LDS Revelations

In an LDS Church News Article dated Jan. 9, 2010 LDS faithful were instructed to rely solely Church approved sources when teaching lessons in church meetings. While this is not anything that is really new it is worth discussing because, well, it is one of the biggest issues I have with the Mormon Church. Specifically that it attempts to control (and does a pretty good job) the information that members are taught about Mormon doctrine and history.

On another message board a poster responded quite differently to the announcement:

“I think it ridiculous to criticize the church. It is hypocritical for one to sustain the leaders of the church on one hand and then use the other to write in opposition to them. There are plenty of references and doctrine in the manuals provided by the church to provide a heartfelt and edifying discussion. I have never seen a need to expand the lesson material beyond the scope of church provided and approved lesson manuals. I think doing so leads to speculations. Every time I see a stray from the lesson manual it almost always produces the same result: tangents and contention.”

My response:

“heartfelt and edifying”
Often in the Church this is code for “everyone stays on script and doesn’t work to develop their own ability to gain understanding.” Well, then why all the talk about the “listening to the spirit?” If members are to just be prophet following robots whose conclusions are only valid if they agree with the leadership, then why do the Brethren go through this song and dance. To me this is what hypocritical.

“tangents and contention”
To me this is otherwise known as a ‘discussion’ or ‘the process of critical thinking.’ I personally think the Church is better for such engagement. A diversity of voices is good for Mormonism, IMO.

I understand why it’s important to the Church to be clear on it’s position— and to promote the teaching the approved message in lessons. All organizations want to control the message. The unfortunate, and I think, completely intentional side effect though, is a perceived prohibition on any study by members of unapproved sources…ever. For a Church that talks so much about the pursuit of truth, this is pretty sad.

I’ve learned more about Mormonism and it’s origins from reading non-approved sources for a few years than in 25 years of correlated lessons.

Also as I mentioned above, diversity of ideas is important in the Church. The most important “revelations” to come about in Mormonism in the past 100 years (the Manifesto and ending of the priesthood ban) have been because of of people within, as well as without, thinking differently about previously held ideas and expressing these thoughts. A correlated Mormonism works against this very process. It will have little hope of evolving and being relevant in the twenty-first century and loses the radical idealism that made it appealing to so many in the nineteenth.

As a disaffected member the value I still see in Mormonism is the people (and I mean all the people, not just the hierarchy). There is a wealth of knowledge and insight in any organization of that size and I think it would be a huge mistake for the leadership to discourage thought and open discussion among the ranks. I think the leadership could find that “revelation” comes from all sorts of places.

Or maybe not. The reasoning in the article given for correlation makes me think that allowing a free exchange of ideas goes against what the Church, or at least the Brethren, is/are about.

Since the early 1960s, Church members have seen the results of more than four decades of correlation efforts, established to:

Maintain purity of doctrine.

Emphasize the importance of the family and the home.

Place all the work of the Church under priesthood direction.

Establish proper relationships among the organizations of the Church.

Achieve unity and order in the Church.

Ensure simplicity of Church programs and materials.

A Gallup poll posted online January 11 shows Mormons as the most conservative religious group in the U.S. Well duh! I could have told the them that. I wonder how much money and time they spent coming to this conclusion.

See the Gallup Poll Results here.

It is nice though to have findings that confirm what we already suspected— and what is denied so strongly by the Church. Despite assurances from LDS officials that the Church does not influence the politics of it’s members, it seems that it does just exactly that.

Whether such an effect is intentional or not is another question. Certainly over the past 30 years there has been a conservative bent amongst the hierarchy— one that seems to originated in the Benson/Skousen era. The often quoted but rarely referenced comment attributed to Benson which claims that one cannot be a “good Mormon” and Democrat a the same time has definitely permeated the culture. Liberals in the Church are the small minority and, in my opinion, viewed with a little bit of suspicion if not contempt.

