Google "Joseph Smith's wives" or "Fanny Alger"

If you search for "Joseph Smith's wives" in Google, please take the time to scroll to the end of the names and pictures at the top. It looks something like this:

It would appear that Fanny's picture comes from my blog post about her. I got it from this AMAZING VIDEO. Amazing as it is, it's not entirely accurate. No angel with a drawn sword was needed to convince Joseph Smith to practice polygamy until the early 1840s, several years after he had hooked up with Fanny and a few others. That's right, it doesn't make sense and it's not the only thing about the sword story that doesn't make sense.

The doubters seem well pleased. Emma looks pissed.

I'm just happy to have helped make a slight difference in the world.

Dale Renlund criticized

The most lowly of the new LDS apostles is Dale Renlund. It's time we consider his witness of Jesus as offered earlier this month.

My dear brothers and sisters, thank you for sustaining me yesterday as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I didn't. I'm not sorry. It is hard to express how much that means to me. Are you going to try? I was especially grateful for the sustaining vote of the two extraordinary women in my life: my wife, Ruth, and our dear, dear, dear daughter, Ashley. You didn't try to express how much being sustained means to you. Hi, Ashley, you little dear you!!!

My call gives ample evidence to the truthfulness of the Lord’s statement early in this dispensation: “That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world.” Right, because nothing screams "weak and simple" like a white dude from the United States with a top education and a healthy income as a cardiologist and professor. :S I am one of those weak and simple. Um... maybe "weakling" and "simpleton", but let's not pretend you've been dredged up from the lowly of the low. Decades ago, when I was called to be the bishop of a ward in the eastern United States, my brother, slightly older and much wiser than I, called me on the phone. You're really hammering away at the false humility bullshit and you only just started. In the words of Dieter: STOP IT! He said, “You need to know that the Lord hasn’t called you because of anything you have done. The bishop called you because you insisted you don't look at porn or cheat on your wife. In your case, it is probably in spite of what you have done. We all know you touch yourself sometimes. The Lord has called you for what He needs to do through you, and that will happen only if you do it His way.” He needs you to avoid counseling people and refer them instead to professionals. I recognize that this wisdom from an older brother applies even more today. Definitely. Now that you're in the big time you're probably going to start thinking you're way hot shit. Remember, you're a cardiologist, not someone channeling the mind and will of Jesus for the masses.

Something wonderful happens in a missionary’s service when he or she realizes that the calling is not about him or her; rather, it is about the Lord, His work, and Heavenly Father’s children. You're God's little pawn and it's beautiful. I feel the same is true for an Apostle. It probably is about the same. This calling is not about me. It had nothing to with your close vicinity and sucking up to the hierarchy? It’s about the Lord, His work, and Heavenly Father’s children. Let's see what you can do to increase the Church's spending for the homeless and hungry rather than real estate and city development. No matter what the assignment or calling is in the Church, to serve capably, one must serve knowing that everyone we serve “is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, … has a divine nature and destiny.” Well, not everyone. Some beloved spirit children are destined for something less than divine. Most actually. But don't worry, God loves you lots.

In my past profession, I was a cardiologist specializing in heart failure and transplantation, with many patients who were critically ill. How lowly! :S My wife jokingly says that it was a bad prognostic sign to become one of my patients. Your wife's not very funny. All teasing aside, I saw many people die, and I developed a kind of emotional distance when things went poorly. What a horribly segue. You really are a calloused man. That way, feelings of sadness and disappointment were tempered.

In 1986 a young man named Chad developed heart failure and received a heart transplant. Oh lord. Is this a story about how you cried once back in 1986?! He did very well for a decade and a half. Chad did all he could to stay healthy and live as normal a life as possible. He served a mission, worked, and was a devoted son to his parents. What does "devoted to his parents" mean? The last few years of his life, though, were challenging, and he was in and out of the hospital frequently. So he did died. Did you cry?

One evening, he was brought to the hospital’s emergency department in full cardiac arrest. My associates and I worked for a long time to restore his circulation. Finally, it became clear that Chad could not be revived. We stopped our futile efforts, and I declared him dead. Although sad and disappointed, I maintained a professional attitude. I thought to myself, “Chad has had good care. He has had many more years of life than he otherwise would have had.” Yes, he did have many more years... THANKS TO MEDICAL SCIENCE, not a miracle. That emotional distance soon shattered as his parents came into the emergency room bay and saw their deceased son lying on a stretcher. In that moment, I saw Chad through his mother’s and father’s eyes. I'm not sure how you can claim you saw him through their eyes, but empathy is a beautiful thing so whatever. I saw the great hopes and expectations they had had for him, the desire they had had that he would live just a little bit longer and a little bit better. Sad. With this realization, I began to weep. Ah-ha! This story is about you crying! Lovely. I'm feeling the Spirit now! :S In an ironic reversal of roles and in an act of kindness I will never forget, Chad’s parents comforted me. And it was awkward as hell for them.

