tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7099027492599421212024-02-20T16:14:30.110-08:00My Continuing JourneyThoughts on Faith Issues and MoralityHeath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-78315073156406290622020-01-24T17:42:00.000-08:002020-01-24T17:42:43.128-08:00Truth is Reason: Faith of a Scientist Reviewed<b>Disclosures:</b> I personally know the author. He's a super nice guy and I appreciate him and am happy to know him. Also, I resigned my membership in the LDS church because I don't believe in it. <br /><br />I enjoyed reading this book and getting to know John's views and thoughts, although since I had struggled to reconcile LDS theology and history for years, I felt very frustrated at times reading this. It's not John's fault, he sees the world differently from me and isn't bothered by some of the things I'm bothered by, so I don't blame him for glossing over my concerns but I did feel like the book had some holes, which it inherits from holes in Mormon theology. Not everybody sees the same holes, but I decided to write them all out. Maybe they will be discussed in the book's sequel. :) <br /><br />I also want to thank John for typing some obvious things in plain English in his book. Prophets can err in doctrine for example. It is nice to read it stated without qualification. Prophets themselves, for whatever reason, don't bring up this obvious point much. <br /><br />I had the thought while reading John describe his simultaneous crisis of science and crisis of faith, that maybe both of these crises come from the problem of induction and a desire for certainty. As humans, we look at patterns and expect these patterns to continue. No matter how much data we gather, there is always a possibility that the theory we have formed to explain the patterns in the data is not real. The actual underlying physical law may be different from what we imagined. Often it is more complex, but sometimes it is simpler. <br /><br />Earlier in my life, I felt a lot of comfort in religion from the certainty that it gave me. LDS theology does a good job of casting itself as deductive in nature, like a mathematical proof. It gives it a very bulletproof veneer. However, in my early 30s, I realized that deductive logic still suffers from the problem of induction, since you have to establish assumptions to start the deductive logic chain. I'm not really aware of any other way to establish these first principles in theological thought, other than pointing out potential patterns in experiential data. <br /><br />As a scientist myself, I was hoping to gain some more insight into how John justifies the first principles he uses to form the foundation of his belief and how he builds upon those from this book. I have always thought that this was where the biggest weaknesses in Mormon theology exist. Unfortunately, he seemed to just accept common assumptions without discussion for the theological first principles that I find the most questionable. Below are recommendations for which first principles to discuss better in the book's sequel, and why I think there are weaknesses: <br /><br /><b>1) God is communicating to us through the Spirit. </b><br /><br />I don't have a lot to say about the assumption itself except "It's possible, but by no means proven." The issues I take with John's explanations are more with the methodologies he proposes to reveal the truth of the assumption. If John is correct, I'm not sure it makes any sense to even ask God if the LDS church is true. Let me explain. <br /><br />As a scientist, before I run an experiment to test a hypothesis I have to ask myself what a confirmation or a disconfirmation would look like. Is it possible to disprove the hypothesis? What would that look like? <br /><br />The problems creep in when John attempts to explain away unreliability in this spiritual communication. He introduces the standard explanations that most LDS members are familiar with, i.e. that strong emotions or desires can be mistaken for the spirit, or that the devil can convincingly impersonate the spirit. <br /><br />Earlier in the book when he discusses the premortal existence, John discusses the effect that instilling beliefs on someone very early in life can have on them. Is it possible that one might feel good when praying about one's beliefs because those beliefs have been instilled since birth? I have interacted with people who were former Jehovah's Witnesses and was surprised at the anxiety and strong negative emotion they experienced when they threw a birthday party for themselves or dressed up for Halloween for the first time. A practicing Witness might argue that these negative feelings are God telling them that it is wrong to celebrate birthdays, but I think it is likely that this is just an emotional result of breaking childhood indoctrination and not a communication from God at all. <br /><br />The problem is there is no rigorous interpretation of the data, and this is no mere hypothetical for me. All my life, I prayed and felt like I was just talking to myself except for one single time. In the midst of my "faith crisis" I prayed about some of the behaviors of Joseph Smith that disturbed me and I had a very strong peaceful emotional response to that prayer and felt an accompanying strong certainty that Joseph Smith was a wicked man who abused his power over women and that I should no longer seek to justify his behavior or follow him. If I'm being an honest seeker of truth, what am I to make of this result? <br /><br />In the system of logic laid out in the book, the church is true and such a result isn't really possible. Except if maybe I was just emotional and was mistaking my own emotions for a communication from God (to be perfectly honest I think this is what actually happened). Or maybe Satan sent that communication. Whatever really happened, this was the strongest spiritual experience of my life, so it would be disturbing in the extreme if Satan were more responsive and a more real presence in my life than God by far, and if it was a fake emotional response, then it means that God probably hasn't ever seen fit to communicate with me in my life. Those are the possibilities that I see. The system of logic in LDS theology as elaborated in this book would be compelled to simply dismiss my entire life experience as invalid. <br /><br />The big logical problem here is that since all results (both negative and positive) must be interpreted or reinterpreted to mean that the church is true, the experiment is superfluous and is a waste of time. The hypothesis cannot be falsified. If the rules of the game of Red vs. Blue are such that Red must always win, why let the game play out at all? Just declare Red the winner and go home. Let's not all sit and watch the game and pretend that Red was in danger of losing. <br /><br /><b>2) Faith is a virtue and God wants us to have it. </b><br /><br />This one took me years to unpack after losing my faith, and I think it is because I was told for so long and from such a young age that having faith is good. "You want to be a good boy, right Heath? You need to have faith. Good worthy boys have faith." I'm sure nobody phrased it like that to me when I was young, but that is the message that came across to me and embedded itself deep in my subconscious. <br /><br />Then later in life, I started becoming fascinated with cult documentaries and noticed how adept cult leaders were at using this desire to be faithful in their followers to exploit them. It started to dawn on me that faith could be good or bad, depending on what it is in. If it feels like you have faith in something bad, you might very well be right. It might not be a good idea to push ahead and have faith anyway. <br /><br />It is easy to have faith that you should do something obviously good like help others in their hour of need, but what about some harder things? It is much harder to have faith that Abraham being willing to kill his son without explanation was a good thing. Did Abraham fail the test? The Old Testament portrays a God that commanded genocide (including the express command to kill the children) and approved of slavery. Is it good to have faith in that? Or should we rethink that? Joseph Smith tested John Taylor's faith by asking to marry his wife. John Taylor agreed to let him. Is that kind of faith good? <br /><br />Taking this further, the men who participated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre had faith in their church leaders who commanded them to kill those people after disarming them and promising them safety. Should they have had less faith in their church leaders? Wouldn't it be more moral to have faith in a morality that says these types of actions cannot be commanded by God, even if you think they are? <br /><br />And why would it be bad to not have faith in the LDS church, even if it is true? Certainly there is a lot of conflict with various fields of science, DNA, archaeology, etc. and LDS doctrine (Book of Mormon, I'm looking at you right now). Establishing the truth of the teachings of the church is far from an open-and-shut case. If your honest assessment of the Book of Mormon is that it isn't historical, does it make you a bad person to not have faith in it anyway? Is being honestly mistaken about unknowable supernatural things a moral deficiency? Is God going to get mad at me if I make an honest assessment of the LDS church and come up with the answer that it is made up? <br /><br />I just don't think the book established the inherent moral value of faith very well. It did attempt to separate faith in things that were true from faith in things that were false about God, but the main problem is you don't know you have faith in the wrong thing until it is disproven to you, and then a lot of times there is a church leader trying to get you to have faith in the incorrect thing anyway. Why does God want you to express belief in something in the face of uncertainty? Why does that help you be a better person? <br /><br /><b>3) Prophets can err in doctrine. </b><div>
<br /><div>
This is an assumption that has been forced on the LDS church in more modern times due to doctrinal reversals. You can't have inerrant prophets if prophets have contradicted one another over time. One or the other has to be wrong. <br /><br />For example, you have a first presidency statement from the 1940s that states that it is church doctrine that anyone of African descent was less valiant in the premortal existence, therefore they are banned from holding the priesthood. The current Gospel Topics essay on the subject (approved by the current prophet) states that this is untrue. One of them is wrong. There are other reversals. Brigham Young's teaching that Adam is God and Bruce McConkie's contradiction of that also comes to mind. <br /><br />This creates problems, since current prophets are to be trusted and obeyed completely. The problem with this is that once you admit that prophets can err in doctrine, you introduce the possibility that they are erring in doctrine today. If not, you have to explain what changed between then and now that makes it so that they can't be wrong now. And if you genuinely feel that a prophet today is erring in doctrine and causing great harm to people, is it okay to say so out loud? <br /><br />The typical Mormon answer would be that, no, it is not okay. The prophet has the keys and we don't have the right to "steady the ark" (another term I hate, the guy who steadied the ark was just trying to make sure it didn't fall). But is that who we've become? A people who will silence our conscience to express unity? That behavior certainly doesn't remind me of Jesus. <br /><br />I have encountered many who feel that the church's lack of a place in theology for homosexual members is wrong. I personally feel that it is unjust for a family-oriented God to create gay people and expect them to live alone their whole life and just sit and wonder what is supposed to happen to them after they die. The silence of revelation on this subject is deafening. Jesus didn't address it, nor did the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants. What makes us think it is even a problem to be solved? The Old Testament? We already ignore most of that book. Show me a Mormon who thinks it's a sin to eat shellfish. <br /><br />I think that the current church leaders have a duty to level with the membership on this subject and reveal the exact nature of the revelation they have received on this subject so that we can evaluate its strength. Do they know gay marriage is a sin the same way that the First Presidency in the 1940s knew that Africans were less valiant? Do they know that gay marriage is a sin the same way that Brigham Young knew that Adam was God the Father? What has changed that makes it so that they cannot be wrong today like they were decades ago? <br /><br />These questions deserve to be met with frank answers and not mock indignation that we commoners would dare to ask about such sacred things, which is how real apostles have acted when confronted with such questions. <br /><br />I'm going to make a prediction that <b>if I live to old age, I will live to see the church make a complete reversal on gay marriage</b>. I think that Elder Oaks knows that gay marriage is a sin in exactly the same way that George Albert Smith knew that Africans were less valiant. I mean, c'mon when they wrote the Proclamation, they didn't even think about intersex people in any way. It's like they don't even exist. It doesn't take a scientist to see that The Proclamation wasn't perfectly thought out by the all-knowing creator of the universe. <br /><br />Another hidden issue with allowing prophets the room to err in doctrine is that this argument cuts both ways. Sure, it allows room to accomodate the contradictions, but it also undermines the narrative of the great apostasy, which is the only reason that the LDS church needs to exist in the first place. If we allow too much room for prophets to err in doctrine and make other moral mistakes, you start to make an excellent case for the Catholic church being the one true church. <br /><br />Anyway, that book review came out being much more a rant about my views than I wanted it to (actually, no, I wrote this as therapy for myself, who am I kidding...). John, if you read this, I hope you don't take anything personally or too critically. This is more about me just venting my frustrations with Mormon theology and maybe giving you some more ideas for subjects to cover next time.</div>
</div>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-48070336709607056642018-11-04T11:38:00.000-08:002018-11-04T11:38:48.554-08:00Saints: The Standard of Truth ReviewedAs a former member of the LDS church who lost his faith largely over issues in LDS history, I find it interesting to put my finger on the pulse of how they are telling their story. So, I decided to read this book.<br />
<br />
First off, the narrative style of this history book is engaging and very readable. The personal stories are inspiring and it was nice to see that the church is becoming more comfortable talking about things that have been, well, glossed over in the past. Some might say that they were hidden. For example, we see straightforward acknowledgments that Joseph Smith smoked and drank throughout his life, or that he was aware of and approved of the actions of the Danites in Missouri. The book also contextualizes a lot of the history, albeit in a still slanted way. When I was reading LDS history books I was once told, "You wouldn't go to a Ford dealership to get good information on a Chevrolet, would you?" Well, I had to admit that I wouldn't but I also had to point out that Chevrolet dealerships aren't the best place for unbiased information on Chevrolets either. This book is a Chevrolet dealership's attempt at more candor about their own cars after having been rocked with several large and public recalls. I don't know, that's the best metaphor I can come up with.<br />
<br />
A good example of this is the treatment of the Missouri Mormon War. We get a very detailed and moving account of the Haun's Mill Massacre. And don't get me wrong, that was a truly horrifying event; true evil in action by the men who committed those actions. But when we get to the Battle of Crooked River, we don't get an account of the capture and vicious mutilation of Samuel Tarwater by the Mormon combatants. That part gets skipped. And that's a real shame because this one-sided storytelling a really big part of what led me out of this church. This book (like the church history stories I listened to as a small child) portrays the history as a cosmic battle between God and Satan. It is a childish, black-and-white way of looking at the world. Everything is couched in that context and the real people on both sides of the conflict (with their own real hopes, fears, and dreams) get lost. Their real stories are so much more interesting and understandable when you look at them from their real points of view in a more balanced way. This history book is more balanced than any the church has ever produced, but it is not at the point where it could be considered balanced. This is the Chevrolet salesman who is trying to acknowledge some of what everyone knows about his cars because he knows it will be insulting not to.<br />
<br />
I actually enjoyed it quite a bit for the first 2/3 of the book. I did get frustrated toward the end when the book started to hit some of my least favorite apologetics for Joseph Smith. It is clear that the church is still very uncomfortable facing some aspects of Joseph Smith's life. For example, you won't find any accounts of when Joseph became physically violent with people, when he asked for people's wives to test their loyalty, his high-pressure marriage proposals to foster daughters, when he ruined the reputations of women who refused polygamous proposals, how Joseph made his money, etc. "Some things that are true are not very useful," I guess. <br />
<br />
According to the book, Joseph's denials of "polygamy" and "spiritual wifery" are okay because of his careful wording. Apparently, lying is acceptable as long as you carefully word your lies. I almost want to go to a temple recommend interview so I can say, "What a thing it is to be accused of drinking coffee when I can't find a mug in my hand! I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers!" Apparently, that is totally honest. Oh brother. It would be one thing if the church were making the argument that Joseph had to lie to protect people's lives (I would lie to save Anne Frank from the gas chamber, that's not a sin). But that is not the argument they are making. They are making the argument that lying through word games is not dishonest, and they sacrifice their morals to make Joseph Smith look better. It's weird. And they do it in the Nauvoo polygamy Gospel Topics essay too.<br />
<br />
Continuing on with the bizarre Joseph Smith apologetics, at one point the book asserts that Joseph didn't have many rules governing the practice of polygamy. However, if I am not mistaken, D&C 132 has a whole bunch of really specific rules about polygamy, and this is the revelation he supposedly received in the 1830s that he referred to but only produced much later. The revelation starts out with God himself stating, "My house is a house of order" followed by all of the super-specific rules about polygamy. No, the issue isn't that Joseph lacked rules, it is that Joseph had a whole bunch of uber-specific rules and then he went out and did a whole bunch of other, different weird shit (pardon my french). And you won't find out about any of that weirdness from this book. You'll get just enough from this book so that you can think you know what's really going on, but you don't.<br />
<br />
At another point, the book recounts a time where Joseph, Emma, and Emily Partridge are present in a situation where Emma finally decides to go along with polygamy and chooses Emily to marry Joseph. Then the book states that *Emily* decides not to tell Emma that she already married Joseph to spare Emma's feelings. I almost screamed at the book, "Emily decided?!?! We're going to blame this lie on Emily now? What about Emma's fucking lying gutless wonder of a husband?" Yeah, sorry. That part really pissed me off. Poor passive victim Joseph. He'd do the right thing if only someone would just let him. If only teenage Emily would have just set things right with all of the (much more powerful) adults in the room. Barf.<br />
<br />
But I can see why the church is so reluctant to really go into depth on the life of Joseph Smith. In the end, I left the church because I felt compelled to choose between a Monster Mormon God that orchestrated Joseph's actions and a Monster Joseph Smith. The facts on the ground indicate that at least one of them is a monster. Dealing with a Monster Joseph Smith was more comfortable and made more sense to me in the end. It hurt when I finally realized that if I had lived near Joseph Smith in his time, I would never want my wife or daughters anywhere near him. God, he was such a hero to me when I was young.<br />
<br />
Contrasting the whitewashing of Joseph is the treatment of William Law. I guess I get it, the church needs to see him as a top-ranking general in Satan's army, otherwise the story reflects badly on Joseph. But the fact is, if you read Willam Law's story from his point of view, his actions don't seem all that unreasonable. Law spends years defending Joseph from "vicious lies" about polygamy only to find out that they are true. I can empathize with the feeling of that betrayal and can totally see how that would lead to anger and a falling out and an attempt to set the record straight in print (complete with angry name-calling). Joseph was playing with fire having a secret class of polygamists in the church while lying by omission (and sometimes explicitly) to the rest.<br />
<br />
When reading this book, I read about all sorts of terrible things that Law did that I had never heard about in all of my LDS history reading. So I followed the footnotes and read the accounts by some guy in the late 1800s in Utah who said he went on all of these secret missions as directed by Joseph Smith and gathered all this dirt on William Law and witnessed him doing all sorts of terrible things. I'm pretty sure I know why no other historian had brought up these "facts." It's because all of it reads like some old guy making up stories to get attention. Some old guy that nobody has ever heard of just happens to have been Joseph's best friend and went on secret missions 40 years ago and didn't tell anybody until the late 1800s... My narcissistic grandfather used to tell those kinds of stories and they were all bullshit.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmY5YmUmSqG1DSbxALUtgMb5naEIxWraWfdbDEJbrpfOD3JVKAVTKq5G2sdWlLzxYy7Y8p-7OaBR6FQB0IQdG4fx-O4iSWesOy97_TAC1740XW6zOiW6hDi44eL1IEMnsYTSIQnMLzotTf/s1600/vdjj376yyhm11.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmY5YmUmSqG1DSbxALUtgMb5naEIxWraWfdbDEJbrpfOD3JVKAVTKq5G2sdWlLzxYy7Y8p-7OaBR6FQB0IQdG4fx-O4iSWesOy97_TAC1740XW6zOiW6hDi44eL1IEMnsYTSIQnMLzotTf/s400/vdjj376yyhm11.jpg" title="" width="300" /></a>Hey, but I guess it could have happened, right? I don't know for sure this old guy is lying. It sure reads like it, but I don't know for sure 100%. One thing I do know for sure is that this book would have never taken a disparaging comment about Joseph Smith as fact with flimsy evidence like this. There are two standards of evidence. If someone says something good about Joseph Smith or bad about William Law, the bar is low. The evidence is probably true. If someone says something bad about Joseph or good about William Law, the bar is high and the evidence is probably false. This is a good method to use to reinforce a childish, black-and-white view of the world, but not a good way to figure out the interesting story of what really probably happened, and certainly not a good way to figure out if you are wrong.<br />
<br />
Overall, I'd much rather read this than "Our Heritage." It's way more interesting and balanced than that, but it still isn't anywhere near as balanced as something from a top-notch historian who is trying their best to apply consistent standards of evidence to figure out what most probably happened. If you really want to understand what went on, you need to find someone like that to read. If you want to reinforce a childish black-and-white view of the history of the LDS church but learn more than what you can get in any other book published by the church, this is the book for you.Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-73590799839014748042018-01-25T21:47:00.000-08:002018-01-28T14:34:48.133-08:00*Justice* vs *Mercy* in LDS Theology<div class="MsoNormal">
So why am I writing about this? Despite not believing LDS
theology anymore, I still get these itches to deconstruct my past
fundamentalist worldview. Writing it out is good therapy. It's like having been
raised in a religion that believes that Star Trek is real, truly believing it was
real for a few decades and then suddenly realizing that it isn't. (Sorry if
that sounds insulting. I can't think of a less-insulting way to describe how it
feels to me.) Sometimes I just get an overwhelming desire to write out why two-dimensional
space battles with sounds and lasers that travel like slow projectiles make no
sense or that "plasma conduit" is an overused meaningless
thought-terminating cliché. Probably nobody cares what I think about this and
they probably shouldn't. But it feels good to write about all this stuff and
try to unpack it anyway. It was such a big part of my life for so long and I
did firmly believed it until I was 32 years old. Plus, these writings sometimes lead to interesting
conversations with friends when I share my thoughts. I hope I don't offend
anyone with anything I write and I'd love to discuss this stuff with anyone who
can discuss ideas without taking criticism of ideas personally.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To get started, what is the *Justice* vs *Mercy* dichotomy in
LDS theology? Where does it come from? Why did I put asterisks around these
words? Well, *Justice* vs *Mercy* is all a part of the justification for
atonement theology. It holds that *Justice* (a cosmic law of sorts) requires
that any sin (even the smallest) incurs an infinite debt that the perpetrator
cannot possibly pay and will be punished for permanently. The only possible way
to pay the debt is to have a sinless person be an infinite sacrifice. This
satisfies the infinite debt and the person who sinned then is required to do
some things by Jesus (the infinite sacrifice) to take advantage of their debt
being paid off. I put asterisks around the theological concepts to separate
them from their regular dictionary definitions, which I will also use and hopefully
it won't be too confusing because they will look different.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I probably need to stop at this point and point out some
background information. The *Justice* vs *Mercy* dichotomy is a concept that
won't be totally unfamiliar to some flavors of Christianity but in LDS theology
they are really fleshed out in the Book of Mormon in <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/42" target="_blank">Alma Chapter 42</a>. Reading
that is a good refresher of the LDS stance. Also, non-LDS readers should
probably know that LDS theology states that God and Jesus are separate beings.
