Mormon Stories # 030, 031, 032 and 033: An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins — An Interview with Grant Palmer
In this episode of Mormon Stories, we interview Grant Palmer–author of the book entitled “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.”
Grant (M.A., American history, Brigham Young University) is a three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, a former instructor at the Church College of New Zealand, and an LDS seminary teacher at two Utah locations.
- In episode 1, Grant talks about his childhood (growing up in Salt Lake City), his mission experience in Virginia, and his early years with the Church Education System. To listen directly, click here.
- In episode 2, Grant talks about his move with CES from California to Salt Lake City, how the Mark Hofman bombings affected him and his colleagues, and his subsequent deep dive into LDS History. Grant also discusses his arrival at the decision to write his book–An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins. To listen directly, click here.
- In episode 3, Grant takes us through a deep dive into his 1st book–An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins. During this episode we cover Joseph Smith’s treasure seeking and usage of peep stones, the actual mechanics of the Book of Mormon translation process, the recorded accounts of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, the multiple versions of Joseph Smith’s First Vision story, and the evolution of the LDS Priesthood accounts over time. To listen directly, click here.
- In episode 4, Grant discusses the early reactions to his book, his trial with the LDS Church for apostacy (which ultimately led to disfellowship), his thoughts about how the LDS Church might constructively deal with these tough historical issues, and his testimony of how focusing on Christ could benefit all sides of these issues. To listen directly, click here.
In all my efforts to be a faithful Latter Day Saint, I nearly lost my life at my own hand. I trusted that what I was told was true and somehow I just came up short as a less righteous spirit. The Church of Joseph Smith of Latter Day Saints has many good teachings worthy of following but for those who find themselves with temptations and trials beyond that which a “more righteous” follower can comprehend, it is deadly…….
Dehlin,
Thank you! Your efforts continue to amaze me. A true “savior on Mount Zion”.
Thank you for offering such a wonderful insight into the truth behind the origins of Mormonism. I have left the church over these issues as I could no longer reconcile my faith with the half truths told me. I mourn this loss, however I know it was the right choice. Unfortunately, I don’t share Mr. Palmer’s opptimism for a change in the church. As was mentioned, the RLDS church crumbled, and that I feel will ultimately be the fate the of the LDS church if they come clean on their history as well. I wish with all my heart that the church had been what it claimed, but in the end I still have Christ and for that I am grateful to the church and a good mother.
Free speech is something that makes a democracy great. Grant was treated poorly because he said what he felt. In my relationship with my family, I always wish that I could be as honest as Grant. But that’s something that is unlikely to happen. It would hurt our relationship due to their orthodox views.
Isn’t it ironic that for a church that likes to throw around the words truth and true like they are going out of style, the people that they choose to battle against the most are those who speak truth. What fools the LDS was for holding a galeleo trial.
I enjoy my membership in the church and being a mormon. But it is hard to deal with the hypocracy and hatred. That’s why I can’t attend often anymore.
I think Grant is right, if the leadership and membership decide to change and become more honest about their history they should do so slowly and quietly so that it is not too hard on the members.
You are doing a great service John by providing a forum for people to discuss this openly. I wish there could be an open forum for discussion at church, but I can certainly understand why that won’t happen.
There’s a really good thread dealing with this issue….over on By Common Consent.
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/speaking-truth-to-power/
Check it out if you feel like it….
Hey…for those of you who are interested, I’d love to see you join a thread over at FAIR on Palmer and this podcast. http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=15344&st=0
I feel like, as usual, they’re attacking Palmer, and not dealing with the origins, and the disparity between the facts/history, and the church’s correlated version.
“Isn’t it ironic that for a church that likes to throw around the words truth and true like they are going out of style, the people that they choose to battle against the most are those who speak truth. What fools the LDS was for holding a galeleo trial.”
You’re right. Members and leaders do that all the time.
But the gospel doesn’t teach that.
I’m not surprised that most members don’t really grasp the gospel. If they did, there wouldn’t need to be a church in the first place.
John, I just got a message at the fair board saying that the reply feature had been disabled for that topic. Is that just a glitch? I have to say that I’m not sure it’s really worth spending much energy on that group. One poster has “You’re a jerk” in red letters for a signature line? Good grief. I just don’t see that posting anything there will change anyone’s mind, or the level of discourse there.
I’m curious whether he mentioned what the Frontline piece he was interviewed for will focus on. Is it a story on the foundations of Mormonism, LDS Church history as a whole, or some other broader religious topic. If not, could you ask him?
I am once again reminded that I can’t look at the FAIR boards; the bile I see flowing from both sides on most issues — the couple of comments I read relating to this interview included — tarnishes the soul.
I want to quickly thank John and Grant Palmer for this excellent interview. The life history is outstanding, the overview of “An Insider’s View…” is concise and very helpful, and the discussion of how our worship could become more Christ-centered seems dead on target in my opinion.
I’d pray, with Bro. Palmer, that the church is indeed big enough to have a place for people like him. The thing that will stick with me longest from this interview is Bro. Palmer’s palpable, continuing love for a church and a community that has really treated him quite poorly.
Is it enough to say that when I study and ponder the Book of Mormon and then pray about what I have learned, the truth of those things are manifested to me and I “know” that it is from our Father.
Hey…for those of you who are interested, I’d love to see you join a thread over at FAIR on Palmer and this podcast. http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=15344&st=0
Wow. Tough room. Have you heard back from anyone at FAIR regarding a rebuttal podcast? It would be fascinating to hear a response from Daniel Peterson or some other respected FARMS apologist.
If Grant Palmer’s book is really as sloppy and inaccurate as the folks at FARMS and FAIR seem to think it is, you would think they would be jumping at the opportunity to respond on Mormon Stories.
BTW: I’ve read FARMS’ apologetic responses to Grant Palmer’s book, and frankly, I just didn’t find them nearly as convincing as Dr. Peterson seems to think they are. It’s probably because I don’t hold a PhD and lack the academic training and intellectual horsepower to understand and analyze the issues properly…
I don’t want to get into the same kind of person bashing over here as goes on at FAIR, but for those of you who haven’t run into these guys before, it is probably instructive to google some of the names there, such as Bill Hamblin, which is his real name. Add Metcalfe and Butthead to the search, if you don’t already know that story. I think it’s good background to know about him, when he discusses ad hominem attacks.
Daniel Peterson declined today. Bummer.
So far no FAIR volunteers. I can’t understand it. They’re so willing to comment/respond on the forum…just no takers via audio/interview.
I hope they don’t leave me/us hanging.
Thanks for this awesome podcast. I loved Palmer’s book. It was a revelation to me! It puts you right in Joseph’s day and you experience the era firsthand, it’s an amazing book. The book is my number one choice book for sharing with Latter day Saint loved ones. It gives you the facts without polemics and it is honest, sincere, and concisely well written. After reading the book I started reading the FARMS reviews and was utterly appalled. I wrote my own rebuttal to a few of the FARMS reviews http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/Palmer.doc
http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/Palmerreview.htm
http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/Palmerreview2.doc
Regarding the last bit of episode 3, yes it’s true that apologists can say that Joseph simply used the language and sources of his environment to translate real gold plates, but this overlooks the fact that Palmer demonstrates in his book that entire Evangelical sermons are repackaged nearly verbatim in the Book of Mormon. Joseph quotes Protestant ministers and adds Masonic plotlines (“secret combinations” etc) in the Book of Mormon.
If you’re interested in learning more about how Joseph’s retelling of the First Vision versions reflected his belief in God at the time see my essay http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/godhead.html. I own an 1891 Doctrine and Covenants that binds the Lectures on Faith as official LDS doctrine in scripture. The Fifth Lecture, as you probably already know, declares that only Jesus has a body of tabernacle, the Father is only a spirit, and there is no personal Holy Ghost! In my short essay I also demonstrate how Joseph’s concept of deity evolved step by step over time into the tri-theistic Godhead of today, and how Joseph originally believed in one monotheistic deity.
I am very interested in Palmer’s Jesus book. From the interview I’m happy to hear he has not fallen into a Jerry Farwell approach to Christ and the literalist underpinnings of Evangelical Fundamentalist Christianity. Instead, he seems to hold a position similar to, though not completely the same as, the excellent Marcus Borg and John Spong.
Thanks for the great podcast. The last two podcast have been fantastic. Grant wrote a great book that addresses most of the big problems in mormon history. I had read many of the problems before but Grants book just puts them all together and makes it so clear that the church is not being honest in its history. John thanks for all the hard work. Keep it up. Grant, thanks for your time too.
Japanguy
Hi John, hi Grant,
thanks for the great podcast.
However I cannot follow both of your intentions to stay in the church and to support it as you do.
When Joseph Smith founded the LDS church, he did so for a certain reason:
All other churches are an abomination, wherefore God has removed the keys of authority from the world.
These sacred ordinances were then reintroduced by the RESTORED church.
Whereas Luther was a reformator, Smith was a RESTORATOR.
Therefore, Mormonism is not “yet another christian denomination” but a very distinct group with a claim of absolute and solitary truth.
This has to be kept in mind when the truth claims of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are analyzed.
In your book, you come to the conclusion that the historicity of the BoM as well as the credibility of the stories surrounding the creation of the BoM are highly questionable and that the better explanation is to consider the BoM as a fictional book written by Smith himself, whose imagination was influenced by his environment, and maybe by books like “The golden pot” or “Views of the hebrews”.
If the LDS church was “yet another christian denomination”, it would without a doubt be possible to reduce the stress on Smith and increase the stress on Jesus.
Many statements Martin Luther made are nowadays ridiculous, and are not believed by current Lutherans.
E.g. Luther believed in witches like everyone did at his time. But as he was just a theologician, those statements can be discarded.
But this cannot be done in Mormonism. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and the Book of Mormon is historically true, or he was a fraud. The LDS church is built on the foundation of the person Joseph Smith as well as the book of Mormon and the sacred ordinances.
Removing everything you question, Grant, you strip the LDS church in its very foundation.
The bible teaches to build a house on a rock. The LDS church is not built upon a rock, but upon
the sandy ground of Joseph Smith, the fictional novel called “The book of Mormon” and keys of authorities
invented by Smith. If you remove all those things, you get “yet another christian denomination”.
But “yet another christian denomination” has no need for missionaries proselyting people from other denominations like today’s missionaries do. If Joseph Smith was a fraud, there is no need to
- abstain from drinking a cup of black tea.
- wear old fashioned church underwear
- pay loads of money to a multibillion enterprise
- store one year amount of food till it expires
- baptize dead people
etc.pp.
As the christian song goes “Don’t build your house on a sandy land… oh it might look kind of nice, but you have to build it twice. Yes you have to build your house once more.”,
the problem cannot be resolved by reforming the church from within. As it was not created by a reform,
it can also not be changed to a christian mainstream church by a reform.
Instead, it has to be ripped down and built again on a solid foundation.
Why even mention the fraud Joseph Smith during sacrament meeting?
Why teaching children a bunch of stories which never happened?
Why indoctrinating people to be “the one and only church” when besides a fraud and a fictional book,
they are just another christian denomination?
In any way, it makes no sense to try to keep the LDS church alive.
It will inevitable stumble to the ground, because the truth always prevails,
and the invention of the internet has made the truth accessible to many people around the globe.
You may slow down the process by watering down the doctrine, but in the end, the credibility of the
book of mormon will sink to 0 until noone believes in it anymore.
You complained that the RLDS / community of christ has lost members, but actually that is not a problem:
The CoC has become “yet another christian denomination”, so it does not matter whether a person attends this church or another church around the block.
Anyway, this is my prophesy:
The LDS growth rate will be devastating decreasing in the following years because of the availability of information in the internet. As a consequence, the church will try to water down some aspects as well as
admit some aspects of their twisted image of church history, but eventually the number of people leaving will increase, while the number of converts and of new missionaries will decrease.
In the near future, the LDS church will lose its importance and will be replaced by other more successful churches.
Of course, it might be nice to live near the shore, but one day, the wave will be coming, and that day may be soon…
Just my two cents on the topic.
Grant : good luck for the future,
John : Keep up your podcast,
I think that the podcast about yourself was one of the best podcasts ever made,
and I believe that your podcast will increase in importance and number of listeners, because
you do high quality interviews on highly relevant issues.
Your effort is really appreciated by the internet/podcast community. Thanks in the name of all listeners.
Chris.
I have been teaching Old Testament this year, we could just as easily attack the historicity of the Bible. The doctrines of the bible appear to have been in a state of constant flux. Appear to be changing. What is really in the stories of scripture is a pattern. That pattern is that when God’s chosen people are righteous to the things they are given through the prophets they are saved. They were commanded to wipe lamb’s blood on their door posts, they were told to look at a golden serpent, they were told to have specific feasts at specific times, we are not told to do these things, but both they were and we are commanded to follow the living prophet.
I read the scriptures and I see a pattern that when God has something to tell us He does it through the prophet, so that is whom I listen to for new revelation. It might be additional knowledge or clarification on misunderstood doctrine. The pattern has always been that when you follow the prophet he will lead you to God. The lesson of the scriptures has never been that the prophet knows everything about everything. Let us not expect the prophets to be more than they were chosen to be.
We know more today about God and his ways than people before us. Does that mean that they were wrong? NO! It means that we have more to learn.
