Read this. After you return from the bathroom having puked your guts out, come back here. I'll wait for you.
. . .
Feel better? Good. Let me ask you something.
Do any of you unbelievers feel anything remotely like the "once-believer" described in this apparently anonymous article? Are any of you consumed with self-loathing? Seeking out increasingly dangerous indulgences to satisfy your insatiable primal urges? Do you dread the evil denouement you know is coming, and wish you could command the rocks and mountains to fall upon you to hide you from God's judgment?
Yeah, me neither.
I am a mediator by nature. It is a fundamental part of my personality that I try to reconcile people who have differences. I try to help people find compromises. I try to help people heal their broken relationships. I value dialogue and listening, and I try to encourage people to see things from another person's point of view. To me, the cultivation of empathy is one of the most important things we can try to do as members of the human family.
What irks me about this article is that it attempts to do the exact opposite. To encourage faithful members to remain in the fold, it caricatures unbelievers as vile, degenerate sinners who are forever miserable. Its intent is to polarize, not to reconcile, except in the rare case where reconciliation means falling back into line under the church's direction. If you're not with us, you must be against us. And furthermore, you must be a bad person. Articles like this actually make it more difficult for me to have relationships with true believers, because they read this tripe and think it somehow reflects who I really am. The article actively impedes dialogue. In fact, that seems to be its main goal.
For the record, the "once-believer" described in this ridiculous article could not be a less accurate description of me. I am not miserable. I am not seeking out ever-increasing levels of indulgence. I do not fear judgment. In fact, I am more at peace with myself and my existence in the world than I have ever been. I am beginning to realize that I am capable of incredible things, and I feel like I have some idea of how to use my talents to make the world a better place.
I wish the LDS church would stop using its official outlets to publish divisive rhetoric. The message of "happy us versus miserable them" is reinforced every six months at General Conference, as well as every so often in the church's other publications like the Church News and the Ensign. Please guys, just knock it off. And yes, my admonition applies equally to unbelievers who claim that all believers are repressed and secretly miserable, though my experience tends to indicate that unbelievers are generally more accepting of a less black-and-white mentality. As in many other areas of life, neither extreme is the truth.
There is more than one way to be happy in the world. There are believers who are very happy with their beliefs, and there are unbelievers who are equally happy with theirs. We should be working together for the common good and understanding. Sadly, this kind of article makes me think that's not what the church is truly interested in. And that's a shame.
Showing posts with label lds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lds. Show all posts
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
David and his concubines
I have much more to write at some point soon, but here's a quickie someone pointed out to me yesterday. I'm a little surprised I was not aware of the relationship between these particular passages of scripture, which appear very interesting when juxtaposed. D&C 132 is worth reading in its entirety, by the way. It gets good at about verse 50. Anyway, without further comment:
Doctrine & Covenants 132:38-39
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
Jacob 1:15 (Book of Mormon)
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
Jacob 2:23-24 (Book of Mormon)
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Doctrine & Covenants 132:38-39
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
Jacob 1:15 (Book of Mormon)
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
Jacob 2:23-24 (Book of Mormon)
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Are you a Mormon?
(Cross-posted at Main Street Plaza.)
At Main Street Plaza, we recently discussed the various names we use to refer to ourselves (liberal Mormon, NOM, post-Mormon, ex-Mormon, etc.) depending on how we each perceive our relationship with Mormonism. I’m interested in much more direct question, which I’m never quite sure how to answer. Are you a Mormon?
It seems like a straightforward question, but I find it surprisingly tricky because it’s not always clear what is meant by “Mormon”. If it means a member of the CoJCoLdS, then my answer should be yes, because I am still on the records as a member of that church. If it means someone who has ever had the experience of being a Mormon, then my answer is also yes. If it means a person who considers oneself a part of the Mormon culture or believes Mormon doctrine, then my answer should be no, because I am neither. For others, the situation may be reversed; you might not be a member of the church anymore, but still consider yourself part of the Mormon culture. So are you a Mormon?