LDS people believe in a non-Trinitarian godhead, so when I talk about God and
Jesus as if they are entirely separate, that is because that is how I was
raised and that is the theology I am discussing today. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So as a summary, LDS theology posits that even the smallest
of sins forces the sinner to incur an infinite debt with God. Jesus then steps
in and pays that debt to God and then renegotiates the terms of the debt with
the sinner in a more merciful way. *Justice* is satisfied because the infinite
payment gets made. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem I see is that this is a "turtles all the
way down" argument. It doesn't actually explain anything. It just pushes
the problem down lower in the foundation where it isn't as visible. Why does
the tiniest of sins force us to incur an infinite debt with God (which seems
unjust)? Not answered. If Jesus can forgive the debt after paying it, why can't
God just forgive the debt in the first place? Not answered. Why is God bound by
a seemingly unjust law of *Justice* that doesn't allow him to forgive debts
that are owed to him? Not answered. We are left with more quenstions than when
we started. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now just because we don't understand how the *Justice* vs
*Mercy* dichotomy works, doesn't mean it isn't true. It could very well be, but
it seems very strange that a perfect, just, and loving God would expect us to
believe something that we can't possibly understand. An "Alpha God"
might do that, but not a loving God. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The thing is, justice and mercy are not laws of physics but
guiding moral principles. As such they must have moral utility in order to make
any moral sense.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
*Justice* that condemns everyone with an infinite punishment
for the smallest (and finite) infractions doesn't seem just (fair, deserved).
An atonement shouldn't be necessary to make justice just and fair. It should be
baked in there to start with. Again, where does *Justice* come from? How and
why does it bind God? No answers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Additionally, the concept and very existence of *Justice*
seems to impair self-improvement since it can easily lead to shame,
hopelessness, and perfectionism especially with certain personality types (e.g.
people who suffer from scrupulosity) since it states that even the smallest
infractions makes one fundamentally unacceptable to God. It also leads people
to lose track of the relative importance of large moral principles like
kindness and leads to Pharisaical moral codes. See <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/12/quick-to-observe?lang=eng" target="_blank">this talk from ElderBednar</a>, where he gives an example of a man who broke up with a young woman because she didn't take out a second pair of earrings when she was told to, and then to my puzzlement he states that it isn't about earrings. Apparently it is about a person's willingness to make minutiae important. I also once read <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=582880771837996&id=263195743806502" target="_blank">a Facebook post</a> of the
BYUI president chastising people for wearing pants that show ankle on campus. But really, why not? If
all unatoned infractions lead to infinite punishment, there is really not much
basis to say that one sin is much worse than another. This is actually the
rationale in the American justice system for not giving the death penalty admittedly very heinous crimes like
rape. You don't want a rapist to conclude that there is no down side to
murdering their victims after perpetrating rape (as much as we would like as harsh
a punishment as possible for rapists). Increasing seriousness of crime deserves
increasing seriousness of punishment. At least, that should be the goal if the
punishments are to deter further crimes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unfortunately, the skewing of moral priorities has happened in the LDS temple recommend interview over time. There is absolutely no
question asking if the person is kind to others (the second most important moral
principle, according to Jesus) but questions about things like coffee and tea consumption are
viewed as extremely morally important. Let me say that again because it still mystifies me; temple worthiness interviewers don't ask about kindness! This seems at odds with the overarching
messages in the New Testament like those of Jesus telling people to question
the religious dogma of the time and focus on kindness to people over minutiae.
Do the Pharisees reign again? I think that case can be made. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now one thing that seems interesting to me is that LDS
theology seems to be mixing pecuniary(money)/civil justice and criminal/moral
justice as if they were the same thing. They are not. Let's clarify things.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If I sign a contract with someone and I decide to release
the other party from their obligations in the contract, there is no miscarriage
of justice. I am free to do that (and so is God). Also, a scenario where
someone steps in and pays a debt for someone else is perfectly just, and the
person who pays the debt could do that as part of a new contract. Nothing
unjust there. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, if someone commits a moral crime against me (and it
seems to make more sense to classify sins as moral crimes, not breaches of
contract), we can't substitute the punishment on someone else. For example,
let's say that I am out for a walk one day and a guy named Doug jumps out of a
bush and gives me a savage beating and then runs off. Someone films it and Doug
is convicted in court. At the sentencing, a guy named Sam who has never broken
the law jumps up in court and volunteers to go to jail for Doug. If the judge
were to accept that, would moral justice be satisfied with that solution?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thomas Paine says it better than I ever could in <i>The Age of Reason</i>: <o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge."</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The LDS church taught me when I was young that the Holy
Ghost would confirm truths to me, probably through my feelings. The Holy Ghost
has utterly failed to confirm the truth of *Justice* vs *Mercy* to me after
decades of opportunity but this does not mean that I haven't felt confirmatory
feelings of peace with respect to justice and mercy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When reading Les Miserables, I felt deep in my soul that
many times justice and mercy are one and the same; that they are not
non-overlapping circles on a Venn diagram. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Recently I read A Monster Calls, a book about a young boy
named Connor dealing with the fear of his mother's impending death. Under these
difficult circumstances, he acts out by beating up a schoolyard bully and by
breaking some of his grandmother's possessions. In each instance he is
surprised that no one wants to punish him. In each case, when he asks them why
they aren't going to punish him, the person in authority asks him, "What
could possibly be the point?" I felt the truth of that deep in my bones.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And that is my main sticking point with respect to *Justice*
in LDS theology. What could possibly be the point of small finite infractions
incurring an infinite debt with God? *Justice* creates the (unjust) problem,
requiring a theological Rube Goldberg machine to fix it. Without *Justice*,
there is no problem. God is painted as the ultimate bureaucrat or a slave to
some ultimate bureaucracy. *Justice* makes no sense and explains nothing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It would make much more sense for a loving God to simply
forgive what warrants forgiving and mete out punishments that are proportional
to the crime with the purpose of teaching. After all, a Father/Mother's love
for a child is the only metaphor I can use to understand a deity's love for
mankind, and that is how I would treat my children. Am I better than God?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Post Script: A Trinitarian view of God actually makes this problem
seem much smaller than the non-Trinitarian view of God in LDS theology. In the
Trinitarian view, God and Jesus are somewhat the same entity so you have God
sacrificing himself to make things right. Some (but not all) of the problems
disappear.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Interestingly, if you look at the historical record in the
early LDS church the theology seems to have started out as Trinitarian and then
morphed into the theology of "three separate beings." For more
information, see the Lectures on Faith, the original Book of Mormon text that
refers to Mary as "The Mother of God" (later edited to say "The
Mother of the Son of God") and the lack of any written references to "three
separate beings" theology in any sources in the first few years of the LDS
church. I think that is the background that makes the multiple versions of the
first vision disturbing to the faith of some people. However, I think that Alma
42 was written with a Trinitarian view of the Godhead in mind, so it probably
didn't originally have as much baggage as it came to have later, as the
theology evolved.<o:p></o:p></div>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-3827699286537103722017-01-07T12:52:00.000-08:002017-01-07T14:08:17.938-08:00"Milk Before Meat" and Honesty<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Is Honesty Important?</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of my biggest concerns when I started studying the
history of the LDS church, which I was raised in, was the lack of honesty shown
by leaders at times. This comes into particular focus with the events
surrounding polygamy. Quite simply, leaders who were sustained as prophets
practiced polygamy in secret and lied about it from the pulpit, particularly around the times of the start end end of LDS polygamy (<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/polygamy-and-honesty.html" target="_blank">see my earlier blog post for more information</a> and <a href="https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N01_11.pdf" target="_blank">D. Michael Quinn's paper</a>). For me, that
has some really disturbing implications. Once the precedent that a prophet can
lie about church doctrine has been established, trust is gone. How can anyone
assure me that Thomas S. Monson or Dallin H. Oaks aren't today going around
secretly marrying teen girls? I don't think they are, but it would not be
outside of established precedent for them to be doing something like that today and lying about it in public. How could I
possibly trust prophets who have demonstrated their willingness to lie when it
is convenient for them (or for God, if you want to push the responsibility to God)?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some have told me that I shouldn't be bothered by this, but
I am only bothered by it because of the strong emphasis placed on honesty in my
upbringing, which was reinforced by very clear teachings of this same
church. For example, here are some
excerpts from the Gospel Principles manual (a lesson book of "the
basics" of the religion) <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng" target="_blank">lesson on honesty</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Complete honesty is necessary for our salvation. President
Brigham Young said, "If we accept salvation on the terms it is offered to
us, we have got to be honest in every thought, in our reflections, in our
meditations, in our private circles, in our deals, in our declarations, and in
every act of our lives" <b>(Irony alert! Brigham Young was one of the
polygamy insiders in the early church who was aware of and participated in the
deception.)</b><br />
...<br />
<b>God is honest and just in all things</b> (see Alma 7:20). We too
must be honest in all things to become like Him.<br />
...<br />
Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false
witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of
Israel: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"
(Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew
19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are
guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a
look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. <b>Whenever we lead people
in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.</b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will
have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to
lie. He says, "Yea, lie a little; . there is no harm in this" (2
Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. <b>Honest
people will recognize Satan's temptations and will speak the whole truth, even
if it seems to be to their disadvantage.</b><br />
...<br />
People use many excuses for being dishonest. People lie to
protect themselves and to have others think well of them. Some excuse
themselves for stealing, thinking they deserve what they took, intend to return
it, or need it more than the owner. Some cheat to get better grades in school
or because "everyone else does it" or to get even. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
These excuses and many more are given as reasons for
dishonesty. <b>To the Lord, there are no acceptable reasons</b>. When we excuse
ourselves, we cheat ourselves and the Spirit of God ceases to be with us. We
become more and more unrighteous.</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These are pretty clear stances on honesty, right? Not a lot
of room for loopholes or exceptions. Here is some more from <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/04/this-is-no-harm?lang=eng&_r=1" target="_blank">a talk given by Apostle Marvin J. Ashton</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Not often do students remember for 24 hours very many words
taught by their teachers. Yet 50 years later some former students recall with
lasting appreciation the words one teacher had her class repeat at the
beginning of each day. Every school morning this rather unpretentious, plain,
wise lady implanted the meaning of honesty into our minds by having us recite
<b>"A lie is any communication given to another with the intent to
deceive." </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When I compare this definition with that found in the
dictionary, which states, "A lie is an untrue statement made with the
intent of deceiving," I greatly appreciate her definition. A lie can be
effectively communicated without words ever being spoken. Sometimes a nod of
the head or silence can deceive. Recommending a questionable business
investment, making a false entry in a ledger, devious use of flattery, <b>or
failure to divulge all pertinent facts</b> are a few other ways to communicate the
lie. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
After having us go through this daily ritual, this wonderful
lady, who never married but who had such a motherly influence over many of us,
would teach with few words the importance of communicating truth under all
circumstances. Often she simply said, "Don't tell lies. Don't share lies.
Don't participate in lies." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
How serious is lying? We have a clue when we read all
through the scriptures that Satan is the father of lies. His method of teaching
this evil practice is illustrated in the tenth section of the Doctrine and
Covenants: "Yea, he [Satan] saith unto them: Deceive and lie . ; behold,
this is no harm. And thus he . telleth them that it is no sin to lie. . And
thus he . causeth them to catch themselves in their own snare." (D&C
10:25-26.)</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Again, this is pretty clear teaching. Don't lie. Ever. It is
always wrong. So what am I supposed to make of lies uttered by self-proclaimed prophets about
church doctrine (such as polygamy) from the pulpit? Where did these men get the idea that is was
okay to lie about church doctrines?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Milk Before Meat or Bait and Switch?</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Joseph Smith himself sometimes used the "Milk Before
Meat" justification when dealing with polygamy-related deception.
Basically, the rationale is that we don't talk about something that someone
isn't ready to hear. It is okay to practice selective disclosure and void someone's right to informed consent if that person isn't "ready" for the information yet. The use of this rationale is a tacit acknowledgement that
the person using it knows that the information in question would be disturbing
in some way to the person receiving it and that it should therefore be hidden.
Where does this justification come from and can it be reconciled with the
definitions of honesty above?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"Milk Before Meat" comes from Jesus himself in
Doctrine and Covenants Section 19 (A revelation to Joseph Smith from Jesus).
The main purpose of this revelation is to tell Martin Harris to pay to get the
Book of Mormon published, but there is a very interesting little tangent that
Jesus goes off on about the true meanings of the terms "endless torment" and "eternal damnation." This starts in verses 6-12:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
6 Nevertheless, it is
not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written
endless torment.<br />
7 Again, it is
written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures,
<b>that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men</b>, altogether for my
name's glory.<br />
8 Wherefore, I will
explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine
apostles.<br />
9 I speak unto you
that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.<br />
10 For, behold, the
mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the
punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my
name. Wherefore-<br />
11 Eternal punishment
is God's punishment.<br />
12 Endless punishment
is God's punishment.</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Basically, Jesus is letting Martin and Joseph in on the
secret that the words "Endless" and "Eternal" don't mean
what everybody thinks they mean, but this is okay "that it might work upon
the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory." In
other words, it is okay that everyone has a false impression of what these
words mean, because it will end up having a desirable result. The ends justify
the means. It seems that Jesus is advocating that complete honesty can be sacrificed
if the results are desirable. Later in
the section, Jesus commands them not to teach what they have learned:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
21 And I command you that you preach naught but repentance,
and <b>show not these things unto the world</b> until it is wisdom in me.<br />
22 For they cannot
bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these
things, lest they perish.</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And there is the genesis of "milk before meat."
Jesus is okay with this type of deception, after all these are Jesus's own
words. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Is Lying Okay?</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now I don't believe any of this. I'm jumping into a world that I consider fictional just for the sake of argument. I believe that
Joseph made all of this up so that he could get Martin Harris to bankroll the
printing of a book. There are lots of reasons that I came to this conclusion
but the biggest is that I can't turn myself into the huge moral pretzel that I
would have to be to make this all work out. There are too many moral
contradictions here. Does God expect perfect honesty or not? It really shouldn't be
hard to come up with a simple answer on that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My own views on honesty have changed a bit since I started
taking more responsibility for my own moral reasoning. I used to view life
through the lens of rules-based moral reasoning. In rules-based moral
reasoning, you have a list of rules and you try to live your life without
breaking any of them. Sometimes, this proves impossible as sometimes a
situation arises where you can't keep all of the rules at once. Now the rule
has been broken and if you are like me and you want to keep all the rules, you
feel bad because you screwed up (even if it wasn't possible to keep all the rules at once). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I finally read a children's book by an evil atheist named
Dan Barker where he explained principles-based moral reasoning. You decide what
your moral principles are and how important they are relative to one another.
Then each time a situation is before you that demands a moral choice, you can
evaluate the possible choices against your moral principles (taking into
account the relative importance of each of your principles). The example he
gave in the book was of a sick and suffering pet dog that has no chance of
recovery. One might have a moral principle that says not to kill animals, but
also have a competing moral principle to prevent suffering whenever possible. A
person might reasonably conclude that the right action in this case is to have
the dog put to sleep even though that is against one of their moral principles.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think many faithful Mormons would argue that Mormonism
advocates principles-based moral reasoning. I would both agree and disagree. I
don't think that LDS leaders think it all the way through a lot of the time and speak out of both sides of their mouth. You can probably find ample support for either position. Many church lessons on honesty should be much less absolute. They should
include discussion of when it might be appropriate to lie (like to save Anne
Frank from the gas chamber or something), but they frequently don't do that.
They just say: "Never lie." The lesson cited at the beginning of this
post reads like it is advocating for rules-based moral reasoning, and this is
the lesson manual that is meant to teach the basics of the faith. If there is a
time to get moral reasoning clear and correct, it is in that manual.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now it is possible that Joseph and others lied about
polygamy from the pulpit because they felt they had some higher moral principle
in mind when they lied. Unfortunately the only obvious candidates to me are to
gain more converts (dishonestly by fraud, basically) or to save their own collective asses from the
consequences of their actions, neither of which strikes me as a particularly
noble moral principle to be prioritizing above honesty.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As I contemplate all of this, the words of Thomas Paine come to mind. Paine had difficulty believing in the Old Testament due to what he viewed as moral inconsistencies in the behavior of God. He stated:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Speaking for myself, if I had no other evidence that the Bible is fabulous than the sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that alone would be sufficient to determine my choice.</blockquote>
I feel very similarly with Mormonism. The logical inconsistencies are hard to swallow but the moral inconsistencies are impossible, and that alone is sufficient to determine my choice. I don't even have to go as far as to be bothered by lack of Book of Mormon archaeology or Native American DNA studies or any of that. If God or Jesus can't bother to tell me the truth then why should I bother with God or Jesus?</div>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-78486529564681073052016-12-06T21:05:00.000-08:002016-12-10T09:26:42.515-08:00A Self-Weeding GardenI once read an article that talked about a concept that the author of the article called a "self-weeding garden." Now, I think that term has been used to mean different things in a lot of contexts so I'll just state that the author of the article used it to mean a social system that makes itself hospitable for the types of people it is looking to attract and inhospitable for the types of people it is not. The "weeds" will then remove themselves rather than cause problems in the garden.<br />
<br />
I just got to thinking about that again after reading an <span style="color: #0000ee; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/apostasy.shtml" target="_blank">essay</a></span> talking about apostates in belief systems that had an interesting paragraph:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Yet another frequently employed tactic is used when a believer does come into contact with an apostate, despite the careful shielding that most traditions erect. This strategy seeks to reduce the believer’s dissonance by assuming that the apostate fell away due to some unacknowledged sin, or some other flaw on the part of the former adherent. It is extremely important, for the believer’s state of mind, that the blame for the apostasy must fall squarely on the shoulders of the apostate himself. It is quite literally unthinkable that the fault could lie with the system itself. This line of reasoning must be avoided at all costs.</span></blockquote>
I've had the pleasure of seeing this one from both sides. Five or six years ago I would have absolutely agreed that the only way a believer could leave my faith *was* because they were deficient in some way and brought it upon them self. I probably parroted these types of thoughts. Now I'm on the other side. Ain't Karma great...<br />
<br />
What dawned on me when I read that paragraph is that this attitude by the faithful is a large part of what makes the system a self-weeding garden. It really hurts when your beliefs don't match the group and you repeatedly listen to leaders of the group insinuate that you are a bad person for not believing like they do, and it is orders of magnitude more awful when those you love and respect throw these jabs at you. It makes you want to just walk away and never look back. Only that is many times not possible due to family situations.<br />
<br />
Recently, I just read another article that repeats this pattern at the Deseret News, <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865668355/Mormons-with-doubts-shouldnt-give-up-faith-without-intellectual-and-spiritual-kicking-and.html" target="_blank">Mormons with doubts shouldn't give up faith without 'intellectual and spiritual kicking and screaming'</a>. It is pretty standard fare for denigrating those who leave the fold (and trying to convince people not to be those "bad people" by leaving). They just didn't try hard enough or don't have the virtues of people who stay. Honestly, I don't know what to say about it. I feels like a hit job on me and makes me feel terrible and unwanted. It is very hard to maintain even a limited relationship with a church that has such an uncharitable view of me. In my view I was simply honest with myself about what I believed and felt, and acted accordingly and with integrity. Yet I am deficient. I am deficient because I can't manage to muster faith in things that frankly make me sick (e.g. many of the circumstances of early LDS polygamy) or things that in my view just plain contradict reality (Facsimile 3, I'm looking at you).<br />
<br />
But if you think about it, shouldn't the burden of explaining why such faith is a virtue be on the person asking me to have faith? I've not heard a single explanation on that subject that made any bit of sense to me.<br />
<br />
Allow me to elaborate on the problem as I see it. *IF* having faith in something that is difficult to believe is a virtue (as I consider many of Joseph's actions to be difficult to believe, or any number of things in the LDS belief system), wouldn't faith that is *more* difficult to believe be *more* of a virtue? If it is virtuous to have faith that Joseph's questionable polygamous activities with teen girls and other men's wives was from God, wouldn't it be *more* virtuous to believe that Warren Jeffs' even more questionable activities are from God? If blind faith (faith where God refuses to explain himself) is good, the more the better, right? Apparently, in this type of system, God has little interest in us developing our own moral or logical faculties, he just wants us to use those of the church leaders. This is a very honest problem to me. Yet *I* am the one who is morally deficient for asking these questions and not believing despite what I consider to be very obvious huge red flags. This is all turned around, upside down, and inside out. The burden of making the case for faith lies with God or his leaders or whomever, not with me to refute, and no such case has been made in any sort of compelling way.<br />
<br />
Back to the subject of the self-weeding garden, this type of article simply makes me want to get away, to leave this kind of toxic "love" behind. I see a lot of good in the LDS social system, but it is articles like these (and the lessons, and the comments, etc. etc.) that make me wonder if even my very limited level of participation is a net positive in my life. One thing is for sure, it doesn't make me want to participate more than I already do, and that may be a feature of the system (intentional or not), not a bug.Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-11355377580059375202016-10-10T15:33:00.000-07:002017-01-19T20:24:40.145-08:00The Atonement: Why Can't God Just Forgive?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcK_uNdAmV9dpM4ObPhBx5oCCbDcLsx4i-A0stmv7rmKU1t8qIXjvxn-_K48w6FxpzjS7zEBjCn-r-c0Sgw1gS2LE7gcIS2OP-BfalM26GhNm4SIOnuOPNgD9f0nqpY8E9zLdR8ebSy3EY/s1600/salvation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcK_uNdAmV9dpM4ObPhBx5oCCbDcLsx4i-A0stmv7rmKU1t8qIXjvxn-_K48w6FxpzjS7zEBjCn-r-c0Sgw1gS2LE7gcIS2OP-BfalM26GhNm4SIOnuOPNgD9f0nqpY8E9zLdR8ebSy3EY/s640/salvation.jpg" width="480" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