God’s church has never been perfect. God has always been perfect. One of the things that you and your guests point out in your podcasts is that the prophets and leaders of the church are imperfect men. This is true. It always has been and always will be. If you believe this then you should not hold them to perfection. You must allow them to be imperfect and make mistakes. You must also allow them time to correct your understanding of what they said. The doctrine of prophets is that they are the conduit for the Lord’s revelations. It is not that the prophets know everything. They just know what they have been revealed for that time. Jacob didn’t prevent his children from going into apostasy and slavery in Egypt, does that make him a false prophet? No. He did with the help of Joseph, save them from the famine.
It would be nice if when we follow the prophet everything turns out nice and neatly packaged. I followed the prophet, I was obedient to God and now I have a perfect family, the perfect job, I am rich and I have a perfect life. That has never been true. Remember Job? Remember how Israel followed Moses into the desert. The DESERT! That must have been terribly awful and a difficult pill to swallow. Many of the Israelites wanted to return to Egypt and the false dead gods. They were not willing to withstand the trial of the desert and failed to remember the evidence of God they had already received. I think that for many at the time, Moses appeared to be a false prophet, but we know today that he eventually lead them to a land of milk and honey. Most importantly he lead them to the true and living God.
Brother(I still consider him one of us, as does he) Palmer has had a long time to research his book. I think it is unfair to expect anyone to be able to adequately explain everything he talks about in a quick knee jerk response.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has brought me closer to God and Jesus Christ. So has The Bible, The Book of Mormon, and the rest of LDS scripture. My understanding of doctrine is corrected all the time. I have found that it wasn’t the doctrine that was wrong, it was my comprehension. I have received my own witness that I am in God’s church. That is enough for me. I will remain with the prophet even if I am asked to wander in the desert, literally or figuratively. I have learned that when you follow the prophet he leads you to a land of milk and honey, a type and shadow of God’s glory.
We will eventually know the answers to all questions. Today we can only hold to the knowledge that has been revealed. The unbeliever considers faith to be weakness. The believer knows faith to be strength.
Excellent Podcast, as per usual. Thanks so much for the time and effort.
That part of the podcast that Chris refers to bothers me to. Both John and Grant seem to be able to forgive the leaders of the church for not moving quickly to be forthright with the history because of the potential damage it could do to the church. What is more important, the church or the truth? I’ll stand on the side of truth. If the church falls because it’s not true to what it claims to be then I view that as a good thing. People are dedicating their lives to the church.
If the history and doctine have flaws, and the leadership knows – which I believe they do– they have a duty to the membership to tell the truth, in plain terms. Hinkley suggests we all “Stand for Something”, well if we as a church don’t stand for truth and honesty, what does the rest of it matter?
In the end, the internet is here to stay, members who are curious about issues but feel uncomfortable bringing them up in Sunday School or PH meeting will increasingly turn to the internet. Grant was correct in saying that this is only the beginning. Whether the church is ready to move quickly or not, the truth about the historical problems of the church is coming to the membership at large, and its coming fast.
As Joseph Smith himself said “the truth will cut its own way”
If my wife and I were discussing divorce, we wouldn’t include our child in the discussion. We would keep our child from that truth.
I understand why the church is being careful in how it handles its explanation of church history.
And besides truth’s only purpose is to help people become good. Truth, on its own, is useless if it does not further goodness.
Nobody’s life changes because the church is true. People lives change because Christ teaches them to be good.
I am not sure that Church leaders ought to treat us like children, especially not when they are asking us to sacrifice everything for the Church.
It has long been an axiom in strategy that decision makers who want to defend everything under assault will end up with nothing.
It seems to me that this applies in this case. The Community of Christ made a tough choice, got its house in order, suffered inevitable losses, and is a thriving organization today.
The LDS missionary program has already atrophied in Europe, Anglo and Latin America. I have heard that there is still strong growth in parts of Southern Africa but that doesn’t appear to be real growth in many other parts of the world.
By comparison, look at the Seven Day Adventists. They too had to confront faith promoting history. They did so courageously, lost almost a third of their followers but have become one of the most vibrant proselyting movements in the world.
Yes, you’re right. It becomes a case where we wonder how church leaders view us.
But essentially, we’re all lost children. God is a concerned father and who knows how and when he will give us more truth.
And good point with the Seventh Day Adventists. I believe the church will eventually do the same (may not have the choice) and may suffer the same losses.
Jordanandmeg, the Adventists did initially suffer heavy losses. But they’re now growing much faster than the LDS church, and with higher retention rates. They’re an excellent counter to the example of RLDS decline on making similar changes.
I wonder how Adventist apologists explain their previous misshaps with the Second Coming predicions.
I get an Adventist television channel by accident. Nice people.
I also think that one of the reasons that they recovered from their past is that they still hold fast to some very demanding doctrines. You cannot be Adventist and consider Sunday to be the Sabbath. You cannot be an Adventist and disagree with their scriptural interpretation of of future events.
Good for them. They are holding fast to their identity. I don’t think they’d be as successful if they’d become as watered down as the RLDS faith.
Who knows?
jordanandmeg,
Your suggesting that it is desireable for church leadership to shield the church members from the truth so that we remain their definition of ‘good’? That we should be treated like children? That’s absurd. We are adults, and theoretically, our salvation is at stake here, so we deserve to know the whole truth, and to know it now. Perpetuating a series of lies to protect an organization that was built on them is cowardly and reprehensible. I believe there is a “not on my watch” attitude among the bretheren who would rather cling to the status quo than do the right thing.
Peoples lives do change based on whether the church is true or not.. .in fact their eternities change. Mormonism isn’t a Sunday religion, its an all encompassing way of life, where once you’ve accepted it, if you live up to your callings and commitments, you have very little time for anything else. My life has definitly changed for the better now that I don’t take it all so seriously.
If a public company treated its shareholders the way the church treats its members, management would rightfully end up in prison. And I think we can all agree that the one true church on the face of the earth should be held to a higher standard than your average Fortune 500 conglomerate.
I also will not accept that believing lies brings anyone closer to Jesus.
I believe truth is inherintly good in the long run– even if it is painful to accept in the short run. Learning that the church was not what I had been taught was one of the most painful truths I’ve ever had to face. It was gut-wrenchingly painful. That said, I wouldn’t trade that knowledge for anything. I think all church members have a right to walk through the abyss and see the sunshine on the other side.
If the point of life was to enjoy truth then the Lord would have given us all much much more. But the point of life is not to gather truth (for even the wisest of us would come up way short). It is, as Hugh Nibley says, to learn repentence and forgiveness.
When it comes to truth, we are ALL flyng blind. But we all have a strong sense for what is good.
I am not a member because this church is true. It could be true and be bad. I am a member because the fruits of its truth are christianity. Its ‘truthfullness’ is an added bonus.
Now do I think that the church should better handle the dispensing of its history? Of course. I too had that painful experience. It, dare I say, sucked. And I wouldn’t trade it for anything either.
If the church was more perfect, I bet my transition would’ve been smoother. But my new found knowledge allows me to see the church for what it really is and FORGIVE it. Yes it should be better. Yes, I still wish it was perfect. It’s history, it’s imperfections, some doctrines are all so unknowable.
I deal with this by focusing on the point of life. Knowing truth? No. Learning and enjoying goodness. I receive this and more from the LDS church.
If you’re not interested in truth, then by all means, stay in the LDS church… or perhaps join the Moonies, those people seem particularly happy in their delusions.
If you want to draw close to Jesus, I would suggest that there are other churches that would serve your purpose much better than the LDS church and they don’t come with all of the secret handshakes and historical baggage.
I believe truth is the pathway to righteousness and happiness. We only arrive at the truth by being honest with one another and the church has not been, and is not currently, honest with the members. These members have put so much faith in the bretheren that they KNOW they don’t even need to look at anything that contradicts official church teachings, because if it does, it has to be false.
The church expects me to be honest in my dealings with my fellow man, and I expect the same from them.
Interesting. What you say makes much sense and is very logical. The question for me comes down to what we can know.
I consider myself a scientist. What can one know for certain? What is knowledge? Synapses? Spirit? It is very arrogant to say that one knows something for certain to be true. It just as arrogant to declare something false. I envy such arrogance and would love a dose.
In a world without the luxury of absolute knowledge, one has to find one’s way with a different nose. THIS was my disillusioning process. Suddenly I didn’t know if the church was true or false. Instead of grasping for whatever seemed more true, I asked myself what is truth.
Very stage four, eh, John?
This letting go process was very painful, for I had relied on my perception of truth for so long. But . . . here it comes . . . I don’t think God wants us to rely on our sense of what is true, but of what is right. This is what, I think, Alma 32 is all about. Our only SURE knowledge comes from a testament of the fruits of goodness that come from righteous action. I don’t think truth leads to righteousness. I think righteousness lead to truth. Laman and Lemuel knew truth, but they still sucked.
Why not join the moonies. Perfect question. The book of Mormon teaches such wonderful righteousness. The prophets teach such goodness. The temple represents the Lord’s forgiveness and patience. I’m chasing this goodness.
(I think God will judge the Moonies, Laman, Lemuel, and even me with kindness, by the way).
Now I can use my logic (which I believe to be fininte) and ask if I think Joseph Smith actually was a prophet or if there should be archeology for the book or Mormon. I must admit that logic could take me either way. If I was a betting me, I’d say yes, for the fruits of their works are beautiful to me. These fruits I trust. Other religions with other truths that are beautiful, I will grasp as well.
Now, do I think the church should be honest and own up to past mistakes? Yes.
Jordanandmeg,
You say about the Adventists, “Good for them. They are holding fast to their identity. I don’t think they’d be as successful if they’d become as watered down as the RLDS faith.”
In actual fact, the Adventists have abandoned as much of their traditional heritage, with respect to the prophetic role of early church leaders, as the RLDS faith. What’s left behind is rigorous, certainly, but it’s the equivalent of an LDS church that is rigorous about chastity and tithing but never talks about Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.
Really? You would know more than I. Would you say there success comes from that rigorous emphasis on chastity etc?
I used to work at the church office building in SLC. I was frustrated with some of the policy decisions that were presented to ‘the brethren.’ I didn’t get why they weren’t as wise as I was. Then later after seeing the fruits of their decisions I realized that I was not as fully informed as I thought I was. They were right, I was wrong.
I got to see a lot of statistical data about growth, retention, abuse, divorce, all of the issues and their causes. The church knows their problems much better than you, it is their job to deal with it everyday. All of the problems, not just history, but the present. To think that you know more about the church’s issues than they do is ignorant.
Don’t forget that the greatest source of the history on the church is the church archives which they allow people to research. If they are hiding the history, then why are they letting people research it?
There are historical projects under way that many of you know nothing about. Before you tell the church what they should do, you might consider that they are already doing it.
History is written with the bias of the author. There are many different points of view. All of us have opinions as to what it all means but none of us have the full story. Maybe there isn’t action on this issue because the whole story is not known.
We have been told by Grant Palmer and others in this blog to focus on Jesus, but I have met plenty of people who will use the same arguments against all of Christianity that is being used against LDS. Not the details of history, LDS obviously has their own unique history, but we share the same biblical history that an atheist would dispute. I don’t know about the ward Brother Palmer attends, my wards have always focused on Jesus. We do put some attention on Joseph Smith because we believe in a restoration of Christ’s church. We are different in some ways to other Christians. Those differences are important enough to emphasize them. Every principle I have learned at church and at home was presented as being part of Jesus’ teachings. He has always been central. My earliest primary memories are singing “Jesus Wants Me For a Sunbeam” “Love One Another” and “I am a Child of God”
Religion has never been about empirical evidence. That is for science. I don’t believe in Jesus because I have proof. The Bible and other scriptures are bad at proof. They are good at faith. Faith is many things, one of which is confirmed belief. I have faith in Jesus and His church because my belief has been confirmed.
Hear hear
Aaron, your statement strikes me as a little bit inadvertently self-contradictory.
You say: “I got to see a lot of statistical data about growth, retention, abuse, divorce, all of the issues and their causes. The church knows their problems much better than you…” “There are historical projects under way that many of you know nothing about.”
Okay, fair enough. So the church has information that isn’t published. But to then claim that the church is telling us everything doesn’t quite work.
In fact, the church archives are partly open to researchers, and I think that’s wonderful. There are also documents of high historical value, such as the minutes of the Council of Fifty in Nauvoo, that have never been shared with researchers. Furthermore, statements from church leaders have discouraged rank-and-file members from learning about much of the history that has been produced using materials from the church archives and other relevant sources.
If you’re trying to say that the church isn’t conspiratorially covering anything up, I agree with you. I think what’s happening instead is inaction due to indecisiveness. But it remains the case that many members of the church don’t really know much about the church’s history and would be profoundly upset if they were to learn. The same is true, by the way, with respect to conversion and retention statistics. As such, this information remains a kind of ticking time bomb.
You’re right to point out that there are historical and textual problems with respect to the Bible. But they aren’t even comparable in magnitude with the challenges that advocates of Book of Mormon historicity, for example, face. Consider this: it’s actually possible to point on a globe to the part of the world where Jesus lived, but nobody can even do that with Nephites and Lamanites. Some people do lose all faith when they are faced with Mormon historical and textual difficulties; others find a more balanced path. I wonder if we could possibly be doing more to help people find those balanced paths?
