* These terms are not set in stone and other people on the Internet and elsewhere may define these terms slightly differently. Let me begin by saying I think all labels are problematic in that they don't fully cover all of a person's opinions and their unique personality. I personally reject all identity labels and prefer to think of everyone as one humanity; so I prefer to just be called a human being. However, some labels can be useful in that they can show that not all self-labled Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc. are the same. For example, there are different types of atheists (e.g. weak and strong, etc) and different types of Christians (progressive and fundamentalist, etc). So I present these labels as my opinion to show that not all Mormons are the same and each believing-Mormon and former-Mormon should be understood individually and we should avoid lumping everyone into one narrow category; and also to help us understand the differences and similarities between the many types of Mormons and Non-Mormons.
Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons
The best way to begin is to understand the emergence of Internet Mormonism vs.Chapel Mormonism. See this page here. For a discussion of this phenomenon by the author of this article see here. For a debate between the author of this article and an Internet Mormon see here.
Of the Chapel Mormons I find that there are two main types: McConkie style Mormons (or Packer-Mormons or Packerites) and David O McKay style Mormons.
Of the Internet Mormons there appears to be two types as well: like Daniel C. Peterson and Blake Ostler for example.
Internet Mormons (Mormon Apologists) often hold radical views that to the Chapel Mormon may seem heretical. I have heard several Mormon Apologists from F.A.R.M.S. disparage McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine for example and don’t agree with Packer on several issues.
Iron Rod Mormon or TBM (True Believing Mormon): these Mormons obey all the rules of conduct as prescribed by LDS leaders and tow the doctrinal line. They pray, pay, and obey and honor their leaders holding to the metaphorical rod of perceived LDS righteousness and moral purity. They come in two main varieties: Chapel and Internet Mormons as discussed above. They hold to the central claims of Mormonism: the Standard Works, the Articles of Faith, and official LDS dogma. Thus there are Chapel TBMs and Internet TBMs.
Cultural Mormons (New Order Mormons and/or Sunstone Mormons). An LDS member in good standing, who culturally identifies as Mormon, and who behaves like a Mormon following the rules of conduct and are active at church but doubt all or most of LDS doctrines. Popular examples include, BH Roberts, John Dehlin, and Grant Palmer.
Inactive Mormon: a Mormon who believes in all or some of LDS claims but for a variety of reasons doesn’t attend church or LDS activities. Many Inactive Mormons are Jack Mormons and/or Boomerang Mormons, see below.
Jack Mormons: Inactive Mormons who socialize with all types of Mormons regularly but are lax when it comes to following all the rules, especially the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Chastity, etc.
Boomerang Mormon: this is a Jack Mormon who instead of staying inactive their whole life, as many Jack Mormons do, are like a wild horse let loose from the corral to sow its oats but has been mentally conditioned to return back home. For example, many Jack Mormon girls will date other Jack Mormon guys and even Non-Mormons for a time but eventually boomerang back to being “good girls” and seeking a Return Missionary and/or a Chapel Mormon to take them to the temple.
Former Mormon: someone who was once a member of the LDS church but has left because they no longer believe the Mormon Church is what it claims to be. There are two types of former Mormons:
Exmormons: Those who are intellectually convinced the church is not what it claims to be; is often bitter and angry with the church hierarchy for lying to them. Some exmormons resign while others leave their names on the roles simply because they haven’t bothered to have them removed. Although some exmormons carry no ill feelings and brush off their experience in Mormonism as a learning experience and move on nearly unaffected at all. Usually the level of emotional, intellectually, and physical commitment, time, and money the person devoted to Mormonism will determine their feelings toward the church when they leave.
Post-Mormon: same as Exmormon in that they are intellectually convinced the church is not what it claims to be. Some people define the post-mormon as someone who has gone through the recovery process most ex-mormons are still traveling through, and are ready to move on with their life. Since they no longer define themselves as ex-LDS and are now post-LDS they tend to be friendlier and more accepting of the LDS church as a whole. However, many people use the terms exmormon and postmormon interchangeably as synonymous resulting in no clear distinction between either term.
Many TBMs classify all former-Mormons as anti, but this is slanderous and misleading. See the article here. LDS apologist John A. Tvedtnes explains that:
A non-Mormon who writes about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not necessarily an anti-Mormon, even if he gets some of his facts wrong. To me, an anti-Mormon is one who deliberately misrepresents the facts about the LDS Church and its scriptures, either by outright falsehood or by faulty logic or by innuendo. While a few amateurs fit this category, many anti-Mormons make a living trying to "expose" Mormonism. Many of them have "ministries" to which Christians are asked to make donations to help stamp out what they represent to be blatant falsehood and chicanery. The irony is that these people typically fit the pattern they claim to be describing (Source)
I am a post-mormon but not an anti-Mormon. I do not deliberately misrepresent the facts about the LDS Church and its scriptures. In fact, I take great pains to verify all my sources and welcome correction from any "friendly editor." Neither do I make a living trying to "expose" Mormonism and I don't have a "ministry." In fact, I often find myself correcting anti-Mormons when they do get their facts wrong and often find their attack of LDS epistemology hypocritical when they use the same faith-based tactics themselves.
Most post-mormons and exmormons oppose the tactics and mission of Anti-Mormons. The following is how I define an Anti-Mormon ...
Anti-Mormon: often someone who has never been a Mormon, or a disgruntled exmormon who has joined another Faith, and is now paid to attack Mormonism as “satanic” that must be destroyed to save souls from going to hell for believing in LDS doctrines. They are usually Evangelical Christian who are offended by the LDS concept of Christ as Satan’s brother, and other doctrines they find reprehensible.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Urim & Thummim or Magic Stone? How Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon
I remember the first time I learned about Joseph Smith's magic seer stone; it was after my mission. I was shocked! I brought it up to an LDS friend who actually got upset about it. He immediately accused me of reading anti-Mormon literature. He said that Joseph would have never done such a thing, for it would make the whole thing look contrived! When I provided evidence in a little known piece of LDS literature below he had nothing to say.
In an address given on the 25th of June 1992, at a seminar for new mission presidents, Missionary Training Center, Provo, Utah, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles disclosed the real means by which Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon:
The details of this miraculous method of [translating the Book of Mormon] are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.) Source: Russell M. Nelson, A Treasured Testament; Ensign, July 1993. Also see here.
It is a historical fact that Joseph Smith followed in his father's foot steps to become a money digger. He actually pretended to put a magic rock (or seer stone) into a hat and then proceeded to bury his head in the hat and claimed to see where hidden treasure was buried underground, kind of like using a crystal ball. Through his money digging adventures Joseph Smith swindled superstitious people out of their money. He was even brought to trial for his deception at one point. For some Mormons this will be hard to believe but Smith used the same stone he used in money digging to translate the Book of Mormon; which wasn’t a real translation at all since Smith would put his seer stone in a hat and apparently claimed to “see” the words in the hat which he read to his scribes. He never translated anything; according to witnesses he claimed to “read” words that magically appeared in or through a rock he placed in the bottom of his hat, thus dictating to his scribes the words of the Book of Mormon he claimed to see by staring at the rock.
Even if the LDS believer chooses to ignore all the historical evidence that Joseph Smith was a person with a questionable character in his youth, why would God choose a person to be his front man who pretends to use a magic rock to dig up treasure in the ground? Especially, if he would allegedly be asked to dig up gold plates in the ground? Isn't the issue of credibility an important one? If Modhammed had claimed to pull the Koran out of a hat after being a stage magician in his youth, would that lend credibility to Islam?
For more details on the alleged translation processes see here. The official Mormon History sold to investigators of the LDS church is not based on the facts but mere propaganda. It rejects full-disclosure and commits the sin of omission by presenting a false description of the alleged translation process.
In the past, many Mormons believed in magical seer stones. To see pictures of Mormon leader's seer stones click here.
The image presented at the church run website here, and elsewhere in church publications, not only misrepresents the facts – omitting the rock in the hat act – but the LDS church falsely depicts Smith actually translating the alleged foreign language on the alleged gold plates (when the plates were nowhere in sight for much of the writing of the Book of Mormon) and Smith never translated anything, but dictated to his scribes out of a hat.
After reading several articles by Mormon apologists from FARMS and fair.og I learned that they generally conclude that the Gold Plates were not “directly” used in the alleged translation process of the BoM. For example, in the online PBS video The Mormons in Part 1:3 titled, The Early Revelations LDS apologist Daniel Peterson is honest and admits that, “We know that Joseph didn’t translate in the way that a scholar would translate, he didn’t know Egyptian. … There were a couple of means that were prepared for this. One was that he used an instrument that was found with the plates that was called the Urim and Thummim. This is kind of a divinatory device that goes back into Old Testament times. Actually, most of the translation was done using something called a seer stone. … He would put the stone … in the bottom of a hat, presumably to exclude surrounding light. Then he would put his face into the hat. It's kind of a strange image for us today …” To read the transcript see here.
Notice how Peterson says Smith used the Urim and Thummim but doesn’t specify what it was used for. That is because the Urim and Thummim that allegedly came with the plates were never used to “translate” any of the Book of Mormon that was published, which Mormons read today. In the fair.org article, Joseph the Seer—or Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat?, author Brant A. Gardner is even more forthcoming and clear on the matter. Toward the end of his article he writes:
“As the early saints transitioned from a collection of believers into a formal religion, they began to see themselves within the Great Tradition [that is popular/formal religion]. As with early Christianity, the stories they told of themselves naturally were recast to distance themselves from their Little Tradition [small-town folklore type superstition] heritage and provide an acceptable Great Tradition history. One of the obvious places to see this process in action is with the tools of the translation. We [LDS members] all know that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon—except he didn't. The Book of Mormon mentions interpreters, but not the Urim and Thummim. It was the Book of Mormon interpreters which were given to Joseph with the plates. When Moroni took back the interpreters after the loss of the 116 manuscript pages, Joseph completed the translation with one of his seer stones. Until after the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim belonged to the Bible and the Bible only. The Urim and Thummim became part of the story when it was presented within and to the Great Tradition [acceptable traditional church going investigators]. Eventually, even Joseph Smith used Urim and Thummim indiscriminately as labels generically representing either the Book of Mormon interpreters or the seer stone used during translation.
The Urim and Thummim were traditionally divinatory rocks, but most importantly, they were biblically acceptable divinatory rocks.53 From the Great Tradition [traditional religion] perspective, their presence in the Bible made them religion, not magic. I suspect that the two interpreters made a natural comparison to the two stones, one Urim and one Thummim, from the Bible. Calling the biblical divinatory tools "rocks" instead of Urim and Thummim seems to demean them. The reverse process, calling the interpreters and seer stones Urim and Thummim, places them in a more appropriate religious category where they belong because of the sacred use to which they were put in translating the Book of Mormon.
This recasting of history was a story the Saints told themselves as much as what they presented to the world. I doubt that there was any conscious attempt to reconcile their history with Great Tradition [popular religious] expectations, let alone any attempt at deception. It was simply the natural response to their self-definition as a religion rather than a folk belief. It was a story told in a way that they subliminally knew was appropriate for a Great Tradition religion. The new history did not deny the past or alter the facts, but recolored them with a new vocabulary.” [End of quote].
So if Smith unearthed Gold Plates and the Urim and Thummim (or interpreters, i.e. two divinatory stones set in the rim of a silver bow functioning as spectacles or reading glasses, see images here, here, and here) but never used the plates nor the spectacles to translate today’s published Book of Mormon, why did Smith unearth them in the first place? If all he used to “translate” the final version of today’s Book of Mormon was the same seer stone he used while money digging – the same stone he found in a well and used to pretend to see where treasure was buried – why did he need to unearth the plates and the spectacles in the first place!?
Some apologists admit that the plates weren’t involved in the translation process and speculate that the plates served other purposes. See the fair wiki article Book of Mormon/Translation (Aug. 2009) here. But the Anton affair mentioned in this fair-wiki section is hardly helpful to those who have studied the details from a critical perspective. Second, the plates being used as mere evidence of an ancient artifact is hardly useful, for as Faun Brodie pointed out Smith could have produced a fake replica of gold plates, or the witnesses could have imagined them “with their spiritual eyes,” hallucinated, or simply made it up, etc.