From my earliest memories as a small child, I have heard countless stories and personal testimonials of how much comfort people gain from "the atonement." I've found it difficult to find similar comfort and assurance myself, mostly due to lingering questions and issues that I have never been able to resolve and will detail here, but it is undeniable that this is an extremely powerful idea to a lot of my good friends. Anyway, I am going to untangle my thoughts on atonement theology and hopefully it will be of interest and/or help to others who don't fit the mold like me, or anyone else who wants to read a differing view.<br />
<br />
<b>What is the Atonement?</b><br />
<br />
Since I grew up Mormon, my view of atonement theology will be forever centered from that perspective, so maybe it would be helpful to distill the basics of Mormon atonement theology. My summary will mirror <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-12-the-atonement?lang=eng" target="_blank">Chapter 12 of the LDS Gospel Principles manual</a>.<br />
<b><br /></b>
First, God created mankind. Then there was a fall which was a result of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. This fall caused death to come into the world. Mormons talk of two types of death that result from the fall, physical and spiritual. Physical death is exactly what it sounds like. Spiritual death means that mankind has to be forever separated from God.<br />
<br />
The only way that this crappy situation could be fixed is if someone who was perfect and was sired by God himself (Jesus) came along and fixed it for us. (Aside: In Mormon theology, Jesus and God are entirely separate people which is a notable difference from other Christians.) Jesus makes a sacrifice during which time he suffers every bad thing that has ever happened to anyone who ever lived and who will ever live all at once. In Mormon theology, this happens in the garden when he prays, not on the cross.<br />
<br />
After Jesus accomplishes this, he gains the power to solve the problems introduced with the fall. He extends the power to be resurrected at some future point to everyone who ever lived and who will ever will live. He does this for free basically. Everyone who ever lived will get this gift. He also makes it so that whoever has faith in him and does what he wants them to will be able to live with God again. Faith in Jesus is of the utmost importance, though. You skip that, you get nothing to fix spiritual death. Being a kind and generous person by itself won't get you there. Jesus also has a lot of boxes that need to be checked off in church for this to work for you, and the only church that can get those boxes checked for you is the Mormon church.<br />
<br />
I imagine that other Christian churches vary somewhat in the details here but nearly all will have reasons that they have the means to check off all of the correct boxes to make this atonement effective and make it so that we can be reconciled with God.<br />
<br />
Now, I want to expound on one point above; the part where Jesus suffers everything that anyone has ever suffered or will ever suffer all at once. This is a very powerful idea for a lot of people, the idea that there is a being out there who loves them perfectly and who perfectly empathizes with all of their suffering. I have had a lot of difficulty tapping into this comfort. I have always been bothered by the fact that what I viewed as pointless suffering on my part had to be foisted on Jesus as well. It seemed like an unjust system that required the doubling all of the total suffering in the universe. We are told that it has to be that way and the only possible answer to the question "Why?" is "We'll find out after we die." It turns out that a great number of basic and fundamental questions have to be answered that way. But it is undeniable that a great many good people gain a great deal of comfort from knowing that Jesus experienced all of the suffering that they have ever felt and then some.<br />
<br />
<b>Some Basic Problems and Questions</b><br />
<br />
So what are my problems and/or seemingly unanswerable questions with respect to the atonement?<br />
<br />
First, I don't feel fallen. The idea just doesn't feel right to me. I'm trying my best to be good person and I think that alone makes me a good person. I am "enough" just as I am. I didn't make a decision eat any fruit, so God needs to take this up with Adam and Eve if it creates issues for him.<br />
<br />
Second, I don't find any of this logical or obvious. It is a tangled spaghetti, logically speaking, full of non-sequitur and begging the question. I'll elaborate more below. Furthermore, I feel alienated from everyone around me at church because they all act like it is obvious. It is a very lonely feeling to have questions that no one around you seems to have.<br />
<br />
Third, I feel disturbed by the image of God that this paints. This is a God who cannot consider me acceptable until someone pays him an infinite amount of money, a God who can't forgive me for anything I do until blood is shed, a God who doesn't seem very loving. In fact under this model, God doesn't seem to stack up very well against many men I know in real life as far as ability to forgive goes. What makes it so that God cannot forgive us without an atonement? I guess we'll find out after we die?<br />
<br />
Fourth, the primacy of faith seems out of order. Why is it seemingly more important that I believe that Jesus did all of these specific things 2000+ years ago than it is to be kind to our fellow man? Maybe it isn't, but the message I got loud growing up Mormon is that kindness counts for very little without faith in Jesus and the church.<br />
<br />
<b>The Packer Parable</b><br />
<br />
Boyd K. Packer, an LDS Apostle, related a parable to teach about the atonement in 1977. In fact, the lesson linked above is mostly that parable quoted, and it illustrates the dominant Mormon view of the atonement quite well. The short version is that a man takes out a loan and is careless in repaying it. One day, it comes due and the lender threatens to have him imprisoned. Along comes a third party who pays the debt and makes newer, more favorable terms with the man. I suppose the first man represents God the Father and the second, Jesus.<br />
<br />
From this story comes the "mercy vs. justice" idea that is common in Mormon atonement theology. "Mercy cannot rob justice" is stated frequently in church. If Jesus comes along a pays the debt, he can redraw the terms of the loan as he sees fit but God cannot because he is on the side of "justice." I've always had a big problem with this explanation. It seems like a false dichotomy and it doesn't really solve the problem. It also paints God as incapable of mercy.<br />
<br />
One of my favorite books is Victor Hugo's <i>Les Miserables</i>. The main point that the book makes (and quite well) is that mercy and justice often go hand in hand. Mercy is often justice and justice is often mercy. I do not consider "mercy cannot rob justice" to be an obvious conclusion. It does not make sense to me. The Mormon argument in favor of "mercy cannot rob justice" will invariably come down to begging the question.<br />
<br />
But let's just assume for the sake of argument that "mercy cannot rob justice." If that is true, why is extending mercy robbing justice if God does it but not if Jesus does it? We have simply pushed the problem to another individual. And on the other side of the coin, why can't God just decide to rewrite the terms of the loan? It is God's loan for crying out loud, is it not? Why does the loan need to be repaid and then forgiven by someone else? Why the middleman? It is unclear why, but it does appear from this parable that God is indeed incapable of forgiveness.<br />
<br />
Let me make a quick digression here. I can't describe how effective this type of story has been in making me feel alienated from God. Throughout my church life, God has been the ultimate Alpha personality. He demands that I do things that I dislike just to see if I will do it. He gives me explanations that do not make sense, just to see if I will take them on faith and believe them anyway. He doesn't forgive, doesn't see me as acceptable, and he hits me because he loves me. Jesus, his son, loves me with a perfect love but has a nearly endless checklist of things I have to complete before he will make me acceptable to God.<br />
<br />
<b>Thomas Paine Refutes the Debt Model of Atonement</b><br />
<br />
But let's get back to the Packer Parable or what I'll call the debt model of Atonement (really, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity" target="_blank">atonement theology</a> is very complex with lots of views and I'm not even close to doing them justice, just covering what I learned in my youth and why it doesn't work for me). Thomas Paine puts voice to things that bothered me on a subconscious level all my life:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Since, then no external evidence can, at this long distance of time, be produced to prove whether the Church fabricated the doctrines called redemption or not (for such evidence, whether for or against, would be subject to the same suspicion of being fabricated), the case can only be referred to the internal evidence which the thing carries within itself; and this affords a very strong presumption of its being a fabrication. For the internal evidence is that the theory or doctrine of redemption has for its base an idea of pecuniary Justice, and not that of moral Justice. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me; but if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed; moral Justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty, even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose Justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself; it is then no longer Justice, it is indiscriminate revenge. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)</blockquote>
The first time I read this I was finally able to put a voice to what bothered me about the "mercy cannot rob justice" line of thinking. It was the fact that "justice" wasn't moral justice at all. It was indiscriminate revenge masquerading as moral justice. Mormon theology makes an attempt at equating pecuniary justice and moral justice, but Paine astutely points out that they are not the same thing at all.<br />
<br />
<b>How Does it Compare to Alternative Views?</b><br />
<br />
Mormons place a great importance on being led by "the Spirit." From a young age I was conditioned that God would use the Holy Ghost to confirm to me (through my feelings) that the things I was taught were true. I never received such a confirmation with respect to "mercy cannot rob justice" atonement theology. However, I *have* had such peaceful and positive emotional experiences from other alternate points of view. Here is an example of one from a fictional preacher:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I says, 'Maybe it ain't a sin. Maybe it's just the way folks is. Maybe we been whippin' the hell out of ourselves for nothin'.' An' I thought how some sisters took to beatin' theirselves with a three-foot shag of bobwire. An' I thought how maybe they liked to hurt themselves, an' maybe I liked to hurt myself. Well, I was layin' under a tree when I figured that out, and I went to sleep. And it come night, and' it was dark when I come to. They was a coyote squawkin' near by. Before I knowed it, I was sayin' out loud, 'The hell with it! There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do. It's all part of the same thing. And some of the things folks do is nice, and some ain't nice, but that's as far as any man got a right to say.' I says, 'What's this call, this sperit?' An' I says, 'It's love. I love people so much I'm fit to bust, sometimes.' An' I says, 'Don't you love Jesus?' Well, I thought and' thought, and ' finally I says, 'No, I don't know nobody name' Jesus, I know a bunch of stories, bit I only love people, An' sometimes I love 'em fit to bust, an' I want to make 'em happy, so I been preachin' somepin I thought would make 'em happy.' An' then-I been talkin' a hell of a lot. Maybe you wonder about me using bad words. Well, they ain't bad to me no more. They're jus' words folks use, and' they don't mean nothing bad with 'em. Anyways, I'll tell you one more thing I thought out; an' from a preacher it's the most unreligious thing, and I can't be a preacher no more because I thought it an' I believe it. I figgered about the Holy Sperit and the Jesus road, I figgered, 'Why do we got to hang it on God or Jesus? Maybe,' I figgered, 'maybe it's all men an' all women we love; maybe that's the Holy Sperit-the human sperit-the whole shebang. Maybe all men got one bit soul ever'body's a part of.' Now I sat there thinkin' it, an' all of a suddent-I knew it. I knew it so deep down that it was true, and I still know it. (Casy's monologue from The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck)</blockquote>
I simply just can't find a good reason to believe what I was taught as a child over what fictional Rev. Casy teaches above.<br />
<br />
Mormon atonement theology strikes at the heart of why I find the entire LDS church experience to be deeply unfulfilling, anxiety-inducing, and depressing. The thing I hunger for most is the thing most consistently denied to me: acceptance. Disapproval reigns supreme, and it is baked into the most fundamental levels of the theology. Never in this lifetime will I be told that I am basically good, unless of course I am one of the lucky few Mormons to receive my Second Anointing ceremony (but that's a subject for a whole 'nuther blog post).<br />
<br />
This is my experience. I know that the experience of others will differ and I acknowledge that your emotional reality in the LDS church may not bear any resemblance whatsoever to my own.Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-75673517743459563602016-08-12T15:25:00.000-07:002016-08-12T15:25:54.599-07:00The Church Doesn't Hide its History"...but the church doesn't hide its history. You could have studied this any time you wanted to."<br />
<br />
I don't know how many times someone has told me this when I share with them how betrayed I felt when I started studying LDS church history in detail. Besides being a very dismissive comment, it is just not true. The church has carefully crafted its historical narrative. They spend every year out of four in Sunday School discussing church history. It is just that a small subset of the historical knowledge base is emphasized. Is that the same as hiding history? I think so but that is debatable.<br />
<br />
But what is not debatable is what I just pulled up on lds.org. The church has been making more and more historical documents available, such as Joseph F. Smith's journals. Good for them for doing this.<br />
<br />
But check out these couple of pages (<a href="https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE143768" target="_blank">view images 10 and 11 here</a>):<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiytQdSSylzXvUUNNhOy6uAORDP95_upZKZqbSR80VWQRmCrE0bh7IqE-Ku8gZ3ItXkmkxF29wu8jg6zg1tUmjChOsJ6ZOZGMKPrnqlbbrApFe8Dyc6RyEQ0OTzAEbJC1WhK4sw1MI2S6IS/s1600/MS1325_4_3_12.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiytQdSSylzXvUUNNhOy6uAORDP95_upZKZqbSR80VWQRmCrE0bh7IqE-Ku8gZ3ItXkmkxF29wu8jg6zg1tUmjChOsJ6ZOZGMKPrnqlbbrApFe8Dyc6RyEQ0OTzAEbJC1WhK4sw1MI2S6IS/s320/MS1325_4_3_12.jpg" width="201" /></a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEYIqVuNhNUFLs7TVcjnZw6z08XC5u1MbyX9swjJw23dWG-lhLQf49bwdL90mpZcnwuGhWYVM4Ao-24Qi-CFzeYsMupD0uR1zLXqiTN2D2fcuKj8U72UlI0Ny0oFnMab2vEMjOR5IQUwDu/s1600/MS1325_4_3_13.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEYIqVuNhNUFLs7TVcjnZw6z08XC5u1MbyX9swjJw23dWG-lhLQf49bwdL90mpZcnwuGhWYVM4Ao-24Qi-CFzeYsMupD0uR1zLXqiTN2D2fcuKj8U72UlI0Ny0oFnMab2vEMjOR5IQUwDu/s320/MS1325_4_3_13.jpg" width="196" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>What's with the big black blocks?!?!?!?!? </b><br />
<br />
Well, it turns out that we know roughly what is in that section because a few people have seen it and one of them, D. Michael Quinn, actually transcribed it and that transcript actually resides in his notes today and is publicly known. Basically, the entry makes reference to the fact that in the Council of Fifty meetings in Nauvoo, everyone swore to be subject to a death penalty if they revealed what went on in the meetings. Unflattering stuff for sure, but not as unflattering in my opinion as being caught hiding stuff like this. That is very unbecoming behavior for an organization that claims to have more truth than any other on the earth. This is exactly the kind of behavior that showed me that<b> I cannot trust the church to level with me.</b><br />
<br />
And please, if you are one of those people going around gaslighting those of us who have lost trust in the institution of the LDS church, telling us that the church has always been open with its history, please please stop. Stop right now.<br />
<br />
The church is surely getting better at this but it has a ways to go. The Council of Fifty meeting minutes are scheduled to be released next month. But the fact is that they have been <b>hidden</b> up to and past the point of this writing on 8/12/16.<br />
<br />
Hopefully they will remove these (and any other) black blocks out of the LDS historical documents that they have published soon.Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-18976405759734270782016-05-22T15:45:00.000-07:002016-05-22T15:45:18.291-07:00Insight into the Experience of DoubtI recently read a <a href="https://lemmonythings.com/2016/05/17/no-mormon-members-we-cant-sweep-tyler-glenns-trash-under-the-rug/" target="_blank">blog post</a> Kayla Lemmon that discussed Tyler Glenn's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNqnLdX4TM8" target="_blank">new music video</a> in which he expresses his pain and anger at the LDS church. The purpose of my post is not to discuss the blog post or the music video, although I found both interesting. I just found a response to a comment on the blog by someone named Kerry to be particularly insightful and thought I'd share it.<br />
<br />
TK's Comment (parent comment):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Having seen many fall away from the Church, my heart also aches for these individuals. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
My problem is the approach of many of these departing brothers and sisters. I understand that they are hurt. Often, when the culture (not the doctrine) is the cause of the pain, they have every reason to be hurt. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But, when I speak with offended or questioning individuals (and I have on many occasions), they have never been willing to approach their Bishop and discuss their concerns. They are never willing to speak to leaders or reach out to those members that sincerely want to help them. Instead, they reach out to the John Dehlins or the media. Instead, they attend the Saturday afternoon session of general conference so they can scream “no” at the top of their lungs–even though this act represents a serious misunderstanding of the practice of sustaining. Or, in this case, they create music videos where they deface religious icons that are important to many. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I wish they would reach out to the many caring bishops that would sit with them and help them understand, resolve, or overcome their issues. Obviously, there are bishops out there that–for unfortunate reasons–may be unapproachable. In my experience though, the vast majority of these leaders are willing and desperate to help. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To sum up my thoughts: my heart aches for them, and I wish they would use the mechanisms in place to get the help they need. Those mechanisms do exist, but they don’t appear in the forms we are used to in a democratic society. They aren’t done on the street corners or in a crowded forum; instead, like the act of rescuing a lost sheep, they are done on an individual basis.</blockquote>
Kerry's response to TK's comment:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Non-member here, with a life-long fascination with the church and years of experience reading about and talking to those who leave. I occupy a strange middle ground in this debate, and as such I think I can explain the behavior of those departing in a way that makes sense to you. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I’m sure your experience with leavers is honestly represented here, but bear in mind that nobody really knows another person’s story. Those people who refused to talk to the Bishop were almost certainly carrying trauma you didn’t see. In virtually all cases, leaving the church is an incredibly painful and lonely experience. It is not a decision that people undertake lightly, or simply because they are offended. Imagine what it would take for you to lose your faith, and you have some idea what these people are up against. They don’t want to lose their faith. Very often it is an internal battle that is fought and lost over a period of months or years. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The thing that makes this battle so incredibly painful is the fact that usually it cannot be shared with anyone. Raising serious doubts and concerns, unless it’s done with extreme caution, will in most cases provoke angry and frightened reactions. Believers will see it as a threat to their reality, and they will react defensively. In order to maintain the peace and protect those they love from pain, doubters tend to carry their doubts alone. They hide the burden until they cannot hide it any longer, and usually at that point they leave. This decision can seem sudden and rash to those around them, but it isn’t, it is simply the visible culmination of an invisible struggle. </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Usually a lea[v]er’s friends and family will counsel them to pray, read scripture, talk to the Bishop, as though the leaver hadn’t tried all these things repeatedly and found them to be ineffective. It hurts to hear these suggestions, because it reminds the leaver that their friends do not understand their struggle and cannot help them</b>. Some people will not meet with a Bishop at any point during their deconversion, but this is rare, and usually happens because the leaver understands their own problems well enough to know that the Bishop has no answers for them. It’s not that Bishops are not caring and eager to help; of course they are. It is that solutions simply do not exist. Again, imagine what it would take to destroy your faith and you will understand why a meeting with the Bishop is not going to change anything. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You say that you have empathy for those who leave, and I believe you. But bear in mind that even kind intentions, when improperly expressed, can cause damage. When you speak to someone who is on their way out, please give them enough credit to assume they have already prayed and asked for help. Approach them with an attitude of trying to understand them, rather than trying to fix them. Whether they ultimately choose to leave or stay, their journey and yours will be better if you treat one another with respect and kindness.</blockquote>
The bold emphasis is mine.<br />
<br />
I don't have much to say about it other than it really summed up my experience clearly and spoke to me. Thank you, Kerry, whoever you are.Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-10898262280857704612016-02-16T16:44:00.000-08:002016-05-22T15:48:45.289-07:00Where is the LDS church headed?I had been thinking recently about why I felt anxious and abused at LDS church Sunday School and Priesthood quorum lessons. I mean, just thinking about going makes my chest feel tight and my heart rate rise. I think that this is extremely odd since I don't react to the prospect of any other meeting that way. I've been asking myself what the issue is there.<br />
<br />
Then recently, D. Todd Christofferson made a post on Facebook that I think allowed me to deconstruct what is going on. Here is the post:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I’m not sure what is behind the increasing attacks upon the Prophet Joseph Smith in our current time, but one thing is for sure: it is increasing. I want to declare my witness of this great prophet. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In his youth, this pure-hearted boy came to know Jesus Christ. He not only knew of Him, but he knew Him. There were more than one or two occasions when he communed with Jehovah. He could stand as one who knew and bore witness of the identity of Jesus Christ. He heard from the mouth of God Himself that Jesus was His Son. He never faltered in that witness. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There is no reasonable explanation for the existence of the Book of Mormon other than what the Prophet said—that he was given the power to translate it. No human in his condition could have originated the book. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Joseph Smith never claimed to be perfect, and he told the Saints that, but he fulfilled his mission. He fulfilled his commission. He did what God ordained him and asked him to do. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
He now stands with the Savior having given a good report. May we recognize the debt of gratitude we owe him and thank our Heavenly Father for this obedient prophet who restored the gospel of Christ. (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/lds.d.todd.christofferson/posts/979910195431729:0">D. Todd Christopherson Facebook Post</a>)</blockquote>
This elicits the same feelings I get in Sunday School lessons. Why? I think the answer is simply that this post is a denial of my reality. It is a subtle form of gaslighting. This post basically says that there is <b>no possible valid reason</b> to feel angry at Joseph Smith.<br />
<br />
I grew up viewing Joseph Smith as a hero. He was a major role model for me. As the church portrayed him, he was a paragon of honesty, humility, and love for his wife, Emma. It was kind of shocking to find out that Joseph Smith was arrested because he ordered a printing press destroyed that was exposing his secret practice of polygamy (I always assumed it was trumped-up charges, did I assume that or was that taught to me?), or that he boasted in his May 26, 1844 sermon that he had accomplished things that Jesus never had, or that he chose to repeat marriage ceremonies with some of his polygamous wives to avoid telling Emma that he had already married them, or many other things, so on and so forth, etc. etc. etc.<br />
<br />
I made the following comment when I initially read D. Todd Christofferson's post, which has since been deleted by him (or whoever manages his Facebook account):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Finding out about Joseph marrying teen orphan foster daughters and other men's wives after years of faithful service sure did not help my faith. Maybe if church leaders (cough cough) portrayed Joseph a little more realistically in conference talks there wouldn't be so many who feel so betrayed by the facts.</blockquote>
Obviously I was being quite snarky, but there is real pain behind that snark. When I began to research church history in earnest, I desperately desired understanding and validation of my concerns. One of the most painful moments in my life was visiting with my bishop and having him vehemently deny that Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy and then proceed to ask me if I was cheating on my wife (because the only reason one could possibly have concerns about Joseph Smith is if you were an adulterer?!?!). Thankfully, other LDS members were much less judgmental, but it was hard to take that from my bishop. It hurt a lot. And it hurt more because I had no material from higher church authorities with which to enlighten him. No conference talks or other resources that would discuss Joseph's marrying of Orson Hyde's wife, teen orphan foster daughters, polygamy denials, etc. etc. etc. The church had plainly avoided these difficult subjects for quite some time, so my anger isn't just at Joseph, but in fact it is primarily directed toward the people who taught me a whitewashed version of Joseph, people like D. Todd Christofferson.<br />
<br />
Back to Elder Christofferson's Facebook post, several days after the post was made, the following comment was the top comment with almost 1200 'likes'. The next highest comment had less than 500:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I used to have a testimony of Joseph Smith. But my testimony was based on the narrative that I learned while growing up in the church as well as what the church taught up until it released the essays on the church's web site. I was shocked and saddened to learn that my testimony was based on lies. I think that's a big factor in a lot of people's disdain for Joseph Smith. The translation wasn't what I thought it had been. The first vision wasn't what I thought it had been. The Book of Abraham wasn't what I thought it had been. And Joseph Smith's relationship with Emma wasn't anywhere near what I thought it had been. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So I am leaving my comment here not to diss anyone, but to share why many people have changed their opinion about Joseph Smith and have lost their testimony of him. I don't wish to lead anyone astray, but I want to provide insight.<br />
