On the Order of Creation

So the other day, I had a discussion with a TBM friend about religion. This person wasn’t originally in the church, but actively decided upon mormonism later on. He is also a grad student getting a PhD, and is very, very smart; I respect him quite a bit. He has told me several times (and I never had any real reason to question) about how he only decided upon the church after careful research; he considers himself to very well-versed in the scriptures, and loves to debate. He also says he’s looked at plenty of anti-mormon info out on the web, and never found any of it to be well-documented or to hold water very well. (If he didn’t find any well-sourced information, then I suspect he didn’t look very hard; I’ll come back to that later.)

He’s good in a debate because he is very confident, and quick on his feet. In that regard, he’s a lot like a friend of mine down in Cali; when you are in front of them they sound incredibly reasonable, and whenever you find the flaws in their arguments it’s not until long afterwards. It’s one of my main problems with debating in general; there’s no real burden upon actual truth, only upon things that take long enough to discredit that people have moved on to something else. But that’s a discussion for another day.

I wasn’t really trying to talk him out of his religion but just wanted him to know my current stance, so I didn’t really bring up any evidence on my end. He specifically brought up a couple of things, and his well-rehearsed responses admittedly are quite convincing at first glance. In regards to the DNA evidence against the peoples in the book of mormon being the principle ancestors of the Native Americans, he specifically owned up to this in a well-rehearsed way that certainly seemed to absolve the religion of any responsibility. According to my friend, this belief is not an actual doctrinal claim from the church, but was put at the front of the book of mormon by a specific apostle (Packer, I think?) who was admittedly wrong. Speaking of being wrong, the other related thing he specifically brought up was that while other churches claim infallibility from their leaders, the mormon church is the only one that specifically admits to the fallibility of their leaders. They admit that their leaders and the people running the church are only human, and that as a result mistakes do get made.

I had a couple of problems with this statement. It’s been a while, so I cannot say for certain, but this may actually be the currently held doctrine. But I’ve also been told contradictory things many, many times. These claims range from the prophet being struck down before leading the church astray (which heavily implies infallibility upon a prophet that still lives) to a restoration of the “truth” (being the One True Church, and containing Truth, kind of requires that mistakes were not made along the way, else it’s not really True). Mormons also seem to deny fallibility in the phrases they use when talking about scriptures. They believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly, but simply believe the book of mormon outright, with no claims to translation quality. (To his credit, he specifically mentioned the possibility of translation errors in the book of mormon.) But the point is this; if most wards out there are teaching that the church is completely true and their prophet essentially infallible, then the technicality of “it’s not actual doctrine” is about as useful as pissing into the wind. Actions speak louder than words, and the words mean nothing if that’s not what is primarily taught. If a religion truly is the One True Church, you wouldn't expect it to have translation errors, or to teach things that aren't actually doctrine.

Another issue with the fallibility of the church’s leaders is that it completely undermines the entire concept of a living prophet. How many times have we heard something untrue said by a prophet,  only to have it retconned into “he was speaking as a man, not as a prophet”? For their leader to be able to speak as a man completely destroys the foundation of accepting him as a living prophet. And to my credit, I was quick enough on my feet to mention this. But being the experienced debater that he is, he didn’t bat an eye at it, and managed to steer the conversation away so that he never really had to directly confront the idea. It is an idea worth thinking about, however. Their current answer is that each individual person will know if it's true based on personal revelation, but this exacerbates the problem. A prophet is not needed if everyone already receives personal revelations. Furthermore, the admission of fallibility in their leaders directly contradicts any claims they make towards being the One True Church.

This friend wasn't finished, however. One specific claim he made during this discussion (that sounded so reasonable at the time) is the claim that the Genesis creation story exactly matches current scientific theory; that is, the order in which things were created within Genesis matches with what is known about current planet formation and life evolution (life starting out in the ocean, and only moving to land later on, correct order of fish vs mammals vs birds, etc). I had never heard of this argument before, and I must admit it sounded interesting. It probably would have sounded convincing as well, were my mind less made up about religion.

Unfortunately for him, it interested me enough to actually look it up. And of course, the claim turned out to be completely false; the actual order of creation within Genesis is easily, laughably dis-proven. It’s so far off in fact, that the bible has photosynthesizing plants existing before the sun, moon, and stars! It has the earth existing before our sun, and other things that are in direct opposition to current scientific knowledge.