And if the plates were to persuade the witnesses that Smith was using his rock in a hat act to translate a real record, why didn’t the angel give the plates to Smith to show to the witnesses AFTER the dictation of the BoM, which he performed using his money digging seer stone? Then the Gold Plates wouldn’t have been needed at all during the alleged translation process; thus, no reason to hide them and risk them being stolen. Why the whole hiding of the plates in the woods and in a box and covering them up? Why the whole ordeal of being chased and put in harms way by those who wanted to allegedly steal them; was all that necessary when Smith didn’t even use them to translate? And if the plates were to act as physical evidence to an ancient record why did the angel take them up to heaven instead of them being evidence for all to see? After all, if the seer stone Smith used to create his Book of Mormon is still in possession of the church why weren’t the plates or the spectacles (interpreters) left with the church? It seems odd that the angel took back everything Smith allegedly unearthed and all we are left with is his seer stone he used for money digging, which no LDS prophet, “seer,” and revelator has used since to reveal anything even though they are called seers.
This takes way too much mental gymnastics to rationalize. Common sense says Smith used the same rock in a hat act he used to dupe people into believing he could unearth gold treasures to dupe people into believing he unearthed gold plates. Thus the plates were a “prop” for added affect, to add some authenticity to his story. It would have probably been too difficult to actually create a huge book of gold plates with ancient writings on it. The witnesses could have seen that some of the plates were blank and Smith missed a spot to scribble fake characters that he made up. The seer stone in a hat was a better way to go, for without the actual original language he could never be tested. And the alleged characters he allegedly transcribed from the plates to give to Anton has never been corroborated by a reputable scholar to be anything other than mere scribbling.
Other apologists speculate that the plates served in some magical way to help Smith translate even when they weren’t in the same room with him. But they admit that the plates were either covered or weren’t in the same room when much of the BoM was being written. Thus to summarize, all the facts to the alleged translation processes present the following picture.
Joseph put his face in a hat and stared at a stone and claimed to see words on or through the stone and thus allegedly dictated the Book of Mormon while the plates were either covered so that no one, including Smith, could see them, or while the plates were hidden somewhere outside. Thus Smith obviously didn’t need the plates for the formation of the Book of Mormon that was published; and all the evidence shows that he used seer stones and not the actual plates, nor the Urim and Thummim, to dictate the contents of today’s published Book of Mormon. Thus he didn’t actually translate ancient languages off the plates into English with some spectacles he found in the ground like a modern translator might translate an ancient record, but instead its claimed that he read the contents of the Book of Mormon by allegedly seeing the words in or through his money digging seer stone that he placed in a hat.
Keep in mind that the average LDS member does not read FARMS or fair.org and is encouraged not to read things not officially published by the LDS church. The LDS apologetic sites exist because members read non-Mormon history books and Mormon critics and learn things the official LDS church doesn’t disclose openly. So fair.org and FARMS act as damage control that’s caused by the official church withholding information and suppressing the whole picture.
Some Mormon apologists argue that the official LDS church is not hiding the rock in the hat act since it is mentioned in one or two Ensign articles. The problem is these are obscure references in only a few official LDS articles, and you have to dig deep in past issues to learn about Smith’s rock in the hat act. Official LDS articles are also inconsistent and contradictory, for example, the Sept. 1977 Ensign doubts Whitmer's claim that Smith used the rock in the hat act and claims a real translation took place with Smith's direct use of the plates. The 1977 article thus contradicts the Ensign article mentioned above, and the 1977 article also contradicts a recent FARMS article by A One-sided View of Mormon Origins by Mark Ashurst-McGee. In the process of trying to answer Grant Palmer’s research McGee admits that the image of Smith actually translating gold plates in front of him, that is used by the church in its official publications, is inaccurate. He admits that Smith did use the rock in the hat method and the plates in fact were nowhere in sight during the production of the Book of Mormon.
If Joseph Smith was enchanted with seer stones as a kid would that childish belief in magic rocks enter into his adult writings? Unfortunately, for the faithful Mormon it does. We find that Smith's writings do in fact echo his money digging past. In one of many passages in the Book of Mormon that gives reference to magic rocks, Joseph tells a story of God actually giving one of his faithful servants a stone: “And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me” (Alma 37:23; also see here.
The Book of Mormon is full of parallels to Joseph’s money digging past. A startling example is that just as in Smith's real life – when he was a money digger he’d claim the treasure was moving under the earth and that's why the people who hired him couldn't dig it up every time they tried - likewise, the Book of Mormon people begin hiding treasures in the earth and using sorcery but the treasures are slippery and cannot be held or retained (see Mormon 1: 18-19).
In 1 Nephi 16 of the Book of Mormon a magic ball (the Liahona) suddenly appears outside Lehi’s tent to guide him in the right direction, which is very similar to the way the seer stone workedwhen Smith was seeking buried treasure; and just as Lehi found the Liahona Smith found his seer stone.
Pressing credulity to the max Joseph Smith writes his fascination with seer stones into the story of Jared who wonders how an air-tight oval shaped barge or submarine like container with no windows could allow the occupants to see in the dark? One wonders why he didn’t ask how they were going to steer the barges? Or what they were going to do with all the human feces accumulated by the passengers? Nevertheless, Joseph decides to fix the problem of darkness with Jared’s glow in the dark rocks to provide light for the Nephites (See Ether 3 & 4).
Joseph's fascination with magic rocks doesn't stop with the Book of Mormon. After Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church, in 1836 Joseph had read in the Painesville (Ohio) Telegraph that a treasure lay buried beneath a house in Salem. What do you think happened next? It is obvious to all impartial investigators that at this point Joseph regressed to his money digging ways and unintentionally showed the hoax of his revelations.
He actually claimed to receive a revelation from the Lord on the matter that is contained in today’s LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Smith spoke as the Lord and said, “I have much treasure in this city [of Salem] for you…you shall be led, and [it] shall be given you…you shall have power over [the city]…and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours…in the place where [the treasure is] …[it] shall be signalized unto you by the peace and power of my Spirit, that shall flow unto you…there are more treasures than one for you in this city” ( D&C 111: 2-4, 8, 11). This theme of seeking treasure is rather familiar to his money digging past. As a money digger his seer stone also allegedly “signaled unto him” where buried treasure could be found. Smith did not take power over the city and was not led to gold or silver. Joseph returned from his treasure hunt with nothing but a failed prophecy.
If Joseph Smith was influenced by the pretend powers of seer stones ever since his youth would he go so far as to have God himself use a seer stone just like he did? It appears that Smith could not resist. In superhero, comic book, fashion Joseph paints his god as a finite exalted-man who gets his super powers from a magic rock the size of a planet, which acts like a super-computer or crystal ball giving him infinite knowledge. Smith writes:
“ ...we shall see him [god] as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there [in heaven]… In answer to the question—Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside? I answer, Yes. But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it. The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim [i.e. a giant seer stone]. This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known…” (D&C 130: 1- 10, words in italics are my own).
Besides claiming that that the earth will one day be magically transformed into a giant crystal ball, Joseph Smith explains that God is limited to a physical body with finite limitations so he and the angels live on, and use, a planet size Urim and Thummim (giant seer stone) that makes all information and knowledge available to those who use it. This brings to mind images of the Death Star, the giant planet in the Star Wars movies where Darth Vador lives and derives some of his powers. Joseph's thinking must have been, "if people already believe that my little rock can find treasure and help me come up with the Book of Mormon, then I'll say god himself must have a HUGE magic rock that he resides on, that gives him magical powers. This will also explain how my idea of god as a finite man can know all things when he can't be everywhere at once." And last but not least, Smith says that those Mormons who make it to the highest degree of his heaven will receive their very own white stone that will act as a crystal ball, whereby advanced knowledge will be made known.
If you’re a true believing Mormon do you really think that God lives on and works through a giant rock and that the earth will one day "be renewed [transformed] and receive its paradisiacal glory" (See Articles of Faith 1: 10), that is, turned into a giant crystal ball? If you do believe in these things, how is your god going to accomplish this other than you just saying, "Well, it's like magic?" And why believe in such a thing as opposed to believing the earth will one day turn into a giant Rubik's Cube, each square representing a level of higher intelligence?
Why believe in Joseph Smith's story that a super god-man living on a giant seer stone, together with a council of gods, organized our universe out of self-existent/uncreated materials and organized the earthly bodies of humanity and produced their souls by having celestial sex with his wife (or wives and concubines); as opposed to believing in L. Ron Hubbard's story that Xenu, the great alien ruler of the Galactic Confederacy brought billions of people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago and stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living (called body Thetans, sort of like demon possession) that cling to and adversely affect everyone today, except those Scientologists who have performed the necessary steps to remove them?
If you believe a magic rock can help someone translate a foreign language do you believe that Scientology's Auditing procedure works? This is where a device called an E-meter (a pair of tin-plated tubes much like empty soup cans attached to a meter by wires and held by the subject during auditing) allegedly helps the patient discover what is causing his spirit problems and how to fix his soul. Once you leave reason behind and accept anything on faith, then anything goes! As Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Smith in 1822, "Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind."
Joseph's fascination with magic rocks doesn't stop with the Book of Mormon. After Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church, in 1836 Joseph had read in the Painesville (Ohio) Telegraph that a treasure lay buried beneath a house in Salem. What do you think happened next? It is obvious to all impartial investigators that at this point Joseph regressed to his money digging ways and unintentionally showed the hoax of his revelations. He actually claimed to receive a revelation from the Lord to go treasure hunting again, which is contained in today’s LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Smith spoke as the Lord and said, “I have much treasure in this city [of Salem] for you…you shall be led, and [it] shall be given you…you shall have power over [the city]…and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours…in the place where [the treasure is] …[it] shall be signalized unto you by the peace and power of my Spirit, that shall flow unto you…there are more treasures than one for you in this city” (D&C 111: 2-4, 8, 11). This theme of seeking treasure is reminiscent of his money digging past isn’t it? As a money digger his seer stone also allegedly “signaled unto him” where buried treasure could be found. Smith did not take power over the city and was not led to gold or silver. Joseph returned from his treasure hunt with nothing but a failed prophecy.
If Joseph Smith was influenced by the pretend powers of seer stones ever since his youth would he go so far as to have God himself use a seer stone just like he did? It appears that Smith could not resist. In superhero comic book fashion Joseph paints his god as a finite exalted-man who gets his super powers from a magic rock the size of a planet that acts like a super-computer or crystal ball giving him infinite knowledge. Smith says in his scripture below:
...we shall see him [god] as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there [in heaven]…In answer to the question—Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside? I answer, Yes. But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it. The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim [seer stone]. This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known…(D&C 130: 1- 10, words in italics and brackets are my own).
One can’t help but see that Smith’s idea of the Godhead became a projection of himself. For just as Smith’s extramarital affairs were projected onto his god, who became an exalted man who needs several concubines to populate the earth (see D&C 132: 63), Smith’s money digging seer stone days is projected onto his deity who becomes a space-man who lives on and operates via a huge planet size magic rock.
For more facts surrounding Joseph Smith, peep stones, and treasure digging derived from 100% church-friendly sources click here.
For additional historical information on Smith’s seer stone see here.
For information on Joseph Smith's personal biography and more information on the Seer Stone here.
For a discussion of whether or not Smith put up a curtain to hide the translation process see here.
And for a historical analysis of the gold plates click here.
For more details from both LDS members and critics see here.
In an address given on the 25th of June 1992, at a seminar for new mission presidents, Missionary Training Center, Provo, Utah, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles disclosed the real means by which Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon:
The details of this miraculous method of [translating the Book of Mormon] are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.) Source: Russell M. Nelson, A Treasured Testament; Ensign, July 1993. Also see here.