When all is said and done about all that is said and not said about these things — The truth remains that we don’t know what happen and until we talk with Joseph we won’t. We have to look at the tapestry and not individual treads to measure the value of something. When you look at the life of Joseph did he do well for mankind? When we get on our knees and pray about the things that Christ taught or the things that Joseph taught do we feel peace and light or is it unrest and darkness. This is how we learn about spiritual things. I think someone can it Faith.
This is my first ever response on this message board. First of all a big thanks to John- I love Mormon Stories! I also enjoy reading through these posts. A smile came to my face as I envisioned these black typed words on white digital background, like pioneer footprints wading through deep winter snow. No matter the direction of the journey, in or out, it’s unclear for many of us. Thanks to the courageous souls who blaze the trail!
I have a couple of questions for John: where did you find the theme song for the Grant Palmer interview and what’s its’ title? I thought it was perfect, especially the “sinking treasure” motif (on many levels).
Keep up the great work!
I enjoyed the podcast. Grant Palmer did a ton of research for this book, and I admire him very much for writing it. Well done. The podcast was well done, too.
I imagine that it is hard for John and Grant to walk that line between belief in the church and their knowledge of the truth about Joseph Smith’s life. I think everybody has to live their life the way they feel best. I admire those who live in almost any church, as long as they are good people. These both seem like very good men.
I left the Mormon church many years ago because I think the Joseph Smith story is a straight up lie. It does not follow that he was a horrible man. i happen to think he did more harm than good, that he spent much time looking out for himself, but that is only one person’s opinion.
I used to get into raging arguments with Mormons about things, but in the end, nobody felt different about Joseph Smith, but we did about each other. no sense in losing friendships over the Joseph Smith story. It is not worth it. Life is too short to worry about that.
I used to be a flaming anti Mormon after I left, but now after 25 years, I think I am doing good just to get up daily. Live and let live.
i was interested to hear Grant’s beliefs. Even though I do not share them, I think he is an articulate, brilliant man who deserves a great deal of praise for his book and podcast.
Thanks again for great work, John.
Someone on the Recovery from Mormonism website (www.exmormon.org) provided a link to this blog. Thanks for your comments about Grant Palmer, another Mormon-esque Galileo (like D. Michael Quinn). Both tried to help Latter-Day Saints gain a deeper and broader understanding of church history through their research and writings, and what happened to them? They got hit with the big stick of church disciplinary action for communicating the truth. Such is the enlightenment of Mormon patriarchy. Some things never change in the church, apparently.
Since my departure from the LDS Church in the early-1990′s, Mormonism has changed greatly. I was raised in the church, served a mission in 1984/5, continued to participate as a young adult, and left the church at age 28. There were SO many church teachings that didn’t make sense, and the environment in the church was one in which only ‘faith-supporting’ facts and personal experiences were permitted. Is this still the case? Mormons were always ‘nice’, but rarely real. Once I started working in my career, I found non-Mormons to be much more open and relaxed with themselves and their humanity than Latter-Day Saints. During my years in the church, its emphasis was always on performance, obedience, and perfection. We were frequently reminded by our leaders, including the General Authorities, that we weren’t obedient enough, sacrificing enough, doing enough to build up the church, etc. Members were stressed out big-time. Hopefully, that self-esteem-undermining aspect of Mormonism has changed.
Church doctrines and teachings have changed greatly over the years, and in my lifetime no less (I’m 41). As Mormon youth in Seminary and Sunday School, we were taught the ‘eternal’ doctrine of polygamy. I still have my Seminary work booklet on the doctrine, which remains a part of LDS theology, as per D&C 132. We were told that the Lord no longer required church members to practice polygamy because of the ‘wickedness of men’, but during the Millenium, ‘the principle of plural wives’ would be restored, even as God had ‘restored’ it through Joseph Smith. Members were also taught that ‘worthy’ priesthood holders would become Gods after death, with each resurrected man creating countless planets in his own universe. LDS women and teenage girls were taught that they would become the polygamous wives of a Mormon priesthood holder-God, and spend eternity bearing ‘spirit children’, who would incarnate on planets created by their omnipotent hubby. It’s my understanding that the LDS Church no longer teaches this ‘true’ doctrine.
Post-mortality polygamy was one of several doctrines that Latter-Day Saints were taught in my day by the church that Mormons in this century are astonished to learn about. Other church teachings included the idea that blacks had been ‘less valiant’ in the Pre-Existence and were the ‘cursed seed of Cain’, interracial marriage was disapproved of by God, and all indigenous peoples of the Americas and Polynesia descended from The Book of Mormon Lamanites. These ‘eternal truths’ are no longer a part of LDS theology.
Mormonism has become duller, frankly. The church should’ve hung on to its wacky ‘spiritual’ ideas, which made the LDS religion sexier in an eclectic sort of way. However, the main objective of the church’s leadership has always been to expand the ‘Kingdom of God on Earth’ (and the LDS corporate empire), so as society became more enlightened, changes in the church were inevitable. Does the LDS Church still teach people that it’s the ‘one, true’ church of God, or has that doctrine been dropped as well?
It’s interesting how many shades of Mormons there are these days, ranging from those who believe all church doctrines and teachings to those who believe very few, but continue to participate in the LDS Church for family or other reasons. I’ve read posts from Latter-Day Saints about bishops and even stake presidents who have acknowledged to them in private that they don’t believe in The Book of Mormon and other fundamental aspects of Mormonism, but continue to participate because the church is ‘good’. This is a HUGE change from my years in the church. The day of the true-believing Mormon appears to be over.
As BYU professors on the Make Good Foundation website acknowledge, the Internet has had an enormous impact (mostly negative) on the LDS Church. In my day, church leaders controlled the information about Mormonism that members and potential converts received (through church manuals, magazines, and books, investigator pamphlets, General Conference talks, etc.). We were taught the ‘faith-promoting’ version (i.e, the propaganda). Prior to the Internet, few Latter-Day Saints had easy access to the full truth about Mormonism. In the past 10 years, the situation has changed completely. One manifestation of the quiet revolution that’s been taking place in the LDS Church is the number of hits on the Recovery from Mormonism website: 140,000 PER DAY! Last October at the Ex-Mormon Conference in SLC, I was surprised at the number of people in attendance who had recently left the church (
Last October at the Ex-Mormon Conference in SLC, I was surprised at the number of people in attendance who had recently left the church (
I just had a thought. There is nothing different in Palmer’s research from say the Tanners. Both point out the facts, both see the origins of Mormonism in naturalistic terms, and wish the LDS church would focus more on Christ. The biggest difference I see is that Palmer wants to remain a Mormon for traditional/cultural reasons. My point is this, if the Tanners have been around for decades and the Mormon leadership have not addressed or acknowledged the historical research they provide, why would we think they’d all of a sudden change for Palmer, or T. Murphy?
Palmer is right that the Internet is booming and today we have you John, and Palmer, which is a new phenomenon. Maybe if enough progressive Sunstone Mormons start speaking up then the Church will become less Josephcentric and more Christ-centered as Palmer envisions.
The Church leaders should acknowledge the problems that Palmer is identifying not to humor him but to strengthen the Church. The challenge is, of course, that problems with Joseph Smith reflect on the current leadership who would compromise its own status.
If people were to find out about the nature of Joseph’s prophesies then many members would be more discerning when it comes to the advice of contemporary prophets, seers, and revelators.
That may well be the real problem. The interests of the organization and the interests of the decision makers are not identical.
How exactly would acknowledging faith-disturbing/shaking historical facts presented by Palmer, Quinn, and others “strengthen the Church”? Mormons’ faith is based on the propaganda that the church has taught them for years about Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, early church history, etc. Deception has been an integral part of Mormonism since Joseph Smith first lied to people about his ‘First Vision’ experience and the ‘Golden Plates’.
The only way out of the mess that generations of Mormon patriarchal leaders have created is through the mountain of faith-destroying facts, such as those presented by Palmer. However, there is currently no senior General Authority who has demonstrated the requisite courage to promulgate the full truth to the general membership. The deception, denials, and obfuscating continues. We saw of such just last week in the church’s press release to the news media that there is no connection between Warren Jeffs and his FLDS movement and the LDS Church/Mormonism. As well, the church’s PR Dept. indicated that there is no such thing as a fundamentalist Mormon or Mormon sect.
So while the suits in the COB (Church Office Building) were putting out ‘spin’, people were finding out about Mormon polygamy on the Internet. They learned that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor and other Mormon prophets and apostles preached to Mormons that polygamy was essential to their salvation, that no president or First Presidency of the LDS Church has ever rescinded the doctrine of polygamy, and that the ‘revelation’ on polygamy ‘received’ by Smith is still a part of LDS scripture (D&C 132). As well, they learned that FLDS members and other Mormonism-rooted polygamists are only being obedient to a doctrine that is still a part of LDS theology. The church came out of last week looking like it really had something to hide. The GA’s continue to go in the wrong direction. When will they wake up?
Conspiracy theories.
The GA’s aren’t out to get anyone or trick anyone. They may not be handling church history as effectively as they could, but no one is out to hurt anybody.
I guess the only way to be enlightened is to be contrary.
Sapollonia- the song is REM’s “Losing my Religion” Very appropriate. Good choice John. Google for the lyrics.
Roasted- You said “Okay, fair enough. So the church has information that isn’t published. But to then claim that the church is telling us everything doesn’t quite work.
Those are your words not mine. I never said they are telling us everything. What I was trying to say is that they don’t know everything, so they can’t tell us everything. They present what is understood. They have the archives and they have people researching the history trying to make sense of things. We can’t assume to know the reasons why some of the minutes are sealed. I might say the minutes have sacred things in them, someone else will cry cover up.
When we talk of history it is very inacurate to speak of the true story. It is more accurate to say more of the story. Historians have been changing the view of history as long as they have been looking. Tomorrow someone might find another account of the same event.
The most important task the church has is to bring souls unto Christ. Not teach history. The church has changed their focus over the years as they have seen the effectiveness of their efforts. When something is not bring people to Christ they cut it. Many programs have been cut when they find a better way. Many ideas taught as doctrine have been corrected. I have heard all of the weird ideas that some members teach as doctrine. John likes to denegrate correlation, but I think he would admit that they have done a lot of good in bringing people away from the weird ideas and back to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I was always taught to stay in the scriptures and listen to the modern prophet. It is easy to attack the teachings of a dead prophet, he can’t correct you when you misinterpret what he said, nor correct himself with newly revealed information.
When I read the scriptures I find a common thread among all of the prophets. None of them were perfect. Every one of them were mortal and made mistakes. I guess that is all God has to work with. I find it comforting to read how forgiving God has been and it gives me hope that through Christ I can become better. I don’t know why other people need the modern prophets to be perfect, I don’t.
I don’t think Palmer’s problem is that he presented his research. He did tell the leaders of the chruch how the church should be run. That is not the way things are done. -here come the control issue complaints. There has to be some sort of order to the church or there would be kaos. It is hard to see a problem in the church and not be able to fix it because it is not your position to fix it. I have seen things too. I have had to keep my distance and let the person who was called to the position take care of things. There is a proper way of things. Palmer went outside when he dictated how the church should run, not when he presented research. My opinion, I could be wrong.
It is easy for a non-believer to to make light of religious things. I must be ignorant , since I believe.
Man, you guys are playing tug of war with like two feet between you. Each person has a different way they relate to this Church. It’s no more right to leave the church than it is to be a TBM. If you believe it’s true that’s great. If you have doubts and still wanna say your Mormon, that is cool too. Don’t wanna go? It’s all good.
The church will go on fussing over the liberal and less active Mormons, and you will always get some looks at church. But on the bright side if you are in my ward we can go get stoned after church. And people like us are growing in numbers. TBMs are starting to feel the way white people feel when more black people move into the neighborhood. I think there is a real possibility that there will be more of a place for us in the near future. Solidarity!
The worst thing we can be is bitter. Can’t go blaming the church for ruining your life (even if it did, life’s not over yet). We can’t be bitter at the stuck ups and we can’t be bitter at the lefties. We gotta get along, have a potluck. That’s what being Mormon is all about.
Some people just wanna leave and have nothing to do with it ever again. That’s cool too. I wish I could make a clean break. But no one on this board is one of those people. If you were, you wouldn’t be here.
jordanandmeg posted, “Conspiracy theories. The GA’s aren’t out to get anyone or trick anyone.” If that is true, why did they approve the church’s new website about Joseph Smith that went online last year (ref. http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith), which contains not one word about Smith’s ‘revelation’ about polygamy, his plural wives (including marriages to women who were already married and teenage girls as young as 14), his teachings and writings about polygamy, and his first wife’s (Emma’s) strong opposition to the ‘principle’? Why does the website contain no info. about Smith’s conflicting versions of the ‘First Vision’, his face-in-the-hat Book of Mormon translation method (which Elder Nelson briefly acknowledged in the July 1993 Ensign), and his ordering the destruction of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor, which was a violation of the First Amendment and set in motion events that led to Smith’s death? Why is there no mention of the fact that Smith had himself crowned ‘King of the Earth’ and established the secret ‘Council of Fifty’, or that he was a Mason and adapted Masonic ceremonies to create ‘sacred’ temple ceremonies?