I now realize that in the Church, to effectively serve others we must see them through a parent’s eyes, through Heavenly Father’s eyes. This is the god who saw fit to exile a full one third of his spirit children eternally and exile the other two thirds for some kind of poorly thought out test. Those involved in the test have seen their father do strange things. He drown 99.99% of them one day, ordered genocide another, has left and continues to leave millions upon millions to suffer sicknesses and various calamities, and has never even sent a prophet or Mormon missionary to explain why it was all happening to the vast majority of his children on earth. I'll tell you now, as a parent, I cannot relate to this being. Only then can we begin to comprehend the true worth of a soul. This god sells life cheap. Only then can we sense the love that Heavenly Father has for all of His children. Only then can we sense the Savior’s caring concern for them. His unconditional love requiring baptism and full conformity to his arbitrary set of rules? We cannot completely fulfill our covenant obligation to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort unless we see them through God’s eyes. Can you imagine what it would be like to see what God sees? Everything that is, ever was and will be all at the same time! Talk about a headache. This expanded perspective will open our hearts to the disappointments, fears, and heartaches of others. God is perfect - he's whole and complete - why would he be vulnerable to disappointment, fear and heartache? But Heavenly Father will aid and comfort us, just as Chad’s parents comforted me years ago. Of course he'll craddle us and tell us it's OK that Jesus died, he's the one who ordered him dead in the first place. The difference is that God got his son back in a few hours, Chad's parents are still dealing with their son's absence to this day. We need to have eyes that see, ears that hear, and hearts that know and feel if we are to accomplish the rescue so frequently encouraged by President Thomas S. Monson. What rescue is that? The rescue of human souls? I'm sure it sounds important to be part of a "rescue".

Only when we see through Heavenly Father’s eyes can we be filled with “the pure love of Christ.” Let me simply point out that the terms you're using are confusing. I want to think you're talking about empathy and selflessness. Those are wonderful things. I hope that's what you're trying to say. Every day we should plead with God for this love. Hey, if it helps you treat others better, go for it. Mormon admonished, “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ.” Mormon sounds like a 19th century revivalist preacher. I'm about to fall to the ground struck by the Spirit!

With all my heart I want to be a true follower of Jesus Christ. That shouldn't be hard. You just imagine him however you like him and imagine he thinks more or less like you do. Historically that's how everyone has approached following him. I love Him. Gay! I adore Him. Don't let him walk all over you. Make him respect you! I witness of His living reality. Are you saying you've seen him? Alive? Did you talk to him? Did he really call you to be a "special witness"? Does what you just said mean anything other than "I believe Jesus is a living person somewhere in or outside of the Universe"? I witness that He is the Anointed One, the Messiah. In other words, the Christ. Yeah, yeah. How did you "witness" this anointing? What are you referring to exactly? I am a witness of His incomparable mercy, compassion, and love. You obviously haven't read The book of Mormon. Jesus is not merciful or particularly loving in that book. I add my testimony to that of the Apostles who, in the year 2000, stated “that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. … He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world.” That string of "special" witnessing put a load of heavy questions on my shelf of doubt. I testify that on a day in 1820 in a grove in upstate New York, the risen Lord appeared, along with God, our Heavenly Father, to the Prophet Joseph Smith, just as Joseph Smith said They did. To quote a creationist asshole named John Ham, "WERE YOU THERE?" The historical record indicates that the event you're talking about is a narrative invented by Joseph Smith years after the alleged date in his constant effort to reinforce his authority over his followers. Priesthood keys are on earth today to enable saving and exalting ordinances. The restoration of the Priesthood is another post hoc fabrication. I know it. Ahem! You "believe" it. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen. No. This is false witnessing. Fuck everything you said except the part about being nice to other people and trying to see their hardships from their perspective.

Hiding history

 
The media are reporting a celebration of a new era of LDS Church transparency with the release of The Joseph Smith Papers and, more recently, the printer's copy of The Book of Mormon. I can't disagree that the move to transparency is a good thing in that it's the most honest thing for the Church to do, but in the midst of all the celebrating I feel as though a lot of members are choosing to ignore what's to be celebrated. We're not celebrating new scripture, new revelations or even new propaganda for the missionaries to hand out. We're celebrating an end of the Church's suppression of information in one very specific area - it's early historical documents.
 
The two most infamous examples of previous attempts on behalf of the Church to keep historical information away from members include the Mark Hofmann forgeries and, earlier still, Joseph Fielding Smith's hiding of Joseph Smith’s 1832 version of the First Vision. Joseph Fielding had first discovered it in the First Presidency vault in Joseph Smith's personal letter book, freaked out about it enough to tear it out and hide the pages in his personal safe until he was pressured to release them in 1965. How messed up is that?

