offers a message of hope and tells them they are right to believe it, almost no amount of reality will deter them. I could name any number of other spiritual groups or cults where people seeking answers were caught up in a leader's charisma and hopeful message (no matter how strange); these followers sometimes become willing to do anything the leader asks, even if bizarre or unconscionable. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">In the documentary, Vikram was just a curious skeptic. With a little imagination, it is easy to comprehend the real damage he could have done if he were a manipulative or corrupt man. By simply pretending to be a compassionate, wise man, with some perspective on life, he almost immediately had control of his followers. A manipulative or corrupt man could easily begin to take advantage of their vulnerability and trust to get them to do unbelievable things.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Through the documentary, I found new perspective on Joseph Smith, Jr. Perhaps I will spend more time on this in the future, but I have pondered Smith for some time now - why did he do what he did? At this point, I do not believe that Smith started the LDS church with purely evil intentions. I believe they were selfish reasons, perhaps to make a few dollars and have some entertainment, but not purely psychopathic. I think most likely he saw the huge demand people of that day and age had for religious guidance, and so he decided that he would step in and become a supplier. Maybe he knew that all religious leaders need is confidence and a message people <i>want</i> to believe. He had witnessed firsthand the methods that religious leaders of his day used to gain followers and he thought to himself, "I bet I could do that." He practiced his methods by claiming to be a scryer - confidently claiming that he knew how to locate buried treasures (<a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm#josephwasatreasureseeker" target="_blank">more</a>). All he needed was some demand for such services - and everyone wanted to find treasure - and he would confidently deliver the hopeful message of knowing its location. The problem, of course, is that he never once actually delivered treasure. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">Regardless of Smith's original motives in making spectacular claims about golden plates and visions, the documentary calls another interesting point into question - could Smith have come clean? Perhaps the whole LDS church began as an experiment for Smith. Maybe he just wanted to see if he could pull it off. But, just as Vikram found it unbearable to let down his followers, who had come to depend on him so, could it be that Smith came to feel obligated to continue his charade? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">I am a doctoral student in psychology, and cannot help but consider some psychological principles here. Social psychology's theory of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" target="_blank">cognitive dissonance</a>, for example, proposes that, when faced with such dilemmas, we typically mold our thoughts and feelings to match our actions. Perhaps at some level Smith really felt guilty for misleading innocent people, but felt that coming clean and admitting that he was no prophet would have done more damage to his vulnerable followers (or it would at least get him killed). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud" target="_blank">Freud</a> might have argued that <a href="http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/" target="_blank">Smith's polygynous practices</a> were an unconscious attempt to be found out as a fraud so that he could finally relieve his conscience of its burden. Or perhaps after years of hearing his followers' praise, he eventually came to believe that he really was more than a man. After all, even palm readers and other psychics must believe at some level that they really have supernatural powers if they are not entirely malicious manipulators. People return to them, and keep paying their money. Smith may have seen his growing army of followers and their willingness to do anything for him as evidence that he must have been more than a mere man. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">There may also be something to learn about subsequent Church leaders here. I recently read an <a href="http://mormondisclosures.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-churchs-troubling-issues.html" target="_blank">interesting opinion</a> about the current leaders of the Church. The question is if they truly know deep down that the Church is not what it claims, but feel obligated to the members to continue to put on the show (or have they become the liars and manipulators Joseph Smith was?). I think that using the </span>Kumar<span style="font-size: small;">é experiment as a reference point, it is easy to understand how a normal member of the Church could rise to a position of prestige, learn more of the troubling reality of the Church's history, but as a combination of their celebrity status (which extends to their family), their promised blessings, the decades and dollars they committed to the Church, and, perhaps most importantly, the millions of members whose lives depend on the message, that these leaders cannot allow themselves to entertain the possibility that they were lied to and, therefore, misled their children and friends. Truly considering that thought is potentially painful, and may have serious consequences (as any of us who has left the Church knows). Friends will be lost, social status revoked, family relationships damaged, and perhaps even marriages broken (see <a href="http://ldsdarklight.blogspot.com/2009/12/wizards-and-men.html" target="_blank">my earlier post</a> on this topic). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">And yet, just as Vikram wrestled with these questions and finally decided that, no matter how painful, the truth must be revealed, that is where I stand. It is <i>because</i> Vikram cared for his followers that he told them the truth. He knew the truth might be painful, but he believed his followers deserved to know, and that they were strong enough to no longer <a href="http://ldsdarklight.blogspot.com/2010/02/feathers.html" target="_blank">need the lie</a>. Similarly, it is precisely <i>because</i> I care for my family and friends that I have told them the truth about the LDS church. Whether they still need the lie or not is their decision, but I refuse to perpetuate it any longer. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" - Gal. 4:16</span>Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-60093223171073076372013-03-25T11:20:00.002-06:002013-04-02T15:01:48.894-06:00Mixed Messages Part II<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Continuing my comments on the LDS church's latest edition of its scriptures, I would like to now address the new introduction to the second Official Declaration at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants. The introduction reads, in its entirety:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (<a class="scriptureRef" href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/26.33?lang=eng#32">2 Nephi 26:33</a>). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and
ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as
faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few
black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early
in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on
black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights
into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a
revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully
sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W.
Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple
on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to
race that once applied to the priesthood.</span></blockquote>
While I completely agree with the leaders' decision to finally remove the racial restrictions, I will focus my comments on two of the claims made in this new introduction. First, the statement "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice" is a complete lie. Consider the following:<br />
<br />
In 1947 the First Presidency issued this Official Statement:<i></i><br />
<blockquote>
From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church<b></b>, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17, 1947, quoted in <i>Mormonism and the Negro</i>, pp.46-7)</blockquote>
In 1949, The First Presidency issued the following statement:<br />
<blockquote>
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church<b></b>
from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may
become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the
priesthood at the present time. (The First Presidency on the Negro
Question, 17 Aug. 1949)</blockquote>
And an Official Statement of The First Presidency, issued on August 17, 1951, reads:<br />
<blockquote>
The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine<b></b>
of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in
the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions
and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that
while the details of this principle have not been made known, the
principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on
mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their
first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that
spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what
the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and
that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the
blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to
assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle
there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the
holding of the priesthood by the Negroes... Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's
transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the
Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not
because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of
Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit
world.</blockquote>
It is thus entirely clear that several Church documents outline the origins of the racial restrictions to the priesthood. They claim that it was direct revelation from God. The current introduction to the Official Declaration implies that it was somehow just a simple misunderstanding, but this is in conflict with the official statements by leaders that the restriction was doctrine because of God's direct communication of such. I find it repulsive that the leaders now easily disregard those past "revelations", and yet claim that Spencer W. Kimball's "revelation" was real. Which leads to my next point.<br />
<br />
The new introduction states "<span style="font-size: small;">Church leaders believed that a
revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully
sought guidance." This statement suggests that leaders were anxious to end the Church's racist practices, when in fact the LDS church was the <i>last</i> major U.S. organization to begin treating Blacks and Whites equally. Even after dozens of requests and inquiries as to the possibility of removing the restrictions based on race, church leaders held stubbornly to the practice, and continually claimed it to be God's policy, not theirs. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">Rather than minimizing this disturbing, systemic racism in the Church's past, it is time that leaders acknowledge that those past "revelations" were inspired by racism and ignorance, and were never the will of God. This is why I can find no faith in any LDS leader who claims to know what God wants me to do. Past leaders commanded incorrect, arguably evil, practices to be carried out against innocent people for over a century, and now do not even acknowledge that it was a horrible mistake. They continue to insist that they are and were God's voice to His children. If they are, then that is not a god I choose to follow.</span></div>
Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-15251177830394739492013-03-22T12:32:00.000-06:002013-04-02T15:07:48.020-06:00Mixed Messages<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The reader may be aware that the Church <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865574523/LDS-Church-announces-new-scripture-edition.html" target="_blank">recently announced</a> completing a new edition of LDS scripture. The new edition corrects some typographical errors, adjusts information in footnotes and chapter headings, etc. For
this post, I will comment on the new edition's introductory paragraphs for the Official Declarations at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The introduction reads, in its entirety:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<blockquote>
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage
was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132).
