By Paul Malan

Testimony

In the comments section of a popular blog, a poster named Rude Dog poked fun at the term "testimony" because we use it as if it were a legitimate term... a term of knowing.

"Using the term... outside the Mormon and Born Again Christian paradigm leaves most with a perplexed expression. Perhaps you should go as far as to contact the various national academies and recommend that their methods of epistemology are archaic, and that the 'burning bosom' method of knowledge acquisition should be employed. When comes the day when one grows up and leaves a bawling immaturity that defines the infancy of our species will we realize that when it comes to the metaphysical, the supernatural, there is nothing that one can 'know', but only what can be believed or not believed. I get it that one can believe, but don't project upon the true reality that somehow God has spoken to you but not to me, for greater hubris and solipsism there is none. I don't think the religious realize how 'proud' they really are."

"For the Blessing of the Lamanites"

Relief Society Magazine, August 1964
For the entire article, click here.

"In fulfillment of Nephi's prophetic words, the Lamanites in our day are, indeed, being restored to their rightful place in the House of Israel. By their obedience to the principles of the gospel, they are beginning to receive the blessings promised to their ancient fathers.

Today thousands of Lamanites are coming into the Church. More than one hundred Lamanite branches have been organized among the stakes and within the missions. In many of these branches, the leadership is provided by the Lamanite menbers. They are the branch presidents, the teachers, the auxiliary leaders, the music directors. Lives are being transformed, In some cases, whole Indian communities are being affected.

Every Latter-day Saint should be a friend and a champion of the Indian people. We must be certain that blessings are not withheld because of any indifference or intolerance on our part. Our patient labor in behalf of Lehi's seed can help them to reclaim their inheritance in this land." 
(Boyd K. Packer)

As I understand it, (correct me if I'm wrong) although Boyd Packer never served as the prophet, seer, and revelator (president of the Church), as an apostle he was considered to be a prophet. I presume then that it is safe to assume that all of the apostles are prophets. I did a quick count and according to the internet, there have been more than 100 apostles since the 1830 organization of the church and every one of them (with the exception of perhaps some of the current apostles) have endorsed the Book of Mormon premise that the American Indians all descended from Laman through Lehi who was an Israelite. Historically, the archives are ripe with testimonials from hundreds of general authorities that the Book of Mormon is a chronicle of the Indian's origins and was written for their benefit.

In the last recent years, Science and its advancements in the field of DNA studies has concluded that this is not the case saying that the vast majority of Indians on this continent migrated here from Asia. There is no connection between them and Lehi, Laman, or Israel. This fact is well enough established and of such high credibility that even the Church has re-written the introduction to the Book of Mormon in an attempt to lighten or obfuscate the directness of the book's and Joseph Smith's claim.

My question is this. Of the more than 100 prophets who supposedly communicate with God and Jesus Christ and have direct access to insight and inspiration, why didn't God tell at least one of them, over the course of the last 150 years or so, to correct the mistaken concept so that the change came from Him and not from science? Why did He hang His prophets out to dry and leave them to suffer the embarrassment of science proving them to be wrong and forcing them to make corrections?

For me, this is huge. It's a deal-breaker. This is not a doubt that I can doubt. This is fact. I saw this happen with my own eyes in my own lifetime. My integrity will not allow me to overlook it or deny to myself that it happened. Based on this one fact, how can I possibly expect myself to believe that the Book of Mormon is true?

Useful Truths

"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." 
Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (for entire transcript, click here)

While growing up in the Church as a youth, I was warned to never read literature about the Mormon Church that was not approved by the Church. Our leaders taught us that Satan was looking to lead faithful Mormons astray. To maintain my faith, I needed to stay in the warm, cozy confines of Church-sanctioned truth. And I believed the warnings. Whenever I heard the whispers of controversy or contradiction, I immediately dismissed them as "anti-Mormon lies".

Then, after 55 years of dedicated service and devotion, after numberless promises from General Authorities in Conference talks of the blessings I would be entitled to if I remained earnest and steadfast... despite all of those years of adherence, sacrifice, and allegiance, my life began to unravel beneath me and I began to question how this could be so. Overridden with discouragement and depression, I began to question everything. It was then that I learned about Joseph Smith's 33 wives, a truth that directly contradicted the myth of Joseph and Emma's love story. With that came the shocking introduction to polyandry (click here) and Joseph Smith's 14 and 15 year old polygamist brides. I am still learning about Joseph Smith's many contradictory recitals of the First Vision, which is a "not-very-useful truth" that casts an unforgiving light on the true origins of Mormonism. With our increasing modern understanding of anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, and genetics, the pool of potential proof continues to evaporate regarding the possibility that the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon ever existed.