If there has been no strategy by the GA’s to keep church members and potential converts in the dark about early church history, why then does the 1997 edition of the church’s lesson manual on Brigham Young state that he was married to one woman, instead of mentioning the truth – that he had 55 wives, one of whom divorced him? Why does the manual, which has been translated into various languages and used by Mormons in non-English-speaking countries for some years now, indicate nothing about Young’s sermons and writings concerning polygamy, blacks being the ‘cursed seed of Cain’, Adam being God incarnate, ‘Blood Atonement’, and ‘Heavenly Father’ having sex with Mary to create Jesus? Why is there no mention of Young’s 1871 trial under U.S. territory law for practicing polygamy? Why does the manual, which naïve, historically-ignorant Mormons around the world read and believe contains the truth, contain not one word about Young’s use of tobacco and alcohol long after Mormons arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, or his tavern in Salt Lake City? Why aren’t these faith-shaking facts about the ‘Lion of God’ included in the 1997 manual? The same is true about other church manuals, magazine articles, pamphlets, and other materials produced by the LDS Church. Bear in mind that General Authorities review and approve church materials. They are aware of what goes into such materials, and what’s left out. The question that Latter-Day Saints need to ask themselves is, “Why is the highest level of priesthood leadership concealing the truth from me?”
Interesting perspective, Kirk Faulkner. More and more Mormons getting stoned…hmmm. You sound kind of young (
I must be real tired because I couldn’t help laughing.
The men behind the curtain are nice old men, some are rad, others misguided. Not one of them has a degree in “Running a Church.”
My dad was stake president for awhile (no big deal, I know, but hold on) and we had apostles come stay at our house a couple times a year. Some were cool and some weren’t.
Point is they are just people. You don’t listen to everything they say but you respect their calling and their efforts.
Thank goodness they are just people or else I never would’ve learned to rely on the spirit instead of them.
The ‘men behind the curtain’ are ‘just people’? Really? What church did you grow up in? During my 20 years in Mormonism, I was taught that the ‘nice, old men’ are ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’, ‘special witnesses of Jesus Christ’, and the most spiritually-enlightened individuals on the planet. Hardly ‘just people’.
You posted, ‘You don’t listen to everything they say’. Why listen to any of it? After all, the GA’s are only expressing their beliefs and perspectives. Yours, or those of any other Latter-Day Saint, are equally valid, and not infrequently, more enlightened. Much of what Hinckley, Monson, Faust, and the rest of the GA’s say is no more ‘true’ than Joseph Smith’s preaching about polygamy or Brigham Young about men and women living on the moon.
Regarding respecting their efforts, the GA’s certainly spend a lot of time doing church work. The crucial question is though, to what end? It’s already been well-established that Mormonism is based on a fraud. Science and historical research has thoroughly discredited the ‘keystone’ of the LDS religion, The Book of Mormon. The GA’s and other Latter-Day Saints can toil their whole lives to support the LDS Church, but their efforts and religious faith will never make the mountain of facts that do not support the LDS religion disappear. Personally, I do not respect people who ignore, trivialize, or condemn facts that disagree with their beliefs, even their cherished beliefs. Yet I understand the psychological and emotional reasons why they do it.
Concerning respecting the positions of the men in senior leadership positions in the LDS Church, respect for a position is the product of psychological conditioning. For example, Catholics revere the position of Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope far more than Latter-Day Saints. Why? Because Mormons aren’t indoctrinated to feel the same type of respect for the position of Pope as they do for the position of President of the LDS Church. Are you aware of how you’ve been indoctrinated and psychologically conditioned by Mormonism?
What has any of the 15 men at the top of Mormonism’s patriarchal leadership said of ‘spiritual’ consequence/import in the past, say, 10 years? Have they publicly acknowledged the fact that many LDS women feel depressed because in the church, they’re second-class members who are shut out of positions of authority? Have the GA’s encouraged members to study the true, full history of the church, and announced their plan to make the church’s historical records available to all members? Have they explained to Latter-Day Saints how they’re going to make the church transparent so that members can find out exactly how their tithing is spent?
Have the GA’s told members that the church will sell the SLC shopping malls that it acquired last year and shelve its multi-million dollar commercial real estate development plan, and use the money instead on humanitarian relief? That would be an enlightened announcement! For 1/20th of the $1 billion that the church is spending on those malls, 250,000 children around the world who lose their eyesight prematurely each year due to a lack of vitamins could have their sight saved. Think about it – 5 million children over 20 years saved from a lifetime of blindness. But the ‘old men’ who run the LDS Church aren’t interested in reducing human suffering to THAT extent. Increasing the church’s real estate portfolio and corporate income is clearly where the GA’s values lie. Actions speak louder than words. Mormons need to ask themselves, “How would Jesus spend $1 billion?”
Aaron replied: Sapollonia- the song is REM’s “Losing my Religion” Very appropriate. Good choice John. Google for the lyrics.
Thanks… but I already knew the title of the song John used for his own story. I’m asking about the theme song he used for the Grant Palmer Interview. Appreciate your reply though.
Jordan and Free are at the core of the issue. Do we perceive the General Authorities as ordinary human beings or do we treat them as the messengers of God?
If they are just people then we need to determine what’s best for ourselves. If the General Authorities are prophets, seers, and revelators then we better do everything they tell us to do.
There are many Mormons that believe that Mormon leaders have a direct pipeline to God. Some of them do get hurt by bad advice.
I know a lot of folks that dropped out of college, for example, because they had too many children too early as they had put their faith into the advice of Mormon leaders such as Elder Maxwell. I have seen others that did not know how to pay their bills because their families were bigger than they could afford. I have seen countless people who are depressed by feelings of guilt and inadequacy.
I have seen children who have had the fear of the devil put into them by their primary teachers. I know about two who could not properly sleep for years while they were teenagers. One of them had to undergo institutionalized therapy for over a year and remains on anti-depressants.
I know a number of women who have never gotten married because they bought into the advice to only marry in the temple. There are so many gays and lesbians that suffer from ignorance proclaimed as doctrine so much that they attempt to commit suicide.
People do get hurt when they listen to bad advice and bad theology. Whether that’s the intention of the General Authorities does not really matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Therefore I am with Jordan. The General Authorities are human beings that are just as flawed as anyone else. LDS members cannot rely on them but have to take responsibility for their own lives.
The problem is that this is not what’s taught in primary, sunday school, and the missionary discussions. The doctrine idolizes Mormon leaders and people continue to get hurt.
The song in the GP interview is called “Let it go”. Singer is David Wilcox, Album is Vista.
http://davidwilcox.com/index.php?page=songs&display=787
Amen and amen, Hellmut.
When I hear people say that Mormonism is not harmful and a great religion for raising families, I ask them if that would still hold if their children later grew up to be gay, or interracially/interculturally married, or in any way divergent from the “norm” that the Church holds as integral to life here and in the hereafter.
People make choices based on doctrine put forth by prophets, seers and revelators. When they say things such as “the use of birth control is contrary to temple covenants” (as recently as the mid-’90s) or “don’t put off having children…don’t have one or two “trophy children” but have many–God will provide” or “don’t marry this race or that culture” you are indoctrinating children to make poor choices and even become bigots.
Other religions teach directly from the Bible and don’t coerce their members into heaven. It’s amazing how much guilt a Mormon might feel over drinking a cup of coffee (sometimes a Coke!) or not dating the “right” person (a good person, just not temple-worthy) or any number of trivial things.
This is why I like Palmer’s emphasis on teaching what Christ taught, and not the esoterica devised by mere men who claim to hold the secret to the world’s salvation/exaltation in their hands.
Lastly, it is extremely troubling to know that as long as one professes to believe, one can be in the good graces of the Church. Is the Church more concerned with orthodoxy than honesty? If so, I can see why people continue in the the dishonesty of attending church and professing to believe without actually believing.
I had a bishop once who confided in me that he thought the temple was a good motivator, but that it was all a fable and there was no Celestial Kingdom, no angels who would stand as sentinels, no actual “sealing power”, etc. I admire him for doing so and while I don’t know why he remains in the church, I feel that people like him and John Dehlin are helping to make it more comfortable for non-TBMs to become more honest with themselves and others.
John, I’m curious– how many downloads of the Grant Palmer interviews so far?
Looks like around 400 per episode
Aaron, you say: “It is easy for a non-believer to to make light of religious things. I must be ignorant , since I believe.”
I don’t really know who you’re talking to here. I’m a believer, as well, and I am in no position to comment on whether or not you are ignorant of church history. After all, I don’t know you. If you feel that I’ve called you ignorant, please accept my apologies; I don’t want this discussion to get personal.
You also say, “The most important task the church has is to bring souls unto Christ. Not teach history.” I feel tempted to agree with that. This is why it always drives me a bit batty when, for example, the church devotes an entire year to making historical representations about Joseph Smith, rather than to teaching the gospel message of Christ. The problem is, the church as it currently stands puts a lot of effort into making historical claims. Many of those claims are inconsistent with the best currently available evidence. As such, they wouldn’t pass peer review and hence don’t count as competent or credible history.
Does history change over time? Of course. Part of the change involves the discovery of new documents–a process that has rather consistently trended toward creating new difficulties for traditional Mormon faith claims over the last 50-100 years. A much bigger part of the change, however, involves shifting interests on the part of the audience and the profession. On this front, Mormon history is somewhat on the tailing edge. History in general has shifted substantially in the direction of depicting the lives and worldviews of non-elites; rather than presidents and kings, farmers, doctors, and midwives. Mormon history, for the most part and with important exceptions that are nonetheless mostly disregarded by non-academic readers, remains fixated on notable men. Nowhere is this more true than in the church’s representations of Mormon history. Look at the church institute manual about church history’s coverage of the 20th century, for example. The entire century seems to be one in which the church consists almost solely of general authorities.
So the church has put itself in the business of telling history. But it does so in a way that neglects emerging primary sources and clings to reactionary modes of historiography. In effect, the church is perhaps somewhat overcommited to telling bad history. Does that bring souls to Christ? I don’t know; something we’re doing isn’t working, given the roughly zero net conversion rate over the last 15 years.
One last point. You said, “Palmer went outside when he dictated how the church should run, not when he presented research.” When did Palmer actually get to dictate church policy? As far as I can tell, he’s never held the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve hostage and demanded that professional history be listened to. In fact, his suggestions about emphasizing Christ more than history haven’t even been implemented. So he seems to have failed as a dictator.
Did you perhaps mean instead that Palmer went wrong when he made suggestions about how the church could best bring souls to Christ? If so, I think you’re probably wrong. As I’ve written elsewhere, I think that the church would benefit substantially in its ability to fulfill its mission if it had more open institutions of communication. Bad suggestions are the price of getting good suggestions; punishing bad suggestions deters the good ones that the institution probably needs.
Thanks for the figures John. It seems to me that there are more than 400 people attacking Palmer over at the FAIR boards.
It’s hard to put ‘ordinary man’ and ‘messager of God’ in the same person. But that’s what God has done.
That has caused plenty of problems (Joseph Smith spoke about power corrupting men), but I think it is beautiful to watch to the divine and mundane collide in these men, the church, and all of us.
I’ve heard a number of Latter-Day Saints say they wish the church would become more Christ-centered. I’ve read posts from Mormons on other websites who have started to attend other churches because they got tired of the Joseph Smith-worship in the LDS Church. Will the church’s highest levels of priesthood leadership pay attention to what members want and make the necessary changes? If the past is a good predictor of the future, the answer is yes – after the church has experienced crises.
Examples are polygamy (officially ended in 1890), the church’s racist doctrine and policy concerning blacks (reversed in 1978), the simulated violence and other disturbing aspects of the temple endowment ceremony (removed in 1990), LDS spousal and child abuse (finally acknowledged in General Conference and partly addressed in the 1990′s), the naked touching of the washing and annointing temple rite (gone in Jan./05), and more. All of these aspects of Mormonism were finally dealt with by the church’s senior leadership only after the church experienced problems such as very public criticisms of its doctrines, lawsuits, and even strong government action (in the case of polygamy). The question that Latter-Day Saints need to ask themselves is, “Why has it often taken crises to bring about positive change in the church?”
Enlightened leaders are the ‘locomotive’ on the ‘train’ of a group, not the ‘caboose’. They lead, not play catch-up to the level of enlightenment attained by a significant portion of the group’s members and/or society-at-large. For example, if 19th-century Mormon leaders were actually ‘men of God’, why weren’t they speaking out against slavery, instead of teaching Mormons that blacks were spiritually inferior and cursed by God with a dark skin? The same racist teachings endured in the LDS Church until the latter 1970′s! By 1978 when the church finally reversed its doctrine/policy concerning blacks and the priesthood, non-Mormons had been struggling for more than 200 years in support of the basic Christian teaching that all people are created equal before God. Where was the ‘spiritual’ leadership in the Mormon Church regarding blacks for nearly a century and a half? Countless Latter-Day Saints mindlessly believed the church’s teachings regarding blacks because they’d been indoctrinated to believe that the church was ‘true’ and what it taught was ‘God’s truth’.
