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.

UNDER THE RUG

In the ever-growing wake of religious scandals (abuse and rape of children, fraud, theft, dark political money) the Mormon church has always found a way to minimize its own questionable practices as they come to public light. For instance, when critics found millions of dollars of money coming from the church to influence the 2008 vote in California on Proposition 8 (which would change the California constitution to make gay marriage illegal), believers said the figure was grossly exaggerated, and that most of the funds came in the form of Mormon volunteers going door to door to rally supporters for "traditional marriage."

In November 2015 the church announced that homosexuals are considered apostates to the church and that children of homosexuals in a gay marriage could not join the church until they reached the age of eighteen (rather than eight) and only after they formally denounce the gay marriage of their parents. The church tried to soften the PR blow back by interviewing D. Todd Christofferson (a high ranking Mormon Apostle with a conveniently gay brother) by an active believing lackey fielding pre-approved softball questions emphasizing that the church super duper loves gay people and the purpose of this change is to not cause division among gay households, just like they do with polygamous households (never mind that gay marriage is legal and polygamy is not).

When the church received criticism about conducting "worthiness" interviews of adolescents as young as twelve years old, wherein the church leader would ask explicit detailed questions about the youth's sexuality and masturbation practices, the church reluctantly--and only recently--conceded that parents could be present during such interviews (apparently this isn't a new thing, and there is a protest march at Temple Square scheduled for this Friday. Fun.). It should be noted that even with this "change" church leaders will still ask pre-teen boys and girls whether or not they masturbate with the intent to help them repent of their transgression. 

When concerned Mormon parents encouraged a grassroots movement to record these sexually explicit interviews of minors to show the world how inappropriate such questions are for a grown man to be asking children, the Utah state legislature tried to pass a law which would make such recordings illegal (how's that for separation of church and state?).

When the church came under scrutiny for not encouraging church leaders to report child abuse to the police, the church's attourneys responded with the "Gold Standard" defense, claiming that if they reported abuse to the police, fewer people would feel comfortable confiding in the bishop. 

In 1978--well past the tail end of the civil rights movement--the Mormon church, which had always maintained that god will never grant priesthood authority to black men because of the curse of Cain and their lackluster performance during the pre-mortal war in heaven, backtracked on the issue and allowed black people full membership rights, including admission into their temples and allowing black men to hold priesthood office. Mormons still have a hard time understanding why black people aren't jumping at the chance to join the church nearly forty years after this announcement.

In 1890 the Mormon church announced that the eternal principal of plural marriage (i.e. polygamy) would no longer be practiced or endorsed by the church. In 1904 the Mormon church announced again that the eternal principal of plural marriage would no longer be practiced or endorsed by the church. Why the second announcement? Because many believing faithful Mormons didn't buy the ruse. They knew that the only reason the Mormon president made the announcement in the first place was because the US government was threatening to seize the church's assets, including their million dollar mini-mansions (i.e. temples). It was largely seen as a political move, and even the president of the church who made the announcement, Wilford Woodruff, married yet-another-wife afterwards. Those who did not see it as a political move denounced Woodruff as a false prophet. Now the church hems and haws and tries to downplay the importance that polygamy played in the church, but their scriptures and several decades of church leadership clearly and unequivocally state that polygamy is necessary to reach the highest degree of glory in heaven. To this day several Mormon sects and even individual Mormon leaders still practice polygamy (including current president of the church Russell Nelson!). 

Most recently a woman has accused Joseph Bishop (a high profile Mormon who has held very significant positions within the church, such as Mission President in Argentina, Mission President to the Missionary Training Center, and President of Weber State University) of sexual abuse and attempted rape while she was a missionary under him in the MTC (mid 1980s). I won't go into the details of the abuse here since others have done so quite thoroughly (Infants of Thrones, Mormon Stories). Instead I want to focus on the church's response to these allegations (their official statement). 

The long and short of it is that the church claims it went through proper legal channels and reported the abuse to police and did not have enough evidence on their own to issue any discipline to Bishop at the time (to put this into context, a couple years ago John Dehlin was excommunicated for using the Mormon Stories podcast to discuss problems with Mormon church history and abuses by the church against homosexuals, and Kate Kelly was excommunicated for creating the Ordain Women movement and suggesting that the church should allow women to hold the same leadership positions as men within the church). This is strange to me since we now know of a second woman who has made similar accusations against Bishop, and the first woman recorded a conversation between herself and Bishop wherein he admits he "confessed all his sins" to his ecclesiastical leader, including the abuse of both of these women. He also strongly implies that he abused other women for many years. 

