Mormon Thought Experiment

This post is in response to a YouTube video posted by the LDS church found here.

If prophets are such a key part of LDS theology, the current day prophet is set up as God's mouthpiece on the earth today for the whole earth. The presumption is that this status (of being the "one" prophet for the whole earth) is acceptable because the LDS church has the means and technology to potentially reach all people throughout the earth. Ok. Well, what about in past times?

The Book of Mormon is claimed to be a record of prophets, and their dealings, following a people who came from ancient Jerusalem to the American continent. The record starts out by following a man named Lehi who is claimed to be a prophet, called of God, to preach to the ancient inhabitants of Jerusalem and warn them of their pending invasion and enslavement by the Babylonians.

Since the people in Jerusalem would not listen to Lehi, he was commanded to take his family and leave the area. They eventually made their way to the American continent where the Book of Mormon proceeded to come forth as the record of that people and their history.

It is presumed that Lehi and his successors represented God as his chosen prophets throughout the history of that book.

It also could be presumed that, since the LDS church teaches that the Bible also contains words of prophets which lived in the ancient Mediterranean region, that prophets lived there until there was a falling away when the words of the Bible stopped being added to.

This would mean that there were, simultaneously, two or more prophets speaking to groups of inhabitants, in different locations of the world, based on the region that people would have access to hear them?

Is it possible that there could have been other prophets that lived in other remote regions at the same time throughout history based on the assumption that God will continue to speak to people who are isolated geographically from hearing the words imparted by His chosen prophets in different regions of the world?

If so, this lends credibility to the idea that there could be (or have been) other prophets to other peoples of the world at different times historically.

Could this explain that Buddha or Mohammed were actually prophets in their times that spoke for God to the people in the regions where they lived?

If that is possible, what should be said of their writings?

Does that mean that there could actually be other books of scripture on the planet besides the Bible and Book of Mormon?

If that is so, why is there not at least some recognition given by the LDS church of the potential for truth to be found in these other books of scripture? I know the LDS church says that there is much good in other religions and that people should bring their good from their heritage and join the LDS church. However, should people be expected to absolutely forsake their closely held religious teachings which may have come from actual prophets of God?

The whole idea of having a chosen prophet of God seems pretty ridiculous and does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny when you begin to ask what should happen when two people both claim to be true prophets of God at the same time.

The LDS church would say that God will reveal which prophet is the true prophet of God if He is sincerely asked in prayer. It is interesting that the LDS church did have to answer this very question in their own history.

After the death of Joseph Smith, several men came forward and declared that they should be Joseph's rightful successor. Each had their own ideas based on what they felt were good reasons for being such. The modern LDS church says that their leader (Brigham Young) was the "real" successor to Joseph Smith. However, each of those men that claimed a right to succession of Joseph Smith, and be recognized as the current prophet, took many followers - and those followers sustained those men as their chosen leaders (and prophets) for their churches.

In this case, at least two different people, within communication range of each other, claimed a different man to be "their" prophet and recognized that leader to be God's chosen mouthpiece for them and their mutually recognized adherents.

To this day, many of these offshoots from the original LDS church, founded by Joseph Smith, remain. To this day, each member of each of these differing churches believes that their sect's founder was the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith. Many of them will also say that they prayed and asked God whether or not their church (as informed by their chosen prophet) is the "one true church on the earth" and they will each tell you that God answered their sincere prayer to that end.

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

Joseph Smith Poster

This is a cutesy poster I made to give to 8 year old's when they get baptized.

The enigma of Joseph Smith

I read with interest a recent article by Dan Peterson entitled, "The Prophet Joseph Smith was no double-dealing cynic"

In all honesty the beginning of the article quite surprised me. Dan starts out with this unbelievable idea, he says,

"For a critic wanting to reject Joseph's own account, there are, broadly speaking, only two logical alternatives for explaining him: Either he was a false prophet but thought he was a real one, or he was a false prophet and knew that he was a false prophet. That is to say, again in general terms, that he must have been either dishonest or delusional, or some hybrid of the two."

Honestly, he is right. Of course, at the end of his piece he brings up the third possibility (which, his article is entirely devoted to trying to prove, apparently) that Joseph was a true prophet and, apparently, believed that he was as well.

In the process of outlining his argument, Dan selects a few quotes from Joseph Smith's journal entries to try to persuade readers that Joseph was sincere and cared for others. I have no problem with the idea that Joseph was possibly a very sincere, thoughtful and kind person. He grew up in poverty and in a household that was very spiritual and superstitious. I believe he was a product of his environment and maybe had a desire to do something great. In my study of Joseph I find that there is no shortage of good things that are attributed to him. He was really a spiritual revolutionary of his time. He taught many things that were foreign to so many in his day. He is quoted as saying things like;

"It is the duty of a husband to love, cherish, and nourish his wife, and cleave unto her and none else; he ought to honor her as himself, and he ought to regard her feelings with tenderness, for she is his flesh, and his bone, designed to be an help unto him, both in temporal, and spiritual things; one into whose bosom he can pour all his complaints without reserve..."

However, notwithstanding all the good things attributed to Joseph Smith, there are a few problems. One of the problems is actually somewhat brought to light by Dan in his article although he doesn't bother to mention it at all. The problem is that there is actually very little that we have in the way of writings in Joseph's own handwriting. I had a chance to thumb through one of the installments of the Joseph Smith papers and was surprised to learn a couple of things 1. How little we actually have recorded by Joseph in his own hand and 2. How little of a correlation exists between Joseph's own words and the words we attribute to him in revelations and other volumes of teachings.

Of course there are certainly plenty of explanations for these things. The response to the first issue would be simply that either Joseph didn't like to write or he couldn't do so very easily (or well) and so he took advantage of scribes wherever possible. I actually believe that this was the case, so having so little in the way of writings by Joseph himself is really not that troubling. However, in light of that fact, we are forced to rely on the testimonies and writings of others who were with Joseph to try to piece together more about the character of this man.

As for the second issue, this is where I kind of struggle. When I read that Joseph wrote in his own hand the following;

"Oh Lord keep us and my Family safe untill I can return to them again Oh my God have mercy on my Bretheren in Zion for Christ Sake Amen."

And then I am expected to believe that the following articulate prayer came from the same person (from the first few verses of D&C 76),

"Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, and rejoice ye inhabitants thereof, for the Lord is God, and beside him there is no Savior. Great is his wisdom, marvelous are his ways, and the extent of his doings none can find out. His purposes fail not, neither are there any who can stay his hand. From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail."

