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

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