From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws
to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President
Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by
the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to
the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">First, is that LDS scripture states that
monogamy is God's standard for marriage. I have a difficult time understanding the language of it being a standard, "unless He declares otherwise". All the research I have done about polygamy in the Church has shown that plural marriage is the standard, and that God only <i>tolerates</i> monogamy when His people are unable to live polygamy. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Although I agree that the text of both the Bible
and The Book of Mormon make clear the superiority of monogamy (</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">1 Corinthians 7:2; Deuteronomy
17:17; Ether 10:5; Jacob 1:15, 2:24, 26-27, 3:5; Mark 10:11; Mosiah 11:2; 1
Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6; also see D&C 49:16)</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">,
LDS leaders and members have made clear their belief that God holds polygamy in
higher esteem than monogamy. For example,</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Brigham Young taught, "Since the
founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in
times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and
women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity
of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails
throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution
and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New
World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both
national and religious." (<i>Journal of Discourses</i>, Vol. 11, p. 128)</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">John
Taylor (1853) preached, "...the one-wife system not only degenerates the
human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely
incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to
temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people." (p. 227)</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The
Doctrine and Covenants contradict the idea of monogamy being a higher law than
polygamy. D&C 132:3-4, 6 state, when introducing the principle of
polygamy, “Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions
which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed
unto them must obey the same. For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an
everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned;
for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory…
And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for
the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fullness thereof must and
shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.”</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">These statements suggest to me that polygamy is the LDS God's standard of marriage, unless God allows otherwise. Now the Church has released the contradictory introduction to the Official Declaration, suggesting that polygamy was a break from the norm.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Are they implying that the decades-long practice of the "new and everlasting covenant" by early
members was simply a temporary break from the higher law of monogamy? If that is true, the Ruler of the Universe must have had a very compelling reason for it. I, therefore,
ask again, <b>what was the purpose of polygamy?</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Secondly, it is incorrect that "the practice of plural marriage
was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s". Joseph Smith had already married at least 3 women (including Emma Hale) by that time (Compton, 2001). <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Third, the introduction suggests that
LDS were legally practicing polygamy since its inception - as if they were simply appealing the practice thereof until the Supreme Court finally upheld laws against its practice. The claim is simply
false:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The Illinois Anti-bigamy law outlawed
polygamy. It was passed in 1833 (Revised Laws of Illinois) while the LDS were
there. Most did not leave until 1846. Joseph Smith, Jr. took his first
plural wife between 1833 and 1835.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The introduction correctly cites the first federal legislation to outlaw polygamy, passed in 1862 (Embry, 2007). </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The introduction also correctly states that t</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">he Church finally issued the
Official Declaration against polygamy in 1890, long after it had been made illegal, but the statement was not accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding; Polygamous marriages still
took place until at least 1904 (Embry, 2007).</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In brief, everywhere the LDS
practiced polygamy, it was illegal. This is the longest campaign of civil
disobedience in American history (Bagley, 2007).</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">I am certain that church leaders went to great lengths to carefully word these introductions in order to appear historically plausible, while not too out-of-line with what the Church has taught for decades. It appears to me, however, that this is simply another attempt to hide the uncomfortable and disturbing details of the Church's past.</span></div>
Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-92009353669999831832013-01-09T10:46:00.000-07:002013-01-09T10:47:22.847-07:00Recent DialogueOver the recent holiday season, someone close to me began a discussion through letters and a gift about the LDS church. I find the dialogue so far relevant to this blog. I will keep the other party anonymous.<br />
<br />
The individual gave me as a gift the autobiography of Andrew Janus Hansen, an early member of the LDS church. The giver also included a letter explaining why I received the book. Here is the relevant excerpt:<br />
<blockquote>
I am enclosing the Autobiography of Andrew Janus Hansen to give you the opportunity to round out your education relating to the topic of Polygamy. This has been the topic of great controversy for many people in and out of the church. It seems, however, that for those who accepted and lived it the realities were many and varied. To discount a practice from our vantage point and privileges in life seems a little frivolous to me. I leave the words of Andrew to speak for themselves.</blockquote>
Here is my response. Much of it is repeated from previous posts I have made, but it seems clear that this individual does not follow my blog:<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<blockquote>
Dear ______,</blockquote>
<blockquote>
This brief is in regards to the
letter to me you included with your Christmas gift this year. I appreciate you
choosing to broach the subject of religion with me, and I hope that we can have
a mature and thoughtful dialogue on this topic.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
I want to make clear that I do not
hope to sway your opinion on these matters. You may, of course, worship however
you see fit. However, what I do hope to gain from this interaction is that you
may understand that I have spent years “rounding out” my education on every
topic that concerns me about the Church. This was not a lightly-made decision. I
also hope that, though you will never agree with my decision, perhaps you may
come to understand why I made it.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
As your letter addresses the topic of polygamy
in light of Andrew Janus Hansen’s experiences and thoughts thereon, I will
constrain my response to only those statements. I have also included an updated
copy of the outline of my concerns about the Church, to avoid any redundancy
(references I make herein may be found in that document), and if you care to
read more of my feelings on any of these topics you may find my personal blog
on them at www.ldsdarklight.blogspot.com.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Use of Anecdotes</b><br />
<br />
You mention in your letter that
early church members’ experiences with plural marriage were varied. I agree. I
have never attempted to argue that plural marriage resulted only in poor
outcomes, just as it would be foolish to argue that monogamy always has
positive outcomes. We could find plenty of anecdotal evidence defending either
position, but anecdotes are weak evidence at best. With these aside, I argue
that, although plural marriage produced some instances that worked for those
involved, the principle did more net damage to those involved than would have
monogamy. Neither form of marriage is free from problems, but I strongly
believe that monogamy is far godlier than polygyny. Monogamy is the prime
environment for the best type of marital happiness, and polygyny is a prime
environment for jealousy, resentment, and low self-worth. When a husband takes
a second wife, the first can only naturally feel that she is not fulfilling her
husband's needs - that she is not good enough. One wife may be a better cook, a
better mother, a better lover. The husband may pick and choose parts of wives
to love, and must never accept one for all that she is anymore. Even if he did,
the husband cannot divide his attention and affection equally between the two
(or 3 or 4 dozen in the cases of Joseph Smith and Heber C. Kimball), and thus
hurt feelings thrive. While the wives sometimes became very close friends,
rivalries were rampant, and the friendships were often to replace what their
relationships with the husband lacked. Polygamy is less than monogamy, and I do
not believe that God Himself would command a practice that worked directly
against companionate love.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Smith’s Martyrdom</b></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
In the top paragraph on page
262, Hansen states that Joseph Smith, Jr. “laid down his life” for the practice
of plural marriage. I must first make clear that dying for a cause bears no
reflection on the righteousness of that cause whatsoever, but only reflects the
martyr’s dedication to that cause. The most obvious example may be a suicide
bomber – simply because a person chooses to die for his or her belief does not
bear witness that such belief is necessarily correct in the eyes of God. If it
were otherwise, why are we not Muslim? We must judge the belief as right or
wrong by itself. No one would argue that Joseph Smith was less-than-dedicated
to his practices<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=323222701375042304#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a>,
but so have been millions of others to their beliefs, even to the point of
death. In this regard, Smith is not at all unique.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
Hansen
addresses the destruction of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Nauvoo
Expositor</i> as ordered by Joseph Smith, but does not give any details surrounding
the event. I believe these are vital in understanding the nature of polygamy,
especially as Mr. Hansen views it. William Law was a close associate of Joseph
Smith, and Law eventually came to believe that Smith had proposed marriage to
Law’s wife without his knowledge (Smith often took women from their first
husbands to be sealed to himself; see LDS authors Bushman, 2005; and Compton,
2001). Law understandably became disenchanted with Smith, and began publishing
the newspaper <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Nauvoo Expositor</i>
making public the more disturbing details of Smith’s practice of polygyny. The
paper published only one known issue, after which Smith ordered the destruction
of the press and any copies of the paper that could be found. Law complained to
the governor of Illinois that Mayor Smith had exceeded his legal authority in
ordering the press’s destruction, and that is why he was jailed. He was legally
and justifiably held in prison for his role in that crime. This leads directly
to Mr. Hansen’s main point: the purpose of polygamy. I will later return to
address other topics he brings up.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<b>The Purpose of
Polygamy</b><br />
<br />
Hansen correctly states that the
purpose of plural marriage was not to multiply the membership of the LDS
church. In fact, by introducing polygyny it appears that the reproductive
potential of LDS women at the time was inhibited (see LDS author Embry, 1987).
Additionally, there are no strong indications that Smith himself produced any offspring
with his nearly 3 dozen wives. Clearly, polygyny did not increase the numbers
in the Church<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=323222701375042304#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a>.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mr. Hansen incorrectly states that
plural marriage may have had something to do with women outnumbering men during
those days. Census records from those times show that men outnumbered women in
Utah, from at least 1850 to 1950.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mr. Hansen opines that the purpose
of polygamy may have been partly to cause members of the Church to “bring upon
them added responsibilities and trials” (page 263). This opinion could be
responded to in many ways, but I believe that it fits closely enough with Mr.
Hansen’s final conclusion on the topic; he states that at least a very
important purpose of polygamy was “that this nation in particular and the world
in general should have an excuse for rejecting the message of salvation” (page
263). In other words, Mr. Hansen believes that Joseph Smith and his followers
were commanded to take more than one wife so that nonbelievers could feel
comfortable in rejecting the LDS message. Somehow, by introducing a celestial
principle that appeared evil to normal people, it was supposed to draw in only
those truly elite and repulse those who would not accept God’s will. This
argument is nonsensical for the following reasons:</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Even if plural marriage had never been
practiced, LDS doctrine and history contain enough problems and inconsistencies
to conclude Joseph Smith was nothing more than a man. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Book of Mormon</i>, for example, is perhaps the best evidence that
the Church is man-made (see the outline of my concerns for specifics). Polygamy
is simply one more log in the fire.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>If the rest of the world was intended to know
about plural marriage, why did Joseph Smith try so hard to conceal its practice
even from members of the church? </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">a.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>He destroyed the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Expositor</i> for the explicit purpose of keeping the practice hidden.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">b.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>He publicly lied about his plural wives several
times, at least until 1844<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=323222701375042304#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a>,
but took his second wife between 1833 and 1835. </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">c.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Smith frequently married women without his first
wife’s knowledge (Compton, 2001). </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">d.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Polygamy was not official doctrine until 1852, but
Smith took his second wife (Fanny Alger) as late as 1835.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">e.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Smith arranged for sham marriages so that it
would appear that his plural wives were married to other men (for example,
between Sarah Ann Whitney [married Smith in July 1842] and Joseph C. Kingsbury
[pretended to marry Sarah in April 1843]).</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">f.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Smith even threatened excommunications for those
who were discovered practicing polygamy (see <i><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">William Clayton's Diary</span></i>,
Oct. 19, 1843).</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">g.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Earlier versions of the Doctrine and Covenants
(1835) specifically condemn the practice of plural marriage<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=323222701375042304#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a>. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>The Bible counsels believers not only to avoid
evil, but to "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians
5:22.). Why, then, would God command that LDSs engage in practices that appear
evil? Would not God rather take an inviting, attractive stance for His children
to come toward salvation? Should it be so difficult to believe the truth? Is
that not why the current Church leaders have modified the temple ceremonies to
remove the gruesome death threats?</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .75in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Christ warned of false prophets who would deceive
even the elect (see Matt. 24:11, 24; Matt. 7:15; Mark 13:22; 2 Peter 2:1; 1
John 4:1). If normal god-fearing people are looking for red flags about men who
claim to be prophets, should not polygamy raise enormous concern?</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .75in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Is it not appropriate that we be cautious of
strange doctrines such as this one? I believe that our ability and desire to
know why such a doctrine would be justified is an absolutely essential part of
our salvation. In fact, it stands to reason that God would demand that we take
an intensely cautious stance toward polygamy. If our greatest enemy is Satan,
and he has dedicated his existence to making us all miserable (2 Nephi 2:27),
and he is able to entice us, we must ask for reasons before following anything.