They just don't seem to be from the same person. The first quote seems to be from someone who could barely compose a coherent sentence, let alone a complex piece of writing, and the second from a master of religious language. The common explanation for this is that Joseph was a semi-literate farm boy who seemed to stumble through his words when writing on his own (not being one who was 'mighty' in writing), but when dictating the voice of the Lord from heaven through a scribe, was mighty, speaking with the authority of heaven. In response to this my question would be, Doesn't God speak to us in the same language that we commonly use ourselves? Of course, Joseph could have been an exception to this, granted. The troubling aspect, however, comes in when one realizes that relying so heavily on dictation for conveying teachings and ideas might allow another person's writings to be substituted for those of the dictator. Of course, I don't have any real evidence of this happening, but let me introduce the points from Joseph's history that Dan conveniently omitted from his article.

There are actually many, many troubling things from the history of the church that an interested person can easily uncover with a few simple clicks in a web browser on the internet. Allow me to highlight just a few things from Joseph's history that call into question his legitimacy as a true prophet of God.

1. The Kinderhook plates incident. On April 16, 1843 a man by the name of Robert Wiley started digging in a mound. He quit when it started raining, but came back a week later (with a group of men) and began digging again. Ultimately a set of 6, bell shaped, brass plates were found connected by a rusty iron ring. On these plates were inscribed characters as follows:

It wasn't long before someone had the idea of taking the plates to Joseph Smith for a translation. Needless to say, this was a very exciting discovery of the day as it seemed the plates not only certainly contained more about the history of the Indian mound builders, but it also seemed to validate Joseph's story about obtaining plates of gold to be able to translate the Book of Mormon. After all, the Book of Mormon mentioned plates of brass so speculation abounded about what these plates, discovered in Kinderhook, Illinois, might contain.

Soon, it was published in the Times and Seasons that the plates were discovered and everyone looked forward to Joseph's translation. Unfortunately, Joseph was killed before any translation could be officially announced. We do know, however, that he was at least seriously contemplating their translation. William Clayton (Joseph's scribe) wrote the following;

"I have seen 6 brass plates...covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. [Joseph Smith] has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

William also recorded, "...that upon receiving the plates, Smith sent for his "Hebrew Bible & Lexicon," This seems to suggest that Joseph was going to attempt to translate the plates by conventional means, rather than by use of a seer stone or direct revelation. Regardless of how it was going to be accomplished, the records seem to show that Joseph believed the plates to be authentic and was intending to perform a translation of them.

The problem is, the plates turned out to be a hoax. Years later it came out that a few men had planted the plates with the specific hope and intention of receiving a translation of the plates from Joseph Smith, which they then could use to prove him a fraud. When an official translation never came forth, the ruse had lost its potential to discredit Joseph and his translation abilities. Unfortunately, many questions remain unanswered. For example, if Joseph was a prophet, why wasn't he able to sniff out the deception and call the fraudulent parties out when he saw the plates? One also is left wondering if Joseph had not been killed, would there have been a translation made at some point? Questions like these call into question Joseph's legitimacy as one called or inspired of God in his work.

2. The Book of Abraham. In order to gain further insight on this issue, I would highly recommend Charles Larson's book, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri. This book can actually be obtained by current LDS members for $5 (Free with $5 S&H) through an outreach program at IRR here. The book is very nice as it contains a full color foldout scan of the original papyrus pieces. Anyway, this is what started me on my path. I sat in church one Sunday and thought I would look at the facsimiles contained in the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price and see if I could better understand the events depicted in them (I now realize that the name of my blog was a subconscious statement of this, because I didn't realize it at the time but, facsimilogos could be interpreted as "making sense of facsimiles") besides, I was looking for pictures in the scriptures and this is one of the few places you can find them (I know, sometimes church is boring and I was jealous of my kids picture books, so I wanted to look at the pictures actually contained in the scriptures).

As I studied the pictures there, I had a simple question. I wondered if there were any scholars who had been able to actually translate these scenes and wondered what they had to say about them. I was pretty sure that Egyptologists, if they were, in fact, able to even begin to translate Egyptian, would completely vindicate Joseph's translation of the fragments. That simple question led me to discover a great video on the subject found here. The video was very informative. In fact, it was much more informative than any video I have ever seen put out by the church. This video actually provided a historical context that made sense and was easily verifiable. Now that I think about it, most videos I have seen during my time in the church were mostly about tugging at my heart strings in some fashion, but never contained much in the way of substance. I was amazed to find something long on substance that wasn't designed to get me all worked up emotionally. However, this video placed a very solid question mark in my mind concerning Joseph's abilities to translate ancient languages where only a period used to exist. This of course lead me down a path of wanting to know more. If the church hadn't given me this thorough of an explanation of the history surrounding the origin of the Book of Abraham, what else was out there that I was unaware of? A lot. The final nail in the coffin for me surrounding Joseph's prophetic call and abilities occurred when I researched my last bullet point.

3. The testimony of the 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon. As a lifelong member of the church I was very familiar with the testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses to the plates of the Book of Mormon. I often referred to their testimony in response to any accusation that the gold plates were not real. Sure, maybe Joseph alone might not be 100% trustworthy, but there were witnesses! Others saw and handled these plates which Joseph claimed to have in his possession, so they must have been real, right?

Well, not exactly. You see, according to a statement made by Martin Harris, he seems to indicate that the manifestation of the plates was more of a spiritual witness than a physical one. David Whitmer has indicated this as well. I was always told that none of the witnesses had ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates of the Book of Mormon, however, I was never told that the witnesses said that these were just "spiritual" visions and not physical ones.

What about the 8 witnesses? They saw and handled the real plates, though, right? Maybe. Maybe not. The reason I say this is because most of the 8 witnesses came from one family. John Whitmer said, "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. ...they were shown to me by a supernatural power" (History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 307)

So why was a supernatural power needed for a physical witness of some plates? The other question is, How could these witnesses be expected to know that the plates presented to them were the same one's that contained the Book of Mormon (as opposed to a fabrication)?

It is interesting to note that several of the 8 witnesses later went on to testify that they saw the voree plates which James Strang (potential successor to Joseph Smith to lead the church) claimed contained "The book of the law of the Lord". He also claimed to have the Plates of Laban spoken of in the Book of Mormon. So, even though the witnesses never denied their testimonies as contained in the preface to the Book of Mormon, they never denied seeing anything supernatural! So the credibility of the witnesses is called into question when one learns that they never denied seeing the gold plates, never denied that James Strang was Joseph's successor and said that the presentation of the plates was a supernatural event.

When taking just these three incidents into consideration, I will again present Dan's original proposition; Joseph was either a false prophet but thought he was a real one, or he was a false prophet and knew that he was a false prophet...he must have been either dishonest or delusional, or some hybrid of the two. My contention is that these are the only two real possible explanations for Joseph Smith and the third explanation that he WAS a real prophet and KNEW he was a prophet, just falls flat on its face. What do you think?