<br />
If you know all of these horrible issues and still have a testimony of him, then that is your choice and your belief, and I respect that. But there are many of us who can no longer believe and have gone through a traumatic faith transition. Please respect those of us who now believe differently. Thank you.</blockquote>
This comment (which I felt was quite respectful) was deleted the same day that my comment was deleted, and these deletions go right to the heart of why I felt abused all my life at church.<br />
<br />
When I go to church, I feel deleted. It is not a place where I can share myself, and it is that way by design. The lessons go out of their way to avoid covering the subjects that are big concerns for me and make it clear that my perspective is invalid. Basically, they deny my reality, which is exactly what Elder Christofferson did when he deleted my and many other comments on Facebook. These are the kinds of games that abusers play. Someone with truth on their side need not do this.<br />
<br />
I wish I could ask Elder Christofferson directly where the church is headed and get an honest answer. Not that it matters much but I am curious. Is the church going to eventually acknowledge the elephant in the room that is the historical record or are we going to keep pretending that we can't possibly imagine how anyone could have any serious concerns about anything Joseph Smith ever did? Are they going to limit the discussion of Joseph's foibles to "sometimes he played with kids" or are we going to wrestle with the theological implications of Joseph's polyandry (marrying other men's wives) and the like?Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-83563585334871211332015-12-04T13:31:00.000-08:002016-05-22T15:50:43.147-07:00When Epistemology and Doublethink CollideLet me define epistemology and doublethink to start out so that we are sure to be on the same page with these words.<br />
<br />
Epistemology is just the study of how we gain knowledge. It answers questions like, what are good methods of learning and how sure can we be that we are right?<br />
<br />
'Doublethink' is a term coined by George Orwell in his book <i>1984</i> and simply refers to believing two contradictory things at the same time. It is something we find a lot in high-commitment ideologies (like in the fictional world in that book) but we find it elsewhere as well.<br />
<br />
Now the reason I am writing this article today is that I grew up Mormon and lately I have been thinking of how my views on the subject of epistemology have changed since I left that church. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that doublethink lay at the foundation of my methods of determining truth in that earlier phase of my life.<br />
<br />
Anyone who has spent very much time in or around the LDS church knows that Epistemology in the LDS faith is centered on the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is described as mostly speaking to us through our feelings (it is acknowledged that the Holy Ghost can speak directly to a person with audible words or even appear before them but stories of this actually happening are very rare). The Holy Ghost is stated to be the best method to gain knowledge. Here are a couple of quotes to back this up:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In addition, the gift of the Holy Ghost is available as a sure guide, as the voice of conscience, and as a moral compass. This guiding compass is personal to each of us. It is unerring. It is unfailing. (James E. Faust, <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/the-gift-of-the-holy-ghost-a-sure-compass?lang=eng" target="_blank">The Gift of the Holy Ghost - A Sure Compass</a>, April 1989)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[The Holy Ghost's] communication to our spirit carries far more certainty than any communication we can receive through our natural senses. (LDS.org Gospel Topics, <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/holy-ghost?lang=eng" target="_blank">The Holy Ghost</a>)</blockquote>
<br />
Mormons are told to pray to know if the Book of Mormon is true (implying that the events recounted in it actually, literally occurred). The response of the Holy Ghost to this question is supposed to imply that the entire belief system is correct and any factual assertions that the leaders make are also correct. All of this is proven correct by feelings given to you by the Holy Ghost. So it is easy to see that the reliability of this method is of the utmost importance.<br />
<br />
And this is why it was always so concerning to me when I heard church leaders address the issue that crops up when someone has an experience where they feel that the Holy Ghost tells them something that contradicts what the church teaches. It is usually handled by explaining that the experience didn't come from the Holy Ghost, but from some counterfeit:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. (See <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/7.17?lang=eng#16">Moro. 7:17</a>.) Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary. (Boyd K. Packer, <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng" target="_blank">The Candle of the Lord</a>, 25 June 1982)</blockquote>
This opens a huge can of worms for me. Here is where the doublethink lies. You cannot claim that a method for learning truth can easily give convincing false results (whether by Satan or by self-delusion) and also claim this is a high-reliability method for determining truth. Those two claims are mutually exclusive.<br />
<br />
And besides this, the same feeling can be subject to dramatically different interpretations depending on the person who interprets it. I have seen people claim, upon learning some of the stranger details of the origins of LDS polygamy, that the bad feelings that they felt were proof that the things they were learning were not true. I have also seen people claim to believe that similar bad feelings were sent by the Holy Ghost to tell them that the things that early church leaders did were wrong. Now, my personal opinion at this point in time is that I felt bad learning those things simply because it doesn't feel good to learn unflattering things about people you hold in high regard. It didn't feel good to me to learn about Bill Cosby, either, but I hope you get my point that a simple feeling is easy to interpret many different ways.<br />
<br />
What got me thinking about all of this was looking into the methods that other religions (which make factual truth claims that contradict each other) use to determine if their beliefs are true, a point that is well-illustrated in the video below.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UJMSU8Qj6Go/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UJMSU8Qj6Go?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Notice anything? They are all suspiciously similar. The "testimony meeting" format of the young polygamist girl's profession of knowledge of her beliefs will seem especially familiar to others who are or were LDS. It seems that the Holy Ghost told her things that contradict what it has told to people in the LDS church, and many other churches. Or maybe she just didn't interpret the feeling correctly. Or maybe she was tricked by Satan or her own feelings. Or possibly something else that I can't think of. It's not perfectly clear and straightforward by any means, if this is indeed the way God intended to tell us the most important things in life.<br />
<br />
Since leaving the LDS belief system, I have had people ask me questions like, "What about your spiritual experiences? How can you cast them aside?" I have also had people tell me that, "Deep down I know the LDS church is true."<br />
<br />
First, I would say that I could never, even as a full believer, state my beliefs with as much surety as the Muslims or the Heaven's Gate followers in the video above. I'm just not the type of person that has had strong experiences of this nature and this doesn't worry me. I have strong experiences of awe and wonder, but I just don't think that this is telling me anything about objective truth.<br />
<br />
Second, to those who tell me that I know the LDS church is true, I would just say no. No I don't. In the bottom of my heart I really, really don't.<br />
<br />
While I don't expect this to convince anyone to change their mind about they way they view the world with this article, I hope people are able to see why it is hard for me to accept the Holy Ghost or feelings as a reliable way to determine objective, factual truth and why I am bothered by the doublethink that I think is involved.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading. As always, your comments and thoughts are appreciated even if you don't agree with me.Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-84162789326809989202015-02-17T18:48:00.000-08:002015-02-17T18:48:04.970-08:00Well, I Did It...I mailed my resignation letter last week. There is a part of me that is a bit sad and it feels like I am closing the door on the LDS part of my life, but I still have a lot of really good LDS friends that I will continue to interact with. I like who I am and for better or worse, being LDS has made me who I am, so it doesn't make sense to be angry and fight against something I have no control over. It just felt like it was time. It feels good to look forward to the future.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I have been feeling a waning interest in LDS issues, so I just thought I'd make a post that is a table of contents for my thoughts/concerns with LDS doctrine. If I ever feel like I have something to say again, I may write on this blog again. But this is goodbye for now.<br />
<br />
The issues below represent my thoughts on what I feel are the unsolvable problems in LDS theology, history, and morality.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/07/introduction.html" target="_blank">Introduction</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/08/racism-in-past-lds-doctrine.html" target="_blank">Historical Racial Teachings in LDS Doctrine</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/polygamy-and-honesty.html" target="_blank">Polygamy and Honesty</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/polygamy-and-coercion.html" target="_blank">Polygamy and Coercion</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/other-moral-issues-with-polygamy.html" target="_blank">Other Moral Issues with Polygamy</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/translation-of-book-of-abraham.html" target="_blank">Translation of the Book of Abraham</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/science-vs-doctrine.html" target="_blank">Science vs. Doctrine</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/08/god-as-moral-exemplar-in-lds-theology.html" target="_blank">God as a Moral Exemplar in LDS Theology</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/my-letter-to-lds-church-leaders.html" target="_blank">My Letter to LDS Church Leaders</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/12/what-would-it-take-to-get-me-back-to.html" target="_blank">What Would it Take to Get Me Back to Church?</a>Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-91900822309613109632015-02-07T13:47:00.001-08:002015-02-08T15:25:35.862-08:00Thoughts on John Dehlin's Upcoming Disciplinary Council<b>My thoughts on Dehlin himself:
</b><br />
<br />
I have never understood John. My own way of thinking is very different
from his. He always came across to me as somewhat overly emotional, indecisive, not
particularly good at interviewing (talks far too much about himself and asks
leading questions), and I never understood his desire to stick with the LDS
church given how many problems he obviously had with it. <br />
<br />
However, John
is a man with a ton of energy. My own journey had me wanting to distance myself
from the LDS church and invest less and less time there as I became more and more disillusioned, but John seemed to really like being in the church despite his problems with it. John somehow had his
faith shaken to the core and yet found the energy to invest countless hours
seeking out interview subjects and performing interviews. As a result, he
amassed an unprecedented pile of easy-to-access information. So when I read Todd
Compton's book and I wondered who Compton was, I went and listened to Compton
talk with Dehlin for hours and came out feeling like I knew the man. Same for
Simon Southerton, Terryl/Fiona Givens, Richard Bushman, and many, many others.
This was incredibly valuable to me at that point in my life and for that I will always be grateful to John.<br />
<br />
My
impression of Dehlin has been that he has vacillated between trying to steer
people into staying in the church and stating that people should do whatever
they think is right. I have never gotten the impression that he has tried to get
them to leave. Now certainly many of the issues he discusses are disturbing to
many people and cause some (many?) to leave the church but that is hardly John's
fault, that is the fault of Joseph Smith et al. or God, depending on your point
of view, or in other words, those who made the 'history' in the first place.<br />
<br />
<b>The Church's place in
this conflict:</b><br />
<br />
When I was suddenly thrust into my "dark night of the
soul" after reading the Wikipedia article on Joseph Smith in late July 2012, I
desperately wanted official answers to my questions from the LDS church. The
information that I found was extremely sparse. It was clear that the only way to
learn about the details about the origins of polygamy was from sources outside
the church. I went to my bishop to discuss my concerns and was told that Joseph
only ever had one wife and was told to go think about what I was doing to my
family, pretty unhelpful advice given the nature of my issues. I had precious little official information from the LDS church with
which to rebut my bishop's mistaken beliefs about Joseph's monogamy. All I could
find was a little one-liner in the Gospel Topics section of lds.org that said
something to the effect of Joseph having cautiously taught and practiced
polygamy. I could find absolutely no discussion of the details that I was
concerned about. Even after the release of the new essays, there is no
discussion of the vast majority of the details that concern me.<br />
<br />
So while
John Dehlin and many others have been discussing these issues in detail and this
has caused many to leave the LDS church, this is in my view not their fault. The
disturbing issues are disturbing because they are in fact <i>disturbing and confusing</i>. This is
not the fault of the critics. The church seemingly cannot offer answers that are
satisfactory to people like me, otherwise they would have charged into the
discussion and offered them long ago. For a church that warns so much about the
arguments of the critics, the LDS church spends precious little effort
discussing the issues that concern the people who are listening to the critics.
<br />
<br />
I will never forget that when I desperately needed frank discussion and
validation of my concerns, the helping hand of the LDS church was nowhere to be
found. There was no official discussion of my concerns. My bishop lacked even
the most basic historical literacy on these thorny issues. So where did I go?
Unofficial internet apologists, critics, books written by historians, and
everything in between. Where else could I have gone?<br />
<br />
I find it ironic
that one of these voices will be on trial for weighing in on subjects that the
LDS church was so late to the game to weigh in on themselves. While the LDS
church has addressed some issues in the years since, these responses still
largely sidestep the real questions and concerns that I have, things that Dehlin
has discussed in detail with various experts in the fields they represent. The church doesn't seem to have the courage to weigh in
themselves, but they seem to have the courage to kick someone out who
does.<br />
<br />
Also, Dehlin has expressed his desire to have someone attend his
trial to take notes or to tape-record the proceedings. The church has responded
by denying his requests to have a note-taker and requiring the signing of a form
that says that he will not record the trial (even though Utah law allows
recording conversations, even without the consent of others
present).<br />
<br />
There is something just not right to me about an organization
holding a trial for somebody and insisting that it be done in secret when that
person wants it done in the open, especially when that person is concerned about
abuses of power by that organization. I mean, I understand protecting
confidentiality if that is what the person wants but the insistence of keeping
things secret when the person on trial does not wish it does not seem
right.<br />
<br />
<b>Where do I stand?</b><br />
<br />
I don't believe the foundational truth
claims of the LDS church. I also believe in an inalienable right to total
authenticity for all people. I don't ever expect someone to hide their true
thoughts and feelings from me and I reserve the right to share mine whenever I
want to, in public or not. <br />
<br />
It has been difficult to get clear
information on exactly what John did that is considered "apostasy". From what I
can tell, though, I am guilty of all of the same things that John is, just on a
smaller scale, since I just have fewer people reading my thoughts. I don't agree
with the church is many areas and don't believe it's truth claims, and I express
myself publicly on my blog. Am I guilty of apostasy?<br />
<br />
When I listened to
Elder Uchtdorf's talk, "Come, Join with Us," I honestly thought I was still welcome
despite my disbelief and speaking my honest thoughts but recent excommunications
have me thinking that I am not. For the first time, I am actually thinking of
writing a letter to have my name removed from the membership records of the
church. I'm not sure I believe in Jesus anymore but I am pretty familiar with
the New Testament and I just can't see Jesus handling things the way things are
being handled by LDS church leaders these days. In fact, wasn't there a story in
the New Testament of a trial being held in the middle of the night to avoid
scrutiny? I wouldn't be surprised if there was a request for a note-taker that was denied for
that one as well.<br />
<br />
Edit: My wife pointed out that while I stated above that "the helping hand of the LDS church was nowhere to be found," that actually isn't true. There were some kind LDS friends who did reach out to me and I am very grateful for that. The LDS church is full of very kind people and I need to acknowledge that.<br />
<br />
What I was trying to express with that statement was my frustration to a lack of official answers for difficult questions. For example, if D&C 132 speaks of polygamy only in the context of men marrying multiple virgins, what in the Hell was Joseph Smith doing marrying Orson Hyde's wife while Hyde was on a mission to Palestine? That is the type of question I don't expect the brethren to try and tackle any time soon because I don't think there is <b>any possible good answer</b>. The mere fact that it needs to be asked is incredibly troubling. Add to this the fact that many people find out about this stuff from somewhere other than the church (usually critics) and you get many people who feel basically that the church purposely withheld information to keep them in, and there is a very strong feeling of betrayal.<br />
<br />
So I recognize that John is attempting to shame the church publicly and that they have every right to kick him out of the church, but I have this pipe dream where Thomas S. Monson gets up next conference and says, "Folks, there are lots of people out there who find out some of our historical quirks at a late age, things like Joseph marrying his friend's wives, his own teen foster daughters, Brigham Young endorsing slavery, etc. etc. and they are kind of angry that they only found this out after decades of dedicated service to the church. Frankly, we as leaders could have done a better job of preparing people for the digital age. Please be understanding and kind to people who lose their faith in Joseph Smith." Why haven't they already done this? Do they deserve some shame for not doing something like this? Instead we get Elder Andersen's backhand slap comparing us to Judas. I hope that the church can improve on this some day but I have grown weary of waiting.Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-14325317382039797582014-12-22T19:01:00.000-08:002015-01-04T10:58:23.486-08:00What Would it Take to Get Me Back to Church?My wife and I recently met with my bishop. I hadn't met with him since I was in acute crisis
mode 2.5 years ago when I initially lost my belief in Joseph Smith's status as
prophet of God.<br />
<br />
Basically, the bishop offered to
continue to meet with me with the goal of helping me re-establish a relationship
with Jesus and to know that Jesus is in charge of the LDS church. He told me
that this knowledge has brought him great happiness and that he wanted to share
that with me. I shared with him some of my concerns that I felt contradicted
some of the claims that the church makes. It was a civil and kind conversation
all around, I thought, but it got me to thinking, what would it take to get me
back to full activity and belief in the LDS church?<br />
<br />
<b>Spiritual
Experience</b><br />
<br />
Would some sort of spiritual experience do it? I have a deeply
rational/analytic personality and despite praying heavily all my life I have
honestly just felt like I was talking to myself. When I initially started
learning the details of the origins of Mormon polygamy, the Book of Abraham, and
racist comments* made by past prophets I decided to apply methods that I had been
taught my entire life to solve the problem. I prayed about it. At the time, I
was exceptionally emotional. So I opened myself up to the possibility that God
would explain it all to me. I said a prayer and asked what I was supposed to do
and I felt a calm, peaceful feeling come over me and felt distinctly that I
should no longer try to justify Joseph Smith and other LDS church leaders'
questionable behavior and that I should no longer be a disciple of that church.
<br />
<br />
Now that is a hard story for an LDS believer to swallow. In the
believer's paradigm the church is true, so the Spirit would never tell someone
to separate themselves from it. If I got that answer, I *must* have done
something wrong. This presents an interesting conundrum. The Spirit is on the
one hand the highest form of truth. It is what you use to establish the veracity
of the church, so it is necessarily higher in the hierarchy of tools to use to
determine truth than the teachings of the church itself. The LDS church teaches
that the Spirit is the most sure way to know something. On the other hand, the
spirit can be unreliable. Also according to LDS church teachings, the Devil can
give you spiritual promptings or your own feelings can be easily mistaken for
spiritual promptings from God. I don't understand how a method can be both so
sure and unsure. <br />
<br />
It ends up playing out a lot like this in practice: A
person who feels prompted by the spirit to leave the church is told to ask God
again. The logic becomes completely circular. A Mormon would never tell someone
to ask again and again if they received an answer to stay in the church, but
they have no problem telling someone to ask again and again with the goal of
getting an answer to stay in the church. The funny thing is, there is also a
well-known cautionary tale in LDS teachings (the story of the lost 116 pages)
that serve to caution against asking again after receiving an answer from God.
<br />
<br />
Another interesting thing I have done is read, or whenever possible
watched on YouTube, people sharing how they know that their religion is correct.
It is almost invariably that they asked God and had a positive emotion as a
response to that prayer or that they just know it is true because of how they
feel when they are listening to the teachings. I watched footage of "Heaven's
Gate" cult followers talking about how they knew that their religion was true
and I was really struck with how similar it was to being in an LDS testimony
meeting. How do I make sense of that in the Mormon paradigm? <br />
<br />
When it
comes down to it, I think that the answer to my prayer did come from me. I don't
think that a simple emotional feeling is enough to establish the truthfulness of
something beyond a reasonable doubt. <br />
<br />
Okay, so a simple feeling probably
wouldn't be enough to get me back. Would I accept a visit from the God of
Abraham in the flesh as a spiritual experience that would put me back in full
church activity? Possibly.<br />
<br />
You see, given the behavior of the God of
Abraham in the Bible and in LDS history, I think if he does in fact exist it is
a distinct possibility that he is not a good or moral being. For me to follow
him, we would have to sit down and have a chat where he would explain some
seemingly unexplainable things. For instance, why he ordered genocide and the
killing of babies in Canaan, why he was cool with slavery, why he sent an angel
with a sword to threaten to kill Joseph Smith unless he married dozens of women, etc.
Earlier in my life I was okay to have a parent/child relationship with my church
where my church would tell me what to do and I would do it without question. I
now would demand an adult/adult relationship, even to God's face. I need to be
told why I am doing something and then be invited to do it. I deserve
that.<br />
<br />
<b>Jesus Leading the Church</b><br />
<br />
I want to address another thing
that my bishop said in our chat, that he knows that Jesus is the head of this
church and that he wanted to restore my relationship with Jesus. I responded to
him that I have no problems with Jesus and my issues were that I didn't think
that the data lines up with that theory. To be sure, the LDS church has some
beautiful teachings and motivates a lot of people to do good, but I don't see
Jesus leading Joseph Smith to give coercive marriage proposals to teen foster
daughters. I don't see Jesus telling Brigham Young to declare that slavery is
God's will to the Utah Territorial Legislature (leading to the legalization of
slavery in Utah in 1852). I don't see Jesus when LDS church leaders deny the
practice of polygamy while practicing it in secret. What does it even mean when
Mormons say that Jesus is leading the church? Does it mean that he occasionally
bumps them in the right direction while they make huge moral mistakes in the
name of God? Or does it mean that Jesus wanted all of these weird things to
happen? I need an explanation if I were to ever even consider coming back.<br />
<br />
You
see, for a very long time Jesus was my hero. Mormons are famous for reading the
Book of Mormon over and over but I always wanted to read the four Gospels. I
don't have problems with Jesus, I have problems with LDS church leaders and
their inability or unwillingness to condemn bad decisions by past leaders. I
just don't think that Jesus would have a problem doing
that.<br />
<br />
<b>Happiness</b><br />
<br />
Another thing my bishop touched on was his desire
to share with me the happiness that he feels in the LDS church. I didn't say
anything in our visit, but it seems like the assumption behind his statement was
that I am unhappy for having left the church. This is the complete opposite of
how I feel. I am happier now than I have ever been, and I was never more
miserable than when I truly believed it all and was doing everything that the
church asked of me. I am an introvert and the LDS church can be pure hell for
introverts. I served as an Elder's Quorum President and during that time I would
dwell on how restful death would be if I got in an accident and died, because I
was continuously being asked to do things that were *way* outside my comfort
zone. So you have to excuse me if I am skeptical that I am going to jump back in
to church activity and that everything will be sunshine and roses for me. After
having left the LDS church behind, I am happier and more fulfilled than I have
ever been in my life. That isn't to say that losing my faith wasn't a traumatic
experience and didn't cause me great pain and a need for healing, but I wouldn't
trade back for anything now. Only now that I have separated myself from the
church am I now unafraid of dying. Strangely, it terrified me when I was a
believer.<br />
<br />
For me, the main problem with participation in the LDS church
is that it doesn't meet my needs. I don't get to discuss the things that
interest me there. The lessons re-hash the same things over and over and don't
answer the real questions I have. Why do God and prophets do things that seem
morally reprehensible? Why is it a measure of our goodness whether we believe
that things that seem morally bad are really somehow morally good (though we
can't understand why)? Why isn't it more important that I treat others with
kindness than that I believe a certain way about events long in the past? Why
does that even matter at all?<br />
<br />
<b>What Are Prophets For?</b><br />
<br />
This brings
up another thing I don't understand. What is the role of a prophet? Because if
God is going to go through all of the trouble of calling a prophet, it logically
follows that God must have a strong desire to communicate clearly with us. So
why is it that the best answer to my concerns is, "We'll find out after we die."