I'll admit I can't imagine what incentive he might have to share the first written version of the First Vision (it doesn't match well with the 1838 version), but his behavior is still alarming to me. Sure, it shows Joseph Fielding's lack of integrity, but it also shows just how fearful he was that the LDS house of cards would fall.

Now the Church is announcing via the Ensign and Liahona that Joseph Smith read magically appearing words on a stone in a hat and that that particular stone had nothing to do with an ancient Moroni, but that instead it has everything to do with a young Joseph Smith pretending he could see lost and buried objects (like gold). It's been 180 years and the general membership is only going to hear about it now (if they actually read the Liahona). Avoidance and denial add up to secrecy and deception in my brain.

LDS FAQ - "Masonry and the Temple"

I found a brief Church-sanctioned (I believe) explanation of the LDS temple's relationship to Freemasonry. I'm curious what it says. Text found here.

Students of both Mormonism and Freemasonry have pondered possible relationships between Masonic rites and the LDS temple ceremony. Although some argue that Joseph Smith borrowed elements of Freemasonry in developing the temple ceremony, the Endowment is more congruous with LDS scriptures (especially the book of Abraham and the Book of Moses) and ancient ritual than with Freemasonry. Both the book of Abraham and the Book of Moses are texts Joseph made up out of thin air, so I personally don't see why anyone would feel better knowing that they've influenced the creation of the LDS temple ceremonies. Pointing out that the temple has more more in common with those writings than with Freemasonry still doesn't justify the presence of Masonic oaths and handshakes in the temple. Latter-day Saints view the ordinances as a revealed restoration of ancient temple ceremony and only incidentally related to Freemasonry. There's no good reason to think the LDS temple ceremonies are ancient and I'm looking forward to seeing how you continue to downplay the influence of Freemasonry. The two are not antithetical, however, nor do they threaten each other, and neither institution discourages research regarding the ancient origins of their two ceremonies. The origins of Freemasonry are not ancient at all, they are medieval, late medieval. Many sacred ceremonies existed in the ancient world. Modified over centuries, these rituals existed in some form among ancient Egyptians, Coptic Christians, Israelites, and Masons, and in the Catholic and Protestant liturgies. Is this written for 6th graders? I can't believe you dared list the Masons in this group. And Egyptians? WTF? Which Egyptians are you talking about? Common elements include the wearing of special clothing, ritualistic speech, the dramatization of archetypal themes, instruction, and the use of symbolic gestures. Levi Strauss would be so proud to read this, but aren't these elements too broad to be taken seriously in this particular discussion of Freemasonry in the LDS temple? One theme common to many—found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Egyptian pyramid texts, and Coptic prayer circles, for example—is man's journey through life and his quest, following death, to successfully pass the sentinels guarding the entrance to eternal bliss with the gods. Right, Thor and all his buddies in Valhalla. Though these ceremonies vary greatly, significant common points raise the possibility of a common remote source. Human psychology most likely. Mormon wishful thinking knows no ends.
 

The Egyptian pyramid texts, for example, feature six main themes: (1) emphasis on a primordial written document behind the rites; (2) purification (including anointing, lustration, and clothing); (3) the Creation (resurrection and awakening texts); (4) the garden (including tree and ritual meal motifs); (5) travel (protection, a ferryman, and Osirian texts); and (6) ascension (including victory, coronation, admission to heavenly company, and Horus texts). Oh my god, that's so... DIFFERENT from the Mormon temple! Wow. Like such ancient ceremonies, the LDS temple Endowment presents aspects of these themes in figurative terms. Only if you're working in the most sympathetic of generalizations. It, too, presents, not a picture of immediate reality, but a model setting forth the pattern of human life on earth and the divine plan of which it is part. We're going to need some actual details here. It sounds like you're seeing what you want to see. It's called confirmation bias.
 
Masonic ceremonies are also allegorical, depicting life's states—youth, manhood, and old age—each with its associated burdens and challenges, followed by death and hoped-for immortality. The difference between your argument for the temple paralleling an Egyptian Book of Breathings and the Freemason ceremonies is that Joseph actually knew Masons and became one himself. On the other hand, he had no understanding of Egyptian despite having purchased a scroll containing a book of breathings. He feigned a translation that is laughable to today's Egyptologists. There is no universal agreement concerning when Freemasonry began. Maybe not, but no one can seriously claim it pre-dates the late Middle Ages. Some historians trace the order's origin to Solomon, Enoch, or even Adam. Only Mormon historians. Others argue that while some Masonic symbolism may be ancient, as an institution it began in the Middle Ages or later. Only everyone who isn't Mormon thinks this.
 