Discovering this did make me sort of sad, however. This is a person that I have respected and admired quite a bit in the past, but those traits diminish a little every time I find out more about him. He is very confident and very adamant about his having studied all of the scriptures that he uses in such debates, and that he knows that the mormon church is the right one because of all of the personal research he has conducted. So what do I get from him from the single solid, verifiable claim in the discussion? Something that didn’t even take ten minutes to rip to shreds; something that he clearly is parroting back without ever bothering to look it up himself. If this is the level of his personal research, then it’s no wonder he believes; he looks no deeper than anyone else, despite his claims to the contrary.

It’s always sad to see your opinion of someone you look up to die upon the altar of increased knowledge. The Man, no matter who they may be, never lives up to the Legend.

UPDATE: When I told him about the actual order of things within the Genesis creation story, his reactions were quite interesting to see. At first he got testy and upset but later apologized, saying that his faith wasn't worth much if it couldn't withstand earnest discussion. The really interesting part, however, was his specific response to the order in Genesis being as backwards as it is. His response? "Well, they did the best that they could with the knowledge that they had on hand." To that statement, I wholeheartedly agree; they had limited information, and that's the best that they could do at the time. From my point of view however, this clearly shows that the bible didn't come from divine sources. A divinely inspired (or dictated) account wouldn't have been so wrong; after all, if the 'divine' sources are this wrong, why follow them at all? But if there were no divine intervention, then the order within Genesis makes perfect sense. After all, they were only trying their best with the information on hand. I found it disheartening that he couldn't see this. There were no claims from him that the bible is not meant to be taken literally, he just simply didn't see how such a contradiction could call the authenticity of the work into account.

Rose-Colored Glasses

Leaving the LDS church can be a very painful process in many ways. Like a fresh and aching wound that leaves one feeling raw and vulnerable, taking those first small steps away from the comfortable confines of organized religion can feel almost unbearable at times. This is mostly due to the social, cultural, and family norms that you may be breaking away from in the process. In fact, many who cease to believe continue to actively attend church simply because they don't want to lose their friends or disappoint their family. The desire to be one's genuine self is weighed heavily against the expectations placed on them by their peers. I know this feeling. I have felt this pain.

Case in point - a journal entry of mine, written in early 2010, shortly after my husband and I decided to leave the LDS church:

-->

"From the moment I was born, I was being programmed. All children are. They are born into a family, a society, a world that pushes group beliefs, fears, and social norms on that child, shaping and molding him into the person society wants and expects him to be.

But what happens if that child grows up and refuses to fit the mold that has been prepared for him? What will his friends and family say? Will they be disappointed? Will they disown him? Or will they keep open minds and continue to love unconditionally this person who has found out for himself who and what he wants to be?

I think most of us know what is likely the unfortunate answer.

Life is rough right now. I feel like I'm constantly playing a violent game of tug-of-war in my head. On one end of the rope is this gut feeling that I am doing the right thing - that I cannot and will not continue to stand behind a church and community that is so backward and twisted, one that never practices what it preaches and is full of people who are so quick to judge others and to defend to the death what it deems as "right." On the other end are all those beliefs I've been programmed with since birth - that if I do not obey, stay in line, walk the straight-and-narrow, I will lose everything. My family will hate me. My friends will desert me. My husband will resent me. In short the message is simple: Stay in the church or watch your life crumble.

I wish I could switch my brain off, just be still and not have to think for a while. This constant battle rages in my head day and night, a heated debate that never seems to end. It's almost physically painful - removing those rose-colored glasses that were placed on me at birth and to see the world in real, vibrant, raw color.

It's amazingly wonderful.

And utterly terrifying.

So what do I do? Do I sacrifice the relationships I have now to obtain my own happiness and discover who and what I really am, or do I maintain the status quo to appease others and lose myself in the process?

I know the answer. In my heart I know the answer.

So I guess the question I'm sending out into the universe - to all those who are family, friend, or both is this:

If you knew I wasn't Mormon anymore, would you still love me? Would you still be my friend? Would you still speak to me? Would you still care for me?

Unfortunately, I know the answer to this too."

What an inner battle was waging within me, wanting to be true to myself and yet being full of so much fear about disappointing others. I am very grateful that those feelings have (for the most part) passed and that I chose authenticity over friendship, genuineness over conformity. 

The advice I give those who are just beginning the journey toward breaking away from the LDS church, feeling that inner struggle waging strong, is the same advice that I have heard time and time again from others: Life gets better. So much better! 

Will your family be disappointed? Maybe. Will they disown you? Perhaps. Will they some day come to their senses and at least attempt to understand you in order to preserve precious family connections? I certainly hope so. And if they refuse to accept you and love you for you, then they are not following the teachings of the religion they profess to follow. Remember that.