Why doesn't the prophet just ask God why there was a priesthood ban for anybody
of African descent if current church leaders don't know how the ban started? When Ordain Women tells the church leadership that they feel that women should have the priesthood and asks them to ask God if it is time to give
the priesthood to women, why don't the church leaders just say, "Thanks for the
suggestion. We asked and the answer is ..."? Why do they get defensive and offer
stern warnings about the tone of the question? If the question is a good one,
who cares who asked it or what their tone was? Or is it inappropriate for
prophets to ask God questions?<br />
<br />
<b>Back to the Original Question</b><br />
<br />
So
what would it take to get me back into full activity? The church would have to
take a new direction in a lot of things. Church culture would have to
drastically change so that we celebrate learning from the mistakes of the past
instead of pretending they never happened. The church would be much more focused
on kindness than obedience. In fact, obedience would never be asked for, reasons
simply would be given to do something and it would be up to the individual what
to do. The church would focus on moral reasoning rather than on strict
obedience. They would have to be completely comfortable with the full participation of non-believers. It would be a completely different place, which is why I am not
asking for this to happen. Even if all that happened, I may not want to go. I'm
an introvert and I think I'm already doing pretty well at moral reasoning. I go
out with friends and we discuss moral concerns in small group settings and that
really is enough for me. There really is no church-sized hole in my
soul.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, to be clear, I don't think there is anything
that can ever make me believe that there is a just and prefect creator of the
universe that wanted so badly for Joseph Smith to have dozens of wives that he
sent an angel with a sword to threaten to kill him if he didn't (as is taught in the <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng" target="_blank">new lds.org essay on Nauvoo polygamy</a> and in the <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-6/lesson-140-doctrine-and-covenants-132-1-2-34-66?lang=eng" target="_blank">new seminary manual</a>). If I have to
believe those sorts of things, I don't think I can do it. I will stay a lone wolf. I don't think it is possible for me to go back to that unquestioning, uncritical belief that I had earlier in my life.<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
* Such as when Brigham Young said that slavery was God's will in his <a href="http://www.mrm.org/topics/documents-speeches/brigham-youngs-1852-speech-slavery" target="_blank">1852 speech to the Utah Territorial Legislature</a>, or when John Taylor said that blacks survived the flood so "...that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God," or when various prophets and apostles stated that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence and that was the reason for their not being able to hold the priesthood (now explicitly disavowed in the <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood" target="_blank">new essay</a>). Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-39459274525084691072014-09-27T10:14:00.001-07:002014-09-27T10:14:14.881-07:00My Letter to LDS Church Leaders<div class="tr_bq">
In April 2013, I sent a letter to the First Presidency of the LDS church and to all of the Apostles outlining moral issues I have with the church. I received a response from Stephen Snow, the church historian. Both are copied below, minus personal information:</div>
<blockquote>
April 17, 2013 </blockquote>
<blockquote>
President Thomas S. Monson<br />
Office of the First Presidency<br />
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<br />
50 East North Temple Street<br />
Salt Lake City, UT 84150 </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Dear President Monson: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
My name is _________ and I am a 32 year old 7th generation lifelong member of the church. I served a mission in the Brazil ___________ mission. I have been a primary teacher, nursery leader, counselor in the presidency of a couple of elder’s quorums, and elder’s quorum president a few years ago. I believed in and trusted this church completely. I was devoted. Most of my dearest friends and my family are Mormon. I continue to attend LDS meetings every Sunday.<br />
<br />
Last July, I saw some headlines about some DNA testing being done to determine if certain people in history were offspring of Joseph Smith. I read the article and determined that I really didn’t know that much about Joseph Smith’s life. I decided to find out more by reading the Wikipedia article on Joseph Smith. That article, through its sources cited, led me to vast amounts of information on Joseph Smith. I learned that there were several things that Joseph did that were out of harmony with the current teachings of the church, but the most surprising to me was his lack of honesty(1) in bringing forth the principle of polygamy. In discovering many unexpected things about the history of Joseph Smith and many other church leaders, I felt a profound breach of the trust I had placed in the church. I cannot describe how painful this was to me. The more I read, the more apparent it became that the version of history taught at church is very one-sided and whitewashed to promote faith. It felt like these things were purposely hidden from me and that I had not given informed consent in my church service and in the covenants I had made.<br />
<br />
Honesty is important to me. I have set as my ideal the teachings in the current Gospel Principles manual(2). I have not always been perfect in this regard myself, but I believe a just God would give us prophets and apostles that would be humble and truthful on points of doctrine and would admit frankly when they don’t know something. It hurt to read and hear lies and misrepresentations straight from the mouth of Joseph Smith(1), John Taylor(3), Gordon B. Hinckley(4), Jeffrey R. Holland(5), and others. Still, this would be excusable had they repented as outlined in the modern teachings of the church. However, to my knowledge they never did. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
I had a conversation with a good friend of mine who is currently a bishop. We spoke of how it is difficult to apologize to a child even when we are sure we have wronged them. Something about human nature makes it difficult to make that apology when we have authority over someone. I recently listened to the apology of Henry B. Eyring for the Mountain Meadows Massacre(6). What beautiful words. I think this has been wonderful for allowing us to move forward from this tragic event. I have also been studying the history of the priesthood ban for blacks and while the church maintains the position that we don’t know where the ban came from, I think it is quite clear that it came from the racist attitudes and common racist protestant doctrines of the time, especially when coupled with Brigham Young’s support for and instrumentality in making Utah territory a slave territory(7). Slavery and racism have no place in the true church of God. A real apology could work wonders on putting the issues of the priesthood ban and church support of slavery behind us.<br />
<br />
At this time, my level of participation in the church is minimal. I am there on Sundays and that is about it. I don’t think that there are any good answers to the moral questions I have about early church history. I have looked hard for them. However, there are some changes that could be made in the church that could lead me to want to participate more fully despite my issues. I don’t presume to be in a position to tell you what to do. I am writing to make my opinion known so that it can be considered.<br />
<br />
Church finances have been closed since 1960. Church history teaches us that even the highest church leaders are imperfect. The general authorities set their own salary with no oversight. Since my trust in the organization was broken I would have to see the finances opened before I could ever consider paying any money to the church. It is especially disturbing when leaders state that tithing was not used in a particular expenditure (such as the City Creek Mall). To me, interest earned on tithes and offerings is the same as the funds that produced it. Interest earned on tithing is not up for grabs or less sacred than the tithing funds. It is not as the rest of the world would refer to it, “beer money.” </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Current temple wedding policies also create problems for me. On one hand, in countries where it is required by law, couples can marry in a civil ceremony and can be sealed the same day. In the United States, having a civil ceremony earns the couple a one year waiting period. It seems to be a policy with no scriptural basis that can be waived when inconvenient. I don’t see how including all family and friends in this joyous occasion could be anything but good for everybody. The problem that I see is that I correspond with people on the internet that admit to lying to go to the temple and see friends or relatives get married. I don’t agree with doing this, but they would not feel it necessary to enter the temple unworthily if the couple could have a civil wedding beforehand to include those who can’t attend the temple. Frankly, this policy creates feelings that the church cares about money first, since many of these unworthy people who otherwise don’t pay tithing are required to pay tithing for a period of time before they can get a recommend. I have corresponded with individuals who pay tithing for the sole purpose of attending temple weddings. I really want to believe that you want unworthy individuals to stay out of the temple and that money is not the reason for this policy.<br />
<br />
The BYU Honor Code is another policy that I have a hard time understanding. The policy does not allow for a change of faith(8). I am far from alone in my crisis of faith. Many BYU students share my experience while they are enrolled. They are placed in a position where they cannot be honest about how they feel for fear of losing all that they have worked for in their education. The situation encourages them to lie and compromise their integrity. In my opinion this policy shows utter disrespect for our God-given agency. Please change it so that people who lose their faith in the LDS church can get a new ecclesiastical endorsement from a minister of another faith.<br />
<br />
The stance of the church with respect to gay marriage is ironic when you look at history, considering the fact that a lot of the arguments that the LDS church is using against gay marriage were used against it almost verbatim when it was fighting to legalize polygamous marriage. It is becoming increasingly clear as scientists research the subject that being gay is not a choice. The only logical thing for someone who is born gay and does not share the beliefs of the LDS church is for them to want to marry the person they love. I don’t believe that it will harm my family or marriage in any way for them to do so.<br />
<br />
I also do not agree with the church directing bishops to interview children alone behind closed doors. I will not be allowing my children to be interviewed by the bishop or his counselors without my being present. The potential harm that a rogue bishop could do here is too great. The issue is not just the potential for sexual abuse but for ecclesiastical abuse, unnecessary shaming and guilt, etc. Also, a false accusation could ruin a bishop’s life as well. I wonder if there is a better way for the goals of the church to be met that doesn't involve such a risky situation. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read this letter. There is no need to forward it to my bishop or stake president as they will not be able to assist me with any of these issues. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Sincerely,<br />
______________ </blockquote>
<blockquote>
(1)“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one”<br />
- Joseph Smith, May 26, 1844. At this time, he had about three dozen wives. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
(2) “When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
“The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.8?lang=eng#7">2 Nephi 28:8</a>). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.<br />
…<br />
“People use many excuses for being dishonest. People lie to protect themselves and to have others think well of them. Some excuse themselves for stealing, thinking they deserve what they took, intend to return it, or need it more than the owner. Some cheat to get better grades in school or because “everyone else does it” or to get even. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
“These excuses and many more are given as reasons for dishonesty. To the Lord, there are no acceptable reasons. When we excuse ourselves, we cheat ourselves and the Spirit of God ceases to be with us. We become more and more unrighteous.”<br />
-Exceprts from Gospel Principles (2011) Chapter 31, Honesty </blockquote>
<blockquote>
(3) “We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.”<br />
…<br />
“ Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
- John Taylor debate in France in the summer of 1850. In the second paragraph, Taylor quotes from the Book of Commandments which was not being followed by church leadership at the time. Taylor himself had a number of plural wives at this point. He later published this debate and distributed it in England to aid in conversion efforts.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
(4) “I condemn it[polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.”<br />
-Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview with Larry King September 1998. He states that polygamy is not doctrinal (we still practice it in the temple and it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants) and that we don’t practice it because it is against the law. However, in all the time that the LDS church practiced polygamy, it was never legal. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
(5) “S: As a Mormon, in the Temple, I’ve been told, [Romney] would have sworn an oath to say that he would not pass on what happens in the Temple, lest he slit his throat. Is that true?<br />
J: That’s not true, that’s not true. We do not have penalties in the Temple.<br />
S: You used to.<br />
J: We used to.<br />
S: Therefore he swore and oath saying ‘I will not tell anyone about the secrets here, lest I slit my throat’.<br />
J: Well, the vow that was made was regarding the ordinance, the ordinance of the Temple… [The oath was] that he would not tell anyone about his personal pledge to the Lord. I’m assuming that any religious candidate, an evangelical, a Roman Catholic, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Osama, erm, I mean President Obama, I’m assuming that anybody who has a relationship to God has made a pledge of some kind to God.”<br />
-Interview of Jeffrey R. Holland by John Sweeney, from BBC’s “The Mormon Candidate” </blockquote>
<blockquote>
(6) ”The gospel of Jesus Christ that we espouse, abhors the cold-blooded killing of men, women, and children. Indeed, it advocates peace and forgiveness. What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct. We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.<br />
“We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time.”<br />
- Henry B. Eyring remarks at Mountain Meadows Massacre Sesquicentennial Sept 11, 2007 </blockquote>
<blockquote>
(7) ”It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants…”<br />
<br />
– Brigham Young, speech given on February 5, 1852 to the Utah Territorial Legislature. Later that year, the legislature voted to make slavery legal in Utah Territory. The legislature was made up primarily of General Authorities of the LDS church. To be fair, Young did advocate for better treatment of slaves than they were given in the south. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
(8)“Former LDS students are not eligible to receive an ecclesiastical endorsement (See Withdrawn Ecclesiastical Endorsement below).”<br />
“Students without a current endorsement are not in good Honor Code standing and must discontinue enrollment. Students who are not in good Honor Code standing are not eligible for graduation, even if they have otherwise completed all necessary coursework. Excommunication, disfellowshipment, or disaffiliation from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints automatically results in the withdrawal of the student's ecclesiastical endorsement and the loss of good Honor Code standing. Disaffiliation is defined for purposes of this policy as removal of an individual's name from the official records of the Church.”<br />
-Excerpts from BYU Honor Code</blockquote>
Here is the response I received from Steven Snow, the church historian:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLtlwaJGF7CVr0NEib7W8B6Mn_OyRyRvvBBqsqmMGI8WvGoGoAquU8zwZapK_JupkrBsPoK5U5FC3OTjmhCVHd9iFeX-2JYR6w0tws_NUgrviCTCk1lBQzXfuyT54mgW16ygY4c86EvEV3/s1600/letterlarge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLtlwaJGF7CVr0NEib7W8B6Mn_OyRyRvvBBqsqmMGI8WvGoGoAquU8zwZapK_JupkrBsPoK5U5FC3OTjmhCVHd9iFeX-2JYR6w0tws_NUgrviCTCk1lBQzXfuyT54mgW16ygY4c86EvEV3/s1600/letterlarge.jpg" height="395" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-36508406535851422242014-09-12T14:49:00.000-07:002014-09-14T08:13:50.041-07:00Other Moral Issues with Polygamy<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i>Note: This post is part three of a three part series on polygamy.</i> <a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/polygamy-and-honesty.html" target="_blank">Part 1</a> <a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/polygamy-and-coercion.html" target="_blank">Part 2</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This post is going to cover the remaining moral issues I have with the way Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Here is a graphic that shows the demographics of Joseph's wives:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs0kQrtmGzw5VEPNMR3yf3Zul7QWrGAiR1W0x6nCvX3RBeNBEIgDZBYIFLHkny9KKn2VyGkxszwxBq-rXvskfK2uD-017gkSnrHSJCrp09DIkglrryVBevkunkwzO9hZqMYHiAi01V-KI/s1600/The+Many+Wives+Of+Joseph+Smith+Chart+v2.0.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs0kQrtmGzw5VEPNMR3yf3Zul7QWrGAiR1W0x6nCvX3RBeNBEIgDZBYIFLHkny9KKn2VyGkxszwxBq-rXvskfK2uD-017gkSnrHSJCrp09DIkglrryVBevkunkwzO9hZqMYHiAi01V-KI/s1600/The+Many+Wives+Of+Joseph+Smith+Chart+v2.0.png" height="640" width="426" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2012/09/the-many-wives-of-joseph-smith.html" target="_blank">Link to full size image.</a><br />
<br />
Okay, the first remaining issue I have is that Joseph Smith married teenagers and one bereaved young adult that he was caring for in a foster care type of situation. Joseph took in Emily and Eliza Partridge after their father died when they were 16 and 20, he took in Sarah and Maria Lawrence at the age of 16 and 18 after their father died, and he took in Lucy Walker at the age of 16 after her mother died and Joseph sent her father on a mission. As their caregiver, he was in a special position of trust. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a man acting as a foster father and pursuing romantic relationships with girls that he is caring for soon after they lost their parents like this.<br />
<br />
The second issue I have is that I have no doubt that these relationships were sexual in nature. Why does this bother me? Don't pretty much all marriages include sex? The reason this bothers me is that cult leaders almost always come up with some theological reason that they need to have multiple sexual partners. I wanted to believe that Joseph was different than David Koresh or Warren Jeffs in this respect. See the appendix below if you would like to see why I am convinced that these weren't just ceremonial marriages.<br />
<br />
The third issue I have is the secrecy involved in Joseph's polygamous marriages. If it wasn't sinister, why keep it a secret? Why ask potential brides to burn letters? Why lie to cover up what you are really doing.<br />
<br />
The problem with these three issues above is that they are very similar to how sexual predators operate. Many sexual predators will befriend the fatherless and motherless, giving them gifts and showering them with attention and kindness. They will then test a child's ability to keep a secret and groom them so that they can eventually have a sexual relationship with them. Now Joseph wasn't doing this with small children but he was doing it with teens and it bothers me, and I don't think it is a moral failing on my part to be bothered by this pattern.<br />
<br />
Another thing that bothers me is that Joseph married other men's wives. He claimed that he was bringing back polygamy to restore early Biblical practices, yet this has absolutely no precedent in the Bible, nor does it have any explanation in Mormon theology anywhere.<br />
<br />
Sometimes Joseph would ask for another man's wife as an "Abrahamic test," as was the case when Joseph asked for John Taylor's wife and Heber C. Kimball's wife. When they agreed to give Joseph their wives, Joseph told them it was just a test and let them off the hook. To be sure, this is a morally problematic behavior, but he didn't stop there.<br />
<br />
It wasn't just a test for Orson Hyde. According to Joseph's journal, he married Hyde's wife while Hyde was on a mission to Palestine. It wasn't a test for Zina Jacobs, who married Joseph a few months after she married Henry Jacobs. As you can see from the chart at the top of this post, 11 of Joseph's wives already had living husbands when they married Joseph.<br />
<br />
The reason that these behaviors are a problem for me is that it is quite normal for cult leaders to administer difficult loyalty tests to their followers, getting pleasure from their discomfort. Janja Lalich, an expert in the study of cults, states the following concerning loyalty testing of followers:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The loyalty test</b>. Transparent as it may seem to those not in a cult, the expectation that <i>true</i> followers will demonstrate their loyalty is an effective tool for manipulating cult members. The more a leader demands, the more power he gets. Soon he intrudes and controls every aspect of life. The rationale is that nothing is too sacred to withhold from the leader. <b>Giving oneself, and sometimes even one's children</b>, is viewed as a noble sacrifice. Physical violence and sexual abuse are incorporated into elaborate rituals in some cults, where these activities are endowed with mystical or magical meanings. In some cults, the testing of loyalty may be done in a sexually sadistic manner, further debilitating the follower and increasing personal confusion and dependency on the leader. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Testing may also take the form of controlling sexual preferences or relationships, for example, telling a lesbian that she can no longer follow her preference, or instigating a crisis situation <b>where a person must break off a personal relationship in order to prove loyalty to the cult [demanding other men's wives as a loyalty test comes to mind here]</b>. Each time the person obeys the cult at the cost of forgoing her personal preference, she loses more sense of personal control, and consequently, self-esteem. (<a href="http://cultresearch.org/pdf/csj14-1.pdf" target="_blank">Dominance and Submission: The Psychosexual Exploitation of Women in Cults, Janja Lalich, pg. 12</a>)</blockquote>
Helen Mar Kimball, in her autobiography describes her marriage to Joseph as an offering of her to Joseph by her father:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Just previous to my father’s starting upon his last mission but one, to the Eastern States, he taught me the principle of Celestial marriage, & <b>having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him</b>; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. <b>My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter</b>: how cruel this seamed[sic] to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched untill[sic] they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife & she thought she had made sufficient sacrafise[sic], but the Lord required more.(<a href="http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-view-helen-mar-whitneys-reminiscences-early-church-history/11-appendix-one" target="_blank">Helen Mar Kimball Whitney 1881 Autobiography</a>)</blockquote>
As another example, David Koresh received a revelation that all of his married male followers needed to remain celibate and that Koresh needed to marry and have children with their wives. This was their "Abrahamic test." The more I studied cult leaders, the more I started to realize that a doctrine of polygamy or some other doctrine that results in many sexual partners for the leader and often an inner circle of followers is the general rule in cults. A monogamous relationship is very rare for a cult leader. I wanted to believe that Joseph was different from other obviously crazy religious founders but he often behaved in very similar ways, to my great disappointment.<br />
<br />
Yet another concern I have is that women who refused polygamous proposals and went public about it frequently had their names soiled by close associates of Joseph Smith. FAIR, an LDS apologetic organization, acknowledges this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Other women loudly trumpeted the plural marriage doctrine in Nauvoo and the hostile press. These women's testimony and character were generally attacked to try to discredit them in an effort to preserve the secrecy which surrounded plural marriage. (<a href="http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Did_women_turn_Joseph_down" target="_blank">Fair Website</a>)</blockquote>
One such woman was Nancy Rigdon. Nancy was the 19 year old daughter of Sydney Rigdon. Joseph Smith proposed to her in 1842 and she refused. Her story got out and eventually reached John C. Bennett who was a former Mormon who had been criticizing Joseph in newspapers. To be clear, my opinion of John C. Bennett is that he was a scumbag, but he put out the story of Nancy's refusal and of course tried to make it sound as bad as possible and probably embellishing. Still, it is well established by other sources that the marriage proposal took place, whatever the details were.<br />
<br />
Years later Orson Hyde gives a speech in 1845 with the goal of discrediting Sidney Rigdon as a potential successor to Joseph Smith. The entire speech is very heated and reads kind of like a political attack ad. In fact, considering the fact that Hyde calls Rigdon's daughter a prostitute, I would say that it makes today's political attack ads look pretty polite. Hyde speaks of Nancy:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
During my absence to Palestine, the conduct of his daughter, Nancy, became so notorious in this city, according to common rumor, she was regarded generally, little if any better than a public prostitute.(<a href="https://archive.org/details/speechofelderors00hyde">Speech of Elder Orson Hyde</a> p. 27) </blockquote>
Let's pause here for a second. What we have here is an Apostle of Jesus Christ defaming a young woman's character based on a rumor. He acknowledges that this is just a rumor but still doesn't hesitate to use it to destroy her reputation. This seems to me to be totally out of harmony with the behavior of Jesus Christ. He goes on later:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Miss Nancy is made, therefore, to attribute to Joseph Smith and to my wife, language which neither of them ever used. Thus must an innocent and unsuspecting female suffer for putting down a hand to help, as it is verily believed, a poor miserable girl out of the very slough of prostitution.(Ibid. p.28)</blockquote>
And bit later in the speech, he takes another dig at her: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But if Mr. Smith had tried to get Miss Nancy for a carnal wife he might probably have been successful.(Ibid. p.28)</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Now to my knowledge there is no credible historical documentation that suggests that Nancy Rigdon was a prostitute or was morally deficient in any way, but for argument's sake, let's just say that she earned her living by having sex. Is it morally right for an Apostle of Jesus Christ to drag a prostitute's name through the mud to further his goals of discrediting a rival? Would Jesus have acted similarly in his place?<br />