Though in this dispensation the LDS Endowment dates from Kirtland and Nauvoo, Latter-day Saints believe that temple ordinances are as old as man and that the essentials of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including its necessary ritual and teachings, were first revealed to Adam. Mormons have no basis for believing this other than the fact that Joseph Smith, a notorious conman, taught it to his followers and it has been believed and repeated for generations. These saving principles and ordinances were subsequently revealed to Seth; Noah; Melchizedek; Abraham, and each prophet to whom the priesthood was given, including Peter. There is no historical evidence to convince us most of these men ever existed (Peter is the exception) and much less evidence that they ever practiced the ceremonies of the current LDS temples. Latter-day Saints believe that the ordinances performed in LDS temples today replicate rituals that were part of God's teachings from the beginning. But they have no reason to believe anything similar. Hopefully the author of this article will cite some convincing texts.
 

The Prophet Joseph Smith suggested that the Endowment and Freemasonry in part emanated from the same ancient spring. Joe Smith? He's not a very trustworthy source. Do you know he tried to trick investors into funding an illegal bank? The man was as phony as a $3 bill. Thus, some Nauvoo Masons thought of the Endowment as a restoration of a ritual only imperfectly preserved in Freemasonry and viewed Joseph Smith as a master of the underlying principles and allegorical symbolism (Heber C. Kimball to Parley P. Pratt, June 17, 1842, Church Archives). I'm sure those few unnamed Freemasons were totally right... The philosophy and major tenets of Freemasonry are not fundamentally incompatible with the teaching, theology, and doctrines of the Latter-day Saints. Obviously not, but that does not mean they derive from ancient biblical patriarchs or that one group did not co-opt them from the other. Both emphasize morality, sacrifice, consecration, and service, and both condemn selfishness, sin, and greed. So what? You're talking about two groups who's morality is founded in Christian European thought. You're also ignoring the fact that essentially every ethnography you'll read will describe cultures who's beliefs include similar concepts and virtues. That says more about human psychology than it does about the LDS temple being ancient. Furthermore, the aim of Masonic ritual is to instruct-to make truth available so that man can follow it.
 
Resemblances between the two rituals are limited to a small proportion of actions and words; indeed, some find that the LDS Endowment has more similarities with the Pyramid texts and the Coptic documents than with Freemasonry. At this point, dear reader you should compare and contrast the text shared between the temple endowment and the Mason ceremonies. They are in many cases identical! Even if we are to accept the author's claim that they only make up a "limited" portion of the temple, that DOES NOT justify their presence in temple liturgy. I would love to see where the endowment plagiarizes Coptic liturgy in the way. Even where the two rituals share symbolism, the fabric of meanings is different. Because Joseph took the symbols and recast them for his own purposes. In addition to creation and life themes, one similarity is that both call for the participants to make covenants. You keep dancing around the details. I find this approach willfully dishonest. Yet, the Endowment alone ties covenants to eternal blessings and to Jesus Christ. How did you reach this conclusion? Your argument is "OK, we have similarities, but ours is legit, theirs isn't, trust me!"? I'm not impressed. The Masonic ceremony does not emphasize priesthood or the need to be commissioned by God to represent him. So whoever emphasizes that the most wins? What kind of moronic game are you playing? The active participation of God in the world and in men's lives is a distinctly LDS temple motif. As is God's active participation with women, but only through men. It's called divine sexism. While Masons believe in an undefined, impersonal God, everything in the LDS Endowment emanates from, or is directed to, God who is a personage and man's eternal Father. That doesn't mean Joseph Smith didn't steal the Masonic rituals and infuse them into his own thought. The Endowment looks to the eternities and to eternal lives, but Freemasonry is earthbound, pervaded by human legend and hope for something better. Because Joseph had to outdo everyone, including himself.
 

Freemasonry is a fraternal society, and in its ritual all promises, oaths, and agreements are made between members. In the temple Endowment all covenants are between the individual and God. You finally seem to be admitting they use the same oaths (which they do), even if directed to different entities. In Freemasonry, testing, grading, penalizing, or sentencing accords with the rules of the fraternity or membership votes. In the Endowment, God alone is the judge. You lost me. Do you mean that the Freemasons actually take quality control seriously while Mormons just let anything go in the temple? That's dishonest. In the Mormon temple you have someone checking on you every step of the way making sure you do everything just right. The difference being that Freemasons have to learn everything by heart and then get tested, whereas Mormons get to copy what's shown to them on the spot. Within Freemasonry, rank and promotions are of great importance, while in the LDS temple rites there are no distinctions: all participants stand equal before God. Not really. Men and women have separate seating and gendered clothing, including a veil to cover the faces of women. Husbands are placed over wives in the temple. Men get to become king and priests and women queens and priestesses. Historically kings ruled over their queens and we have no idea what a priestess even does according to Mormon doctrine. This is not equality. The clash between good and evil, including Satan's role, is essential to, and vividly depicted in, the Endowment, but is largely absent from Masonic rites. So Joseph added a maniacal Satan to the stage, so what? This is a red herring. You need to look at the details you so diligently avoid! That's where you'll find the real devil. Temple ceremonies emphasize salvation for the dead through vicarious ordinance work, such as baptism for the dead; nothing in Masonic ritual allows for proxies acting on behalf of the dead. Because it's a ridiculous notion. Why would a fraternity need to induct the deceased? Women participate in all aspects of LDS temple rites; though Freemasonry has women's auxiliaries, Masonic ritual excludes them. Freemasonry is a men's club, just like the LDS endowment was back when it was introduced. Both have changed (Mormonism first, thanks to polygamy) to be more inclusive of women. The Endowment's inclusion of females underscores perhaps the most fundamental difference between the two rites: LDS temple rites unite husbands and wives, and their children, in eternal families (see Eternal Lives; Marriage). Now you've moved away from the endowment, where the Masonic plagiarism is found, to the sealing room. You've just moved the goal posts, moron. Latter-day Saint sealings would be completely out of place in the context of Masonic ceremonies. Incredible. I almost want to give you points for trying, except I feel like you're purposefully being sloppy in your analysis of Freemasonry and the LDS temple. I don't know if you're being dishonest or if you simply don't know what you're doing.
 

