What I Never Knew About Mormonism

As Far as it is Translated Correctly

2012-03-26T21:47:00.000-07:00

I never knew that the papyri that Joseph Smith translated into the Book of Abraham had been reviewed by professional Egyptologists and found unrelated to the content of the Smith's translation.

Archaeological Proof of the Book of Abraham

Like many Mormon teenagers outside of Utah, I spent my weekday mornings before high school at early morning seminary. Each year was devoted to studying a different book of scripture. The Book of Abraham were some of the coolest lessons, what with all the "astronomy" and "science" and all.

But the story of how the book came to be was also fascinating. Joseph Smith is inspired to buy a couple of mummies, he finds ancient papyri with strange Egyptian hieroglyphics. God helps him translate the writtings of Abraham into English, and now today we have a more complete knowledge of the gospel. From the Intro to the Pearl of Great Price:

The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning 1 March 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. (See History of the Church, 4:519–34.)

Unfortunately the papyri were sold off by one of Smiths' widows and the relics were destroyed in the "Great Chicago Fire" in the late 1800's...or so I had been told. Turns out there were fragments of the original papyri that were located elsewhere and did not burn. When they reappeared in the 1960's they could finally be evaluated by Egyptolygists. Professional critique of Egyptian translation wouldn't have been a concern for Smith in his day since Egyptian was thought to be a dead language. It wasn't until the 1850's that the Rosetta Stone was effectively used to translate Egyptian to English.

Others have done much more research on the findings of the professioal evaluation (both mormon and non-mormon) of the papyri, making it easier for the rest of us. The evidence against the Book of Abraham as a sacred text from God is compelling, but I'll highlight only what I find most interesting in this blog. MormonThink provides a thorough review from the skeptic's opinion. FAIR provides an apologist response to the some of these criticisms. If you want something in the middle, you can always review the wikipedia entry.

Some of the topics I find most pursuasive include:

Age of the papyri- Despite being billed as having been "written by his own hand, upon papyrus", the papyri date only to around 100 BC, a good 1500 years after Abraham was believed to have lived. The apologist response is that this doesn't necessarily refer to this specific papyrus, but that Abraham's original could have been copied onto the newer scolls at some point.
Papyri actually contain funerary text- The analyzed papyri does not reference Abraham at all, but contains text from the Egyptian "Book of Breathings." FAIR has a handful of theories of why the content of the Book of Abraham is not included in the recovered Papyri (all of which start by assuming the book is divine and accurate).
Facsimile 1 Drawn Incorrectly- Apparently pieces of the scroll were missing when Smith performed his translation, so the missing pieces were added under Smith's direction. However, when compared to the funeral texts which contain the complete scene, it is clear Smith's attempt was not accurate. Apologists claim this is because at the time of publication it wasn't acceptable to leave parts missing, and filling in the blanks was not inspired.
Facsimile 1 as published in Book of Abraham (lds.org)

Actual Scene from Egyptian funeral texts (MormonThink.com)

Joseph Smith Interpretations of Facsimiles Incorrect- Remember those cool symbols in the facsimilies you would look through when you were bored at church? Turns out that Joseph Smith's interpretation in the footnotes was not generally accurate. Apologists have blamed the missing papyri, "We don't have all the material Joseph was working with, and until we do (which seems unlikely), we won't know why he interpreted the facsimiles as he did."

The inaccuracy of the translation of the Book of Abraham calls into question the doctrine established by the book, all subsequent actions of the church relying on its validity, as well as the prophetic ability of the author. If in fact the Book of Abraham is a scriptural account from god, then at very best it was not a translation but rather a revelation. Why Joseph Smith would not recognize the difference still calls into question his validity as anything more than a man with a creative imagination.

I recognize that for the believer, the validity of the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith comes down to a spiritual testimony, or as stated by the Pearl of Great Price lesson manual:

The greatest evidence of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is not found in an analysis of physical evidence nor historical background, but in prayerful consideration of its content and power.

I accept the arguement of faith in the absense of evidence, but do not accept faith as an alternative to strong, readily available evidence.

It's Not Me, It's You

2012-01-08T21:57:00.000-08:00

I never knew that most those who leave the LDS church do not do so because of some personal defect or evil influence.

As a Mormon I always had a distorted view of those poor souls who left the church or went "inactive." I was made to believe that "apostates" are either wicked, prideful, misguided, or lazy.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published by BYU states, "The most frequent causes of apostasy are failure to maintain strict standards of morality, taking personal offense (real or perceived), marrying someone who is of another faith or who is irreligious, neglecting to pray and maintain spirituality, or misunderstanding of the teachings of the Church." (Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Apostate) The causes of individual apostasy were also the topic in Sunday lessons and church hallway conversations. Some examples from "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young" Chapter 12 include: neglecting to pray, not keeping the sabbath holy, doing anything to lose the holy ghost, lusts of the eye, lusts of the flesh, omission of duty, finding fault with church leaders, being influenced by an evil source, and giving up.

I'm not sure how this list of causes was generated, I'm quite certain it wasn't through discussions with those who have actually experienced what LDS leaders suppose to diagnose. In my own case, and with the former members with whom I have interacted, I find this not at all accurate. I find most who leave were faithful, hard-working members who were no longer able to reconcile the evidence against the church with their feelings.

I was reminded of this topic by private messages I've received over the past several months from a handful of friends, family, and acquaintances who are active LDS and who have read my blog. The content of the messages were all remarkably similar, asking why I "attack" the church, claiming my blog strengthens their faith, and reiterating their remarkably similar testimonies. Another consistent theme was inquiring about the REAL reason I left. I can only suppose because I have not been explicit enough or because the reason I give is not on the list of causes given in Sunday school.

I'm including my response to one of these friends here (removing any identifying remarks) to reiterate the purpose of this blog and to more clearly state what led to my decision to leave the church (and to save time since I've been REALLY bad about writing the last year).

