Conclusion
Start: Introduction
Previous: Other
Since this section is a conclusion, it serves as an opportunity for Jeremy to summarize the things he has said throughout the letter. So I will also be mostly just summarizing things I have already said, and I will provide links back to the main analysis. Since this section is in a paragraph format, the contents are more about the general ideas discussed. This includes a few concepts that aren't summarizing things discussed earlier that I felt like talking about here.
Contents for this section:
“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false…”
– PRESIDENT JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH, DOCTRINES OF SALVATION, P.188
And this continues to be taught today. Quoting Christ and the New Covenant by Jeffrey R. Holland, Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin taught new mission presidents in 1999
I am suggesting that one has to take something of a do-or-die stand regarding the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. Reason and righteousness require it. Joseph Smith must be accepted either as a prophet of God or else as a charlatan of the first order, but no one should tolerate any ludicrous, even laughable middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically
Of course, the reason Jeremy is quoting it seems to be justifying him "exposing" Joseph as a fraud. With some study, I find that Jeremy's arguments aren't as strong as he thinks they are. You don't have to take my word for it though, it is the responsibility of each of us to learn the truth for ourselves.
When I first discovered that gold plates were not used to translate the Book of Mormon, that Joseph Smith started polygamy and disturbingly practiced it in ways I never could have imagined, and that Joseph’s Book of Abraham translations and claims are gibberish...I went into a panic. I desperately needed answers and I needed them immediately. Among the first sources I looked to for answers were official Church sources such as Mormon.org and LDS.org. I couldn’t find them.
We've talked about each of these things in their own sections. But here, Jeremy's complaint isn't so much that he didn't know something, but that the Church didn't have answers. I also didn't know these things, so I don't fault Jeremy for not knowing. But once he did know, I find it surprising that he wasn't able to find at least some answers. They don't talk about them often, no, but when I had questions, I also did a search and was able to get answers to my questions.
Actually, Jeremy did find some answers, since he talked about them in the Other section. However, he apparently wasn't satisfied with what he found, since he only brought them up as an example of the Church using the internet in his criticism against his mistaken impression that the Church was against the internet.
Anyway, here is what I found available from Church sources on these topics.
Gold plates were not used to translate the Book of Mormon - In Joseph Smith—History 1:62, Joseph said that he copied characters off the plates and "by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them". By searching for "seer stone" you can find David Whitmer's statement that Joseph put the seer stone into a hat quoted a few times, such as By the Gift and Power of God, a 1977 Ensign article by Richard L. Anderson, and A Treasured Testament, a 1993 Ensign article adapted from a talk then-Elder Russell M. Nelson gave to new mission presidents the previous year.
Joseph Smith started polygamy - This is in Doctrine and Covenants 132. A few articles might briefly mention his plural wives, such as a 1973 Ensign article on Eliza R. Snow. What I couldn't find is how he practiced it, at least not in articles prior to 2013. In chapter 20 in the Church History in the Fulness of Times institute manual mentions that Joseph Smith practiced it, but that we don't know all the details. And although much has been written since then about what we know, we still don't really know much about how he practiced it. Based on his section on polygamy, I think what Jeremy found "disturbing" was the fact that he was sealed to women who were already legally married. You can find them on Family Search, but I am not aware of anything that really discussed them before the Church's Gospel Topics essay, published in 2014.
Book of Abraham - While Joseph's translations aren't "gibberish" I think Jeremy just means the translation doesn't match the papyrus, and that the facsimiles don't match how Egyptologists interpret them. You can do a search on the Church website for "Book of the Dead" and you will find several Ensign articles that talk about it, such as the 1988 article, Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price? Perhaps with some extra research, you might think to look in The Improvement Era to see the articles the Church published when the papyri were found, and read Egyptian Papyri Rediscovered and New Light on Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri, not to mention Hugh Nibley's series A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price that began at the same time.
Jeremy said he was in a panic and needed answers immediately. So it sounds like he didn't have the patience to seek out the information, which at the time took quite a bit of effort. Of course now, we have the Church's Gospel Topics essays that cover the more controversial things including these three topics, so now it is much easier to find answers.
I then went to FairMormon and Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS).FairMormon and these unofficial apologists have done more to destroy my testimony than any “anti-Mormon” source ever could. I find their version of Mormonism to be alien and foreign to the Chapel Mormonism that I grew up in attending Church, seminary, reading scriptures, General Conferences, EFY, Church history tour, mission, and BYU.