Freemasonry's 5 points of contact as used in the LDS temple endowment until 1990.

Thus, Latter-day Saints see their temple ordinances as fundamentally different from Masonic and other rituals and think of similarities as remnants from an ancient original. This conclusion is only reached by ignoring the verbatim theft of oaths, the co-opting of symbols, the exact copying of handshakes, and many other elements, while simultaneously cherry picking cultures to compare your beliefs to and then staying back in the vaguest of generalities in order to avoid seeing your comparison implode.

KENNETH W. GODFREY should be ashamed of himself.

Temple prep - "'We Saw the Lord'"

The following text is taken from the pamphlet "Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple" (2002) and annotated by me.

The day of the return of Elijah was a Sunday afternoon, April 3, 1836. A sacrament meeting had been held in the Kirtland Temple. Right, because the concept of the temple was more like a stake center or cathedral, not a Freemason temple. The Prophet described that afternoon in these simple terms:

In the afternoon, I assisted the other Presidents in distributing the Lord’s Supper to the Church, receiving it from the Twelve, whose privilege it was to officiate at the sacred desk this day. After having performed this service to my brethren, I retired to the pulpit, the veils being dropped, and bowed myself, with Oliver Cowdery, in solemn and silent prayer. After rising from prayer, the following vision was opened to both of us. (D&C 110, introduction.)

The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened. So this is all imaginary...

We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. You know where else Joseph saw visions of gold? In a hat.

His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: This is sounds like one very horrifying acid trip.

I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father. Lord, are you really going to run through all your titles?

Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice. Yay!

Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, built this house to my name.

For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house. You're not pissed that they didn't built it by a beach or a lakeside resort, Lord? There's not even a patio for your sun chair.

Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house. Is this where Mormons get the misguided idea that the prophet sees and hears the Lord? Who was the last prophet who said he saw Jesus in the temple?

Yea the hearts of thousands and tens of thousands shall greatly rejoice in consequence of the blessings which shall be poured out, and the endowment with which my servants have been endowed in this house. Tens of thousands? Proportionally to the world's population, that not very impressive.

And the fame of this house shall spread to foreign lands; and this is the beginning of the blessing which shall be poured out upon the heads of my people. Even so. Amen. The fame of the Kirtland temple is known abroad only to members and they have been given a whitewashed and embellished version of its history and meaning.

After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north. Ah, yes, the 10 tribes!

After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed. The "gospel of Abraham"? Is that the gospel where you circumcise yourself, your sons and all other males in your household?

After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said: WHOA! Hang on a sec. You made a big booboo, Joseph. I think we can safely say you're pulling this vision out of your ass.

Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come—

To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse—

Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors. (D&C 110:1–16.) I can't wait for the day of the Lord. That's Sunday, right?

I saw Jesus in the temple. He was so beautiful.

It had happened! This signal event went unheeded by the world, but it would influence the destiny of every soul who has ever lived or will live. In the words of Ken Ham, WERE YOU THERE? How do you know this happened? The story appears grossly fabricated. Things began quietly to happen. What things?! The Church became a temple-building church. The Church is definitely not quiet about its temple building! It is very quiet about how the purpose of temples has drastically changed and even quieter about how the ordinances continue to change today.

In the world there emerged here and there, in a way thought to be spontaneous, people and organizations and societies interested in tracing genealogies. This happened thanks to John Farmer's efforts in the more heavily populated New England area throughout the 1820s, not Joseph Smith receiving "keys" in on of America's sparsely populated frontier towns in the mid-1830s. This has all taken place since the appearance of Elijah in the Kirtland Temple. Or do you mean Elias? Please reread my comments above.