First, thank you for your respect and your compliments on my writing. It is good to know that even if you don’t agree with my message you still understand that it is what I believe and respect me as a person.
I apologize I didn’t make it clear why I left the church while we visited a few years back. When I first left the church I was extra sensitive to what I anticipated others’ reactions would be, so I was reluctant or unable to find the words to explain the difficult decision to leave and what led up to that decision. Since then I have come to better understand how to communicate with my friends and family about it and to be more direct. I still find little good comes from the discussion, as others try to “solve” my issues or accuse me of trying to “shake their faith.” So I don’t typically get into the details much, but I’m more than happy to discuss if you’re interested.
My reason for leaving the church basically boils down to the fact I do not believe it is true. I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is an inspired book, I don’t believe Joseph Smith spoke to God or that he restored Jesus’ church with his direction. This disbelief was a result of objective research into LDS history and doctrine. It is impossible to pinpoint one specific issue that makes it untrue, but the combination of the evidence against the authenticity of the church was too much for me to ignore. Some of these issues are what I’ve tried to highlight in my blog.
We didn’t talk much after high school, so you may not know that I remained incredibly devout while I was in the church. I had a strong testimony and I think I was a model member. However, these beliefs were based on “proofs” that I came to see as unsubstantiated and which I can no longer accept. Of course I had doubts as I grew up (such as the logic behind Moroni’s promise, the concept of faith, contradictions in the scriptures, irregularity of the Holy Ghost, the purpose of prayer, etc) but I was always able to put these on the shelf and ignore them because – as I saw it – the church was true so there must be an explanation for these things, even if I didn’t understand it. This is how I was able to serve my mission for two years, I truly believed with all my heart at the time and I believed it was the only way to eternal happiness. I did not know then what I know now.
So that takes me to about 5 years ago, when my doubts started creeping up more often and became more difficult to ignore. I increased my gospel study, with a desire to remove these doubts once and for all and know for certain that the church wasn’t just made up. In addition to the regular church literature I also sought out unbiased sources which were beyond the “church-approved” materials. This is where I found things about the church I never knew before, issues that appeared less favorable for the church. One finding that I recall being an initial shock to my faith was learning that Joseph Smith had communicated several different versions of his first vision over time, versions that were very different and contradicted one another in many ways. The first vision had always been a key part of my faith. I remember that President Hinckley had said that the truth of the church relied on whether that happened or not (http://lds.org/general-conference/1998/04/testimony?lang=eng). I sought apologetic responses to these facts, but could not accept the mental gymnastics these church scholars went through to justify the issue. As I researched more and more the pattern repeated: I found surprising, unsavory details about the church and was unimpressed by the possible explanations. The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) puts out a wiki responding to their interpretation of criticism of the church, if you’re interested to know more of my specific reasons for leaving in a church-friendly format you may want to browse through the topics there (http://en.fairmormon.org/Topical_guide).
This really gets to why I started my blog. My intention is not to prove the church wrong, to tear it apart, or upset friends and family. There are several reasons I continue the blog.
I write to defend myself: I have heard several different reasons others believe why I left… I was offended, I was sinning or wanted to sin, I was prideful, I expected too much of leaders, that I was overcome with the devil, etc. I want to show that this was an incredibly difficult decision that was completely justified in my mind.
I write to heal: When I came to the conclusion that the church was not true, it was painful. I felt deceived and I felt used. I felt like I lost something dear to me and I felt upset. I had given time, money, and emotions to an organization that was not what I thought it was. It helps to let my feelings out from time to time.
I write to share: I want those who are on a similar journey to my own to know they are not alone in their concerns and doubts. Truth should be immune to investigation. I figure a blog is less intrusive than knocking door-to-door.
I try to do this in as fair a format as possible by using church-friendly sources where possible and providing a counterargument to my interpretation of the facts. If there are specific areas where my treatment is unfair, please let me know so I can try to correct it.
I know very well the disappointment I have caused my family and many friends with my decision. I completely understand the testimony you’ve shared, I was once there as well. I admire your faith and conviction but I ask you the same question I ask many I discuss the church with: If the church WASN’T true, how would you find out?

My method of finding out if the church was true did rely on more than spiritual promptings, but the results were not a result of transgression, pride, offense, or laziness.

The video below is a podcast created by John Dehlin (an active Mormon at the time) called "Why People Leave the LDS Church, and what family/friends/community can do about it". While I don't agree with many of the authors conclusions, I do think it is an excellent help in understanding what those who leave truly experience.

And another thing I never knew...that those who leave the church can live incredibly happy, fulfilling lives outside of the church! But maybe that is a whole other post.

"This Will Always Be So"

2011-03-13T13:04:00.000-07:00

I never knew the level of racism that existed in the church and that remains embedded in its doctrine.

It has been quite a while since I last posted here. Not because of lack of material; I have a laundry list of topics I want to cover in this forum. Not because of lack of conviction; time does dampen the shock of discovering lesser-known facts about Mormonism but implication of these facts still affect me greatly. No, life just gets in the way sometimes. However, there are events in the world from time to time that strike a nerve and motivate me to write.

This motivation recently came after hearing all of the national media's attention on BYU's recent suspension of starting forward Brandon Davies for violating the honor code. Reaction to the suspension has run from admiration for the university sticking to its policies regardless of financial or social consequences, to disgust that a center of higher-learning would police its students in such socially acceptable adult behaviors.

Davies actions and BYU's subsequent reaction really aren't my business. But what was so striking about the whole episode is that if Brigham Young, the founder of the University Davies has been forbidden from representing, had it his way, the penalty would have been MUCH more severe.

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. (Journal of Discourses 10:110)

The mixing of races between Davies and his white girlfriend appears to be more heinous in the eyes of Brigham Young than mere immorality. I knew that the church frowned upon interracial relationships, but never realized the violent commands that came from a professed prophet of god. It is shocking that a man with direct communication with god would have such extreme views on human relationships.

This view of blacks as an inferior race was not exclusive to Brigham Young. Rather than reproduce a bunch of quotes, I would encourage you to read a collection of them at MormonHandbook.com. It is clear that Brigham Young did not have an isolated rogue opinion, but rather a common belief taught as doctrine throughout the history of the church.

Luckily for Davies (and all of us for that matter), the sentiment towards blacks has softened with time. You're not going to find Sunday School lessons on enforcing Young's declaration. Wikipedia provides a fairly good overview of the change over time. In 1978, males of African descent were granted the same priesthood opportunities their white counterparts had enjoyed since the church began. Blacks often take a high profile in church public relations, demonstrating the church's racial acceptance. However even with this progress, no formal apology has been given and you will still find remnants of the doctrine in scripture and official church lesson manuals currently in use. An example is a lesson in the aaronic priesthood manual which includes a quote discouraging interracial marriage.