Maybe he's lying. Maybe the recording was faked. Maybe it's all true, but the church didn't know the details or extent of the abuse. Maybe the church is lying. Who knows? But let's suppose that the church's version of the story is completely true. Does this make things better? Not in the view of a believing Mormon. 

You see, Mormons believe that their church leaders have what they call "the power of discernment." Basically this means that they have a direct line to god and if someone is lying during a worthiness interview (like when they ask a twelve year old girl if she masturbates) god will let the church leader know. Nothing gets past god. Except, apparently, Joseph Bishop. 

A couple years ago I posted something on my Facebook page about Utah having an unusually high suicide and homelessness rate for gay teens as a direct result of the November 2015 policy change discussed above. In response, a Mormon acquaintance sent me a blog article (unfortunately the link appears to be broken), which sought to make the case that Utah had the same rate of suicide for gay teens as any other state. If I had granted that this blogger's assessment was accurate, I would still be left asking why Utah wasn't better than all the other states. If the Mormon church is true, then surely they should be better suited to help those most in need of support. The claim that the predominately Mormon state of Utah is just as bad as anywhere else is a tacit admission that the church doesn't really make things better in important social matters. 

Furthermore, that fact that the church has such a long history of being several years behind every social movement of the past hundred years (with the exception of women having the right to vote, which Mormon apologists love to point out, but which can easily be explained as an opportunistic way for Mormons who still practiced polygamy to cast more votes per household. So there's that.) begs the question, in what sense is the Mormon church true? In what sense does the church make people behave better? In what sense does god lead the church and its leaders? 

Why would god not tell Joseph Bishop's priesthood leader that he's lying about his worthiness? Why would god allow Bishop to be promoted through the ranks of the church amid prolonged sexual abuse? For Mormons who want to fall back on the adage that god does not intervene due to agency, first of all, that is a terribly convenient excuse, don't you think? Second, that doesn't explain why god allowed Bishop to be promoted. In addition to leaders having the power of discernment, Mormons believe that if a leader becomes sinful or abuses their power, god will remove them from that position. Why didn't he do it to Bishop? 

What the hell, here's a scripture for reference: D&C 121:37 "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

It's almost as if god doesn't exist... 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Tracie Harris on god allowing children to be raped.

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:

CONDIMENT COW-TOW

"Don't swallow your moral code in tablet form."
--Christopher Hitchens






I am often flabbergasted by the assertion that the Christian "10 Commandments" are the basis of modern morality (I say "Christian" because Jews tend to not limit themselves to such a finite number of divine mandates). Throughout the United States, courthouses and government buildings are riddled with plaques and monuments advertising everyone's favorite imposing religious screed.


Perhaps my cynicism is kicking in, but it seems that the most vocal proponents of plastering the "10 Commandments" on publicly funded government buildings know very little about the commandments, or what they say. In fact, it is a common gag on late night TV programs to ask random people on the street who profess to be Christians and advocates of the moral superiority of the "10 Commandments" just how many they can name. As you may suspect, most people can't name very many.

Typically, the commands which most people get right also happen to be the ones which likely do not need to be spelled out (i.e. Do not murder, steal, lie, etc.). Few people get the ones which set up the Old Testament god, Yahweh, as a jealous control freak, or equate women with cattle. I wonder why?

I have heard theists claim that every law on the books can be traced back to one of the "10 Commandments." Think about this. They suggest that traffic laws and taxes and divorce suits with messy custody battles all originate from the "10 Commandments."

Before I get to the actual list of commandments, I should point out that not only do the "10 Commandments" say nothing about the things above, but they also fail to address issues like rape, genocide, slavery, and child abuse. Not to mention some of the commandments have absolutely no modern adaptation in US laws, such as keeping the Sabbath.

There is no reason to think that the "10 Commandments" would be so broad and all-inclusive. After all, they are only the first 10 of over 600 Jewish laws in the Old Testament, many of which speak favorably of things like rape, genocide and child abuse. And this is exactly what we would expect from a moral code devised by tribalistic, bloodthirsty, ignorant Palestinians in the Bronze Age.

On to the Big Ten:

1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Right off the bat, god shows his petty jealousy by at once acknowledging and dismissing the existence of other gods. This is consistent with the ancient Canaanite pantheon of gods, from which Yahweh originated. Conversely, this challenges the proposed omnipotence of Yahweh. Why would an all-powerful being care if mere mortals believe and worship him?

Also, none of the laws in the US constitution have anything to do with the idea that the Old Testament god should be the only god worshiped. Our pluralistic melting-pot of a society simply does not allow this totalitarian ideal.

