The Definition of Anti-Mormon

I used to believe that anti-Mormon meant lies about the Church. I have now learned that the term anti-Mormon means truth that can hurt the Church.

I find it almost comically ironic how the Church in their online Gospel Topics is now publishing their admission to the truth of claims that Fawn Brodie as well as an abounding number of other authors have written about that subsequently earned them the title of "Anti-Mormon" and caused them to be excommunicated. To be clear, I understand the Church's definition of apostasy and how it wasn't necessarily the topics that they wrote about so much as the influence of their publications on everyone else's faith that caused their excommunications. 

However; because of the Church's teachings, for my entire life I have believed that Joseph Smith translated (in the traditional sense of the word) the Book of Mormon from behind a curtain by the miraculous means of gazing at the characters on the golden plates, page after page, through a sacredly mysterious Urim and Thummim, which caused the English words to appear in the crystal eye-piece and subsequently be dictated to a scribe on the other side of the curtain. (Today I can hardly fathom that I even believed THAT.) Now that the Church is admitting that they have been deceiving me in that that was NOT how it was done, is this not going to be a detriment to my testimony? (I find that their new description is absolutely, unbelievably preposterous.) Could their admission perhaps cause my faith to falter and wouldn't the Church therefore, by its own definition, be required to excommunicate itself? My question is... Because the Church is causing me to lose my faith, doesn't this make the Church itself guilty of committing apostasy? 

They are now doing what they have disciplined members for doing in the past. Until the last few years, I have spent my life obediently heeding my church leader's advice by refraining from reading the "Anti-Mormon lies" and now the Prophet is telling me that the lies are true. Now I'm thoroughly confused and it makes me want to gag. 

It's amazing..! Apparently the Church is anti-Mormon..!

When I eventually leave the Church, I guess I can always claim that it was the Church who excommunicated itself from me!!

_______________________________

Dear Mormon Church,

As a result of the disciplinary council consisting of "Critics Yearning For Truth" that has been held over the past number of years, I am sadly compelled to inform you of the Council's decision. We find that because of your use of smoke and mirrors, vacillating changes in your claims of absolute truth, as well as other acts of deceit that are unbecoming of a faith-solid, unwavering, true believing architect of eternal, celestial ideals and goals, that you be excommunicated from yourself.

Sincerely,

Your Ex-bishopric Member

Essays On Gospel Topics

Borrowing from a very honest blog, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2014/02/a-former-bishops-doctrinal-dilemmas/  Ganesh Cherian -- who is currently serving as a stake high counselor in New Zealand, expresses in his words my frustrations and concerns about the church's attempt at honesty.

"In what appears to be an attempt to deal with several vital historical issues propagated by the Church throughout the years, they have begun producing essays since late 2013 under its "Gospel Topics" section of its lds.org website, attempting to reconcile the facts with what has been taught by earlier leaders and church manuals.

In an October 2013 general conference talk, President Uchtdorft gave an impassioned plea to those who have left the church, admitting mistakes in leadership and promising a place for those who doubt. Since then, it feels like the church has changed. While Uchdorft's talk seemed extraordinary at the time, in retrospect it feels like it was a preface for that change. Change that is not without its challenges.

(Referring to a particular priesthood lesson) one of my fellow high-priests informed us that two friends (a former Bishop, and a Stake President) in England had recently left the church over the 'Race and the Priesthood' essay. As dutiful leaders. they had instructed their congregations, referring to 'the seed of Cain' explanation for withholding the priesthood from black members of the church until 1978. This recent 'clarification' had apparently undermined their understanding of both revelation and doctrine. Though I haven't left the church, this shift to more transparency is a challenge for me as well. Not because I don't welcome these revisions. They seem very fair and thoroughly researched. But like my fellow high priests, I too used these now discarded explanations and doctrines throughout my leadership to teach - and now I'm left to wonder.

 Each [of the essays] is a challenge to the seemingly authoritative version of our history. Drawing on historical evidence and scholarship, these essays go further than any previous official publications issued by the church in contradicting those narratives that good members have long repeated as justifications for our more curious doctrines and practices. And naturally, many are baffled.