It is a historical fact that Joseph Smith followed in his father's foot steps to become a money digger. He actually pretended to put a magic rock (or seer stone) into a hat and then proceeded to bury his head in the hat and claimed to see where hidden treasure was buried underground, kind of like using a crystal ball. Through his money digging adventures Joseph Smith swindled superstitious people out of their money. He was even brought to trial for his deception at one point. For some Mormons this will be hard to believe but Smith used the same stone he used in money digging to translate the Book of Mormon; which wasn’t a real translation at all since Smith would put his seer stone in a hat and apparently claimed to “see” the words in the hat which he read to his scribes. He never translated anything; according to witnesses he claimed to “read” words that magically appeared in or through a rock he placed in the bottom of his hat, thus dictating to his scribes the words of the Book of Mormon he claimed to see by staring at the rock.
Even if the LDS believer chooses to ignore all the historical evidence that Joseph Smith was a person with a questionable character in his youth, why would God choose a person to be his front man who pretends to use a magic rock to dig up treasure in the ground? Especially, if he would allegedly be asked to dig up gold plates in the ground? Isn't the issue of credibility an important one? If Modhammed had claimed to pull the Koran out of a hat after being a stage magician in his youth, would that lend credibility to Islam?
For more details on the alleged translation processes see here. The official Mormon History sold to investigators of the LDS church is not based on the facts but mere propaganda. It rejects full-disclosure and commits the sin of omission by presenting a false description of the alleged translation process.
In the past, many Mormons believed in magical seer stones. To see pictures of Mormon leader's seer stones click here.
The image presented at the church run website here, and elsewhere in church publications, not only misrepresents the facts – omitting the rock in the hat act – but the LDS church falsely depicts Smith actually translating the alleged foreign language on the alleged gold plates (when the plates were nowhere in sight for much of the writing of the Book of Mormon) and Smith never translated anything, but dictated to his scribes out of a hat.
After reading several articles by Mormon apologists from FARMS and fair.og I learned that they generally conclude that the Gold Plates were not “directly” used in the alleged translation process of the BoM. For example, in the online PBS video The Mormons in Part 1:3 titled, The Early Revelations LDS apologist Daniel Peterson is honest and admits that, “We know that Joseph didn’t translate in the way that a scholar would translate, he didn’t know Egyptian. … There were a couple of means that were prepared for this. One was that he used an instrument that was found with the plates that was called the Urim and Thummim. This is kind of a divinatory device that goes back into Old Testament times. Actually, most of the translation was done using something called a seer stone. … He would put the stone … in the bottom of a hat, presumably to exclude surrounding light. Then he would put his face into the hat. It's kind of a strange image for us today …” To read the transcript see here.
Notice how Peterson says Smith used the Urim and Thummim but doesn’t specify what it was used for. That is because the Urim and Thummim that allegedly came with the plates were never used to “translate” any of the Book of Mormon that was published, which Mormons read today. In the fair.org article, Joseph the Seer—or Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat?, author Brant A. Gardner is even more forthcoming and clear on the matter. Toward the end of his article he writes:
“As the early saints transitioned from a collection of believers into a formal religion, they began to see themselves within the Great Tradition [that is popular/formal religion]. As with early Christianity, the stories they told of themselves naturally were recast to distance themselves from their Little Tradition [small-town folklore type superstition] heritage and provide an acceptable Great Tradition history. One of the obvious places to see this process in action is with the tools of the translation. We [LDS members] all know that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon—except he didn't. The Book of Mormon mentions interpreters, but not the Urim and Thummim. It was the Book of Mormon interpreters which were given to Joseph with the plates. When Moroni took back the interpreters after the loss of the 116 manuscript pages, Joseph completed the translation with one of his seer stones. Until after the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim belonged to the Bible and the Bible only. The Urim and Thummim became part of the story when it was presented within and to the Great Tradition [acceptable traditional church going investigators]. Eventually, even Joseph Smith used Urim and Thummim indiscriminately as labels generically representing either the Book of Mormon interpreters or the seer stone used during translation.
The Urim and Thummim were traditionally divinatory rocks, but most importantly, they were biblically acceptable divinatory rocks.53 From the Great Tradition [traditional religion] perspective, their presence in the Bible made them religion, not magic. I suspect that the two interpreters made a natural comparison to the two stones, one Urim and one Thummim, from the Bible. Calling the biblical divinatory tools "rocks" instead of Urim and Thummim seems to demean them. The reverse process, calling the interpreters and seer stones Urim and Thummim, places them in a more appropriate religious category where they belong because of the sacred use to which they were put in translating the Book of Mormon.
This recasting of history was a story the Saints told themselves as much as what they presented to the world. I doubt that there was any conscious attempt to reconcile their history with Great Tradition [popular religious] expectations, let alone any attempt at deception. It was simply the natural response to their self-definition as a religion rather than a folk belief. It was a story told in a way that they subliminally knew was appropriate for a Great Tradition religion. The new history did not deny the past or alter the facts, but recolored them with a new vocabulary.” [End of quote].
So if Smith unearthed Gold Plates and the Urim and Thummim (or interpreters, i.e. two divinatory stones set in the rim of a silver bow functioning as spectacles or reading glasses, see images here, here, and here) but never used the plates nor the spectacles to translate today’s published Book of Mormon, why did Smith unearth them in the first place? If all he used to “translate” the final version of today’s Book of Mormon was the same seer stone he used while money digging – the same stone he found in a well and used to pretend to see where treasure was buried – why did he need to unearth the plates and the spectacles in the first place!?
Some apologists admit that the plates weren’t involved in the translation process and speculate that the plates served other purposes. See the fair wiki article Book of Mormon/Translation (Aug. 2009) here. But the Anton affair mentioned in this fair-wiki section is hardly helpful to those who have studied the details from a critical perspective. Second, the plates being used as mere evidence of an ancient artifact is hardly useful, for as Faun Brodie pointed out Smith could have produced a fake replica of gold plates, or the witnesses could have imagined them “with their spiritual eyes,” hallucinated, or simply made it up, etc.
And if the plates were to persuade the witnesses that Smith was using his rock in a hat act to translate a real record, why didn’t the angel give the plates to Smith to show to the witnesses AFTER the dictation of the BoM, which he performed using his money digging seer stone? Then the Gold Plates wouldn’t have been needed at all during the alleged translation process; thus, no reason to hide them and risk them being stolen. Why the whole hiding of the plates in the woods and in a box and covering them up? Why the whole ordeal of being chased and put in harms way by those who wanted to allegedly steal them; was all that necessary when Smith didn’t even use them to translate? And if the plates were to act as physical evidence to an ancient record why did the angel take them up to heaven instead of them being evidence for all to see? After all, if the seer stone Smith used to create his Book of Mormon is still in possession of the church why weren’t the plates or the spectacles (interpreters) left with the church? It seems odd that the angel took back everything Smith allegedly unearthed and all we are left with is his seer stone he used for money digging, which no LDS prophet, “seer,” and revelator has used since to reveal anything even though they are called seers.
This takes way too much mental gymnastics to rationalize. Common sense says Smith used the same rock in a hat act he used to dupe people into believing he could unearth gold treasures to dupe people into believing he unearthed gold plates. Thus the plates were a “prop” for added affect, to add some authenticity to his story. It would have probably been too difficult to actually create a huge book of gold plates with ancient writings on it. The witnesses could have seen that some of the plates were blank and Smith missed a spot to scribble fake characters that he made up. The seer stone in a hat was a better way to go, for without the actual original language he could never be tested. And the alleged characters he allegedly transcribed from the plates to give to Anton has never been corroborated by a reputable scholar to be anything other than mere scribbling.
Other apologists speculate that the plates served in some magical way to help Smith translate even when they weren’t in the same room with him. But they admit that the plates were either covered or weren’t in the same room when much of the BoM was being written. Thus to summarize, all the facts to the alleged translation processes present the following picture.
Joseph put his face in a hat and stared at a stone and claimed to see words on or through the stone and thus allegedly dictated the Book of Mormon while the plates were either covered so that no one, including Smith, could see them, or while the plates were hidden somewhere outside. Thus Smith obviously didn’t need the plates for the formation of the Book of Mormon that was published; and all the evidence shows that he used seer stones and not the actual plates, nor the Urim and Thummim, to dictate the contents of today’s published Book of Mormon. Thus he didn’t actually translate ancient languages off the plates into English with some spectacles he found in the ground like a modern translator might translate an ancient record, but instead its claimed that he read the contents of the Book of Mormon by allegedly seeing the words in or through his money digging seer stone that he placed in a hat.
Keep in mind that the average LDS member does not read FARMS or fair.org and is encouraged not to read things not officially published by the LDS church. The LDS apologetic sites exist because members read non-Mormon history books and Mormon critics and learn things the official LDS church doesn’t disclose openly. So fair.org and FARMS act as damage control that’s caused by the official church withholding information and suppressing the whole picture.
Some Mormon apologists argue that the official LDS church is not hiding the rock in the hat act since it is mentioned in one or two Ensign articles. The problem is these are obscure references in only a few official LDS articles, and you have to dig deep in past issues to learn about Smith’s rock in the hat act. Official LDS articles are also inconsistent and contradictory, for example, the Sept. 1977 Ensign doubts Whitmer's claim that Smith used the rock in the hat act and claims a real translation took place with Smith's direct use of the plates. The 1977 article thus contradicts the Ensign article mentioned above, and the 1977 article also contradicts a recent FARMS article by A One-sided View of Mormon Origins by Mark Ashurst-McGee. In the process of trying to answer Grant Palmer’s research McGee admits that the image of Smith actually translating gold plates in front of him, that is used by the church in its official publications, is inaccurate. He admits that Smith did use the rock in the hat method and the plates in fact were nowhere in sight during the production of the Book of Mormon.
If Joseph Smith was enchanted with seer stones as a kid would that childish belief in magic rocks enter into his adult writings? Unfortunately, for the faithful Mormon it does. We find that Smith's writings do in fact echo his money digging past. In one of many passages in the Book of Mormon that gives reference to magic rocks, Joseph tells a story of God actually giving one of his faithful servants a stone: “And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me” (Alma 37:23; also see here.
The Book of Mormon is full of parallels to Joseph’s money digging past. A startling example is that just as in Smith's real life – when he was a money digger he’d claim the treasure was moving under the earth and that's why the people who hired him couldn't dig it up every time they tried - likewise, the Book of Mormon people begin hiding treasures in the earth and using sorcery but the treasures are slippery and cannot be held or retained (see Mormon 1: 18-19).
In 1 Nephi 16 of the Book of Mormon a magic ball (the Liahona) suddenly appears outside Lehi’s tent to guide him in the right direction, which is very similar to the way the seer stone workedwhen Smith was seeking buried treasure; and just as Lehi found the Liahona Smith found his seer stone.
Pressing credulity to the max Joseph Smith writes his fascination with seer stones into the story of Jared who wonders how an air-tight oval shaped barge or submarine like container with no windows could allow the occupants to see in the dark? One wonders why he didn’t ask how they were going to steer the barges? Or what they were going to do with all the human feces accumulated by the passengers? Nevertheless, Joseph decides to fix the problem of darkness with Jared’s glow in the dark rocks to provide light for the Nephites (See Ether 3 & 4).
Joseph's fascination with magic rocks doesn't stop with the Book of Mormon. After Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church, in 1836 Joseph had read in the Painesville (Ohio) Telegraph that a treasure lay buried beneath a house in Salem. What do you think happened next? It is obvious to all impartial investigators that at this point Joseph regressed to his money digging ways and unintentionally showed the hoax of his revelations.
He actually claimed to receive a revelation from the Lord on the matter that is contained in today’s LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Smith spoke as the Lord and said, “I have much treasure in this city [of Salem] for you…you shall be led, and [it] shall be given you…you shall have power over [the city]…and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours…in the place where [the treasure is] …[it] shall be signalized unto you by the peace and power of my Spirit, that shall flow unto you…there are more treasures than one for you in this city” ( D&C 111: 2-4, 8, 11). This theme of seeking treasure is rather familiar to his money digging past. As a money digger his seer stone also allegedly “signaled unto him” where buried treasure could be found. Smith did not take power over the city and was not led to gold or silver. Joseph returned from his treasure hunt with nothing but a failed prophecy.