In my own mind, I’ve pretty much moved on from Mormonism, but to answer either yes or no without further explanation seems strange. I tend to give a different answer depending on the context. If a stranger asks, I’ll usually just say no unless I’m interested in having a conversation about Mormonism. If I actually feel like talking about it and they seem interested, I might start with something like, “Technically I am a Mormon, but…” I’ve heard of others using the phrase “I was raised Mormon,” which I would love to use, except that I was an adult convert. Do the details really matter? Maybe the phrase “I used to be a Mormon” is an acceptable substitute.
However, there is one situation in which I always say yes: whenever I run into LDS missionaries. I’m not interested in arguing with them, and I’m not interested in their attempts to convert me, either. So I just say yes, I’m a Mormon; no, I don’t have any referrals; good luck, elders, and have a nice day.
When I sat down to consider this question, I was surprised to discover that my answer depends mostly on whether I feel like getting into a discussion. In a way, my approach feels a little shady, but I think I’m okay with it. How about you? How do you answer the question? Are you a Mormon?
At Main Street Plaza, we recently discussed the various names we use to refer to ourselves (liberal Mormon, NOM, post-Mormon, ex-Mormon, etc.) depending on how we each perceive our relationship with Mormonism. I’m interested in much more direct question, which I’m never quite sure how to answer. Are you a Mormon?
It seems like a straightforward question, but I find it surprisingly tricky because it’s not always clear what is meant by “Mormon”. If it means a member of the CoJCoLdS, then my answer should be yes, because I am still on the records as a member of that church. If it means someone who has ever had the experience of being a Mormon, then my answer is also yes. If it means a person who considers oneself a part of the Mormon culture or believes Mormon doctrine, then my answer should be no, because I am neither. For others, the situation may be reversed; you might not be a member of the church anymore, but still consider yourself part of the Mormon culture. So are you a Mormon?
In my own mind, I’ve pretty much moved on from Mormonism, but to answer either yes or no without further explanation seems strange. I tend to give a different answer depending on the context. If a stranger asks, I’ll usually just say no unless I’m interested in having a conversation about Mormonism. If I actually feel like talking about it and they seem interested, I might start with something like, “Technically I am a Mormon, but…” I’ve heard of others using the phrase “I was raised Mormon,” which I would love to use, except that I was an adult convert. Do the details really matter? Maybe the phrase “I used to be a Mormon” is an acceptable substitute.
However, there is one situation in which I always say yes: whenever I run into LDS missionaries. I’m not interested in arguing with them, and I’m not interested in their attempts to convert me, either. So I just say yes, I’m a Mormon; no, I don’t have any referrals; good luck, elders, and have a nice day.
When I sat down to consider this question, I was surprised to discover that my answer depends mostly on whether I feel like getting into a discussion. In a way, my approach feels a little shady, but I think I’m okay with it. How about you? How do you answer the question? Are you a Mormon?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Have you reached a conclusion yet?
When I first told my wife a few years ago that I was starting to doubt the claims of the LDS church (and my belief in God, for that matter), she was understandably freaked out. Thankfully, we gave each other time and space to deal with what was happening, and our relationship now is better than ever.
But one question she asked me every so often during those first few months was, "Have you reached a conclusion yet?" The implication was that I was going to reach a final conclusion that the LDS gospel was "true" or "false".
It was a little frustrating to answer such a question, because my answer was, and still is, "yes and no". Yes, I have reached a conclusion. My conclusion is: No, I may never reach a conclusion. And that's okay. I no longer subscribe to the concept of reaching a final conclusion that cannot be changed by further evidence. I now regard all conclusions as tentative (yes, even this one!) and contingent on being supported by good evidence.
The false dichotomy that the LDS church is either wholly true or wholly false is often emphasized by church leaders. For example, Gordon B. Hinckley gave a General Conference talk in April 2003, in which he boldly stated, "Either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
This is obviously oversimplified. It is a fact that there are many positive things about the church, many true principles taught by it, and many good people who believe in it. However, it is also evident that Joseph Smith's foundational mythology includes many claims that are... shall we say, not entirely grounded in reality. Must we conclude that Joseph Smith was either the Prophet of God on the earth, or else a willful liar and a fraud? No. I don't believe the evidence completely supports either claim. Life is much more complicated than that.