FAIR does provide an apologists view on Brigham Young's quote, claiming it was to protect black women from rape by white men and that his desire to keep races separate was the prevailing opinion of the time. FAIR also attempts to clarify perceived racism in the church on a more broad scope.

I understand that any person is in part a reflection of the time and culture in which they live. Some of these church authorities lived during times where their statements would not be as shocking. But wouldn't we expect more from a prophet of god? Wouldn't we expect god's one and only true church to lead the way in assuring fundamental human rights to all? Shouldn't they lead rather than follow social trends?

Crystal Clear

2010-10-15T15:33:00.000-07:00

I never knew that talks from prophets and apostles were changed and edited for later distribution.

Much has been made over comments recently given by LDS apostle Boyd Packer at the church's October general conference. I firmly disagree with his message and find it irresponsible to say homosexuals can and should change without providing any proven method in which this is done or any evidence that it is actually possible. But this message was nothing new, I've always known that god and the church hated homosexuality (See an interesting entry in Wikipedia). What I did not know before leaving mormonism was demonstrated in the days after his speech, when the church modified some of the text of his speech to "simply clarify the intent" of his talk (Salt Lake Tribune).

I could understand why changes would be made to the presented remarks, if the talk was not read correctly from the teleprompter, if words were missed or mispronounced. However, changes to the content seems highly unnecessary considering the editorial reviews the talks likely undergo, as well as the guidance of the Spirit that prophets and apostles should have in developing their material, not to mention the direct communication with god they claim. Why was the intent not clarified prior to delivering the speech?

Many changes that are made can have significant effect on the message, as was the case with Packer's recent talk. "Mormons for Marriage," a group of LDS members who are opposed the the church's stance on gay marriage dedicated a comprehensive blog post to highlight all the changes made to the talk. I would encourage the reader to refer to their post, as I will highlight only a few changes that I believe go far beyond "clarifying intent."

Speaking of the "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", Packer's statement that "It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it." was removed and replaced with "It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow."

A revelation is significantly different than simple guidelines. The LDS Bible Dictionary says revelation is, "the making known of divine truth by communication with the heavens, and consists not only of revelation of the plan of salvation to the Lord’s prophets, but also a confirmation in the hearts of the believers that the revelation to the prophets is true." Other similar "Proclamations" given by the first presidency have been added to the LDS scriptures. The proclamation also appears to be more earnest than mere guidelines, using language such as "declare," "warn," and "call upon." Backtracking on Packer's assessment of the proclamation could leave questions of which council from the prophets counts as revelation and which are just guidelines.

When speaking of homosexual attraction Packer said, "Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural." In the edited version, "tendencies" was replaced with "temptations."

Packer initial statement challenges the concept of genetics influencing sexual preference (of which there is scientific evidence, even supported by BYU professor). The edited version backs off, saying instead that behavioral actions cannot be inborn and can be overcome. This change meshes better with statements by other apostles, such as Dallin Oaks, but again is a significant departure from the initial script. If Packer's true intent was to talk referring to behaviors, I don't believe he would have used the language he did.

During his remarks discrediting genetic influence on homosexuality, Packer posed the question, "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?" The question was removed entirely from the published version of the talk.

Was this an unplanned remark that Packer made off the cuff? In what way did removing it clarify his intent? Does removal of this question signify that heavenly father really does give his children gay feelings or temptations?

The idea of needing to change the message of one of the prophet, seers, and revelators never seemed a possibility because I never thought it would be necessary. I am well aware that the church does not claim infallibility of its members or leaders. Yet at the same time, the church goes out of their way to avoid owning up to mistakes by its leaders. Instead, these mistakes rewritten without notice where possible, claimed to be "clarification of intent," or even labeled as persecution by others. I would welcome input from readers on any occasion when the church has apologized or admitted guilt. Please add it as a comment here if you can think of one.

If leaders can present an incorrect or unclear message, how is one to know when to believe or question what they say? (see my previous post on inconsistent prophesies)

Burning in the Bosom or Just Indigestion?

2010-08-08T19:04:00.000-07:00

I never knew the Holy Ghost could testify as truth things which were actually untrue.

The promptings of the Holy Ghost is of paramount importance to the members of the LDS church. It is by the power of the Holy Ghost that humans may "know the truth of all things." (Moroni 3:5) The Gospel Principles book states the mission of the Holy Ghost is, "to bear witness of the Father and the Son and of the truth of all things." (Chapter 7: The Holy Ghost,” Gospel Principles, 2009,31–33). Members are taught that it is through the Holy Ghost that one may know that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith translated it, and that Jesus is the savior of the world as the book describes.

There is not a single definition of what promptings of the Holy Ghost (or "Light of Christ" for those who are not baptized) are like. I was always taught it could come in different ways to different people; a deep sense of peace, extreme happiness, "warm fuzzies" or a "burning in the bosom", a profound understanding, or even uncomfortable laughter. Basically, any good feeling can be attributed to the Holy Ghost. It is upon these feelings or impressions that humankind is expected to base their most critical spiritual decisions.

There are occasions, I have come to find out now, that these feelings of the "Holy Ghost" are less than reliable. Mormon Urban Myths, or "Faith-Promoting Rumors" are rampant throughout the church, with the help of the Ensign magazine, testimony meetings, and even more so now with email forwards. These stories are known to stir emotions of the spirit, without being based entirely on reality. One of the best examples of this is in the tall tales of a former general authority, Paul Dunn.

Paul Dunn was a popular general authority during the 70's and 80's (or so I've been told, I wasn't old enough at the time to know). He served in the Quorum (Council) of the Seventy for 25 years, serving as one of its presidents for a portion of that time. Mr Dunn was apparently an excellent storyteller, spinning grandiose tales through his talks, firesides, and books. His stories touched the hearts of many who listened, as the Holy Ghost "testified" of what he taught. The only problem is, many of the stories he told were not completely true. It came out that he had fabricated part or all of some of his stories.