Will you lose your friends? You'll certainly lose some. I lost them all. It will be hard to move on without them, but move on you will. Will you make new friends? Yes! And the best part? They will like you because you are fun, smart, interesting! They will not only like you because you share common religious beliefs. The new friendships you cultivate will match your new personality and perspective because they will be genuine. And that's an amazingly wonderful thing. 

If you have decided to remove those rose-colored glasses and see the world as it is - as it really is - it will be difficult at times. Painful at times. But one morning you will wake up, rub the sleep from your eyes, and as you stare at the ceiling and mentally run through your daily checklist of things to do, you will come to an amazing realization: You have never been happier in your life than you are right now. 

Never. 

I can't describe to you how incredible that feeling is, but I promise it will come. And when it does, you will never look back. 

On Con-Man Similarities

When looking at various sources regarding the history of the mormon church, one can easily find claims that Joseph Smith was a con-man. They invariably include such things as his apparent criminal record before starting the church, and similar such things. But when looking at the church’s history, one of the things that I noticed strongly but never saw explicitly pointed out was the appearance of impropriety cropping up time and again. Throughout many of the stories about Joseph Smith, even the sanitized mormon versions of the stories, he routinely makes actions that are very much in-line with what a knowing deceiver would do. Once you strip out the alleged reasons behind his actions and just look at what he actually did, a disturbing pattern emerges, at least to my eyes.

One good example of Joseph’s actions matching that of a con-man appears within the story of the lost 116 pages of the book of mormon.  Here is a quick version of the parts of the tale pertinent to this post. Martin Harris was acting as Joseph’s scribe at the time, helping to translate the plates of gold. But Martin still had doubts as to the authenticity of Smith’s claims. He finally convinced Smith to lend him the transcript of the 116 pages that had been written so far, to show to his wife and a few others. While Martin was back home with the manuscript, the manuscript vanished from his wife’s locked bureau where it was being kept. Joseph Smith eventually claimed that God had commanded him not to re-translate from the Book of Lehi, but to instead translate from the Book of Nephi, which contained an abridged version of the same events.

After the manuscript disappearance, Martin Harris’ wife said that if Joseph was truly speaking through god then he should be able to easily replace it. For a skeptic such as Lucy Harris, the implication here was clear; a replacement would be proof of Joseph’s divine claims if the replacement was word for word identical, but his claims would be dis-proven otherwise.

Keep in mind here, I am deliberately giving a brief account of the events and not the whole story. I’m trying to focus on Joseph’s suspicious actions, and some parts of the story do not relate to this. If you really want to know more, there are tons of sources out there about it; you can always start at Wikipedia if you want. Anyway, back to the tale. Time to examine the stripped-down version of the story, and not the prettied-up version that exists of any story that has been retold often enough. And the bare facts are that Joseph made and/or translated a different telling of the same story that was contained within the 116 pages.

Let us consider things from the point of view of a trickster. Setting aside Joseph Smith for a moment, let us consider a con-man in a similar situation. This con-man claimed to have divine translation powers, and had convinced a prosperous man to finance the ‘translation’ work. But someone had managed to steal the only existing manuscript, and skeptics had declared that a truly divine source would be able to recreate the manuscript. The con-man would know that the expectation would be that a re-translation would not be identical, and that this would expose his fraud. And since he was a con-man and was in fact running a scam, he would know that he would not be able to make up an identical copy. Even if he somehow did, the stolen copy could be altered to make the two appear different.

At this point, the con-man has two basic options left to him: give up, or double down. The former option would be to admit defeat, and perhaps slip out of town in the middle of the night; there would always be another gullible chump the next town over. The latter option, the double-down, would be to keep the current scam going, and to try and discredit those that had put him in this bind to begin with. Sometimes, even in the face of clear evidence, a strong enough denial is enough to convince others. Knowing that he could never make an identical copy, the double-down options for the con-man would be to either come up with a convincing excuse for not re-translating that portion of the work, or to come up with a convincing excuse for making a re-translation that was worded differently.

As it so happens, Joseph Smith did both of these things. His claim was that this was a translation of the same story but from another book, from the point of view of a different author. And since it was supposedly written by a different person, this new account will naturally have different wording from the original. He even went so far as to claim that God had foreseen this event, and had multiple accounts of the story prepared for just such a purpose.

The problem here is that the action Joseph Smith took is identical to one of the two choices that a con-man would have likely made. If a con-man had decided to double-down on his scam, this is exactly what he would have done. He would have re-made the work, and had a plausible excuse for why it was worded differently. And what did Joseph Smith do? He recreated the story, and had an excuse as to why it was worded differently.

