DEAD HORSE WALKING

When I was a young Mormon boy I listened intently as the adults around me split hairs about whether or not it was appropriate for a young Mormon boy, such as myself, to wear a light blue dress shirt while passing the sacrament to the congregation. They settled on "it's not necessarily inappropriate, but a white shirt is preferred."

When I was a young Mormon man, I listened to my fellow young Mormon missionaries discuss the same topic, which had the added complication that many of the men which attended our congregations were too poor to afford clean, sterling-white dress shirts (post-communist Bulgaria in the early 2000's), and such a restriction would result in not allowing very many "locals" the "opportunity" to distribute chunks of white bread and tiny cups of water to the parishioners. The consensus was "It doesn't matter if it's inappropriate to wear a blue shirt or not; what choice do we have? Surely the Lord will understand our predicament."

And so on...

It seems that the blue shirt vs white shirt debate has been going on for generations and resurrects, as it were, every so often. I suppose this argument dies particularly hard because for many Mormons it is the closest they will ever come to theological nuance.

Invariably, whenever this dying horse finds new life, thereby prolonging its obligatory flogging, a secondary debate emerges: culture vs doctrine.

As one who has left the Mormon church, I rarely find the opportunity to join in these debates with believing members. And, for the record, I'm okay with that. But I do recall a few instances discussing philosophy and epistemology with Mormons and this topic has briefly come up. Since it isn't really that important to my overall critique of Mormonism (believers have no compelling reason to claim their positive feelings about the truth claims of the church are, in fact, from god, and, therefore, have no compelling reason to believe the church is true), I usually skip the debate between culture and doctrine in the moment. But I tend find myself thinking about it some time later. It's a curse.

The long and short of my argument is that you can't separate culture from doctrine just because you don't want to appear pedantic over minutia. The culture of the church is a reflection of its doctrine. There is a reason leaders of the church have stressed these seemingly minor things over the pulpit. Because, according to them, it matters. It is a way of gauging one's dedication to the church, and I don't mean this cynically. For church leaders it really is an effective shortcut for worthiness.

For example, the Word of Wisdom (Mormonism's rather underwhelming code of health) recommends against the drinking of coffee. As with the blue shirt vs white shirt debate, Mormons have debated the topic of coffee consumption for generations and I know of a few devout believers who look forward to the day when drinking coffee will no longer prevent one from entering the temple and going through the ordinances necessary for one's salvation (that's right, Mormons believe that drinking coffee is a serious enough transgression to warrant god denying the "sinner" eternal salvation). But as more and more studies come out which show that coffee has at least some health benefits (depending on how much sugar and cream one adds to it), more and more Mormons are finding abstinence from the drink to be less and less tenable on the grounds of health and wellness (this is important because Mormons generally believe that their more obscure beliefs will eventually be validated by the scientific community, thus allowing them to smugly taunt non-believers with a hearty "told you so."). And for this reason Mormons are focusing less on the health debate (because, again, they are losing it) and instead tout the point that sometimes god asks mankind to do things for reasons they don't understand as a test of one's faith.

Fair enough, I guess. However, before anyone claims this frail bit of reasoning to be innocuous, keep in mind such reasoning could give way to another Abraham and Issac situation (or, for any Mormons eyeing an apologetic response about the literalness of the Bible, Nephi and Laban (according to the Book of Mormon, god told Nephi to chop off the head of Laban while he was drunk and defenseless, then go to Laban's house, dressed in Laban's presumably blood-soaked clothing, and steal Laban's stuff and kidnap his servant, who Nephi also threatened to kill; and Mormons believe this was a moral thing to do.)), and who knows if round two would yield such a favorable outcome (regardless of the outcome, it was still an immoral thing for god to ask of Abraham or Nephi).

Well, the debate between culture and doctrine seems to have been lit anew as one of Mormonism's very tippy-top leaders, Dallin Oaks, while speaking to a large congregation, reinforced the importance of using the correct hand to partake of the sacrament. Let me restate this. One of god's representatives, a man who claims to be a "prophet, seer and revelator" (whatever that means) and also claims to have such a personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus Christ that he can unequivocally speak on his behalf, chose as his topic to a mass of believers the importance of using your right hand to eat bread and drink water instead of your left hand.

And they wonder why members get hung up about blue and white dress shirts...

LUKEWARM REASONING

One of the blackest marks on the Mormon church's sordid history has been its racist policies against people of color (see what I did there?). Until 1978 the church banned black men from holding the priesthood, which was tantamount to making them second-class members (not unlike women in the church today). This is fairly well known and is even referenced in the popular Broadway play "The Book of Mormon." But this was only one part of the policy.

A lesser known, but arguably much more impactful and sinister part of the policy, was that black men and women were not allowed entrance into Mormon temples. This meant that black people could not go through the endowment ceremony or get married in the temple, which Mormons believe are necessary rites to be allowed into the highest, most glorious parts of heaven. Effectively, black people could not go to the best version of the afterlife.

The argument which the church gave for this policy for well over a hundred years was that before the Earth was created, there was a war in heaven in which all people had to choose to support either Jesus or Satan. One third of these spirit children chose to support Satan and were cast out of heaven, and cursed to be demons on Earth to tempt humans into sinning. Eventually Satan and his minions will be cast to "Outer Darkness" which is basically annihilation. This will also be the fate of heretics and apostates who go through the temple ceremonies and then leave the church (there is some debate here among believers, so I may or may not qualify).

Another third of the spirit children chose to follow Jesus and made it to Earth in, let's say, preferential conditions. Specifically--and this is where the racism starts in Mormonism--these righteous and obedient spirits were granted white bodies and were thus allowed to go through the Mormon temples and earn their way to heaven.