If Joseph Smith was influenced by the pretend powers of seer stones ever since his youth would he go so far as to have God himself use a seer stone just like he did? It appears that Smith could not resist. In superhero, comic book, fashion Joseph paints his god as a finite exalted-man who gets his super powers from a magic rock the size of a planet, which acts like a super-computer or crystal ball giving him infinite knowledge. Smith writes:
“ ...we shall see him [god] as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there [in heaven]… In answer to the question—Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside? I answer, Yes. But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it. The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim [i.e. a giant seer stone]. This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known…” (D&C 130: 1- 10, words in italics are my own).
Besides claiming that that the earth will one day be magically transformed into a giant crystal ball, Joseph Smith explains that God is limited to a physical body with finite limitations so he and the angels live on, and use, a planet size Urim and Thummim (giant seer stone) that makes all information and knowledge available to those who use it. This brings to mind images of the Death Star, the giant planet in the Star Wars movies where Darth Vador lives and derives some of his powers. Joseph's thinking must have been, "if people already believe that my little rock can find treasure and help me come up with the Book of Mormon, then I'll say god himself must have a HUGE magic rock that he resides on, that gives him magical powers. This will also explain how my idea of god as a finite man can know all things when he can't be everywhere at once." And last but not least, Smith says that those Mormons who make it to the highest degree of his heaven will receive their very own white stone that will act as a crystal ball, whereby advanced knowledge will be made known.
If you’re a true believing Mormon do you really think that God lives on and works through a giant rock and that the earth will one day "be renewed [transformed] and receive its paradisiacal glory" (See Articles of Faith 1: 10), that is, turned into a giant crystal ball? If you do believe in these things, how is your god going to accomplish this other than you just saying, "Well, it's like magic?" And why believe in such a thing as opposed to believing the earth will one day turn into a giant Rubik's Cube, each square representing a level of higher intelligence?
Why believe in Joseph Smith's story that a super god-man living on a giant seer stone, together with a council of gods, organized our universe out of self-existent/uncreated materials and organized the earthly bodies of humanity and produced their souls by having celestial sex with his wife (or wives and concubines); as opposed to believing in L. Ron Hubbard's story that Xenu, the great alien ruler of the Galactic Confederacy brought billions of people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago and stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living (called body Thetans, sort of like demon possession) that cling to and adversely affect everyone today, except those Scientologists who have performed the necessary steps to remove them?
If you believe a magic rock can help someone translate a foreign language do you believe that Scientology's Auditing procedure works? This is where a device called an E-meter (a pair of tin-plated tubes much like empty soup cans attached to a meter by wires and held by the subject during auditing) allegedly helps the patient discover what is causing his spirit problems and how to fix his soul. Once you leave reason behind and accept anything on faith, then anything goes! As Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Smith in 1822, "Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind."
Joseph's fascination with magic rocks doesn't stop with the Book of Mormon. After Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church, in 1836 Joseph had read in the Painesville (Ohio) Telegraph that a treasure lay buried beneath a house in Salem. What do you think happened next? It is obvious to all impartial investigators that at this point Joseph regressed to his money digging ways and unintentionally showed the hoax of his revelations. He actually claimed to receive a revelation from the Lord to go treasure hunting again, which is contained in today’s LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Smith spoke as the Lord and said, “I have much treasure in this city [of Salem] for you…you shall be led, and [it] shall be given you…you shall have power over [the city]…and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours…in the place where [the treasure is] …[it] shall be signalized unto you by the peace and power of my Spirit, that shall flow unto you…there are more treasures than one for you in this city” (D&C 111: 2-4, 8, 11). This theme of seeking treasure is reminiscent of his money digging past isn’t it? As a money digger his seer stone also allegedly “signaled unto him” where buried treasure could be found. Smith did not take power over the city and was not led to gold or silver. Joseph returned from his treasure hunt with nothing but a failed prophecy.
If Joseph Smith was influenced by the pretend powers of seer stones ever since his youth would he go so far as to have God himself use a seer stone just like he did? It appears that Smith could not resist. In superhero comic book fashion Joseph paints his god as a finite exalted-man who gets his super powers from a magic rock the size of a planet that acts like a super-computer or crystal ball giving him infinite knowledge. Smith says in his scripture below:
...we shall see him [god] as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there [in heaven]…In answer to the question—Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside? I answer, Yes. But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it. The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim [seer stone]. This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known…(D&C 130: 1- 10, words in italics and brackets are my own).
One can’t help but see that Smith’s idea of the Godhead became a projection of himself. For just as Smith’s extramarital affairs were projected onto his god, who became an exalted man who needs several concubines to populate the earth (see D&C 132: 63), Smith’s money digging seer stone days is projected onto his deity who becomes a space-man who lives on and operates via a huge planet size magic rock.
For more facts surrounding Joseph Smith, peep stones, and treasure digging derived from 100% church-friendly sources click here.
For additional historical information on Smith’s seer stone see here.
For information on Joseph Smith's personal biography and more information on the Seer Stone here.
For a discussion of whether or not Smith put up a curtain to hide the translation process see here.
And for a historical analysis of the gold plates click here.
For more details from both LDS members and critics see here.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Is This an anti-Mormon Website?
Being called a Mormon is something LDS members usually do not like to be called. In this new century I see the Old Mormon system of belief being changed to the New LDS belief system. Missionaries no longer ask "what do you know about the Mormons" like my parents use to do. Official LDS church publications shy away from the term Mormonism even though it is in the D&C and ironically one of the church websites is http://www.mormon.org/.
This is not an anti-Mormon site. I am pro-Mormon as far as supporting the LDS church's family values, ethical teachings, and philanthropy. Calling me an anti-Mormon for being critical of the claims of the LDS church would be like calling a critic of the claims of Judaism an anti-Semite. Someone can be a critic of a theology but not be anti - "the people of that religious organization." As LDS apologist (Mormon defender) John A. Tvedtnes writes:
A non-Mormon who writes about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not necessarily an anti-Mormon, even if he gets some of his facts wrong. To me, an anti-Mormon is one who deliberately misrepresents the facts about the LDS Church and its scriptures, either by outright falsehood or by faulty logic or by innuendo. While a few amateurs fit this category, many anti-Mormons make a living trying to "expose" Mormonism. Many of them have "ministries" to which Christians are asked to make donations to help stamp out what they represent to be blatant falsehood and chicanery. The irony is that these people typically fit the pattern they claim to be describing (Source: FARMS, 2000. Pp. 427-40).
If any of my facts are wrong I welcome anyone to point them out to me. I am very careful about citing sources and seek honestly to accurately tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don't make a living writing about Mormonism and I am not part of any "ministry" accepting donations. So clearly I am not an anti-Mormon anymore than one could call a Mormon an anti-Baptist. I love Mormons as they are my friends and family. Growing up in the church and serving a mission in Brazil I have a great love for the ethical culture if fosters and the men and women of good character it often produces. As a freethinker I concur with Edward H. Ashment (in his brief essay here) and his reasons why he's not anti-Mormon. Like him I wish to continue to see Mormonism provide a moral foundation for peole. I just oppose the dogmatism that divides people up into True Believers and Apostates.
I have linked to every LDS apologetic website I know of to be fair and balanced. I also list several LDS books for further reading. I consider myself friendly toward the LDS Church. I have many friends and family who are True Believing Mormons (TBM's). One of my motivations for this webpage is that I am concerned about LDS members who do not become educated about the contraversies. It can lead to later shock and dissolusionment as evidenced at http://www.exmormon.org/. LDS members should also look at both sides of the Mormon debate to better understand those family members or friends who go inactive or are no longer Mormon.
I want to unite people through mutual understanding. As LDS author, Steven Covey, says in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, we should "seek first to understand." Only when one trys to understand someone's point of view can real love and understanding take place. The former LDS member understands the devout Mormon point of view, having "been there and done that," so isn't it only fair that the Mormon try to understand the former LDS member?
I know that the LDS member has to choose to look at both sides of their religion, and it is not my place to tell them what to do. Unfortunately, when I was a Mormon I was trained to see anything critical of my religion as "anti-Mormon." This caused me to develop an aversion to other points of view regarding Mormonism; it was as if a subconscious "red flag" would pop up in my head anytime I thought about or read something that wasn't "faith-promoting."
Ask yourself this: "If by any chance the exmormon wasn't wrong - if there were any chance that Joseph Smith wasn't what he claimed to be - and the Mormon Church wasn't what it claimed to be, would you want to know? If there was something you could learn about Mormonism that could change your mind about it, would you want to hear it?" This is obviously a test of open-mindedness. Maybe you're not ready for the so-called "meat," and don't want to know what I know. If so, take the "blue pill" and sign off. But if you're ready to learn more, as Morpheus says in the movie The Matrix, "You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more..."
This is not an anti-Mormon site. I am pro-Mormon as far as supporting the LDS church's family values, ethical teachings, and philanthropy. Calling me an anti-Mormon for being critical of the claims of the LDS church would be like calling a critic of the claims of Judaism an anti-Semite. Someone can be a critic of a theology but not be anti - "the people of that religious organization." As LDS apologist (Mormon defender) John A. Tvedtnes writes:
A non-Mormon who writes about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not necessarily an anti-Mormon, even if he gets some of his facts wrong. To me, an anti-Mormon is one who deliberately misrepresents the facts about the LDS Church and its scriptures, either by outright falsehood or by faulty logic or by innuendo. While a few amateurs fit this category, many anti-Mormons make a living trying to "expose" Mormonism. Many of them have "ministries" to which Christians are asked to make donations to help stamp out what they represent to be blatant falsehood and chicanery. The irony is that these people typically fit the pattern they claim to be describing (Source: FARMS, 2000. Pp. 427-40).
If any of my facts are wrong I welcome anyone to point them out to me. I am very careful about citing sources and seek honestly to accurately tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don't make a living writing about Mormonism and I am not part of any "ministry" accepting donations. So clearly I am not an anti-Mormon anymore than one could call a Mormon an anti-Baptist. I love Mormons as they are my friends and family. Growing up in the church and serving a mission in Brazil I have a great love for the ethical culture if fosters and the men and women of good character it often produces. As a freethinker I concur with Edward H. Ashment (in his brief essay here) and his reasons why he's not anti-Mormon. Like him I wish to continue to see Mormonism provide a moral foundation for peole. I just oppose the dogmatism that divides people up into True Believers and Apostates.
I have linked to every LDS apologetic website I know of to be fair and balanced. I also list several LDS books for further reading. I consider myself friendly toward the LDS Church. I have many friends and family who are True Believing Mormons (TBM's). One of my motivations for this webpage is that I am concerned about LDS members who do not become educated about the contraversies. It can lead to later shock and dissolusionment as evidenced at http://www.exmormon.org/. LDS members should also look at both sides of the Mormon debate to better understand those family members or friends who go inactive or are no longer Mormon.
I want to unite people through mutual understanding. As LDS author, Steven Covey, says in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, we should "seek first to understand." Only when one trys to understand someone's point of view can real love and understanding take place. The former LDS member understands the devout Mormon point of view, having "been there and done that," so isn't it only fair that the Mormon try to understand the former LDS member?
I know that the LDS member has to choose to look at both sides of their religion, and it is not my place to tell them what to do. Unfortunately, when I was a Mormon I was trained to see anything critical of my religion as "anti-Mormon." This caused me to develop an aversion to other points of view regarding Mormonism; it was as if a subconscious "red flag" would pop up in my head anytime I thought about or read something that wasn't "faith-promoting."
Ask yourself this: "If by any chance the exmormon wasn't wrong - if there were any chance that Joseph Smith wasn't what he claimed to be - and the Mormon Church wasn't what it claimed to be, would you want to know? If there was something you could learn about Mormonism that could change your mind about it, would you want to hear it?" This is obviously a test of open-mindedness. Maybe you're not ready for the so-called "meat," and don't want to know what I know. If so, take the "blue pill" and sign off. But if you're ready to learn more, as Morpheus says in the movie The Matrix, "You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more..."