Hellmut posted, “LDS members cannot rely on them [Mormon priesthood leaders] but have to take responsibility for their own lives.” I completely agree. One of the characteristics of people who are psychologically mature and have high self-esteem is that they fully live by their mind and judgements, not unquestioningly by the group mind. My advice to Mormons (and people in other religions) is learn to think for themselves – about everything. The quality of our lives depends on it. The problem in the LDS Church is that members are indoctrinated to believe that priesthood leaders higher up in the pyramid-like patriarchal structure are more ‘spiritually’ enlightened than the general membership. As the history of the Mormon Church has shown time and again, it’s often rank-and-file Latter-Day Saints who have been more enlightened than the ‘old men’ at the top.
“The problem in the LDS Church is that members are indoctrinated to believe that priesthood leaders higher up in the pyramid-like patriarchal structure are more ’spiritually’ enlightened than the general membership.”
I wasn’t taught that. Would that every man were a prophet.
I’m listening to Part 4 of the podcast with Grant Palmer. Thanks very much, John, for putting it together. I’ve encouraged people on the Recovery from Mormonism website to listen to it, not so that they can take ‘pleasure’ from the problems of the LDS Church, but so that (hopefully) they’ll strive to go deep into their humanity and feel for Latter-Day Saints, who finds themselves in a difficult situation.
For the past 13 years, I have studied the psychological effects of Mormon systematic indoctrination, and would be pleased to be interviewed by you if you’re interested in a Podcast on the subject. My book on the subject is coming out in October. I can be contacted at blair_watson@shaw.ca.
Please thank Grant Palmer on my behalf for his candor and thought-provoking words.
I listened to Part 4 of the Palmer pod-cast. (I am very familiar with the historical problems of the Church and didn’t feel in need of a refresher course.) Frankly, I too had a really hard time during “The Year of Joseph,” because it took us further away from being Christ-centered. I dislike sugar-coating, so I haven’t cared much for Church movies. Nonetheless, the broad brush-strokes used by SOME (not all) ex-Mormons are even more offensive to me than sugar-coating. When I’m talking to a well-educated Mormon (say a William Hartley or a Richard Bushman) about a historical issue, I find great generosity in acknowledging and facing all of the problems Palmer brings up. I find them ready to admit that ALL mortal leaders are flawed–and hence Church members are actually responsible for their own morality. I do not find similar generosity from some who have left the Church. (And I’ll admit that sometimes FARMS and FAIR give ungenerous answers to some good questions.) One of my heroes is Pastor Chip Murray, of the Los Angeles AME Church. He is to me the epitome of a disciple. I have gotten to know him pretty well as I’ve asked his counsel on some important family problems. I have found him to be uncompromisingly open, giving, forgiving, and sure of his own foundation. Though he, as a Black man, was once told by some Mormons that he was “cursed,” he has absolutely NO ill will towards any member of the Church. (In fact, when I e-mailed him President Hinckley’s words from the Priesthood Session, he responded, “President Hinckley is a true messenger of God.”) Pastor Chip lives in the bright corridors of the future, not the drab alleys of shame. He actually believes in the grace of Jesus Christ–which applies to all, even Brigham Young and other Church leaders who were burdened with the great plague of racism and other weighty ills. Christ’s grace is sufficient for the misguided and for the prideful. Our mission is to make sacred spaces where His light can shine, not to point accusing fingers at dark corners. The words “No man knows my history” usually bring either Joseph Smith or Fawn Brodie to mind. But I would say that they apply to all of us. We may think we know another person well enough to sum them up. NEVER. If we can get well-acquainted with ourselves, we’re doing fine. If we can establish true intimacy with our spouses, we’re fortunate. But how sad is the man or woman who lives with a perpetually clenched fist or an accusing, pointed finger. How much better to hold blessings in our hands and freely share them. Despite its problems (and believe me, I’m familiar with them) I have found great blessings through my membership in this Church. I will continue to seek ways to share the blessings, whether or not they come with missionary discussions. I hope to do so generously for all my days. There is no Church on the face of this earth without great problems in its history. Thank God we need not hold the present hostage to the past. We can look back and say, “We have far to go, but look how far we’ve come! We are PROGRESSING!” Apparently, God has always intended us to grow beyond the childish borders of our youth.
Diversity / similarity
Hi, I wanna shift the topic a bit in my post.
One thing which becomes clear in your postings is that there is a great diversity among Mormons.
Some LDS are rather liberal and take a more realistic view, e.g. on the authority of the Prophet.
They accept that the church authorities are only humans who can make mistakes. Therefore, e.g. they
can understand that in the past people were racists. And we have to admit that people of all denominations
have been racists, not only mormons. The “seed of Cain” theory was common among most denoms., not an
LDS invention.
But other people take a more literal view. And some church authorities try to enforce this literal and conservative
view that the prophets “cannot lead the faithful astray”. When these people find out that church authorities and prophets actually made mistakes, they are shocked. That’s why, to them Joseph’s polygamy, Young’s racism, men on the moon and other topics are so faith-destroying to them.
We have to keep in mind this diversity, because it leads to a diversity in reactions to the topics.
While one person is totally uninterested in them, because he didn’t believed in this literal way anyway,
others are devastated, and react extremely by loss of faith, leaving the church, becoming “anti-mormons” who get angry about the church portraying this literal, yet obviously false picture of the world.
In this regard, the LDS church is not alone.
Similar problems can also be found in other denominations and even in other religions.
The church structurally most similar to the LDS church is the catholic church, because it is also
hierarchical and puts some emphasis on the authority of their leader, i.e. the pope.
The authority is based on some stories in the bible about Peter, “the rock”.
Emphasis on this authority was made in the 19th. century, when Darwin’s evolution theory threatened
the old held beliefs. Only at this point, papal infallibility was introduced, although the words of the pope
were regarded as true also before this dogma was introduced.
Today, many catholics face the same problem. They look back in history and see many bad and false teachings in the catholic church. They see corruption, violence, superstitious beliefs and wonder how these “men of God” could have been so errant.
Instead of believing in the infallibility of certain persons, many protestant denominations hold up the inerracy of the bible. Although this view excludes many bad ideas developed in the course of history
(racism, witchcraft, etc.), this view also faced severe problems when in the 19th century, a scientific examination of the bible started and many archaeological were performed.
Several doctrines and beliefs which were held dearly in the past dissolved into air, e.g. the belief that the 5 books of Mose were written by Mose. Also the historicity of several books in the bible were questioned.
While the problem of historicity of the bible is not as severe as it is for the book of mormon
(The bible has a historical core, whereas the book of mormon probably is a work of fiction), there certainly are many problems, e.g. the book of Joshua turned out to be a collection of local legens, all from the tribe of Benjamin, which were combined to a heroic conquest of the holy land. This heroic conquest however, does not fit to the following stories where the Israelites face severe problems with the other people living in the same land (whereas the book of Joshua depicts the Israelites to drive them all out).
The (catholic) book of Tobit talks about Tobit and his son, yet, the historical events described in the book span about 300 years, so those guys would be at least 150 years old each…
The list of biblical problems could be extended to fill pages after pages, the differences in the gospels, contradicting verses throughout the bible, developments in the bible inspite of a god who never changes, etc.
All this leads to similar developments in the other denominations and religions as well:
There are liberal catholics who roll their eyes when the Pope makes yet another statement about condoms;
there are liberal protestants who don’t take many accounts in the bible literally and who don’t apply all stories to modern times.
Fortunately, this liberalism can also be found in Judaism, so much of the old testament stuff is not followed any more.
To sum it up:
There is a diversity in beliefs of LDS members. This diversity leads to different reactions to the problems faced by the church, such as historical issues or doctrinal problems.
These issues can be found in other denominations and religions as well, they are not unique to the LDS church.
Just to mention one example, I know two gays who have left the catholic church, because they don’t want to support a church which openly attacks them for what they are.
Therefore, I would not stigmatize the church as “an evil cult” when they face the same problems as most religions, and I think we should take into account the diversity of different people which accounts for their reactions to the problems discussed in “Mormon stories” podcasts.
Greets, Chris
If Smith lied about having seen God and Jesus; if he authored the Book of Mormon; if he only pretended to have met Peter, James and John–and even Noah (does anyone even believe the story of Noah and the ark anymore?), then the church is likely wrong about its message re. ordinances, temples, etc.
Confused, if the church’s message leads people to Christ, do we really want to get too hung up on the details?
That’s a big if for some people–but it’s worth thinking about.
The details might not matter to some people in some situations, but for others it’s potentially HUGE–even life-threatening. Consider:
1. The single person who believes so much in Eternal Marriage (TM) that s/he gives up chances to date or marry outside the church and compromises his/her emotional, social and even physical health.
2. The gay person who lives alone and celibate, threatened by the idea that ANY relationship in which he engages will mean no celestial glory for him, no relationship with anyone, anywhere at anytime, while his straight counterparts get to have eternal wives/sex just for having been born straight.
3. The people who don’t want to lie to get a recommend if their bishops only give TRs to true believers who will say they believe in the restoration as the Church presents it. Yet they don’t want to upset the family, or they want to go to so and so’s wedding, or they don’t want to lose face. So they lie. The Church teaches people to lie. The person in the singles ward or the young teenager who fears confession of having broken the Law of Chastity–even if it’s just a necking session–is tempted to lie and often does–because a recommend matters. A recommend to do what? If the “details” were made up and people’s life choices are in the balance, it’s a BIG DEAL. Some people value honesty more than their Church membership. And yet the Church punishes them for it. Sometimes “standing for something” is the right thing… Sometimes details do matter.
John,
As usual excellent Podcast with Grant Palmer. You have a talent for being able to listen actively from multiple paradigms at once. Most women pull this off in their sleep and will find it laughable I even acknowledge this as a skill but it’s rare to find a guy who’s so adept at it. I’m sure this comparison has already been made several times but in my mind you’re the LDS Larry King/Paul Harvey/Oprah all rolled up into one.
You mentioned in the podcast you could post a link to an Ensign article from I believe you said Elder Ballard where he acknowledged the translation process may have been a bit different than we see in say “How Rare a Possession.” I may have overlooked it but if you have not already could you please post that link?
Also, I intend to buy Mr. Palmer’s book to get the sources but would it be possible (again, I may be overlooking a feature you may have up already) to post some of the key sources of a given author in the blog? Grad school has pounded into my head that you don’t take anything at face value and always look up the sources in order to be able to see where the author made a conjecture, perhaps missed some context, etc.
Again, fabulous job. I love these longer format interviews that are broken up into several segments. I feel like it gives you the time you need to really dig into not only the person’s story but the point(s) they are trying to make.
BTW: Mr. Palmer is in my in-laws ward.
Wow, Randy. You can flatter me anytime.
You should be able to find a link to Elder Nelson’s talk here: http://mormonstories.org/top10toughissues/
Just click on the “Peep Stones” link, and you will find it in the article.
Thanks again to all of you for your feedback and comments. What a great group of seeking, feeling folks.
John
You need any help keeping the “Upcoming Podcasts” page up to date?
Apparently.
I need LOTS of help. I’m sorta tired/burned out a bit. I have like 100 emails I haven’t replied to. UGH!!!
John
John, got it. Thanks:
“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.)
So taking the above at face value I have a question or two:
1. Let’s say Joseph is seeing a reformed Eqyptian character and its English counterpart simultaneously while looking at the stone which is in the hat. If the translation happened letter by letter it would seem Joseph would call out something like the following:
“A”…”n”…”d”
“New word”
“i”…”t”
“New word”
“c”…”a”…”m”…”e”
“New word”
“t”…”o”…
Now let’s suppose that Joseph would first look at an actual character on the physical plates (which Grant pointed out in his interview we have no evidence of) and would then look into the hat to see the translation of that character. One would think in such an exercise that one might take a rubbing of a character, record the English translation, and build up a library. As one encountered that character again one would no longer need to obtain it’s translation via the hat again but would simply refer to the growing character library and the process should be sped along so that looking into the hat becomes less frequent and the scribe’s job is simply to apply the cipher to the rubbing of a given page/plate.
It would seem overly laborious to re-translate a given character over and over again.
If, on the other hand, the reality was like what Brother Palmer suggested and the physical plates may not have even been present during translation then the “parchment” Elder Nelson refers to above would appear and it would mean the book was presented to Joseph almost as a PowerPoint in a page-by-page fashion and John’s question during the interview of “why even have the plates?” is a good one.
It also begs the question of why the Urim and Thummim/breastplate were even introduced if the existing seer stone was adequate. I’d love to see some additional references to this. And as much as I hate to say it, seeing things in a rock–albeit perhaps in one’s mind’s eye or with “the eyes of one’s understanding” as Grant put it is not too far off from the practice of peering into a crystal ball that I was told was hogwash as I was rushed along by the hand as a child at the county fair. Perhaps if we look into our past we have reason to be less critical of those who believe in the “supernatural” and hang a shingle on the corner with the neon sign claiming to tell fortunes.
“Do we really want to get too hung up on the details?”, posted RoastedTomatoes. What details should Latter-Day Saints overlook? The conflicting versions of the ‘First Vision’ that Joseph Smith produced? His propensity for treasure-digging as a young man and fascination with the occult/magic? His lying about possessing ancient ‘Golden Plates’? The fact that newspapers and records of churches in the Palmyra area prior to the spring of 1820 contain not one word or statistic supporting the statement in official church history that there was “an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country … and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties”?