The middle third of spirit children were somewhat on the fence about the whole thing. Eventually, they sided with Jesus, but were "lukewarm" in their resolve. As a result of their wishy washy passiveness in the pre-mortal life, they were "cursed" with the mark of Cain, which is a skin of blackness. This genetic line is said to have been preserved through the Great Flood through one of Noah's sons, Ham, who married a Canaanite woman.

Let me said it again, for over a hundred years Mormon church leaders taught that the reason black men couldn't hold the priesthood and black people couldn't go through the temple endowment and were therefore not allowed into heaven was because they were less valiant in the War in Heaven before they were born.

So, why bring this up? After all, it's been forty years since the church changed this policy and allowed black people full membership (well, for the men at least). What's the big deal?

Well, it turns out that the church is celebrating the 1978 policy change this month! They are actually drawing attention to it themselves. And as part of the celebration for not being racist anymore, the highest leaders in the church recently met with representatives from the NAACP. When this occurred last month, a prankster faked an apology from the church on a website meant to look like the official Mormon Newsroom website, and caused quite a stir. (The Infants on Thrones podcast did an extensive episode on the whole debacle which can be heard here.)

Part of the reason so many Mormons--especially those of color--are up in arms about this hoax is that it revealed their deep desire for an unqualified apology from the church. One such Mormon, Zandra Vranes, responded quite vehemently that the prankster was not a friend of black people, and they were like someone telling a rape victim that their rapist (i.e. the church) offered a heartfelt apology for the crime. The victim would feel vindicated and one step closer to healing, only to find out that the apology wasn't genuine. This would put the victim in an emotional roller coaster.

On the one hand, I feel sorry for Zandra. As she pointed out, the prankster probably didn't consider the negative effect his hoax would have on faithful black Mormons. On the other hand, I feel like her anger is misplaced. The emotional wound she is experiencing is a result of the century of racism in the church she defends. The man who faked the apology didn't hurt her. The church did. And she admits that she didn't realize how much she wanted or needed to hear an apology from the church until the fake one came out. This has apparently caused her to wrestle with the church's racism all over again in a very public way. So, say what you will about the callousness the prankster may have exhibited, but now people are talking about an issue which has hurt a lot of people and the church has tried to minimize. Hopefully some believers will be forced to confront their faith in a bold way and make it out of the church's clutches, possibly even Zandra. I would consider that a win.

In similar news, there is a new apologetic response to the Mormon church's racism. LDS Living published an article declaring that the church was racist for over a hundred years and its leaders defended that racism based on a simple misunderstanding of a word. You see, the word "black" has multiple meanings, one of which is "gloomy, dejected, or spiritual darkness, and has nothing to do with skin tone." The author offers a similar argument for the word "curse" to show that a "curse of blackness" (a common phrase in Mormon scripture) has nothing to do with skin color. By extension, when the Book of Mormon says that god "cursed" the wicked Lamanites with a "skin of blackness"' so they would not be "enticing" to the righteous Nephites, thus keeping the Nephite line "white and delightsome" (which was the common understanding of those scriptures for over a hundred years), it has nothing to do with the color of their skin! Isn't that swell? So, the church wasn't racist for over a century. The church's leaders were racist for over a century. See the difference? Never mind that god allegedly dictated the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith word for word and could have easily just used a clearer word like "gloomy, dejected, or spiritual darkness" instead of "black," or that Mormon leaders have said from the beginning that god would not let the prophet lead the church astray even if it means taking him out. No! Forget all of that, and just take us at our word that god allowed countless black people to live without the blessings of the priesthood and the temple ordinances, and without the prospect of going to heaven because racist church leaders didn't realize that the word "black" has multiple meanings.

You know, there is another word in scripture which has a common second meaning: "risen." So the next time you read about Jesus' resurrection, and they say "He is risen" don't just assume the centuries old conventional understanding that Jesus literally came back to life after being crucified. No! That's just silly! Instead--like the article suggests--use the second meaning of the word and understand that Jesus' doughy, leavened body has expanded to twice its normal size and is now ready to be put into a preheated oven.

Your move, apologists.

GIVE MY REGARDS TO SOUTH PARK

"In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith,
who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad golddigging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon."
--Christopher Hitchens, god is Not Great

Remember that one time when the Mormon Church apologized for excommunicating church historians who exposed various unflattering aspects of the church's history? Remember that other time when the church admitted that Joseph Smith married underage teenage girls by threatening them with the eternal damnation of their entire families, and that he shipped off men to the other side of the world so he could steal their wives? Remember the time the Mormon Church admitted--finally--that the reason they bought the fake historical document "The Salamander Letter" (wherein Joseph claimed that the angel Moroni appeared to him in the form of a salamander) is because there exist legitimate historical documents detailing Joseph's claim that the angel Moroni appeared to him in the form of a toad?

Yeah, me neither...

You can imagine my surprise, then, when I heard that the Mormon Church would be releasing a photo of the fabled "seer stone" which Joseph tried and failed to use to find buried treasure and claimed to use to "translate" the gold plates.

I first heard about this magic rock while on a two-year Mormon mission. I didn't believe it. I thought it was a hoax. The other missionary assured me that their seminary teacher knew for a fact that stone existed, but I could see no reason to believe it. It was one of my first moments of religious skepticism.

Traditionally Mormons have taught that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim (small clear stones attached to a breastplate, often described as primitive glasses, which is yet another example of technology of Joseph's day bleeding into his version of the ancient world) to translate his mystical plates.

For over a century the scene has always been described in church meetings and in published paintings and drawings as Joseph sitting at a table looking through the Urim and Thummim reading the gold plates word for word (the idea was that the reformed Egyptian on the plates would appear in English when looked upon through these magical spectacles). A cloth partition separated Joseph from his scribe (a position filled by various people who had a vested interest in the success of the Book of Mormon) so that they could not see the plates, which Joseph was quick to remind them was coupled with a curse: should they look on the plates without god's permission, they will surely die and go to hell. Considering the credulous culture in which Joseph's scribes lived, it is no wonder that none of them ever saw the plates with out a cloth cover (with the exception of 3 of Joseph's most superstitious patsies, none of which were qualified to verify the authenticity of the record). To a thinking person, this is a gigantic red flag.