If we did not ask why, and closely study such doctrines, wouldn't we all be
easily led astray by the devil? Joseph Smith warned his followers about
fraudulent angels (e.g., Bushman, 2005, p. 438; see also D&C 129), and at
one point (at least) was deceived by a revelation that had come from the devil
(Roberts, Vol. 1, 1965), so it seems appropriate that one should question every
"prompting," teaching, doctrine, and commandment to know if it truly
were from God.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Legality of Plural
Marriage</b></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
I
also think it necessary to revisit something Hansen mentions briefly. He
suggests (page 262) that church members defended the legality of plural
marriage on several occasions. In fact, plural marriage was illegal long before
it was known that Joseph Smith, Jr. began its practice. <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Illinois Anti-bigamy
law outlawed polygamy. It was passed in 1833 (Revised Laws of Illinois) while
the LDS were there, practicing polygamy. Most did not leave Illinois until
1846. Smith may have taken his second wife this same year, but even so, it was
illegal long before the principle was made public. </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></b></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<b>My Conclusions</b></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In brief, there are 3
possibilities: </span></div>
<ol>
<li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"></span></span></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Joseph
Smith, Jr. was a prophet of God, commanded by divine revelation to take at
least 33 extramonogamous wives during his lifetime, usually without the consent
of his first wife, even often taking married women from their living husbands,
on at least two occasions taking wives who were 14 years old, contradicting
each condition that allows for plural marriage in the first place (see the
outline of my concerns, item 1b).</span></li>
<li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Joseph
Smith, Jr. was a prophet of God who made mistakes regarding polygamy. Either he
took plural marriage too far, or he misunderstood the confines of it. </span></li>
<li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Joseph
Smith, Jr. was an intelligent man, good with people, who used his talents to
gain followers. After gaining dedicated followers, he found himself bored with
his first wife, attracted to other women who adored him and his purported
authority, and he attempted to fit his infidelity within the religious
framework he had already set up. </span></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The first
possibility I find unacceptable. I believe that if a true, righteous God wanted
His children to practice polygamy, He would instruct us clearly in its purpose,
and He would demand that it be carried out under only the strictest of
circumstances. There is no other conclusion for me from documented firsthand
accounts than that Joseph Smith, Jr. took advantage of his power and others’ trust
in him. There simply was no spiritual or practical purpose for plural marriage.
If there was, why did God not make it clear?<br />
<ol>
</ol>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
The
second possibility contradicts official LDS doctrine, and is, therefore, obsolete.
For example, Wilford Woodruff said<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=323222701375042304" name="49"></a>, “I say to Israel, the Lord
will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to
lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I
were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will
any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles
of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration - 1). Additionally, Harold B.
Lee (1968) said, “God will never permit him [the president of the Church] to
lead us astray. As has been said, God would remove us [the leaders] out of our
place if we should attempt to do it. You have no concern.” There is, therefore,
no validity to the argument that Joseph Smith made a mistake about polygamy.
Each President of the Church, including Joseph Smith, Jr., either did exactly
what he was supposed to, or Smith was not a prophet in the first place. </div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
The
third possibility is, therefore, the only one that makes any sense to me. It is
well-established that Smith made a living of conning people out of money with
his fantastical charade as a scryer, even after the alleged First Vision. It is
perfectly reasonable to imagine that he used his talents at getting people to
believe he had special abilities to also get them to believe that he communed
with God. This is far easier to believe than that a just God would command a
man to take other men’s wives.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
Again, I appreciate that you brought up this topic with me. I hope that we can
continue to carry on a dialogue about similar topics. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
Sincerely, </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
Eli</div>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=323222701375042304#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a> I
should note that there is some second-hand evidence that Smith came to believe
polygamy was a mistake. For example, Marks wrote, "[Joseph] said it
[plural marriage] eventually would prove the overthrow of the church, and we
should soon be obliged to leave the United States unless it could be speedily
put down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there must
be every exertion made to put it down." William Marks, <i>Saints' Herald</i>,
Volume I, Number 1, page 22.</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
Additionally, the testimony of Isaac Sheen, who later
became a leader in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(RLDS), matched that of Marks when he stated, "Joseph Smith repented of
his connection with this doctrine, and said that it was of the devil. He caused
the revelation on that subject to be burned, and when he voluntarily came to
Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of his enemies, he said that he was
going to Carthage to die. At that time he also said that, if it had not been
for that accursed spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that."
Isaac Sheen, <i>ibid</i>., page 24.</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=323222701375042304#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a> It
is vital to note that LDS scripture states the only purpose polygyny might be
permissible is if God “will raise up seed” to himself. See Jacob 2:30. In the
book of Jacob, polygyny is specifically condemned if practiced outside of the
purpose of producing more children (Jacob 1:15, 2:23-35, 3:5). This alone makes
the practice indefensible.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=323222701375042304#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a>
Joseph Smith Stated on May 26, 1844, "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."</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
(Joseph Smith, <i>History of the Church</i>, Vol. 6,
pp. 410-411)</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=323222701375042304#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a>
"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)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I will post any response I receive to the letter here so that others may follow the discussion. Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-87626982415134516392012-01-26T12:46:00.001-07:002012-04-01T21:19:51.890-06:00CharacterI recently watched a PBS docudrama, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/godontrial/index.html">God on Trial</a>. In the film, a group of Jews are held at Auschwitz during the Nazi reign. Experiencing genocide at the hands of the Nazis moves many of them to question their religious belief that they are the chosen people of God. Consequently, they decide to put God on trial.<br />
<br />
I rented the movie because I hoped that it would contain some strong debates on theology, both for and against. I was not disappointed. There was one particular section of the movie that I found most intriguing, which I will present here for the reader's consideration. It explores several parts of the Old Testament that are not typically discussed in Gospel Doctrine classes. Perhaps this will shed more light on the reasons I have such a difficult time believing the Old Testament is in any way literal or reflective of how a real god, as envisioned by the LDS church (among others) would behave. See <a href="http://ldsdarklight.blogspot.com/2009/10/father-in-heaven.html">this previous post</a> for an example more specific to LDS doctrine. <i>The opinions expressed in this scene do not necessarily reflect my own. Please see my comments below the scene.</i><br />
<br />
The setting is that several male Jews are gathered in a dark, cold room with dirt floors, discussing what they are to interpret from their experiences as they relate to God. A rabbi who has been silent so far begins to speak (the transcript was provided from <a href="http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/169302/1/God-on-Trial">this</a> site; or you can watch the scene <a href="http://youtu.be/dx7irFN2gdI">here</a>):<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi Akiba</b>: Who led us out of Egypt?<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: God led us out of Egypt.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: I have a question; Why were we in Egypt to start with?<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: There was a famine, so we took shelter.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: Who sent the famine?<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: Well, we don't know much about the famine...<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: God sent the famine. So God sent us to Egypt and God took us out of Egypt.<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: And later He sent us out of Babylon in order that we might...<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: And when He brought us out of Egypt, how did He do it? By words, vision, miracle?<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: Moses asked Pharaoh...<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: And when Pharaoh said no?<br />
<br />
<b>Inmate</b>: The plagues.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: First <span style="color: black;">Moses turned the Egyptians' water to blood (Exodus 7: 17-21)</span>. Then God sent <span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">the plague of frogs (Exodus 8: 1-7</span></span><span style="color: black;">)</span>; next <span style="color: black;">a plague of mosquitoes (Exodus 8: 16-18)</span>; then<span style="color: black;"> a plague of flies (Exodus 8: 21-24)</span>. Then <span style="color: black;">he slew their livestock (Exodus 9: 1-6)</span>. Next <span style="color: black;">a plague of boils</span> (Exodus 9: 9-11). Next came <span style="color: black;">the hail</span> (Exodus 9: 18-25), which battered down the crops and even the trees and structures everywhere, except in Goshen where the Israelites lived.<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: But still Pharaoh did not agree.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: And so <span style="color: black;">a plague of locusts</span> (Exodus 10: 12-15). And then <span style="color: black;">the days of darkness</span> (Exodus 10: 21-23). And finally what?<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: God slew the firstborn of Egypt and led us out of Egypt.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: <span style="color: black;">He struck down the firstborn: from the firstborn and heir of Pharaoh to the firstborn of the slave at the mill. He slew them all (Exodus 12: 29-30).</span> Did He slay Pharaoh?<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: No, I don't think so. It was later.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>:
It was Pharaoh that said no, but God let him live. And slew his
children instead. All the children. And then the people made their
escape <span style="color: black;">taking with them the gold and silver and jewelry and garments of the Egyptians</span> (Exodus 12: 35). And then <span style="color: black;">God drowned the soldiers who pursued them</span> (Exodus 14:26-28).
He did not close the waters up so that the soldier could not follow. He
waited until they were following and then He closed the waters. And
then what?<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: And then the desert and ultimately the Promised Land.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: No. The Promised Land was empty and a new place, uncultivated.<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: No. There were...<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>:
When the Lord thy God shall bring you into the Promised Land you shall
cast out many nations before you, nations much greater and mightier than
you are. <span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">You shall smite them and utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them (Deuteronomy 7: 2).</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span><br />
<b>Inmate</b>: It shows us His favor. We are His people.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>:
And he gave us a king in Saul. Now when the people of Amalek fought
Saul's people, what did the Lord God command? I'll ask the scholar.<br />
<br />
<b>Scholar</b>: Crush Amalek and put him under the curse of destruction.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: Was Saul to show any mercy to spare anyone?<br />
<br />
<b>Scholar</b>: Do not spare...<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: Do not spare him, but kill. <span style="color: black;">Kill man, woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, cattle and donkey (1 Samuel 15: 3)</span>. So Saul set out to do this and on the way <span style="color: black;">he met some Kenites</span> (1 Samuel 15: 6).