Should Mormons and potential converts overlook the detail that, according to official church history, Joseph Smith was told by God that all other religions were an abomination and to join none of them, but in 1828, he tried to join the Methodist Church? What about the complete lack of archeological and genetic evidence supporting the historicity of The Book of Mormon? Or the church’s online genealogy records that show Joseph Smith’s marriages to women who were already married and teenage girls as young as 14? What about the Egyptian papyri ‘translated’ by Smith and published as the Book of Abraham (in the Pearl of Great Price) that in fact said nothing about Abraham, Jehovah, the creation of the Earth, etc.? Which details should Mormons not get ‘hung up’ on?
If these facts (and many others), which conflict with claims, doctrines, and teachings of the LDS Church, are not worthy of consideration, as RoastedPotatoes alludes to, then what does matter in Mormonism? Simply believing that the LDS Church and religion are ‘true’? Why not believe, as did Catholics in Europe prior to the 17th century, that the Earth is at the center of the ‘heavens’ and the stars and planets are embedded on crystal spheres that revolved around the Earth? This Aristotelian view of the universe was an integral part of the ‘spiritual’ belief system of millions of people for centuries. The ‘spiritual knowledge’ that Catholics had about the cosmos influenced everything they thought and did because it told them the ‘truth’.
What has brought about a very different and increasingly correct view of the cosmos in the past 400 years? Individuals paying attention to details – people like Nicklaus Kopernig (Copernicus), Giovanni Benedetti, and Galileo Galilei. Their desire to understand the cosmos as it was, not as the Catholic Church told them it was, resulted in the collapse of a ‘spiritual’ cosmology that was nearly 2,000 years old. In relation to Mormonism, Latter-Day Saints must do the same. They must pay attention to the details, and not mentally flee from, trivialize, or condemn them. Mormons’ psychological health depends on them respecting the facts and modifying or getting rid of their ‘spiritual’ beliefs accordingly.
John, sounds like you need an Aaron or two to help hold up the arms a bit.
I suppose it may be worth mentioning what may be an orthodox point of view on Joseph’s past: if, in fact, God had an ancient record of gold plates that needed to come forth and be translated in a fantastic way who better to do it than a young man who comes from a family that does not find the idea of buried treasure close by unusual nor stones that would allow one to see “with second sight” out of the ordinary? In fact, rather than seeing these paradigms and personal history as a liability, the orthodox would probably point to them as “gifts of the Spirit” that had surfaced but had not yet been given full expression. In fact, the past was simply a training of sorts to prepare young Joseph for the true purpose of his gifts.
ercMD/Randy,
That’s actually exactly what Bushman argued in his early work, and in RSR. Makes sense…….though I tried teaching this to my seminary kids…..and it wasn’t pretty.
I definitely don’t recommend that.
John
Yeah I could see that. I was pretty blunt with my seminary teacher at times when something didn’t quite add up. Thanks, John for pointing that out.
I hesitate to post since I’m not nearly as well read as you and the others on these matters and your podcast is literally the first real exposure I’ve had to a number of questions I’ve had for a while but never felt I could just bring up in EQ, (“So how ’bout those peep stones…”). I apologize for stating what is probably sophmoric for everyone else and exposing myself as a neophyte but chalk it up to enthusiasm about the show.
We all know the correlated view of the translation process. My question is if that is actually an “official” story put out by the church or if it’s an interesting case of something like the Abeline paradox.
Could it be that the church authorities were basically silent on the matter in the beginning and then various artists began to portray their rendention of how the translation may have happened (apparently being either uninformed or simply taking artistic license) and that was what made it into the church members’ collective awareness? Then, seeing that the image of Joseph thumbing through actual golden plates would be much easier for modern sensibilities to accept than a painting of Joseph with his face hidden in a hat, the church simply continued to be silent and allow that view to take hold–eventually embracing it and putting it into church films?
It would be like the paintings by Friberg: somehow I doubt Ammon could have competed in Mr. Universe or gone up against Vin Diesel but it made an awesome depiction of a hero that I gravitated toward as a teenager and a missionary.
Not only is this an instructive example of the power of imagery on shaping the populous mind (and/or as I mention above an evidence of the Abeline paradox) but I’m asking what evidence we have that the church officially propogated the now common translation story in the beginning.
No worries at all, Randy. You’d be surprised at how little I know.
Confused and FreeAtLast, I think you’re overreacting to what I said. I’m not opposed to working through the details. I think it’s important to get the history right and to make realistic claims about the origins of Mormon scripture and so forth. But I did provide an answer to the question of what might be worth saving in Mormonism: the power of its texts and narratives to bring people to Christ and make them feel more in connection with God and better about their lives.
Randy,
I definitely believe it’s totally possible the bretheren (and correlation committee) are only teaching what they were taught. I’m not big on conspiracies. I don’t really fault anyone for it…..I think it’s all human nature.
John
Roasted Tomatoes: I don’t think I was overreacting at all! You say that “the power of (the church’s) texts and narratives…bring people to Christ and…make them feel more in connection with God and better about their lives.” I’m saying that’s absolutely impossible for the kinds of people I mentioned above–people who believe in the temple ordinances but have no hope of obtaining them; people committed to truth but who must lie about their beliefs in order to stay within the fold, etc. What good is that narrative to them? Why not just another branch of Christianity or any other faith tradition that teaches good?
The power of the Joseph Smith narrative, the temple narrative and so much else is HARMFUL to the many of the world’s people, not helpful. And it does much to drive people away from Christ, not to him. I guess in a sense if you consider the people who consider suicide because they can’t measure up to standards, or who don’t easily fit into the plan of salvation and who want to (or actually) commit suicide, in that sense they’re brought “closer to Christ”…
You’ve raised a crucial point, RoastedPotatoes: Do people need Christianity and a belief/faith in Jesus to feel “better about their lives”. This goes to the issue of self-esteem. Many Latter-Day Saints base their self-esteem on their identity as a Mormon. How many times have we heard members say during Fast and Testimony meeting: “Without the church, I don’t know who I’d be. I don’t know what I’d do with my life. I wouldn’t know the right way to live. The church is everything to me!”
Countless Latter-Day Saints base their self-esteem/-concept/-identity on Mormonism. They have little, and in some cases no inner experience of a self differentiated from the self that is the product of Mormon psychological conditioning. This is particularly true for people raised in the church because they never had a chance to experience life without Mormonism influences their psyche during their formative years.
Self-esteem is the reputation that we acquire with ourselves, particularly with our mind, over time. If we mentally flee from, trivialize, and condemn facts that do not support our beliefs, including cherished religious beliefs, then we betray our mind. Our survival, quality of life, and well-being depends on us having full confidence in our mind, cognitive process such as rational/critical thinking, and our judgments.
One of the chief problems with Mormonism in terms of people’s psychological health is that is conditions people to betray their mind and undermine their rational/critical thinking when they are confronted with information that is not congruent with their ‘spiritual’ beliefs. The typical LDS response is to discount such facts/truths. Only faith-supporting information is presented in church materials, only faith-supporting personal stories are told at General Conference, and so on. The cognitive dissonance that is very common among Latter-Day Saints is a manifestation of the psychological dysfunction caused by Mormonism.
Another symptom of psychological dysfunction among Mormons is their baffling ‘logic’; the FAIR LDS website is full of examples. The mental gyrations that Latter-Day Saints go through in an attempt to try to make sense out of nonsensical church teachings are legion. In the end, all they can do is ‘just have faith’. Again, one might as well believe in an Earth-centered universe of crystal spheres. It is absolutely vital to Mormons’ well-being that they understand how their minds have been ‘programmed’ by the LDS Church through systematic indoctrination and their psyches conditioned by Mormonism. The extent to which they remain unaware of that conditioning is the degree to which they will unconsciously think and behave as the LDS Church/community/collective wants them to.
Many people that they’d be nothing without God (as defined by their religion). Many Christians believe that they’d be ‘lost sinners’ without Jesus (as defined by Christian religions). In both cases, people are basing their self-esteem on externals. The ‘Heavenly Father’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ of Mormonism are psychological constructs, the products of people’s minds, starting with the mind of Joseph Smith. Many Latter-Day Saints also base their self-esteem on their ‘worthiness’, which is based on a set of compliance criteria established by the church. Mormons use an external yardstick, so to speak, to determine whether they ‘measure up’ or not. Are you ‘temple-worthy’? That depends on your compliance with requirements A, B, C, D, etc. Who created those requirements? Mormons in positions of authority in the church who believe that requirements A, B, C, D, etc. come from God. But in fact, they came from the minds of LDS authority figures. Obey and they will tell you that you’re ‘righteous’ and ‘worthy’. Don’t comply and Mormonism categorizes you as ‘unworthy’.
Why base one’s self-esteem on others’ opinions and judgments? Why base it on other people’s concepts of God and what God ‘commands’ and wants? One does not need God or Jesus to “feel better about their lives” or themselves. Ultimately, there is no source of healthy/functional self-esteem outside of one’s self. This is a crucial psychological truth that Latter-Day Saints (and people in other religions) need to learn.
I want to point out again that FreeAtLast and Confused have not left the church. Even if y’all took your names off the roll call, it is obvious from your posts that a good deal of your personality is tied up in the word Mormon. Whether you put an ex or a TB in front of it doesn’t even matter that much.
That being said… The idea that the Church is actually dangerous should be explored. Are there cases where the church can cause despair, depression, divorce and even (one more D word) death? Hell yeah. I have seen it in my own family in degrees that vary from mild discomfort to really really bad stuff, and I would bet to some extent every person on this list has felt some amount of pain that you can trace back to the church.
However…
So what? So this institution we were born into hasn’t worked 100%? Bummer. But what are you going to do? Put all your faith in the government (cause they never hurt anyone on accident)? Schools? Other Churches? (What if we were Catholic? At least it was only our FEELINGS that got hurt {zing} ).
It is true that we should base all of our self-esteem on our selves. We should also floss every day. Some people (this is gonna be a bomb shell) have a hard time with self-esteem. Some people get sad and depressed. Some people have a hard time deciding who they are exactly and what they should do with their lives. They could use a little help. Now I am not saying you just give those choices to GB Hinckley and wish him luck making your decisions, but from time to time we, well, I’ll just speak for myself, I need some help.
I am not saying stay in the church (again I bring up the point that I am chronically inactive). I’m just saying how does your criticism in any way invalidate the church for other people?
IF the Church is NOT the one true church, then it’s just a church.
AND if it’s just a church, why does its short comings make it any worse than any other church or really any other human institution? A church, by definition, is a place where people go to talk about what they should and shouldn’t be doing. I have trouble seeing the problem with that desire.
We all have some complex feelings towards this thing called Mormon. There’s a lot of pain and confusion and really really dark crap. But what are you gonna do? Cry? You wanna cry little baby! THERE’S NO CRYING IN RELIGION!
Sorry. I just watched “A League of Their Own”.
But the point is – hmm. What is the point?
This thing is what it is. We can sit around and argue if it is good or bad; if we should build it up or destroy it; if it does more good than harm. At the end of the day it is about YOU and YOUR own peace. Get out if you can, but since WE can’t, might as well try to make this a positive experience. And if you are really interested in the well being of the misfits of Mormonism that you talked about, you will stay in or around the church to help them out.
And to answer FreeAtLast’s's inquiry of my age- I’m 26. And I rock.
Your point about LDS leaders may have been true in the sixties, John. However, Lavina Anderson has documented as early as in 1992 the systematic intimidation of historians by priesthood leaders. You can read her article in the 1992/93 volume of Dialogue.
I am providing a collection of citations of LDS leaders and their attitude about history on my blog under the title The Testimony of a Dissident.
In light of their own words, it is clear that many LDS leaders are well aware that the current state of historical research contradicts the correlated material. Moreover, it is also clear that LDS leaders continue efforts to persecute and punish historians.
Kirk, I appreciate your honesty. It seems to me, however, that your argument misunderstands the problem of LDS imperfections in two ways.
First, it’s not true that other organizations are just as imperfect as the LDS Church. Few organizations are so intolerant with regards to dissent. Few organizations instill so much arrogance in their followers as the LDS Church.
The LDS Church is an outlier, especially within the context of developed democratic societies. In some ways, such as teenage smoking and alcohol consumption, the Mormon way of live works out pretty well. In others, as you have pointed out, it’s a disaster.
Second, we need to remember that LDS doctrine requires unconditional obedience of its adherents. Anyone who demands so much deserves to be scrutinized according to rigorous standards.
An organization that asks us to sacrifice everything in its behalf cannot invoke average behavior in its defense. It’s fair and appropriate to evaluate the LDS Church according to the standards that it demands of its members.
Thanks for the song info John!
Kirk wrote, “I want to point out again that FreeAtLast and Confused have not left the church. Even if y’all took your names off the roll call, it is obvious from your posts that a good deal of your personality is tied up in the word Mormon.”
Don’t confuse personality, Kirk, with the personality-altering effects of Mormon psychological conditioning. Far too many Latter-Day Saints have unconsciously ‘closeted’ their true personality because it didn’t fit in Mormonism. Men and women who didn’t have a conservative bone in their body who buried their fun, partying, sexy self because Mormonism conditioned them to always be ‘reverent’, ‘meek’, ‘humble’, and ‘long-suffering’. Ambitious and intelligent LDS women who buried their natural drive and intellectual abilities because the LDS Church indoctrinated them to believe that their main purpose in life was to be a ‘wife and mother in Zion’. LDS boys and young men who were emasculated by Mormonism and ended up as submissive milk-toast types.