Someone on a discussion board recently asked, "What would it take for you to believe again?" For me, that question is kind of like asking, "What would it take for me to believe the earth is flat?" It would take a whole heck of a lot of observational evidence, as well as a coherent, parsimonious explanation for all the other evidence that seemed to indicate that the earth is a spheroid. The same is true of belief in the LDS church. In principle, I suppose the dead could start walking the earth, testifying of Joseph Smith and the restoration. That would challenge both my naturalistic worldview and my view of the LDS church. In practice, the possibility seems so unlikely as to be ignored.
To summarize: Yes, I hold certain tentative conclusions with an estimated probability, given the evidence I know about. I may believe the likelihood of the existence of gods is very small, and I may believe the likelihood of the LDS church being a true church (whatever that means) is even smaller. However, given enough good evidence, I am willing to change my mind. So, have I reached a conclusion yet? Yes... and no.
But one question she asked me every so often during those first few months was, "Have you reached a conclusion yet?" The implication was that I was going to reach a final conclusion that the LDS gospel was "true" or "false".
It was a little frustrating to answer such a question, because my answer was, and still is, "yes and no". Yes, I have reached a conclusion. My conclusion is: No, I may never reach a conclusion. And that's okay. I no longer subscribe to the concept of reaching a final conclusion that cannot be changed by further evidence. I now regard all conclusions as tentative (yes, even this one!) and contingent on being supported by good evidence.
The false dichotomy that the LDS church is either wholly true or wholly false is often emphasized by church leaders. For example, Gordon B. Hinckley gave a General Conference talk in April 2003, in which he boldly stated, "Either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."This is obviously oversimplified. It is a fact that there are many positive things about the church, many true principles taught by it, and many good people who believe in it. However, it is also evident that Joseph Smith's foundational mythology includes many claims that are... shall we say, not entirely grounded in reality. Must we conclude that Joseph Smith was either the Prophet of God on the earth, or else a willful liar and a fraud? No. I don't believe the evidence completely supports either claim. Life is much more complicated than that.
Someone on a discussion board recently asked, "What would it take for you to believe again?" For me, that question is kind of like asking, "What would it take for me to believe the earth is flat?" It would take a whole heck of a lot of observational evidence, as well as a coherent, parsimonious explanation for all the other evidence that seemed to indicate that the earth is a spheroid. The same is true of belief in the LDS church. In principle, I suppose the dead could start walking the earth, testifying of Joseph Smith and the restoration. That would challenge both my naturalistic worldview and my view of the LDS church. In practice, the possibility seems so unlikely as to be ignored.To summarize: Yes, I hold certain tentative conclusions with an estimated probability, given the evidence I know about. I may believe the likelihood of the existence of gods is very small, and I may believe the likelihood of the LDS church being a true church (whatever that means) is even smaller. However, given enough good evidence, I am willing to change my mind. So, have I reached a conclusion yet? Yes... and no.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Avoiding personal apostasy
In this month's Ensign, there is an article entitled Avoiding Personal Apostasy. It's pretty much what you would expect. It addresses none of the real problems with church doctrine, history, or evidence. It assumes that those who leave the church do so because they want to sin, they are offended, or they find fault with church leaders. Naturally, any substantial criticism of the church or its leaders can't possibly be true, and must be an indication of personal apostasy which came about for one of the above reasons.
I won't even bother addressing the majority of the article, except to say that the reason for my unbelief, and the unbelief of many others I know, has nothing to do with anything Elder Claudio D. Zivic assumes must be the cause. As with everything I believe or disbelieve in life, for me it comes down to evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in my view, the evidence for the LDS church's extraordinary claims is woefully insufficient. The only way I could hold a literal belief in the LDS church would be for me to decide ahead of time that I would believe, and then twist and interpret the evidence to fit the belief. I did that for long enough to know that I can't do it forever. Plenty of people are able to do it, but I am not one of them.