His Wikipedia entry gives a fairly succinct overview of the scandal:

During his time as a general authority, Dunn often included in his speeches and books extraordinary "real life" experiences that he claimed were from his past. In the late 1980s, a number of investigators, including Arizona Republic reporter Lynn Packer and church critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner, accused Dunn of fabricating or embellishing many of these events. Among Dunn's claims that came to be questioned were:
that Dunn had played major league baseball with the St. Louis Cardinals;[1]

that Dunn was one of only six in his 1000-man combat group who survived World War II, and was the only one of the six survivors who wasn't wounded;[2]

that Dunn was the sole survivor among 11 infantrymen in a 100-yard race against death, during which one burst of machine-gun fire ripped his right boot off, another tore off his ammunition and canteen belt and yet another split his helmet in half—all without wounding him.[2]

that Dunn's best friend died in his arms from serious injuries sustained in a battle on Okinawa.[3]
When confronted with evidence that several of his stories were either completely falsified or substantially embellished, Dunn admitted that the stories were not completely true, yet continued to defend his use of the stories: "I haven't purposely tried to embellish or rewrite history. I've tried to illustrate points that would create interest. [I was] simply putting history in little finer packages."[4] Dunn compared his stories to the parables of Jesus—although they were not true stories, they were nevertheless valuable means of teaching gospel principles.
(Wikipedia, Paul H. Dunn, Accessed 8/8/10)

Long story short, Mr Dunn was given "Emeritus Status" as a general authority, and released in good standing (his talks laced with "parables" remain on the LDS website to this day). He offered an apology to those he "may have offended," and quietly slipped out of the public memory. And yet the question remains, how did these stories that contained lies invoke the Spirit? Why was the Holy Ghost testifying to half-truths? Why was I never warned that the Holy Ghost was not always accurate?

For a more detailed discussion of the scandal, Sunstone dedicated an issue to the topic (Sunstone, Sept 1991, Volume 15:3, Issue 83, pg 28-56).

Mr Dunn was relieved of his duties before I got to the age that I would remember any of his talks (and nothing was spoken of him after he left his office). But hearing of his story telling style, his passion and charisma, I was reminded of the speakers that would be brought in from Utah to speak to us at youth conferences and firesides. You know the kind, the ones who would be the headliners at EFY, who put out the popular "Talks on Cassette", and whose books lined the youth section of the church bookstores. Guys like John Bytheway, Brad Wilcox, and other church education employees. They were skilled storytellers, their stories would have the audience in tears of laughter throughout, but would end with the audience in tears as the spirit touched their hearts. While riding on this one-hour roller coaster of emotions there were several times I suspected that maybe, just maybe, a story was exaggerated to make a point. But I just thought, "how could it be untrue, the spirit was so strong while listening? He must have known the young man whose girlfriend died in a car accident because they just had sex and he wasn't worthy to give her a blessing." (it is a little disturbing I still remember some of the stories to this day)

Lest there be any confusion, I am not calling into question the character or spirituality of any of these individuals. I know the popular saying "The gospel is perfect, the members are not," meaning that anything bad that individual members do cannot be held against the church as a whole. This has gotten to the point where authors, even general authorities, carry disclaimers in their books saying their books are only their own opinions and are not endorsed by the church. While I don't agree with this ("by their fruits ye shall know them" must work both ways), that is not my point here. I am questioning the Holy Ghost's response to their exaggerated stories. The Holy Ghost should be testifying of truth, not of "what isn't completely true but that could help you believe what is true."

Could the Holy Ghost be testifying of things which teach what is right? I suppose. Could these just be regular emotions confused with the feelings of the spirit? Very likely. But the inconsistencies in the response of the spirit or indistinguishable difference from common emotions should be enough to question the other feelings it gives us. This is something members should know about.

What's in a Name?

2010-06-20T16:46:00.000-07:00

I never knew that the LDS church underwent a number of name changes before settling on "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I was reminded recently of the great pride I always felt in announcing I was part of the church that bore the name of Jesus Christ. In my eyes it was quite literally the church of Jesus Christ, because the name said so. It always seemed church authorities put great importance on this; there was a primary song devoted to it, seminary lessons highlighted the name's divine origin, and the missionary discussions I taught had a section devoted to teaching the meaning of the church's name. Perhaps this focus is due in part because the name is often used in rebutting the accusation that Mormons are not "Christians"... for how could they not be Christians if Jesus' name is on the sign outside. When speaking of convincing non-members of the church's Christian status Boyd Packer said, "Consider the name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." ("The Peaceable Followers of Christ", Ensign, Apr 1998, 62)

Despite the importance placed on the name of the church and its alleged divinity, the name apparently was/is not set in stone. Instead it evolved over time, changing three times in its first eight years. When the church was established in 1830 it was known officially as "The Church of Christ" (D&C 20). In 1834 the name was changed to "The Church of Latter Day Saints" (History of the Church 2:62). In 1836 the name was changed to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Name of the Church"). Then in 1838 the church adopted the more accurate grammar (with hyphen-little-d) of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (D&C 115). This does not include differences from references in the Bible and Book of Mormon.

There is some argument over why modern revelation was disregarded for a new name. Apologists from SHIELDS have given their opinions of why these changes were permitted. Critics have given their views and questions surrounding the name changes.

Ultimately, I suppose the name itself (and the changing thereof) does not have direct influence on the truthfulness of doctrine. However if this is the case, the name should not be touted as such an inspired label. Church leaders should avoid holding it up as anything more than a name, unlike Russell Nelson in a talk devoted entirely to deconstructing the name of the church, without mention of the evolution of the name. Surprising considering his passive-aggressive condemnation for those who use anything other than "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" [ie "Mormon"] saying, "Before any other name is considered to be a legitimate substitute, the thoughtful person might reverently consider the feelings of the Heavenly Parent who bestowed that name." ("Thus Shall My Church Be Called" Ensign, May 1990, 16)

No, the fact that I did not know this bit of church history does not prove the falsehood of the church, but it does make me wish I had been more careful in my confidence of proclaiming the church name.

Kinderhook, Line, and Sinker

2010-04-18T12:02:00.000-07:00

I never knew Joseph Smith was deceived into translating bogus metal plates.

On April 23 1843, a group of six small bell-shaped brass plates with unknown engravings were reportedly discovered near Kinderhook, Illinois (about 70 miles south of Nauvoo). A Mormon was among those who discovered the plates while “excavating” so word traveled quickly among the LDS community and created a stir in the Church press, with hope that these metal plates corroborated the story of the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. These brass plates came to be known as the Kinderhook Plates.

It was reported in Times and Seasons May 1, 1843 that Joseph Smith had translated a portion of the plates:

I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.

I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.
(History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 372)

Several other accounts support this statement in Times and Seasons, including those by William Clayton and Parley Pratt. It is clear that these trusted contemporaries were at the very least under the impression that Smith accepted the plates as authentic and had begun translating.