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

More about castration

In order to elaborate further on the castrations I mentioned in my Father's Day post, the instance I referred to was what happened to Thomas Lewis as told by John D. Lee:

"I knew of many men being killed in Nauvoo... and I know of many a man who was quietly put out of the way by the orders of Joseph and his Apostles while the Church was there." (Confessions of John D. Lee, Photo-reprint of 1877 edition, page 284)

Lee also revealed another very cruel practice which took place both in Nauvoo, Illinois, and in early Utah:

"In Utah it has been the custom with the Priesthood to make eunuchs of such men as were obnoxious to the leaders. This was done for a double purpose: first, it gave a perfect revenge, and next, it left the poor victim a living example to others of the dangers of disobeying counsel and not living as ordered by the Priesthood.

"In Nauvoo it was the orders from Joseph Smith and his apostles to beat, wound and castrate all Gentiles that the police could take in the act of entering or leaving a Mormon household under circumstances that led to the belief that they had been there for immoral purposes.... In Utah it was the favorite revenge of old, worn-out members of the Priesthood, who wanted young women sealed to them, and found that the girl preferred some handsome young man. The old priests generally got the girls, and many a young man was unsexed for refusing to give up his sweetheart at the request of an old and failing, but still sensual apostle or member of the Priesthood. As an illustration... Warren Snow was Bishop of the Church at Manti, San Pete County, Utah. He had several wives, but there was a fair, buxom young woman in the town that Snow wanted for a wife.... She thanked him for the honor offered, but told him she was then engaged to a young man, a member of the Church, and consequently could not marry the old priest.... He told her it was the will of God that she should marry him, and she must do so; that the young man could be got rid of, sent on a mission or dealt with in some way... that, in fact, a promise made to the young man was not binding, when she was informed that it was contrary to the wishes of the authorities.

"The girl continued obstinate.... the authorities called on the young man and directed him to give up the young woman. This he steadfastly refused to do.... He remained true to his intended, and said he would die before he would surrender his intended wife to the embraces of another.... The young man was ordered to go on a mission to some distant locality... But the mission was refused...

"It was then determined that the rebellious young man must be forced by harsh treatment to respect the advice and orders of the Priesthood. His fate was left to Bishop Snow for his decision. He decided that the young man should be castrated; Snow saying, 'When that is done, he will not be liable to want the girl badly, and she will listen to reason when she knows that her lover is no longer a man.'

"It was then decided to call a meeting of the people who lived true to counsel, which was held in the school-house in Manti... The young man was there, and was again requested, ordered and threatened, to get him to surrender the young woman to Snow, but true to his plighted troth, he refused to consent to give up the girl. The lights were then put out. An attack was made on the young man. He was severely beaten, and then tied with his back down on a bench, when Bishop Snow took a bowie-knife, and performed the operation in a most brutal manner, and then took the portion severed from his victim and hung it up in the school-house on a nail, so that it could be seen by all who visited the house afterwards.

"The party then left the young man weltering in his blood, and in a lifeless condition. During the night he succeeded in releasing himself from his confinement, and dragged himself to some hay-stacks, where he lay until the next day, when he was discovered by his friends. The young man regained his health, but has been an idiot or quite lunatic ever since....

"After this outrage old Bishop Snow took occasion to getup a meeting... When all had assembled, the old man talked to the people about their duty to the Church, and their duty to obey counsel, and the dangers of refusal, and then publicly called attention to the mangled parts of the young man, that had been severed from his person, and stated that the deed had been done to teach the people that the counsel of the Priesthood must be obeyed. To make a long story short, I will say, the young woman was soon after forced into being sealed to Bishop Snow.

"Brigham Young... did nothing against Snow. He left him in charge as Bishop at Manti, and ordered the matter to be hushed up."

D. Michael Quinn elaborated on Brigham's reaction: "In the midsummer of 1857 Brigham Young also expressed approval for an LDS bishop who had castrated a man. In May 1857 Bishop Warren S. Snow's counselor wrote that twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis 'has now gone crazy' after being castrated by Bishop Snow for an undisclosed sex crime. When informed of Snow's action, Young said: 'I feel to sustain him...' In July Brigham Young wrote a reassuring letter to the bishop about this castration: 'Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it,' the LDS president advised, 'and it will soon die away among the people.' " (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, pages 250-251)

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

Book of Mormon Musical

So I read an article on Mormon Times called "Is the 'Book of Mormon' musical accurate satire?" found here. Never mind the irony in the title of the article, I'll discuss that further in a minute. The article starts out by quoting a former missionary, who has since left the church, who says that his children (who he has kept information about his past life growing up in the church a secret from) learned more from the Book of Mormon musical about the LDS church than he has ever told them. It uses this introduction to go into answering the question of how accurate the musical is. As if they think that if the musical is more sympathetic to the teachings of the church it would be a better missionary tool, apparently.

I am continually amazed at how people in the church are capable of either ignoring, or missing, the point of the musical or attempting to downplay its effect or accuracy. I wonder why members of the church have such a hard time looking at the Book of Mormon musical in a positive light and a way that says that "any exposure is good exposure"? Instead it seems that members of the church want to start out ignoring that the play is indeed out there and, if they acknowledge it and decide to actually discuss it, they immediately move to some attempt to discredit it. Needless to say, this article is definitely in the camp of trying to point out inaccuracies in the play - which I would say is another attempt to discredit it. The article does point out that the play is meant to be satire, which means that you can expect that the purpose of the play is to entertain and not to make sure that all the facts are conveyed in as accurate a way as possible. That is more than can be said for this article.

The definition of satire is; "The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." (Like, say, religion for example) Regardless of this point, the article then attempts to hold the play up as being full of inconsistencies and untruths. However, this should not even be newsworthy because you would expect satire to be full of exaggeration or ridicule and not attempt to hold it out as something that is full of inaccuracies. This is akin to pointing out that a political cartoon depicting a democrat as a donkey is not accurate because there are no donkeys that have ever registered to vote as a democrat! Nevertheless, after pointing out that the play is intended to be satire, the article then goes on to try to point out all of its inaccuracies.

The article quotes critics of the play who say that "The Book of Mormon" musical is nothing to worry about because; it is a New York thing, made by media elites for people who go to Broadway musicals. I wonder who these people are exactly that go to Broadway musicals? Is there a line we draw somewhere among the population between those who enjoy Broadway musicals and those who don't? I guess as long as we can identify a segment of the population to fit into a certain category that makes us feel better about ourselves? The funny thing is, if you were to ask anybody around the country if they would go see a Broadway musical if it were given to them free of charge or all expenses paid, how many would decline that offer? I dare say the number is extremely small. Apparently, the critic quoted believes that the number of people who would decline such an offer would be very large. This kind of reference to social segregation, I believe, is a very large contributing factor to the problem of creating social minorities. This is very unfortunate, indeed.