Now these were not Amalek's people, he had no quarrel with them. He
urged them to flee. And the Lord our God, was He pleased by the mercy of
Saul: by the justice of Saul?<br />
<br />
<b>Scholar</b>: No. No he wasn't.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: And when <span style="color: black;">Saul decided not to slaughter all the livestock and to take it to feed his people </span>(1 Samuel 15: 9-26), was God pleased with his prudence, his charity?<br />
<br />
<b>Scholar</b>: No.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: No, He was not. He said, <span style="color: black;">you have rejected the word of Adonai, therefore He has rejected you as king</span> (1 Samuel 15: 23). And then to please the Lord our God, <span style="color: black;">Samuel brought forth the king Agar and hacked him to pieces before the Lord at Gilgar</span> (1 Samuel 15: 32-33). After Saul, there came David who <span style="color: black;">took Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, to himself</span> (2 Samuel 11: 2-4). After <span style="color: black;">arranging to have Uriah killed</span> (2 Samuel 11: 14-15) against the wishes of God, did God strike David for this?<br />
<br />
<b>Scholar</b>: In a manner of speaking...<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: Did He strike Bathsheba?<br />
<br />
<b>Scholar</b>: In the sense that when they had...<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: Adonai said, <span style="color: black;">since you have sinned against me, the child will die (2 Samuel 12: 13-14).</span> [Turning to the judge] You asked earlier, who would punish a child? God does! Now did the child die suddenly, mercifully, without pain?<br />
<br />
<b>Scholar</b>: In a-<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: <span style="color: black;">Seven days</span>! Seven days that child spent dying in pain while <span style="color: black;">David wrapped himself in sack and ashes and fasted and sought to show his sorrow to God </span>(2 Samuel 12: 15-18). Did God listen?<br />
<br />
<b>Scholar</b>: The child died.<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>: Did that child find that God was just? Did the Amalekites think that Adonai was just? Did the mothers of Egypt -- the mothers -- did they think that Adonai was just?<br />
<br />
<b>Scholar</b>: But Adonai is our God, surely...<br />
<br />
<b>Rabbi</b>:
Oh, what? Did God not make the Egyptians? Did He not make their rivers
and make their crops grow? If not Him, then who? What? Some other God?
But what did He make them for? To punish them? To starve, to frighten,
to slaughter them? The people of Amalek, the people of Egypt, what was
it like for them when Adonai turned against them? It was like this. Today there was a selection, yes? When David defeated the Moabites, what did he do?<br />
<br />
<b>Judge</b>: <span style="color: black;">He made them lie on the ground in lines and he chose one to live and two to die (2 Samuel 8: 2).</span><br />
<u><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></u><br />
<b>Rabbi</b>:
We have become the Moabites. We are learning how it was for the
Amalekites. They faced extinction at the hand of Adonai. They died for His purpose. They fell as we are falling. They were afraid as we are
afraid. And what did they learn? They learned that Adonai, the Lord our
God, our God, is not good. He is not good. He was not ever good. He was
only on our side. God is not good. At the beginning <span style="color: black;">when He repented that He had made human beings and flooded the earth</span> (Genesis 6: 6) - why? What had they done to deserve annihilation? What could they have
done to deserve such wholesale slaughter? What could they have done that
was so bad? God is not good. When <span style="color: black;">He asked Abraham to sacrifice his son</span> (Genesis 22: 1-2),
Abraham should have said no (some of my thoughts on this story <a href="http://ldsdarklight.blogspot.com/2009/04/faith-and-skepticism.html">here</a>). We should have taught our God the justice
that was in our hearts. We should have stood up to Him. He is not good.
He has simply been strong. He has simply been on our side. When
we were brought here, we were brought by train. A guard slapped my face.
On their belts they had written "Got mit uns" -- God is with us. Who is
to say that He is not? Perhaps He is. Is there any other explanation?
What we see here: His power, His majesty, His might, all these things
that turned against us. He is still God, but not our God. He has become
our enemy. <br />
That is what's happened to our covenant. He has made a new covenant with someone else.<br />
<br />
<i>My Comment</i>: Naturally, I do not agree with the suggestion that God made a covenant with the Nazis. My purpose in sharing these thoughts is that it seems appropriate to question these and other alleged acts of God (<a href="http://ldsdarklight.blogspot.com/2009/07/why.html">more</a>). If God is the ultimate example of righteousness, we may either judge each of these acts as righteous because they allegedly were God's, or we can examine the acts and ask ourselves if they fit the criterion of righteousness. If not, the only conclusion remaining is that these acts were not God's, or, at a minimum, the Old Testament is not inspired scripture. As we wrestle with such difficult mysteries of the divine, I <a href="http://ldsdarklight.blogspot.com/2009/06/occams-razor.html">again</a> pose the question of what is more reasonable here; are there sensible justifications for God's alleged actions as outlined in the Old Testament, or is the explanation more acceptable (however uncomfortable) that God did not command or cause these things to be done? Whether there is higher order to the universe is still up for debate, but the aforementioned stories are some of the many reasons I do not endorse the Old Testament as sacred text, or as a description of any god I can possibly believe in or worship. Lastly, I think it clearly calls into question the LDS teaching that the god of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ (more on that <a href="http://ldsdarklight.blogspot.com/2010/09/standing-for-something.html">here</a>).Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-23296078583968632472012-01-13T09:38:00.001-07:002012-01-13T09:38:32.187-07:00CorrectionIn a post from last year, I raised a concern as to why Joseph Smith, Jr. never offered to give up his wife to another while he was taking women from their husbands. I recently learned that my concern may have been obsolete, as Smith may have done just that. Whether it was from revelation or simply to get Emma to give him some peace and quiet about polygamy is, of course, up for debate. As we know, Emma did not marry another man until after Smith was killed. For more information on the situation, click <a href="http://mormonthink.com/grant7.htm">here</a>.<br />
<br />
After learning this information, I removed a paragraph from the post that brought up that concern. This blog continues to be a work in progress, and I will make updates as necessary to ensure clarity and accuracy.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-70565712348505763742012-01-12T11:29:00.000-07:002012-01-12T11:29:00.240-07:00SamplingOver the Holidays there are often several moments that tend to direct attention toward the differences in beliefs among people. I had an enlightening and somewhat disturbing experience that I feel has some relation to this blog.<br />
<br />
While speaking at the dinner table with another diner, the topic of Judaism came up briefly, regarding the faith's most basic premises. I was shocked to learn that one of the most devout LDSs present had no idea what we were talking about. She made it clear that she lacked even the most elementary knowledge of what Jews believe.<br />
<br />
The conversation quickly moved on to other things, but I pondered what had transpired for several minutes afterwards. What I found most interesting from those few minutes is that this person is absolutely convinced that her chosen religion is the one and only true one, without having the slightest clue about what else is out there, even relating to a religion that has been as prominent throughout history as Judaism. This disturbs me because I feel it is irresponsible to call something an absolute without at least some consideration of alternatives. An analogy may be helpful here:<br />
<br />
Suppose a new resident of a city goes out in search of the best restaurant. A coworker recommends an Italian restaurant a few blocks away, so he goes there to try it out. He orders the spaghetti and it tastes excellent. Thus, he declares that the Italian restaurant is the best in the city. <br />
<br />
Naturally, the problem here is that the diner cannot, with a surety, claim that the restaurant is the best after trying only one meal. Equally true is that this person could not make that claim after trying several meals at the restaurant, nor could he claim it after trying everything on the menu. What he could reasonably say is that it is a spectacular restaurant, but he cannot claim that it is better than any other restaurant without first trying every other one. It may, in fact, be the best restaurant in the city, but that claim cannot be made without first trying each candidate. <br />
<br />
This is why I find it so disturbing that members of the LDS faith so loudly proclaim that theirs is the one and only true (thus inherently "best") belief system. I have an easier time understanding this statement from converts, as they have likely sampled from other belief systems (analogous to an Asian or Mexican restaurant for the comparison), but again, unless a person has seen all systems, he or she cannot claim that the <i>one</i> he or she has experienced is better than <i>all</i> others.<br />
<br />
Thus, an LDS could accurately say, "I get everything I need from the LDS faith. I am not looking for anything more," just as the diner could say, "I had a fantastic meal at the Italian restaurant, so I see no reason to look any further." In both instances, however, it is unreasonable to say that the LDS church (or the Italian Restaurant) is superior to all others, because the person in question has not tried each of them. Who can say that the faithful LDS member would not feel just as strongly about Islam had he or she been more exposed to it than to LDS doctrine? Who is to say that the diner would not have been equally or more satisfied eating at the seafood place across the street from the Italian restaurant?<br />
<br />
Most members of the Church I know were born into it, attended every Sunday, had Family Home Evening every Monday, went to mutual activities midweek, and attended seminary every morning throughout high school. After finally moving out on their own, most of them attended LDS universities, or served LDS missions. In this way, what little exposure they have to other belief systems is sheltered - viewed through LDS lenses. One might smell the scents of what others believe, but he dare not taste them for loyalty's sake.<br />
<br />
To believe in something is admirable. But to simultaneously claim that others are ignorant because they do not believe that same way is folly.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-21561526248773816292012-01-05T12:09:00.000-07:002012-01-09T14:12:15.192-07:00ValidationDuring the Holiday season, I witnessed the innocent joys and excitement that accompany Christmas morning. I recall with pleasure the anticipation on Christmas Eves when I was a child. It can be such a joyful time.<br />
<br />
This Christmas I stayed with a family with several young boys. The parents encourage belief in Santa Claus, and spent several days before the holiday reinforcing this belief. They told the stories, they showed the movies that encourage faith in him even when others doubt, the kids even received emails regarding their status on the "naughty or nice" scale. It is quite the elaborate scheme to keep a false belief alive in children who are so eager to accept the fantastic.<br />
<br />
Christmas morning, when all were awake and the children were noisily attending to their presents, one of the younger boys approached me and told me that he was sure he had heard Santa's sleigh during the night. I asked him to tell me more, and he told me that he had heard some taps from somewhere above him, so he was absolutely sure that it must have been Santa's sleigh and reindeer. I smiled and he moved on to his presents, but I found the experience applicable to this blog. My interpretation is this; the young child had been taught a lie since he could speak, and had been taught from other sources that his reward would come if he believed even when others did not. He was eager to take part in the fantasy because it is an enjoyable story that teaches us to be mindful of others and to be kind to our neighbor, and because he was promised a reward for believing. Naturally, after being told that a supernatural being would visit that night, he listened carefully for any sign at all of his coming. Because normal household noises were all that came, he insisted that these must be the evidence of the supernatural being's presence, and the truthfulness of the premise upon which his belief was built.<br />
<br />
I cannot help but relate this experience to the LDS faith. Children are taught the Book of Mormon stories from birth, these stories are reinforced through books and movies throughout their lives. At several points, they are promised rewards for belief even when others doubt, and even when there is clear reason to doubt. They are told that a supernatural being will visit them to confirm their belief, and so they search for any sign at all that he has come. Any naturally occurring positive emotion is labeled as evidence that the supernatural being is present, and so the belief is emotionally validated. <br />
<br />