After a careful reading of the new source material it would appear that the First Vision account as we have come to know it, was virtually unheard of for the first decade of the Church's existence. What we now regard as pivotal to our claim to divine mandate was absent for the first members, leaving many questions over what those founding Mormons actually believed about the nature of the Godhead, and what caused them to join the church?

I have repeated stories to my ward to justify particular church practices. I have given the hard line on church policies and doctrines and have held people accountable. As recently as June, I reasoned with a friend that polygamy was needed because there were so many more women than men at the time, an argument that the polygamy essay seems now to repudiate."

Imagine the position this man and so many others in the Mormon Church are in. For years, he followed party lines and repeated the history as he was instructed. Now, because the church is trying to 'come clean,' so to speak, by admitting historical problems of its past, there is a problem. Everything that the members were taught before these essays were printed was apparently based on lies or half-truths. This was the crux of the Complaint made in 2010 by a group of Swedish Saints. http://www.scribd.com/doc/155365831/Turley-Jensen-Stockholm-2010 (Notice how the first 30 minutes of answering questions is spent preaching and how, at the end, they have run out of time and can't [or won't] finish answering their questions.)

Cherian continues:

"All of this has caused me to grapple with my own questions. Is it possible that I have hurt people with doctrines and dogmas that in the light of these essays seem to sit on shaky ground? I understand how essential it is to 'sustain' the Brethren but, these days, I live with a caution that those ideals that I believe today could be dismissed by future First Presidencies. I also question myself regarding how blameless I am in my representation of these doctrines as definitive? Was I complicit in telling stories I suspected were problematic? Could I have asked more questions, been more thoughtful, mindful? How did I get to this place where I have cause to wonder about my own, and the church's integrity?

Today, I am reeling from the translation of the 'Book of Mormon' essay. Exactly how was I to know that Joseph Smith got the words to the Book of Mormon by burying his head in a hat? How was I to know that a stone he found in a well was instrumental in this process of translation? Every picture, or video I have ever seen has him sitting at a table with the gold plates before him pouring over these 'curious characters' by the light of a candle! Was I naive to have faith in this story? Was I wrong to retell this story as a teacher, as a missionary, or as a priesthood leader? What am I to make of a story I find confounding and frankly bizarre?

I am left to wonder where I go from here. I am torn. I love my church and credit where I am in my life to years of church service - but I cannot ignore the dishonesty. I feel aggrieved that in attempting to sustain and perpetuate stories of faith, the church has accredited doctrines to God that are simply fictions. Can such a chasm be bridged as President Uchtdorf suggests?

As we file out of class, a fellow high councilor remarks, 'Isn't it interesting that today's challenge to our faith is coming directly from the church?'"

Church History

In response to the talk at a Fair Mormon conference by Davis Bitton

"I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church"

by: Stuart Jensen

I have heard this argument several times now. We should not base our faith in the Church on the early historical events that framed the Church.  Instead, we should assess the validity of the religion (teachings, scriptures, what kind of a person it helps me become, ...) and decide if it is "true."

I have no problem with that process until you come to the "one true Church" and the "only Church with the priesthood of God" claims.

If those claims did not exist, I would have no problem living in my faith and "using" the Church as a tool to better myself, my family, and my neighbors.  But, these claims come with a whole set of "hooks" that make a semi-faithful journey in Mormonism quite uncomfortable.  Temple recommend questions, unquestioned authority of leaders, tithing, toe the line...

I keep coming back to the fundamentals.  There are, and have been, fraudulent people who have used religion to control people.  We know that is true. We see it time and time again, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, Marshall Applewhite (Heaven's Gate), to name a few contemporary examples. All of these people had loyal followers who were willing to die for their religion. 

My "task" when it comes to accepting a religion is to somehow detect these frauds. To do this, I have two tools: emotion and logic.

Most religions claim that emotion is a valid indicator of truth. If a religion "works" for a person, they will probably have good emotions about it and they could interpret that as a confirmation of truth. However, emotion is easily manipulated by outside parties and many people have fallen victim to becoming very "emotional" about very "bad" belief systems.