With the admission of the existence of the magic treasure seeking stone comes a whole new story about the translation process. Joseph would put the stone in a hat (to block out light) and read the illuminated words on the stone. Ya know, like a magical iPad. Often the gold plates were not in the same room as Joseph. In other words, it turns out the scene of Joseph Smith doing this folk magic in South Park's episode "All About Mormons"--a scene which many Mormons dismissed out of hand as a preposterous, slanderous and "anti-Mormon"--was correct!

One of the more concerning aspects of this admission is that the Church has had this stone for at least several decades, and yet, until now they have done nothing to correct the misconception--which they helped to create--that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates directly. Apparently, all the ancient artifacts which Moroni carefully preserved and then directed Joseph to, were not even necessary for Joseph to translate the plates!

On the other hand, now that the seer stone is public and the top 15 leaders of the Church claim to be seers, we now have an opportunity for them to put their claim to the test! You see, one of Joseph's more gullible scribes, Martin Harris, was tasked to a take a scrap of paper with some of the characters from the gold plates to a linguist, Dr. Charles Anthon, to verify that the language was authentic. The story goes that Dr. Anthon wrote a certificate of authenticity for the paper, but upon learning of the supernatural origins of the paper, he torn up the certificate and demanded to see the gold plates himself.

For over a century Mormons have claimed that this story proves that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record, while critics have claimed the opposite. Well, here is the test. Give the seer stone--the same one Joseph used--to one of the Mormon leaders and have them translate the paper given to Dr. Anthon (which according to his account, is nothing short of gibberish). Once we have the characters decoded, which would have a chapter and verse citation for comparison, we can finally understand reformed Egyptian (the language which Joseph claimed to be on the gold plates, and which modern linguists claim is not a real language).

This kind of linguistic support would surely bolster the claim that the Book of Mormon is an authentic historical record. The fact that the Church has had the characters from the Book of Mormon, several men who claim to be "seers," and a seer stone for at least several decades and no one has done this test reveals quite a bit to me about the Church's confidence in their bald assertions.

This appears to be an attempt by the Church to distance themselves from the hokey folk magic Joseph practiced. Unable to bury the connection between the origins of their religion with superstition and crude magic which educated people generally dismiss as ignorant--in large part due to the advent of the internet--the Church is now being forced to face their history. Of course, now some Mormons are claiming to have been forthcoming on the subject of magic rocks all along.

BONUS MATERIAL:

Flackerman discusses the Church's history on the seer stone (among other things):

South Park explaining the translation process of the Book of Mormon:

CANON FODDER

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."

--Christopher Hitchens, god is Not Great

Few things seem to offer as much comedic fodder as religion. Brian Dawson, a Mormon Sunday School teacher (until recently, that is...), in an attempt to answer a difficult question asked by one of his students, found himself in ecclesiastical hot water after he taught a group of Mormon teens facts about the church discriminating against black members--an area of history the church has long minimized.

This sort of thing has happened before. Several instructors from the church's education system (if you can call it that) have been reprimanded, and in a few cases left the church entirely, due to issues brought on by teaching people less flattering facts about the church. High profile cases, such as the famed "September Six" of the 90s (six historians were kicked out of the church for exposing historical documents confirming Mormonism's polygamist past), and the more recent excommunication of the founder of the podcast "Mormon Stories," John Dehlin, have received national attention.

What makes this particular instance ironic and even funny is that the teacher used sources provided by the church itself. That's right. He was reprimanded by church leaders for using church sources to talk about church history. You can't make up this crap.

The Mormon Church has been spinning the truth about their history since it first had a history. Before Mormonism became a recognized religion, Joseph Smith laced his life with controversy.

Most people nowadays are aware of Joseph's polygamist relationships, for instance. But many people do not know about the truly messed up tactics he used to manipulate people into those relationships. Horrible things such as telling 14 year old girls that if they don't marry Joseph or if they tell anyone about it, their whole family will be damned. Or Joseph sending men on missions to the other side of the world, and then marrying their wives while they are gone. Or Joseph telling his first wife, Emma, that if she objects to his philandering behavior then god will destroy her (this one is actually in canonized Mormon scripture: D&C 132).

Even fewer people are aware of Joseph's treasure hunting enterprises with his father. They were so bad at finding treasure via magic rocks that on more than one occasion Joseph was sued and convicted of fraud. By the way, these magic rocks used by Joseph to swindle poor farmers out of their money are the same rocks he used to "translate" the gold plates in to the Book of Mormon. This is no different than divining rods or psychic mediums--nothing more than parlor tricks and gullible sorcery.

The only "treasure" Joseph ever found was the gold plates, which no one without a vested interest in the Book of Mormon's success ever saw without a cloth over it. No one with anything close to a real academic credential ever saw--much less examined--the purportedly ancient gold plates to determine their authenticity. No one thought it suspicious that these mysterious and elusive gold plates were found by a convicted fraudulent treasure hunter with magic rocks?

Over the last few years (starting around the time of Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, curiously enough) the Mormon Church has quietly released a series of essays clarifying controversial historical issues. The Church finally admitted in these essays, which are available for all to read on the Church's official website (lds.com), that Joseph was a polygamist and that he married over 30 women, some of which were well under the age of eighteen (he was twice their age), and some were married to other men.

They also admitted that Joseph used his treasure-hunting magic rocks (in a hat!) to "translate" the Book of Mormon, contrary to the traditionally more-palatable (i.e. "whitewashed") version of Joseph using in tandum the gold plates and the biblically-referenced Urim and Thummim (according to some accounts, Joseph didn't even have the plates in the same room during the "translation" process).