The article goes on to quote Michael Otterson, an LDS church spokesperson who wrote a piece in the Washington Post, who says that when used for entertainment purposes, it is fine but the danger is when people take the content too seriously. Apparently, the author of the Mormon Times article can't see that they are treading on this dangerous ground of taking the content too seriously. Nevertheless, the author treads on.

The article accuses the play of "misrepresenting Joseph Smith's history, distorting Mormon epistemology and misconstruing the church's teachings about the afterlife." The author says that having the angel Moroni tell Joseph not to show the plates to anyone is inaccurate. Even though Joseph Smith's own history in the Pearl of Great Price says in verse 42, "Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed..." Being told that you will be destroyed is apparently a favorite way of getting Joseph to do stuff. There are 36 references to people being destroyed by God in the Doctrine and Covenants and 10 in the Pearl of Great Price.

Even though the article goes on to point out that 11 witnesses testified that they saw the plates, what the article neglects to mention, is that several of the witnesses later complained because they felt the testimony being printed did not accurately reflect their experience with what happened. The article also conveniently omits that at least two of the witnesses (Martin Harris and David Whitmer) later said that the visitation was a purely spiritual "vision" and was not a real life experience. The author also does not mention that these witnesses were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself. (A summary of issues with the witnesses to the gold plates can be found here.) This is just one more example of a limited amount of information being conveyed to an LDS audience, without disclosing anything controversial that might possibly undermine the official LDS history narrative.

The article gives an example of incorrect Mormon theology by saying that a missionary in the play sings about obtaining his own planet in the hereafter. Amazingly, the article admits that this particular teaching can be found in the theology but apparently is taken out of context. I would be very interested to know in what context being able to be in control of your own planet would not be considered a peculiar teaching that some might find entertaining? The problem is, nowadays the church leadership is silent on these sorts of teachings whereas, in the past, these kinds of teachings (that are speculative in nature) were rampant. I kind of miss those days, if for no other reason, for the sheer entertainment value. Maybe if the church would go back to saying this kind of stuff on a regular basis, people would show up in greater numbers to general conference to see what those wacky leaders will say this time. I think this may have been a possible reason for devotion in those early days of the church. Speculation is fun. It arouses our imaginations about the possibilities for what lies ahead. The problem is, we live in a world where not too much about our universe is unknown. The unknown in the universe is what fostered the imaginative teachings and allowed leaders to pronounce with certainty what we would, today, label as kooky and largely unsupportable (the famous teaching of Brigham Young about Quakers living on the moon is what comes to mind here).

The article quotes New York Times columnist David Brooks, who actually says something to this affect. He said, "The only problem with 'The Book of Mormon' (musical), is that its theme is not quite true. Vague, uplifting, nondoctrinal religiosity doesn't actually last. The religions that grow, succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in their convictions about what is True and False." It seems that creative and imaginative doctrines that are rigorously held to be true by its adherents are what motivate us to be more selfless and caring for others. Based on that argument, it sounds like the LDS church may not last if it continues to be vague and obscure, even though it may be considered uplifting, in the specifics of its doctrines and teachings. The point about it being not quite true, while I think very poignant because the same could be said of the LDS church, is lost on many who believe everything the church says about its history without bothering to question or examine it.

While trying to point out how the play continues to be inaccurate by depicting a dream that a missionary has about a hell of fire and brimstone, the author goes on to say that such a perception of LDS theology is not supported. The author should try reading LDS scripture at some point. The Book of Mormon itself has 9 references to a "lake of fire and brimstone" while speaking of the hereafter and the Doctrine and Covenants has 2 references. How is a believer in the Book of Mormon supposed to have any other view of what happens to the disobedient in the hereafter? Especially when the Book of Mormon makes no mention at all of the "multi-tiered" degrees of heaven the author is trying to point out is the correct version of LDS belief about the afterlife. Where exactly, then, do the references to the lake of fire and brimstone fit into LDS theology, if not in a young person's dream that is experienced after reading and pondering the teachings in the Book of Mormon?

The author then goes on to tell us how the musical is also racist in its references to, and portrayal of, the people in Uganda. Depicting them as "angry, aggressive, sexually charged, physically ill, naive and vulgar", the author tries to point out that this is racist and not satire. I hate to tell you this, but I see the people of Uganda in the play as being representative of people the world over who happen to fall into those categories. I don't think the point of the play is to emphasize that these people in this specific country have a monopoly on all of those characteristics or problems. I agree the play is probably over generalizing to some degree in its depiction of a specific group of people, in a specific country. However, it is not about the people of Uganda specifically. It is about the contrast between two worlds. The world that the LDS live in where all of these things are rare or cured because of a belief in God and a world where God has apparently forsaken a people. A world that is lawless and doesn't concern itself with what is appropriate according to one set of beliefs. Rather, the beliefs are different because of a different set of circumstances. I don't think the point is about the people of Uganda and what they believe about God, but it is about the contrast between those that believe God can, or will, solve all their problems and those that don't. This contrast is especially pronounced in our own backyard when looking at the issue of homosexuality or the role of women.

I had to laugh when the article pointed out that female genital mutilation is against the law in Uganda. Um, smoking crack cocaine is illegal in this country, so that must mean that it never happens here too. I think exceeding the speed limit is against the law too, but I rarely see people actually go the speed limit on highways. I must just be mistaken. Hello! If people pass a law regarding some practice, it must mean there is some concern about it happening too much. A law on the books regarding female genital mutilation in Uganda is probably a sign that it either has been, or is, an issue of such significance that it needed to be outlawed to attempt to stem the practice. How silly can we be?

As a sort of frosting on the cake, I was also amused by the fact that this article, like so many other controversial articles published by LDS church owned media, do not allow comments to be made (or shown) in response to the article. This speaks volumes about how confident they are that their opinions represent the overwhelming majority of the opinions of the readers of the article - Not! Why not allow comments? Anyway, this is something I see consistently found in organizations that cannot withstand scrutiny of their opinions. Since I couldn't leave a comment on the article directly, I have written a blog piece to express my reactions to it. At least I can rest confident that I have written with integrity and not attempted to point out the inaccuracies of a satirical play in an attempt to discredit it in the mind of my readers. If you are one of "those people" that like Broadway plays, I think it would be very enjoyable.

By the way, I haven't seen the play yet, but I have listened to the soundtrack and found it extremely entertaining because of its accuracy in depicting the LDS lifestyle and mindset. I especially liked the song entitled, "You and Me (but mostly me)". That one really resonated with me since that seemed to be the mindset on my mission. Love it!