From that very day, April 3, 1836, the hearts of the children began to turn to their fathers. Before that, all children hated their fathers and never thought of them, especially not to help them. Thereafter ordinances were not tentative, but permanent. Baptism was tentative before 1836? Ordination to the Priesthood was tentative!! Are you serious? The sealing power was with us. Rest easy, kids, this highly suspicious story Joseph Smith told means we've got the most powerful magic of any religion. You're in the right place! No authorization transcends it in value. So never ever under any circumstance take seriously what other religions say they have to offer. That power gives substance and eternal permanence to all ordinances performed with proper authority for both the living and the dead. You'll feel it, brothers and sisters. It will feel low key. Almost anticlimactic. Kind of like the awesomeness of it all was in what was said, not so much in what was done and what happened afterward. What I'm saying is don't expect to see the Lord or anything amazing like that. Keep your expectations to a minimum.

Exorcisms

The first miracle of Joseph Smith's new church was an exorcism. Now not all latter-day saints know what to make of exorcisms, but it's definitely a recognized practice in the New Testament, The Book of Mormon and elsewhere.

If you've heard the story of how Joseph cast a devil out of Newel Knight, there's a good chance it sounded pretty straight forward. The LDS Church, as it just so happens, likes to present its history in a clean, easy to swallow format fit for children - even if its for adults.

I, however, suggest we look at a more complete version of this miraculous exorcism as described by Dan Vogel, who takes into account a number of witness testimonies (emphasis mine).

"... when [Joseph] Smith asked him to pray, Newel begged to be excused. Like his father, he may have considered prayer to be a private matter and found his first attempt at public prayer embarrassing and difficult. Despite Smith's encouragement, Knight insisted on delaying his vocal prayer until morning when he could go into the woods.

"The next day, Knight attempted several times to pray vocally but experienced great difficulty. He began to feel a flood of emotion: anxiety, guilt, confusion, and finally panic. By the time he returned to his house, 'his appearance was such as to alarm his wife very much.' A desperate Newel anxiously asked his wife to bring Smith to him. 'I went and found him suffering very much in his mind,' Smith recalled, 'and his body acted upon in a most strange manner. His visage and limbs [were] distorted and twisted into every possible shape and appearances, and finally he was caught up off the floor of the apartment and tossed about most fearfully.' ...

"... Knight was unable to speak during his convulsions, for Smith reports that when he took hold of Knight's hand, 'almost immediately he was able to speak.'
"... Newel earnestly requested Joseph to cast the devil out of him. In front of eight or nine people who had gathered to witness the scene, Joseph said, 'If you know that I can, it shall be done.' Then Joseph rebuked the devil, commanding it 'in the name of Jesus Christ' to depart from Newell, upon which the latter 'saw the Devil leave him and vanish from his sight.'

Newel recalls levitating at this point:

"I felt myself attracted upward and remained for some time enwrapped in contemplation insomuch that I know not what was going on in the room. By and by I felt some weight pressing upon my shoulder and the side of my head; which served to recall me to a sense of my situation, and I found that the Spirit of the Lord had actually caught me up off the floor, and that my shoulder and head were pressing against the beams."

"... When Smith is brought to trial in South Bainbridge and Colesville in July 1830, Knight testifies that Smith had cast the devil out of him, but is evasive when asked to describe what the devil looked like. ... Apparently, he was less evasive in his home town, for Joel K. Noble, who presided over the trial in Colesville, remembered that Knight 'swore in open court [that] Jo. Smith cast a devil out of him ... and said how [the] devil looked. Said devil was a body of light..."

 "So I just cast it the fuck out right then and there! Easy!"

"... others remembered that Knight gave additional details. In the earliest account of the incident, [Martin] Harris said to Abner Cole in June 1830 that the devil, whom Smith had cast out of Newel, was of 'an uncommon size.' According to a later source, Joseph Knight Sr. and Josiah Stowell testified that they had seen the devil as well. Once testified that he saw 'a devil as large as a woodchuck leave the man and run across the floor,' while the other said he saw the devil leave the possessed and 'run off like a yellow dog.' neither witness said that Knight specifically described the devil's appearance, only that he had given an approximation of its size. This was confirmed by William R. Hine, a resident of Colesville, who said that Knight's testimony before Justice Noble was that 'Smith had cast three devils out of him. ... The first was as large as a woodchuck, the second was large as a squirrel, the third about the size of a rat.' When the judge asked what became of them, 'Knight said that they went out at the chimney.'" Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, pp. 496-98.

Demon woodchucks and their pals? I fucking hate them. Floating on the ceiling in ecstasy? Fucking love it. Thoughts on whether this miracle is legit? I think I'll go eat some ice cream.

A toppled tower

I'm not sure how long I believed in the literal existence of the Tower of Babel and all its linguistic consequences. I'm pretty sure I believed in it as a little kid, probably didn't believe in it as teen (because who's stupid enough to try to find God living in the sky when we all know he's near Kolob?), tried really hard to regain belief in it as a missionary, and gave up entirely after taking a few linguistics courses and an Old Testament one at BYU post-mission.