<br />
Martha Brotherton is another young woman whose reputation suffered after she went public with her story of her polygamous proposal. Martha was Brigham Young's first polygamous proposal. Joseph was with him to mentor him and they both conversed with her for some time but were unable to get her to agree to marry Brigham during that initial conversation. She asked for more time to think about it and left the meeting, and eventually told her parents. She and her parents left the church and she went on to share her story with John C. Bennett who had it published in newspapers. Her sisters and brother-in-law swore in affidavits that she was a "willful inventor of lies." How they could have known that she lied about this incident, since they were not present at the meeting, is anyone's guess.<br />
<br />
In addition to Martha's sisters and brother-in-law attacking her credibility on a matter that they really could have no knowledge, Apostle William Smith, the editor of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wasp_(newspaper)" target="_blank">The Wasp</a>, calls John C. Bennet:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...the pimp and file leader of such mean harlots as Martha H. Brotherton and her predecessors from old Jezebel, whom the dogs may eat...(<a href="http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/LDS/wasp1.htm#082742" target="_blank">The Wasp, Aug. 27, 1842</a>)</blockquote>
Again, we have a man who is supposed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ who is spreading rumors about the sexual morality of a young woman. Like before with Orson Hyde, I'm not okay with this.<br />
<br />
Brotherton died in 1864. Some time afterward, Brigham Young finds out about Brotherton's death and on 1 Aug. 1870 according to Salt Lake Endowment House records (Mormon Polygamy, Van Wagoner p. 231), has Martha sealed to him, her sister Elizabeth, one who had sworn to her being a liar, standing in as proxy at the sealing. To me this shows a profound disrespect for Martha's agency. She made it clear in life that she did not want to marry Brigham Young. She left the church and married a non-Mormon. Instead of doing temple work for Martha and sealing her to her earthly husband, the man she lived with and loved for years, Young determines that Brotherton needs to join his group of wives in the afterlife. This is not how I expected a prophet of God to act. This is not taking the moral high ground and showing empathy toward those with whom you disagree.<br />
<br />
Moving on to other things, in my earlier years, I had heard the rumor that the reason that polygamy was instituted was to care for the excess women in the church. Now that I have studied the history a little more, while I was unable to find any real evidence that there ever was a surplus of women in the church, I have discovered to my dismay that many of the wives received little if any care when it came to the wives of top leadership of the church. Especially heartbreaking was reading the chapter in <i>In Sacred Loneliness</i> by Todd Compton which covers the life of Emily Partridge, and getting toward the end of her life. She clearly suffered from depression, and writes about how she cannot talk directly to her husband (Brigham Young). Instead of being allowed to see him she has to communicate through a secretary and her repeated requests for help in paying her property taxes are denied. And this is a wife of the wealthiest man in Utah. It is just a very sad thing for me to read about, the way she was told to have her children to care for her and not to expect anything from her husband.<br />
<br />
Anyway to finish this post off, I just find the whole moral context of polygamy to be puzzling and can't make much sense of it. Here are some additional quotes that I just don't know what to make of:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers. (Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, August 6, 1862)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
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 all Christendom, and which has 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. (<a href="http://jod.mrm.org/11/119" target="_blank">Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 128</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her. (<a href="http://jod.mrm.org/13/197" target="_blank">Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 202</a>)</blockquote>
<br />
<b>Appendix:</b><br />
<br />
The testimony below is from depositions given by two of Joseph Smith's wives for use in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Lot_Case" target="_blank">Temple Lot Case</a>. The case was between a Mormon offshoot group known as the Hedrickites or Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the RLDS church. Ownership of the lot was disputed by the two groups and they went to court to settle the dispute. The Utah LDS church was not a party in the suit but they got wind that as part of their legal strategy, the RLDS church was attempting to prove themselves the rightful successors of Joseph Smith's church. One claim that they made was that polygamy was an invention of Brigham Young and that would make the RLDS opposition to polygamy more in line with Joseph Smith's teachings. Probably for PR reasons, the LDS church did not want this assertion to go unchallenged and Joseph F. Smith organized cooperation with the Hedrickite church and rounded up several people to give depositions to help them show that polygamy originated with Joseph Smith. Among those were Emily Partridge and Malissa Lott, two of Joseph Smith's plural wives. At some point, the line of questioning went toward addressing whether the marriages were merely ceremonial or included sexual relationships. These excerpts cover that part.<br />
<br />
These are just a couple of pieces of evidence that Joseph's plural marriages included sexual relations. There are many more.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/emily-dow-partridge-evidence-of-sexuality/" target="_blank">Emily Partridge deposition testimony</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Q. Had you roomed with him prior to . . . the night after you were married the last time?<br />
A. No sir, not roomed with him.<br />
Q. Well had you slept with him?<br />
A. Yes sir.<br />
Q. [Had you] slept with him . . . before the fourth of March 1843 [their marriage date]?<br />
A. No sir. . . .<br />
Q. Did you ever live with Joseph Smith after you were married to him after that first night that you roomed together?<br />
A. No sir. Emma knew that we were married to him, but she never allowed us to live with him. . . .<br />
Q. Do you make the declaration now that you ever roomed with him at any time?<br />
A. Yes sir.<br />
Q. Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him in the same bed?<br />
A. Yes sir.<br />
Q. How many nights?<br />
A. One.<br />
Q. Only one night.<br />
A. Yes sir.<br />
Q. Then you only slept with him in the same bed one night?<br />
A. No sir.<br />
<b>Q. Did you ever have carnal intercourse with Joseph Smith?<br />A. Yes sir.<br />Q. How many nights?<br />A. I could not tell you.</b><br />
Q. Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him but one night?<br />
A. Yes sir.<br />
Q. And that was the only time and place that you ever were in bed with him?<br />
A. No sir.<br />
Q. Were you in bed with him at any time before . . . you were married?<br />
A. No sir, not before I was married to him. I never was.</blockquote>
<a href="http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/malissa-lott-evidence-of-sexuality/" target="_blank">Malissa Lott deposition testimony</a>:</div>
<blockquote>
Q. There was not any children born to you by Joseph Smith?<br />
A. No Sir.<br />
Q. Have you ever borne any children since that time?<br />
A. Yes sir, I have. . . .<br />
Q. State now the reason why you never bore any children by Joseph Smith?<br />
A. Well that is something impossible to do,—that is something I can’t tell. . . .<br />
Q. Now you said there were no children born of that marriage [to Joseph Smith]?<br />
A. I said I had none.<br />
Q. You had none by Joseph Smith?<br />
A. Yes sir, and you asked me why I hadn’t any and I told you I couldn’t tell you, that you would have to go to some higher authority than I to tell you that. . . .<br />
Q. Did you ever room with Joseph Smith as his wife?<br />
A. Yes sir.<br />
Q. At what place?<br />
A. At Nauvoo<br />
Q. What place in Nauvoo?<br />
A. The Nauvoo Mansion.<br />
Q. At what place in the Mansion?<br />
A. Do you want to know the number of the room, or what?<br />
Q. Well just what part of the house the room was in if you can give it?<br />
A. Well I can give it and the number of the room too. It was room number one.<br />
Q. Room number one?<br />
A. Yes sir.<br />
Q. Who else roomed there?<br />
A. I don’t know of any one. . . .<br />
Q. So you roomed with him [Joseph Smith] in the Nauvoo Mansion in room number one?<br />
A. Yes sir. . . .<br />
Q. How often did you room there with Joseph Smith?<br />
A. Well that is something I can’t tell you.<br />
Q. Well was it more than once?<br />
A. Yes sir, and more than twice.<br />
Q. Well that is something I would like to know?<br />
A. Well there is something I would like to know. If I am to be asked these questions I would like to know if I am to answer them. I have told you all about this thing that I know, and I can’t see any reason in your worrying me with these questions, and I would like to know if I have to answer them?<br />
Q. Well if you decline to answer them say so, and that will do?<br />
A. I don’t decline to answer any question that I know anything about.<br />
Q. Well answer that question then?<br />
A. What is the question?<br />
Q. I asked you how many times you had roomed there in that house with Joseph Smith? I do not expect you to answer positively the exact number of times, but I would like to have you tell us the number of times as nearly as you can remember it?<br />
A. Well I can’t tell you. I think I have acted the part of a lady in answering your questions as well as I have, and I don’t think you are acting the part of a gentleman in asking me these questions.<br />
Q. Well I will ask you the questions over again in this form,—was it more than twice?<br />
A. Yes sir.<br />
Q. Well how many times?<br />
A. I could not say.<br />
Q. Did you ever at any other place room with him?<br />
A. In what way<br />
Q. Of course I mean as his wife?<br />
A. Yes sir.<br />
Q. At what places?<br />
A. In my father’s house.<br />
Q. At other places did you ever room with him as his wife?<br />
A. Well now I think that is all the places it is necessary for me to answer you one way or the other . . .<br />
Q. Did you ever room with Joseph Smith at any other place or places than at the Nauvoo Mansion and your father’s house,—that is did you ever room with him as his wife?<br />
A. Them is all the places I remember.<br />
Q. Those are the only places you remember?<br />
A. Yes sir.<br />
<b>Q. Now at the times you roomed with him, did you cohabit with him as his wife?<br />A. Yes sir.</b><br />
Q. And you never had any children?<br />
A. No sir, I answered that question before and told you no.</blockquote>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-78589638020382098622014-09-08T19:18:00.000-07:002014-09-12T14:50:36.926-07:00Polygamy and Coercion<div class="tr_bq">
<i>Note: This post is part two in a three part series on polygamy.</i> <a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/polygamy-and-honesty.html" target="_blank">Part 1</a> <a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/other-moral-issues-with-polygamy.html" target="_blank">Part 3</a><br />
<br />
I want to start out by talking a little bit about coercion. To coerce is " to persuade someone forcefully to do something that he or she may not want to do." (Cambridge Online Dictionary) Coercion consists of applying usually negative pressures to get someone to do something that they don't want to do. Positive incentives can also be considered coercive when they are something that is extremely important to the individual. For example, telling a young son or daughter that you will start loving them if they clean their room would be coercive since the child would infer that not cleaning their room would lead to you <b>not</b> loving them, which is just something that a child is not prepared to cope with. </div>
<br />
Let me be clear, not all coercion is bad. You have to get a child to clean his/her room somehow. Anyone who has raised children knows that reasoning with the child and just asking them to clean their room will frequently not work. A reward or proportional punishment is appropriate in this instance. <br />
<br />
But in my mind there are certain areas of life that are morally off-limits to coercion. Sex, love, and marriage are three that come to mind. In my opinion, applying coercion to people's decisions in these areas is morally wrong across the board. <br />
<br />
One of the biggest problems I have with the way Joseph Smith practiced polygamy was that his proposals to women were many times coercive. I guess it wouldn't bother me so much if he had just said to them, "Hey, I've got this new polygamy thing going on and if you want to participate, that's cool and if you don't, that's also cool. I mean, God cares most about whether you are a good person but if you want to get in early on this new marriage system that he wants started, God would really like that." I mean, the whole idea of men marrying multiple women being important to God is pretty hard for me to wrap my head around, but if it was important to God, that's the way it should have gone down: without coercion. A God who coerces people into sex, love, or marriage or supports such coercion is not a God I can get excited about worshiping. <br />
<br />
Besides the wording of the proposals, another contributing factor to the coercive element of Joseph's marriage proposals is the power imbalance inherent in the prophet/disciple relationship. Followers of a prophet or guru believe that this leader speaks for God and that what they say is God's will. Going against the leader's will implies going against God's will and some sort of negative consequence from God.<br />
<br />
Let me give some examples of the types of marriage proposals I am talking about. <br />
<br />
Joseph told several people that when he was first commanded to practice polygamy, an angel delivered the message. He was reluctant to marry polygamously and the angel had to visit three times to get him to do it. According to Joseph, the angel brought a sword on the third visit and threatened to kill him if he did not start practicing polygamy. There are various people who report that Joseph told them this story and they are summarized in a table that spans pages 188 to 191 in Volume 1 of <i>Joseph Smith's Polygamy</i> by Brian Hales. Also, <a href="http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Encouraging-Joseph-Smith-to-Practice-Plural-Marriage-The-Accounts-of-the-Angel-with-a-Drawn-Sword.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> is a link to a paper authored by Hales that contains the same table. As you can see, people who report that Joseph told this story include Joseph Lee Robinson, Lorenzo Snow, Benjamin F. Johnson, Eliza R. Snow, Orson Pratt, Zina Huntington, Helen Mar Kimball, Erastus Snow, and Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner. Here are quotes from two of Joseph's wives:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I know whereon I stand, I know what I believe, I know what I know and I know what I testify to you is the living truth. As I expect to meet it at the bar of the eternal Jehovah, it is true. And when you stand before the bar you will know. He preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. <b>An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him.</b> (Mary Lightner, Address to Brigham Young University, April 14th, 1905, BYU Archives and Manuscripts)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message:an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, <b>he would lose "his position and his life." </b>Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced. (Todd Compton, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156085085X/favoritespanishr/">In Sacred Loneliness</a>, page 80-81)</blockquote>
Why is this a problem? If I believe in the church, I either have to believe that Joseph made up the story to get people to marry him and God backed his prophet despite this serious moral lapse, an uncomfortable thought, or I have to believe in a God who sends angels out to force compliance to commandments that don't make much moral sense, using death threats.<br />
<br />
Put yourself in Joseph's place for a moment. An angel comes and tells you to marry many men or women. You find this morally confusing and don't wish to comply. You put off obeying the angel. The angel keeps visiting and on the third visit brings a .44 magnum, points it at your forehead and says, "You had better start marrying polygamously or next time I visit, I'm pulling this trigger," and disappears.<br />
<br />
This God who is in charge of this whole affair is not a God I could worship, even if he were real. I would tell the angel, "I am not going to do this until you make it clear to me why it is necessary and why it is a morally correct thing to do. Reason with me or kill me now and get it over with."<br />
<br />
But I think it is much more likely that Joseph made up the story to make his polygamous proposals more effective because he knew that his followers would be eager to do anything to save his life, since they believed him to be a prophet of God. As Compton states above, "Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced." The story was very effective at getting Zina's compliance in marrying Joseph, despite the fact that she was already married to a faithful LDS man.<br />
<br />
Let's talk about Helen Mar Kimball now. She is first introduced to the idea of polygamy at age 14 by her father, apostle Heber C. Kimball. When relating her own story, Helen is clear that when she first is introduced to the idea, she is angry that he is suggesting she marry Joseph Smith and that it is something that she does not wish to do. She states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marriage-after which he said to me, <b>“If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred."</b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This promise was so great that<b> I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward</b>. (<a href="http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-view-helen-mar-whitneys-reminiscences-early-church-history/11-appendix-one" target="_blank">Helen Mar Kimball, letter to her children</a>, March 30th 1881)</blockquote>
A couple of things bother me about this. First, the idea that one's family's salvation can be dependent on whether a 14 year old marries Joseph Smith is just...well...I have no words. It was wrong for Joseph to tell her this. Second, this promise, according to her words, is clearly what influenced her to agree to marry Joseph Smith. It is a positive but coercive incentive. But it doesn't even make any moral sense. the salvation of these people should be completely independent of whether Helen marries Joseph.<br />
<div>
<br />
Another example of a coercive proposal is Joseph's proposal to Lucy Walker. Walker was a foster daughter of Joseph. Her mother got sick and died, and Joseph sent Lucy's father on a mission and had Lucy come stay in his home. Lucy writes in her story which was published in 1888:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the year 1842, President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said: “I have a message for you. I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.” My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me. He asked me if I believed him to be a prophet of God. “Most assuredly I do,” I replied. He fully explained to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage. He said this principle was again to be restored for the benefit of the human family, that it would prove an everlasting blessing to my father’s house, and form a chain that could never be broken, worlds without end. “What have you to say?” he asked. “Nothing.” How could I speak, or what could I say? He said, “If you will pray sincerely for light and understanding in relation thereto, you shall receive a testimony of the correctness of this principle. I thought I prayed sincerely, but was so unwilling to consider the matter favorably that I fear I did not ask in faith for light. Gross darkness instead of light took possession of my mind. I was tempted and tortured beyond endurance until <b>life was not desirable</b>. Oh that the grave would kindly receive me, that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear mother. Why should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father, I am only a child in years and experience, no mother to counsel; no father near to tell me what to do in this trying hour. Oh, let this bitter cup pass. And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Prophet discerned my sorrow. He saw how unhappy I was, and sought an opportunity of again speaking to me on this subject, and said: “Although I cannot, under existing circumstances, acknowledge you as my wife, the time is near when we will go beyond the Rocky Mountains and then you will be acknowledged and honored as my wife.” He also said, “This principle will yet be believed in and practiced by the righteous. I have no flattering words to offer. <b>It is a command of God to you. I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you</b>. (Lyman Omer Littlefield, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=4B0pAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints: Giving an Account of Much Individual Suffering Endured for Religious Conscience</a> (Logan: Utah Journal Co, 1888), 46–48)</blockquote>
This is clearly not something that Lucy wanted to do, in fact she talks of her desire to die in order to escape this situation. What does Joseph say that finally pushes her to make a decision? That God says she has to and that if she doesn't agree to marry him within a day, "...the gate will be closed forever against [her]." To me this is clearly coercive.<br />
<br />
Why am I so sensitive to coercion? Why does it bother me so much? As an LDS missionary I had a companion who I am pretty sure suffered from narcissistic personality disorder. As a missionary, you must spend 24 hours per day in the presence of your companion, so I was subjected to about 8 weeks of nearly constant coercion with respect to what seemed like every facet of my life. This was hands-down the worst 8 weeks of my entire life.<br />
<br />
At first I didn't understand why control was so important to this guy. I had never dealt with someone like him before in my life and I was very ill prepared to do so. I am very easygoing and so I was just biding my time until one of us got transferred away. He would manipulate me on a near-constant basis. I tolerated it because I thought that God wanted me to be there and the rules said I had to stick with him at all times. After a time, the manipulation and coercion reached a point where I think he had gotten pretty comfortable with ways of getting me to do what he wanted and he reached into my pants and fondled me.<br />
<br />
After this, I did make a call to the mission president and this missionary was sent home, but I still sit and wonder about how I let things go as far as they did. This guy was at most 120 pounds. I could have easily broken him in half. How did I let him control me like he did? He was just really good at coercion.<br />
<br />
The thing is, when I really started studying Joseph Smith, I saw a lot of the techniques that my companion used on me being used by Joseph to get the compliance of those around him, and Joseph attributing things to God where God was the coercive agent, like the angel with the sword story above. I just no longer believe that a just God would coerce or would endorse a coercive prophet.<br />
<br />
<b>9/11/14 Edit:</b> I found an online copy of <a href="http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Encouraging-Joseph-Smith-to-Practice-Plural-Marriage-The-Accounts-of-the-Angel-with-a-Drawn-Sword.pdf" target="_blank">Brian Hales's table </a> and updated the text above to include it.<br />
<br />
Also, It was brought to my attention that the <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-6/lesson-140-doctrine-and-covenants-132-1-2-34-66?lang=eng" target="_blank">new seminary manual</a> addresses the fact that Joseph told others that an angel with a sword threatened to destroy him. In lesson 140 it states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Explain that the Prophet Joseph Smith was reluctant to begin the practice of plural marriage. He stated that he did not begin the practice until he was warned that he would be destroyed if he did not obey (see “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record, May 1887, 222).</blockquote>
Following the reference cited in the manual leads you <a href="https://archive.org/download/historicalrecord06jens/historicalrecord06jens.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. Flip to page 222 and you will find the following affidavit by Lorenzo Snow:<br />
<blockquote>
APOSTLE LORENZO SNOW'S TESTIMONY. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The following affidavit was made before J. C. Wright, clerk of Box Elder County, Utah, Aug. 28, 1869: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In the month of April, 1843, I returned from my European mission. A few days after my arrival at Nauvoo, when at President Joseph Smith's house, he said he wished to have some private talk with me, and requested me to walk out with him. It was toward evening, we walked a little distance and sat down on a large log that lay near the bank of the river; he there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives.<br />
<br />
He said that the Lord had revealed it unto him and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives, that he foresaw the trouble that would follow and sought to turn away from the commandment, <b>that an angel from heaven appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment.</b> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
He further said that my sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
He told me that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation was prolonged, I think, one hour or more, in which he told me many important things. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is true. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
(Signed) Lorenzo Snow. </blockquote>
</div>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-59499596267189247982014-09-06T17:11:00.000-07:002014-09-12T14:51:06.269-07:00Polygamy and Honesty<i>Note: This is part one in a three part series on polygamy.</i> <a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/polygamy-and-coercion.html" target="_blank">Part 2</a> <a href="http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2014/09/other-moral-issues-with-polygamy.html" target="_blank">Part 3</a><br />
<br />
What is a lie? The LDS Gospel Principles manual states the following in chapter 31:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
People use many excuses for being dishonest. People lie to protect themselves and to have others think well of them. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
These excuses and many more are given as reasons for dishonesty. To the Lord, there are no acceptable reasons.</blockquote>
Today I want to write about early Mormon polygamy and honesty. First, it is necessary to lay out some background information. In my opinion, the definitive works on Joseph Smith's polygamous relationships are "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton and "Joseph Smith's Polygamy" by Brian Hales. Both are active Mormons. If one really wants to know the beginnings of Mormon polygamy, those are the books to go to. Since I can't share my books over the internet, <a href="http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/" target="_blank">wivesofjosephsmith.org</a> is an excellent place to get a short blurb about each of Joseph's wives. The website is largely based off of information from "In Sacred Loneliness". Also, here is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith's_wives" target="_blank">Wikipedia article</a> that summarizes all of Joseph's marriages. As you can see, Joseph starts practicing polygamy in the early 1830s and continues marrying until late 1843, which is the year before his death in the summer of 1844. In their books, Compton gives a total of 34 wives (if you include Emma) and Hales gives a total of 36. Hales's book was written later and has the benefit of making use of information that has come to light since the 90's, when Compton's book was written.<br />