Specifically I found the poll numbers about lapsed Mormons really interesting. Their political persuasions track more like the general public whereas the faithful clearly skew hard to the right.

This info leaves me wondering: Do liberal leaning people leave the Church because they feel they don’t belong there OR are those who are likely to question and leave Mormonism more often politically liberal?

I have really resisted talking too much about media personality Glenn Beck online because, well, I think he’s kind of a tool. Not only do I personally have issues with his politics of fear and divisiveness, I think he is a goof. Truthfully I don’t like giving him any additional attention. There’s a good chance I am more sensitive to him and what he produces because of my relationship to the LDS church. That said the guy is a loon— and I can’t see how people take him very seriously.

I did find this article in the Boston Phoenix interesting. Beck is continuing in the ‘proud tradition’ of some conservative Mormons before him— and is clearly referencing LDS ideas in his crusade.

My question: Does LDS doctrine promote these ideas or the Chruch is just a good home for those who think this way?

I hadn’t heard about this until I read a post on a Mormon online discussion board yesterday. It seems in October 1984 Elder Ronald E. Poelman, a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, gave a talk in General Conference that created a stir. On the post I read a few people recalled hearing the talk and distinctly remembered it was different. Very different. The comment was that it stood out enough above the stream of standard talks as to ‘awake’ listeners out of the trance that is LDS General Conference.

The talk, entitled “The Gospel and the Church”, discussed the idea free agency in the context of LDS Church and was applauded by many as a important— in that it recognized the importance of an individuals right to choose how to live and what to accept rather than being a strict obedience message. Evidently Church leadership had issues with the talk. The conference report in the Ensign magazine the following month had a dramatically different version of Poelman’s talk. But that’s not all. The Church went through the effort of re-recording Poelman giving the revised talk from the Tabernacle pulpit. A “cough track” was even edited into the re-tape to make it appear as though it was the original presentation.

So what are the specifics? What material did the original talk contain? How different were the two versions of the talk? See for yourself.

L. Jackson Newell, writing in  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, [vol. 19,  (1986)] said, “The rewriting and refilming of Elder Ronald Poelman’s October 1984 Conference address, originally a rare and inspiring defense of free agency, so that it became yet another cry for obedience. His text was not edited — his ideas were turned inside out.”

Anyway, I thought this was interesting. I wonder if anything similar could happen today. Is there no one among the General Authorities who has similar opinions and the boldness to sahre them? Or do the Brethren pre-screen Conference talks a little better these days?

I have said for years that the LDS Church and it’s members are not exactly truthful with outsiders about their religion. In fact, many times they are purposely deceitful about beliefs, practices or doctrines that are problematic. Mormons tell me this is simply not true— that there is no systematic deception in the Church.

I know better. I used to be on their team and call it what you want— “milk before meat”, avoiding casting “pearls before swine”, or “coded language”, it’s all lying as far as I’m concerned. If the answers are designed to mislead the questioner then clearly there’s some deception going on whether or not the deceivers have justified it their own minds .

I bring this up because in his recent Mormon Times article, Hugh Nibley’s coded language and the minority mind-set, Boyd J. Petersen discusses this phenomenon. He talks about ” the divided sense of self that” LDS who migrate out of Mormon communities “often experience in the larger society.” Peterson also refers to this condition as a “divided self” or “double consciousness.”

Peterson says:

“Mormons would like nothing more than to see themselves as fully American and fully Mormon,” Petersen said, ‘but they are constantly forced to see their Mormonness through the lens of ignorance and misconception that their fellow Americans have.””

Peterson then talks about the use of coded language:

“One coping mechanism minorities use is to develop a special coded language. It allows them to speak to two different audiences at once. It is a form of doublespeak, and Mormons use it to both give information and to hide information, according to Petersen.

One example Petersen used involved a response Mitt Romney gave during his presidential run when asked about doing baptisms for the dead. Romney said, ‘I have in my life, but I haven’t recently.’

Outsiders might deduce a mild renunciation of the practice. Most Mormons, however, know that baptisms for the dead are usually performed by youths.”