What concerns me more is the paragraph in which Elder Zivic casually dismisses the possibility that the LDS church is in error. In fact, he goes even further, dismissing the possibility that the LDS church could ever be fundamentally in error. He says,
First, people have been saying this kind of thing about the end of the world for millennia. Christians have been saying it ever since Jesus was said to have preached that the kingdom of God was near at hand, and that many within the sound of his voice would not taste of death before they saw the Son of Man coming in his glory. Seriously, the second coming has been "any day now" for two thousand years. Joseph Smith, Sr., the first patriarch of the LDS church, gave many, many blessings during the 1830s and 1840s, in which he claimed that the receivers of the blessings would live to see the Second Coming. Shouldn't we start to suspect that maybe "imminent" doesn't mean what we think it means?
Second, and more importantly: "We need not be concerned." The prophet will never lead us astray. Never mind that the prophet led us into polygamy. Never mind that the prophet implemented institutional racism for 130 years. Never mind that the prophet is still implementing institutional sexism. Never mind that the prophet made up a "Egyptian alphabet and grammar" that bears no resemblance to actual Egyptian, and used it to translate a history of Abraham from papyri that have nothing to do with Abraham. Never mind that... never mind that... oh, never mind anything that's not in the Sunday school manual. Anyway, thou shalt not criticize the prophet, and don't worry yourself about any of these "apostate" ideas. We need not be concerned.
It frightens me whenever anyone uses the words "we need not be concerned", especially in reference to religious belief. Advising others to abdicate their responsibility to think critically about their beliefs, and advising them to follow their leaders without question, is extremely dangerous. It's not the kind of advice that would be considered valuable in any arena except religion. "We need not be concerned" leads to tragedies like the Peoples Temple suicide, the September 11 martyrs, and to take a Mormon example, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This is not melodrama for its own sake; this is what happens when you think you have God on your side, and are not concerned about the possibility of being wrong.
I much prefer the words of my favorite LDS prophet (if I have to pick one), Joseph Smith, Jr. He said,
Need we be concerned about the possibility of being led astray? Despite the assurances of Elder Claudio D. Zivic, there is, indeed, cause for concern.
I won't even bother addressing the majority of the article, except to say that the reason for my unbelief, and the unbelief of many others I know, has nothing to do with anything Elder Claudio D. Zivic assumes must be the cause. As with everything I believe or disbelieve in life, for me it comes down to evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in my view, the evidence for the LDS church's extraordinary claims is woefully insufficient. The only way I could hold a literal belief in the LDS church would be for me to decide ahead of time that I would believe, and then twist and interpret the evidence to fit the belief. I did that for long enough to know that I can't do it forever. Plenty of people are able to do it, but I am not one of them.
What concerns me more is the paragraph in which Elder Zivic casually dismisses the possibility that the LDS church is in error. In fact, he goes even further, dismissing the possibility that the LDS church could ever be fundamentally in error. He says,
We need not be concerned about the possibility of another apostasy of the Church of Jesus Christ. We have the privilege of living in the dispensation of the fulness of times. This gospel dispensation, which began with the Prophet Joseph Smith, is the last one before the Second Coming of the Savior.
First, people have been saying this kind of thing about the end of the world for millennia. Christians have been saying it ever since Jesus was said to have preached that the kingdom of God was near at hand, and that many within the sound of his voice would not taste of death before they saw the Son of Man coming in his glory. Seriously, the second coming has been "any day now" for two thousand years. Joseph Smith, Sr., the first patriarch of the LDS church, gave many, many blessings during the 1830s and 1840s, in which he claimed that the receivers of the blessings would live to see the Second Coming. Shouldn't we start to suspect that maybe "imminent" doesn't mean what we think it means?Second, and more importantly: "We need not be concerned." The prophet will never lead us astray. Never mind that the prophet led us into polygamy. Never mind that the prophet implemented institutional racism for 130 years. Never mind that the prophet is still implementing institutional sexism. Never mind that the prophet made up a "Egyptian alphabet and grammar" that bears no resemblance to actual Egyptian, and used it to translate a history of Abraham from papyri that have nothing to do with Abraham. Never mind that... never mind that... oh, never mind anything that's not in the Sunday school manual. Anyway, thou shalt not criticize the prophet, and don't worry yourself about any of these "apostate" ideas. We need not be concerned.