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Topical Guide
Introduction:
> Is this an anti-Mormon website?
> Urim & Thummim or Magic Stone? How Smith claimed to produce the Book of Mormon
> Types of Mormons and Non-Mormons
> How to better communicate with Family and Friends about the problems with Mormonism and your disbelief in Mormon doctrines
> Exmormon musings on a visit to church
> Gay Rights and the Mormon Church
> Is Mitt Romney honest about his religion?
.
> Is this an anti-Mormon website?
> Urim & Thummim or Magic Stone? How Smith claimed to produce the Book of Mormon
> Types of Mormons and Non-Mormons
> How to better communicate with Family and Friends about the problems with Mormonism and your disbelief in Mormon doctrines
> Exmormon musings on a visit to church
> Gay Rights and the Mormon Church
> Is Mitt Romney honest about his religion?
.
Communicating with Family and Friends
John Dehlin has a great video to send family and friends that is completely pro-Mormon while also explaining why many people leave the LDS Church or go inactive here. This is a great place to start, having family and friends watch this video and then having a discussion about it.
I put together the following suggestions for dealing with LDS family and friends and advice on communicating with them, which has helped me over the years.
• Don't try to persuade, instead encourage them to investigate things on their own: When dealing with friends and family remember that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. If they are not willing to drink from the cup of reality walk away from an argument, as your goal should not be to try and convince them yourself but to encourage them to investigate the facts on their own.
Your main goal is to get them to start thinking, reading, and researching on their own. Your objective is to encourage them to stop blindly believing and start critically thinking, and to begin consuming information. Arouse their interest and let them figure it out for themselves. Good questions lead a person to think outside the box. Don’t try and persuade them with some fancy argument in one discussion. Make your goal to get them to become proactive in their own search for truth. Offer them a book to read and go from there. I recommend An Insider's View of Mormon Origins by Grant H. Palmer and/or An Addresss to All Believers in Christ by David Whitmer (that has Whitmer testifying to many problems with Mormonism).
• Show don't tell: you cannot argue with a Mormon as they are trained to avoid argument and to just bear their testimony as I was taught growing up LDS. If you try and argue with an LDS member all you will do is force them to raise their defenses and interpret the tension you may cause as proof that what you are saying is untrue before they even investigate it. So don't tell them, show them some facts! One example I like to do is to show them a replica of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (I bought a replica called Joseph Smith Begins His Work Volume 2). I then use this replica to show them the changes in the revelations, the early document denying polygamy was being practiced when it was, and the early doctrine of the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith, etc. This is tangible evidence they can see for themselves. If you can afford it, you can even give them the replica so they can read it on their own after you leave to avoid them feeling any pressure to respond.
• You should always seek mutual understanding and a win/win outcome. The goal is to help them make a paradigm shift from a subjective to an objective epistemology. You can do this by focusing on your shared reality, joint reasoning abilities, and seeking the truth together.
• Introduce them to Logic 101: encourage them to read a book on logic or study a short list of common fallacies. Perhaps you could hand them a copy of Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit and Good And Bad Reasons For Believing by Richard Dawkins. If they don’t know how to think critically how can they think their way out of religious dogmatism, pseudoscience, and superstition?
• Explain how the appeal to subjective emotions results in what I like to call a testimony stalemate: since one religionist can't disprove the subjective experience of an opposing religionist and vice versa, both testimonies cancel each other out. Furthermore, faith in your Faith makes all Faiths equally valid thus canceling out the objective veracity of all Faith-claims resulting in "epistemological anarchy" (anything goes).
• Use Socratic Dialogue: Socrates attempted to ask a series of questions in a friendly dialogue that encouraged the other person to realize for themselves the truth of reality. Reginald Finley explains that “The Socratic method of argumentation [or dialogue] basically states that we should follow the argument wherever it leads. This method is rather sound in helping raise questions and reveal philosophical contradiction. The purpose, according to Socrates, is not to instruct one’s fellows nor to even persuade them, but to think with them and trust the argument will lead to insight, and in some cases, very unexpected insight. Far too many people argue to convince rather than question themselves on the validity of what they are proclaiming to be true.”
• Suggest having the two of you view yourselves as both being investigators on the same team. Create a harmonious relationship, like jurors on the same court trial, or a group of scholars examining the evidence in an attempt to find a common ground, and/or a consensus for an article to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. You might, for example point out that you both can agree that the chair in front of you has four sturdy legs. You both can see it, test it, and agree on it objectively. You are united by your shared reality. But if one of you says the chair is brown and the other says it is black, or if a song comes on the radio and one of you loves the song and the other hates it, you are then divided over subjective emotions and perceptions.
Before you begin any conversation:
- Be aware of the power of the ego: mention that others have taken your questions too personally, give some examples. Put it out there that egos often get involved in these discussions and it is your goal to minimize ego-conflict that arises from our natural human tendency to be competitive and seek validation. Avoiding ego-conflict can be overcome by remaining calm and compassionate, being respectful, and dialoguing rather than arguing or debating when this often allows our emotions to cloud our ability to reason and remain objective and calm.
- Clarify your motives. The truth will emerge in someone’s mind if its there on its own without our trying to hammer our opinions into them. We should ask ourselves would I rather be right or be happy? Are you arguing your point of view to defend your ego, or are you selflessly sharing information to inspire the person and promote objective verifiable truth for the betterment of all involved? Make sure they understand that your goal is not to persuade but to seek to understand, stimulate thought, and share knowledge. The bottom line is that you will not inspire someone to think free by making them your enemy.
- Ask yourself: is this the proper time and place to be having such a discussion? Sometimes a person is not in the mood, or they are surrounded by friends or family members who might gang up on you like a mob. Timing is everything.
- Consider writing out your journey out of Mormonism, or into doubt, as a personal story in the form of a letter for them to read before the discussion.
Things to do during the conversation:
• Build on common beliefs
• Apply appropriate use of loving touch, humor, and wit to connect with the person and build trust and comfort.
• Show empathy
• Listen – Restate – Identify – Validate: listen without interjecting, restate what they say to show you heard them and understand; identify how they feel to show empathy; validate their emotions as you would like done to you.
• Look for nonverbal cues (any messages that they are uncomfortable).
• Share positive (similar) experiences or feelings
• Ask questions instead of making statements
See the video below on The Strategic Interaction Approach by Cult expert Steven Alan Hassan:
Below is a summary of the lecture by Hassan:
• Do not make your goal getting them to leave the religion. Make them truly feel that your goal is to empower them to think for themselves and thrive as an individual.
• Treat them with respect and build rapport and trust.
• Use other fanatical-religions and cults as examples. Do not directly attack their religious beliefs. Instead, critique a religious idea they have indirectly by bringing up another religion and hopefully they will see the connection that their religion does the same thing.
• Gather information about other cults and share that information.
• Have them watch these videos: The Milgram Experiment, Asch conformity experiment, and The Zimbardo prison study.
• Plant seeds of doubt by asking questions and pausing for them to think about the question, e.g. “so did you ever find out why your friend left the church?” Then pause for a response.
• Ask what would it take to convince them the religion was false? Then use that information to reveal the truth to them.
I put together the following suggestions for dealing with LDS family and friends and advice on communicating with them, which has helped me over the years.
• Don't try to persuade, instead encourage them to investigate things on their own: When dealing with friends and family remember that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. If they are not willing to drink from the cup of reality walk away from an argument, as your goal should not be to try and convince them yourself but to encourage them to investigate the facts on their own.
Your main goal is to get them to start thinking, reading, and researching on their own. Your objective is to encourage them to stop blindly believing and start critically thinking, and to begin consuming information. Arouse their interest and let them figure it out for themselves. Good questions lead a person to think outside the box. Don’t try and persuade them with some fancy argument in one discussion. Make your goal to get them to become proactive in their own search for truth. Offer them a book to read and go from there. I recommend An Insider's View of Mormon Origins by Grant H. Palmer and/or An Addresss to All Believers in Christ by David Whitmer (that has Whitmer testifying to many problems with Mormonism).
• Show don't tell: you cannot argue with a Mormon as they are trained to avoid argument and to just bear their testimony as I was taught growing up LDS. If you try and argue with an LDS member all you will do is force them to raise their defenses and interpret the tension you may cause as proof that what you are saying is untrue before they even investigate it. So don't tell them, show them some facts! One example I like to do is to show them a replica of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (I bought a replica called Joseph Smith Begins His Work Volume 2). I then use this replica to show them the changes in the revelations, the early document denying polygamy was being practiced when it was, and the early doctrine of the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith, etc. This is tangible evidence they can see for themselves. If you can afford it, you can even give them the replica so they can read it on their own after you leave to avoid them feeling any pressure to respond.
• You should always seek mutual understanding and a win/win outcome. The goal is to help them make a paradigm shift from a subjective to an objective epistemology. You can do this by focusing on your shared reality, joint reasoning abilities, and seeking the truth together.
• Introduce them to Logic 101: encourage them to read a book on logic or study a short list of common fallacies. Perhaps you could hand them a copy of Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit and Good And Bad Reasons For Believing by Richard Dawkins. If they don’t know how to think critically how can they think their way out of religious dogmatism, pseudoscience, and superstition?
• Explain how the appeal to subjective emotions results in what I like to call a testimony stalemate: since one religionist can't disprove the subjective experience of an opposing religionist and vice versa, both testimonies cancel each other out. Furthermore, faith in your Faith makes all Faiths equally valid thus canceling out the objective veracity of all Faith-claims resulting in "epistemological anarchy" (anything goes).
• Use Socratic Dialogue: Socrates attempted to ask a series of questions in a friendly dialogue that encouraged the other person to realize for themselves the truth of reality. Reginald Finley explains that “The Socratic method of argumentation [or dialogue] basically states that we should follow the argument wherever it leads. This method is rather sound in helping raise questions and reveal philosophical contradiction. The purpose, according to Socrates, is not to instruct one’s fellows nor to even persuade them, but to think with them and trust the argument will lead to insight, and in some cases, very unexpected insight. Far too many people argue to convince rather than question themselves on the validity of what they are proclaiming to be true.”
• Suggest having the two of you view yourselves as both being investigators on the same team. Create a harmonious relationship, like jurors on the same court trial, or a group of scholars examining the evidence in an attempt to find a common ground, and/or a consensus for an article to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. You might, for example point out that you both can agree that the chair in front of you has four sturdy legs. You both can see it, test it, and agree on it objectively. You are united by your shared reality. But if one of you says the chair is brown and the other says it is black, or if a song comes on the radio and one of you loves the song and the other hates it, you are then divided over subjective emotions and perceptions.
Before you begin any conversation:
- Be aware of the power of the ego: mention that others have taken your questions too personally, give some examples. Put it out there that egos often get involved in these discussions and it is your goal to minimize ego-conflict that arises from our natural human tendency to be competitive and seek validation. Avoiding ego-conflict can be overcome by remaining calm and compassionate, being respectful, and dialoguing rather than arguing or debating when this often allows our emotions to cloud our ability to reason and remain objective and calm.
- Clarify your motives. The truth will emerge in someone’s mind if its there on its own without our trying to hammer our opinions into them. We should ask ourselves would I rather be right or be happy? Are you arguing your point of view to defend your ego, or are you selflessly sharing information to inspire the person and promote objective verifiable truth for the betterment of all involved? Make sure they understand that your goal is not to persuade but to seek to understand, stimulate thought, and share knowledge. The bottom line is that you will not inspire someone to think free by making them your enemy.
- Ask yourself: is this the proper time and place to be having such a discussion? Sometimes a person is not in the mood, or they are surrounded by friends or family members who might gang up on you like a mob. Timing is everything.
- Consider writing out your journey out of Mormonism, or into doubt, as a personal story in the form of a letter for them to read before the discussion.
Things to do during the conversation:
• Build on common beliefs
• Apply appropriate use of loving touch, humor, and wit to connect with the person and build trust and comfort.