FAIR is extremely faith-promoting, and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute is run by BYU. The reason Jeremy cites for them destroying his testimony is that the explanations they gave were "alien and foreign" to him. I would suggest that anti-Mormon sources provide explanations that are far more alien and foreign than apologists ever would.
I notice though that Jeremy put "anti-Mormon" inside scare quotes, suggesting that he is talking about sources that others call anti-Mormon that he would not. Sometimes those who are against the Church reject the idea that they are anti-Mormon but that's what the term means. Anti- is a prefix that means against, so if we take "Mormon" in that term to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and what it teaches, then someone against the Church is by definition an anti-Mormon.
The rebuttal I've seen is usually something like, "I'm just sharing facts"—but the definition of anti- doesn't depend on whether you are telling the truth or not. Facts don't just speak for themselves. For example, if a vaccine was made in a lab, those that are anti-vaccine might share this fact to make an argument why they are bad for you, while someone who is pro-vaccine might share this fact to describe the wonders of scientific progress. On less controversial issues like anti-slavery or anti-bullying, it should be pretty obvious that you don't have to lie to take up the anti- position.
I don't use the term often because some believe it is only used to shut down conversation, and perhaps ironically I have found that using it sidetracks the conversation into a semantics debate. I bring it up here to point out another ironic twist, that when someone against the Church claims that they are not anti-Mormon, that will just reinforce the "anti-Mormons lie" stereotype that they are arguing against.
Jeremy also used the term "Chapel Mormonism" here. From what I can find, the term originated with Jason Gallentine who presented at the 2004 Sunstone Symposium a theory that Church members could be divided into two groups, "Chapel Mormons" who have a literal view of the scriptures and traditional interpretations, and "Internet Mormons" that believe in science and open to new interpretations. This presents a false-dichotomy, and I feel it is divisive, if not offensive. The reality is that there are many topics that are not essential to our salvation that many people have wide ranges of opinions on. In mainstream Christianity, various denominations have divided for being "theologically conservative" or "theologically liberal" which seem a little too similar.
Anyway, that Jeremy identifies with "Chapel Mormonism" supports what I saw throughout the letter, that he had a set of expectations that he found that prophets and scriptures did not live up to. Instead of questioning his preconceptions, it appears as though that if things weren't what he expected, then it must be false.
As I said before, I didn't learn these things either through General Conferences, Church lessons, seminary, institute, or my mission. Some people did manage to learn these things, but like Jeremy, I was not one of them. But the difference was that I didn't have the same preconceptions as Jeremy. As an example, I remember that I used to believe that the Church was against evolution. However before my mission as I studied, I learned that there were also statements from early Church leaders that supported evolution. I learned that the Church did not actually have a position. From that time on, I decided that if I really believe what the Church teaches, then I should base my beliefs on what is actually taught, rather than my own assumptions about what they teach.
And if you listen to General Conference and Church lessons, you will find that we focus primarily on the doctrines of salvation: faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. Answers to controversial topics have since been included in the Come Follow Me lessons, but the focus is still on the gospel, and how we should live our lives, which is the purpose of going to Church.
It frustrates me that apologists use so many words in their attempts to redefine words and their meanings. Their pet theories, claims, and philosophies of men mingled with scripture are not only contradictory to the scriptures and Church teachings I learned through correlated Mormonism...they're truly bizarre.
I am amazed to learn that, according to these unofficial apologists, translate doesn't really mean translate,
Translate means to render from one language into another. So translate still means translate when it comes to the Book of Mormon. But when it comes to the Book of Abraham, there are two main explanations, that either it was translated from a missing papyrus; or that it wasn't actually a translation, and instead the papyrus served as a catalyst for Joseph to receive a revelation about Abraham.
Even "correlated Mormonism" redefined "translate" for Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. It is instead better described as a revision. This has nothing to do with what apologists have said, no one has ever claimed that Joseph used Hebrew or Greek texts. If Jeremy felt like translate must "really mean translate" then I wonder how he understand Joseph's "translation" of the Bible? I think Jeremy and others who feel the same way perhaps just haven't stopped to consider what it might mean in that context.
horses aren't really horses (they're tapirs), chariots aren’t really chariots (since tapirs can’t pull chariots without wheels), steel isn't really steel,
Since this is the conclusion, it is perhaps no surprise that Jeremy is bringing up things he has talked about before, summarizing his criticisms. When we talked about the Book of Mormon anachronisms before, I talked about various explanations. Here, Jeremy is addressing those explanations, specifically criticizing the interpretation either the Book of Mormon was a literal translation and the Nephites gave things in the new world familiar names from the old world, or that the Book of Mormon was not a literal translation and these names were given by the translation.