The list of Boyd K. Packer's "not-very-useful truths" about the Mormon Church is a mile long and the majority of these facts remain unbeknownst to the greater part of the general Church population. I'm sure that the subtle, unadvertised and practically hidden-from-view Gospel Topics section (click here) on the Church's website is there, not with the hope or expectation that members will find it and study it out, but rather as a convenient disclaimer to be used when a doubter accuses the Church of covering up the truth. Although their list is only a few inches long, it doesn't take very much reading to establish that there is no question that we, as Mormons, have been deceived. All one has to do is read the essays relating to controversial doctrines to realize that the message there is far different than the message we were raised with, not to mention the lessons we are taught each Sunday in the Gospel Doctrine class. When I read through them, I recognized some of the themes as the same ones I had encountered many years earlier and, by default, had dismissed them as anti-Mormon lies. And here, the Church admits that they were not lies at all.

Someone please explain to me how any truth can possibly be "not very useful". My mother taught me that when someone whitewashes or avoids the truth, they must be guilty of something. She also taught me that when someone only tells part of the truth, it's the same as lying. My mother was wise. Apparently even wiser than Boyd K. Packer who has instructed us to only share as much truth as will support his version of the story. I wonder if what he actually meant was that some truth is not very convenient?

Here's the Scenario

I'm watching general conference and President Monson says something that doesn't sound quite right. Did I catch that or did I misunderstand? I wait a few days until the transcript is available online and I read the entire context. Nope! I understood perfectly well but it still doesn't sound right so I'm even further confused. I turn to the scriptures as well as other sources including past prophets and apostles who have spoken on the same topic. They all seem to agree with me so something is not right. I need further help to figure this out so I turn to a trusted friend or a relative and I share my dilemma hoping to get another point of view. I show them the transcript and, when they finish reading it, I explain my confusion and without any further investigation, they launch into a rationalization including scriptures and quotes from other church authorities about following the prophet, which, in their mind at least, seem to show how the prophet is right. After all, the prophet is ALWAYS right... right? 

So, wanting to further understand and reconcile the seeming contradiction, I push a little deeper and try to show them another discrepancy on the topic that Boyd K. Packer recently said in the previous general conference. They immediately cut me off refusing to hear it and accuse me of being argumentative and guilty of just trying to find anything wrong with the church that I can. In an impassioned almost angry tone, they fervidly bear their testimony that the Church is true and, in an elevated voice declare that they know what I'm trying to do and I am NOT going to change their mind. They KNOW what they know... and they storm off and refuse to associate with me anymore.

I'm running out of friends..!

If Joseph Smith lied and I stumble across evidence that seems to suggest that's the case and I look closer hoping to disprove that evidence but only find more confirming facts, why is that MY fault? Why am I viewed with suspicion and called "apostate" while everyone who reveres Joseph Smith view him and themselves as infallible and prefer to maintain their ignorance?

The issue of what is true and what is not true is of paramount importance to me. This factors in to my views about religion, politics, the environment, and my day to day decisions. It is difficult, but I must remain open to challenging all of my assumptions, and be willing to go where the evidence leads me. Isn't that what the missionaries are telling their investigators? I think that the Lord wants that of His children. He instilled that in me. Otherwise, if I don't, my fear is that I'm settling for a group delusion... controlled and manipulated by others.

Another Perspective on Truth Being Useful

Poor, poor John Kitzhaber. He made a couple of mistakes (he is only human, after all) and now we, as a mob state, are on the brink of crucifying him. C'mon people! Have we not learned from our past? Lynching him now will only turn him into a martyr and might create a foot-hold for the beginnings of a cult-like following.

How dare we focus on his few human shortcomings. I have read about prophets of God who did far worse things like committing treason and censoring the press and we sing praises to them today. Clearly, Kitzhaber made some blunders, which obviously demonstrates that he was only acting as a man and not as the leader of our State when he did what he did. Instead of parading his few flaws, we should only be acknowledging his three-term accomplishments in healthcare, education, and economic reforms. We should just be looking at all of the good that he is responsible for. If we only look for his mistakes and the bad things that he has done, we certainly will find them but why should we let those things define who he is and hold him so accountable when all of the good that he did so glaringly outweighs the few mistakes that he made?

A little known alleged fact in this case that I am sure will eventually come to light is that I have heard that Kitzhaber has lined up 11 witnesses (most of whom he is related to) who are willing to testify in his behalf regarding his honesty and good integrity; 3 of which claim that their testimony came to them in a vision... and everyone knows that visions trump any cold, hard evidence that the devilish opposition might dream up.

My final point... 

In his defense, I submit that some truth is not very useful. The fact that he may have embezzled and misappropriated state money is, at least in his eyes, truth that is not at all useful or faith promoting. We should ignore those useless, demoralizing facts. We should doubt our doubts and not be so judgmental and, most of all, we should quit researching and dwelling on his negative history. "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." The rest of us will go ahead and vote for him even though we previously knew about the allegations. After all, the little bit of cash that he slipped under the table to his girlfriend amounted to barely a ripple when compared to the grotesquely obscene amount of money he wasted in the healthcare computer-program debacle... and we forgave him for that and STILL voted him back into office. We went into this with our eyes wide open so why are we picking on him and trying to hang him now?

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