Now does this prove that Joseph was a fraud? Of course not. This post isn’t about direct evidence contradicting the church; though I may make several of those later. No, this post is about the fact that Joseph’s actions in so many of his stories are the very same actions that a knowing fraudster would have taken. When someone acts in such a suspicious manner too often, it is worth note; where there is smoke, there often is fire. Consider it this way: how likely is it that God was so smart as to prepare another account of the same story, yet so dumb as to let his prophet’s actions in the matter mirror that of criminals? If God had really had such foresight, he would have made sure that the second version of the story did not come out under such suspicious circumstances.  Maybe it could have been revealed by a later prophet or something, but it seems downright silly for a god with this much foresight to have left such a blatant, gaping hole.

And this same gaping hole exists again and again within the stories of Joseph Smith. One example lies with the plates of gold themselves. If you consider for a moment the possibility that Joseph Smith was a con-man, or if you consider a deceiver in a similar situation, then certain actions and non-actions become immediately clear. A con-man in Joseph’s financial situation would never be able to afford an actual facsimile of solid gold plates that would pass more than the most cursory of inspections. So what actions would a con-man take in that situation? He’d make sure that no one else ever saw the plates, and he would come up with a good sounding explanation as to why he refused to show anyone. And what did he do? He didn’t show them to others, and had an excuse as to why he didn’t show them to anyone.

Apologists to the church will immediately point out here that Joseph did purportedly show the plates to a chosen few, the so-called Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses. Bringing up these individuals however, opens up a huge can of worms for believers.

For starters, these were not reliable witnesses. They were not men that were faithful mormons for the rest of their days, which one would expect from a solid, reliable witness being shown the truth in such a thing. One could expect a reliable witness to be a solid, well-grounded individual that had no real faults to speak of, and who followed the church for the rest of their days. But in fact, the opposite seems to be the case.

Out of the Three Witnesses, all three were excommunicated from the church less than a decade after their written testimony. All three excommunications came within a year or so of each other; one in 1837, and two in 1838. Of the Three, two of them were known to have fanciful visions and hallucinations, even before their association with the church, and about things unrelated to the church. This would make any testimony from them pretty shaky stuff as-is; hardly the solid, reliable witnesses one would expect.

Of the Eight Witnesses, every last one of them was a member of either the Whitmer clan or Joseph Smith’s own family. Of them, all of the Whitmer clan were excommunicated in 1838. So out of all of the Witnesses, there were only three that were not excommunicated within a one-year period: Joseph Smith’s father, and two of his brothers. I should hope that I wouldn’t have to spend much time explaining why family testimony is unreliable. So far, this is hardly a collection of solid and reliable witnesses to support the introduction of the One True Church upon the earth.

Now let’s look on these events from the viewpoint of the con-man. For the fraud, it would be necessary not to show the plates to anyone, especially early on when the con-man’s finances would not allow for any sort of reasonable facsimile. But a fraud such as this would be severely weakened without a shred of evidence that the plates ever existed. For a more convincing con some evidence would be needed, like witnesses that could vouch for the plates’ existence. Simply paying someone off to vouch for the plates would not be likely; such a person would be explicitly privy to the fraudulent nature of the con, and would place it in great jeopardy to exposure. Another option would be to use a spiritual experience to convince the people involved that they had experienced something that they had in fact not experienced at all; modern con-men such as psychics that claim to be able to speak with deceased loved ones utilize this method. Another possible solution would be to create a facsimile of the plates whenever finances allow.

Whether using an induced spiritual event or utilizing a facsimile of the plates, protecting the secret of the con would require that any witnessing be a one-time event. Subsequent handling of a facsimile would greatly increase the risk that the forgery would be detected; likewise, repeated spiritual events would run a similar risk, as many of the techniques used are either low percentage techniques or techniques that would become more obvious with repeated uses upon the same audience. (for a brief overview of one of the techniques that could be used, see the Wikipedia article on Cold Reading.)

A similar issue arises when looking at who the witnesses are. A con-man would find it very difficult to get a truly dependable set of witnesses; a fraud would more likely get a group of weak witnesses, and rely upon the natural tendency of people to believe in such statements without first investigating the reliability of the witnesses. The con-man would need to rely heavily on family, friends, and the easily fooled to find their witnesses. As it so happens, Joseph Smith picked witnesses that were family, witnesses that were easily fooled or otherwise given to fanciful visions, and the families of those fools. Again, what a striking similarity.