Update: I guess I need to access the article via Deseret News to be able to make comments. That one can be found here.

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

Rapture

Is it just me, or is everyone a little nervous and sad that the rapture didn't happen? All the publicity certainly got out and I honestly think on some level people were really looking forward to it. I know I was. But, now that the appointed time has come and gone (at least according to a single man's prediction), LDS seem to be reminding themselves (and others) that nobody knows when the second coming of Jesus will really happen (and patting themselves on the back about being aware of the verse in the bible that says it). I have heard some faithful LDS recently say that they don't think it will happen in their lifetimes. I remember a bishop telling me and my wife in an interview who said that he didn't believe he would see the second coming of the Savior in his lifetime but that we would most definitely see it happen in our lifetimes.

I kind of think that this is what just about every passing generation says to the up and coming one, as a sort of a carrot that is dangled in front of them (or reminder that the stick of God's judgment is very real), and as a reminder about the need to do good, because, after all, the 2nd coming is near! It is ALWAYS near for crying out loud! It has been near since the time of Jesus himself. John, one of the original 12 apostles said in the book of Revelations Chapter 22, verses 12 & 22, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." and "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."

LDS living is emphasizing a talk by Dallin H. Oaks that is nice enough to point out that a lot of stuff has to happen before the 2nd coming occurs. It also seems to be a reminder that the church leadership has recently reminded all of us that nobody knows when the 2nd coming will happen. However, in the video that was put together and posted by LDS church news they close with a quote by Joseph Smith reminding everyone that anyone who claims to know the day of the second coming of Jesus is a false teacher. This quote was not found in Dallin H. Oaks original talk (given in the April 2004 General Conference) but seems to have been added for dramatic effect and to shut up anyone from implying that the church may have taught a specific date for the second coming to occur.

However, the interesting thing is Joseph Smith appeared to be pretty preoccupied with this very question. In D&C 130, verses 14-17 Joseph says, "...I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.

17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time."

This has always been one of those scriptures that I have wondered about. Why, if this is not an attempt to offer some sort of prediction on the matter (after all, it IS the voice of God we assume is the voice of which he is speaking) is it even included in the scriptural canon? Why not just say, "Quit asking! I'm not telling anyone, not even you Joseph!" Instead we get this weird reference to Joseph's age and weird interpretation of what it must have meant. Technically, however, Joseph Smith is attempting to say that Jesus' second coming will not occur prior to him turning 85. Based on the last verse here, Joseph is attempting to tell us it will not occur prior to that time which is, technically, an attempt to predict when the second coming will occur (or not occur until). My simple question is, doesn't this seem to make Joseph Smith a false teacher? I admit that there are plenty of outs here for Joseph on this point, so it is really not that big a deal. But it was a thought I had when I watched the Dallin H. Oaks video put out by the LDS church news on LDS Living.

When I saw that last quote in the video, I also recalled from church history that Joseph Smith might have made a comment in a general conference on the second coming where he was quoted as saying that 56 years should wind up the scene. However, there is some dispute as to the authenticity of this quote, so it would not be fair to attempt to hold this up as a prophecy by Joseph Smith.

In addition, all of this talk about predictions and prophesy does tend to lead to the all important question; When is a prophet speaking as a man and when is he speaking as a prophet? This is a question I have yet to find a sufficient answer to. It seems as though the only time a prophet's words can be relied upon are if it is the CURRENT prophet of the day and ONLY if he speaks the prophecy in an official capacity and ONLY if he precedes it by some variation of "thus saith the Lord" AND if the spirit witnesses to the hearer that the prophecy is true. All these conditions come off to me sounding like excuses, really. It seems like the circumstances have to be just right and the stars all have to align for the prophet to actually make a prophecy. And, if he happens to utter something that might possibly be construed as a prophecy, and it happens to come true, he was thus speaking as a prophet. However, if he is unfortunately incorrect about something...well, then he was just speaking as a man, or it wasn't official or we all interpreted it wrong.

The fascinating thing that goes along with these ideas is that the current leaders of the LDS church say surprisingly little that could actually be construed as any sort of prophecy to begin with. It's not like in the bible where the Lord tells Lot that he is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and then does it. Or even the Book of Mormon where God tells Lehi that Jerusalem will be destroyed and it actually came to pass. I guess the days of specific prophecies like those are done and gone. After all, we have had a seeming surge in natural disasters in the last few years and yet the prophets have failed to warn us specifically about any of them! Where are the prophets that serve to warn us and help us to avoid destruction? Are we just all wicked and not worth saving in those places where the natural disasters occur. Are the people in Joplin Missouri, not righteous enough to have merited a little heads up? I guess God just doesn't love us as much as he loved people in the scriptures.

Oh well, maybe God is just on some sort of vacation and just can't be bothered to tell us anything helpful right now. I really wish he would just return already though, because I think people have had this idea that He would return sometime in their lifetimes for eons now. It would sure be nice if one generation finally got it right for a change.

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

My Church Resume

I would like to try and outline some of the things I have discovered about the LDS church so that I can have a reference for people curious about the path I am on. In an effort to try and convey my journey out of belief in Mormonism I would like to start with my background in the church.

I am the oldest of 5 children and, from as young as I can remember, my family regularly attended the LDS church. I don't really remember many specifics, but I remember that I was all in and believed 100% in pretty much everything I was taught. I remember feeling very special when I was baptized. I also remember feeling very special most of the time as I reflect on my early years growing up in the church. When I "graduated" from Primary, a friend and I went back to sharing time for a couple of weeks to visit after we weren't supposed to be going to primary any more because we loved Primary. There was one especially nice lady in Primary that we all loved and we didn't want to graduate to Sunday School and have to leave.

I also remember being involved as an extra in the play called, "My Turn on Earth". I was very excited to be able to do that. I think primary was different when I was a kid than it is now. We sang songs like "Popcorn popping on the apricot tree" and "Give said the little stream" which have messages of sharing, kindness and enjoying the beauty of nature found all around us. It seems like I was also taught moral concepts like being honest, being kind and doing the right thing and there was very little emphasis on following the prophet or listening to and obeying what church leaders said. Instead it seems the new songs coming out in primary (since I was in there) have to do with obedience, conformity and stating knowledge about things where no real knowledge (as defined traditionally) can really be had. In my personal opinion, it seems more like brainwashing type affirmations are emphasized where they used to not be so much. Which causes me to wonder if children growing up in the church nowadays will be even less likely to question the authenticity of the church's claims than I was or if it will be that much more difficult for them when they do...I don't know.