However, unknown to Smith and others, the plates were actually part of a conspiracy to trick Joseph Smith and expose him as a fraud. The plates had been forged by local men and buried with the intent of deceiving the Latter-day Saints. The plates were not exposed as a hoax until 1879 when one of the counterfeiters signed an affidavit describing the forgeries. Apologist Richard Bushman speculates in Rough Stone Rolling (p 490) that this delay was possibly because Smith did not fall for the trap completely and did not translate the plates before his death a year later.

In spite of the confession, LDS held the belief of the authenticity of the Kinderhook Plates and its witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon for until 1980 when a BYU professor, Stanley B. Kimball, was given permission to perform a series of tests on one of the plates. The analysis verified that the plates had been produced with the etching of acid and were in fact a fraud. The results were reported in the August 1981 Ensign magazine (p 66) including:

As a result of these tests, we concluded that the plate owned by the Chicago Historical Society is not of ancient origin. We concluded that the plate was etched with acid; and as Paul Cheesman and other scholars have pointed out, ancient inhabitants would probably have engraved the plates rather than etched them with acid. Secondly, we concluded that the plate was made from a true brass alloy (copper and zinc) typical of the mid-nineteenth century; whereas the “brass” of ancient times was actually bronze, an alloy of copper and tin. Furthermore, one would expect an ancient alloy to contain larger amounts of impurities and inclusions than did the alloy tested.

Apologists such as Jeff Lindsay claim Joseph Smith never actually bought in to the fraud. The claim is that the account in Times and Seasons was actually taken from William Clayton’s journal and was a second hand account rather than from Joseph Smith himself. (This was a perfectly acceptable practice in other cases, such as recording of several sections of Doctrine and Covenants, but allegedly does not reflect the true words of Smith in this case.)

Apologists also claim Joseph Smith wasn’t truly interested in the plates and that it is a “non-issue”. However, the coverage by the local press and the 7-page treatment in the History of the Church appear to paint the issue as important to the community at the time. Even Kimball in his Ensign article acknowledges there was considerable talk on the issue in the community, claiming this led to “as much misinformation and hearsay was current among people as there was fact.”

Apologists from FAIR point to conflicting versions of the discovery and translation of the plates to discredit the possible deception. (It is worth noting that conflicting accounts do not invalidate evidence for FAIR in some cases, such as the First Vision, Book of Mormon, or the visit of Angel Nephi/Moroni)

If Smith was not deceived and did not attempt to translate the plates, would he not have made attempts to clarify the public statements made by close confidantes and the local media? Would he not have shared the inspiration that these plates were counterfeit with the LDS community who were spreading the “faith promoting rumors”? His silence in the matter could just show indifference to the subject, that is wasn’t a big deal to him and he had more important things to worry about. It could be he appreciated that it increased member’s faith, even if it wasn’t true. Or it could be, as I believe, that he did not know of the hoax any more than the next person.

The methodology of the apologists in this matter is questionable at best. After physical evidence was shown to overturn previous belief, great effort was taken to explain away the inconsistencies. Would the apologist have been just as critical of validity of the Times and Seasons editorial had the plates been shown to be authentic? It is another example of holding the conclusion you want to achieve and twisting the evidence to point to that result.

For a more thorough discussion of Kinderhook Plate issues from the apologist viewpoint, see “Ask the Apologist”. For a more comprehensive critical view, see MormonThink.

Untold Prophecies

2010-03-13T22:58:00.000-08:00

I never knew there were revelations, prophecies, and inspiration that were dismissed or erased when these later prove to be damaging or untrue.

Fulfillment of prophecy is often held up as proof that Mormonism (or any other religion for that matter) is correct. This is the model used throughout the Bible and the Book of Mormon, as well as other religious teachings. It usually goes something like, "Our prophet said this was going to happen, and look! It happened. So you should listen to everything this prophet says and follow." This may be a valid argument if every proclamation were able to be recorded, analyzed, and evaluated on authenticity, accuracy, relevance, and being outside the realm of common knowledge.

However, typically only a subset of statements from proclaimed prophets are available, and it is typically the followers of said prophets or the prophets themselves that make them available. It is hard to believe we get a representative, random samplings of a prophet's statements this way. Prophecies can be amazingly accurate if you only keep the good ones and get rid of the ones that don't work in your favor. This could include: only releasing prophecies after sufficient time has passed to test their viability; downplaying revealed information that later turns out untrue; enabling self-fulfilling prophecies by making revelations within the control of followers; or remaining vague on when the prophecy will occur so it could always still occur in the future.

More information on the prophesies of Joseph Smith is available now than ever before. This is most likely just a sliver of the revelations Joseph Smith gave in public and private, but it does give us a view into his declarations and their outcomes. Some prophecies came true, some did not. I never knew about those that were not accurate either partly or wholly, so I was never able to give a adequate analysis of Smith's prophetic abilities.

Some examples of prophecies I didn't know or understand include:
Prediction of Civil War (D&C 87:1-5)
This is a popular revelation which appears to show Joseph Smith predicted the US Civil War 29 years before first shots were fired. I can remember being inspired by this when we discussed it in seminary. But what we didn't talk about is that it precipitated a previous clash in South Carolina which was believed would lead to civil war. That it wasn't published for 19 years after it was supposedly written. That Great Britain did not get involved nor was "war poured upon all nations." That Brigham Young predicted the war would not free the slaves (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, page 250).

Preaching to the Inhabitants of the Moon
Joseph Smith (along with many others through patriarchal blessings) predicted at least one individual would preach to the inhabitants of the moon. It was common belief at the time that the sun and the moon were inhabited, but a message from god should have known better.
(The Young Woman's Journal, 1892, vol 3, page 264) Apologists have their own take on the topic.

Kirtland Bank will Prosper
When Joseph Smith and the church leadership set up the Kirtland Safety Society in 1836 he said it was, "wisdom and according to the mind of the Holy Spirit, that you should call at Kirtland, and receive counsel and instruction upon those principles that are necessary to further the great work of the Lord, and to establish the children of the Kingdom, according to the oracles of God, as they are had among us. And further, we invite the brethren from abroad, to call on us, and take stock in our Safety Society." (Messenger & Advocate 3:443) The bank is eventually cited as illegal, Smith and Rigdon are convicted and fined but flee to avoid prison, debt, and persecution. (FAIR analysis)

Second Coming is Imminent
Joseph Smith prophesied that Jesus would return when Smith was 85 years old, or around 1891, as recorded in his diary April 6 1843 and in History of the Church 5:336. A similar, albeit less stringent account also appears in D&C 130:14-17. He said some of the rising generation would not taste of death before Christ returned. After 167 years there is no evidence that anyone from that generation is still alive.