It appears to me that emotional validation is what both examples are really about. We train children to want to believe in Santa because if they do they will get a toy. Similarly we train children to want to believe that the Book of Mormon is sacred because if they do they will get special powers (e.g., the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the priesthood, etc.), they will gain blessings (e.g., joy, knowledge, etc.), and ultimately, they will receive mansions in the highest glory imaginable for eternity. Why would one not <i>want</i> to believe that? After instilling this desire to believe, they search hungrily for any validation of that belief, whether it be tracks in the snow that might be interpreted as a reindeer's or whether it is something pleasant happening that can be interpreted as a "tender mercy" from God.<br />
<br />
Indeed, it seems that what the LDS call "the Spirit" is not necessarily anything more than the feeling of validation. Any word or song that sends the message that it is okay to believe what you do, and you are not the only one, is described in the LDS world as "the Spirit". Members often speak of attending church to be edified (e.g., D&C 84:106); in other words, having gone through a trying few days between meetings, members need a spiritual uplifting. I have heard on more than one occasion a member say something like, "I really need to feel the Spirit today." Perhaps the more accurate statement would be something like, "I really need to feel validated today." In many ways, an LDS testimony meeting does not appear to be much more than a series of like-minded people validating each others' beliefs. Once a member feels validated, he or she describes it as feeling "the Spirit".<br />
<br />
While beliefs may offer comfort and hope, and anything providing validation of that belief is held as sacred, isn't it reasonable to expect the LDS teachings to be backed up by some logic and consistency? If it is not, why would it be unreasonable to bear testimony that Santa Claus is real?Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-68065464459266005112011-04-07T19:27:00.002-06:002012-01-09T14:10:47.411-07:00EvidenceI recently read an article which outlines new evidence that the Americas were covered with people nearly 15,000 years ago - much earlier than many scientists believed previously. I am disinclined to state the obvious conclusion regarding the Book of Mormon. Read the article <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-first-americans-20110326,0,7839145.story">here</a>.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-12745282480613215412011-01-23T10:25:00.002-07:002011-01-23T10:42:27.500-07:00A Brief UpdateReaders have certainly noticed the increasing length of time in between my posts. I have not abandoned this blog - on the contrary, I often make adjustments to past posts, usually fixing typos, rewording phrases, improving analogies, etc. However, it has been necessary for me to begin focusing time elsewhere in my life. I will likely continue to write on this blog, but less frequently than in the past. The lack of comments challenging my views has led me to feel that I have made my point. This blog has also allowed me a space in which to process through my complicated feelings toward the LDS church and many of its members. For the past several months I have felt a great deal of healing and recovery from the difficulty of separating myself from the Church. For this reason, I have felt less need to process on this blog. I thank all those who have taken some part in this time in my life.<div><br /></div><div>Again, I have no intentions of discontinuing this blog, but it will no longer be as central to my daily thoughts as it once was. I will continue to make updates to past posts, and occasionally will write new posts. In the meantime, thank you for reading, and good luck in your own journeys. </div>Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-61703078727078538952010-12-10T18:56:00.004-07:002012-01-20T13:33:24.681-07:00MeasuresIn humankind's search for the truth, there are several tests we put to possible explanations of phenomena. Often, we must use indirect methods of measuring those that are not easily quantifiable otherwise. For example, when a person desires to know how many trees grow in a year, he can physically count each tree. But if a person wants to know the difference in temperature between a boiling pot and a refrigerator, he will need something that can measure temperatures: a thermometer. An adequate measure requires a minimum of two characteristics: validity and reliability. If a measure is valid it assesses the phenomenon it was meant to (e.g., a scale is valid if it actually assesses weight). A measure is reliable if the result is consistent throughout trials (e.g., a bathroom scale is reliable if it measures same object at 20 lbs. today, tomorrow, and a week from now). Both of these characteristics are required simultaneously of an accurate measure. A valid, but unreliable, bathroom scale would assess weight, but today it may show that I am 130 lbs., while tomorrow it may show that I am 240 lbs. In contrast, a reliable, but invalid, measure would be similar to me stepping on a bathroom scale to read my temperature - it would give me essentially the same result whenever I stepped on it, but the information would not be that I sought. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With the two required characteristics of an adequate measure in mind, let us examine the LDS church's ultimate measure of truth: an emotional experience. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Firstly, is an emotional experience reliable? I submit that it is <i>sometimes</i> reliable. Similar stimuli often trigger similar emotions. When I watch a scary movie, I usually feel something I would describe as fear. Thus, a fear response might reliably happen every time I watch a scary movie. However, feelings are very often less than reliable. For example, the same piece of music may evoke a feeling of peace or excitement at the first few hearings, but another time may cause feelings of urgency or jealousy. After dozens of hearings, the same song may even become a nuisance. Even further, the same song may cause one to feel bliss and another to feel nausea. Regarding the LDS church, while reading the Book of Mormon may evoke peace and hope at one time, it may also cause boredom, confusion, or feelings of inadequacy at others. Certainly then, an emotional experience is not very reliable. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Secondly, is an emotional experience valid? Again, I submit that it is <i>sometimes</i> valid. For example, if I feel valued, it is likely a result of people around me who treat me like I am important and wanted. But if I feel lucky, it does not necessarily mean that I am likely to win the lottery. If I feel peace and hope after a Sunday School lesson, it may mean that the message was full of good, hopeful things. It usually does not mean that everyone felt the same way, however. But many feel nothing, confusion, or disgust after praying about Joseph Smith's purported vision, while others report peace, comfort, joy, etc. So again, emotions are <i>sometimes</i> valid. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If both reliability and validity are required of an accurate measure of the truth, it seems that an emotional response is far from adequate. Just as one would not use a barometer to time a baking cake, or trust a speedometer that never rises above 5 mph., one should not base a judgment of the organization of the universe and path to eternal salvation on something as unreliable and often invalid as an emotion.</div>Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-28338367693170290902010-11-02T19:31:00.003-06:002012-01-20T14:06:11.127-07:00PedagogyI've had a fairly long history being taught, and have had many opportunities to teach as well. There is some disagreement regarding how teaching is most effective, and I often wonder about God's method according to the LDS church. Contrast the following two examples:<br />
<div>
<ul>
<li>In a class on American history, we never knew what to expect on the tests. We took copious notes during lectures, read and re-read the textbooks, and prayed in preparation. I specifically remember leaving the testing center after the first test completely confused. I had no recollection of hearing some of the terms used on the test, some of the answer options given were ambiguous or equally as valid as another, etc. After receiving our grades for the written sections, several of the students were upset that they were docked points for not answering unasked questions. What confused me most about the grading system in this class was that the goal did not appear to be simply challenging us, but it seemed as if all was being done to keep us from succeeding.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
I wonder what would have been so detrimental to our learning if we had been tested on what we had been taught.</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>About a year before that, I took an introductory statistics class. The professor's philosophy of teaching was quite different from that of the American History class's. He warned us that the assignments would be very strict, and that he did not allow even the slightest mistake. He explained that he would mark off points for bad handwriting, misplaced commas, extra decimal points, failure to use certain words, and so on. But he also told us that, although the standards were very strict, about 80% of his students ended up with A's. He said this was because he would make sure that we understood the material. As long as we came to class, paid attention, and asked questions about anything and everything we did not fully understand, he would use his vast experience and patience to be certain that the concepts he taught us were clear. The class was very challenging, but I came out with an A, and a very clear knowledge of basic statistical principles. </li>
</ul>
Let's examine the two different approaches; both classes required much, were challenging, and I learned a great deal from them. Both were taught by experts in their respective fields. However, the first required much but gave very little to facilitate success, whereas the second required much and made everything available to us that could help us reach its high demands.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first class considered 90% of the class receiving A's as evidence that it was not challenging enough, while the second class viewed 90% A's as evidence that the students were learning the material.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
According to LDS doctrine, God wants us all to pass this "test" of earthly life (<a href="http://lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___07_03-2_PlanOfSalvation__36617_eng_007.pdf">source</a>). It is His deepest desire that we all are worthy to return to Him (Moses 1:39). I understand that lowering the standards would be a poor method to achieve this goal. To simply decide that attendance alone would suffice for an A grade would demean the entire point of the class. Likewise, in the LDS world, to simply give everyone salvation regardless of behavior or character would make the Celestial Kingdom little different from earthly life. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If demands must remain high, wouldn't it fit the character of the Master Teacher to respond to our inquiries with patience and thorough explanation, building upon what we already know? Why, then, does He apparently make so little effort to help us understand the most complicated teachings of polygamy, denial of priesthood to persons of African descent, along with the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon in the face of DNA and archaeological evidence against it, etc.? The LDS god requires that we accept polygamy, and accept that the priesthood denial was not evidence against the Church's divinity. Why, then, does the LDS god not also deliver some degree of explanation for the same? If they are, in fact, eternal principles, are we not to understand them? If these confusing and troublesome teachings do not require explanations for us to accept them, why did that same god plague us with the power to think?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some would say, "He gave us the Holy Spirit. That's all we need." For example, most members who wonder why polygamy was justified conclude through the Holy Ghost that some reasonable explanation exists (although we do not have it), and insist that they require nothing more.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is similar to asking the professor about how World War I developed, and being met with, "The answer to that on the test will be C." You may say, "That's good, but that seems relevant to the rest of what followed. Will you help me understand how it fits?" The professor says, "Well, you don't need to understand it, you just need to remember that the answer is C."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why would the master teacher encourage confusion when the explanation is available? Why put off our learning? Why delay our growth?</div>Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-89636230551755098952010-10-11T12:39:00.001-06:002012-01-20T14:18:01.814-07:00The Source of All KnowledgeI believe that the single most significant and influential teaching of the LDS church, and the reason that it is as large as it is today, is the idea that an emotion is a communication from God. Not only that the emotion is from God, but also that anything else is of no value. To break it down, the LDS church teaches that (a) an emotional reaction is a message from the creator of the universe, (b) no matter what the emotion is it leads to the conclusion that the Church is true, and (c) declaring that all other sources of information are irrelevant unless they are in sync with the Church being true. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem is that it is one of the easiest things in the world to evoke an emotional response. A few notes on the piano will easily move one emotionally. A single look from another person can cause one to feel fear, lust, anger, peace, etc. A few lines of a poem can bring one to tears. A scene in a movie can evoke these same emotions. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The missionaries teach investigators that good feelings about some Church teachings witness that the teachings are true (<a href="http://lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___11_04_RecognizeTheSpirit__36617_eng_011.pdf">source</a>). But if one hears another doctrine of the Church that evokes a different emotional response, like disgust, that is apparently not a message from God, because it might lead one to conclude that the Church is not what it claims to be (<a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/testimonyweb.htm#differentanswer">more</a>). Then, when someone such as I tries to investigate the real history and teachings of the Church, and finds strong physical, archaeological, or logical evidence that it is not what it claims to be, the Church insists that all those clues are irrelevant compared to the emotional conviction they have. Doctrine & Covenants, for example, states:</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<i>Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things (Section 6:22).</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