Even under those scenarios, tapirs is offered as only one possibility. And the criticism isn't that animals can't pull chariots without wheels, but that archaeological evidence of wheels have not been found. However, the Book of Mormon doesn't actually make the claim that chariots have wheels.
But there is another interpretation, that horses and chariots really are what they say they are, and we just haven't found evidence of them yet. There's no reason that this should destroy someone's testimony, lots of people take the scriptures literally. "We just haven't found evidence yet" is a very common argument, especially when combined with a belief that faith is important for God's plan for us.
the Hill Cumorah isn't really in New York (it's possibly in Mesoamerica),
To be more specific, the Hill Cumorah in New York where Moroni buried the plates isn't necessarily the same Hill Cumorah where the Nephites had their final battle, which is possibly in Mesoamerica.
Whereas the last set of items insisted on taking things literally, this one is the opposite, reading into the text things it doesn't actually say.
The Church doesn't take a position on Book of Mormon geography. You are free to believe that the Hill Cumorah in New York is the same as the Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon if you want to.
Lamanites aren't really the principal ancestors of the Native American Indians,
Which is also something that the Book of Mormon doesn't say. The Native Americans are descended from the Lamanites, but they weren't their only ancestors. I would suggest that "principal ancestors" implies that there were also non-principal ancestors. But I can see how that would be confusing, and so the Church changed the text of the introduction.
This is a change that the Church made, not one made by "unofficial apologists" that Jeremy is talking about in this paragraph.
marriage isn't really marriage (if they're Joseph's plural marriages? They're mostly non-sexual spiritual sealings),
The Church has always taught the difference between a marriage and a sealing, "unofficial apologists" aren't redefining anything. I suppose Jeremy may have gotten confused since they happen at the same time for most Latter-day Saints. The difference is that it wasn't always that way for Joseph Smith.
To be fair, I probably haven't been so careful myself and have used the words interchangeably even though they are different. A marriage is when a man and woman are united as husband and wife. If their marriage is sealed, then that means they will remain married in the eternities. Latter-day Saints use the language that we are married "for time and eternity"—"time" meaning for the duration of our life, and "eternity" to refer to life in the Celestial Kingdom.
and yesterday’s prophets weren’t really prophets when they taught today’s false doctrine.
This comes out of Jeremy's expectations that everything any prophet has ever uttered should be counted as doctrine, but that is not correct. There exists a sort of criticism attributed to "chapel Mormons" that those who believe that not everything they say is doctrine means we they don't believe in following the prophets. However, what this doesn't consider is all the times where prophets have said that they are not infallible.
I believe in following the prophets, and I trust what they say concerning their own human limitations.
Why is it that I had to first discover all of this – from the internet – at 31-years-old after over 20 years of high activity in the Church? I wasn't just a seat warmer at Church. I’ve read the scriptures several times. I've read hundreds of "approved" Church books. I was an extremely dedicated missionary who voluntarily asked to stay longer in the mission field. I was very interested in and dedicated to the Gospel.
Jeremy didn't have to discover it at 31 years old. He will have to answer that question himself. I think Jeremy is only a couple years older than me, and I learned all of this only a few years before he did. For me, the reason I didn't learn it earlier was because I was disinterested in history, and so I didn't research it. As I learned a few things, I became curious and I learned more. Now, there's a lot about history that I am interested in, and I enjoy learning more about the religion I love.
How am I supposed to feel about learning about these disturbing facts at 31-years-old? After making critical life decisions based on trust and faith that the Church was telling me the complete truth about its origins and history? After many books, seminary, EFY, Church history tour, mission, BYU, General Conferences, scriptures, Ensigns, and regular Church attendance?
You can feel however you want. Jeremy felt shocked and betrayed. I felt surprised and embarrassed. I guess the reason for our different reactions was because Jeremy felt that it was the Church's responsibility to teach him these things, while I thought it was my own responsibility.
Everyone is different, and I don't think there's really a way you are "supposed" to feel about things. Your emotions are your own—it is what you do with them that matter. Jeremy and I both had a desire to learn more. I was happy with the things that I learned, and unfortunately Jeremy was unsatisfied.