They admitted--finally--that the policies started by the Church's second president, Brigham Young, which until 1978 were used to exclude black people from being able to receive the priesthood, were inspired by Brigham's own racism, rather than revelation from god.

The admissions made in these essays were ground-breaking in one way or another. The remarkable thing to me is that the Church is finally admitting to things over which they have excommunicated historians in the past. These essays, although clearly not enough to undo the Church's wrongs, is something of an apology.

There are still many things to which the Church has yet to come clean, and they still whitewash much of their history in an effort to make it more faith-promoting. But perhaps we have seen the last of the Church's efforts to buy up historical documents with embarrassing information in order to control their public image, such as the "Salamander Letter," even if those documents turn out to be fraudulent.

All of this public relations management dished out by Mormon HQ has me thinking: Why the sudden admission of issues long covered up?

The hypothesis circulating around some Mormon circles, that the Church is attempting to help Mitt Romney's next campaign, is intriguing. There may even be some truth to it. But I see a much deeper motive than seating the most powerful man in the world (which, surprisingly, is not the Mormon prophet who claims to talk directly to, and for, god). In a covert and never-to-be-admitted way, the Mormon Church seems to have stumbled upon one of modern society's great truths: The internet is where religions go to die.

For centuries religions have relied on a monopoly of information to control their public image and divert doubters and naysayers. Mormonism, being no different from any other fundamentalist religion, teaches its members to only read from Church-approved sources--especially on matters of the Church's history. Anything which challenges the Church's official story is deemed "anti-Mormon" and should be avoided at all costs.

This monopoly of information, however, has become increasingly difficult for the Church to maintain, due in large part to the Information Age. The internet provides questioning Mormons a means to discreetly research controversial issues of the church. Open forums give doubters a voice among other doubters. Historical documents cannot be purchased and hidden as easily as in days passed.

The members are finding this information and because the facts seem to contradict the Church's storybook version of their own history, the Mormon Church is being forced to face their historical problems in a public way in order to "get ahead" of the flood of people stumbling on this information and leaving the Church. And they are leaving. The Church is seeing its greatest era of apostasy ever and no amount of contraception bashing and over-breeding will stop this flood from surging now that the dam holding back their true history has been cracked.

BONUS MATERIAL:

YouTuber, Thunderf00t on religion and the internet:

MORONS AND MEATHEADS AND BOOBS, OH MY!

Lately I have been focusing my blogging on my "Textual Analysis of the Book of Mormon" (click at top of the page or here) where I examine the book from a critical perspective. I have powered through several chapters in the past couple of months. In fact, I have almost finished the second "book" in the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi. Here is my latest entry:

Chapter27: "Morons and Meatheads and Boobs, Oh My!"

Chapter Summary:

Darkness and apostasy will cover the earth in the last days--The Book of Mormon will come forth--Three witnesses will testify of the book--The learned man will say he cannot read the sealed book--The Lord will do a marvelous work and a wonder--Compare Isaiah 29. About 559–545 B.C.

For those who thought that Nephi was done with Isaiah, I have some bad news. Nephi goes back to ripping off Isaiah's work in this chapter.

However, when I read the chapter summary, which gives some pretty specific predictions about the Book of Mormon, I was intrigued. So, I skipped over to the chapter in Isaiah to which Nephi refers (Isaiah 29), and I noticed that the incredible specificity Nephi uses is absent in Isaiah.

In fact, as with most of Isaiah's prophecies, there is no indication that Isaiah is speaking about our day or the Book of Mormon at all. But you wouldn't get this from reading the Mormon-added chapter summary of Isaiah 29:

"A people (the Nephites) will speak as a voice from the dust--The Apostasy, restoration of the gospel, and coming forth of a sealed book (the Book of Mormon) are foretold--Compare 2 Nephi 27."

Basically Nephi (or Joseph Smith) takes a few key points from Isaiah 29 and extrapolates upon them in 2 Nephi 27. Nephi adds his own spin, which is painfully obviously retrofitted and self-fulfilling prophecy. We'll get in to that later.

Nephi returns to the sealed book mentioned in the previous chapter. But before we get to Nephi's interpretation, let's go over what Isaiah actually said:

"11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:"

"12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."

It is unclear what is meant by the "vision of all." But the metaphor of a sealed book (not a literal book) is presented to a learned man and an unlearned man, both of whom state that they cannot read the book.

Perhaps this is means that highly educated people will miss the point of Isaiah's vision, and uneducated will be overwhelmed by it. It could mean that in order to understand Isaiah one must be humble enough to set aside their formal education and wise enough to not be intimidated by its content. Whatever the meaning, Isaiah most certainly is not speaking about a literal book presented to a literal educated man and a literal uneducated man.

Nephi seems to think that such is the case, however, as he describes a book being taken to an educated man who cannot read it, and then to an uneducated man who can read it through the power of god:

"15 But behold, it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall say unto him to whom he shall deliver the book: Take these words which are not sealed and deliver them to another, that he may show them unto the learned, saying: Read this, I pray thee. And the learned shall say: Bring hither the book, and I will read them."

"16 And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will they say this, and not for the glory of God."

"17 And the man shall say: I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed."

"18 Then shall the learned say: I cannot read it."

"19 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that the Lord God will deliver again the book and the words thereof to him that is not learned; and the man that is not learned shall say: I am not learned."

"20 Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee."

Well, it turns out that just such an event occurred exactly like this!

During the "translation" of the Book of Mormon, Joseph sent one of his scribes, Martin Harris, to linguistic expert, Dr. Charles Anthon (the learned man), to verify the Book of Mormon as authentic. But rather than allow Dr. Anthon to see and hold and examine the gold plates (which is the only way to legitimately verify authenticity), Mr. Harris was allowed to bring a piece of paper with a few lines from the the gold plates scribbled on it. The Mormon version of what happened next is strikingly different from Dr. Anthon's account.