It frightens me whenever anyone uses the words "we need not be concerned", especially in reference to religious belief. Advising others to abdicate their responsibility to think critically about their beliefs, and advising them to follow their leaders without question, is extremely dangerous. It's not the kind of advice that would be considered valuable in any arena except religion. "We need not be concerned" leads to tragedies like the Peoples Temple suicide, the September 11 martyrs, and to take a Mormon example, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This is not melodrama for its own sake; this is what happens when you think you have God on your side, and are not concerned about the possibility of being wrong.I much prefer the words of my favorite LDS prophet (if I have to pick one), Joseph Smith, Jr. He said,
We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God . . . would despise the idea.
Others, in the extreme exercise of their Almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When the elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.
Need we be concerned about the possibility of being led astray? Despite the assurances of Elder Claudio D. Zivic, there is, indeed, cause for concern.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
How to discern good spirits from evil ones
In church today, one of the lessons was about how to discern good spirits from evil ones. Very practical stuff, of course, but I was surprised that no one mentioned the "three grand keys" that were revealed by Joseph Smith, which give specific steps for detecting whether an other-worldly being is really an angel or a demon. It's such an important scriptural principle, in fact, that I will reproduce it here in its entirety. Those of you who are not Mormon or have never been Mormon will probably be skeptical that Mormons actually believe in this wonderful piece of literature, but I promise you it's real.
To me, this passage is evidence of only one thing. Well, actually two things. First, Joseph Smith apparently did a lot of drugs. Secondly: the devil, the father of lies, the author of sin and master of deceit... is the stupidest con man ever. According to this passage, the reason "a just man" won't offer to shake hands is because he is unable to deceive. And the devil, because he is trying to deceive you as to his ability to shake your hand, will offer his hand but you won't feel it.
Now, I don't claim to be a genius, or of any special intelligence whatsoever. But it occurs to me that this may not be the devil's most effective method of deceiving you. Specifically, why wouldn't he just pretend to be "a just man" and tell you he can't shake your hand? Or is the devil unaware of this little loophole in the order of heaven?
Joseph Smith really enjoyed making up stuff like this to keep people's attention. It works as long as no one thinks too hard about it. I'm reminded of Stan's exclamation in the South Park episode All About the Mormons: "Mormons actually know this story, and they still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?" Yep, they do. But I think these three keys must be a little too grand for my limited earthly comprehension.
Doctrine and Covenants 129
1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—
2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—
7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.
To me, this passage is evidence of only one thing. Well, actually two things. First, Joseph Smith apparently did a lot of drugs. Secondly: the devil, the father of lies, the author of sin and master of deceit... is the stupidest con man ever. According to this passage, the reason "a just man" won't offer to shake hands is because he is unable to deceive. And the devil, because he is trying to deceive you as to his ability to shake your hand, will offer his hand but you won't feel it.
Now, I don't claim to be a genius, or of any special intelligence whatsoever. But it occurs to me that this may not be the devil's most effective method of deceiving you. Specifically, why wouldn't he just pretend to be "a just man" and tell you he can't shake your hand? Or is the devil unaware of this little loophole in the order of heaven?
Joseph Smith really enjoyed making up stuff like this to keep people's attention. It works as long as no one thinks too hard about it. I'm reminded of Stan's exclamation in the South Park episode All About the Mormons: "Mormons actually know this story, and they still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?" Yep, they do. But I think these three keys must be a little too grand for my limited earthly comprehension.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
One thing that's always bothered me about the Book of Mormon
I know what you're thinking. One thing? Yeah, there's plenty to be bothered by, but today something else occurred to me that I hadn't specifically put my finger on yet.
In addition to the anachronisms, the incorrect flora and fauna, the lack of women, the blatant copying of the Bible (including errors)... one thing that's always bothered me is that the Book of Mormon seems to be written for a modern audience. In general throughout the course of human history, no one ever writes anything for the benefit of those in the distant future or past. And I mean no one, except Doc Brown. Pretty much everything is written for the benefit of those who will read it in the present or very near future. This applies to everything in the Bible, everything written on cave walls, papyrus, giant stelae, the Internet... everything. You just don't see people composing novels specifically for the benefit of their extremely distant ancestors.