<br />
I also want to introduce some background information on John Taylor, who practiced polygamy starting in the 1840s. Here is a summary of his polygamous marriages from <a href="https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/MBTW-92J?view=basic" target="_blank">familysearch.org</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVhdZsQumI4zsz-688MafPmCsLBpXzGbaUC96-ueV2ly0yqjqXKJIUVgP73XAOXZHS3LAg6lY8AiX4mF4JiQ7aG7_zBljCm4pL8ylfmRYlNP0LWMijNmwABgadfBuiVWJ4YGcKxB_pU7wU/s1600/JTPAF.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVhdZsQumI4zsz-688MafPmCsLBpXzGbaUC96-ueV2ly0yqjqXKJIUVgP73XAOXZHS3LAg6lY8AiX4mF4JiQ7aG7_zBljCm4pL8ylfmRYlNP0LWMijNmwABgadfBuiVWJ4YGcKxB_pU7wU/s1600/JTPAF.png" height="524" width="640" /></a></div>
As you can see, Taylor starts marrying polygamously in Nauvoo and by 1850 he has at least seven wives. I say 'at least' because records of polygamous Mormon marriages are very spotty before 1852. 1852 was the date that LDS church leaders stopped denying that they practiced polygamy and started practicing it openly, so records of marriages before that date were minimal, kept hidden, and sometimes lost to history.<br />
<br />
Now that we have that background information out of the way, what struck me in my studies of polygamy was the dishonesty that accompanied it. It bothers me deeply. Let me show you what I mean. There was a man named William Law who was in the First Presidency until he found out about polygamy and became disaffected from the church. He was pretty angry when he left the church and began to oppose Joseph. In the spring of 1844, he went and had charges filed against Joseph Smith for living "in an open state of adultery" with Maria Lawrence. In the eyes of the law, since polygamy was illegal in Illinois and Maria was living with Joseph as his wife, Joseph <b>was</b> living in an open state of adultery. Joseph gave a sermon on May 26, 1844 that was a response to "the dissenters at Nauvoo," who were led by William Law. This sermon is recorded in the LDS church publication "History of the Church" Vol 6, p. 408-412. Here is an excerpt:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
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.</blockquote>
I have seen people justify this statement by saying things like, "well he doesn't actually say that he only has only one wife, he says that he can only find one, so he was just wording things carefully so that he wouldn't lie." But I ask, even if that is what he was trying to do, does that meet the standard of honesty in the Gospel Principles manual? I don't see how it could be in harmony with that standard.<br />
<br />
Earlier, in 1842, the Times and Seasons <a href="http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/9966" target="_blank">published a reiteration</a> of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants statement on marriage which states,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"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 case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."</blockquote>
Now, on its own, I have a big problem with the 1835 statement because as you can see from Joseph Smith's marriage dates, the statement is dishonest from the beginning, since Joseph marries Fannie Alger some time between 1833 and 1835. But in the<b> October 1, 1842</b> newspaper reprinting, the statement <a href="http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/9966" target="_blank">is followed by two affidavits.</a> Follow the link and you will see that a group of men and a group of women sign a statement affirming the following:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We the undersigned members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that <b>we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants</b> and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did.<br />
S. Bennett, <b>N. K. Whitney</b>, (witnessed daughter's marriage to Joseph in July 1842)<br />
George Miller, Albert Pettey,<br />
Alpheus Cutler, Elias Higbee,<br />
Reynolds Cahoon, John Taylor,<br />
Wilson Law, E. Robinson,<br />
W. Woodruff, Aaron Johnson.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We the undersigned members of the ladies' relief society, and married females do certify and declare that <b>we know of no system of marriage being practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants</b> and we give this certificate to the public to show that J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a disclosure of his own make.<br />
Emma Smith, President,<br />
<b>Elizabeth Ann Whitney</b>, Counsellor, (witnessed daughter's marriage to Joseph in July 1842)<br />
<b>Sarah M. Cleveland</b>, Counsellor, (married Joseph in June 1842)<br />
<b>Eliza R. Snow</b>, Secretary, (married Joseph in June 1842)<br />
Mary C. Miller, Catharine Pettey,<br />
Louis Cutler, Sarah Higbee,<br />
Thirza Cahoon, Phebe Woodruff,<br />
Ann Hunter, Leonora Taylor,<br />
Jane Law, Sarah Hillman,<br />
Sophia R. Marks, Rosannah Marks,<br />
Polly Z. Johnson, Angeline Robinson,<br />
Abigail Works.</blockquote>
At issue is the swearing that they, "know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the book of Doctrine and Covenants..." The problem is that among the people who signed those statements are Newell K. Whitney, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Sarah Cleveland, and Eliza R. Snow. Cleveland and Snow were wives of Joseph smith at this time and the Whitneys were witnesses at their daughter's marriage to Joseph Smith prior to this date this was published. All four of them certainly knew of a system of marriage other than the one in the Doctrine and Covenants, since Section 132 wouldn't be added until many years after Joseph Smith's death. As shown on the last page of the paper, the editor of the paper was <a href="http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/9966" target="_blank">Joseph Smith himself</a>, so he bears ultimate responsibility for what is published in this paper, and he certainly knew that these were false statements.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzpLF6C6wEICzHDGzuhDbD3vM07_TvPLU1j18fL_vb0NO8v_HxuZZ5FybNUYPviprW-Pu3yzerbeqcZo_nQLEmRaxl609ck6eAxiPRy5WRiuhKhAR0iD2qy47xuiY950OYtME8IAbGasTf/s1600/TS.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzpLF6C6wEICzHDGzuhDbD3vM07_TvPLU1j18fL_vb0NO8v_HxuZZ5FybNUYPviprW-Pu3yzerbeqcZo_nQLEmRaxl609ck6eAxiPRy5WRiuhKhAR0iD2qy47xuiY950OYtME8IAbGasTf/s1600/TS.png" height="260" width="640" /></a></div>
Joseph Smith also married women without his first wife's knowledge. I can't imagine being a polygamist, but if I were to marry other women I also can't imagine not telling my first wife about it. I imagine that when she found out that I had married other women without even telling her, she would be deeply hurt. Emily Partridge states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
My sister Eliza and I, having arrived at an age at which we might earn our own living and perhaps contribute something to help our mother and the smaller children, were considering what we had better do, when the Prophet Joseph and his wife Emma offered us a home in their family, and they treated us with great kindness. We had been there about a year when the principle of plural marriage was made known to us, and I was married to Joseph Smith on the 4th of March, 1843, Elder Heber C. Kimball performing the ceremony. My sister Eliza was also married to Joseph Smith a few days later. <b>This was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith.</b> Two months afterward she consented to give her husband two wives, provided he would give her the privilege of choosing them. She accordingly chose my sister Eliza and myself, and <b>to save family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed.</b> Accordingly on the 11th of May, 1843, we were sealed to Joseph Smith a second time, in Emma’s presence, she giving her free and full consent thereto. (Emily Partridge writing on Feb 28 1887, quoted in <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Is1LAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=historical+record,+volumes+5-8+jenson&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bGPcU8iwNMyeyASooIH4CQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">Historical Record</a>, p. 240) </blockquote>
In other words, since Emma didn't know about the first time the sisters married Joseph, they decided to have another ceremony and pretend that it <b>was</b> the first ceremony, because simply telling the truth to Emma, that there was no reason to perform a ceremony because it had already been done, would create trouble. I want to make a note here that Emily is not an "Anti-Mormon." She was a faithful Mormon all of her life. She is just telling her story here.<br />
<br />
Lucy Walker, also a wife of Joseph Smith and faithful Mormon until her death told of her marriage to Joseph in a deposition:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It was the 1st day of May, 1843, when I married him [Joseph Smith]. … Elder William Clayton performed the ceremony. <b>Emma Smith was not present, and she did not consent to the marriage; she did not know anything about it at all</b>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
No, sir, she did not know anything about my marriage to her husband. (<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=qi5OAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&vq=lucy+walker&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=lucy%20walker&f=false" target="_blank">Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Complainant, vs. The Church of Christ at Independence Missouri et al.</a>, 373-374.)</blockquote>
Also, Joseph Smith had Joseph Kingsbury marry Sarah Ann Whitney in a pretended marriage to deflect suspicion of his previous polygamous marriage to Sarah Ann. Kingsbury writes about it later:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
On the 29th of April 1843 I according to President Council & others agreed to Stand by Sarah Ann Whitney as Supposed to be her husband & had a pretended marriage for the purpose of Bringing about the purposes of God in these last days...(Kingsbury's personal writings quoted in In Sacred Loneliness, Todd Compton, p. 351)</blockquote>
Another event that I can't justify morally is a debate that John Taylor had in France with a couple of other ministers in 1850. We know of this debate because Taylor had it recorded by a stenographer and printed up as a booklet to aid in proselyting efforts in England. A scanned copy can be found <a href="https://archive.org/details/threenightspubli00tayl" target="_blank">here at archive.org</a>. On page 7, a Mr. Robertson asks John Taylor about rumors of Joseph Smith keeping a "seraglio of 'Sisters of the White Veil' and 'Sisters of the Green Veil'," which seem to be rumors of polygamy promulgated by John C. Bennett. John Taylor responds with the following:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It would seem from the remarks of Mr. Robertson, that he also attaches very great importance to the statement, of Mr. Caswell and John C. Bennett, of course, for want of better testimony. I have already referred to their characters. <b>I have already stated that I proved Mr. Caswell to have told one lie, and a man that will tell one falsehood to injure an innocent people, will tell five hundred, if necessary, for the same object.</b> I have also spoken of John C. Bennett's character; perhaps these gentlemen suppose that great importance is to be attached to Mr. Caswell's statement, because he is a reverend gentleman; but <b>reverend gentlemen can tell falsehoods, when it answers their purpose, as well as others</b>...<b>We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;</b> therefore leaving the sisters of the "White Veil," the "Black Veil," and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants," page 330.<br />
...<br />
<b> Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband</b>, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.</blockquote>
As you can see from John Taylor's marriage dates above, he is knowingly lying here in this debate. More than that, after the debate he prints his lies up in a booklet and uses them in proselyting efforts in England. If you download the booklet from the link above, look at the title page of the booklet, it is published by John Taylor and for sale by O. Pratt.<br />
<br />
I can't describe how much this bothers me. It makes me feel sick that these leaders didn't think that they needed to tell the truth to people they were asking to give up their lives and join a church on another continent. Only after they made the journey would these people find out the truth about polygamy. Let's be clear here: John Taylor took away these people's ability to choose for themselves by denying them the right of informed consent. In Mormon theology, Taylor is following Satan's plan. In my opinion, everyone should be supplied with as many facts as possible and left to do what they think is best. The true church of God <b>should not need to misrepresent itself to gain converts</b>.<br />
<br />
<div>
The thing is, I think that John Taylor is absolutely right when he says, "...a man who will tell one falsehood...will tell five hundred, if necessary, for the same object." If Joseph Smith and John Taylor were willing to lie about polygamy to get more people to join the church, what else were they willing to lie about for the same goal? If Joseph Smith was capable of getting a group of people to swear to something in a newspaper that they knew to be false, was he capable of getting a group together and having them falsely swear to witness plates and an angel? I don't know, but lies have ripple effects throughout one's credibility. <br />
<br />
And this leads me to my final thought: I just don't understand why a just God would expect that I would believe prophets/apostles who have demonstrated their willingness to lie from the pulpit about church doctrine, especially if I should feel in my heart that things they are saying are not morally right, which is how I feel about polygamy.</div>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-16633611482625426862014-09-03T20:13:00.000-07:002014-09-04T20:53:24.115-07:00Translation of the Book of AbrahamOutside of polygamy, the Book of Abraham is probably my biggest barrier to faith in Joseph Smith's work. The LDS church has recently released an essay discussing issues with the translation of the Book of Abraham that can be found <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng" target="_blank">here.</a> I'll summarize what the highlights were for me:<br />
<div>
<ul>
<li>We don't have any recorded accounts of how the translation took place.</li>
<li>Joseph Smith's 'Egyptian Grammar' document is not accurate. </li>
<li>"Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings." I will discuss this below. </li>
<li>Egyptologists state that all surviving fragments are funerary texts that date much later than the time of Abraham.</li>
<li>The essay states that the fragments don't necessarily need to be as old as Abraham. That doesn't make sense to me since the intro to the Book of Abraham says that the book was "...written by his own hand, upon papyrus."</li>
<li>The essay states that there might be a broader definition of the word 'translate', suggesting that Joseph may have just studied the papyri and received a revelation. Maybe so, but I think that if we can broaden definitions of words that far, words pretty much cease to have much meaning.</li>
<li>The essay states that, "evidence suggests that elements of the book of Abraham fit comfortably in the ancient world and supports the claim that the book of Abraham is an authentic record." The essay then cites the example of human sacrifices in Chaldea or as the Book of Abraham calls it the "land of the Chaldeans." This is an odd example to cite to support the Book of Abraham's authenticity since the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldea" target="_blank">Chaldeans were a people that only existed between the 10th and 6th centuries BC</a>, more than a thousand years after the life of Abraham, and after the flood was supposed to have occurred around 2300 BC.</li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuiEVVPZjZShoT_6Fsw6WNFMF9I352MVoA-Lggt9xD_qbtkdXmQ8xSxGrdRlvNZt8oeddp0M9rEXujKGLlFSipx7JyKD6yHKpzebW4xmh5C1qMsVlj2W3-kuSFPnfk_13La3ZK4URbj0A/s1600/BoA+Facsimile+3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuiEVVPZjZShoT_6Fsw6WNFMF9I352MVoA-Lggt9xD_qbtkdXmQ8xSxGrdRlvNZt8oeddp0M9rEXujKGLlFSipx7JyKD6yHKpzebW4xmh5C1qMsVlj2W3-kuSFPnfk_13La3ZK4URbj0A/s1600/BoA+Facsimile+3.png" height="400" width="382" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
But anyway, the real problem for me with respect to the Book of Abraham's authenticity is Facsimile 3, and I'll explain why. The issue is that Joseph Smith makes claims about what specific characters mean in the picture. For example, the explanation for Figure 2 states, "King Pharaoh, whose name is given<b> in the characters above his head</b>." The explanation for Figure 4 says, "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt,<b> as written above the hand</b>." Figure 5 says, "Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, <b>as represented by the characters above his hand</b>." Now it turns out that Figure 2 is really Isis, Figure 4 is really Maat, and Figure 5 is really Hor, the dead guy for whom the scrolls were made. The characters above them actually do say who each one of them is, but it does not match what Joseph Smith said. The problem is that Joseph Smith, working in his prophetic capacity, makes falsifiable claims that are indeed false. If he can be wrong about the translation of characters in Facsimile 3, this implies to me that he could be wrong about other things.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As historical context, when Joseph was working on the Book of Abraham, the fact that these characters could be deciphered was largely unknown in the American frontier. The Rosetta Stone had been deciphered about 10 years previous to the publication of the Book of Abraham, but that probably would not have been known to Joseph Smith. Had Joseph been making the book up, he would have probably thought that he could make whatever claims he wanted about the meaning of Egyptian characters and nobody could prove them false.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At some point in my questioning of my Mormon faith I decided to honestly ask myself the question, "what would it look like if Joseph Smith <b>had</b> made up the Book of Abraham?" I had to admit to myself that it would probably look a lot like it does, with Joseph overreaching and making some claims that could be proven false. It was not a happy thing to realize.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another thing that I thought about was that if the Book of Abraham was the work of God, why would God want to have so much confusion surrounding its provenance and the validity of its translation? It would seem like he was purposely making it look like fraud. In fact, I think that if you asked random non-Mormons what they thought of all of this they would overwhelmingly say that the mistranslation of the characters in facsimile by Joseph would make it seem like he made it up.<br />
<br />
For my LDS friends, to imagine how a non-Mormon would view this, imagine that David Koresh came into possession of some Sumerian clay tablets and claimed that they were were engraved by King David's own hand and contain a prophecy that David Koresh would be a great prophet. When scientists examine and translate the tablets, they turn out to be a fragment of the Epic of Gilgamesh that dates to more than 1000 years before the life of King David. Would we not sit and wonder why Koresh's followers can't see that there is something really wrong here?<br />
<br />
It seems like a God that would want truth to appear false would be what is referred to as a trickster God, and I can't bring myself to believe in a trickster God, a God who plants contrary evidence and expects you to believe unbelievable things just to see if you will follow along.<br />
<br />
You see, I have a hobby interest in cults. I find it interesting how they work psychologically. A lot of cults have beliefs that are crazy to normal people. When followers start to detect how crazy things are and ask too many questions, the go-to answer from cult leadership is frequently some variation of "God is testing you, you need to have faith despite the fact that this is very difficult to believe and doesn't make sense to you." The problem I have with this type of thinking is that it works extremely well to keep people in belief systems that are obviously false, like the Heaven's Gate cult or David Koresh's cult, etc. I want my tools that I use to discover truth to be tools that would be effective no matter where I started, not tools that would only be effective at keeping me from changing my beliefs no matter what. I mean, what if I were born into the Heaven's Gate cult? Hopefully I would question that religion like crazy and notice that it doesn't make sense and leave, right?<br />
<br />
For me, there is something majorly not right about the notes in Facsimile 3 not matching their actual translation. There have been various explanations given by apologists for why this could possibly not be a problem but all of them pretty much boil down to ignoring what seems extremely probable (that Joseph Smith simply made them up) and focusing on some very improbable but possible explanation. I was raised in a church that claimed that God wanted everybody to be a part of this church. Why place these types of barriers to faith before us? Would that not stop many honest people from joining God's true church? The common response is that it is a test of faith. If that type of test of faith is good, why not make things completely absurd? If that is how God operates, maybe Heaven's Gate <b>was</b> his true church. I mean it is the most difficult thing I can imagine to have faith in, so if I did manage to have faith in it wouldn't that prove that I was awesome at having faith?<br />
<br />
What it comes down to for me is that the only God I could believe in would be one who gives tests with a purpose and I cannot detect a purpose in God requiring me to believe in the translation of the Book of Abraham. You can believe unbelievable things and still be a horrible person and you can have no faith in anything supernatural and be kind and compassionate. If I hypothetically assume that God wants me to believe in this, I guess it all seems like a huge distraction from what I think would be the primary goal of a just and loving God: getting people to behave better and show more kindness, compassion, and understanding to their fellow man. </div>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-71989006663325038792014-09-01T18:06:00.000-07:002014-09-03T17:59:12.990-07:00Science vs. DoctrineI am an engineer. I use the scientific method in my work and have found it to be the consistently most reliable way to get to the bottom of things in my professional life. The conflict between science and the religion I grew up with has always been very difficult for me. Frequently, LDS church leaders will refer to scientists as "so-called intellectuals" and "so-called scientists" when scientific theory conflicts with religious doctrine. I hate that. Putting "so-called" in front of a description of a person is rude and does not increase our ability to empathize with others. I am sure that President Monson would feel insulted if I called him a "so-called prophet." I so much wish that we could graduate from such polarizing rhetoric, but I digress. <br />
<br />
Scientists make guesses about how things work, perform experiments to attempt to prove or disprove their guess, and come up with theories based on the data gathered in those experiments. Their theories are sometimes wrong. Any good scientist knows this. Good science is people doing their best to explain how the world works and make sense of their existence. When done correctly, science has a very good success rate and has been good to humanity. <br />
<br />
I want to analyze a few LDS beliefs and how they compare to scientific theory.<br />
<ul>
<li>Adam and Eve were literally the first human beings and lived around 4000 BC.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood/Statements" target="_blank">Around 2300 BC there was a global flood</a> that covered <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng" target="_blank">every square inch of land</a> on the earth and killed every living thing on the face of the earth. <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/a-promised-land?lang=eng" target="_blank">Elder Holland even goes so far as to say that during this flood, the continent of Pangaea split to form the current continents.</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng" target="_blank">Before 2000 BC, everyone spoke the same language.</a> Around that year, the people attempted to build a tower to heaven and as a result God became angry and confounded their languages. A group of these people split off and traveled to the Americas. These people could smelt steel. (Ether 7:9)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Around 600 BC, a group of Hebrews traveled to the Americas and populated the land. These people could also smelt steel. The author of the Book of Mormon makes repeated references to 'dross', a byproduct of smelting, throughout the book.</li>
</ul>
I don't think you'll be surprised to hear that prevailing scientific theory disagrees with Adam and Eve being the first humans at 4000 BC. We have found human remains that are tens of thousands of years old. Some will argue that dating via radioisotopes must be way wrong. I personally have difficulty believing that. Also, we have sequenced Neanderthal DNA and have found <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129542.600-neanderthalhuman-sex-bred-light-skins-and-infertility.html#.U9sC-PldWxU" target="_blank">Neanderthal genes in European and Asian humans</a>. That's right, I'm probably part Neanderthal, but that wouldn't be possible if the first humans were Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. We also find evidence of domestication of plants long before 4000 BC. The LDS church released an essay entitled <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng" target="_blank">The Book of Mormon and DNA Studies</a> which attempts to explain why scientists have been unable to detect Hebrew DNA in Native American populations if the Book of Mormon narrative is true. The essay at one point states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA. Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska. These people, scientists say, spread rapidly to fill North and South America and were likely the primary ancestors of modern American Indians.</blockquote>
I find it odd that a church that believes that the first humans lived in 4000 BC would cite theories that humans migrated to the Americas over the Siberian land bridge in the time frame of 15,000 to 30,000 years ago to support their arguments that the Americas were inhabited prior to the arrival of the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites. A migration over the land bridge to Siberia 15-30,000 years ago just doesn't seem to fit into Mormon beliefs at present.<br />
<br />
As far as a global flood in the year 2300 BC goes, there is really no scientific evidence to support it and much to contradict it. I find the evidence too difficult to ignore. We have no geological evidence of the earth being completely covered in water at that time and certainly no evidence of continents moving at that late of a date. We have a lot of evidence of continuous civilizations that predate the accepted flood date by 1000 years or more and continue right through it for thousands of years. We just don't see evidence of a mass extinction event at 2300 BC and then a gradual re-population. Plus, I can't even imagine all animals in the world fitting onto a boat the size of Noah's ark. Did you know that there are 35,000 species of spiders that we know of? Where would all of the animals in the world fit? The story just seems to be a fable or an allegory. In the end, I just don't find it believable.<br />