According to Harris (and Mormons at large), Dr. Anthon viewed the characters and announced they were authentic characters from specific ancient languages. Dr. Anthon asked Harris from where the characters originated, as he drew up a certificate of authenticity. Harris answered that an angel had given a young man named Joseph Smith (the unlearned man) gold plates containing an ancient history of Native Americans, and through the power of god Joseph was translating it in to English.

In a fit of anti-religious rage, Dr. Anthon tore up the certificate and told Harris that such things are impossible. But if Harris would just give Dr. Anthon the gold plates, he would translate the record. Harris refused and told the doctor that the book was sealed, and Dr. Anthon withdrew his offer to translate the plates because he cannot read a sealed book.

It should be noted that Joseph claimed that a large portion of the gold plates was sealed off--even to him--and the Book of Mormon is derived from the unsealed portion. This unsealed portion would have been accessible to Dr. Anthon.

According to Dr. Anthon, the events were much less animated. Harris presented the characters to the doctor, who said they were from various incongruent languages arranged in a random and insignificant manner. He then described Harris as a superstitious pushover who was likely being had financially by the charismatic charlatan, Joseph Smith.

It is interesting to me that Mormons still cling to this story as though it proved through prophecy the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. You see, whatever really happened in Dr. Anthon's office some 170 years ago doesn't really matter.

As a quick google search will show, we still have Harris' original paper with the characters from the gold plates. Modern linguists and experts in ancient languages have studied the characters and have concluded that the characters are nonsensical gibberish. Funny how the experts seem to agree more with Dr. Anthon's account.

This far, all of the prophecies in the Book of Mormon can be placed in to one of three categories: self-fulfilling, retrofitted or yet to happen. The Anthon incident appears to be self-fulfilling. Clearly Joseph set up the whole shebang to prove his prophetic prowess. But there are more self-fulfilling prophecies within this very chapter equal to the Anthon incident in terms of transparent charlatanism.

Nephi claims that when the sealed book is revealed to the unlearned man, god will allow three people to witness the book to testify to the world that it really does exist:

"12 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein."

As you might have guessed, Joseph Smith had three such "witnesses" to the gold plates! You can read their "testimony" (which Joseph wrote beforehand and had the men sign) in the introduction of the Book of Mormon.

The three men Joseph Smith chose to be witnesses are Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. I have given you some context as to the caliber of Martin Harris' character. Let me just add that when Joseph had the men witness the gold plates, they had trouble getting the angel to appear with the plates. Harris thought that his sins might be the reason for the angel's trepidation, and offered to step out so the other two men could go through with it. This sounds noble, but Joseph needed three--not two--witnesses.

So, Harris prayed and prayed until the angel came to him individually (a detailed skipped over in their formal signed testimony) and Harris described the event as a spiritual experience, rather than a physical or literal experience.

He said he saw the plates with his mind's eye the same way a clairvoyant person could see a far-distant city through a mountain. He was a superstitious man hell-bent on seeing this angel. How much stock would we give his testimony today?

David Whitmer is also compromised in that he had family ties to Joseph and a financial stake in the successful publishing of the Book of Mormon. In fact, all of the three witnesses had invested large amounts of money in the publishing of the book. Talk about a conflict of interests.

Mormons love to point out that Oliver Cowdery left the Mormon Church, yet never recanted his angelic experience with the gold plates. He was also very superstitious and had a financial stake in the book. A lesser known fact about Mr. Cowdery is that he used the Book of Mormon to start his own religion after leaving Joseph Smith's cult. So, naturally he would not undermine the Book of Mormon.

As much as I enjoy discrediting the character and intentions of these men, they still may have seen an angel with gold plates. Who knows? But one of the most glaring failings of these men, which they all share, is that not a single one of them was educated or trained in ancient languages or artifacts. Therefore, not a single one of them was qualified to "testify" to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon--angel or not.

Who cares if these three superstitious men with vested interests saw the gold plates? They were unable and unqualified to distinguish an authentic ancient record from a hoax. And I'm willing to bet Joseph Smith knew and counted on this.

The real question for me is why would god rely on such tenuous methods of authentication? Especially when god warns us in verse 14: "wo be unto him that rejecteth the word of God!" If these are god methods, whereby he expects me to take his true and living church seriously, how could I possibly know that these three men weren't completely off their collective rocker. If this is the best god can do to appease skeptics and doubters, color me unimpressed.

THE TREE OF AWESOME-POSSUM: 1 NEPHI 8

I have decided to continue my textual analysis of the Book of Mormon on a new site which offers better cataloging capabilities of the chapter-by-chapter format I am using. You will find it by clicking on this link or by following the tab at the top of the page "Textual Analysis of the BoM". I may still post the occasional chapter analysis here, but I don't want it to get too cluttered on this site with those posts. At any rate, enjoy!

1 Nephi 8: "The Tree of Awesome-Possum"

This chapter continues the theme that Lehi's dreams are visions from god. Furthermore, Lehi uses the phrase "I have reason to suppose" that X will happen in the future. And what "reason" does he offer for knowing future events? Why, it was revealed in his dream, of course. This is just one more example of the Book of Mormon lending substantial weight to one's seemingly prophetic dreams, without once offering a way to verify the veracity of the claim aside from the similarly tenuous proposition that god answers prayers in what appears to be the same way he inspires dreams. To me, this is not a good reason. 

The bulk of the chapter spells out the dream itself. There is a slue of symbols and characters and analogies, which Lehi uses (for no reason, apparent or otherwise) to extrapolate and predict future events. One of the grandest claims in this dream is the very thesis of the Book of Mormon, which is that his son Nephi's genealogical line will be righteous and saved from damnation, while his son Laman's line will not be saved due to wickedness.