I don’t know about other people who visit this website, but my personality is not ‘tied up in the word Mormon’. I spent a decade de-programming myself from the many unhealthy and wounding aspects of Mormonism, and liberated my personality in the process. What kept the real me buried for so many years? The fear, guilt, and shame that Mormonism conditioned me to feel every day. In the past 13 years, I have spoken with hundreds of people with experience in Mormonism who know from personal experience what I’m talking about. Mormon psychological conditioning keeps Latter-Day Saints from fully knowing/experiencing their authentic self. In some cases, the pain of self-estrangement has been so intense that Mormons have killed themselves. Countless members are chronically depressed because of LDS Church teachings and Mormon psychological ‘programming’.
Mormonism keeps people psychologically enslaved. Its core message is “Comply or else; obey or you will suffer”. If you don’t follow church teachings and God’s commandments (as defined by Mormonism), according to church teachings, God will withhold blessings from you and punish you, Satan will gain power over you, and after death, you will suffer ‘eternal damnation’ and be forever separated from ‘righteous’ Mormon family members and friends. For generations, the church has taught that “no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of Heaven”. What makes Mormons (and all people) ‘unclean’ according to LDS theology? ‘Sins’, as defined by Mormonism. To be ‘sinless’, you must be ‘perfect’. Is it any wonder that so many Latter-Day Saints are afraid of making a mistake and feel like God is always watching and judging them?
It’s impossible to mature psychologically or grow/evolve when a person is psychologically bound by chains of fear. History has shown that religious fear has been a very effective means of controlling and manipulating the masses. A person can muster the courage to confront an individual, a group of people, or even an organization, but how does a person stand up to God (the version of God that they’ve been indoctrinated to believe is as real as their own self)? Mormons’ psychological liberation depends on them confronting, down to the deepest level of their psyche, the fear-inducing ‘spiritual’ ideas that Mormonism planted and reinforced in their mind. This, more than anything else, is what recovering from Mormonism is about. Having gone this process myself (it wasn’t fun) and counselled dozens of people who have struggled through the same process, I know of what I write.
As Hellmut pointed out, the LDS Church/Mormonism is judged by the highest, most demanding standards because it has placed itself about all other institutions and organizations on Earth. It has told the world since Joseph Smith’s day that it is the one ‘true’ church of God, and Mormonism is the one, ‘true’ religion of ‘the Lord’. It cannot now try to slip out the back door, so to speak, and try to come across as just another church, run by flawed people. In past generations, the LDS Church declared that it was perfect as an organization, and only it had the power and authority of God. Generations of Mormons, including my own, were indoctrinated to believe that ‘the Lord’ directed the church via ‘revelation’. The LDS Church placed itself on the world’s highest pedestal, and there it shall stay, until its foundation of deception crumbles and fails. Anyone with “eyes to see and ears to hear” knows the church’s foundation is crumbling.
One more clarification about something Kirk posted: “We all have some complex feelings towards this thing called Mormon.” Some people who read this blog may have convoluted feelings relative to Mormonism (e.g., they love the sense of community and family values, but dislike the ‘dark’ aspects of Mormon history). I do not. My feelings (and thoughts) are clear: Mormons are generally ‘nice’ (to a fault), friendly, and caring, but they believe nonsensical and unhealthy ‘spiritual’ ideas, which results in psychological dysfunction and self-esteem problems. As an organization, the LDS Church is morally bankrupt because of its long history of deceiving people. I left the church because in good conscience, I could no longer support such an organization. Each person has their reason(s) for leaving or staying.
Kirk, I’m sorry you misunderstood, misread and misconstrued my clearly-worded points.
To simplify even further, let me reiterate that I don’t think Mormonism is the root of all evil. Here’s what I do think:
1. The unique teachings, practices and ordinances of Mormonism exclude certain people. These people might want to comply but simply can’t. They are therefore wracked with unneccessary pain, guilt, longing and angst. Such people include:
(a) older singles who choose not to marry outside the Church because they believe that to choose to do so would be to “reject the covenant.” According to Smith’s D and C 132 that would mean a rejection of exaltation itself. If this doctrine is not true; if Joseph Smith made it all up, such singles are needlessly wasting their lives.
(b) gays who want to be members of “The only True Church on the Face of the Earth (TM)” but who are made to feel that there is no place for them in the Plan of Happiness (TM). If the Plan of Salvation (TM) is a figment of Smith et al’s imagination, then the church has once again devalued the meaning of life for homosexuals.
(c) and so on an so forth: Teachings that demean of exclude people who can’t or don’t have a Forever Family ™ are unique to the LDS church. In other faith traditions, it simply doesn’t matter what your marital status is or whether you are on the path to becoming married. This teaching needlessly hurts the very people who take Mormonism to heart/take Mormonism seriously.
(d) The poor are made ot think that unless they consistently give ten percent of their earnings to the Church, they are “unworthy.” For some, this means the choice between feeding their family or having a recommend, going into serious debt to be in good graces of the Church, etc. If the church is wrong on this point, too, it is ahrmful to a good deal of people.
Is this clearer to you now?
Hey, you guys.
Join me in pitching John a few bucks to let him take the Dehlin Fam out to dinner after this Phenomenal run of podcasts!
p.s. It was quite easy to donate.
-W.
Great quote from the movie “The Truman Show”:
Interviewer: Why do you think that Truman has never come close to discovering the true nature of his world until now?
Kristof: We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented. It’s as simple as that.
WH, great idea. Done.
Good points guys. Confused, I should have let you know in clearer words that I do think the church can be a very negative force in the life of a person, especially the four groups you mentioned.
The one thing that Hellmut, Confused and FreeAtLast all said was (roughly) because the church says it is the one true church and holds its members to a very high standard (perfection?) then we must judge it on a scale with its own standards.
I’m cool with that. Scrutinize it. Tear it apart. Look in every dark corner. You will find enough evidence against the church that its claims of being the one true church will be, at the very least, called into question if not totally dismantled.
And if you are black or gay or like tattoos or want a career even though you don’t have a Y chromosome, I would think long and hard about whether you want to be in a church whose teachings are fundamentally against you. Even if you are a white straight male with nice teeth and your last name is Young, you still need to think about it. Do what they say “Study, ponder, pray.”
I think up to this point we are in agreeance. Right?
So then what? What do you do next? Leave? Stay? Something else?
I always say, if you can get out of this church, you might as well do it. But when I say get out, I don’t mean this thing we’re doing right now. I mean, leave it alone. Walk away. Move on. If your feelings about the church are truly not convoluted (convoluted – Having numerous overlapping coils or folds; intricate; complicated) then why do this? Why this constant discussion on boards? These organizations working against the church? For it? Around it? Sounds pretty convoluted.
Since we haven’t/won’t/can’t leave it alone, what do we do?
You guys sound like very different people to me so it seems fruitless to try to generalize but let’s just say you don’t want to be an active member of the church any more. Well neither do I. But whether we are TBMs, EX mormons NOMs or whatever we still have this relationship with the church. That was always my main point. And like any divorced couple will tell you, divorce is its own kind of relationship. Different, but no less a relationship.
There are a million ways to deal with it and I like the idea that FreeAtLast helps others get out and provides support. That’s more than I am doing for other people. So again I say, we probably agree a lot more than disagree here.
OK wait… what did we disagree on again?
I guess you guys felt like I was down playing how horrible it is that (we have come to believe) the church lied to us. And yeah, I guess I am downplaying it. Not because I want to lie to myself, but because I don’t see the use in dwelling on it.
That doesn’t mean I’m not hurt. I remeber feeling so betrayed when my faith fell apart. It was like my best friend had stolen my wife and then shot my dog while he was leaving. And that pain is still there. If I down play my anger towards the church it is because I have lived in it (the anger) for all of these years and I am exhausted. I am here because i want some peace. And when i listen to these podcasts I don’t feel alone any more. I realize that there are others out there who are in this church, but they are in it in their own way.
Anger, bitterness, hurt, guilt (oh come on, admit it, you feel guilty you left sometimes. Nothing you can do about it); these all play a part in coming to terms with this whole thing. But there was good too. I remember it. You remember it. Denying the good is just as close minded as TBMs denying the bad.
The Mormon Church is a church that claims it’s the one true church (as does the Catholic church, the muslims, the JWs, and about half the churches out there). It IS intolerant of blacks and gays but you can not seriously say that it is the most intolerant church in America.
You can’t tell me that the Republican party doesn’t inspire a healthy helping of intolerance (both for minorities and dissent). You can’t tell me the Democratic party doesn’t instill arrogance in its members. And what the hell are those Shriners really up to in those little cars? Talk about secrecy.
The church has problems. We have problems with the church. It’s a lot to sort out. Good thing we have this community in which to do it.
Here’s what I’m having a problem with and ex-mormons, anti-mormons and proud members alike can dash at me as you like.
If this is all a lie. If everything I’ve been taught is wrong. If Joseph was a fraud and an evil man. If the Book of Mormon is pure fiction. etc etc etc
Why is it that I feel such warmth, joy, peace, etc whenever I walk into a church building, a member’s home, etc? Is it just a pavlovian reaction based on the inner response I’ve been taught to feel? Why is it that I’ve felt this all my life even when I didn’t believe it?
Even as a teen I was very much in rebellion from what my dad believed. I hadn’t yet joined the church, was looking through various wiccan, vampire, satanic, etc books and was proud to be evil. Even back then I still felt the same feelings (though to a lesser extent) in these environments.
If I feel such peace in such a church. If I feel it when I read the scriptures (including the BoM) and pray. If I feel it when I’m in the home of a member and when I’m discussing spiritual matters with my wife, why should I leave a religion that makes me feel so good?
Daniel,
If Mormonism is working for you and your family, you SHOULDN’T leave. I certainly haven’t. I went yesterday and really enjoyed it.
Nothing anyone has ever discovered historically proves that Joseph didn’t have a vision, or that the Book or Momon is a fraud.
And even if you are inclined to believe that JS wasn’t who you thought he was, or that the BOM isn’t historical–you can still choose (like many) to see them as inspired by God, even if imperfect, or not what they claim to be.
I’ve tried other religions, and can’t get myself to feel good about switching. That’s why I choose to stay….and I’m finding a way, fwiw.
John
Daniel,
I agree with John that if Mormonism is working for you perhaps you should stay. But the minute you start suffering cognitive dissonance or feel that you are being dishonest in some way or supporting a fraud perhaps you should consider leaving. This is why I resigned (see http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/resigning.html). I was once asked your question by a Mormon friend Daniel. She asked me how can the church be so wrong when it feels good?
Here is what I told her: I accept your personal subjective experiences Jen, but I do the same for my exMormon cousin (now born-again Christian). I accept the testimony of my Catholic relatives, my Buddhist friends, and a Hindu I met one time. All of their subjective experiences are valid and I believe can be explained psychologically. But you all proclaim a belief in a different dogma, when I just want to unite us and share with you things that we both can experience and know objectively. Isn’t it possible that each of your individual spiritual experiences are real for each of you, but does not make a particular religion truer than another?
1. I hope you’re able to see my sincerity Jen. You have to understand that I am not coming out and saying, “Mormons are wrong.” I never said Mormons are “wrong in everything.” I’m saying everyone appealing to feelings cannot be right. There are a lot of things in LDS teachings I believe are good and true. I never said Mormons are wrong totally, I just don’t agree that Mormons are “all right” and all the other religions are “all wrong.”
2. How can Muslims, Catholics, Jews, and Hindus be so wrong when it feels good to them?
A. John the Hindu worships Krishna. He prays to his God and feels the spirit. He then believes those feelings prove only his religion is true.
B. The Mormon says feelings equal his religion is true.
C. I’m only saying that logically A & B cancel out each other.
Saying those others only felt “the light of Christ” whereas we Mormons felt the Holy Ghost is unprovable and quite frankly a little arrogant. How can you presume to know what someone else felt and be so quick to discredit their experience as lesser than yours? And what about those Book of Mormon believers in Utah who reject Utah Mormonism and claim they felt the Holy Ghost?
For more information on the Mormon testimony please read an email exchange between me and an LDS friend at http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/testletter.htm.
I sent an email to John mormonstories@yahoo.com
It bounced.
Hey John Write me, I have something for you.
Thanks
Perry
perryp@pobox.com
Hey Kempton,
> 2. How can Muslims, Catholics, Jews, and Hindus be so wrong when it feels good to them?
When I read about the Mormon “burning in my bosom”, I had quite a laugh.
A half year before that, I had been in an evangelical youth group (sect?).
Anyway, during the bible study group, you get constantly pushed to “make a decision for Jesus”.
Because of some personal problems, I searched the help of the almighty God, who seems so loving
and caring in the bible stories.
Well, one day I prayed to God and Jesus and gave my life to Jesus, and guess what…
I had a warm feeling in my bosom, and I cried and whatnot.
This is the proof that the “bosom-Method”(TM of the LDS church) doesn’t work, for it worked in an “apostatic church” as well.
I think what counts is reality.
In my study group, people constantly thank God for the good things they receive.
That’s basically because they are spoiled children in the west who have everything.