While I understand the complexities of trying to explain a culture or lifetstyle to those outside of it, I can’t help but think that doublespeak and coded launguage only make the problem worse. How can people begin to understand Mormonism when the members themselves are unwilling or unable to tell the truth about the belief system? And how will outsiders learn to trust Mormons when they have reason to think everything they are told by LDS members is some sort of coded dodge?It’s just plain dishonest as well.

So I ask, “What has happened to the proud LDS tradition of boldy telling the truth that is taught in Sunday School and in Conference?” Is that all doublespeak as well?

Came across this YouTube video recently. Thought it was interesting.

Last week the LDS Church came out in open support of local ordinance banning discrimination against gay men and lesbians in housing and employment to be voted on by the Salt Lake City, Utah city council. Although the he measure likely would have passed it is questionable whether the vote would have been unanimous. In a  statement released by the LDS department the organization reaffirmed it’s opposition to same sex marriage  but said “the question of how people were treated on the job and in finding places to live were matters of fairness that did not have anything to do with marriage.”

Some see this move as pure damage control— and I actually think that for the most they are right. The Church had the chance to support the common ground initiative back in January but chose not to despite encouragement from gay leaders in SLC. Some have claimed they even worked against it’s passing.

So why the change of heart? One can only really guess but it seems that the Chruch was beginning to feel the heat. Despite the passage of time since Prop 8 passing the furor over the event has not really diminished and the recent defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine has only re-ignited the flames.

In addition it appears that there is more bad press for the Church on the way. A trailer for a the documentary file 8: The Mormon Proposition has been making the rounds online. Other articles and media concerned with the Church’s involvement in the Prop 8 election and politics are surfacing all the time as well.

I think though that the Church’s actions should be applauded regardless of the motivations. It is the right thing to do and may be the beginning of even better things. Better to encourage the Mormons for good behavior than to punish them for bad….although it could be argued that ‘punishment’ is exactly what brought about this change.

So for now, props to the Brethren for supporting the SLC legislation. In the future it may become clear whether you really value equality under the law or are just cynically manipulating public opinion.

On October 13, 2009 Dallin H. Oaks, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the LDS Church spoke at BYU-Idaho where he took the gay marriage debate to a whole new level of ridiculous. In his talk titled, Religious Freedom he compared the backlash against the LDS Church for it’s participation in the Prop 8 campaign with the intimidation of black churches in the civil rights movement. Does he really want to do this?

Here’s a quote:

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.”[xv] The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

Ahhhh. So where to start?

First off I have to say that I in no way condone acts of violence, vandalism or misuse of power even in the defense of something that I find worthwhile. Any who perpetrated such acts against the Mormon Church in retaliation for Prop 8 are dead wrong.

That said I do find the comparison of what Mormons faced because of Prop 8 to the things experienced by blacks fighting for civil rights completely ridiculous. Coming from the LDS Church it is even more so. First off, I haven’t heard of any church bombings, or lynchings or cross burnings targeted at Mormons since Prop 8. I haven’t heard of any LDS Church members being killed or beaten because of their religion since the election and as far as I know, no one was threatened before the November election with violence if they backed Prop 8. Oaks claimed some Mormons have been fired because of their religions backing of Prop 8. If that’s true it is regrettable. The person(s) responsible should be reported to the proper authorities.

In case you’ve forgotten, this is what the Civil Rights Movement looked like:

So is Dallin Oaks saying that Mormons have faced similar incidents? Really? I must have missed those new reports. I’ve heard of some isolated incidents of vandalism and discrimination which, while troubling, do not appear to be common or widespread. Does this even come close to what was brought to bear on blacks during the civil rights struggle. Not hardly. Gays have been targeted far more in recent years because of their sexual orientation than Mormons have because of Prop 8.