You might feel differently than either one of us, but I hope the answers I've written about have given you something to think about.
So, putting aside the absolute shock and feeling of betrayal in learning about all of this information that has been kept concealed and hidden from me by the Church my entire life, I am now expected to go back to the drawing board. Somehow, I am supposed to rebuild my testimony on newly discovered information that is not only bizarre and alien to the Chapel Mormonism I had a testimony of; it’s almost comical.
The Church hasn't concealed or hidden anything. As shown above, at least some information was available through Church sources. They just didn't mention it so often to hear it without having to really search for it. Now, the Church has put these things in much more accessible locations.
I'm not sure what Jeremy means by "newly discovered information"—I think perhaps he means new to him rather than new in general, since most of the things he brings up in this section have been criticisms for a long time.
Anyway, the discomfort one feels when beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors don't match is called cognitive dissonance. There are three major ways to reduce this dissonance:
- Changing one or more of the dissonant elements
- Adding new cognitive elements that are consonant with already existing cognition
- By decreasing the importance of the dissonant elements
So let's use the seer stone in a hat as an example, as that appears to be Jeremy's biggest issue based on how often he repeats it. Let's say that like me and Jeremy, you hadn't heard that narrative before, and maybe you even believed something completely different and contradictory. So when you hear the story, it causes you discomfort because it goes against what you had believed.
Jeremy resolved this discomfort with #1, by changing his belief that Joseph Smith translated the plates. However, this is not the only way. His question was how was he supposed to rebuild his testimony. But it is a mistake to think that rebuilding a testimony is impossible. For example, you could instead change your belief in how Joseph translated the plates without changing that he translated the plates.
Alternatively, you could add in a belief that Joseph used different translation methodologies at different times. This is how the Church presents it in the Gospel Topics essay, as well as in Saints.
Following the third way is to recognize that we don't know all the answers, but that these elements are not as important as other aspects of your testimony.
Back on the first strategy of changing the elements, besides changing your existing belief, you could change the new element. Jeremy even cited a couple Latter-day Saints that dismissed the seer stone narrative. As an aside, I think when atheists talk about cognitive dissonance, what I have experienced is that they associate it specifically with Christians who choose to dismiss evidence that contradicts their existing beliefs. And perhaps they associate it that way with good reason—the theory of cognitive dissonance began by studying failed prophecies in a UFO religion, and finding those that continued to continued to believe anyway. However, I think it is important to realize a couple things: first, it should be clarified that cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort we feel when our beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors don't match, not to the coping mechanism. Second, this is part of human behavior, not just something Christians face. We all have incorrect preconceptions or other personal bias, and when confronted with conflicting information, we deal with it in our own way.
For example, a believing Latter-day Saint can point to evidence that is in favor of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many of those of other faiths find ways to explain away the evidence or otherwise justify their existing belief. And that's okay, Latter-day Saints don't expect people to join the Church based on physical evidence anyway. We teach that the only way to know the truth about spiritual things is by the Spirit. That is why missionaries invite people to read the Book of Mormon, and to pray and ask God whether it is true.
I'm now supposed to believe that Joseph has the credibility of translating ancient records when the Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook Plates destroy this claim?
In this segment, Jeremy is summarizing his complaints in the form of asking how he is supposed to maintain a belief in the faithful Latter-day Saint narrative given some other element that he believes runs contrary to the faithful narrative. He isn't very precise, possibly hoping we remember his full criticism. My response to each of these will be a summary of what I shared earlier.
The only claim that is destroyed by the Book of Abraham is that the Egyptian text on the extant papyrus fragments is not the source for the Book of Abraham. That still leaves open the possibilities that the Book of Abraham came from a missing papyrus fragment, or that the Book of Abraham was revealed to Joseph Smith by God and the source being something besides the papyri that Joseph had.
Joseph largely ignored the Kinderhook plates, so they don't tell us anything about Joseph's ability to translate ancient records.
The date he was married to his first plural wife, Fanny Alger is unknown, but dates are suggested from between 1832-1836. In the plural marriage section, Jeremy was using the 1832 date, so I think that's what Jeremy means by "at least 10 years" even though it might have actually been less. But evidence suggests that Joseph was aware of plural marriage as early as 1831, so you could say that he was hiding the idea of plural marriage for at least 10 years.That Joseph has the character and integrity to take him at his word after seeing his deliberate deception in hiding and denying polygamy and polyandry for at least 10 years of his adult life?