2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

"And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

More tribalistic chest-puffing. Some people read this commandment to mean that nothing should be more important to a person than god. But the language indicates to me that Yahweh wants to set himself apart from the other gods of the pantheon. To do this he threatens a curse on those who do not accept him, which will extend at least four generations. Nothing says divine justice and mercy and sound moral reasoning like punishing children for the actions of their great great great grandparents.

It is also worth noting that many Christian religions, including Catholicism and Christian orthodoxy, proudly flaunt their "graven images" (i.e. "pics of dead people"). Such saintly iconography has created issues in the past, in some cases resulting in Protestant splinter groups, and as a result the Catholic Church (I'm not so sure of the Orthodox Church) has changed this commandment. I suppose they can get away with this since they are just making it up anyway.

Again, this command has no modern equivalent in our multicultural society.

3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

This commandment has bred confusion for centuries. It seems that every denomination has its own interpretation of this verse. I was taught that it decries profanity in general by specifying an improper use of god's name, whatever that means.

Some Jewish sects go so far as to condemn the very utterance of god's name (which in Hebrew is super long and includes every letter in their alphabet). Not only does this have nothing to do with morality or US law, it creates a false sense of morality in much the same way Muslims view pictures of the prophet Muhammad. Some Muslims are willing to kill non-Muslim blasphemers, such as Danish cartoonists and French satirists.

A less common interpretation is that one should not make oaths on god's name which cannot be upheld, because this makes god look silly. Although this reading of the verse makes more textual sense to me than the anti-profanity gibberish I was taught as a child, I still find it absurd.

Oaths make little sense to me. Aside from oaths made in court, and a few other instances, they have been largely abandoned by society in favor of written contracts, which, let's face it, are more effective and easier to regulate.

4. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."

"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:"

"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Further in the 600+ commandments in the Law of Moses it is specified that those who violate this command should be stoned to death. Nothing about this is moral. Not the law, nor the punishment. Whether a person works on Sunday (or Saturday, if they are Jewish or Seventh-Day Adventist, or Friday if they are Muslim) speaks nothing about their morals.

The reasoning behind this law is completely crazy anti-science woo. Because the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe created everything in six days and then took a break, we must follow the same pattern. Why does an all-powerful being need a break? Why don't those who advocate for the moral superiority of the "10 Commandments" work six days a week? It seems to me that they like their weekends as much as anyone.

Of course, there is no equivalent to this commandment in US law. Although, many areas in highly religious states frown on businesses simply being open on Sunday. So much so, in fact, that I know many people who refuse to go to businesses that open on Sunday, even on other days of the week. This is a major selling point for Macy's grocery stores in Utah, for example.

5. "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

As with the command to not do any work on the Sabbath, the punishment for breaking this law, as explained further in the Law of Moses, is to stone the unruly children to death.

While there is no shortage of troubled kids who disobey their parents, it is not the disobedience which is most troublesome, since it is often a manifestation of deeper issues. Typically, mental issues, substance abuse and criminal activity are the primary reasons kids may be deemed sufficiently troubled as to warrant intervention or disciplinary action from the state. In most other cases I can think of, the children are actually victims and any "acting out" is simply a cry for help. So, again, there is little to no correlation to US law.

Adding to the moral disconnect between the "10 Commandments" and our society, the promise that obedience to parents will extend one's life is simply untrue and more superstitious bull crap. Unsure? Ask the parents of a child who has passed away just how extra disobedient the child was before their death. I would be surprised if any such parents could utter a single word against their lost child. As far as I can figure, the only way the promise of a longer life for obedient children would hold true is if parents, as the Law of Moses commands, stone their disobedient children.

6. "Thou shalt not kill."

Simple and to the point, this commandment is one of the few on the list which actually has a modern equivalent in our laws. In fact, every society that has ever seen growth and civilization has had some form of this prohibition. As Christopher Hitchens points out, it would be hard to imagine that the ancient Jews would have made it as far as Mount Sinai had they been under a different impression.

The universality of laws against murder suggests that the "10 Commandants" are not the origin of such a moral position, and are not necessary to see the societal benefits.

Some people who question the veracity of the bible point to the apparent hypocrisy of god issuing the command to not kill, when he also commands the Jews to wipe out entire civilizations, killing men, women, children, and in some cases, livestock. Not to worry, though! Christian apologists have you doubters covered. You see, the argument goes that the Hebrew word used in this commandment is specific to unlawful or unjust murders between Jews. If you are killing heathens or apostates for god, you are morally unblemished.