Granted the Church has been getting some tough press since the election but what did they expect? To say this issue is highly emotional would be a huge understatement— and the Church took a stand in California of all places. If they didn’t anticipate a ‘backlash’ there then they weren’t really thinking things through.

Beyond this though the whole comparison Oaks makes is just dripping with hypocrisy. Is it lost on the Mormons that in the Prop 8 election they were the ones working to deny certain rights to gays? Legal or not, in my opinion this alone automatically disqualifies Oaks from making his comparison. The fact that the LDS Church denied blacks the right to hold the priesthood in their faith until 1978 takes the comparison to downright stupid. Sorry Dallin, but the LDS Church has not cred when talking about blacks and/or civil rights.

Maybe Mormons like Oaks are taking their ‘beating’ personally because they expected a different response to their Prop 8 involvement. The campaign for California’s Prop 22 in 2000, which the Church was involved in as well,  went mostly unnoticed. Perhaps they expected a repeat— to go in, affect the outcome and then slip away with little or no heat. No such luck.

This is the risk you run when you enter the public arena— people may not like you or what you do and have no problem sharing it with the world. By inserting itself into the Prop 8 campaign the LDS Church accepted the criticisms that came with it, like it or not. This is part of our wonderful if not flawed democratic process— people are free to speak their minds if they disagree with a group’s policies— and they do it all the time. So despite Dallin Oaks calling such expression ‘anti-democratic’ it is just the opposite. There is nothing more democratic than people organizing, speaking out against or protesting practices they find objectionable.

Anyway, Dallin Oaks is wrong. Mormon Freedom of Religion has never been threatened by any Prop 8 backlash and it isn’t really what he’s arguing for anyway. What Oaks and other LDS are looking for (and trying to secure) is something far more elusive— a Freedom from Criticism. The Mormon Church and it’s members want to be able to believe what they want, involve themselves in politics where they want but somehow still avoid any criticism for such actions. They want to lob grenades—backing Proposition 8—and then immediately call a truce once the smoke clears. They don’t realize that for those fighting for gay rights the battle is still very much on.

Whether they meant to or not this is the battle the Mormons have chosen and they will have to see it through. So while I’m no military or PR strategist my advice to the Church would be to drop unbelievable Oaks style rhetoric going forward. Few (other than faithful members) think the Church is a helpless victim in this whole saga. Fewer probably agree that LDS Freedom of Religion is at risk and I doubt that anyone one (other than LDS) sees any logical comparison between Prop 8 intimidation and the violence perpetrated against blacks fighting for civil rights.

Since Jeffrey R. Holland’s conference talk the name Ethan Smith has been more active across the blogosphere than normal. Unfortunately not many people know who he was (or Solomon Spaudling for that matter). LDS who know the name often don’t understand how Pastor Smith really plays into the narrative around the Book of Mormon— and Holland’s talk does nothing to help this either. So while I try to find the time to write a complete post about Elder Holland’s talk I will re-post this.

****************************************************

Despite the church’s claims, the roots of Mormonism, rather than being ancient and Old World, are often instead nineteenth century and very American.

The Book of Mormon is no exception. Believers testify it is a ancient record but comparing the book with sources contemporary to Joseph Smith places the book squarely in the 1820-30s Burned Over District. Perhaps the most well known of these sources is View of the Hebrews, a book written in 1823. The author, Ethan Smith—a Congregationalist clergyman in Vermont, believed (as did many others of his time) the Native American populations living near him were descendants of the Israelite diaspora that emigrated to the New World. Specifically Pastor Smith believed they descended from the lost 10 Tribes which had traveled to the Western Hemisphere and eventually populated both North and South America. More specifically this Israelite “branch” after coming to the new world split in to 2 factions— one that was industrious and civilized and another that was uncivilized. The two groups battled for many years with the uncivilized group eventually destroying the more civilized. Pastor Smith believed the Native Americans that  encountered in the 1820s were the descendants of the same uncivilized group.