The story of the Tower is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, it must have been quite an undertaking to intimidate God enough that he felt he had to stop construction (but not destroy the tower), and yet there is no solid archeological evidence for it. Secondly, it seems this story has more to do with Mesopotamian myth designed to explain where languages come from and teach us not to challenge God. And most importantly, we know damn well that the languages of the world definitely did not all spring into existence circa 2300 BC. The very idea is simply ludicrous.

Even without knowing the first thing about historical linguistics you can see that the oldest texts we've found include more than one language pre-2300 BC.

This is all very bad fucking news for Mormons. Why? Because The Book of Mormon requires a literal belief in the Tower of Babel, that's why. Read for yourself...

the Title Page

 the Introduction

and the story in Ether.

"Dear Heavenly Father, I know this story isn't true, 

but please tell me it's True. Thanks. Amen."

Predictably - because The Book of Mormon must be understood as a literal history - the LDS Church still insists on a literal understanding of the Tower of Babel story. It's totally moronic, but somehow we find a way to doubt. There has to be an explanation. Heavenly Father will explain everything after we've proven ourselves. We'd better keep doubting this doubt.

"United to persecute me"

 

"Soun's like bullshit, son. I'm gonna go excite the public mind agains' ya!"

Why, oh why did Joseph not say anything about being persecuted until many years after his First Vision? Why, oh why did no one in Joseph Smith's family (or anyone else, for that matter) talk about Joseph suffering persecution at the hand of the community?

It looks to me like Joseph, in an effort to turn himself into a new Paul, concocted a narrative of persecution for his followers to latch onto. A little pathos goes a long way. (Maybe he was persecuted but it wasn't quite as bad as he later made it out to be.)

But why worry about the early persecution at all? How does persecution logically indicate you're right about anything? Answer: because Satan.

Joseph Smith's calling

If the First Vision is a fiction, why might Joseph have felt driven to take up the prophetic mantel? Dan Vogel has a convincing idea. But who needs any more doubts these days?

The First Vision

The LDS Church lays all its chips on Joseph Smith's 1820 theophany. When telling the story of the Church we begin with the story of a young teenage boy who was struggling to find the truth but then found the answer through an earnest prayer. That prayer parted the heavens and brought down God - Heavenly Father, The Eternal Father, Elohim - from his celestial throne with his Choicest of Children, Jesus the Anointed, The Creator, The Savior of the World, The Judge, The Father.

Theophanies aren't all that unusual and they're not always as pleasant as Joseph's was. My concern here is that it might not have ever happened in the first place.

Why would I doubt the reality of the First Vision? Mainly because

1. Joseph was not persecuted between the age of 14 and 17 for having seen God. No family member or anyone close to Joseph mentions persecution during these years and neither does Joseph until a decade later or more.

2. Family, friends and followers all attributed Joseph's prophetic call to his vision of Moroni at the age of 17 (1823).

3. The extant accounts of the First Vision begin in 1832. This seems to be the year Joseph invented his theophany. He begins by saying he was 16 but pushes his age back gradually until he says he was 14.

4. Age is not the only detail Joseph plays around with when recounting his First Vision. He can't keep straight who even showed up and spoke with him. Basically Joseph wanted everyone to believe he had a vision but he wasn't sure when, was unsure for years who appeared and wasn't sure what was communicated.

5. In the now official version of the story we understand that God told Joseph not to join any churches because "all creeds were an abomination" in the sight of God. So why did Joseph try to join the Methodists in 1828?

The whole story stinks. But the LDS Church will tell you it all harmonizes beautifully.

I don't know. I really don't see it.

Polygamy - unscrupulous seduction

The recent explanation of how the LDS Church got involved in polygamy mentions that:

A few men unscrupulously used these rumors [of Joseph Smith marrying multiple women] to seduce women to join them in an unauthorized practice sometimes referred to as “spiritual wifery.” When this was discovered, the men were cut off from the Church.

Couldn't this also apply to Joseph? His version might look something like this:

Joseph Smith unscrupulously used his prophetic authority and a story about being threatened by an angel to seduce women to join him in an unauthorized practice sometimes called "celestial marriage." When this was discovered, he was cut down by critics and eventually a violent mob.

History is written by the winners.

10 Bible Facts by Robert Price

Here's a fairly decent podcast featuring Bible scholar Robert Price debunking ten common misunderstandings about the Bible. Enjoy.

Admissions

So the LDS Church has finally admitted that:

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham [...]. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived [...]."

But the brethren really want you to doubt your doubts on this one and believe that the words really are magically from Abraham and not from Joseph Smith's ass.

We should all definitely pray about it.

A change of tune

Before Section 132 was included in The Doctrine & Covenants in 1876 there was another section that addressed polygamy specifically. It was Section 101 verse 4 (later Section 109), now edited out. It explicitly called polygamy a crime, denied its practice in the Church, and clarified that a man should have only one wife and a woman should have only one husband.

Apologists rest their defense of Joseph Smith's and early leaders' practice of polygamy despite scripture commanding against it on the fact that polygamy was not generally practiced in the Church, and/or that Oliver Cowdery wrote the now removed Section 101 as a statement of belief that was then approved by the ignorant masses of General Conference and not a revelation to the prophet. So why didn't Joseph repeal it, like, ever? Or at least modify it?

Why didn't the Church redact Section 132 in 1995 when it released the very monogamous-sounding Family proclamation? Or why didn't the Church at least include a more obvious polygamous family option in the proclamation so as to be true to its current doctrine? It all seems a little dishonest.

Call it sanctioned by God, call it evil, ignore it, either way it's coming back to hit you.

The Lehites' neighbors

You know what would really help us in our search for Book of Mormon lands? The names a few neighboring peoples. We all know that the America's have been populated by human beings for at least the past 15000 years, so why don't we have any mention of these first inhabitants in the records of the Jaredites, or the Lehites, or the Mulekites. We get all manner of "-ites" deriving from these three sets of settlers, but no manner of neighbor.

The LDS Church has currently decided to take the stance that the Book of Mormon peoples integrated extensively with the populations already in the Americas to the extent that virtually all Near Eastern DNA markers have disappeared somehow.

All it would have taken to clear up this whole mess would have been a mere name of a tribe or two, even a verifiable name or two of individuals of an origin other than Jaredite, Lehite, or Mulekite. Just one. Anything to match up with what scholars know about pre-Contact peoples.

It's just hard to take The Book of Mormon seriously when there are holes this big running throughout its supposed history of 2200 BCE - 400 CE.

Fiery salamanders and slippery treasures

I heard about the Mark Hofmann forgeries only a few years ago when a sibling mentioned them to me in passing. I didn't look up Hofmann or read anything about the forgeries right away because, as juicy as it all was, I expected nothing less from our modern prophets, seers, and revelators.

Page 1 of the "Salamander Letter"

In a nutshell, Hofmann was an amazing forger who produced a number of documents relating to early LDS Church history. These forged documents compromised the Church's position of authority to such an extent that Gordon Hinckley, who was serving as a councilor to Spencer Kimball, got directly involved in the purchasing and hiding of the Hofmann forgeries. There's plenty of literature out there on topic (like this, this, or this) if you'd like all the nefarious details.

We can all agree that Mark Hofmann did terrible things and hurt a lot of people - killing two - but his story should find its way onto everyone's lists of doubts because of how badly the Church handled him. First off the Church showed zero power of discernment with regards to Hofmann's evil intents. The Church showed zero power of discernment with regard to the content of invented documents. Instead, the Church's behavior indicates that top leaders find the existence of such documents entirely plausible. The Church proved that it was willing to spend hundreds of thousands of (early 1980s) dollars to control compromising documents. And top leadership was more than eager to keep the content of the forgeries a secret from the general Church membership and the world in what can only be described as outright deception.

How could our prophets, seers, and revelators be so naive? How could they be so shady? Why should we trust the Church's whitewashed version of history when it's obvious that they themselves do not? Isn't it cause for concern when our top leaders are so preoccupied with an potential expose of early Mormon insanity? It's frankly incriminating.

Book of Mormon - the three Nephites

Though I believed in them, it did not escape my mind how silly it was to believe that there were three immortal Nephite apostles roaming the earth in efforts to prepare the gathering of Israel.

What was even sillier were all the stories circulating throughout the Church about encounters with these nearly 2000-year-old men.

How can you not doubt this kind of thing? How can you read this in a non-fiction book and not feel some kind of cognitive dissonance? How long can you maintain faith in the idea of three stealthy fellows moving around the globe preaching the good word for centuries on end? One would think that if they were imparting the Gospel of Jesus all over the place there might actually have been a few attempts at restorations of the Primitive Church before 1830? There would at least be some kind of series of journals out there somewhere where people in different parts of the world wrote about some kind of conversion to something that looks a hell of a lot like Mormonism, right?

Book of Mormon - absence of archeological evidence

People, there is zero physical evidence for The Book of Mormon. Not a chariot, no temple fashioned after Solomon's, no weapons as described in the text, no DNA. Nothing whatsoever. We're going off a dream here and that fact had better make you doubt more than a little.

Bad news, folks, this is not Lehi's dream.

I doubted the absence of evidence proving the historicity of The Book of Mormon my whole life. It just had to be out there. We totally have Lehi's dream about the Tree of Life, for crying out loud! And I remember seeing a video of a BYU professor down in South American standing in a baptismal font! And let's not forget that tour package that will take you to the Waters of Mormon in Guatemala... The Book of Mormon just has to be true. It has to be!