Very few religions claim that logic is an all encompassing (fail-safe) indicator of truth. In the Mormon culture, it seems to flip flop around depending on the audience and speaker.  I have heard several talks by Elder Oaks where he talks about the logical aspects of the gospel.  However, generally, the "Spirit" is promoted as the main divining rod in Mormonism.

I am struggling to use these two tools effectively.

I have tried the "spirit" approach for 40 some odd years and I have made no headway. I am still sitting right where I started. From a logical perspective, I question my ability (as well as anyone's ability) to take the fine measurements required to distinguish between "nice,"  "better," "best," and "the winner" truths. I cannot distinguish a "gradient" of emotions.

That only leaves a logical academic approach.  When you say that "religion is different" and we cannot apply the same historical evaluations to religion that we might to other histories, I get really worried. It seems to me that this is exactly what we should be doing.

One of the speakers talked about his experience coming to terms with the Masonic aspects of the temple ceremonies. I believe the term "horizontal revelation" was coined to describe Joseph using cultural objects to further his teachings. Critics of horizontal revelation would argue that such patterns of behavior are exactly what charlatans do. Especially highly charismatic leaders with holds over followers that are tight enough to overcome any internal questions that such behavior might provoke.

So, what is one to do?  The "spirit" does not work for me.  You are claiming that I cannot objectively examine history because that is not a viable alternative unless I am willing to allow the "divine" into the equation and turn it into a "sacred narrative."

A religion must earn my trust such that I am willing to allow the divine. I do not start out my search allowing the divine.  That path is dangerous and, in my opinion, has led too many people to destruction.  Therefore, it seems to me, an honest search for "the one true church" and "the only priesthood of God" must start with a critical logical examination of its origins. Once that passes muster, then the sacred narrative can be accepted, not the other way around.

Now, again, if I was just looking for a "nice" church to raise my family in, I think emotion would be an adequate tool to use. But Mormonism raises the bar on itself as to require much higher levels of scrutiny.

The Journey

As a child, it seemed so simple;

Every step was clearly marked.

Priesthood, mission, sweetheart, temple;

Bright with hope I soon embarked.

But now I have become a man,

And doubt the promise of the plan.

For the path is growing steeper,

And a slip could mean my death.

Plunging upward, ever deeper,

I can barely catch my breath.

Oh, where within this untamed wild

Is the star that led me as a child?

As I crest the shadowed mountain,

I embrace the endless sky;

The expanse of heaven's fountain

Now unfolds before my eye.

A thousand stars shine on the land,

The chart drafted by my own hand.

Jim Day 

Myths

When I was a boy, my mother taught me that the treatment for a sore throat was to swab it with a Q-tip dipped in turpentine. This makes me laugh today because I know that turpentine is toxic… a poison! She could have done no worse to us had she used gasoline! But she was a firm believer. Her mother administered the same treatment and her mother’s mother probably did too. I remember going over to visit her and Charles a few years back when they lived around the corner from my present home and finding out that she was “under-the-weather” with a sore throat but had taken care of it with turpentine. In a modern world of easily accessible information and a horde of available “legitimate” and affectively safe remedies, her misconceptions could not be changed.  For me, the day I left home was the first day of never again tasting turpentine! My high school education was all it took to bust that myth.

To illustrate my point, let’s turn this story around. Let’s suppose that my mother taught me religiously to always use turpentine and although it did seem to be effective, she eventually learned, to her horror, the potential dangers of that remedy. How could she correct the wrong that she so diligently instilled in her children?

Here’s an interesting article. When you read it, consider the tactics of organized religion… in particular, the LDS Church.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933.html?hpid=moreheadlines

When I read it, I shook my head incredulously and envisioned my home teacher, high priest’s quorum and Sunday school teacher… all the church members and friends who mentally have called me apostate (because I can read their minds!) who refuse to participate with me in any conversation on the subject of church history. I realize now that I spent a lifetime swabbing my children’s throats and now that I have real facts and realize the mistake I made, try as I might, as the Washington Post's article points out, there seems to be no way to right my wrong. I'm told how devastating it is to them that I have given up turpentine but, in another way, it is devastating to me as well.