• Show empathy
• Listen – Restate – Identify – Validate: listen without interjecting, restate what they say to show you heard them and understand; identify how they feel to show empathy; validate their emotions as you would like done to you.
• Look for nonverbal cues (any messages that they are uncomfortable).
• Share positive (similar) experiences or feelings
• Ask questions instead of making statements
See the video below on The Strategic Interaction Approach by Cult expert Steven Alan Hassan:
Below is a summary of the lecture by Hassan:
• Do not make your goal getting them to leave the religion. Make them truly feel that your goal is to empower them to think for themselves and thrive as an individual.
• Treat them with respect and build rapport and trust.
• Use other fanatical-religions and cults as examples. Do not directly attack their religious beliefs. Instead, critique a religious idea they have indirectly by bringing up another religion and hopefully they will see the connection that their religion does the same thing.
• Gather information about other cults and share that information.
• Have them watch these videos: The Milgram Experiment, Asch conformity experiment, and The Zimbardo prison study.
• Plant seeds of doubt by asking questions and pausing for them to think about the question, e.g. “so did you ever find out why your friend left the church?” Then pause for a response.
• Ask what would it take to convince them the religion was false? Then use that information to reveal the truth to them.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Exmormon musings on a visit to church
When I watched several LDS members dressed up in first century clothing, at a church social, as a reenactment of biblical days it kind of made me realize that beyond just the costumes they were all engaged in the suspension of disbelief; like an audience watching actors in the theater. They were all acting and engaging their imaginations and suspending doubt to keep the whole belief-system going: virgin births, flying messiahs, magic rocks, good ol’ polygamy (etc), all unbelievable from an outsiders perspective. So what drives them?
I have come to realize that ‘heck’ life is tough; life is darn right cruel and indifferent to your needs and desires. Not all of us have the mental muscle and strength and skill to overcome this and rise to heights of excellence. Some of us fall down a lot and like a kid looking for sympathy when he scratches his knee, religion is the ultimate buffer. The church is a safety net, where others living the myth start to live in an alternate universe. They live in a bubble where happy shiny people are trustworthy and nice as long as you live in the same bubble with them and reinforce each other’s fantasies; the bubble is a shield from the big bad world. It is a coping system, comforting like a mother’s breast to a child or a father’s strong arm, an engineered security system. It makes sense to me why even highly intelligent people live in the bubble and why I don’t think less of them when they do, since it is part of human nature to seek comfort and security, especially for one’s children. So this is not to put it down, but to say I understand why so many use it, heck, most who live it downright need it.
All in all I actually enjoyed the get together at the Mormon Church, the warm atmosphere, sense of familiarity, the shiny happy people and the friendliness of everyone was a pleasant experience. At some point however during the social it was mentioned that Jesus was sacrificed for something you and I did before we were born, and we are “sinners.” I don’t get that anymore, a human sacrifice? A god sets up two people with a “magic fruit” like something out of the movie Snow White, a talking snake employed by a god, then the deity ends up sacrificing himself to himself to appease his own frustration with the outcome of his own plan. Why choose to kill himself for what two humans did after he set them up to begin with, and designed the humans to be curious and fallible? Thus he knew they would do what they did after he employs the snake to tempt them?
And what's with the male ‘virgin’ sacrifice, like something out of a book about primitives wearing loin cloths sacrificed female virgins? I have not thought of myself as a sinner for so long, that when I heard us called sinners, I felt like someone just said "you’re tainted, gross, inadequate, a loser, despised." And that is the message, in my opinion, for everything is a sin in religion, think the wrong thing, eat the wrong thing, do something –anything– on the wrong day of the week and it’s a sin punishable by never-ending torment, even having a penis or a vagina is an indictment; and its not just Mormonism. So the system functions based on a put down system and rebuilding process: you’re broken-we can fix you, you’re lost-we can help you find the path, you’re a filthy sinner-we can clean you up. Without the first premise, that you’re impure (being human is evil, the natural man is an enemy to god etc.) and you need their cleaning product (membership in the institution) the system doesn’t have a leg to stand on. As Dan Barker argues, if someone cut you and then offered you a Band-Aid would you be thankful?
The experience did make me honestly miss the social environment of a church, any church or social group like it, for we are social animals (mammals to be exact) and whether we get that at a church or a secular group, or from our own family at baseball games and PTA meetings, it is important. At the same time it actually reminded me how free I am beyond the mental shackles of religious put downs. I didn’t realize before just how positive my self-image has become since leaving religiosity behind. I am not sinful or depraved, nor an enemy to an imaginary sky guy. If there is a deity it must be pleased with those of us who choose to use our brains rather than act like sheep since he allowed our species to develop the intelligent brains we have.
There are no demons lifting my penis up when I become aroused and I don’t believe some deity is pissed off when I eat out on Sunday because his “all-powerfulness” needed to “rest” from being all-powerful on the seventh day, and now wants us to waste 24 hours feeling pompous and pious all day. I am a normal, ethical human being with natural instincts and a good character. So they can keep the syringe full of dogma they wish to inject you with that poisons one’s self-esteem with self-doubt and self-deprecation before handing you the cure in the form of a pill of conformity and blind-faith. I’m not sick from lack of metaphysical absolutism so they can keep their placebo cure when I have science, reason, and self respect.
I didn’t realize how free I’ve been having been emancipated from the burden of trying to believe in unjustifiable dogmatic assertions and how much I both sympathize with and pity the credulous; and in the same vein I envy them for the fantasias utopia they build for themselves by shutting down their brain and turning up the volume of their heart and operating solely on emotion and sentimentality; then again, I worry that those who do decide to think outside the bubble will suffer mental conflict, and those who shut down their brain miss out on so many new and wonderful forms of knowledge.
As for me, to live in the land of Oz I would have to literally check my brain at the door of the church. Once you’ve peered behind the curtain reality becomes a part of you that can’t be ignored without a load of denial and intellectual dishonesty. As I like to say, Ignorance isn’t bliss but slavery to denial. Over time the bitter facts of reality, like seeds, give rise to the sweet triumph of reason and scientific advancement which has the capacity to unite humanity. The bliss of discovery becomes contagious as we walk into the mystery of Being with courage and integrity, conquering new frontiers with the scientific spirit of Einstein and so many others.
I have come to realize that ‘heck’ life is tough; life is darn right cruel and indifferent to your needs and desires. Not all of us have the mental muscle and strength and skill to overcome this and rise to heights of excellence. Some of us fall down a lot and like a kid looking for sympathy when he scratches his knee, religion is the ultimate buffer. The church is a safety net, where others living the myth start to live in an alternate universe. They live in a bubble where happy shiny people are trustworthy and nice as long as you live in the same bubble with them and reinforce each other’s fantasies; the bubble is a shield from the big bad world. It is a coping system, comforting like a mother’s breast to a child or a father’s strong arm, an engineered security system. It makes sense to me why even highly intelligent people live in the bubble and why I don’t think less of them when they do, since it is part of human nature to seek comfort and security, especially for one’s children. So this is not to put it down, but to say I understand why so many use it, heck, most who live it downright need it.
All in all I actually enjoyed the get together at the Mormon Church, the warm atmosphere, sense of familiarity, the shiny happy people and the friendliness of everyone was a pleasant experience. At some point however during the social it was mentioned that Jesus was sacrificed for something you and I did before we were born, and we are “sinners.” I don’t get that anymore, a human sacrifice? A god sets up two people with a “magic fruit” like something out of the movie Snow White, a talking snake employed by a god, then the deity ends up sacrificing himself to himself to appease his own frustration with the outcome of his own plan. Why choose to kill himself for what two humans did after he set them up to begin with, and designed the humans to be curious and fallible? Thus he knew they would do what they did after he employs the snake to tempt them?
And what's with the male ‘virgin’ sacrifice, like something out of a book about primitives wearing loin cloths sacrificed female virgins? I have not thought of myself as a sinner for so long, that when I heard us called sinners, I felt like someone just said "you’re tainted, gross, inadequate, a loser, despised." And that is the message, in my opinion, for everything is a sin in religion, think the wrong thing, eat the wrong thing, do something –anything– on the wrong day of the week and it’s a sin punishable by never-ending torment, even having a penis or a vagina is an indictment; and its not just Mormonism. So the system functions based on a put down system and rebuilding process: you’re broken-we can fix you, you’re lost-we can help you find the path, you’re a filthy sinner-we can clean you up. Without the first premise, that you’re impure (being human is evil, the natural man is an enemy to god etc.) and you need their cleaning product (membership in the institution) the system doesn’t have a leg to stand on. As Dan Barker argues, if someone cut you and then offered you a Band-Aid would you be thankful?
The experience did make me honestly miss the social environment of a church, any church or social group like it, for we are social animals (mammals to be exact) and whether we get that at a church or a secular group, or from our own family at baseball games and PTA meetings, it is important. At the same time it actually reminded me how free I am beyond the mental shackles of religious put downs. I didn’t realize before just how positive my self-image has become since leaving religiosity behind. I am not sinful or depraved, nor an enemy to an imaginary sky guy. If there is a deity it must be pleased with those of us who choose to use our brains rather than act like sheep since he allowed our species to develop the intelligent brains we have.
There are no demons lifting my penis up when I become aroused and I don’t believe some deity is pissed off when I eat out on Sunday because his “all-powerfulness” needed to “rest” from being all-powerful on the seventh day, and now wants us to waste 24 hours feeling pompous and pious all day. I am a normal, ethical human being with natural instincts and a good character. So they can keep the syringe full of dogma they wish to inject you with that poisons one’s self-esteem with self-doubt and self-deprecation before handing you the cure in the form of a pill of conformity and blind-faith. I’m not sick from lack of metaphysical absolutism so they can keep their placebo cure when I have science, reason, and self respect.
I didn’t realize how free I’ve been having been emancipated from the burden of trying to believe in unjustifiable dogmatic assertions and how much I both sympathize with and pity the credulous; and in the same vein I envy them for the fantasias utopia they build for themselves by shutting down their brain and turning up the volume of their heart and operating solely on emotion and sentimentality; then again, I worry that those who do decide to think outside the bubble will suffer mental conflict, and those who shut down their brain miss out on so many new and wonderful forms of knowledge.
As for me, to live in the land of Oz I would have to literally check my brain at the door of the church. Once you’ve peered behind the curtain reality becomes a part of you that can’t be ignored without a load of denial and intellectual dishonesty. As I like to say, Ignorance isn’t bliss but slavery to denial. Over time the bitter facts of reality, like seeds, give rise to the sweet triumph of reason and scientific advancement which has the capacity to unite humanity. The bliss of discovery becomes contagious as we walk into the mystery of Being with courage and integrity, conquering new frontiers with the scientific spirit of Einstein and so many others.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Gay Rights and the Mormon Church
Up until recently the LDS church encouraged gays to marry and withhold their inclinations from their spouse. This has led to damaged relationships and failed LDS families. As a heterosexual male I think gays should not be told to have relationships with heterosexuals in order to go to heaven. That is horrible and unethical causing harm to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
I always ask Mormons who have a sister or daughter if they would want a guy who is attracted to the same sex to date their sister or daughter; knowing he could one day “come out of the closet” and pursue a different lifestyle after their sister or daughter is invested in the marriage and kids are involved? The answer is always the same, “no,” and yet these same Mormons are more than willing to say gay men should marry other people’s sisters and daughters regardless of their sexual urges because their god said so.
Why can’t LDS folks who oppose gay rights see that if gays were allowed to marry not only would there probably be less promiscuity in the gay community (as marriage is usually a monogamous institution) and less spreading of STDs -- which also indirectly affects the heterosexual community -- but it would also allow gays to feel more socially accepted and normal; thus cause them to probably be less likely to pretend to be straight and date and marry straight men and women when they’d prefer to be with their same gender.