But when we examine the Book of Mormon, which was allegedly written about 2600 years ago, we find that it is constantly referring to Christianity, and specifically to 19th century theological arguments. It doesn't seem to be written for the benefit of the ancients; it consistently and explicitly refers to those who will eventually read it in the distant future. It even goes so far as to explain what "reformed Egyptian" is, and what the brass plates are. If it were common for ancient people to write in Reformed Egyptian on brass plates, there would be no need for the author to explain any of this. Even if it were rather uncommon, anyone reading the plates would obviously be familiar with both the medium and the language. So these explanations can only be for the benefit of a modern audience who is unfamiliar with such concepts.
It even explains who will eventually find those plates, what his name will be, and what his father's name will be. Is there anywhere else in Christian scripture where prophecy works like that? And why would ancient American Jewish proto-Christians care about the name of a prophet 2400 years in the future? Pretty much the entirety of 2 Nephi 3 (Joseph prophesying about Joseph son of Joseph) was either miraculous (and irrelevant to the ancients) on a scale that the world has never seen, or reflective of an enormous amount of gumption on the part of Joseph Smith. I am reminded of David Hume's maxim: testimony is sufficent to establish a miracle, only if the testimony's falsehood would be even more miraculous than the fact it is trying to establish.
To me, the observation that the Book of Mormon was written specifically for a modern audience is good evidence that from the perspective of the Book of Mormon's author, that audience existed in the present, not the distant future.
In addition to the anachronisms, the incorrect flora and fauna, the lack of women, the blatant copying of the Bible (including errors)... one thing that's always bothered me is that the Book of Mormon seems to be written for a modern audience. In general throughout the course of human history, no one ever writes anything for the benefit of those in the distant future or past. And I mean no one, except Doc Brown. Pretty much everything is written for the benefit of those who will read it in the present or very near future. This applies to everything in the Bible, everything written on cave walls, papyrus, giant stelae, the Internet... everything. You just don't see people composing novels specifically for the benefit of their extremely distant ancestors.
But when we examine the Book of Mormon, which was allegedly written about 2600 years ago, we find that it is constantly referring to Christianity, and specifically to 19th century theological arguments. It doesn't seem to be written for the benefit of the ancients; it consistently and explicitly refers to those who will eventually read it in the distant future. It even goes so far as to explain what "reformed Egyptian" is, and what the brass plates are. If it were common for ancient people to write in Reformed Egyptian on brass plates, there would be no need for the author to explain any of this. Even if it were rather uncommon, anyone reading the plates would obviously be familiar with both the medium and the language. So these explanations can only be for the benefit of a modern audience who is unfamiliar with such concepts.
It even explains who will eventually find those plates, what his name will be, and what his father's name will be. Is there anywhere else in Christian scripture where prophecy works like that? And why would ancient American Jewish proto-Christians care about the name of a prophet 2400 years in the future? Pretty much the entirety of 2 Nephi 3 (Joseph prophesying about Joseph son of Joseph) was either miraculous (and irrelevant to the ancients) on a scale that the world has never seen, or reflective of an enormous amount of gumption on the part of Joseph Smith. I am reminded of David Hume's maxim: testimony is sufficent to establish a miracle, only if the testimony's falsehood would be even more miraculous than the fact it is trying to establish.
To me, the observation that the Book of Mormon was written specifically for a modern audience is good evidence that from the perspective of the Book of Mormon's author, that audience existed in the present, not the distant future.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Jesus born on April 6? Um, no.
This year in Sunday school, we're studying the Doctrine and Covenants. It can be a little painful because I would love to be able to speak up and say, "By the way, the date of this revelation was changed in order to make it seem more prophetic," or, "Did you know that revelation was actually edited by Joseph Smith a few years later?" But I don't. It would serve no purpose.
Last week (err... a few weeks ago; we've been out of town), the topic was "The Only True and Living Church." I could tell it was going to be a good one, and it did not disappoint. I have plenty of notes from the class, but I'll just share one thing that really stuck in my craw.
The teacher read D&C 20:1, which says:
He then asked, "What is special about April 6, the day the church was founded?" I started thinking, hmm, maybe it was Passover in 1830. Or maybe he's referring to the fact that temple construction was both started and completed on April 6, forty years apart. Someone in the room raised his hand and said, "Well, we believe that Jesus was born on April 6, so that was the perfect day for the Lord to bring back the restored church."