I was the quorum president in teachers quorum for a short time and really loved my teacher's quorum advisor. When I became a priest, I remember I would get compliments all the time on the way I read the sacrament prayer because I was able to read them well with appropriate emphasis on the words and in a smooth and solemn, yet interesting tone. I believed I was gifted to some extent in the area of public speaking. When I graduated from high school I went right to BYU Provo for the summer term following my graduation (since that was the only time I could get in). I loved BYU. I had a much easier time living on campus than off, however.

After the fall semester I came home to earn money to go on my mission for nearly a year. I got a job framing houses when I came home and am grateful for that experience. My boss was LDS and he was instrumental in helping me prepare for my mission. It was during this time that I was riding on a spiritual high and I had several special spiritual experiences that really strengthened my testimony and resolve to serve a mission. It was during this time that I received what I believed to be a revelation regarding faith and that it is truly the power to create. I also believed that I received a revelation that the current president of the church had passed away and I thought I received some words from him as a spirit confirming that he had indeed passed away and he was comforting me and encouraging me. I have written more about this experience here.

I was called to serve in San Antonio Texas speaking Spanish. In the MTC my companion was the assistant to the branch president and I was the assistant to the assistant...whatever that was supposed to mean. I really enjoyed the MTC and did not have any doubt that I was in the right place doing the right thing at the time. The transition to the mission field was kind of difficult because I went from studying in a classroom most of the day and eating in a cafeteria at a place about the size of a large high school to going out and riding a bike all day around west San Antonio. I was physically exhausted when I came home every night and I truly missed all the social interaction that was available in the MTC. Now, I was living in a small 3rd story apartment stuck with one guy all day long riding a bike all day. This was hard. It didn't help that my companion, while very intelligent and likeable didn't say very much. I honestly think he was not very social and really struggled getting out and talking to people. However, I do think the mission helped him to overcome this to a certain extent.

About a year and a half into my mission I was called to be a zone leader and had a really great time in that capacity. When I returned home from my mission after a couple of years attending the singles ward, I was called to be the Elder's quorum president. I adjusted well to life back home, although it was an adjustment that took some time nonetheless.

It was while I was serving as the Elder's quorum president that a certain lovely young woman caught my eye. I called her up to invite her to a ward family home evening activity and we ended up talking almost the whole night on the phone. Needless to say, we really hit it off and decided to get married shortly thereafter. About six months later we were married in the Portland, OR temple. I also enjoyed going to the temple and was a set apart veil worker prior to getting married.

Once married, I continued to hold various callings while staying active in the church. I was an adviser to the teachers quorum, Sunday School counselor, Primary worker, nursery leader, Elder's quorum second counselor, Sunday School adult gospel doctrine teacher, Sunday school president, Deacon's quorum adviser and cub scout wolf leader. I am currently serving as the cub scout wolf leader in my ward.

I guess the whole reason I wanted to give all that history about myself is to further declare that I believed 100% in the religion that I was brought up in. It was not until I was a gospel doctrine teacher that I ever caught any wind that the church might not be all that it claimed to be. And, even then, I did not give any serious consideration to the difficult questions I was posed. It was not until after I had moved to a different ward and a couple of years had passed before I really began to seriously question my beliefs and consider all the evidence surrounding the history of the church.

I am also not sure what specifically led to my questioning the authority claims of the church or being able to look somewhat objectively at the history of the church (not giving Joseph Smith 100% of the benefit of the doubt), but I know doubts crept up upon learning about Joseph's polygamy and all the problems associated with that. Those doubts were only solidified as I learned more about all the details of the polygamous affairs through books I later read on the subject. It seems to me that it is fair to say that my whole time growing up and serving in the church, I was never exposed to any of the more sordid and potentially faith damaging information that I became aware of after I started actually asking questions about who Joseph Smith really was and wanted to know more about his actual history. That and I had to be willing to read from sources of historical information that were not necessarily church approved or sanctioned. I think this is a hard obstacle for some to overcome, however, I think that there is plenty of difficult stuff that can be found in authorized church sources if one desires to find them and look at things said with half an objective eye to a truth that makes sense.

I hope this serves to let people know that I was not always a doubter and for the vast majority of my life I was 100% in and had no doubt about the authenticity of the claims of the church. I also find it interesting that I could go my whole life being brought up in the church and not even be aware of so many things.

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

Quick! Change the channel

When I watch TV, I'll admit, I am a channel changer. I am not the obnoxious kind (in my opinion anyway) that will change the channel while the show is still in progress, no, I hate commercials and will change the channel whenever commercials come on. When I realize commercials are on, I will flip through the guide and see if there is something else on that I want to watch while the commercials are on. After a little while, when I think my previous show might be back on, I will flip back to continue watching what I was before. Of course, DVR has helped with this quite a bit.

I have two thoughts about this. 1. When I watch TV sometimes (well, OK, usually) I am not fully present (however, this occurs much less now than it used to). I know that I am not fully present when I do not even realize that commercials have come on. I originally did not want to focus on not being fully present in this post, but my thought about it is that many people spend much of their lives not being fully present. I know when I was at church I was not usually fully present. If someone were to ask me what all was said in a sacrament meeting, I usually would not be able to tell you very much. I might be able to just convey the basic ideas I got out of it, but, by and large, I could not give a full account of what was said. After all, it is the same old stuff, all the time. Sound bite after sound bite of faithful blather is all you ever get at church. Deep thinking and discovery seem, to me, to be discouraged. Since I have awakened to the reality of what the church did to me, I am more present than ever. Words now mean things to me and I can recall with much more clarity everything that is said. I am more present because I am allowed to freely think about things, process them and draw my own conclusions. It sounds terrible, but I really didn't think very much for myself as a believing member of the church. In the church, the thinking has been done for you. Thinking was not required, so, I always had an excuse for not thinking. And, even though I was not fully aware of it, I liberally applied that excuse.

My second thought is about about channel changing. 2. When I change the channel, I am looking for something else. Something else that is more interesting than a commercial. I think there is something similar in our cognitive process, which we experience when we think, to changing the channel. The difference is that when I change the channel on TV to avoid the commercials, this is a passive process and I am only doing so to avoid a little discomfort (the subjecting of myself to advertising messages or poor quality television). When it is done in the mind concerning perceptions of reality, it is to avoid very real discomfort that the mind actually can not handle if the thought is dwelt on for too long. The signs of this are depression and a feeling of helplessness - at least unless and until the contradictory thought can be fully dealt with or dispelled. Sometimes we are under the illusion that we have dispelled all of our cognitive discomfort (or dissonance) but usually, at least in my opinion, if we are seeking to maintain a paradigm of thought at all costs, regardless of the discomfort it causes, we will only experience further symptoms.