Of course, "hiding" means hiding from the outside world, since obviously he did teach plural marriage to those he married, and those who performed the ceremony. He also taught it to family members of his plural wives that he first obtained consent from, to other Church leaders and those they married, and it seems a failed attempt or two to teach it to the Church as a whole.
Joseph would also have been "denying" polygamy less than 10 years, since he couldn't begin denying it until he was accused of it, so perhaps as early as 1836 when he spoke with Oliver Cowdery. But the denials are better described as "carefully worded denials" that deflect the question or instead deny "spiritual wifery" or adultery while not denying the true principle of plural marriage.
The first woman Joseph was sealed to who was already married was Zina Diantha Huntington in 1841, less than three years before he was killed. Joseph was never accused of polyandry during his life, so he didn't have to deny it. But given that his wives defended the practice of plural marriage and never polyandry, it seems that he and his wives did not consider it a polyandrous relationship. If so, then that wouldn't even be considered hiding polyandry either. Instead, it is suggested that they were either only sealed for eternity, not for time; and/or that Joseph's marriage to them superseded their earlier marriage, and were therefore only married to one man at a time.
Joseph would have had to hide his polygamy, since people were trying to kill him. It appears as though Jeremy has as a belief that a prophet wouldn't lie under any circumstance, which conflicts with the evidence that shows Joseph wasn't completely honest about his plural marriages. This can be reconciled in a number of ways, but I think the easiest is to accept that lying is permissible when protecting life.
But we aren't asked to just "take him at his word" but instead we are asked to pray and seek answers from the Spirit.
How he backdated and retrofitted the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood restoration events as if they were in the Book of Commandments all along?
I'm assuming this sentence is continuing the question on Joseph Smith, of how to "take him at his word" given what Jeremy believes to be a deception. Of course, if Joseph Smith actually did receive the priesthood, then it is not a deception.
This criticism is in reference to the changes made to what is now Doctrine and Covenants section 27. As explained in the the priesthood section, no one is claiming that it was in the Book of Commandments all along. If Joseph's objective were to backdate and retrofit the priesthood restoration, why would he choose to insert it into a previous revelation, and then only as a casual mention? Wouldn't it make more sense to make a full description of the event? He made a full description in his 1838 history for the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood. As far as records exist, he never did make a full description of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. And for what Jeremy believes to be a retrofit, Joseph must have been lucky that it coincided so well with what had been previously said about him.
So like the previous item (and the next one) this is more of a "how can Joseph Smith be a prophet if he did something I dislike?" type of argument. There's nothing wrong with not mentioning something that happened to you right when it happens.
And I’m supposed to believe with a straight face that Joseph using a rock in a hat is legit?
Well, Jeremy presumably was believing with a straight face that Joseph used a rock attached to a breastplate was legit. Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy. True things can be ridiculous, and what is ridiculous is subjective.
Despite this being the exact same method he used to con people out of their money during his treasure hunting days?
Jeremy has talked about Joseph and his treasure hunting before, however this is the first time he claimed that Joseph used his seer stone "to con people out of their money" which isn't true. I talked more about the history there, but in short, Josiah Stowell heard that Joseph Smith was able to find things under ground and so hired him to find silver. However, after a month Joseph convinced him to quit. Joseph was paid $14 for it.
When Joseph was taken to court, Josiah Stowell, the man whom he supposedly conned out of money testified in his favor.
Despite this ruining the official story of ancient prophets and Moroni investing all of that time and effort into gold plates, which were not used because Joseph’s face was stuffed in a hat?
The "official story" also includes that Joseph Smith did not know the language, but that he translated by the gift and power of God. There are some prominent members of the Church that thought it ruined the story too, but I think you just have to ask—what was the point of the interpreters if the narrative I believe is true?
I believe that the plates did serve a purpose. The plates served not only as the source for the translation of the Book of Mormon, but also served as a physical witness to Joseph Smith and eleven others that what he was doing was true. Joseph had to be trained for four years before he was able to receive the plates. He also had to protect them during the period of time that he possessed them. These are all things that prepared him to become a prophet.
I’m supposed to sweep under the rug the inconsistent and contradictory first vision accounts and just believe anyway?