Of course, if you get three meals every day, thanking God is quite redundant.
But where is God when you need him/her/it ?
In these situations, God proves himself to be be absent.
“…Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.”(1.Kings 18:27)
In contrast to the nice and happy ending bible stories, in reality God is as absent as Baal in this old testament story.
When I had such a “spiritual experience” that there is no God who cares when you really need him,
I became an atheist.
Actually, its ridiculous, cause in both situations I base my faith and behaviour on “spiritual experiences” which are just psychological effects.
Anyway, as those experiences are totally exchangable (you can have your bosom burn for Buddha, Allah, Krishna, the Spaghetti Monster which created the universe, Jesus, Mother Mary, Adolph Hitler, … insert whatever spiritual leader you might want to add…, Joseph Smith.)
it is ridiculous to base your life on such a vague foundation.
The churches of course do SOME good, that’s how they sneak into people’s lives.
Boy scouts here, a nice parish there, collecting money for the needy, loving your neighbour, etc.
But under this beautiful facade, religions hide their darker side.
“… for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”(Mt 23:27)
The religion forces you into irrational behaviour:
Some religions forbid pork, some coffee, some alkohol.
Orthodox jews keep meat and milk in two different fridges.
Some people wear secret underwear.
Most religions tell their members that only they are the chosen people, all other religions are false.
In the course of history, religion has caused:
- Wars
- Murder of witches, heretics, unbelievers
- Destruction of cult sites of other religions
- Break ups of families whose members belong to different faiths (especially Mormon missionaries baptizing only one member of a family thus create big conflicts)
- Self denial, feelings of unworthiness, measuring with unrealistically high standards
- Negative influences also on politics and states for their own purpose
- Hatered instead of love
All these points can be backed up with episodes from history.
I just want to mention one point:
When Christianity came into being, it became a competitor of Judaism, especially after Paul and others decided to depart from the Mosaic law. Like all competitors, Christianity wanted to gain more power/members by showing its competitor in a bad light.
When the new testament was written, anti-judaistic tendencies were included.
(cf. John 8:31,8:44, where Jesus calls Jews the sons of Satan; Mt 27:25: The Jews are blamed for Jesus’ death)
This anti-judaistic tendency is in part responsible for many of the horrible things the Jews had to suffer, including the holocaust.
In a similar manner, Mormonism became a competitor of traditional Christianity, and equally, the book of Mormon shows Christianity in a bad light, yea even in the Apostasy theory.
Therefore, I would be very careful to only address the positive aspects of religion when there is so much evil and bad things religion has caused.
You can also have a boyscouts group without Prayer,
you can have a happy family without prescribed home evening,
you can rear virtuous children who act responsible without threatening them with the Mormon God,
you can have barbeque parties in your neighbourhood with people who wear different kinds of underwear,
you can help the needy without printing an LDS tag on the goods sent,
you can learn a foreign language in an exchange program without molesting strangers by knocking on their door and telling them about a religion which is “more an alternative which can add to the good you have”.
By doing all this, you can enjoy your life to its fullest without regret, suppressed feelings, without irrational behaviour, wasting your time with faked historical accounts etc.
And in the end, when you have lived a happy and harmonious life and stand at heavens gate with a good conscience, an Indian God will be quite mad at you, because you have eaten so much beef, and after all,
cows are holy animals, aren’t they? And will be thrown into a pit of burning brimstone and suffer from endless torment.
Ok sorry, I was just following my associative thoughts.
Hey chrisac80,
“Amen” to everything you said. I attended a Fundamentalist church meeting once and while joining in with the singing I felt the burning in the bosom. When I was a Mormon missionary in Indepence Missouri I spoke with an apostle of the Church of Christ, the church that owns the property where Christ will first come in the Millennium according to the D&C http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=Independence missouri temple. As this apostle bore his testimony that Utah Mormonism is false and that his church is true I felt “the spirit” just as I had felt hearing Mormon leaders bear their testimony. Feeling don’t equal facts and no one can disprove the subjective testimony of someone of a different religion, thus all religious testimonies are equal, that is equally invalid. I could not agree with you more when you said that “I think what counts is reality.” I wrote a short essay arguing that what counts is reality at http://www.geocities.com/bill_kempton/Realitybasedthinking.doc.
In regards to your last comment, basically everyone’s going to someone else’s version of Hell. This Muslim website declares that belief in Mohammed, the Koran (Quran), and the religion of Islam equals salvation (and your 70 virgins in heaven) and disbelief equals hell fire:
Salvation from Hellfire: God has said in the Quran:
Those who have disbelieved and died in disbelief, the earth full of gold would not be accepted from any of them if one offered it as a ransom. They will have a painful punishment, and they will have no helpers. (Quran, 3:91)
So, this life is our only chance to win Paradise and to escape from Hellfire, because if someone dies in disbelief, he will not have another chance to come back to this world to believe. As God has said in the Quran about what is going to happen for the unbelievers on the Day of Judgment: If you could but see when they are set before the Fire (Hell) and say, “Would that we might return (to the world)! Then we would not reject the verses of our Lord, but we would be of the believers!” (Quran, 6:27)
But no one will have this second opportunity. The Prophet Muhammad said: {The happiest man in the world of those doomed to the Fire (Hell) on the Day of Judgment will be dipped in the Fire once. Then he will be asked, “Son of Adam, did you ever see any good? Did you ever experience any blessing?” So he will say, “No, by God, O Lord!”} From: http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch2-2.htm. See also: http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch3-2-5.htm
Well that is certainly enough manipulative fear tactics to scare the crap out of a Muslim into believing, if they’ve been reading the Koran (Quran) since birth, and all their friends and family believe. But to the Christian, they shrug off the threat. Mormons are essentially Universalists http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/afterlife/. But those who hear about Mormonism and reject it will be sent to a lower degree of heaven http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=D&C 76: 73-119 with no second chance http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/afterlife/second_chance.htm. Shut out forever from celestial glory as the Gods above procreate forever. Freethinkers will be celibate slaves to the gods above them forever because they… get this, had a difference of opinion http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=D&C 76: 73-119. To the non-Mormon this is the most absurd load of bull crap one could ever imagine, but to the Mormon whose been brought up on this doctrine, encultured properly, and indoctrinated thoroughly, it is a powerful threat to be a good Mormon: believe in Joseph Smith, obey LDS rules, and get married only in the Mormon Temple to earn your own 70 virgins or else you’ll be castrated forever! http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=D&C 132: 1-4, 15-18, 63-64&search.x=2&search.y=5
> 2. How can Muslims, Catholics, Jews, and Hindus be so wrong when it feels good to them?
This may be a radical, distressing, and perhaps heretical thought to some, but allow me to attempt an answer. Maybe that feeling is in fact coming through God in spite of the facts that they all have soemwhat differing creeds. Maybe God works with us to enlighten our minds wherever he is able and in a framework that we can stomach, enlarging it as we progress bit by bit as we can take it.
One of the astounding innovations in doctrine Joseph Smith developed was reconciling evangelical christian thought about the need for a Savior of mankind and the need to make his atonement effective in our lives with Universalist thought that there are noble and good people in all faiths, therefore everyone will be saved, anything less would of itself be evil. He developed a radical and ground breaking idea of Baptism for the dead and proxy work. So many that live now or have ever lived have never received the complete gospel, In fact, no one has received it all, and in LDS Doctrine, this learning and growing in God’s wisdom is eternal for all the Righteous, a vehicle is provided for the elect of all the human family to receive salvation. Certainly many are offended when they view this doctrine in sectarian terms. “We are right, you are wrong nyah, nyah, nyah,” does not and should not sit well with anyone.
But how else can we explain what happens to the remote, tribal villager in whatever corner of the world who has no opportunity to learn anything of the any of these prophets and teachers, make any kind of informed decision, and yet for all we know could be a bright and noble shining star of humankind, making life better for all thos e villagers with which he may have contact.
Of course the danger in this line of thought is that it is a setup for puffing ourselves up into believing that we are better than everyone not of those “Not as true or incomplete faiths.” The savior repeatedly denounced this mindset as he castigated the leaders of Israel in his day. No one is in more danger of becoming Pharisaical, holier than thou, judgmemental, and self righteous than those whe feel they are the Lords chosen people. So to truly live such a religion, one must be able to accept people on their terms and offer them that which they can accept, and always watch for the creeping in of these self congratulatory feelings, the pride, to which they are so prone.
Enmity, contention, and War have jealousy and pride at their root, regardless of whether the warring parties differences are political, social, cultural, etc.
Daniel W,
Had a vision of the Virgin Mary? Felt the presence of Buddha? Experienced the ‘cosmic energies’? Known in your soul that Mohammed is Allah’s ‘prophet’? Probably not, I’d imagine. Why not? Because you weren’t psychologically conditioned in Catholicism, Buddhism, the New Age religion, Islam, or some other ‘spiritual’ tradition. By the sounds of it, you were raised in Mormonism. Hence, you were psychologically conditioned to “feel such warmth, joy, peace, etc” when you “walk into a church building” and “a member’s home”.
You rebelled as a teenager because adolescent ‘rebellion’ is a natural part of the individuation process that people are psychologically ‘wired’ to go through. Any competent mental professional will tell you that. Individuation is how we prepare psychologically to ‘leave the nest’ and establish ourselves as independent adults in the world. In my generation, teenage rebellion involved listening to AC/DC, Aerosmith, Led Zepplin, etc., smoking pot, drinking a lot of beer, and engaging in pre-marital sex as often as possible (I was a ‘good’ Mormon youth, however). Based on my observations, the wiccan-Gothic-vampire-satanic thing seems to have been bigger for your generation. Having explored your ‘dark’ side as a teenager, you decided to come back to what was familiar and comfortable: Mormonism. If you’d been raised in Catholicism, you probably would’ve gone back to the Catholic Church.
If Mormonism works for you, fine. Just don’t confuse psychological conditioning and its emotional results with truth.
John wrote, “Nothing anyone has ever discovered historically proves that Joseph didn’t have a vision, or that the Book or Momon is a fraud.” What about the conflicting versions of the ‘First Vision’ produced by Joseph Smith? (Ref. http://www.irr.org/MIT/fvision.html
and http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech6.htm). You’d think that if God the Father and Jesus Christ, the two most powerful and glorious ‘Celestial’ beings in the universe, according to Mormonism, appeared to someone, the person who received such a remarkable visit would get his story straight.
Re. the Book of Mormon, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that the book is a fraud. Archeological, DNA, and historical evidence have thoroughly discredited the BoM. Geneticists have proven that the ancestors of the vast majority of native Americans came from northeast Asia, not Israel, as the BoM states. The remainder came from Europe, who crossed the north Atlantic following the base of the ice shield, as reported by the BBC and other news sources earlier this year.
Archeological sites in the Aleutian islands, Alaska, British Columbia, and down into North, Central, and South America have proven that Asians arrived in the Western Hemisphere about 11,000 to 17,000 years ago in various migrations, and spread out. They reached this part of the world millenia before Lehi and his family arrived, according to the BoM timeline. The Introduction to the BoM states: “the Lamanites…are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” This is simply not true. There is no scientific evidence supporting this teaching of the LDS Church, and a great deal of evidence disproving it. As Dr. Tom Murphy, who is a church member, has pointed out that there is no genetic data supporting the story in the BoM and church teaching that the disobedience of Laman, Lemuel, and their followers resulted in their skin becoming dark.
A fascinating website to visit is http://www.postmormon.org/tories.htm, which lists many words and expressions in the BoM which are identical or very similar to words and expressions in history books of the late 1700′s and early 1800′s. Those books were available in upper New York state, as notices in archived NY newspapers and other historical documents prove.
In late December, I visited my TBM sister, brother-in-law, and their five kids. The oldest is 15 and was blitzing to finish the BoM by the end of the year. She was reading the church’s 1999 edition of the BoM For The Family. On the page of Mormon, Chapter 6 it stated that 230,000 Nephite warriors were killed in battle in the Hill Cumorah area. I told my niece that if such a massive armed conflict had taken place, there should be 230,000 skeletons and a huge number of weapons in the area. They wouldn’t be buried too deeply either because the fighting took place only 1,620 years ago. I asked her why not a single ‘Nephite’ skeleton or weapon has been found. As she started thinking, I could see by the expression on her face that she was starting to experience cognitive dissonance. Rational thinking was conflicting with what she’d been indoctrinated to believe by the church and her parents, and what she’d unconsciously accepted as ‘true’. I encouraged her to e-mail the Anthropology Dept. of Syracuse University, which is less than 70 miles to the east of Palmyra and ask for info. about any archeological evidence supporting the story in Mormon, Chpt. 6. I could tell by her nervousness that she wouldn’t. I did contact the dept. after I got home in January. They confirmed that there’s no archeological evidence from the Cumorah/Palmyra area supporting The Book of Mormon.
Other websites with info. about the BoM are:
http://lds-mormon.com/bomquest.shtml
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech5a.htm
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech5a.htm
If you want to read the Smithsonian Institution’s statement about the BoM, go here:
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech5a.htm
Generations of Mormon ‘prophets and apostles’ have taught that The Book of Mormon is the keystone of the LDS religion, and echoed Joseph Smith’s declaration that it’s the “most correct of any book on Earth”. The fact of the matter is that the BoM is a work of fiction.