Uhhhh. I don't know why I continue to be surprised when people say things like this in church. The church was not organized on April 6 because it was Jesus' birthday. The only reason people believe Jesus was born on April 6 is because they misinterpret D&C 20:1, which established the church! The reasoning is dizzyingly circular.
Read the passage again. The whole thing is basically five dozen words of flowery language in order to say, "Today is April 6, 1830, and we're organizing a church." That's it. It does not mean Jesus was born on April 6, any more than the Book of Mormon's claim that Jesus was born in "the land of Jerusalem" means that he was born within the city limits. Even Michael Ash, a prominent Mormon apologist, has a page that debunks this popular Mormon myth for crying out loud.
These kinds of Mormon myths drive me crazy. They spread like wildfire and everyone believes them without question. Ask me about the Three Nephites sometime. But anyway, was Jesus born on April 6? Sure, maybe. But without much better evidence than a flowery prelude, I don't see any reason to believe so.
Last week (err... a few weeks ago; we've been out of town), the topic was "The Only True and Living Church." I could tell it was going to be a good one, and it did not disappoint. I have plenty of notes from the class, but I'll just share one thing that really stuck in my craw.
The teacher read D&C 20:1, which says:
The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April—
He then asked, "What is special about April 6, the day the church was founded?" I started thinking, hmm, maybe it was Passover in 1830. Or maybe he's referring to the fact that temple construction was both started and completed on April 6, forty years apart. Someone in the room raised his hand and said, "Well, we believe that Jesus was born on April 6, so that was the perfect day for the Lord to bring back the restored church."
Uhhhh. I don't know why I continue to be surprised when people say things like this in church. The church was not organized on April 6 because it was Jesus' birthday. The only reason people believe Jesus was born on April 6 is because they misinterpret D&C 20:1, which established the church! The reasoning is dizzyingly circular.
Read the passage again. The whole thing is basically five dozen words of flowery language in order to say, "Today is April 6, 1830, and we're organizing a church." That's it. It does not mean Jesus was born on April 6, any more than the Book of Mormon's claim that Jesus was born in "the land of Jerusalem" means that he was born within the city limits. Even Michael Ash, a prominent Mormon apologist, has a page that debunks this popular Mormon myth for crying out loud.
These kinds of Mormon myths drive me crazy. They spread like wildfire and everyone believes them without question. Ask me about the Three Nephites sometime. But anyway, was Jesus born on April 6? Sure, maybe. But without much better evidence than a flowery prelude, I don't see any reason to believe so.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Sometimes I miss belief
This morning, Runtu posted a link to this video. If you're a believing Mormon, you'll probably enjoy it. If you're not, you may find it strange, confusing, boring, or creepy. I actually kind of liked it.
As I watched the video, I found myself strangely emotional. Kind of in a good way, but not really. It was more of a sadness, a longing or a yearning for the days when I actually believed all this stuff. I can imagine my former bishop saying that this feeling is the Holy Ghost trying to tell me that the gospel is true. That's what he said to me about a year and a half ago, when my wife and I were first telling him about my unbelief, and I admitted that this is a painful process. But it's always painful when you find that the world isn't the way you thought it was. The pain itself is not evidence that changing your beliefs is good or bad, right or wrong.
It was nice to have a narrative in which the world could neatly fit. God loved me, Jesus was our Savior, and Joseph Smith restored the gospel so that we could all live eternally with God and our families if we had faith and lived right. It was a simple, encouraging story, and it came with an entire life framework. It had its quirks, but it was relatively straightforward. Follow the prophet and you'll be all right. I made my checklist of daily, weekly, or monthly tasks, and completing the checklist felt good, dammit. Like I'm getting something worthwhile done here! We're on the path to celestial happiness!