Explanations have been given by apologists for when prophesies are proven wrong. I've tried grouping the ones I've seen into seven different categories:

1) Deny the statement ever occurred or question the reliability of the source
It is a good idea to be sceptical of sources, and certainly one persons claim should not be used as firm evidence. Ideally we would have well documented first-person accounts, but that just isn't usually the case in history. So we also have to look at plausibility and general trends.

2) Claim the statement was taken out of context or is not being interpreted correctly
It is true that this can happen to event the best intentioned writers. Each person has a unique perspective through which they see the world and interpret what others say and do. However, this is not the best argument when the entire statement is analyzed, and the historical environment taken into account.

3) Claim the prophecy just hasn't occurred yet, but still can in the future
An infinite timeline provides plenty of time for something to occur which can be interpreted as fulfillment of prophecy.

4) Claim some change in the circumstances, such as the righteousness of the people, requires the prophecy be updated.
Since an omnipotent god would know the change in circumstances that would occur, one must question why the original prophecy would be made in the first place.

5) Declare that church leaders are not infallible, or that they were "speaking as a man" and not officially for god or the church
This is a popular explanation, Joseph Smith even used it saying "a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 5:278) The "official" church stance from the LDS newsroom is,

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
Approaching Mormon Doctrine, May 4 2007

I have two problems with this. First, this explanation is never accompanied with a guide to knowing when a prophet is speaking as a prophet and when they are speaking as a man. If I don't know which is which, what good are the true prophecies?! Second, the church wants to have it both ways, release from responsibility when proven false, but unwavering commitment to everything a prophet says. D&C 1:37 says, "Search these commandments for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled." Ezra Taft Benson described 14 Fundamentals to Following the Prophet during a Feb. 1980 BYU Devotional, including:

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in
everything.
Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I have difficulty accepting that one should rely so heavily on a prophet when what they say may or may not be inspired and correct.

6) Argue that God works in mysterious ways, or it is just a trial of faith
"Your ways are not my ways, saith the Lord" so the scripture goes. This argument absolves god of any human rules or reason. "He's god, he can do whatever he wants. Who are we to question?" If God can make things appear false, just to test whether you will believe in him anyway then there is no way of evaluating any prophecies or declaration for ourselves. We would have to just blindly accept what others told us was true.

7) Claim that ignoring the evidence is for a "greater good"
The idea is that believers and investigators need to be protected from evidence which may cause them to question their faith and lose their testimony. Boyd Packer told LDS educators,

You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now... Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer... There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not... Some things that are true are not very useful... That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. ...Do not spread disease germs!
("The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271)

Russell Nelson said, "Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid... Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up "facts" with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture."(“Truth—and More,” Ensign, Jan 1986, 69) The idea of "milk before meat" is encouraged among missionaries, to avoid the "heavier" topics with those they teach. These tactics, while for pious purposes, is still lying and deceit.

(For a comprehensive treatment of this topic, see the article "Lying for the Lord" from a former LDS Institute director)

How could one ever hope to distinguish a false prophet from a true one, if all are granted these same exceptions? Under what conditions could a false prophet actually be identified? If these explanations are to be applied to LDS prophecies, they should also be allowed for other religions and philosophies, and that would make everyone potentially correct.

Merry X-Mas

2010-01-03T11:59:00.000-08:00

I never knew how similar the birth and life of Jesus followed those of previous Greek, Roman, Persian, and Egyptian gods.

Of course this post is a little late, and goes beyond only mormonism, but the Christmas season reminded me of another surprising discovery during my journey out of mormonism. Jesus wasn't the first half-god/half-man to celebrate a birthday on December 25th. There existed in the middle east for some time preceding the birth of Jesus mythical stories of the son of god, born of a virgin on December 25th, who performed miracles, was killed on a cross, was resurrected, among other familiar elements. In my Christian-centric education I had some introduction to the "false" gods these ancient civilizations worshipped, but never did I know how many of the events and characteristics of Jesus appear to directly mirror those of these other gods. There is a hypothesis that the story of Jesus was at least partially based upon these existing myths. Of course, similarities do not prove causation, and different gods shared different attributes in common with Jesus, but when you hear all of these attributes together it can be surprising. A more detailed, albeit messy outline of parallels between these god-men can be found here.

Christmas appears to have stemmed from winter festivals, in part celebrating the birth of these various gods. LDS president Howard Hunter specifically mentions the pagan god Mithra's influence on the holiday.

"The season is steeped in tradition, and its roots stem back in history. The commencement of the holiday lies in pagan worship long before the introduction of Christianity. The god Mithra was worshiped by the ancient Aryans, and this worship gradually spread to India and Persia. Mithra at first was the god of the heavenly light of the bright skies and later in the Roman period was worshiped as the deity of the sun, or the sun god—Sol Invictus Mithra.

In the first century [before] Christ, Pompey carried on conquests along the southern coast of Cilicia, in Asia Minor, and many of the prisoners taken in those military actions were brought captive to Rome. This introduced the pagan worship of Mithra to Rome, for these prisoners spread the religion among the Roman soldiers. The worship became popular, particularly in the ranks of the Roman armies. We find today, in the ruins of the cities of the far-flung Roman Empire, the shrines of Mithra. Mithraism flourished in the Roman world and became the chief competitor of Christianity in the religious beliefs of the people.

A festive season for the worshipers of the sun god took place immediately after the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year—the time when the sun stands still after its annual dip into the Southern Hemisphere. The commencement of its climb from this low point was regarded as the rebirth of Mithra, and the Romans celebrated his birthday on the 25th of December each year. There was great merriment on this holiday—festivals and feastings, gifts given to friends, and the dwelling places decorated with evergreens.