7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Although this is not explicitly in our laws (infidelity may lead to uncontested divorce, depending on agreements made in the marriage contract, but it is not illegal), I generally agree that cheating on one's partner is immoral. It could cause psychological issues and distrust, as well as putting the other person in harm’s way of STDs without their knowledge. If both parties are aware and agree to extramarital relations beforehand, however, I see no moral reasons to oppose it.

8. "Thou shalt not steal."

As with the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not kill"), prohibitions on theft seem fairly universal. And such universality suggests that a pronouncement from god on this subject is neither revolutionary, nor necessary. In short, when people are allowed to set their own moral limits, they generally wind up agreeing that stealing is bad. There may be exceptions to this, such as a starving homeless child stealing food to survive, but it works as a rule of thumb.

The reason this works is because most people understand that things like theft and murder do real, demonstrable harm to others. This is the root of morality: levels of harm in social interactions. God need not enter in to the equation, especially if he can arbitrarily decide not to follow his own moral commands should it suit his purposes (or, rather, the purposes of self-proclaimed prophets speaking on god's behalf...).

9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

Most people simplify this verse to say that one should not lie. I find this overly simplistic. As with theft, there may be situations in which lying is the most moral choice.

A well-known example of this is Jews during WWII pretending to be Christians in order to avoid the wholesale slaughter of their people by the Nazis (by the way, many Nazis believed that, since the Jews killed Jesus, they were killing for god).

Not all examples of acceptable reasons to lie involve saving one's life, however. Perhaps a young atheist cannot admit their position due to family pressures. Perhaps parents want to surprise their small children on Christmas and Easter with miraculously appearing presents and chocolate eggs. Perhaps one wishes to spare someone else unnecessary grief.

The point is that lying is not cut and dry. Generally, it may be advisable not to lie, but it is not universal. Of the commandments which do have some connection to modern laws, lying seems to have the most exceptions. Furthermore, most instances when a person might lie are not illegal.

Perjury before a court, breaking or lying about legal contracts, or pretending to be someone else to deceive a police officer are among the few types of lies which concern our legal system. Whether or not you say truthful things about a neighbor will not generally raise any legal eyebrows.

10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."

So far, most of the commandments are either amoral (morally neutral) or morally obvious. This command, however, is explicitly immoral. It is tantamount to thought-crime. It tells believers that god not only knows what they think, but will judge them eternally according to their thoughts.

"Covet" is synonymous with "desire." Some add that it is an obsessive desire. If all a person does is desire, obsessively or not, and does not act on this, where is the harm to others? I don't see how wanting something can be implicitly immoral, much less punishable.

For instance, pedophilia (another issue completely missed by the Law of Moses) is pretty close to universally despised, yet simply finding children sexually appealing is not a crime. Only when an adult actively tries to seduce a minor is the criminality line crossed. It is the action which is criminal and immoral, not necessarily the thoughts.

I realize this may sound off-putting or morally questionable to some, and to be clear, I am not condoning pedophilia--even in thought. Such people need psychological help, because in most instances the condition is indicative of deep emotional issues, even mental underdevelopment. But needing professional help is not immoral and it is not criminal. And neither are disturbing thoughts or wanting the possessions of others.

Also, did you catch the subtle bit of sexism when god listed women alongside cattle as possessions of "thy neighbor?" Nice one god. Ancient Jews, like many patriarchal societies of their time, viewed women as property of men. Many Christians, Muslims and Jews today still follow this and treat women as second class citizens. Worst of all, the holy book to which they adhere and claim is the basis of their morality actually supports their misogyny!

If you take nothing else from this far too long post, please see that the bible does not make people more moral. It teaches them to surrender their conscience and accept an outdated moral authority. This is not morality--this is subservience. Hitchens asked, "Who, but a slave, would want this?"

Many atheists have addressed the "10 Commandments" by either deconstructing them and pointing out their immoral nature, as I have attempted here, or by submitting their own "atheist" or "secular" commandments.

The most entertaining of these which I have come across is from Bobby Henderson in his book, "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." This satirical take on religion is both more interesting than the original Commandments (aka "Condiments") and, somewhat ironically, more moral. See for yourself:

The eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like A Sanctimonious, Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.

2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don't Require Sacrifices And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.

3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey-Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal And Fuchsia.

4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off The TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.

5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B******.

6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):

A. Ending Poverty


B. Curing Diseases


C. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable

I Might Be A Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM The Creator.

7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?

8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. IfThe Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear A CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece Of Rubber. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did IT I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.

RAmen.


BONUS MATERIAL:

Christopher Hitchens on the 10 Commandments:

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.