No one is asking us to dismiss the first vision accounts. Instead, I'd recommend accepting all the first vision accounts as accurate according to what Joseph Smith remembered at the time he gave it. They aren't so much contradictory as provide different details, and it is only demanding that all details be provided, and that they are provided identically that it becomes a problem, but that's not a very realistic expectation.
I’m supposed to believe that these men who have been wrong about so many important things and who have not prophesied, “seered,” or revealed much in the last 170 or so years are to be sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators”?
Every six months the prophets and apostles speak to us in General Conference. These talks provide the revelations that Heavenly Father wants us to know for the next six months. I made a post about that a few years ago that may help you begin to see these talks for what they are. They are right far, far, more than they are wrong.
I’m supposed to believe the scriptures have credibility after endorsing so much rampant immorality, violence, and despicable behavior?
Here, Jeremy links the skeptics annotated Bible. He removed the Scriptures section where he talked about a few of these, though they were revisited in the Other section. Scrolling through, I see a lot of animal sacrifice as required by the law of Moses, and the destruction of the wicked. I would suggest that the scriptures condemn rampant immorality, violence, and despicable behavior. But the reason I believe the scriptures isn't because it conforms with whatever human expectations I have, but because I studied and prayed about them and the Spirit told me that they were true.
When it says that the earth is only 7,000 years old and that there was no death before then?
As discussed in the Science section, the cited scripture is that the fall was 6,000 years ago. Here, Jeremy adds a claim that the earth is only that old, too. Even when I was young and didn't believe in evolution, I never believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old. The Book of Abraham uses "times" instead of "days" which clearly indicated to me that the the six creative periods were not literal days, but could have been much longer.
The Church doesn't have a position on evolution. The purpose of scriptures isn't to teach history, but to teach about our relationship with God.
Or that Heavenly Father is sitting on a throne with an erect penis when all evidence points to it being the pagan Egyptian god of sex, Min?
Like other gods, there is no evidence that the Egyptian god Min exists. Jeremy of course left out he was talking about an artistic depiction as found in facsimile #2. The interpretation says that it also represents Abraham. Symbols can mean more than one thing.
The “most correct book on earth” Book of Mormon going through over 100,000 changes over the years? After going through so many revisions and still being incorrect?
If you read the article, you will find that 91% of these changes are punctuation, capitalization, spelling, chapter and verse numbers, and paragraphs. The King James Bible has had far more changes, and for similar reasons. When Joseph said it was the "most correct book" he wasn't talking about the most grammatically correct book, but that we "would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."
Noah’s ark and the global flood are literal events? Tower of Babel is a literal event?
As discussed in the Science section, you don't have to believe that these are literal events if you don't want to.
The Book of Mormon containing 1769 King James Version edition translation errors
The King James Version errors that Jeremy cited in the Book of Mormon section were regarding the King James translation choices, not about any specific edition errors.
and 1611 King James Version translators’ italics while claiming to be an ancient record?
Italics represent added words which are required to make sense in English. If the rest of the text is translated using the King James Version words, then it would make sense that it would need the King James Version italics also. The Bible is also an ancient record despite having italics. Most modern translations don't italicize added words since they are considered essential to the translation.
That there’s actually a polygamous god who revealed a Warren Jeffs style revelation on polygamy that Joseph pointed to as a license to secretly marry other living men’s wives and young girls and teenagers?
Unlike Warren Jeffs, Joseph Smith's marriages were all consensual, and as adults long after his death, none of Joseph's wives spoke against him. Nor did the husbands of Joseph's wives.
Jeremy makes a new claim here, but Latter-day Saints don't teach that God is polygamous.
That this god actually threatened Joseph’s life with one of his angels with a sword if a newly married pregnant woman didn’t agree to Joseph’s marriage proposal?
No, an angel with a sword threatened Joseph if he wasn't married. Zina could have rejected, but she said she "knew it was from the Lord and received it." Her husband believed that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." She was sealed to Joseph for eternity.
I’m supposed to believe in a god who was against polygamy before He was for polygamy but decided in 1890 that He was again against it?
This is something Jeremy hasn't talked about before. This appears to be in reference to Jacob 2 where Jacob preaches against polygamy. However, it also includes a disclaimer that God may command it at some other time.
There were also times in the Old Testament where God approved of plural marriage. Jacob taught the Nephites that the standard was monogamy, but that there are times when God might command it. I don't see what is surprising that people of different times have different needs. That is the whole point of having a prophet.