Gradually Christianity gained a victory over Mithraism, which had been its strongest rival, and the festival day celebrating the birth of Mithra was used by the Christians to commemorate the birth of Christ. The pagan worship of the sun, deeply rooted in Roman culture, was replaced by one of the greatest festivals among Christians. Christmas has come down to us as a day of thanksgiving and rejoicing—a day of good cheer and goodwill to men. Although it has an earthly relation and significance, it is divine in content. The ancient Christian celebration has lived continuously through the centuries."
BYU Devotional Address, December 5, 1972

Beyond the sceptics of the hypothesis of Jesus being derived from previous deities who say no such parallels exist, other critics claim any similarities are purely coincidental. Others claim these were merely counterfeit gods sent by Satan to imitate god and lead those that question away from Jesus. Still others claim ancient Christians may have adopted some of the traits of other cultures' deity as embellishments or to aid in converting foreigners, but that it does not diminish the life of Jesus.

Regardless of which side of the arguement is correct, I wish I had had a knowledge of these similarities earlier in my life rather than taking the Jesus story as given. While I knew that Christmas had pagan origins, I never learned the possibility that the story of Jesus underwent a similar evolution. This new knowledge has made me more tolerant of those who say "Happy Holidays" or who write "X-Mas."

LDS Temple Endowment Modifications

2009-08-12T19:37:00.000-07:00

I never knew the substantial and repeated changes made to the LDS endowment ceremony.

After a "personal leave of absence", I return to the theme of the LDS temple ceremonies to cover how the endowment process changed from its original masonic origin, to what it is today. At some point after my mission I had heard that back in the day of Joseph Smith the endowment lasted all day long. Besides being greatful I could usually complete my session in under 2 hours, I was puzzled how this perfect ordinance could possibly have been longer. I rationalized that it must have just been redundancies that were removed to better fit our fast-paced life.

In Mormonism ordinances such as the endowment are eternal. They are revealed by God, This was a consistent theme in seminary and priesthood growing up, as we studied the importance of exact recitation of the words of ordinances, such as the sacrament. Any slip up of the words, and the ordinance is invalid. This is a foundation of Mormonism, that the ordinances that Jesus instituted when he was alive where perverted and corrupted by other churches, so only the LDS church had the valid ordinances.

In October 1979 General Conference, David Haight recalled teaching three newspaper reporters in Peru about the "eternal truths of the gospel":

...we explained briefly the Apostasy and the Restoration: that there is vast evidence and history of an apostasy from the doctrine taught by Jesus and his Apostles, that the organization of the original Church became corrupted, and sacred ordinances were changed to suit the convenience of men, and that today good people all over the world are confused with contending religions with differing doctrine and methods of worship.
David B. Haight, "Joseph Smith the Prophet", Ensign Nov 1979

It wasn't until doing objective research years later that I discovered that the temple endowment was apparently not included on the list of unchangeable ordinances. Given that the church considers these things "sacred, not secret" it is difficult to find documentation on these changes. The ritual underwent an evolution with each church presidency, until a standard script was created in the 1920's (ldsendowment.org). Other changes followed, including those to incorporate technological advances into the presentation.

The most drastic changes made recently to the endowment occured in 1992. Some of the elements that were eliminated that were most shocking to me include:

Graphic Masonic gestures of the death penalty for revealing the secrets of the temple
Intimate 5-Points of Fellowship full body embrace required of participants
Indirect relationship of women with God, beig subservient to their husbands
Representation of preachers of other sects being servants of the Devil
Use of "Adamic" language in chants

There is some critics who theorize the changes are related to a survey that went out from church headquarters to members in 1988, inquiring among other things, what they did and did not like about going to the temple (lds-mormon.com). Apologists claim any changes made to the ordinance, when made with divine approval, are valid (FAIR).

The reason why the endowment was changed, whether inspired or not, to me seems fairly obvious...it was strange, sexist, and offensive. It did not fit the changing demographic of church membership nor the progressive American culture. My first time through the endowment was after the most drastic changes had been made, so it was relatively tame. Yet still, in my talking with others about their first experience in the temple (both before and after my leaving the church), many express having had feelings of apprehension and confusion with the ritual. To which the solution given by others is that you just need to go more often, "it's symbolic" so you won't understand it at first, and the popular "I still learn something new every time I attend." I felt well prepared for my first time after having taken the temple prep courses, reading the pamphlets and books, including "The Holy Temple." And yet this was much more bizarre than anything I ever experienced in Sunday School. I can only imagine what was going through the mind of those who went to the temple for the first time before 1990. Were they thinking about God and his plan of happiness as they simulated slitting their own throats?

Whatever the case, I do not believe a claim of "inspiration" can supersede a previous "inspired" statement that these ordinances are unchangeable.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: 'Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.'
Dennis Neuenschwander, "Ordinances and Covenants", Ensign, Aug 2001, p22

...the endowments have never changed and can never change; as I understand it; it has been so testified, and that Joseph Smith Jr., himself was the founder of the endowments.
Senator Reed Smoot, Reed Smoot Case, vol. 3, p. 185

There never was but one gospel, and never will be but one delivered to the children of men, and that never changed and never will change in time or eternity. It is the same in every age of the world; its ordinances are the same.
Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, January 12, 1875, 1

Don't get me wrong, I applaud progression. We can see the benefit social progress has had as our culture adapts to changes in social needs and the discovery of new social evidences. I would expect a religious institution, or any institution for that matter, to change as the needs of its members change. What I have difficulty accepting is the selective issuing and retiring of "eternal decrees" to control members and eliminate subordinant inquiry.

LDS Temple Endowment Origin

2009-03-12T14:51:00.000-07:00

I never knew the striking similarities between the temple endowment and Freemasonry.

To go along with the controversial episode of Big Love airing this weekend, my next posts will be on some of the elements of Temple worship that surprised and contributed to my questioning of the divinity of the LDS church. What goes on in LDS temples is indeed a touchy subject for Mormons, with the declaration that these activities are "sacred, not secret." Out of respect I will discuss the issue without specifics from the current temple ceremonies.

Although I never knew it before, and it is not openly discussed in the LDS community, there are indisputable similarities between the temple endowment and the rites of Freemasonry. Joseph Smith was initiated as a Freemason March 15, 1842. He then introduced the full endowment ceremony on May 4, 1842, just 7 weeks later. The similarities are varying, from subtle to blatant. A collection of some of the similarities can be found on Wikipedia.

Some examples:
The square and compass play a key role in both ceremonies and are both featured extensively in the architecture of each organization (along with other symbols).

Both use similar or identical language, handshakes, new names, keys, signs, and tokens. Both utilized the "Five Points of Fellowship" and graphic death penalties (although both have been done away with in the mormon ceremony...see my future post on changes to the endowment). Both use similar robes and progressive changes to the clothing during the proceedings. Both are presented as a dramatic reenactment.