No matter how good it felt, watching this video reminded me why I just can't be a believer. I couldn't watch Joseph Smith kneeling in prayer in the Sacred Grove without remembering his many different versions of the story, each more grand and detailed than the last, and each coming at a time when he needed to bolster people's faith in him as a prophet. I couldn't watch him finding the golden plates without remembering his stories about a huge cave inside the Hill Cumorah, filled with books and treasures. I couldn't watch him translating the golden plates without remembering that he did so via a seer stone, with his face buried in a hat, often without the plates even being in the same room. I couldn't watch him receiving the priesthood from resurrected beings without remembering that he never mentioned this alleged event until years later. I couldn't watch him rocking babies with Emma without remembering that he married 33 other women, some of them teenagers, most of them secretly, and many of them already married to other men. And so on.
I actually knew all of this (and more - there's so much more) before I joined the church. But I found the feelings and the narrative so compelling that I shelved the cognitive dissonance and got baptized anyway. Apparently through sheer force of will, I got myself to a point where none of the discrepancies bothered me anymore. And why should they? I was happily married with kids, had a good job and a nice house, and church activity fit right into our happy little life. Everything was nice and simple, and we were filled with certainty. Until I met Carl Sagan and the shelf started to buckle. The weight of the evidence demanded my attention. Fortunately, we still have a happy little life, but of course it's not the same as it used to be.
I think that's what I miss most. Certainty. These days I am learning to be comfortable with ambiguity, probability, uncertainty, and unanswered questions. It's difficult for me to be uncertain, but in light of the evidence I have seen over my lifetime, I must admit that I am. As Carl Sagan correctly asserted, "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." I wouldn't trade where I am today for where I was then. My eyes are wide open, and shutting them doesn't make the world go away. But I still miss it.
As I watched the video, I found myself strangely emotional. Kind of in a good way, but not really. It was more of a sadness, a longing or a yearning for the days when I actually believed all this stuff. I can imagine my former bishop saying that this feeling is the Holy Ghost trying to tell me that the gospel is true. That's what he said to me about a year and a half ago, when my wife and I were first telling him about my unbelief, and I admitted that this is a painful process. But it's always painful when you find that the world isn't the way you thought it was. The pain itself is not evidence that changing your beliefs is good or bad, right or wrong.It was nice to have a narrative in which the world could neatly fit. God loved me, Jesus was our Savior, and Joseph Smith restored the gospel so that we could all live eternally with God and our families if we had faith and lived right. It was a simple, encouraging story, and it came with an entire life framework. It had its quirks, but it was relatively straightforward. Follow the prophet and you'll be all right. I made my checklist of daily, weekly, or monthly tasks, and completing the checklist felt good, dammit. Like I'm getting something worthwhile done here! We're on the path to celestial happiness!
No matter how good it felt, watching this video reminded me why I just can't be a believer. I couldn't watch Joseph Smith kneeling in prayer in the Sacred Grove without remembering his many different versions of the story, each more grand and detailed than the last, and each coming at a time when he needed to bolster people's faith in him as a prophet. I couldn't watch him finding the golden plates without remembering his stories about a huge cave inside the Hill Cumorah, filled with books and treasures. I couldn't watch him translating the golden plates without remembering that he did so via a seer stone, with his face buried in a hat, often without the plates even being in the same room. I couldn't watch him receiving the priesthood from resurrected beings without remembering that he never mentioned this alleged event until years later. I couldn't watch him rocking babies with Emma without remembering that he married 33 other women, some of them teenagers, most of them secretly, and many of them already married to other men. And so on.I actually knew all of this (and more - there's so much more) before I joined the church. But I found the feelings and the narrative so compelling that I shelved the cognitive dissonance and got baptized anyway. Apparently through sheer force of will, I got myself to a point where none of the discrepancies bothered me anymore. And why should they? I was happily married with kids, had a good job and a nice house, and church activity fit right into our happy little life. Everything was nice and simple, and we were filled with certainty. Until I met Carl Sagan and the shelf started to buckle. The weight of the evidence demanded my attention. Fortunately, we still have a happy little life, but of course it's not the same as it used to be.
I think that's what I miss most. Certainty. These days I am learning to be comfortable with ambiguity, probability, uncertainty, and unanswered questions. It's difficult for me to be uncertain, but in light of the evidence I have seen over my lifetime, I must admit that I am. As Carl Sagan correctly asserted, "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." I wouldn't trade where I am today for where I was then. My eyes are wide open, and shutting them doesn't make the world go away. But I still miss it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