Before we get into the specifics of the dream itself, it should be noted that within Mormon culture it is proposed that a sufficiently righteous person can be allowed to witness Lehi's dream. I was taught this while on my mission and other missionaries claimed to know people who had experienced this phenomenon. Such an occurrence is seen as a mark of true discipleship and favor in the eyes of god. 

It should also be noted that Joseph Smith's father claimed to have seen a vision quite similar to Lehi's. However, this happened during Joseph's youth--years before the Book of Mormon came to fruition. Now this coincidence does not necessarily mean that Joseph wrote this into the Book of Mormon (as opposed to the view that an angel gave him the book and he translated it through a divine process (i.e. looking at a stone in a hat)), but it certainly offers a possible natural explanation for this section of the book. And if it were shown that there are natural explanations for other parts of the book, why would anyone jump to the supernatural explanation of the book's origin? Natural explanations are always more plausible than unsubstantiated supernatural explanations. 

In the vision Lehi sees a tree with fruit which is "desirable to make one happy" (whatever that means). Lehi is led by a man in a white robe to the tree and eats the fruit, which he describes as being "most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen." Quite the sell. And it should be since it represents heaven or god's glory or whatever. 

After seeing how awesome-possum the fruit is, Lehi tries to find his family so that they too can taste of its awesomeness. As you might have guessed, Lehi first finds Nephi, Sam, and their mother, Sariah. He calls to them; they come and eat the awesome fruit; everything is awesome. 

Lehi tries to find his less obedient sons, Laman and Lemuel, but despite his pleas for them to eat some awesome fruit, they do not. It is not specified what happens to Laman and Lemuel, but there are lots of other people in the dream who do not eat of the awesome fruit and various heinous things happen to them, implying that something similarly heinous happens to Laman and Lemuel for not following their father's advice to eat the awesome fruit.

Some people who do not follow the "iron rod" (i.e. the gospel) to Lehi and the tree of awesome fruit fall into a river and drown (nice...), while others wander endlessly in an open field with mist and "forbidden paths". Others fondle their way to a great and spacious building floating in the air with lots of sarcastic people in nice clothes who scoff at any one who eats the awesome fruit. This shames some who have eaten the fruit of awesomeness and they wander off to the misty fields (hmmm, maybe the fruit of awesomeness isn't as awesome and desirable to make one happy as first reported by Lehi...). 

In the end, the analogy is fairly straightforward and a bit predictable as it is read. Heaven is better than hell. Obedience is better than defiance. Fruit is more awesomer than... vegetables? Ok maybe it isn't that obvious. But vague and ambiguous statements are common in prophecies. After all, if a prediction falls short it is easier to avoid accountability if it is sufficiently wishy-washy. Then again, we are talking about a prophecy concerning characters in a book, so there isn't much accountability to begin with. 

Lehi rounds out the chapter with yet another admonition to his rebellious and doubting sons, Laman and Lemuel. He tells them to follow god's commandments and makes a few unspecified prophecies. As with all the previous chapters containing extraordinary claims and prophecies with deadly consequences, no reliable method of verification is offered. It is expected that readers, just as Nephi, take everything Lehi says at face value for fear of damnation.

BECAUSE ARBITRARY: 1 NEPHI 5-7

Part 3 of my textual analysis of the Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi Chapter 5: "Any Given Sunday"

The saga of Nephi and his family continues as the four brothers return from Jerusalem to their father Lehi's tent in the wilderness with the brass plates and Laban's servant (and their "willing" hostage), Zoram. Just before their triumphant return, however, their mother, Sariah, complains to Lehi in much the same way Laman and Lemuel did:

"[Sariah] also had complained against my father, telling him that he was a visionary man; saying: Behold thou hast led us forth from the land of our inheritance, and my sons are no more, and we perish in the wilderness."

As Laman and Lemuel were chastised by an angel and saw that their father was inspired of god (albeit through dreams, which Lehi asserts to his wife without any justification or means of verification), Sariah predictably also has a change of heart upon seeing her boys come home (in the wilderness). She asserts:

"Now I know of a surety that the Lord hath commanded my husband to flee into the wilderness; yea, and I also know of a surety that the Lord hath protected my sons, and delivered them out of the hands of Laban, and given them power whereby they could accomplish the thing which the Lord hath commanded them."

And hindsight is 20/20. 

This reminds me of instances I have heard believers relate about god doing some miraculous thing for them. Whenever something goes their way it is attributed to god's goodness. If the opposite occurs, well, it must be a test from god (or Satan, depending on who you ask). They will even use the phrase used here "I know of a surety" as if their certitude proves veracity, rarely even attempting to offer a sound reason for how they "know" whatever they are claiming. Such bold affirmations and unjustified claims to knowledge can be heard over the pulpits of practically every Mormon church every single Sunday. 

To me these people are reading things which they wish to be true into their situation. They cling to the idea of a god orchestrating everything for their benefit, so they allow their bias to read between the lines of what is readily apparent. And thus they can justify their claim that their god exists and is intimately involved in their lives. This is no different than people reading a horoscope in a newspaper and thinking "wow, that is exactly applicable to me!" Their desire to believe a comforting thing overrides their reasoning faculties. 

Not much else happens in this chapter, mostly just Lehi and Nephi reaffirming to each other that it was a good thing that they got the brass plates (by killing the plates' owner, Laban, and kidnapping his servant Zoram under threats of doing the same to him).

Chapter 6: "(Don't) Hold Your Breath"

This chapter is rather short and a bit out of place. Barely even worth commenting on, really. Nephi pauses the story to make a stated goal for writing down all of this malarkey: 

"For the fulness of mine intent is that I may persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and be saved." 

Unfortunately for us unsaved wretches, Nephi does not attempt to do any persuading here. Presumably this comes later. But if the arguments presented in the first few chapters for believing in visions and voices in one's head being divine are any indication of Nephi's intended method of conversion (and it is), then don't expect any sound, reasonable argumentation, reliable methods of verification, or for that matter, any evidence that Nephi's god exists anywhere outside of his father's dreams or his own head. 