I’m told to put these foundational problems on the shelf and wait until I die to get answers? To stop looking at the Church intellectually even though the “glory of God is intelligence”? Ignore and have faith anyway?
The idea of putting things you don't have answers for on a shelf comes from Camilla Kimball, wife of President Spencer W. Kimball. In an 1975 Ensign article about her, she described her gospel study process:
Because of her family’s hospitality toward searching and studying, Sister Kimball says, “I’ve always had an inquiring mind. I’m not satisfied just to accept things. I like to follow through and study things out. I learned early to put aside those gospel questions that I couldn’t answer. I had a shelf of things I didn’t understand, but as I’ve grown older and studied and prayed and thought about each problem, one by one I’ve been able to better understand them.”She twinkles, “I still have some questions on that shelf, but I’ve come to understand so many other things in my life that I’m willing to bide my time for the rest of the answers.”
So no, you don't have to ignore and have faith anyway, nor does it even mean that you necessarily have to wait until you die to get answers. It means that all these questions at once can be overwhelming, and you might not be able to answer them all at once. Put them on a shelf, and instead deal with them one at a time through study and prayer. Just as God revealed answers to Joseph Smith, He will answer our prayers as well.
I’m sorry, but faith is believing and hoping when there is little evidence for or against something. Delusion is believing when there is an abundance of evidence against something. To me, it is absolute insanity to bet my life, my precious time, my money, my heart, and my mind on an organization that has so many serious problematic challenges to its foundational truth claims.
There are just way too many problems. We’re not just talking about one issue here. We’re talking about dozens of serious issues that undermine the very foundation of the LDS Church and its truth claims.
I would say that the "abundance of evidence" is only against a specific perspective of the Church that I don't share with Jeremy. I would invite people who are questioning their faith to examine their preconceptions and question whether they are actually misconceptions.
On the flip side, I would say that there is an abundance of evidence for the Church. I would say that the evidence against the Church is weak, whereas the evidence in favor of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel is strong.
And of course I would think that—but you don't have to take my word for it. Whatever evidence there is for or against the Church, no matter how strong it is, they aren't proof. The only way to learn the truth about spiritual things is from the Spirit.
I don't know that having faith means "betting your life" necessarily, but it is true that faith is a principle of action. We are also taught that we receive no witness until after the trial of our faith. And after we plant that seed, then it will grow, and our faith will grow to become a perfect knowledge.
The past year was the worst year of my life. I experienced a betrayal, loss, and sadness unlike anything I’ve ever known. “Do what is right; let the consequence follow” now holds a completely different meaning for me. I desperately searched for answers to all of the problems. To me, the answer eventually came but it was not what I expected…or hoped for.As a child, it seemed so simple;Every step was clearly marked.Priesthood, mission, sweetheart, temple;Bright with hope I soon embarked.But now I have become a man,And doubt the promise of the plan.For the path is growing steeper,And a slip could mean my death.Plunging upward, ever deeper,I can barely catch my breath.Oh, where within this untamed wildIs the star that led me as a child?As I crest the shadowed mountain,I embrace the endless sky;The expanse of heaven’s fountainNow unfolds before my eye.A thousand stars shine on the land,The chart drafted by my own hand.
– THE JOURNEY –
Jeremy has left the Church and although he has made it clear that he is not interested in coming back, I feel bad for him and hopes he changes his mind. But the reason I wrote this isn't for him—it is for all those who wonder how it is possible that a Latter-day Saint can maintain faith in the face of all this information that might appear to be against the Church. No, I don't have all the answers, but these are answers that work for me. I find that the problems have their own problems, and there are many reasons to have faith. If you have questions, I hope what I have written helps. May God bless you.
When I left on my mission, I was encouraged to remember two hymns, Be Thou Humble and More Holiness Give Me. So I'll end with the second one here.
1. More holiness give me,More strivings within,More patience in suff’ring,More sorrow for sin,More faith in my Savior,More sense of his care,More joy in his service,More purpose in prayer.2. More gratitude give me,More trust in the Lord,More pride in his glory,More hope in his word,More tears for his sorrows,More pain at his grief,More meekness in trial,More praise for relief.3. More purity give me,More strength to o’ercome,More freedom from earth-stains,More longing for home.More fit for the kingdom,More used would I be,More blessed and holy—More, Savior, like thee.More Holiness Give Me, by Philip Paul Bliss
No comments:
Post a Comment