<br />
Let's consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts" target="_blank">linguistic archaeology</a> and the tower of Babel for a moment. We have a few written languages that predate 2300 BC. Sumerian starts to appear around 3500 BC with a well developed written language appearing by 2500 BC. Egyptian starts showing up around 3300 BC and becomes well developed by around 2700 BC, and the Akkadian language starts appearing in Sumerian script by 2400 BC. All predate the Tower of Babel by hundreds of years, when there is still supposed to be only a single language on the earth. In fact, we see the Egyptian written language developing from 3300 BC all the way until it dies off as Coptic around 1600 AD. It is hard to imagine how the flood didn't wipe it out of existence, if there was a flood. <br />
<br />
Evolution is another scientific theory that gets vilified from time to time, yet evidence in its favor is very strong. The translation of Joseph Smith's explanations of Facsimile 3 in the Book of Abraham don't withstand scrutiny from science. The Book of Mormon claims a lot of steel smelting, yet steel smelting seems to have been an unknown art to the Native Americans. We've done a lot of digging and never found any Native American steel swords or Native American <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomery" target="_blank">bloomeries</a>. Contrast that with the fact that we have found only a handful of Viking settlements in North America and they have bloomeries and slag piles, showing that they were smelting iron. Viking populations were tiny compared to the populations claimed in the Book of Mormon.<br />
<br />
I just want to take a moment and make it clear that I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. If you want to believe something that contradicts any given scientific theory, go for it! What I have a beef with is the constant vilification of scientists, the us-vs-them mentality. They have good reasons for believing the things that they do. They should be respected for that. They aren't trying to destroy faith by studying their respective fields, they are just making sense of the world around them. <br />
<br />
As far as my personal beliefs go, given the difficulty I have setting aside facts that lead me to believe things that contradict Mormon beliefs, I would love to treat scripture metaphorically and still try to discuss things with my friends at church. But right now, in the faith that I grew up in, viewing scripture as metaphor isn't a respected way to look at things. My way of viewing the world is met with hostility and disdain by the leadership of the church. It makes it difficult to be there at all, and it has nothing to do with the good people who are there, but is due to the tone and direction from the top.<br />
<br />
9/3/14 Edit: I previously had a sentence in this article that asserted that atomic clocks run on principles of radioactive decay, which is not correct.<br />
<br />
I also want to state that I have not provided many references for my assertions in this post. That's because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I have looked at evidence concerning these issues and have satisfied myself. I just want to present my point of view to increase understanding.Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-14641791445845729432014-08-24T15:06:00.000-07:002014-09-05T21:00:58.991-07:00Historical Racial Teachings in LDS DoctrineLet’s talk about the LDS church’s ban on those of African descent holding the priesthood. I have always been confused about this. It never made moral sense to me that God would purposely exclude a group of people from full participation in his church. But before discussing it, let’s go into a bit of background so that we can understand what the problem really is. <br />
<br />
First, the priesthood ban was really more than a priesthood ban. Men of African descent were denied the priesthood but another consequence of the ban was that entire families were denied entry to the temple, so until 1978 black families could not be sealed in the Mormon church. Black men and women couldn't get their endowments. There were no temple weddings for black couples.<br />
<br />
If you haven’t, please read the church’s recent essay <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood" target="_blank">"Race and the Priesthood"</a>. It does a fairly good job of laying out some important historical context. It avoids some of the more racist quotes by LDS church leaders, but I’ll share and discuss some of them and why they trouble me in this post. <br />
<br />
Of note is the following quote from the essay:<br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or <b>that it reflects actions in a premortal life</b>; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.</blockquote>
Here are some of the quotes through history that concern me. I apologize in advance for the length, but context is important and I try to give the quotes as much context as is reasonably possible.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bruce R. McConkie states that those of African descent were less valiant in the pre-existence:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Of the two-thirds who followed Christ, however, some were more valiant than others ....<b>Those who were less valiant</b> in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality <b>are known to us as the negroes</b>. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin (Moses 5:16-41; 12:22). Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood (Abraham 1:20-27). Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them (Moses 7:8, 12, 22), although sometimes negroes search out the truth, join the Church, and become by righteous living heirs of the celestial kingdom of heaven. President Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence. Along with all races and peoples he is receiving here what he merits as a result of the long pre-mortal probation in the presence of the Lord</b>....The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but <b>this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing<i>.</i></b> (Mormon Doctrine, 1966 Edition)</blockquote>
First Presidency under George Albert Smith also states that those of African descent were less valiant in the pre-existence:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
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 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 prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality</b> and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain 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. <b>Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.</b> (First Presidency Statement, August 17, 1949)</blockquote>
Apostle Mark E. Petersen also states that being born of African descent is a result of actions in the pre-existence, interracial marriage is forbidden, and makes some other statements that might seem unenlightened:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood. This Negro, who, <b>in the pre‑existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin</b>, and possibly being born in darkest Africa‑‑if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre‑existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory. (Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems ‑ As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Now what is our policy in regard to intermarriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not intermarry with the Negro...</b> (Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems ‑ As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'. (Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems ‑ As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)</blockquote>
Brigham Young saying that the penalty for interracial marriage will always be death:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. (Brigham Young, JoD Vol. 10 page 110)</blockquote>
John Taylor stating that those of African descent are the devil's representatives on earth:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God. (John Taylor, JoD Vol. 22 page 304 (1881))</blockquote>
As you can see, these quotes directly contradict the recently released essay linked to above and have been disavowed by the essay. I could give dozens more examples where church leaders (and by leaders I mean apostles and prophets) have said similar things. These were the beliefs of the church for over 100 years and at the highest levels of leadership.<br />
<br />
Another big thing for me that the essay doesn't cover is the fact that in 1852, Utah was allowed to decide if slavery would be legal there. Brigham Young said the following to the territorial legislature in 1852: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I have this section in my hand, headed "An Act in Relation to African Slavery." I have read it over and made a few alterations. I will remark with regard to slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, <b>we must believe in slavery.</b> This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families and their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves. And<b> until the curse is removed by Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences; I am not authorized to remove it. I am a firm believer in slavery.</b>”</blockquote>
Following Young's speech, the territorial legislature, which was made up mostly of LDS general authorities at that time voted and legalized slavery in Utah. In fact, for a time, the LDS church under Young actually owned a man. His name was <a href="http://ilovehistory.utah.gov/people/difference/flake.html" target="_blank">Green Flake</a>. Look him up. Learn about him. He has an interesting life story.<br />
<br />
So what is the problem for me? The problem is not that these teachings were disavowed. That is a good thing. The problem is that for more than 100 years prophets and apostles taught that black skin was a sign of divine disfavor or curse, that it was a result of alleged misdeeds committed in a previous life, and that mixed race marriage was a sin, many times while explicitly declaring it unambiguously as God's will. A prophet also endorsed slavery and allowed the church to participate in it directly. I feel that if prophets can teach things that are incorrect and morally wrong as God's will, I am forced to redefine the word 'prophet' so that it means something significantly different and less extraordinary than what I thought earlier in my life. I am left to wonder if I am not better off just figuring things out on my own. <br />
<br />
Anyway, it is nice that the essay states that these earlier teachings were not correct, but I would really like to see an apology on behalf of the institution, similar to the apologies the Catholic church has made for some of its mistakes in the past. I can’t feel good about how we just refer to nebulous mistakes of the past made by unnamed individuals. It gives the impression that they were just opinions of rogue underlings. A problem like this should be confronted directly. I think that in order to truly put this issue behind them, the LDS church needs to directly acknowledge that racist beliefs were held at the highest levels and offer a candid apology for that.<br />
<br />
In addition, it is hard for me not to draw parallels with this and current church rhetoric. How do we know that God disapproves of gay marriage and women receiving the priesthood? Do we know the same way that we knew that blacks were born with dark skin because of mistakes they made in a life before this life, the same way we knew that slavery should be legalized in Utah?<br />
<br />
Edit 9/1/14: It seems like the most common response from a believer's standpoint to these issues is that I need to not expect prophets of the past to be perfect. My response would be that I don't. I do expect them to provide good moral guidance and be honest and candid when they don't know something, but I certainly don't expect perfection. The problem is that nearly everybody today can agree that Brigham Young's endorsement of slavery was wrong, yet he attributed it to God. There are things that current LDS church leaders are attributing to God like we should oppose gay marriage and the ordination of women. The question is, what changed between then and now that makes it so that prophets cannot be wrong anymore? At what moment did LDS prophets cease to be vulnerable to making huge errors of judgement like Brigham Young did? If I genuinely feel that they are wrong, can I exercise my right of conscience and publicly state that? Would it have been wrong for me to publicly state that Brigham Young was wrong abut slavery had I lived during that time?<br />
<br />
I think that wrong is wrong and nobody should feel like they have to hide what they really think when it comes to moral issues. </div>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-19841026144380444182014-08-23T07:52:00.000-07:002014-08-23T07:52:26.890-07:00God as a Moral Exemplar in LDS TheologyA year or two ago, I read “The God Who Weeps” by Terryl and Fiona Givens, which I enjoyed. Near the beginning of the book, the Givens’ talk a bit about the possible natures of God or Gods. One point that they made that stuck with me (you will have to forgive me for paraphrasing rather than quoting here; I can’t find my wife’s copy of the book) was that there are several possibilities for God(s). They could exist or not, and they could be just beings or not. They gave a quick example of an Aztec God who required periodic bloody human sacrifices as an unjust God and state that we would be morally justified in not worshiping such a being. Then they move on to other topics. <br />
<br />
I was surprised that they didn't stop and attempt any discussion of the morality of the God of Abraham at that point. That is where my number one concern with the religion I grew up with is centered. But before I get started, let me just say that when I imagine a just and loving God, I imagine a God who is comfortable with me examining his morality, or really the morality that is being attributed to him by living men or dead ones in scripture. I want to examine some issues that I have with the morality of God as recorded in scripture. I have many other concerns with the morality of God, but I will limit this post to scripture today:<br />
<br />
Old Testament:<br />
<br />
1. God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son. I can’t imagine that a just God would want his followers to be ready and willing to kill others arbitrarily with no explanation as to why.<br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori′ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:2)</blockquote>
2. Lot, the only righteous man in Sodom, offers his daughters up to a mob to be raped.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please… (Genesis 19:8)</blockquote>
3. Scriptural permission to stone rebellious children. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son…then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city…then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones… (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)</blockquote>
4. God sends bears to kill children who tease a prophet for being bald. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
…some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. (2 Kings 2:23-24)</blockquote>
5. A man attempts to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling on the ground and is struck dead by God. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
…Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God. (2 Sam 6:6-7)</blockquote>
6. The killing of firstborns, which presumably would have included many innocent children, as one of the plagues of Egypt. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle. (Exodus 12:29)</blockquote>
7. Slavery is endorsed numerous times in the book, but never is it prohibited. If God is superior to humans morally and is capable of communicating effectively with humans, then I can't understand his failure to articulate the simple fact that slavery is morally wrong in some place in scripture. More disappointing is the fact that he does the opposite and specifically endorses it many times in the Old Testament and even a couple of times in the New Testament. I agree with Robert Ingersoll who said, “If you find slavery upheld in a book said to have been written by God, what would you expect to find in a book inspired by the devil?” Here are just a couple of the many examples of the endorsement of slavery in the Old Testament:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. (Leviticus 25:44-46)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money. (Exodus 21:20-21)</blockquote>
8. God commands the genocide of the Canaanite people, which includes the cold-blooded killing of infants and toddlers. Here are just a few examples:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining; (Deuteronomy 2:34) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, destroying every city, men, women, and children. (Deuteronomy 3:6) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per′izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb′usites, as the Lord your God has commanded; (Deuteronomy 20:16-17) </blockquote>
9. In one battle, virgin females are spared to be wedded to Israelites. It is hard to imagine that these women would be eager to wed a people who just murdered their families, so I have to imagine that this was also an endorsement of forced marriages and probably forced sexual encounters. I do admit that the text doesn't explicitly say this but I find it extremely hard to imagine that these women would be eager to wed a people who just killed everyone they know. </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...and commanded them, “Go and smite the inhabitants of Ja′besh-gil′ead with the edge of the sword; also the women and the little ones. This is what you shall do; every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy.” And they found among the inhabitants of Ja′besh-gil′ead four hundred young virgins who had not known man by lying with him; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan...and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Ja′besh-gil′ead; but they did not suffice for them. (Judges 21:10-14)</blockquote>
New Testament:<br />
<br />
1. Paul states that women should not speak in church.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate.... (1 Corinthians 14:34)</blockquote>
2. Paul endorses slavery. Slavery isn't just in the Old Testament as part of an older law that was fulfilled and is now gone, not that that would make it okay. This is why abolitionist Christians had such a hard time making a Biblical case against slavery in the 19th century. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; (Ephesians 6:5) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. (1 Timothy 6:1-2) </blockquote>
</div>
<div>
3. Jesus forbids divorce except in cases of sexual infidelity. This doesn't feel right to me. For example, I don't think that someone who divorces to escape an abusive spouse has committed any sin. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)</blockquote>
4. Jesus endorses killing those who oppose him in the parable of the talents.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Book of Mormon:<br />
<br />
1. Decapitation of Laban. The issue I have with this is complex. Before I get into it, let me just state my opinion that if God is all-powerful and just and omniscient, I have to assume that everything he does is the best possible thing that he could have done. Okay, on to the issue: The prophet Nephi beheads a man at the command of God. God could have stopped the man’s heart or given him a brain tumor that would kill him at that exact moment, but he didn't. Think about that for a second, this implies that God wanted Nephi to have the experience of hacking a man’s head of with a sword. God thought that would be a good experience for Nephi, and that Nephi would be made a better person by doing that. I find that extremely difficult to imagine.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword. (1 Nephi 4:18)</blockquote>
2. God makes a people black so that they won’t be appealing to the white people.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them…that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. (2 Nephi 5:21)</blockquote>
3. Chastity/virtue is forcibly taken. I don’t believe that chastity or virtue can be forcibly taken. I think that is a harmful message to send to a rape victim.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
…many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— (Moroni 9:9)</blockquote>
4. Divorce again. This is almost a verbatim quote from a verse in the KJV New Testament. I have seen LDS theologians deal with the Bible verse by saying that the word ‘divorce’ doesn't mean someone who was legally divorced but someone who set their wife aside without granting them a legal divorce. This works within the LDS paradigm because Mormons believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, or in other words they don’t consider it to be word-for-word perfect. If something from the Bible doesn't fit into LDS theology it can be ignored, because it may not be translated correctly. This cannot be done with the Book of Mormon as it was written for our day and was translated directly through the power of God and is “…the most correct of any book on earth…” as described by Joseph Smith. So one cannot simply state that ‘divorce’ means anything other than what it says without explaining why. I personally believe that morally all a man and woman need to do to get divorced is to recognize that they have a bad relationship and that there is little or no chance of repairing it. No other moral justification is needed. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery. (3 Nephi 12:32)</blockquote>
5. Lack of clear condemnation of slavery.<br />
<br />
Doctrine and Covenants:<br />
<br />
1. Lack of clear condemnation of slavery.<br />
<br />
You may notice that I added something that both the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants lack. That is because we are told that the Book of Mormon was written for our day, and so obviously was the Doctrine and Covenants. In the day that they first appeared, slavery was a big issue. In fact, in 1852 slavery was a big issue in Utah as the territory was allowed by the federal government to decide if they would legalize it there <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850" target="_blank">(the compromise of 1850)</a>. Brigham Young addressed the territorial legislature on January 23, 1852 and stated “…we must believe in slavery” and “I am a firm believer in slavery.” On February 4, 1852 the legislature, which was mostly made up of LDS church leaders, legalized slavery in Utah.<br />
<br />
In my mind, this was a monumental moral failure that the God of Abraham didn't prevent, as was all slavery throughout human history. Since God is supposed to be perfect and presumably he is also capable of communicating effectively with humans, he must have had some reason that he wanted this to happen. I mean all he had to do to prevent slavery in Utah was replace one of the “And it came to pass[es]…”in the Book of Mormon (a meaningless phrase) with “BTW folks, slavery is immoral.” I can’t fathom what the reason for him not doing this could be. It makes no moral sense to me.<br />
<br />
Thomas Paine sums up my feelings concerning the troubling parts of the Bible perfectly: </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The origin of every nation is buried in fabulous tradition, and that of the Jews is as much to be suspected as any other. To charge the commission of acts upon the Almighty, which, in their own nature, and by every rule of moral justice, are crimes, as all assassination is, and more especially the assassination of infants, is matter of serious concern. The Bible tells us, that those assassinations were done by the express command of God. To believe, therefore, the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of God; for wherein could crying or smiling infants offend? And to read the Bible without horror, we must undo everything that is tender, sympathizing, and benevolent in the heart of man. Speaking for myself, if I had no other evidence that the Bible is fabulous than the sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that alone would be sufficient to determine my choice. –The Age of Reason</blockquote>
In closing, I just want to state here that I’m not judging those who believe in the God of Abraham. There are lots of wonderful people who do; I just think it should be understandable to others that I would have difficulty believing this myself. I don’t understand the morality of the God of Abraham and I don’t know that I ever will. I’m pretty comfortable saying that a lot of these things God did or commanded are wrong. If I somehow find myself facing the God of Abraham in the next life, I will feel comfortable expressing my moral confusion to him. If he is just, he will understand. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Note: All quotes are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible.</div>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-66348597447556034122014-08-19T19:26:00.001-07:002014-08-19T20:43:23.179-07:00A Note on WikipediaYou may note that I link to Wikipedia in my blog when referring to various facts. I am anticipating that many will criticize my use of Wikipedia since it is frowned upon to use it as an academic source.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let me be clear that I realize this. I know the limitations of Wikipedia. The problem is that I could cite a source somewhere in some library that you would have to go check out, if you could even find it, but we both know you aren't going to do that for a blog post. Wikipedia is the best source I can cite that is freely available and only a click away. Please let me know if you know of another encyclopedia that is free and available online that is put together by professionals.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The reason that I don't have a problem citing Wikipedia as a source is that Wikipedia is a starting point for research. Don't take my word for anything. Don't take Wikipedia's word either. Follow the articles sources and see if they are good. If you see something that doesn't look right, try to disprove it. Take this and apply it everywhere in life.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That said, Wikipedia is actually a pretty decent source of information. Not perfect but pretty good. You definitely won't see me citing it at work, though.</div>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-709902749259942121.post-82737157005144622022014-07-27T13:22:00.000-07:002014-07-27T13:37:33.122-07:00Introduction<div class="MsoNormal">
I have friends and family who are LDS who find it difficult
to understand how I could lose my belief in Joseph Smith and the LDS church
after having been a missionary, Elder’s Quorum President, and having lived and
believed in it all my life. I have had
some requests to discuss my beliefs with others. I thought that a blog might be a better Idea
since it takes a lot of effort to get my thoughts written out. If I just got my thoughts out on a blog where
it can be viewed by whoever wants to see it I could just do it once. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The truth is that I like discussing theology. It was a fairly traumatic for me to lose my
faith. I find it helps me to discuss
things with others. I do like having
respectful discussions about faith issues, even with people with whom I
completely disagree. I think when we
have those discussions, we all end up better.
We understand each other better even if we don’t change anyone’s
mind. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
My goal is to be non-confrontational and simply state my
reasons for thinking the way I do. I like to hear what others think and how they make sense of life as well. I apologize
in advance if anything I say comes off as judgmental or disparaging. That is not my intention. </div>
Heath Workmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05876235572567271859noreply@blogger.com0