Chapter 7: "Because Arbitrary"

The preceding chapters indicate that the impending destruction of Jerusalem is imminent. This, along with saving Lehi's life, are offered as reasons for the family's bolt in the night. Lehi sends his four sons back to the increasingly wicked city to attain a record of the Law of Moses so that Lehi's progeny will not "dwindle in unbelief." Keep in mind that all of this coming and going is being orchestrated by god through Lehi. Why is it, then, that in this chapter god finally gets around to sending Lehi's sons to Jerusalem to find wives? One would think that god, of all people, would have had the foresight to take care of this loose end earlier. Why so unorganized?

At any rate, surely a Mormon apologist somewhere is willing to offer an ad hoc explanation of Lehi's sons or the future wives were not yet old enough (keep in mind that at this time it is common for teenagers to be betrothed, or even married), or some other equally silly and simplistic excuse which could not possibly stand in the way of an all-mighty god. 

Apparently, the four brothers go to a man named Ishmael to convince him that he, like Lehi, should take his family to the wilderness and the two families' children can inter-marry and have lots of inter-marrying offspring (i.e. cousins). Of course, the boys do not start with this most-forward proposal. They have to ease Ishmael in to their favor by speaking the words of the Lord. And then something magical happens:

"And it came to pass that the Lord did soften the heart of Ishmael, and also his household, insomuch that they took their journey with us down into the wilderness to the tent of our father."

I wonder why "the Lord" was unable to "soften the hearts" of anyone else in Jerusalem when Lehi was first street-preaching? Why did it take "the Lord" so long (a couple of years or so) to even attempt to soften Ishmael's heart? This rather dicey situation, which will lead to the deaths of thousands of Jews and the enslavement of thousands more, does seem to be completely within the arbitrary whims of god. 

En route to the "tent of their father", Laman and Lemuel and some of Ishmael's children rebel against Nephi and try to go back to Jerusalem. During the struggle, resulting in Nephi being bound and nearly killed, Nephi chastises the mutineers and warns them that if they go back they will also be killed during the Babylonian take-over. Nephi singles out Laman and Lemuel and reminds them that they have seen an angel, so why do they doubt their father's prophecies? Again, we see an attempt to belittle those who want god to prove himself in an obvious or evident way. And again, this is a cheap trick to avoid answering questions or to be held accountable for making extraordinary claims. 

Nephi makes a seemingly bold claim that his brothers "shall know at some future period that the word of the Lord shall be fulfilled concerning the destruction of Jerusalem" if they stay faithful. Too bad he doesn't say how this will be made known to them, considering they will be on the other side of the world when it happens. In fact, to my recollection at no point in this story do Laman and Lemuel, or for that matter Nephi, ever definitively confirm Jerusalem's destruction. It seems to be completely brushed under the rug, leaving Nephi (or Joseph Smith) without accountability for this prophecy. Retro-fitting prophecy is hardly impressive or original.

While Nephi is bound and tied, he offers a prayer to god to deliver him, and SHAZZAM! his bands are loosed. This is yet another completely fatuous aspect of the story which would require some form of verification to be believed. But alas, no such verification is possible except through faith that the book is true. How convenient, eh?

As expected, the boys, along with Ishmael's family make it to Lehi's unidentified camp and all is well.

LICENSE TO KILL: 1 NEPHI 2-4

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
--Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics






Part 2 of my textual analysis of the Book of Mormon:

I am still deciding how in-depth I want to make my analysis of the Book of Mormon. On the one hand there is so much stuff to comment on, but on the other hand the book is quite long and commenting on every thing will take a very, very long time. Not to mention it would be quite the endeavor to read. I still want to cover the basic story, though, so I think I will lump the chapters together in order to consolidate the volume without skipping parts.

So, let's continue with Nephi's story in the Book of Mormon with 1 Nephi 2-4: the story of Laban and the brass plates.

Chapter 2: Chasing a dream.

This part of the story starts with another dream or "vision" of Nephi's father, Lehi, in which god tells Lehi that he has done well to warn the people of Jerusalem of their impending takeover by the Babylonians (score 1 for retro-fitting prophecy), and because of this the wicked people of the city want to kill him. This is clearly feeding into the whole persecution complex that so many believers hold (persecution implies that Satan is trying to thwart your efforts because you are helping god; this means you need to double down and persevere so that god can reward you in heaven for being such a good little helper). And again, Nephi takes his father at his word. Accepting second-hand revelation without question seems to a theme in this book. Almost an expectation.

Furthermore, god warns Lehi to take his family to the wilderness to save his life from the mob, and because god is going to destroy Jerusalem very soon (approx. 13 years in the future...). Keep in mind this is all done because Lehi believes for some unexplained reason that god talks to him in his sleep. It should be noted that Joseph Smith's own father also claimed to receive revelation from god through dreams, including dreams featured in the Book of Mormon itself. But we will get to that in future chapters. This is only one of several parallels between Joseph's life and the characters and stories in the Book of Mormon.

One might ask, what did Lehi's children, other than Nephi, think of all this? Were they all so easily taken in by their father's dreams? We are not told what any of the female members of the family thought of these events, and frankly this isn't surprising given what we know about ancient Judaism and Mormonism concerning the roles of women in the church and society. But we do get quite a bit of info on Lehi's other sons: Laman, Lemuel, and Sam (all of whom are older than Nephi, which seems to draw another parallel to Joseph Smith's life since he also had older brothers and was called to be a prophet much like Nephi, and whose older brothers--especially Hyrum Smith--became subservient to Joseph within Mormon-dom.). 

Much like Joseph's older brother Hyrum, Nephi's older brother Sam sides with him. But Nephi's other two older brothers are not convinced that their father really is inspired to take them to the desert to save their lives: 

"...for behold [Laman and Lemuel] did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart."