In other words, if something seems like it's not right - if it seems like you need more from the Church to keep following it - what you are supposed to do is recall the one time you did feel good about it. If you feel bad about it now, there's nothing wrong with the Church, you just need to start feeling good again.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In brief, if you ever have a positive feeling about any part of the Church, it must be true. Any bad feelings you have about it are distractions from Satan. I've spent a very long time trying to come up with an adequate analogy, but it's so nonsensical that nothing fits. So here's a try:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Emotions are easily swayed, much like a feather moving in the breeze. So imagine a feather tied to a string, hanging from a tree branch. A man sits under the tree and watches the feather one day. A bird up on the branch tells the man that it is a magic feather - it can predict the weather. If the feather moves to the north, there is a thunderstorm coming. If it moves south, there will be sunshine. If it moves east, there will be snow, and if it moves west, there will be rain. The man watches for a while and the feather dances mostly Northwest. He sees some storm clouds off in the distance and concludes that the feather <i>is</i> magic. The next day, the feather sways eastward, but it stays sunny and warm. The man says, "Well, I already know it's a magic feather." So when he learns later in the day that it snowed in Alaska that day, his conclusion is confirmed. "The feather's magic is so powerful, that it could see it was snowing hundreds of miles away!" The next day, the feather moves to the south, and the sun shines. It is indeed a magic feather! The next day it blows to the west, but the sun shines again. A week later, it finally does rain and the man is awestruck that it not only predicted the weather, but that it did it a week in advance!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An easily-influenced variable is given ultimate authority. But when the easily-influenced variable acts unpredictably it is meaningless, or still evidence of the purported source's authenticity. This logic contains no real connection between what happens and what is real.</div>Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-51848423497049302002010-09-24T11:08:00.002-06:002012-01-09T14:01:30.027-07:00Standing for SomethingOne of the more honorable attributes of Jesus Christ is His usually quiet defiance of social and political norms when they are ungodly. Obviously I do not refer to the "cleansing of the temple," which appears to have been rather violent (John 2:14-15), but in all other areas where something was out of place with social and religious practices, He shamelessly did what was right, often opposing what was popular. In fact, in driving out the moneychangers, He showed that He feared not what man thought; as long as it was ungodly, He would defy it.<br />
<br />
Christ did not usually defend righteousness in such aggressive ways, but it appears that He openly opposed society's more subtle wrongs as well. For example:<br />
<ul>
<li>John 4:7-9. The woman at the well was shocked that Christ, a Jew, would speak to her, a Samaritan. Christ did not shy away, did not avoid her because of her nationality, but instead engaged in very personal, loving conversation. His disciples were clearly disturbed that He would speak with her (John 4:27).</li>
<li>Luke 7:37-48. A woman of low esteem washes Christ's feet in her tears, and dries them with her hair. The Pharisee observer clearly is troubled by Christ's allowing the woman to touch Him, yet he patiently allows her penance to proceed, then teaches all that their practice of shaming and chastising sinners is wrong.</li>
<li>Luke 6:6-11. In opposition to the widely held social and religious norms, Christ heals a man on the Sabbath.</li>
<li>John 9:1-3. He shattered the belief that physical disabilities were the consequence of sin.</li>
<li>As a general rule, He held women in high regard - a radical practice in the region and time (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). After His greatest miracle of all, the resurrection, the first to learn of it were women (Luke 24:1-8), but even His disciples would not believe women (Luke 24:11). The first person on Earth honored with direct witness of the miracle was Mary Magdalene, a woman (John 20:11-18). This was a strike against the male-dominated culture of the age.</li>
</ul>
There are, of course, several other examples in the New Testament. My point is that Christ was never one to shy away from controversy. He stood His ground for what was right, even when it led to His death.<br />
<br />
Why, then, would this same Christ, who defied even the most deeply rooted practices whenever they were out of line with God, the same Christ, who is supposedly the head of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">LDS</span> church - why would He command, without reason, that persons of African descent be denied priesthood blessings and temple attendance? Even though racism was popular at the time, and even when it was becoming taboo to continue the policy, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">LDS</span> church clung to the racist practice, that they stated was revealed to them by Christ (<a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#doctrineorpolicy">source</a>). Later, of course, it was re-revealed to have been wrong (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/2">source</a>). To command leaders to do the wrong thing for more than a century is uncharacteristic of the Christ of the New Testament. It seems reasonable to conclude that either Christ is inconsistent, or the leaders who claimed that He made the former revelation were lying.<br />
<br />
Similarly, what Christ apparently revealed to be divine commandment - polygamy - was phased out for the purpose of becoming a more mainstream church, and to fit society's expectations (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1">source</a> beginning with "The question is this:"). Rather than standing His ground and defending His commandment through tribulation and opposition, rather than insisting that His divine revelation be adhered to, He apparently buckled under the pressure from popular politics and social practices.<br />
<br />
I find it odd that Christ, while in the flesh, would personally defy generally held beliefs for the sake of doing what was right, while easily relenting from the heavens - letting society and politics push His commandments around. It is an odd deity who is unchanging (e.g., Mormon 9:10) and yet appears to have made drastic changes in character.<br />
<br />
Either that, or the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">LDS</span> church was not and is not led by Christ.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-45880113334050376352010-09-17T10:04:00.000-06:002012-01-20T14:29:34.347-07:00Trying FaithWe are promised in the New Testament that God will never try our faith beyond our ability to bear it.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-style: italic;">There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.</span> (1 Corinthians 10:13)</blockquote>
God apparently tests out our threshold at times, pushing our limits. Take Job and Abraham for example; they were both pushed far beyond what any reasonable person should be expected to endure, yet all the while praised God. They both are held as heroes of the Old Testament. They set examples for believers - demonstrating that we should not question, should not doubt, should take whatever the Lord can throw at us.<br />
<br />
What I find odd, however, is that the apparently same God has been inconsistent in His demands on the faith of His children. For example, when Joseph the Carpenter discovers that his betrothed, Mary, is pregnant, he is faced with a huge trial of faith. His future wife asks him to believe that not only is she a pregnant virgin, but that the child she carries is the literal son of God. As Joseph sorts all of this out in his mind, it appears that God decides He would rather not test the threshold of Joseph's faith, but instead reveals to him in a dream that Mary's explanation is correct (Matthew 1:18-24). Rather than push Joseph to the limit of his faith, God grants him a sure sign so that he may overcome his perfectly reasonable doubts.<br />
<br />
Joseph, the man ordained to be the earthly guardian of the Son of God, was not left to anguishing soul searching, constantly wondering for the rest of his life if Mary had been unfaithful. Instead, he was reassured in a very loving and personal way.<br />
<br />
I find this divine behavior odd in another <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">LDS</span> context, however. Just as Mary gave her fiance a fantastic story to explain why she was pregnant, Joseph Smith, Jr. gave his wife, Emma, a fantastic story about why he married several women without her consent. Both Joseph the Carpenter and Emma Hale were in extremely difficult positions. They were both faced with evidence of a fornicating partner, but also told that the purpose of the infidelity was by divine providence. Understandably, they both reacted in the same way initially - disbelief, disenchantment, likely anger, jealousy, etc.<br />
<br />
Yet God's response to each differed greatly: He gave Joseph the Carpenter a comforting vision to help his faith, but He threatened Emma - through her seemingly adulterous husband - with destruction (D&C 132:54, 64), stated that if she continued to question her husband's actions he would be rewarded with even more wives (D&C 132:55), and is told that her forgiveness from sin depends upon her forgiving her husband of his sexual infidelity (D&C 132:56, 65).<br />
<br />
In brief, when Joseph the Carpenter and Emma were presented with very similar trials of their faith, God provided Joseph with a clear sign that his betrothed acted according to His commandments, while it appears that He never once gave Emma a sign. On the contrary - He commanded her husband to chastise and threaten her!<br />
<br />
It appears that God is either a respecter of persons, pushing the faith threshold to its limits for some of His servants while reassuring others, or one of the above acts of infidelity was not in accordance with divine commandment.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-73534833148368083742010-08-27T13:29:00.009-06:002012-01-09T13:57:41.871-07:00Dumbing It DownAlbert Einstein (1879-1955) was perhaps the most brilliant scientist of the 20th Century. He had a gift for understanding concepts of physics and math that no one on the planet had ever before conceived. He held a doctorate in physics, and was probably the supreme authority in the field at the zenith of his career.<br />
<br />
He has been credited with a quote that is usually stated as, "If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself." In terms more applicable to his field, one might say, "If you can't explain your theory to a layman, you don't understand it yourself."<br />
<br />
Einstein's theories are quite complicated. The actual general relativity equation looks like this:<br />
<div>
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/3/f/b3f14edb49fd763ec19df7dcf1ff087e.png" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 41px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 190px;" />Naturally, most of us who do not hold doctorate degrees in physics do not understand this equation at all. But rather than leaving most of the world lost and confused, Einstein explained his theories to us in very simple terms that anyone with a basic knowledge of physics could understand, using his thought experiments (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM">example</a>). By simplifying his theory and using language and examples that were clear, he allowed people not only to grasp his ideas, but to also understand how solid the ideas were. It is very difficult to find fault with his theories; even the layman can agree that his thought experiments are reasonable, logical, and appear correct.</div>
<br />
The contrast with the LDS method of teaching is striking to me. LDS doctrine contains several principles apparently so complex, that even a lifelong dedicated servant of the Master Teacher is unable to comprehend. For example, Gordon B. Hinckley admitted that he did not understand why God commanded that members with black skin be denied the blessings of the priesthood (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_KERZlwOXM">source</a>); the Church has not made clear why there is a discrepancy between DNA findings and the Book of Mormon, but have instead changed the official stance on the origins of Native Americans (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/introduction">2nd paragraph</a>); leaders prefer to simply not talk about Joseph Smith's specific form of polygamy rather than attempt to explain it. The Doctrine and Covenants 19:22 even goes so far as to state that there are things we cannot know or we would "perish." We are assured that there are reasonable explanations for all of these (<a href="http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=1b192ee01e31c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD">example</a>), but that the answers are far too complicated for us to understand. Even the most spiritually advanced men on the planet do not have a grasp on the answers to some of these questions, or at least not enough that they will attempt to explain it.<br />