In this video, former LDS prophet, Mr. Hinkley says "these people" (gays and lesbians) have a "problem," what problem? The Mormon Church used to teach that being gay was a choice with no biological basis. But after finally realizing (or acknowledging) that there are biological explanations they changed their minds, like the following from Psychology Today :
"A [new] study points to a possible biological basis for gaydar. When gay and straight men and women sniff the underarm odors of others—unsullied by deodorants or perfumes—gay men strongly prefer the smell of other gay men, according to researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. Lesbians, as well as straight men and women, find the scents of gay men least appealing" (Psychology Today Magazine, Nov/Dec 2005).
After years of encouraging gays and lesbians to marry since their being gay was said to be a choice that can be overcome by "faith" and "prayer." Now the LDS church's position on the issue of homosexuality is that gays "have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71), and the chuch now says in the October 2007, Ensign: "Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. ... attempts [to do so] have resulted in broken hearts and broken homes." Yet, in the video Hinkley is ready to fix their alleged "problem," at the same time admitting he is not an expert on the subject. One wonders if Hinkley would have wished to also fix the so-called problem of homosexuality in the animal kingdom that is quite common and widespread:
In the February 5, 2007 issue of Time magazine, pg. 54, in the article In defense of Rams who love Rams, we learn that "male sheep exhibit homosexuality at least as often as humans: roughly 8% of rams turn out to have sex exclusively with other rams" and "gay rams have different brain structures from heterosexual ones." Why didn't Hinkley spend his time condemning non-human homosexuality as well? Why not call it a problem? Why isn't the Mormon Church trying to help those animals with same-sex attraction? Usually most humble and sane people aren't so outspoken about that which they know next to nothing about.
Let's get this straight (no pun intended), according to the Mormon Church today, gays are gay by way of natural inclinations given them, I presume, by the Mormon deity. They are not to feel pressured anymore (like they used to in the church) to marry and act heterosexual. So how exactly does the church plan on "fixing" their problem if the Mormon gods made gays with inclinations that run so deep? When the highest rates of teen suicide are among gay males shouldn't a group of elderly white men in Mormon leadership roles in Utah, claimnig to be the mouthpiece of god, be just a little more humble and reserved about trying to fix their "problem" when they are not experts and their own teachings in the Ensign imply gays are made that way! Where is their sense of compassion, how many more people will be emotionally damaged or take their lives in Utah and elsewhere over rigid dogmas manufactured by nonexperts claiming to know the mind of God!
The alternative Mormon leaders offer to being true to your nature if you're gay is to ignore your nature, and be celibate your whole life. This coming from a religion whose founder, Joseph Smtih, had over thirty wives some being teenagers and other men's wives! It amazes me how an organization like the LDS church, with such a huge track record of being wrong over and over again on issues like this, can speak so confidently about this doctrine of bigotry.
The Mormon Church used to preach that blacks were inferior spirits in the pre-existence, (in a spirit world before earth life) and that is why they were born with a cursed dark skin and were ineligible to receive the priesthood, or marry in one of the LDS temples until 1978.
The LDS church used to teach that polygamy is a moral practice until the government threatened them and suddenly a “revelation” was recieved ordering the stopping of the practice, but the doctrine has remained the same (see LDS scripture called The Doctrine and Covenants section 132).
American Indians have long been thought of as Jews with cursed dark skin. There was even a Mormon system set up to take in American Indian children and raise them LDS in order to undo the curse of dark skin and change them into white, fair, and delightsome Mormons (see my essay here). Then the DNA evidence came out and now the church is changing their doctrine on the American Inidans from declaring all of them Israelites to we don't know where the Lamanties (Jews cursed by god with dark skin) went; they just disappeared apparently.
Now, after once accusing gays of making an immoral choice to be gay, and even subjecting them to electro shock therapy in the past at BYU, the church is finally listening to the experts and admitting it is not a mere choice, but still insists it is immoral to practice homosexuality.
Over the years thousands of families have been destroyed because of the church pressuring homosexual members of the LDS church to marry someone of the opposite sex, telling them if they pretended to be heterosexual their natural instincts would disappear over time. Now the church realizes that has resulted in, as they put it, "broken hearts and broken homes." So their solution now is for homosexual members of the church to deny their inclinations and be celibate or risk ecclesiastical punishment and banishment from the community. They are saying, "The Mormon god may have made you gay but he hates homosexual practices nonetheless," go figure. This is ironic since the Mormon Church has long criticized the Catholic Church's promotion of celibacy as an unnatural state of being. You would think that the Mormon leadership would be sympathetic to an alternative lifestyle like homosexuality since their ancestors were discriminated against for practicing polygamy, but as usual in religious circles, dogma trumps empathy.
Apparently, just like the government outlawing polygamy led to a policy change, the failure of American Inidans to change their skin color after becoming Mormon, and the civil rights movement influencing a revelation to give blacks the priesthood, enough families were destroyed before the leaders of the church changed their tune once again. If this is not proof that Mormonism is man-made I don't know what else could possibly pass for better evidence than this.
The Mormon leader's latest answer to the gay question then? They are simply saying to gay members of the church, "Ok, fine, we were wrong, you didn’t choose to be gay, and we (being seers and revelators) don’t know why you are that way, but don’t be that way anyway. We have to say our god loves you otherwise we look like total ignorant bigots and hate mongers, but we have to retain our high and mighty morality based on hetersexual prejudice, so we must say our god hates the inclinations he gave you. So don’t marry a member of the opposite sex if you don’t think you can be happy, but don’t fall in love with a member of the same sex either, happiness is not an option for you, so just be celibate or you’ll go to hell!" But hey, wait, isn’t that the punishment for those who reject Mormonism in D&C 132: 15-20, eternal celibacy for the damned? So by telling gays to be celibate isn't the Mormon Church telling gays to go to hell? Wow, and one wonders why the sucide rate in Utah is so high!
Update: After writing the above, in 2008 the Mormon Church encouraged its membership to spend millions of dollars to take away gay people's right to marry. Up to 40% (some say more) of the money that went to the yes on 8 campaign came from the members of the Mormon Church as directed by Mormon leadership. See mormonsstoleourrights.com. This website explains how the Mormon Church funded a campaign of lies in order to scare people to vote yes on prop 8.
In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Mormons claimed that plural marriage was not being practiced by the church and such a practice was wrong. This was official LDS scripture at a time when in fact the LDS church was practicing polygamy in secret. Point is that the Mormon Church has a history of liying to the American public. The Mormon Church not only denied blacks the position of leadership in their church and banned them from their temple endowment rooms, Mormon leaders preached against interracial marriage, and opposed the civil rights movement! Then McConkie comes out after 1978 and says everything the Mormon leaders said was wrong, that new light has come to them. You would think that an organization with such a racist discriminatory past would be careful about who they discriminate against now! But not when bigotry and dogma governs your thinking process.
How do we know that soon "new light" won't one day come to the Mormon leaders like it did in 1978 and they might change their minds about gays like they did with blacks and interracial marriage? If so, why should the Mormon be discriminatory now? Or maybe the church will soon be fighting to take away the rights of couples to marry who are not of the same religion? Maybe one day the Mormon Church will take literally and promote 2 Corinthians 6: 14-17 and interpret that as forbidding atheists, deists, and agnostics (and any other nonreligious person) from marrying a theist! After all, it makes as much sense as trying to forbid gays from marrying.
Suggested Viewing:
For The Bible Tells Me So (on Netflix, about the film).
I always ask Mormons who have a sister or daughter if they would want a guy who is attracted to the same sex to date their sister or daughter; knowing he could one day “come out of the closet” and pursue a different lifestyle after their sister or daughter is invested in the marriage and kids are involved? The answer is always the same, “no,” and yet these same Mormons are more than willing to say gay men should marry other people’s sisters and daughters regardless of their sexual urges because their god said so.
Why can’t LDS folks who oppose gay rights see that if gays were allowed to marry not only would there probably be less promiscuity in the gay community (as marriage is usually a monogamous institution) and less spreading of STDs -- which also indirectly affects the heterosexual community -- but it would also allow gays to feel more socially accepted and normal; thus cause them to probably be less likely to pretend to be straight and date and marry straight men and women when they’d prefer to be with their same gender.
In this video, former LDS prophet, Mr. Hinkley says "these people" (gays and lesbians) have a "problem," what problem? The Mormon Church used to teach that being gay was a choice with no biological basis. But after finally realizing (or acknowledging) that there are biological explanations they changed their minds, like the following from Psychology Today :
"A [new] study points to a possible biological basis for gaydar. When gay and straight men and women sniff the underarm odors of others—unsullied by deodorants or perfumes—gay men strongly prefer the smell of other gay men, according to researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. Lesbians, as well as straight men and women, find the scents of gay men least appealing" (Psychology Today Magazine, Nov/Dec 2005).
After years of encouraging gays and lesbians to marry since their being gay was said to be a choice that can be overcome by "faith" and "prayer." Now the LDS church's position on the issue of homosexuality is that gays "have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71), and the chuch now says in the October 2007, Ensign: "Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. ... attempts [to do so] have resulted in broken hearts and broken homes." Yet, in the video Hinkley is ready to fix their alleged "problem," at the same time admitting he is not an expert on the subject. One wonders if Hinkley would have wished to also fix the so-called problem of homosexuality in the animal kingdom that is quite common and widespread:
In the February 5, 2007 issue of Time magazine, pg. 54, in the article In defense of Rams who love Rams, we learn that "male sheep exhibit homosexuality at least as often as humans: roughly 8% of rams turn out to have sex exclusively with other rams" and "gay rams have different brain structures from heterosexual ones." Why didn't Hinkley spend his time condemning non-human homosexuality as well? Why not call it a problem? Why isn't the Mormon Church trying to help those animals with same-sex attraction? Usually most humble and sane people aren't so outspoken about that which they know next to nothing about.
Let's get this straight (no pun intended), according to the Mormon Church today, gays are gay by way of natural inclinations given them, I presume, by the Mormon deity. They are not to feel pressured anymore (like they used to in the church) to marry and act heterosexual. So how exactly does the church plan on "fixing" their problem if the Mormon gods made gays with inclinations that run so deep? When the highest rates of teen suicide are among gay males shouldn't a group of elderly white men in Mormon leadership roles in Utah, claimnig to be the mouthpiece of god, be just a little more humble and reserved about trying to fix their "problem" when they are not experts and their own teachings in the Ensign imply gays are made that way! Where is their sense of compassion, how many more people will be emotionally damaged or take their lives in Utah and elsewhere over rigid dogmas manufactured by nonexperts claiming to know the mind of God!
The alternative Mormon leaders offer to being true to your nature if you're gay is to ignore your nature, and be celibate your whole life. This coming from a religion whose founder, Joseph Smtih, had over thirty wives some being teenagers and other men's wives! It amazes me how an organization like the LDS church, with such a huge track record of being wrong over and over again on issues like this, can speak so confidently about this doctrine of bigotry.
The Mormon Church used to preach that blacks were inferior spirits in the pre-existence, (in a spirit world before earth life) and that is why they were born with a cursed dark skin and were ineligible to receive the priesthood, or marry in one of the LDS temples until 1978.
The LDS church used to teach that polygamy is a moral practice until the government threatened them and suddenly a “revelation” was recieved ordering the stopping of the practice, but the doctrine has remained the same (see LDS scripture called The Doctrine and Covenants section 132).
American Indians have long been thought of as Jews with cursed dark skin. There was even a Mormon system set up to take in American Indian children and raise them LDS in order to undo the curse of dark skin and change them into white, fair, and delightsome Mormons (see my essay here). Then the DNA evidence came out and now the church is changing their doctrine on the American Inidans from declaring all of them Israelites to we don't know where the Lamanties (Jews cursed by god with dark skin) went; they just disappeared apparently.
Now, after once accusing gays of making an immoral choice to be gay, and even subjecting them to electro shock therapy in the past at BYU, the church is finally listening to the experts and admitting it is not a mere choice, but still insists it is immoral to practice homosexuality.