As expected, the doubters in the story are portrayed negatively, presumably to discourage readers from doing the same. Keep in mind that up to this point no one has offered a single way for anyone to verify Lehi's claims. All we have are the good, obedient brothers who accept everything without question and the naughty, doubting brothers--who still did as their father asked, mind you--who think their father simply has a vivid imagination. 

In verse 16 Nephi finally tries to verify his father's claims, however he does so through prayer. This is very common within Mormonism. If you have a question about something--especially something spiritual in nature--ask god in prayer and he will give you the answer through your "feelings and thoughts". In other words, if you think a thing is good and you have a good feeling about it, that is the same thing as god telling you it is good. Sounds like a reliable, error-proof method of verification to me.

And wouldn't you know it, god did tell Nephi that Lehi was truly inspired, just like Nephi had suspected all along. Later, Nephi relays this message from god to his brother Sam who also takes it at face value. Shocking. But alas, Laman and Lemuel do not simply believe Nephi (and why should they?), which is one of the reasons god chooses Nephi to be the ruler of the people once they get to the promised land (aka America) rather than his older brothers. 

Chapter 3: Brass tacks

This chapter gets a little more exciting as Lehi sends his 4 sons back to Jerusalem to attain the "brass plates" which apparently contain the Old Testament up to this point in time (approx 600 BC). This is important to Lehi because it contains his genealogy and the law of Moses which will be the governing law in the promised land. Keep in mind while reading this part of the story that god is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing and is thus capable of doing whatever he wants, and that the following is the best scenario he could come up with.

The 4 brothers decide through casting lots that Laman should be the one to go up to Laban, the high-ranking official who owns the brass plates, and ask him to give the plates to them. Seriously. Naturally, Laban declines the request and accuses Laman of being a robber. 

Discouraged, the brothers try a new plan: they gather all of Lehi's old possessions (i.e. gold) which they could not take with them when they left the city and use them to buy the plates. But this didn't work either as Laban had his guards chase them down to steal their stuff. 

The brothers take sides and quarrel over what to do next. The ever-doubting Laman and Lemuel want to go back to their father empty-handed, while Nephi and Sam want to keep trying. Go figure. Laman and Lemuel become angry (as doubters so often do) and begin beating Nephi and Sam with a rod. Ordinarily such abusive behavior would not warrant deliverance of the victims by god, but since they were on god's errand he decided to intervene by sending an angel to stop the beating and to chastise the older two brothers for doubting and rebelling against Nephi. Finally, Laman and Lemuel have a fairly valid reason to believe all this stuff is actually divinely mandated. But even so, they start to "murmur" shortly after the angel leaves. This is often used by Mormons as an example of why it is futile to ask god for a sign--it won't stick. It does seem strange to me that they would really argue the point that subtle "feelings and thoughts" affirming a given thing which a person wanted to believe in the first place is more compelling than a sign from god like an appearing angel. Perhaps this speaks more to the generally drab appearance of angels than it does to the alleged fading spiritual impact of such an occurrence... 

Chapter 4: License to kill.

Lacking a concrete plan, the resolutely faithful Nephi goes back to the city. As he reaffirms repeatedly in these first few chapters that god will not, as they say, give him more than he can handle. This is an assertion often made about god's character by believers, but given how many people have died victims of nature or other people, this hardly seems supported by the evidence. Still, Nephi embarks cheerfully on a path which will lead him to what I consider to be one of the most immoral stories in scripture: divinely-mandated murder. 

Guided by the spirit of god, Nephi wanders around a bit until he comes across a drunken man. And wouldn't you know it, it's Laban! Here he is, drunk to a stupor and without any of his 50 guards. What luck? Nephi then hears a voice in his head, which he identifies as the spirit of god for reasons that go unexplained, which tells him to kill Laban. 

Nephi wrestles with the voice inside his head, that is, until the voice inside his head says to him: "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands." 

Nephi adds further justification: "Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property." 

The voice inside Nephi's head continues: "Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands; Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief." 

It is tempting for me to address why each of these reasons offered to be justification for killing a man, however much of a douche-canoe he may have been, are not very compelling reasons--especially when he is passed out drunk on a side walk. I will gladly grant that all of these reasons may be sufficient to warrant murder. However, I am compelled to point out, yet again, that this all comes from a voice inside Nephi's head which he believes to be the spirit of god!!! 

After chopping off Laban's head with the man's own "steel" sword (sure it was...), Nephi puts on Laban's clothes which miraculously fit Nephi's "large stature", and which should be soaked through with Laban's blood. He continues in search of the brass plates and comes across Laban's servant, Zoram, who is fool by the get-up and leads Nephi straight to the plates. Zoram even opens the locked door for Nephi. 

Having possessed the plates (finally), Nephi returns to his brothers outside the city... with Zoram... Naturally, since the costume worked so swimmingly on Laban's servant, it also tricks his brothers who promptly begin to run for their lives. Nephi unveils himself to get them to stop running away, and in turn, scares the bejesus out of Zoram, who starts running back to the city. Remember, Nephi is "large in stature", so he easily tackles and pins down Zoram and gives him the following offer (not to be refused): 

"And it came to pass that I spake with him, that if he would hearken unto my words, as the Lord liveth, and as I live, even so that if he would hearken unto our words, we would spare his life. And I spake unto him, even with an oath, that he need not fear; that he should be a free man like unto us if he would go down in the wilderness with us." [emphasis added]

In other words: "Come and be a willing hostage, or we will kill you." It is not specified here, but such a threat may well have come from the same voice inside Nephi's head which convinced him that god wanted him to kill a man just before. And without much thought (or choice) Zoram goes with them back to Lehi with the brass plates. 

Moral of the story: If you believe god talks to you with a voice inside your head, and that voice tells you to do something which ordinarily you would consider immoral, just remember that anything god tells you to do is by definition moral and you should do it--even if it means killing someone.