<br />
Indulge me for a moment and compare Einstein with the LDS god. Imagine that Einstein wrote in his famous papers, "Something plus something else equals another thing when you calculate it with something else. I know what the somethings are, but the reader would not comprehend it, so just trust me on this." Suppose Einstein had not even attempted to explain the theory to his colleagues with whom he worked for years. Other scientists would say, "Well, the rest of the theory makes okay sense, but the problem is that it all depends on this original equation that you're not giving us! Can you be a little more specific? We're pretty bright and we've done everything we can to understand your theory." Einstein, if he were like the LDS god, would reply, "You are just not capable of understanding," or "If you knew, it would destroy you. In the meantime, just base all of your lives on the assumption that my theory is correct."<br />
<br />
After a few years of this game, it would become pretty clear to a reasonable person that he didn't even understand what he was talking about, his theory wouldn't pan out, and he probably just made the whole thing up.<br />
<br />
I do not hold a Ph.D. in physics, but I have a pretty good understanding of the theory of relativity. I don't hold a degree in biology, but I have a good grasp on evolutionary theory. Both seem like very solid theories to me. However, I was raised in the LDS church my whole life, served a 2 year mission, graduated from seminary, and served in several callings (including 2 Elders' Quorum Presidencies), and as hard as I have tried to understand polygamy, denial of priesthood to people of African descent, and the severe problems with the Book of Mormon, I am at a total loss.<br />
<br />
If God cannot explain some of the most fundamental doctrines to even the highest ranking followers, then there's a good chance that He does not understand them either. That leaves me to believe that the entire LDS church is built upon a foundation of sand. And when the best way to make sense of God's doctrines is that they were made up by men, then there is apparently an enormous problem with God's one true church.<br />
<br />
Call me faithless, but I will stick with things that make the slightest sense before accepting things <span style="font-style: italic;">no one</span> understands.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-39840996223949615062010-08-08T09:52:00.004-06:002010-08-08T10:55:45.610-06:00The Blame GameI am constantly amazed at members' reactions to my concerns. More often than not, I am met with accusations of varying degrees. For example,<div><ul><li>When I first presented the outline of my concerns (the largest of which is Joseph Smith's sexual infidelity) to a bishop, he asked me if I was having an affair.</li><li>When I spoke with the Stake President about the same things, expressing my concern that Joseph Smith's actions appear to be motivated by sex more than spirituality, he wondered aloud if I had a pornography addiction.</li><li>When I expressed my feeling that the Church has treated minority groups more like intolerant elitists would than like a people led by God Himself, an anonymous commenter openly suggested I am a closet homosexual. </li><li>In almost every case where I express my suspicion that the Church is led by men, not Christ, I am accused of lacking spirituality.</li></ul>In brief, whenever I suggest there is something out of place within the Church, I am accused of having the same thing out of place in my own life.</div><div><br /></div><div>What amazes me is the inconsistency of the blame; I present evidence that Joseph Smith, Jr. was unfaithful to his wife, lied to her and the entire Church about it, that he threatened teenagers with familial damnation if they did not marry him, that he took women from their living husbands, and that he did all of this without reason. Church members quickly disregard my concerns, or forgive Smith for his flaws. If I dare to suggest he be held accountable for his dishonesty, lust, deception, and worldliness, I am very quickly accused of being dishonest, lustful, deceptive, and worldly!</div><div><br /></div><div>In other words, many members assume - without cause - that I am guilty of doing exactly what Joseph Smith did! They disregard Smith's documented infidelity and suspect without reason that I am guilty of far lesser crimes. It's as if I report to the fire department that I just saw a man set a building on fire, and that there may be people trapped inside, but the fireman on the other end says, "Even if that is true, we'll sort it out in good time. But the real issue here is that I'm concerned you may play with matches."</div><div><br /></div><div>When guilty men are praised as heroes and innocent men are distrusted and accused, it is a very disturbing and troubled world in which we live. It is unfortunate that it appears truth and accountability have no place in such a world. </div>Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-56245119752426114942010-07-21T14:20:00.004-06:002011-01-11T20:50:18.146-07:00The Worthiness of Souls<span style="font-family:georgia;">Imagine being a fly on the wall in a bishop's office in 1977. A warm and friendly bishop sits across from a middle-aged, stereotypical member. The bishop interviews him for a temple recommend renewal (the questions have been abbreviated for space's sake, and modernized for familiarity's sake).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Bishop: "Brother Johnson, do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">J: "Yes sir."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Bishop [after more questions]: "Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?"<br /><br />J: "Absolutely!"<br /><br />Bishop: "Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">J: "I do."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">[answers more questions satisfactorily]</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Bishop: "Are you a full-tithe payer? Do you keep the Word of Wisdom? Do you consider yourself worthy in every way to enter the temple and participate in temple ordinances?"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">[Brother Johnson answers each question in the affirmative.] </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Bishop: "Marvelous. Well everything seems in order." [the bishop begins to sign the recommend and makes some small talk] "So what did you think of Sister Young's talk today?" </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">J: "On genealogy? I thought it was perfect timing. I had just completed a big chunk of my genealogical record." </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Bishop: "Really? That's wonderful. I hope you're finding some interesting things [hands recommend over]." </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">J: "Yes. As a matter of fact, I was surprised to find that I actually have a great great great great grandfather who was a freed slave! Imagine that!" </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Bishop [suddenly serious]: "Wait a moment. You mean he was African?" </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">J: "Well yeah. He was born on a plantation in Georgia, but was given his freedom after rescuing his master's wife from a wolf! Amazing story really. After that he moved out West where he met my great great great great grandmother, a Swedish immigrant." </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Bishop: "I see. Well I'm afraid this changes everything." </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">J: "I'm sorry?" </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Bishop: "Brother Johnson, I'm afraid I'll have to ask for your recommend" [Bishop tears it up and discards it].</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">J: "I don't understand." </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Bishop: "Well, it turns out that you're not temple worthy. In fact, you've never been temple worthy. That African blood flowing through your veins disqualifies you from entering the temple, and I'm afraid that this nullifies your sealing to your wife and children." </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">J: "But I answered all of the questions honestly! I've done nothing out of accordance with Church teachings!" </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Bishop: "I know, and I appreciate your efforts and honesty, but if I'd have known about the grandfather, I never would have let you enter the temple in the first place. In fact, you should probably try to forget everything you learned there. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Oh, but before you go, the Lord would like to extend another calling to you..." </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Fictional? Yes. Unrealistic? Not at all; </span><span style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-family:georgia;">Presidents and other authorities of the LDS church before 1978 stated that even one drop of African blood would make a person cursed concerning the priesthood (<a href="https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/134-62-67.pdf">source</a>).</span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="font-family:georgia;">Jane Manning James, the first documented African American pioneer, repeatedly petitioned the First Presidency to be allowed to enter the temple and have her children sealed to her, but her requests were denied each time even though she was worthy by every other standard. The only reason she was not allowed in the temple was the color of her skin (Embry, 1994).</span></li></ul><span style="font-family:georgia;">D&C 18:10-11 states, "Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God; For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore He suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him." It seems, however, that every LDS prophet from Brigham Young up until Spencer W. Kimball (10 presidents of the Church) interpreted that scripture differently. They apparently were told by God that it meant "...He suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him, except for blacks. They cannot repent sufficiently to come as close as a white man unto him." How is it that some still claim this racism was due to "limited understanding" (e.g., McConkie, 1989, p. 165)? </span><br /><ul><li><span style="font-family:georgia;">Wilford Woodruff said, "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng">Official Declaration - 1</a>). </span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="font-family:georgia;">Harold B. Lee (1968) said, “God will never permit him [the president of the Church] to lead us astray. As has been said, God would remove us [the leaders] out of our place if we should attempt to do it. You have no concern.”</span></li></ul><span style="font-family:georgia;">According to these quotes, there is no validity to the argument that 10 prophets spoke with limited understanding when declaring that Africans were an inferior race. Either they spoke the truth, or they were not called by God. The answer seems clear to me. Why do so many members still offer these men the protection of their faith after such an obvious and grievous violation of Christ's teachings?</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">References</span><br /><br /></div><span style="font-family:georgia;">Embry, J. L. (1994). Black saints in a white church: Contemporary African American Mormons. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">McConkie, M. L. (Ed., 1989). Doctrines of the restoration: Sermons & writings of Bruce R. McConkie. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Lee, H. B. (1968, July 8). The place of the living prophet, seer, and revelator. Address delivered to seminary and institute faculty, Brigham Young University, p. 13.</span>Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-59846936773921766872010-07-08T09:16:00.002-06:002010-07-28T13:27:59.021-06:00Pleading IgnoranceA common response to my position on the Church from believers is essentially that God approves of erring on the side of ignorance as long as one believes it is in His service. That is, believers sometimes admit that there are no explanations for many of my concerns, and that my concerns certainly appear valid, but that even if we critics are right about these things, they will somehow gain a greater reward if they follow the Church anyway. I've been told by several members that they just don't worry about these things right now. They wonder about them, but put them on the cognitive back-burners to be addressed at some undetermined point in the future: probably death. Believers seem to insist that even if these disturbing criticisms are true, as long as they are doing what they are told to in the present, that will be enough. It is as if they say, "Although there is no reasonable answer for this, I believe God wants me to follow it anyway. He rewards faith, not investigation."<br /><br />I often wonder what God might say to them upon their deaths if my criticisms are correct. I wonder if he would meet them at the pearly gates and say,<br /><br />"You did pretty well down there, but you died a member of the LDS church?"<br /><br />The believer would defend his or her actions, "Well, yeah! That's what I was taught you wanted!"<br /><br />God might say, "No, that's what <span style="font-style: italic;">they</span> told you I want. I tried to send you the real message."<br /><br />The believer wonders, "What message?"