Over the years thousands of families have been destroyed because of the church pressuring homosexual members of the LDS church to marry someone of the opposite sex, telling them if they pretended to be heterosexual their natural instincts would disappear over time. Now the church realizes that has resulted in, as they put it, "broken hearts and broken homes." So their solution now is for homosexual members of the church to deny their inclinations and be celibate or risk ecclesiastical punishment and banishment from the community. They are saying, "The Mormon god may have made you gay but he hates homosexual practices nonetheless," go figure. This is ironic since the Mormon Church has long criticized the Catholic Church's promotion of celibacy as an unnatural state of being. You would think that the Mormon leadership would be sympathetic to an alternative lifestyle like homosexuality since their ancestors were discriminated against for practicing polygamy, but as usual in religious circles, dogma trumps empathy.
Apparently, just like the government outlawing polygamy led to a policy change, the failure of American Inidans to change their skin color after becoming Mormon, and the civil rights movement influencing a revelation to give blacks the priesthood, enough families were destroyed before the leaders of the church changed their tune once again. If this is not proof that Mormonism is man-made I don't know what else could possibly pass for better evidence than this.
The Mormon leader's latest answer to the gay question then? They are simply saying to gay members of the church, "Ok, fine, we were wrong, you didn’t choose to be gay, and we (being seers and revelators) don’t know why you are that way, but don’t be that way anyway. We have to say our god loves you otherwise we look like total ignorant bigots and hate mongers, but we have to retain our high and mighty morality based on hetersexual prejudice, so we must say our god hates the inclinations he gave you. So don’t marry a member of the opposite sex if you don’t think you can be happy, but don’t fall in love with a member of the same sex either, happiness is not an option for you, so just be celibate or you’ll go to hell!" But hey, wait, isn’t that the punishment for those who reject Mormonism in D&C 132: 15-20, eternal celibacy for the damned? So by telling gays to be celibate isn't the Mormon Church telling gays to go to hell? Wow, and one wonders why the sucide rate in Utah is so high!
Update: After writing the above, in 2008 the Mormon Church encouraged its membership to spend millions of dollars to take away gay people's right to marry. Up to 40% (some say more) of the money that went to the yes on 8 campaign came from the members of the Mormon Church as directed by Mormon leadership. See mormonsstoleourrights.com. This website explains how the Mormon Church funded a campaign of lies in order to scare people to vote yes on prop 8.
In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Mormons claimed that plural marriage was not being practiced by the church and such a practice was wrong. This was official LDS scripture at a time when in fact the LDS church was practicing polygamy in secret. Point is that the Mormon Church has a history of liying to the American public. The Mormon Church not only denied blacks the position of leadership in their church and banned them from their temple endowment rooms, Mormon leaders preached against interracial marriage, and opposed the civil rights movement! Then McConkie comes out after 1978 and says everything the Mormon leaders said was wrong, that new light has come to them. You would think that an organization with such a racist discriminatory past would be careful about who they discriminate against now! But not when bigotry and dogma governs your thinking process.
How do we know that soon "new light" won't one day come to the Mormon leaders like it did in 1978 and they might change their minds about gays like they did with blacks and interracial marriage? If so, why should the Mormon be discriminatory now? Or maybe the church will soon be fighting to take away the rights of couples to marry who are not of the same religion? Maybe one day the Mormon Church will take literally and promote 2 Corinthians 6: 14-17 and interpret that as forbidding atheists, deists, and agnostics (and any other nonreligious person) from marrying a theist! After all, it makes as much sense as trying to forbid gays from marrying.
Suggested Viewing:
For The Bible Tells Me So (on Netflix, about the film).
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Is Mitt Romney honest about his religion?
Mitt Romney recently said, "I must admit I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy" (Source: Mitt Romney, Mormon presidential candidate for the Republican party, Time magazine, page 20, May 18, 2007. Watch a short video clip here. Watch a longer video clip here.
Mormon scripture states in the Doctrine and Covenants section 132: "I [the Mormon Jesus] reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant [of plural marriage, i.e. polygamy]; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory" (vs. 4) … "They [virgin girls given as polygamous wives to the male] are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, … and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified" (vs. 63).
As this last verse explains, polygamy is a divine practice in heaven, and yet Romney considers what "his Lord" demands as "awful." Does he think he will spend eternity in an awful state of existence as a god practicing polygamy? If so, would he want to go to the highest degree of glory in the Mormon heaven where polygamy is a necessary practice? Does he really feel that way, or is he trying to appeal to the American public as someone who won't legalize polygamy if he were president?
More than that Christopher Hitchens makes several good points, one being that Romney should account for being a member of the LDS church when it held racist policies before 1978 (see video below):
Then there is the problem that Mormonism is not like other mainstream religions. For example, in a secret Mormon temple rite Romney has done the following. In a group of fellow Mormons in a private theater-like room Romney stood during his first visit to the temple (and does so every subsequent visit) and did the following:
[a Mormon director said,] "All arise. (All patrons stand [including Romney].) Each of you bring your right arm to the square."
"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in this, (The Officiator holds up a copy of the [Mormon] Doctrine and Covenants again.), the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth [Mormonism] and for the establishment of Zion [the future Mormon Kingdom]."
"Each of you bow your head and say 'yes."
PATRONS [including Romney]: "Yes."
[Officator]: "That will do." (All patrons sit down.)
Source. For more information on the LDS temple ceremony and actual audio see www.lds-temple.org.
I will leave it to my reader to put two and two together here linking Romney's swearing cult-like allegiance to building up Mormonism with ALL his time, talent, and earthly blessings and what that would mean if he were to become U.S. President.
On the Charlie Rose show Romney is confronted with the Mormon doctrine that Jesus will return to Missouri and his God was fathered by another God; to watch the entire interview click here. After calling a core Mormon doctrine (polygamy) awful in front of Mike Wallace Romney said to the interviewer on the Charlie Rose show that she didn't get those doctrines right when she said his god has a material body; but his own scripture states that "God has a body of flesh and bone" (D&C 130: 22). Every Mormon knows this! And if one studies the Mormon scriptures (the Doctrine and Covenants) they will learn that Missouri is in fact exactly where Jesus will allegedly return to earth, see here for evidence.
Romney was a high up leader in the LDS church, so there's no way he didn't know this. It would be like an interviewer saying to Billy Graham, "don't you believe Jesus rose from the dead and also believe in one God," and Graham saying to the interviewer that they didn't get those doctrines right.
In the video clip here, put together by some Evangelical Christians, they demonstrate that when Romney says the interviewer didn't get the doctrine right, she in fact did get it right and they spend over a half hour showing that is exactly what Mormon doctrine says.
Ok, maybe I'm being too harsh on Romney and being to nit picky? Maybe he misunderstood the questions. But if that were the case why do we have him in this clip here stating again that Mormons believe that Jesus will return to Jerusalem rather than Missouri when that clearly isn't the case!?
Look, what we have here is a clear pattern of deception. He is more than just dodging the questions, that I could accept as most politicians do this. But to deny and lie about what you know to be true is unethical. Perhaps he is embarrassed by Mormon doctrines, or he thinks he will lose votes if he is honest and forthcoming, which I can understand. But if he really believes Mormonism is true then he believes that it is the "spirit" that will convict of its truthfulness. Therefore, he should be honest and forthcoming unafraid of losing votes for he, as a Mormon, should believe the spirit will witness to the public that God is an exalted man fathered by another God, Jesus is going to fly down from the sky and land in Missouri rather than Jerusalem, and polygamy is an eternal doctrine.
So why isn't Romney honest and forthcoming about his beliefs? Perhaps Romney has been taking lessons from this guy.
Let me make one thing clear, I am not anti-Mormon; some of my friends and family are Mormon. This is about telling the truth. I am a former Mormon missionary so I know the tactics the church uses to withhold information and not offer full-disclosure. I am not protesting a Mormon candidate for president, I am protesting deception and hiding the truth. Look at Bush, I don't agree with his religious views and yet he has at least been very forthcoming about his beliefs, so why isn't Romney?
For more videos on Romney see here. If you would like to learn more about Mormonism see my website here.
Mormon scripture states in the Doctrine and Covenants section 132: "I [the Mormon Jesus] reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant [of plural marriage, i.e. polygamy]; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory" (vs. 4) … "They [virgin girls given as polygamous wives to the male] are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, … and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified" (vs. 63).
As this last verse explains, polygamy is a divine practice in heaven, and yet Romney considers what "his Lord" demands as "awful." Does he think he will spend eternity in an awful state of existence as a god practicing polygamy? If so, would he want to go to the highest degree of glory in the Mormon heaven where polygamy is a necessary practice? Does he really feel that way, or is he trying to appeal to the American public as someone who won't legalize polygamy if he were president?
More than that Christopher Hitchens makes several good points, one being that Romney should account for being a member of the LDS church when it held racist policies before 1978 (see video below):
Then there is the problem that Mormonism is not like other mainstream religions. For example, in a secret Mormon temple rite Romney has done the following. In a group of fellow Mormons in a private theater-like room Romney stood during his first visit to the temple (and does so every subsequent visit) and did the following:
[a Mormon director said,] "All arise. (All patrons stand [including Romney].) Each of you bring your right arm to the square."
"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in this, (The Officiator holds up a copy of the [Mormon] Doctrine and Covenants again.), the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth [Mormonism] and for the establishment of Zion [the future Mormon Kingdom]."
"Each of you bow your head and say 'yes."
PATRONS [including Romney]: "Yes."
[Officator]: "That will do." (All patrons sit down.)
Source. For more information on the LDS temple ceremony and actual audio see www.lds-temple.org.
I will leave it to my reader to put two and two together here linking Romney's swearing cult-like allegiance to building up Mormonism with ALL his time, talent, and earthly blessings and what that would mean if he were to become U.S. President.
On the Charlie Rose show Romney is confronted with the Mormon doctrine that Jesus will return to Missouri and his God was fathered by another God; to watch the entire interview click here. After calling a core Mormon doctrine (polygamy) awful in front of Mike Wallace Romney said to the interviewer on the Charlie Rose show that she didn't get those doctrines right when she said his god has a material body; but his own scripture states that "God has a body of flesh and bone" (D&C 130: 22). Every Mormon knows this! And if one studies the Mormon scriptures (the Doctrine and Covenants) they will learn that Missouri is in fact exactly where Jesus will allegedly return to earth, see here for evidence.
Romney was a high up leader in the LDS church, so there's no way he didn't know this. It would be like an interviewer saying to Billy Graham, "don't you believe Jesus rose from the dead and also believe in one God," and Graham saying to the interviewer that they didn't get those doctrines right.
In the video clip here, put together by some Evangelical Christians, they demonstrate that when Romney says the interviewer didn't get the doctrine right, she in fact did get it right and they spend over a half hour showing that is exactly what Mormon doctrine says.
Ok, maybe I'm being too harsh on Romney and being to nit picky? Maybe he misunderstood the questions. But if that were the case why do we have him in this clip here stating again that Mormons believe that Jesus will return to Jerusalem rather than Missouri when that clearly isn't the case!?
Look, what we have here is a clear pattern of deception. He is more than just dodging the questions, that I could accept as most politicians do this. But to deny and lie about what you know to be true is unethical. Perhaps he is embarrassed by Mormon doctrines, or he thinks he will lose votes if he is honest and forthcoming, which I can understand. But if he really believes Mormonism is true then he believes that it is the "spirit" that will convict of its truthfulness. Therefore, he should be honest and forthcoming unafraid of losing votes for he, as a Mormon, should believe the spirit will witness to the public that God is an exalted man fathered by another God, Jesus is going to fly down from the sky and land in Missouri rather than Jerusalem, and polygamy is an eternal doctrine.
So why isn't Romney honest and forthcoming about his beliefs? Perhaps Romney has been taking lessons from this guy.
Let me make one thing clear, I am not anti-Mormon; some of my friends and family are Mormon. This is about telling the truth. I am a former Mormon missionary so I know the tactics the church uses to withhold information and not offer full-disclosure. I am not protesting a Mormon candidate for president, I am protesting deception and hiding the truth. Look at Bush, I don't agree with his religious views and yet he has at least been very forthcoming about his beliefs, so why isn't Romney?
For more videos on Romney see here. If you would like to learn more about Mormonism see my website here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