Examples of changing the channel when cognitive dissonance is encountered in the church or its teachings include;

- Doing more of the stuff you think you are supposed to be doing to help dispel contradictory thoughts (e.g. home/visiting teaching, reading scriptures or conference addresses, saying prayers, devoting more time to callings, etc.) The thinking goes along the lines of; Satan must be putting these thoughts in my head to lead me astray, so I should do more to make sure I am holding fast to the iron rod so I can't be led astray.

- Personally attacking the person who is asking the question, or causing the uncomfortable thought to present itself. People who create cognitive dissonance in believing members of the church (and there are some of us who enjoy doing so ;), at least when they push the issue, are very frequently labeled as stirring up contention, being of the devil or angry. All of these essentially amount to personal attacks of the individual asking the questions of the believer. It is difficult for me to not be perceived as being angry when I am being personally attacked and put down, though.

- Thinking about something you have experienced in your life that you believe was proof of the principle in question (e.g. thinking about anytime something good happened when you paid your tithing or when you imagined that you felt the spirit really strong, etc.). Which leads to...

- Feeling the need to bear testimony of the topic or question. (Basically pronounce the truth of something without having to actually deal with the ramifications of it or think about it too much) This tactic is extremely popular in LDS circles.

I know there have been times that I have been engaged in a discussion (or a thought pattern) and will find myself jumping around in thought and argument looking for some place more comfortable. I know that when I believed in the church, and I actually was thinking, I did this quite a bit. The real awakening occurred for me when I had no where else to jump to for comfort (or to ease the cognitive dissonance) when thinking about what the church taught and what it must mean.

The problem is, many people do not recognize when they are doing this. If you had attempted to point out my jumping ways when I was a believer, I would have attacked you for accusing me of doing such a thing (usually via an ad hominem - or personal attack) because to point out such a thing would have been perceived to be a personal attack on me. However, anyone who accused me of doing such a thing would have been correct, I was just not ready or willing to hear it. To respond, I would have said things to point out some weakness in the character of the person that I have observed. I might have accused a person of being mentally unstable, or of being possessed by the adversary. I would have probably attacked something they have said that they believe or bring up some past action that was obviously a mistake and dwell on that to discount any point you may be making as having credibility. I might have even made such a personal attack out loud, but I would definitely be thinking it, which is another form of jumping away from the uncomfortable thought. I am much less inclined to engage in such personal attacks now, but it causes me to wonder how to prevent people from seeing such an observation (as mentally changing the channel on an idea) as a personal attack. I don't know if it is possible in many cases.

An example of changing the channel for me was when I encountered the question I asked myself, "Why does the Book of Mormon directly contradict statements found in the Doctrine and Covenants? (Like the teaching on Polygamy: The Book of Mormon says that David and Solomon's polygamy was abominable, but D&C 132 says it was condoned by The Lord) When I first endeavored to answer this question, I would not stay on point with an answer to address the contradiction directly. To do so would have been to say that either the Book of Mormon or Doctrine & Covenants must be wrong (or that God or Joseph Smith changed their mind). Rather, I would change the channel and jump to some excuse or try to find some loophole that could possibly explain the discrepancy.

One response to this particular question is that the Book of Mormon goes on to say that if the Lord decides polygamy is the way to go, he'll then condone it. Even though this point could possibly be considered, it declares that polygamy is definitely an eternal principle with God (and all that this means) and, it begs the question, does the Lord change his mind on polygamy then and what is it that causes him to say it's ok for some but not ok for others? Answers to these questions needed to be answered for me to experience congruence on the question of polygamy (and the apparent contradiction), but neither can be answered with any certainty by church leaders or correlated publications. I had to say "I don't know" the answer to either question. This either meant it was not important (if it was not important then why am I giving so much of my time to the group that is proclaiming such things?) or not necessary for me to know. Neither conclusion satisfied me.

It is rather easy to jump away from a specific question at hand (and not deal with the particular ramifications of it), when you have trained yourself to do it, but, I do not think it is healthy. I think, done too much, this sort of jumping around to find something to latch on to, to preserve our foregone conclusion (or faith), only creates dis-ease or neglect in other areas of our mental lives. However, I am not prepared to say that believers are unhealthy, because I think this is impossible to say for certain in all cases, but I can point to findings that make it easy to conclude that Utahns are more depressed than the rest of the country and commit suicide in larger numbers than anywhere else in the country.

So what is it that causes us to jump away from things, or change the channel of thought in our mind, and why is it so hard for some to recognize that they are engaging in this behavior?

I think what causes us to jump in thought from one thing to another is mental conditioning that we perfect throughout our lives to maintain our belief structure. We become experts at avoiding having to address the question at hand (that contradicts our belief structure in some way) in our thoughts, by jumping to the next topic. This is actually kind of amusing to witness, when one is aware of what is going on. It happens with frequency in LDS sunday school. The teacher or participant may pose a question that could be considered a contradiction to doctrine or difficult thing to answer because it would require speculation in addition to what is actually printed in the correlated manual.

I experienced this first hand one time when, during a lesson on early church history, the teacher asked why Joseph might have experienced so much persecution. Of course, I was thinking that all his persecution was mostly made up when he claimed to experience it early on, but, if he did actually experience any real persecution, maybe it was because he was generally regarded by his community as a charlatan, and was even convicted in a court of law for scamming people. I decided to actually voice my thought in class that perhaps the reason Joseph claimed to experience such persecution is because he was convicted in a court of law for being who people claimed he was. The channel changing that ensued after I made my comment was incredible to behold. One person claimed that everybody that accused Joseph of such activities was falsely accusing him. One person claimed that his good works far outweighed anything bad that people perceived he might have done and another went on to say that it was his treasure seeking that enabled to him to believe that he could be led to the golden plates.

All of these answers were a form of changing the channel to deal with my comment. Nobody wants to dwell too long on the fact that after Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God and Jesus that he engaged in the practice of acting as a seer for people who were seeking buried treasure. This thought is just too painful because it might call into question the kind of person Joseph Smith was and might cause us to ask, did he really see what he claimed to see or was he a confidence man (or con artist)? This question is much too painful, so we need to quickly change the channel and either bear our testimony of the divinity of Joseph's calling as prophet of the restoration or move on in some other way.

I have gone on long enough. Go ahead and change the channel now. May we all find comfort in our thoughts and may they be cognitively congruent. In the name of cheese and rice, Amen.