And what to do about these witnesses afterwards? An honest and true prophet would likely expose the Witnesses to the plates on multiple occasions; it would strengthen their accounts, lessen doubt, and there would be virtually no risk in doing so. Those people have already shown themselves to be people that are faithful enough not to be struck down by viewing the plates, and further viewings could only provide further testimonies as to their authenticity.

The con-man, on the other hand, would certainly never let them ‘see’ the plates a second time, as this would drastically increase the risk of exposure. Someone already on the inside of the con might be able to claim multiple exposures, but the rest would certainly be limited to a one-time event.

And how would a con-man respond to the threat of exposure down the line? What if he feared that his methods might be exposed? These witnesses would certainly be popular interview subjects among church members and the curious; they would likely end up telling their account of events many, many times. Any methods that the con-man used, or discrepancies between accounts, could end up being disastrous over a long enough period of time. The con-man would probably want to remove them from the picture after they had served their purpose. And if the current events of the day were increasing the risk of exposure, then the con-man might have to remove many of them from the picture in a relatively short period of time. Lo and behold, a power struggle was occurring between groups in the church around 1838, and all of the Witnesses that were not Joseph’s direct blood relatives all ended up being excommunicated right around then.

Again, the contrast seems striking to me. God was so smart, and had such foreknowledge to make a second account of the beginnings of the book of mormon, yet was dumb enough to let it be brought forth in such a suspicious manner. God was smart enough to provide Witnesses to the authenticity of the book of mormon, but dumb enough to make them all unreliable witnesses. In many of Joseph Smith’s other stories, you find similar results. If you assume a con-man was in Joseph’s situation, then his responses make complete and total sense. It happens far too much to be easily explained away. I simply cannot imagine that an all-knowing deity would leave such gaping holes in such important events. 

"My Loved One is Apostatizing... What do I do?"

Thursday, January 31, 2013

6:30 PM to 8:00 PM

Salt Lake City Library

210 East 400 S, Salt Lake City, UT 

Conference Room 4, Top Level, Northwest corner 

Although the Postmos is hosting and organized this event, when you attend, you'll never know it!  Why, because we want this to be as neutral as possible.  It's our public service for people who need people to talk to.  We've put together a panel of people who are believing members of the LDS church and people who have long since left.  While it is a heavy subject, the night will be very enjoyable!  If nothing else, come to satisfy your curiosity about who we are and what we do.

The Fruit

The Postmos logo is the fruit from the Garden of Eden with a picture of Eve on the bite marks:

Nothing sums up the Postmo experience than the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  When Adam and Eve were in the garden, they were in an idyllic state.  Everything seemed perfect and they had everything taken care of.  Adam and Eve took the fruit, and mankind fell from God's grace and paradise.  Mormons view the fall of mankind as necessary to truly experience joy.  "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy."  (2 Nephi 2:22-25.)  It's only when Adam and Eve partook of that which was forbidden - knowledge - that they could finally begin to fully experience the magnificence of their lives.

It's the story of every person who was previously Mormon.  Church seemed perfect. Some of us were Bishops, Relief Society Presidents, or had any number of other callings in the church.  We believed and obeyed.  But eventually we noticed flaws and couldn’t help but partake of the forbidden fruit of knowledge.  The evidences against the church could not be ignored.  Our idyllic paradise was lost.  We left our original paradise to never return.  We left our childlike innocence.  Our paradise was no longer in the church, but outside.  The new world was scary at first, but after experiencing it, we learned the amazing things that the world has to offer.  Paradise was never the idyllic state, but the entire world out there for us to improve, explore, and enjoy.

Coffee Sundays

We hold coffee every Sunday at 1pm, at Kafeneio, 258W 3300S, Salt Lake City, Utah. Everyone is welcome.

What can you expect from Coffee Sundays?  Enjoyable, friendly people and conversation.  In one corner, you'll have someone pouring out their heart about how their family no longer speaks to them, while in another corner you'll have a group of people trying to make someone laugh.  There is no agenda here - there isn't much that won't come up.  You may hear about the inconsistencies of the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith, or you may hear about politics, sports, dancing, drinking, video games or someone's latest adventure. 

What's the point of Coffee Sundays?  It's fun to just get together and meet other people, to just shoot the breeze, or to plan the next excursion to Wendover or camping.  When leaving the church, family and friends will sometimes turn their back on you, so it's nice to have a place to go where you can simply meet new people.  The courage that I gained from meeting other exmormons for the first time was completely life-changing.

Come join us, and you'll have a good time!