Sold

As of this morning, it looks like we have a deal and the house is sold. All the counter offers and the counter-to-the-counter offers have been found to be acceptable. There is only a slim chance now that the buyers might back out, but they're quickly running out of time so it's looking good. We didn't get as much as we hoped for but, in today's market, I guess it could be argued that we didn't do too bad. At least... not too bad until I start to think about what the place was worth 4 years ago. I try not to do that!

So, the quest for relocation can now officially begin. My wife just couldn't wait. I guess she was excited with anticipation and wanted to get a head start so she has already moved out. Interestingly enough, the day she moved out was the day the eventual buyers first walked through the house. I'm not saying that there is a correlation but I can't help but wonder. Hopefully, her life is happier now.

It has occurred to me that, for the first time in what seems like my whole life, I can go anywhere I want to go and do anything that pleases me and only me, however difficult and complicated that might be due to my disability. That feels pretty weird, yet pretty liberating as well. I have spent forever always trying to please someone else and now I don’t have to do that anymore. I think that, for all those years, I had it all wrong. I think that the peace and happiness of life is a journey that becomes successful and worthwhile, not because of pleasing each other but because of sharing it together. When one takes charge and overshadows the other by setting the standards even to the point of demanding adherence, it ceases to be a sharing experience and a void of resentment is formed. Even in these first few weeks of my newly acquired independence I have begun to recognize and acknowledge that I have a responsibility to myself to do what is right. I now am “self-obligated” to answer to “me” and I actually find myself feeling like going to church and trying to do the right things. But then again… maybe I’m just lonely!





For the most part, I'm going to miss this place while, at the same time, there are some memories I can't wait to put behind me. I'll never forget the sensation after first moving here back in 1986. It was so long ago. I was driving down the lane on my way home after work for the first time. I rounded the corner and the property came into view and I had to stop the truck. It was a hot August evening and I could see my children playing in the yard... their young voices shrill with contentment. They always seemed to relax at the top of their lungs. As expected, Chris was halfway up a tree with a board, hammer, and nails in hand with Cameron not far below giving directions to keep the board level. Several more were bouncing on the trampoline as the woods did their best to damper the volume of the noisy irreverence. Another was busily trying to teach the dog to fetch. Candy (the dog) came with the purchase. She probably already knew how to fetch but was either already worn out by the kid’s rambunctiousness or old enough that she just didn't care to do that anymore.

I sat there for probably 10 minutes, soaking in the aroma of pine trees... the sounds of excitement... the scenery before me. I was consumed by an overflowing tide of emotion that I have felt from that same spot in the lane countless times since. It was an overpowering feeling of confidence and reassurance that everything was Ok and life was good… a kind of “goodnight-mama-goodnight-John-Boy” sort of a feeling.

I’ve had similar experiences regarding the boat. I used to keep it at a moorage that had high banks and a long ramp down to the docks. After parking the truck and on my way down the ramp, I would have to stop and eye the Turtle below me. She seemed so perky and beautiful… impatiently pulling at her dock-lines as though wishing for me to hurry. I know that there were many other boats parked nearby but I never was inclined to see any of them. We have spent many times together when the wind howled and the seas threatened but I always felt reassurance and confidence that she would bring me home safely. And when she did, I would have to stop on my way up the ramp and soak in one more parting look to keep my memory rejuvenated until I returned for the next adventure.

Well, this old house has certainly been an adventure and the realization of my wanderlust dream certainly promises to be adventurous as well. Anticipation is a marvelous motivator. Just ask my wife!

Someone's trying to tell me something about dreams

A couple of weeks ago, I changed the caption under the main blog photo (dreams are just dreams) to reflect my feelings as of lately. Last night, Kaylen and I had Panda Express for dinner. His fortune read: "There are big changes ahead for you." Mine read: "Your dreams will become reality." Today, our counter-offer was accepted by a family wanting to buy our house. So, it looks like it might sell afterall!

It's almost enough to make a believer out of me... ... but not quite! I think I'll leave the caption there a while longer, just to be on the safe side. The deal could still fall apart at any moment. No sense in humbling myself prematurely only to find out that I, in fact, knew all along what I was talking about!