Sunday School Musings - Leaving Mormonism but not leaving it alone

Since my blog here is pretty obscure and there is not much chance people that know me will be lingering here, I decided to try some therapy by being open about my feelings related to my religion. Religion is such a polarizing topic among people and I find it difficult to talk about in many settings. In fact, it has become a sore point even between my spouse and I. I grew up active in the LDS faith (also known as Mormon, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), served an honorable 2 year mission for the church, married my wife in the Portland, OR temple and was very tbm (true believing Mormon) up until about a year or so ago. My story about coming out of the fog as it relates to my religion, so to speak, is a long one and I will save that story for a future blog post (or a book, probably). Suffice it to say that I came to learn for myself that the religion of my youth was not everything that I had been taught that it was. Of course, the deeper into the depths of the history of my religion that I explored, the more I found a larger pattern of deception and dishonesty. Obviously, this has been a stark experience for me and has caused a major upset in my entire world-view, not to mention the affect it has had on my family. However, the upside is that I feel more genuine, authentic and honest about the circumstances I find myself in, and somehow, I feel refreshed and exhilarated - even in the face of severe discouragement and disapproval expressed by most of my close friends and family when they learn of my position.

This post is specifically about my experience in Sunday School yesterday, which I normally do not attend, because I can't stomach the deliberate misinformation that is presented there. I tried for a little while to call attention to the ways in which myths were being presented as truths and bring balance to the one sided presentation of history, but I soon realized a few things; 1. The people there really don't want to hear the other side to what they are being taught and 2. I don't enjoy the confrontations that invariably result from my opposing viewpoint. So I have relegated myself to keeping my mouth shut and suffocating from the stifled story telling or just not attending altogether.

Yesterday, however, I found myself sitting in Sunday School for a couple of reasons, 1. My 2 year old son had fallen alseep on my lap and, rather than try to move him, I decided to just stay put which lands me in Sunday School. The other reason is the member of the bishopric who was doing the presenting for the 3rd hour combined class had asked me to read a long quote for him (since, apparently, I can read out loud pretty well for an adult). Anyway, as I was sitting there I was doing my usual internal moaning and groaning (but I am also always curious to hear how various topics will be spun wildly out of control by those in the class, since this can also be pretty entertaining.) The topic of the class was on the death of Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism). 

The first thing that crosses my mind when this is talked about is how Mormons insist on always calling this event in history the "Martyrdom of Joseph Smith". I guess the Mormons want to consider him a martyr for their cause but, the reality is, his death was a direct result of his illegal and unsustainable actions more than anything else. He didn't die in defense of his cause, he died in spite of the cause he supposedly represented. I don't by any means feel that his murder was justified, but I do not believe that he was totally innocent at death either. I also think that the continued emphasis on Joseph as a martyr lends credibility to his work that really should be presented on balance with the problems with Joseph's behavior in acting as a tyrant.

So, here are my observations: One person posed what I think was the best question, which is still very difficult to sufficiently answer and that is, "If Joseph were a complete fraud, how could he have withstood all the persecution (namely, being tarred and feathered, beaten, nearly castrated and imprisoned) and still maintained the charade?" My answer to this question is that either he truly believed he had some sort of divine mandate, which is possible, or he stuck it out because the benefits (or potential perceived benefits) were greater in his mind than the persecution. After all, if you are running a program where you have potentially unlimited power over a very fast growing and influential societal group and you are able to sleep with pretty much any woman you want at the same time...maybe that was just too good to give up. In spite of the persecution, I'm sure Joseph was always looking for ways to get out of the trouble he was in. He eventually was able to escape Liberty Jail by bribing the guard(s) and he was able to convince the jailer at Carthage that he needed protection from mobs and was able to stay in the jailers loft above the normal jail. After all, we are talking about an extremely charming, charismatic, personable and influential fellow. He was a master of spin and deception and whatever he couldn't spin in his lifetime was eventually spun by his successors later on. Persecution was especially well spun by Brigham Young (and, I'm sure, enhanced) because he knew the galvanizing effect of persecution on the saints' resolve. I'm sure the persecution heaped on Joseph became more exaggerated as time wore on simply to re-enforce and sustain belief in his prophetic call. Frankly, I can sympathize with those that openly opposed Joseph and even those that resorted to violence against him considering the effect his teachings were to have on existing or surrounding communities in that day. So, in essence, my position is we need to be sure that the persecution we are citing is not exaggerated, number 1, and number 2, in order to be able to answer that question of how he could keep up the charade, we need to understand Joseph's true mindset at that time, which I don't think very many really did in his day.

My next observation was a bit refreshing and somewhat comical. There is this older couple that attend our congregation that are extremely intelligent (I'll call them Bro. and Sis. R.). He is a former stake president counselor and our resident authority on all things surrounding Hebrew history. He is not shy about providing further insight and enlightenment on symbolism and the history of the scriptures. He very much toes-the-company-line as far as the church is concerned. His wife, Sis. R., on the other hand, is extremely intelligent as well, but she comes across as not being so sure about things, at least not as sure as her husband. She is well read on the history of the church and seems to have persistent doubts about several things. She often chuckles when she hears things said over the pulpit and openly questions things she wants to make sure don't make it into the subculture of Mormonism. I absolutely loved it when she spoke in sacrament meeting a few months ago on the story of Job. She began by saying she found the story offensive, likely untrue and therefore she was going to omit discussing the story entirely, instead choosing to focus on other points surrounding the topic of adversity. She brought up many questions in her talk that remained unanswered when she was done, and closed by reiterating her resolve to remain faithful despite her unanswered questions. I think she is a closet unbeliever, but can't go over that line and stay married to her husband, who is the epitome of a pillar in the faith. I really look forward to her comments in Sunday school because she often says what I am thinking. So, when the instructor asked for someone in the class to give a brief synopsis of the events leading up to the death of Joseph Smith, Bro. R. pipes up and offers a classic version of the well spun church tale...updated to include recently acknowledged events.  He said that "church dissidents" (including William Law, former 2nd Counselor in the church first presidency) published a scandalous newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Then the city council decided to not permit the paper to continue to be published so they voted to authorize the destruction of the press. He then went on to say that Joseph as the mayor of Nauvoo was within his rights to permit the destruction of the press because of the powers granted to him through his city charter. Frankly I ignored the rest of what he said, because I was really trying to take in this justification. This is, to me, so classic. Since a man writes up a city charter that could potentially violate the rights of a member of that city, it's OK. And should that sort of behavior be encouraged then? Just because I can set up a local government that entitles me to take something that belongs to you and destroy it, that makes it OK? This is such a slippery slope. I wanted to say, "So if I'm the mayor of our city and I want to destroy your property - and it says it is OK in the city charter - does that make it OK? This is the question that is ignored. People should really begin by asking themselves would the behavior be OK if I were on the receiving end? Would it have been OK for a spiritual leader to come and seduce my wife and take her with or without my permission? These are uncomfortable questions that no one likes to consider, so maybe if we ignore them, they will just go away. And so it goes...