<br /><br />God responds, "I directed you to discover Joseph Smith's dozens of wives, on your mission I led you to speak to that Jehovah's Witness who mentioned Brigham Young's racism, and when you were researching for that talk I kept trying to get you to read all that evidence that Joseph Smith's translations were a bunch of nonsense! You kept ignoring all of my attempts to lead you to the truth!"<br /><br />Believer: "Well, yeah, but all that contradicted what you have revealed."<br /><br />God: "You mean what the LDS church <span style="font-style: italic;">says</span> I revealed. Did it ever occur to you that all those things weren't a trial of faith for you, but a message from me?"<br /><br />Believer: "No. But even so, I figured if I remained obedient, that was the most important thing."<br /><br />God: "But you were obedient to <span style="font-style: italic;">a church</span>. That is not the same as being obedient to <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span>. I gave you conscience, intelligence, and curiosity. I never wanted you to drown those things out for the sake of obedience to a false message."<br /><br />Believer: "But I ignored those things out of love for you!"<br /><br />God: "I know that. But you also loved your church. If you really loved me more than your church, you would have done everything in your power to find out the truth, even if it meant that your church was wrong. Instead, you showed me that you loved your church more than the truth. You loved comfort more than honesty."<br /><br />Believer: "Well, why didn't you give me something more obvious?"<br /><br />God: "What more did you want? I gave you every opportunity to learn for yourself, and when that didn't work I sent people who had learned to tell you face to face. You called them 'deceived sinners'. You even knew about Joseph Smith's polygamy and you did nothing!"<br /><br />Believer: "That's not true. I talked to my bishop about it."<br /><br />God: "...And he gave you some vague answer that helped to quiet your conscience about it long enough for you to ignore it again. The fact remains that Smith had more than 30 wives with no justification, and you still thought he might be my prophet?!?"<br /><br />Believer: "The bishop told me I would learn the reasons for it later."<br /><br />God: "And instead, you're learning that you were wrong - misled by the cunning and craftiness of men for your whole life. Going so far as to ignore what I placed right in front of you. You spent all that time waiting to learn what I was trying to tell you right then."<br /><br />Of course, I don't know what that conversation may look like, if it ever happens. But I feel that, if nothing else, I can honestly say that I have done all I can to know whether or not the LDS church is His church. In closing, I will end this post with a quote from the LDS god:<br /><br />"It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance." D&C 131:6Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-35927185289107197982010-06-13T10:18:00.007-06:002011-01-11T20:31:22.242-07:00AppearancesMost believers who are aware of common criticisms of the LDS church admit that, at first glance, some of them seem concerning. Most agree that the idea of polygamy initially rubs them the wrong way, and that the official denial of priesthood to persons of African descent seems like it may have been a mistake. But these same believers tend to discount the serious ramifications of these problematic doctrines, giving past leaders of the Church the benefit of a doubt. Believers generally tend to say something to the effect of, "Although it looks really bad, there's probably a justifiable reason for it somewhere."<br /><div><br /><div>The Bible counsels believers not only to avoid evil, but to "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22.). It seems troublesome, however, that the same God who inspired this counsel, also appears to often flirt with the appearance of evil by commanding His chosen instruments to do things which go against moral conscience.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>The most obvious example may be Joseph Smith, Jr.'s form of polygamy. He lied to his wife about courting women behind her back, and then consummated marriages with them. He pressured girls as young as 14 to marry him. He took women from their first husbands to become his own wives. He used followers to pose as husbands to some of his several wives (e.g., Compton, 2001; another <a href="http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/">source</a>). He publicly and privately lied about his practice several times (<a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm#lied">source</a>), and he supposedly did these things under the direction of God.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>It is a difficult argument to make that these things did and do not, at a minimum, <i>appear</i> evil, especially because it took years for Smith to own up to them - he never admitted his deeds to anyone but his elite - and the current LDS church condemns the practice of polygamy (<a href="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=7c86605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD">source</a>). </div><div><br /></div><div>How are we to interpret these events? The Bible counsels us to avoid the appearance of evil, and yet past Church leaders have done so much that appears evil without ever offering reasonable explanations. Are we to err on the side of the wise biblical counsel and truly hold leaders accountable, or are we to allow them the appearance of evil under the protection of our faith?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">Reference</div><div style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:100%;" >Compton, T. (2001). <i>In sacred loneliness: The plural wives of Joseph Smith. </i>Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books. </span></div>Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323222701375042304.post-46571814912987693382010-05-11T10:54:00.008-06:002011-01-11T20:23:17.836-07:00DoublespeakEarly on in my LDS experience I noticed an intricate, albeit subtle, pattern in the Church's methods of conversion and retention. It may be one of the simplest methods in principle, yet also one of the most invasive. The method to which I refer is often called "doublespeak." It is language characterized by deliberate attempts to mislead or distort reality (<a href="http://www.damronplanet.com/doublespeak/index.html">more</a>). The reader may be surprised to learn that doublespeak is used daily, in almost every setting imaginable (<a href="http://www.chomsky.info/index.htm">Chomsky</a> has addressed it as well). However, for the purposes of this blog, this post will focus on the LDS church's use of doublespeak in its attempts to convert, retain, and control. The following are a few main examples:<br /><ul><li>"Knowledge" in place of "Belief"/"Hope"/even "Want." Consider the statement, "I know the Church is true." As I have addressed <a href="http://ldsdarklight.blogspot.com/2009/05/knowing.html">before</a>, no one really <span style="font-style: italic;">knows</span> if the Church's doctrines are accurate. Every single time a general authority, bishop, nursery leader, or seminary teacher says, "I know it's true," he or she is using doublespeak. The accurate statement would be "I believe it's true," "I hope it's true," or even "I want it to be true." In reality, when LDS use "knowledge," they refer to anything short of knowledge. The Church practice propagates the distortion of reality with the misuse of the word.</li></ul><ul><li> "Volunteer" in place of "Submit." The most obvious example of this form of doublespeak is in the Church's claim that full-time missionary work is voluntary. In reality, male members are all but forced to go (see some interviews <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02s76fq115">here</a>; a <a href="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c8f542629f5fb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD">talk</a> by Hinckley). While no one holds a gun to a young man's head, and many are excited at the chance to go, to call it "voluntary" ignores the negative consequences one may suffer by not going. One fears he will never be desirable to young LDS women, will suffer humiliation, will be socially ostracized, members will question what horrible things he must have done to not have "volunteered." Although the word may apply to some young men and women, it is neither fair nor accurate to apply it to all missionaries.<br /></li></ul><ul><li>"Truth" in place of "Church's teachings." Similar to "knowledge," when leaders speak of "the truth," they usually refer simply to the doctrine taught by the LDS church (<a href="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=738d425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD">example</a>). Of course, if they were to refer to it accurately, it would not have the powerful but deceptive emotional impact on those who hear. Contrast the statement, "If you follow these truths, you will know they are of God," with "If you follow the Church's teachings, you will come to believe they are of God." The latter statement corresponds with reality more than the former, but if one's goal is to create an anchor based on emotion, the first statement is the better choice.<br /></li></ul><ul><li>"Donations" in place of "Membership fees." Again, while no one holds a gun to members' heads, Church doctrine and policy contain several threats against its members should they fail to pay the required funds. For example, members who pay tithing are guaranteed not to be burned at the last day (D&C 64:23). Of course, the other side of this is that not "donating" carries the threat of being burned alive. Additionally, if one cannot or will not pay the full 10% of his or her income, that person cannot have full membership (i.e., hold a temple recommend). Thus, tithing is absolutely required to be a full member of the LDS church. To require a donation is contradictory at its essence, and thus another use of doublespeak to mislead and distort reality. Members believe they are willingly writing their checks, when they are actually just paying their dues so that they may attend sealings, be involved in ward temple day, etc (<a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/tithing.htm">examples and discussion</a>).</li></ul><ul><li>"Faith" in place of "Gullibility"/"Ignorance"/"Vulnerability"/"Rejecting Conscience." Although not misused every time, the word "faith" is often wrongfully applied. Whenever I have spoken to members about my concerns with Church history and doctrine, they inevitably say that they take it on "faith" that these disturbing things have explanations that they are incapable of knowing now. In other words, they are leaving themselves endlessly vulnerable to the deceptions of men (Eph. 4:14) by not paying attention to the warning signs. When one has natural moral objections to the actions of Joseph Smith, but rejects his or her conscience to overcome the cognitive or spiritual dissonance, one becomes the definition of gullible, ignorant, and vulnerable (<a href="http://packham.n4m.org/faith.htm">more discussion</a>). The Church suggests that if one objects to something horrible that Smith did, the task is to become more vulnerable and reject the objections (i.e., have more faith), rather than for the leaders to give an explanation. While faith should refer to the hope and belief in something we cannot know, I argue that it should not discount what we can and do know. Yet that is precisely how the Church uses it.<br /></li></ul><ul><li>"Service" in place of "Required labor." Again, "service" is required in the Church. To not accept a "calling" is to reject the will of God (<a href="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=42d08bf6248ad010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD">source</a>). No one holds a gun to members' heads, but would one dare to question the being who grants him or her breath (Isaiah 42:5)? Thus, to call it "service" is another distortion of reality.</li></ul><ul><li>"The Holy Ghost" in place of "A good feeling." The majority of missionary work is accomplished by attributing good feelings to a supernatural being called "the Holy Ghost" (<a href="http://www.lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___11_04_RecognizeTheSpirit__36617_eng_011.pdf">source</a>). If one feels good about joining the LDS church, that feeling is called a manifestation of this supernatural being. If one has similar feelings about selling the copyright of the Book of Mormon, then it is from another supernatural being called "Satan" (<a href="http://www.mormonthink.com/testimonyweb.htm#satan">source</a>). If one has a similar feeling about chocolate ice cream, then it is just a good feeling. In other words, the Church calls a good feeling by several other terms according to how it serves the purposes of its alleged divinity. The feeling is what it is, but the Church uses doublespeak to present it as whatever else it likes.<br /></li></ul><ul><li>"Satan" in place of "Bad luck"/"Second thoughts"/"Reason." When I began to logically sort out my concerns, I was told by members that "Satan" had a hold on me. Satan was apparently working very hard to help me in the process of finding reasonable answers to my questions. Members often speak of how hard "Satan" works just before someone gets baptized. In reality, the potential convert is having natural concerns (i.e., "second thoughts") about making a life commitment to an organization about which he or she knows relatively little. But missionaries call those reasonable concerns the work of Satan.</li></ul>These are just a few small examples of terminology the LDS church uses to distort reality. When one begins to uncover this elaborate code, the illusion can begin to fade. These things and more can be seen for what they are. The seeker of real, unadulterated truth will see reality without the lenses and filters of deceptive language. The shaky frame of dogma will collapse, to reveal the potential for real growth.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425150796286924268noreply@blogger.com1