So obviously the plot line of View of the Hebrews is extremely similar to that of the Book of Mormon. There are additional parallels between the books that suggest Joseph Smith drew on Ethan Smith’s book for content and story line, which I will not detail. (Check out the links at the end of the post for more information.)

Despite apologists dismissing the parallels as superficial some LDS who have acknowledged their significance. B.H. Roberts, LDS General Authority and Assistant Church Historian in his Studies of the Book of Mormon posed a number of questions about the Book of Mormon and it’s origins— some of which dealt with View of the Hebrews. Specifically, Roberts looked for parallels between VotH and the BoM and found enough similarity to ask:

“Can such numerous and startling points of resemblance and suggestive contact be merely coincidence?” (B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, (University of Illinois Press, 1985), p. 242)

Some have questioned whether Joseph Smith even knew of Pastor Smith’s book before the Book of Mormon was published and there are a number of facts that make it extremely likely he did. Evidence shows that View of the Hebrews was very successful, being first printed in 1823 and then a second edition in 1825 and was distributed all over the Burned Out District where Joseph Smith lived. Ethan Smith even traveled promoting his book, stopping in Palmyra, Joseph’s hometown, in 1826. But even more importantly, Ethan Smith resided in Poultney, Vermont where Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith’s distant cousin and primary scribe lived. Smith was pastor at the church where members of Cowdery’s family attended between 1821 and 1826— the time that he was writing the View of the Hebrews. Cowdery almost certainly had knowledge of the book when he began to scribe for Joseph on the Book of Mormon in 1829.

Although Joseph did not directly quote the Book of Mormon from Ethan Smith— the evidence suggests that he borrowed much of the plot and larger ideas/themes. That said, View of the Hebrews was itself reflecting a number of ideas that were common in Ethan Smith’s world. In fact, Hugh Nibley argued exactly that in making the case that the Mormon prophet didn’t borrow from VotH but rather the ideas were “in the air” for both Joseph and Ethan. In either case, the Book of Mormon is, in the end, a nineteenth century book talking about nineteenth century ideas.

This was originally posted as:  View of the Hebrews (Book of Mormon 1.0)

B.H. Roberts Parallels

Other 19th century BoM Sources

Discussion of VotH

Could Joseph Smith Have Written the Book of Mormon

Plagiarism in the Book of Mormon

1825 View of the Hebrews, 2nd Edition

Books discussing View of the Hebrews:

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon

An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins

In a recent General Conference talk LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland claimed that Joseph and Hyrum faced with their imminent deaths WOULD NOT have maintained their support for the Book of Mormon as it would have been risking blasphemy to the supreme being they were expecting to soon meet.

Clearly there is evidence that believers, deluded or otherwise, will go to their death for what they “believe” even if it is not true. This is Theory #2 that Holland completely missed. (see David Koresh, Jim Jones etc.)

But there are many problems with his exact argument (that the Smith’s as KNOWING FRAUDS would come clean)as well. Do we know they that they knew or thought they would die at Carthage? If they were frauds do we even know they really believed in a supreme being? How on earth does Holland presume to know what the Smith boys thought?

But even putting that aside I think Holland’s argument doesn’t hold up. I don’t really have a specific case to make my point but I gather that the following is true: of all of those put to death in the US that claim innocence to the very end….some are actually guilty. Despite the fact these frauds are about to ‘meet their maker’ who knows the truth of their deeds, they still maintain the lie to their fellowmen while alive— to the end. Why? Maybe they’re hoping for a eleventh-hour pardon. Perhaps despite knowing the truth they are too ashamed to admit it publicly. Some people are the kind to double down their bets when challenged rather than folding and some, because of pride or spite, may not want to give those bringing them down the satisfaction of an admission. Who knows?

Regardless of the reason I think it happens. At least some people— faced with their deaths— don’t stop being KNOWING FRAUDS and come clean on everything. Holland may say emphatically that Joseph and Hyrum “WOULD NOT” continue to lying about the BOM at Carthage but the truth is he has NO WAY of knowing.