Critics have gone as far as crying plagiarism. FAIR contends that the similarities are "superficial," and that at most freemasonry was just a "preparation" for Joseph Smith receiving the "true ordinance" by revelation. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains that the Freemason ceremony may have descended directly from Solomon's Temple, and was restored to its "true form" by Joseph Smith. This appears to be the theory espoused by Joseph Smith:

"In a letter to Parley P. Pratt, written three months after Joseph became a Master Mason, Heber C. Kimball observed that: 'There is a similarity of Priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from the Priesthood, but has degenerated. But many things are perfect.'

Later, he explained that:
'The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.'"
WAS FREEMASONRY DERIVED FROM MORMONISM? By Eugene Seaich

The problem here is that while at the time it was believed that Freemasonry dated back to Solomon's time, it is now believed the fraternal organization had its beginnings during the middle-ages. Could it be that the timing of the endowment's introduction and the similarities in ceremonies is merely coincidence? Possibly, but the evidence should be enough to make anyone skeptical. At best the endowment is an "adaptation" of the masonic rites using the doctrine and principles Smith had already taught.

For a long-winded response to critics, see Jeff Lindsey's Site.

This article in the Deseret News is also interesting as the Utah Grand Master discusses the relationship between Mormonism and Masonry.

The Hat Trick

2009-02-25T07:51:00.000-08:00

One thing I never knew about Mormonism is... the true way in which Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon.

I had always been under the impression (from church literature and art) that Joseph read the plates and dictated to his scribe what to write. There was sometimes mention of the urim and thummim being used, like a pair of glasses, but for the most part it was assumed to be like any modern translation. Surprisingly, it was an episode of South Park that first introduced me to how the translation actually took place. As I watched I thought, "these silly people don't even know what they are talking about," only to find out later that it was in fact me who was clueless in Mormon history.

Russell Nelson, in the only church publication I have found acknowledging the non-traditional translation process, explains:

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)
Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, Jul 1993, 61

Joseph Smith placed a seer or "peep" stone in a hat, put his face in the hat, and the characters and translation from the gold plates appeared to him. This stone was the same one he used to search (unsuccessfully) for buried treasure in the New York hills. This appears to be more a revelation process than translation, given that the plates weren't used during the process.

I think this hit me especially hard because I remembered back to our lesson in seminary on Hiram Page. I remember literally laughing out loud when we heard the story of this guy talking to a rock and receiving revelations for other people through his rock. Little did I know this was just a copycat of Joseph Smith's technique at the time. There has been increasing commentary by church historians on the method of translation, with Rough Stone Rolling and the recent PBS documentary. However, the church itself remains remarkably quiet on this magical translation.

The following is a more comprehensive review of the translation and underlying facts (with much better documentation) see: MormonThink

For a pro-mormon response to the criticisms of the translation process, please see: FAIR Wiki

First Vision(s?)

2009-01-10T09:48:00.001-08:00

One thing I never knew about Mormonism is... there are multiple, differing accounts of Joseph Smith's "First Vision."

My first post on this blog warrants one of the discoveries about Mormon history that caught me most off guard and shot up red warning flags.

For as long as I can remember, I was taught the account of Joseph Smith's first vision, where he saw and spoke to God the Father and Jesus Christ. I learned about it in primary, sang about it in sacrament meeting, and ... I eventually taught it to others as a missionary. It was the very first part of the missionary discussions that I memorized, both in English and Spanish. I was taught in the Missionary Training Center how to recite "in Joseph's own words" what happened.

Former Church President, Gordon Hinckley, mentioned on several occasions that the complete veracity of the church rested on the first vision.

We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.

When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.”

That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.

Reflect upon it, my brethren and sisters. For centuries the heavens remained sealed. Good men and women, not a few—really great and wonderful people—tried to correct, strengthen, and improve their systems of worship and their body of doctrine. To them I pay honor and respect. How much better the world is because of their bold action. While I believe their work was inspired, it was not favored with the opening of the heavens, with the appearance of Deity.

Then in 1820 came that glorious manifestation in answer to the prayer of a boy who had read in his family Bible the words of James: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (James 1:5).

Upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this Church.
LDS.ORG, "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith" Oct 2002 General Conference

The First Vision supposedly took place "early in the spring of 1820." The first written account of the experience did not occur until 1832, 12 years later. Joseph Smith, his family, nor any contemporaries (who aledgedly persecuted him for his assertion) mention it before this time. Eight more accounts were eventually written:

(1) the Prophet’s handwritten description in 1832, an attempt to start a manuscript history of the Church; (2) a Church secretary’s brief 1835 journal entry of Joseph talking with a visitor who called himself Joshua, the Jewish minister; (3) the 1838 history discussed above, published in 1842 and now in the Pearl of Great Price; (4) Orson Pratt’s publication, the first publicly disseminated, of the Prophet’s vision in his Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, issued in 1840 in Edinburgh, Scotland; (5) Orson Hyde’s revision of Orson Pratt’s pamphlet, published in 1842 for German readers and adding some insights that may have come from his contact with Joseph Smith; (6) the Wentworth Letter, created in response to editor John Wentworth’s inquiry and published by Joseph Smith in 1842 in Times and Seasons; this account adapted parts of Orson Pratt’s pamphlet; (7) Levi Richards’s diary about Joseph Smith preaching in the summer of 1843 and repeating the Lord’s first message to him that no church was His; (8) a newspaper interview in the fall of 1843; (9) Alexander Neibaur’s 1844 journal entry of a conversation at the Prophet’s house
Richard Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision,” Ensign, Apr 1996, 1

It is unusual that the elements of Joseph Smith's experience became more detailed over time (as opposed to typical memories which fade over time). It is suspect that the changes in details better fit Joseph Smith's changing doctrinal philosophy and professed authority. This could be, as Mormon apologists suggest, that Joseph gained a better understanding of the experience over time. Or perhaps the second- and third-hand accounts do not do justice retelling Joseph's accounts. Regardless of the reasons for the differences, the potential conflicts are not discussed within the church, leading me (and an unknown number of others) to accept the 1838 version as absolute fact. For 27 years I never knew.

For a pro-mormon response to the criticisms of the First Vision, please see: http://en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision_accounts

A apologetic comparison of the written accounts can be found at: http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHistory/v1c1history.html

Wikipedia can always be helpful as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision