New Year's Resolutions

Happy New Year to all! It's a great time to remember that all we have is the present. So let's focus on a few things we should be doing to make the most of life.

1. Develop and show more empathy.
Nothing will make human existence better faster than trying to sincerely understand what others are going through. Empathy pacifies and unifies. We're all safer and happier with empathy.

2. Show more gratitude.
Gratitude requires a dose of humility. You have to slough off the notion that you earned and deserve everything you have and instead recognize the roll others have played and play in your life. Life gets better with gratitude.

3. Keep your nose out for bullshit.
A sucker is born every minute. Bullshitters are born every few seconds. We're all prone to make shit up and pass it off on others, but we can curb that tendency. Question others and question yourself. What you've been told is gospel truth very well may not be. What you tell yourself is true might very well be false. Keep an eye on the rhetoric people use to convince you one way or another. Take the time to engage with serious research. Some rational skepticism can go a long way in keeping the bullshit away.

4. Have some fun.
Life is short. Moments are fleeting. Have a laugh.

The Land of Make-Believe

For [D. W.] Winnicott, play is acknowledged as other than reality: children grant that they are must playing. Play grants itself the right to treat a spoon as a train, and a parent is barred from asking whether the spoon really is a train. But once play is over, the train is again a mere spoon. Still, play is more than fantasy or escapism. It is the construction of a reality with personal meaning. It takes something from the everyday world - a spoon - and transforms it into something more - a train.

Mormon Barbie's sacred garments.

In Winnicott's terms, play is a 'transitional' activity. It provides a transition form childhood to adulthood, from the inner world of fantasy to outer reality, and from the known outer world to the unknown one. Just as a child clings to a physical object - a teddy bear - to create a safe world that then enables the child to explore with confidence the outside world, so an adult clings to an internalized object - a hobby, an interest, a value, or, I suggest, a myth - that then enables the adult to deal with a much wider world. Just as the child knows that the teddy bear is not Mummy yet clings to it as if it were, so the adult recognizes that the myth is not reality yet adheres to it as if it were. Myth is 'make-believe'. (Robert Segal, Myth: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 138, 139)

Mormon-style robes of the Holy Priesthood.

The Nauvoo Expositor

Here are a couple of very interesting facts about the whole Nauvoo Expositor fiasco.

1. The 15 resolutions the Expositor made against Joseph Smith were true. In fact, it's very difficult to find the "vicious lies" Joseph accused it of spreading.

2. Joseph Smith's order to destroy the Expositor printing press was a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution - you know, the one guaranteeing the freedom of speech and of the press? That one. In other words, what Joseph and his followers did was strictly criminal (as was their practice of polygamy, by the way).

How are members supposed to justify Joseph's behavior? Where is God in all of this? What if I seriously doubt God had anything to do with any of this whole affair?

Persauding men to do good

Even though there is zero evidence for the veracity of The Book of Mormon, could it still be true?

"To those in the last days who might reject the Book of Mormon, God through Moroni warns that they shall be 'accursed' (4:8). Conversely, anyone who wants to know the truth of the book is promised that 'because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good. And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leaded men to all good' (4:11-12). In other words, since all good comes from God, and the Book of Mormon tries to persuade humankind to be righteous, it follows that the Book of Mormon is true, independent of its historicity. This statement, together with a similar one in Moroni 7, provides a glimpse into Smith's psyche, particularly the manner by which he might rationalized the use of deception. Although he felt inspired as he dictated the text, he would have known that there weren't any gold plates, and hence, no Nephites and no Jaredites. Still, he was dictating spiritual truths despite the absence of historical authenticity." Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, pg. 348

Thomas Paine speaks the truth

 “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time. It is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”  

The Age of Reason

What is the Book of Mormon?

Breaking news: some returned missionaries have finally found a way to teach the world HIS TRUTH! With this (hopefully) viral video, every inhabitant of the earth will soon know and accept The Book of Mormon for what it really is!

But didn't Brother Jake already make a viral YouTube video explaining The Book of Mormon? I'm sure the LDS Church has been reaping the bounteous fruits as Gentiles flock to convert after watching it.

Neil Andersen criticized

For any of you who have ever doubted Joseph Smith because of something you've read online or from uncorrelated material, please read or listen to Neil Andersen's recent Conference talk. His strategy of quoting Joseph Smith about himself, reading a crazy-ass quote from John Taylor and offering up brainwashy methods of "gaining a testimony" should be enough to make you wonder if he's sincerely illogical or carefully hiding something. I can't help but think that his talk will ultimately do more harm to members' testimonies than he could possibly imagine. (And he's showing much love when he categorizes dissenters as Judases.)

Why will it harm members' testimonies? Because, as in the case of the Church's anti-science stance, Neil's argument requires that you reject study (as least anything you study that the Church won't like) and favor ignorance instead. In this case instead of repeating "I don't know" to ourselves we're supposed to repeat Joseph's false history to ourselves until we believe it. A testimony like that can only be protected by plugging your ears and shutting off your critical thinking.

Henry Eyring criticized

I like Henry. He seems like a pretty nice guy, and not because he's the most teary-eyed of the GAs. I only have one criticism specific to him - I wish he'd shut the hell up about his father the Mormon badass chemist.

Note to Henry B:

Henry, listen, you're dad was quite a guy, but here's your problem: you conflate your father's authority in science with his lack of authority with regards to spiritual realities. In other words, just because you're dad was a good scientist and a devout believer doesn't give his belief the same weight of his scientific research. No more of this "Hey, my dad was smart and still believed, so it must be true" bullshit. Listen, you've got a BS in physics and you're a fucking apostle of the big JC. Put it all together for us. Show us how it works in more than a mere 100 pages that essentially say "Embrace the mystery!"

Thank you.
Be well.
Abe

HeartSell (TM)

Church-owned Bonneville International has done it! They've found a way into your heart! Not only can they get in there, they know how to move and motivate you to action. They've even given this communication strategy a creepy, trademarked name.

It's almost like you don't even need the Holy Ghost to feel the truth anymore.

The Fridge Profet on leaving one's faith

Here's a great post from the Church of the Fridge. Read it. We thank thee, O God, for the Profet.

Chiasmus

Mormon apologists love to bring up the existence of chiasmi in The Book of Mormon as a strong indication that the writing is seeped in Hebrew literary culture. It sounds great. For those of us who want to believe, this is when you pop the champagne cork and get to celebrating the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon.

However, it might not be a bad idea to hold off on celebrating and look at the pervasiveness of chiasmi in other literary works. What are we to make of the fact that, in addition to great authors like Shakespeare, nursery rhimes and children's books also use chiasmi? Finding a chiasmus is always fun, but does it really mean what we want it to mean?

PS. So looking back on what I wrote I found that I had unintentionally created a rather complex chiasmus. The only thing I added was "hold off on celebrating and" to the second paragraph. Check it out.

(A) Mormon apologists  
(B) love to
(C) bring up the existence of chiasmi
(D) in The Book of Mormon as a strong indication that
(E) the writing is seeped in Hebrew literary culture.
(F) It sounds great. For those of us who want to  
(G) believe, this is when  
(H) you pop the champagne cork and get to celebrating 
(I) the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon.

(I) However, it might not be a bad idea
(H) to hold off on celebrating and  
(G) look at the
(E) pervasiveness of chiasmi in other literary works.
(F) What are we to make of the fact that,  
(D) in addition to great authors like Shakespeare, nursery rhimes and children's books also use chiasmi?
(C) Finding a chiasmus is always  
(B) fun, but does it really mean what  
(A) we want it to mean?

As you can see (F) and (E) trade places in the second part, but I have to say I'm kind of proud of myself. I must be an ancient Hebrew at heart. Oh wait, I am! I'm totally the tribe of Ephraim!

Hebraisms in The Book of Mormon

Those doubters who would have you believe that Joseph Smith or some contemporary of his wrote The Book of Mormon have clearly not considered all of the Hebraisms in the text. If it wasn't written by Egyptian-writing Israelites, why are there indications that the English text Joseph translated came from a Hebrew-influenced source? The authenticity of The Book of Mormon is essentially proven thanks to literary and rhetorical devises typical in ancient Hebrew texts!

Who cares if those same literary and rhetorical devises can be found in literature from across the world and in different periods, including Jacobean England? Who cares if the translators responsible for the King James Bible created a widely dispersed and extremely popular English text based on Hebrew Old Testament writings? The KJT might have influenced other books that followed it, but not The Book of Mormon! I mean, how could it have? The Book of Mormon was compiled 1200 years before the KJT ever existed, right? 

Reading material.

Isaiah and the Book of Mormon

Deutero-Isaiah (or is this one Trito?) writing about Jesus. 

If the fact that Isaiah was written by more than one person isn't enough to bring on at least a little doubt, consider this fact: anything from Isaiah chapters 40-66 that made it into The Book of Mormon either verbatim, slightly altered, or paraphrased (1 Nephi 10:8, 13:37, 17:36, 20-21, 22:8 & 10-11; 2 Nephi 6:6-7 & 16-18, 7-8, 9:50-51, 10:9, 26:25; Mosiah 12:21-24, 14, 15:10-11 & 14-18 & 29-31; 3 Nephi 16:18-20, 21:8-10 & 29, 22; Moroni 10:31) was written after Lehi & Co. left Jerusalem. So how the hell did they make it onto the brass plates and over to the New World?

You could doubt the authorship of The Book of Mormon at this point if you wanted to. Or you could simply doubt the scholarly understanding that Isaiah was written by multiple authors on into the years following Lehi's departure. After all, we know that The Book of Mormon is true and that "the wisdom of this world is foolishness" (1 Corinthians 3:19).

Problem solved! Except there's still the whole plagiarism thing you have to consider too...

The Bible - Joseph's translation

One of the absolute worst Bible translations out there today is the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), also known as the Inspired Version (IV).

Without any rigorous recourse to ancient texts in ancient languages, Joseph took to correcting the Bible and replacing the truths that had unfortunately (or by the cunning wiles of the Devil) been lost over the centuries. He remixed and deleted based on whatever (spiritual?) whim had taken him, but the real miracle of the project was how much Joseph added. He threw in entire chapters at times.

Some people have asked why we don't use this version of the Bible - myself among them. One would think that a scriptural project commanded by God to his prophet would qualify as canonical, right? God says "Hey, fix the Bible!," Joseph does it, and yet the LDS Church doesn't use it. Very weird.

Some say it's a copyright issue. The Community of Christ owns the copyright, so we can print it. Sucks, right? But just because the Community of Christ owns the copyright doesn't mean LDS Mormons can't buy it, does it? Why does the LDS Church have to own the copyright at all? This is about learning the true content of the Bible, not about which church is making money from scripture sales. Or at least it should be.

FAIR offers up another very interesting reason why we LDS saints can't adopt the JST: it "would be a stumbling block to converts." Too much newness for the new recruits. We wouldn't want to scare them off with the truth! I mean, we can believe Joseph's version is the most badass of the them all, but don't you dare tell any investigators or new converts about it until they're thoroughly convinced they're in The One True Church! It's not dishonest, it's practical.

"Holy shit, this book is awful!"

But isn't it silly that anyone should worry about this at all? The LDS version of the KJV has all sorts of JST footnotes and we even have some made up chapters published in their entirety in The Pearl of Great Price. That should be enough for any good saint. Why would anyone want the complete, unabridged version? People can be so greedy.

Anyway, what we really need is a modern translation of the JST! Something that fixes all the errors Joseph left in... But I doubt we'll get it.

The Bible "translated correctly"

The Mormon escape clause on believing "the Bible to be the word of God" states that the Bible should only be trusted "as far as it is translated correctly" (Article of Faith 1:8), so one might assume that Mormons have undertaken a very rigorous translation effort and that the Mormon version of the Bible is one of the best around.

The reality is that the LDS Church has stuck to using the King James translation, and the King James translation of the Bible actually kind of sucks. It's archaic and difficult to understand, it's full of mistranslations, and the translation was extremely limited to the texts available in England at the turn of the 17th century.

So why the King James Bible? Maybe because that's the version the Book of Mormon prophets preferred.

The Bible! The Bible! Who assembled the Bible?

A common pet peeve among Mormons is when someone assumes the Book of Mormon is the Mormon version of the Bible. Fuck's sake, people, "we believe the Bible to be the word of God" (Article of Faith 1:8)! We just have another book of scripture to help straighten things out. See, it's like a pair of glasses - one corrective lens isn't going to be enough to get your vision into focus...

So if Mormons are cool with the extra books found in The Book of Mormon how do Mormons feel about the Apocrypha? Well, quite frankly, Mormons never touch it. Here's what God told Joseph Smith:

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth" (D&C 91:1-4).

In other words, there's too much shit to wade through; don't waste your time. Oh, and don't read the Songs of Solomon either - they're not inspired. Those Old Testament apocrypha are the worst! (But the Book of Judith seems to have inspired the Book of Mormon somehow.) But the New Testament apocryphal gospels are a little trickier. Some of those darn Gnostic gospels actually predate the gospels included in the final cut. It seems as though their exclusion from the Greatest Hits compilation was more a matter of politics than unbiased research.

What if, in addition to pseudopigrypha, there were a huge absence of authentic and essential texts in the Bible? Why aren't the LDS Church and Mormons at large more interested and involved in a revision of the canonical Bible texts? Does corrective power of The Book of Mormon really justify having the wrong prescription in the other lens?

Persecution

I used to wonder what the world had against Mormons and the LDS Church. Ever since Joseph Smith's first vision in 1820 persecution has hounded the Restoration. Why? Why would anyone turn a 14 year old into a pariah for having a vision? Why would anyone attack peaceful, industrious settlers? Why would a governor drive a religious group from the state? Why all the rumors about Mormon boys being born with horns? Why the accusation that Mormons aren't Christian? Why all the disinformation in the media? Why would anyone mistreat a young missionary?

Because Satan.

Remember how Satan bound young Joseph's tongue to keep him from praying? That's the kind of asshole we're dealing with. He hates the work of God. He hates the truth. He controls the hearts of man. He appeals to the minds of everyone who wants the easy way and not the straight and narrow. Satan sucks! It's his evil influence (and God's curse against Adam and Eve) (and human nature, which was designed by God) that makes people persecute the One True Church and the saints.

The problem is that we have no reason to believe persecution is even the slightest indication of God's truth under attack. We don't point to the persecution of pre-contact indigenous Americans as evidence of closeness to God. We don't look at the American institution of slavery as evidence that Blacks had the truth. We don't study the ways of the persecuted Aborigines of Australia either. We don't look at those living in slave labor-like conditions today and draw the conclusion that Satan is trying to suppress their saintly souls. We don't look at the opposition faced by other churches and faith traditions to determine their truthfulness. The very idea of using persecution as a measuring stick of truthfulness is absurd - UNLESS IT'S APPLIED TO MORMONISM.

Let me repeat that last point: in the Mormon brain, persecution is only a valid signifier of truth if applied to Mormonism (and sometimes Christianity at large).

Now please don't misunderstand me. Violence, oppression, litigation, misinformation, slander, etc. exist and can all factor in to the unjustifiably adverse treatment of other people. Willfully hurting other people because they don't accept all of your faith claims is immoral, but disagreeing with and challenging someone's faith claims is an everyday part of life and a huge part of the learning process.

Being asked to shoulder the burden of proof is not persecution. Having that proof examined is not persecution. Having that proof rejected on the basis of logic is not persecution. Having someone pointing out that your claims are highly suspicious is not persecution. Having someone speak openly about the lack of proof behind your claims is not persecution.

But it does give you a shit feeling when someone doesn't except your claims at face value. And it feels like shit when someone rejects what you consider solid proof. It especially feels awful when you've based who you are and all of your life plans on those claims. It's easy to feel attacked when everything you think about yourself and the world is based on something so many others find questionable, if not ridiculous.

I wouldn't doubt that having two teenagers show up at your door telling you your brain and life are all wrong might feel equally shitty. Some might even feel a bit persecuted. Especially if you're, say, homosexual or something.

Believing blood

One of the stranger beliefs of Mormonism postulates that the more Hebrew blood you have the more receptive to the truth of the Gospel and authority of the LDS Church you will be. Apparently belief is genetic and the Hebrews hold the majority of shares when it comes to believing... that they're the awesomest, most chosenest people of God.

Even awesomer than believing in the truth because you've got a lot of Hebrew is that if you're of the tribe of Ephraim you won't rebel!

"And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out." (D&C 64:35-36, emphasis added)

So Ephraim just might be the least rebellious of all the believers of Israel. Very cool stuff (even if it's total nonsense).

It really gives you a sense of what the world lost when the blood of Joseph Smith, a pure Ephraimite, a pure non-rebellious believing blood type, was spilled at Carthage. What a fucking waste of the "best blood of the nineteenth century" (D&C 135:6)!

Joseph Smith III, half Ephraimite, half Moggle.

What's worse is that obviously Emma contaminated that blood because otherwise Joseph Smith III would have surely reunited with the saints in Utah. If only we could once again breed the purest of believers...

Jesus on marriage

Mormons believe that beginning with the union of Adam and Eve marriage done God's way is for eternity. Eternal marriage has become Mormonism's favorite doctrine: FAMILIES CAN BE TOGETHER FOREVER!

Imagine the frustration of all the Mormons who try to learn of ancient marriage practices from the Old Testament, where "eternal" never enters the equation,

or the Book of Mormon,

or the New Testament, where three of the four gospel writers manage to relate the same marriage lesson without significantly contradicting each other. It's the story of the Sadducees asking Jesus about couples being together in the next life. Their question is facetious, but Jesus' response is shocking (if you're a Mormon who believes in eternal marriage).

"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:23-30)

"Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." (Mark 12:18-25)

"Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Luke 20:27-35)

Jesus makes it clear: the question is ridiculous because RESURRECTED PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE SPOUSES, they're like the angels. Once again, of the seven women the man married in life, Jesus says the man will have none of them in the resurrection. Zero. No eternal marriage, according to JC.

Other translations of the New Testament might help point out that "in the resurrection, they do not take wives, neither do men have wives," but probably the most important translation is the Joseph Smith Translation. Let's take a look.

"For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angel of God in heaven." (JST Matt. 22:29)

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels of God who are in heaven." (JST Mark 12:29)

"But they who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, through resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage." (JST Luke 20:35)

Shit. Looks like Joseph wasn't inspired to have Jesus say something about how the man would only keep his first legitimate wife (take a look at 21-8 in the New Testament Institute Manual), or any of the others. For whatever reason, God wouldn't let his prophet foresee eternal matrimony in the early 1830s.

How disappointed will faithful Mormons be when they're resurrected as angels instead of their earthly families?

Getting answers to doubts

Prayer is the only way you will ever conquer your doubts. You have to know with a certainty for yourself that the Church is true and you can only know for sure through the confirming power of the Holy Ghost. Pray about it. A ghost will tell you its all real.

Here's how it works:
1. The Church is true.
2. Kneel in humble prayer as ask God if it is.
3. God will tell you it is through the Holy Spirit.

Easy!

But if you're having trouble getting to #3, just keep repeating #2 and everything will work out because #1 is what it is.

You're welcome.

What? God told you the Church isn't true and that you should keep your previously held beliefs? That doesn't make any sense! You must be doing #2 incorrectly. Be brave. Try again.

Huh? You don't think this is a very effective method of determining truth because the conclusion is maintained at all times, even in the cases of the absence of evidence and contradicting evidence? Is that a problem? Should we be worried?