158 Comments

1. 

   JTS on August 15, 2014 at 10:21 am

   In your column you asked “What does the rebuilding look like” and then discuss three areas. It seems as though you left out the most common course of action: loss of belief in God, loss of belief in Christ (as a resurrected being, Son of God, etc.). Almost all people who I know that have left the church eventually (not immediately, but eventually) conclude that the existence of God and a resurrected Christ is also too difficult to believe. They put the same principles in action that led them to doubt mormonism to the new testament and the strength of the facts regarding the resurrection and they no longer believe in anything religious. If any of you have read scholarly works on who authored the old and new testaments, you will soon find that the mormon story and all its inconsistencies may be an easier pill to swallow than what you find in general Christianity. So, be careful — it’s a slippery slope.

   Reply
   • 

     Jenn on August 15, 2014 at 10:38 am

     A slippery slope to what? Just like questioning mormonism can be difficult but ultimately rewarding (because you end up with a greater understanding of the truth- either within or outside of the church), questioning Christianity can be the same. To me, I’d say don’t be afraid of slippery slopes. Question things. Find truths. Be willing to give up old beliefs for new-and-improved ones.
     I agree, most folks who leave the church seem to also leave a belief in a divine/resurrected Christ eventually. I just don’t see that as something to be wary of, so long as they replace that belief with other positive things in their life. The transitions can be hard, but the outcome can be really positive, if you choose to make it so.

     Reply
     • 

       Brent on August 15, 2014 at 11:34 am

       Nailed it, Jenn.

       Reply
     • 

       Robin Lane on August 20, 2014 at 12:33 pm

       Anyone who truly understands LDS doctrine and the application of it, will find answers to life questions that are not found anywhere else in this world. I have taught seminary for 3 years and found the biggest problems with people in the church are the warnings given by the Savior in Matthew 13 about the parable of the sower. They have cast their seed by the wayside (allowed Satan or desire to sin to take away their testimony), stony ground (have not sufficent knowlege and understanding of gospel principles for the heat of the day), Thorny ground (the cares of the world and worldliness choke their testimony). The LDS answers to those who struggle with faith are all Biblical! I could give you a list that goes on and on of problems with conventional christianity as opposed to the LDS doctrine. As for the historical untruths told about the Prophet Joseph Smith. Common sense would let you know that if anyone would have known him to be a fraud it would have been his parents and siblings (who supported him). Also, he asked the membership of the church to keep a journal that would have exposed him. On the otherhand their are hundreds of written testimonies concerning his character and miracles performed. His writings stand as a witness of an uneducated farm boy who became one of the greatest minds of human history (only could have been done with God’s help). The Book of Mormon and its correllation to the Bible stands as a witness to the world. The fact that thousands of people who knew him personally migrated to the west and the possibility of threatening their lives, proves these false statements about him to be lies. I could go on and on about historical and doctrinal reasons to believe in the Restoration, but the most clear is the testimony of the Holy Ghost even as I write this message.

       Reply
       • 

         Lori Burkman on August 21, 2014 at 12:28 pm

         “Anyone who truly understands LDS doctrine and the application of it, will find answers to life questions that are not found anywhere else in this world.”

         This is your personal interpretation. That has held true for you, perhaps, but that in no way is a factual statement that will apply to anyone and everyone. To imply that those who have come to different conclusions didn’t truly understand or apply LDS doctrine is simply not true and it belittles the sincere efforts and faith of others. I’m happy for you that you have come to the conclusions you have and I hope they serve you well. Many things you cite here though are not accurate to historic record, but I’m not here to pick those things apart. Please just make room for other people’s conclusions and respect them that they have done their due process, followed the spirit, and came to distinct conclusions from your own.

         Reply
       • 

         Heidi Doggett on August 21, 2014 at 7:10 pm

         “Anyone who truly understands”…just like the article said! I’m so tired of hearing it. It didn’t turn out for me the same way it turned out for you, so therefore I just wasn’t doing it right. How easy it is to prove something is “true” when so casually declaring that anyone who has found otherwise is fundamentally flawed or had incomplete understanding.

         Reply
       • 

         Robin Lane on September 10, 2014 at 10:45 am

         My intent is not to belittle anyone else and their conclusions. This site asserts claims about the history of the church, scriptures and doctrines that could be offensive to those who have found the sufficient answers to support their faith. However, I am not offended, but feel those who believe these claims lack understanding. Either every church is wrong or there is one true church. My study of the Bible concludes there would be one in the last days. Jesus Christ taught in Ephesian 4:11-14 it would be lead by apostles and prophets. I could list many other scriptures that support LDS doctrine as opposed to others. Actually, I spent a couple years going through chapter by chapter the New Testament identifying doctrines that back LDS teachings. In most of the chapters of the New Testament, I was able to find something. Then, I studied and taught the New Testament in seminary. Then, I taught the Book of Mormon and was amazed at the correlations of doctrines. No farm boy or school teacher could have written that book without divine guidance. Many of us have a great love for the Prophet Joseph Smith and great work he performed. This site insinuates that he is a fraud when the Savior plainly stated, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. If he was a fraud, he wouldn’t even attempt to write a book and it could never line up with the Bible b/c he would not have the spirit to guide him. A fraud would not ask everyone to sacrifice so much to build a Temple that would do nothing, but draw people nearer to God. This church has been involved in more Christ like service than any other organization I know. The church has developed a new part of their website to address some of these concerns you mentioned. I believe it is called “Seek Truth”. The church doesn’t not try to dodge questions, but encourages everyone to study and pray. If the church was trying to hide something from us, why would they ask us to study and ask God for the answers? This site insinuates that the church mistreats LGBT people, when everything I have read is about helping them. When you try to help those you love by teaching true doctrine, it should be considered an act of love. Those who understand the Bible, Book of Mormon, church doctrine, and God’s dealings with his children don’t consider God or the church as a racist, but see him and the church trying to reach out to all of God’s children in his way and in his time. It would be wise to not criticize a Prophet of God, when you have not seen, heard, and felt what he has. I have personal experience (not opinion) that I can’t deny and I am a living witness of the truthfulness of the gospel restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

         Reply
         • 

           Dusty on September 10, 2014 at 11:18 am

           You approach things as if you have understanding, and others do not. Two sides of a story can have understanding, but have reached different conclusions. Often based on the evidence at hand, and sometimes based on predisposed positions. Perception often influences our way of thinking or seeing. Sometimes we try to match, or cherry pick the evidence to fit what we want. Other times little bits of evidence slip through, and no matter how much we fight it, it opens the doorway to much of what we were blinded to, and at the very least raises questions without adequate answers.

           There are people that have had this happen. They aren’t questioning God, they are questioning men that claim the authority of God. Or parts of what they claim, as even prophets are mortal and therefor fallible. The “fruits” by which we shall know them are there, and some have been quite sour. (Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, gender inequality, and homosexuality.) Look at the fruits of these teachings? Some have been reversed, and gone back on. Others produce such divisiveness and harm that there is no way to see these as a good thing, or “truth” as you state.

           And you can read all you want about how the church is doing so much good for the LGBT community, but get out there and see it in action. How is opposing civil gay marriage doing anything good for LGBT people? How is having to live a celibate life, and there being a far higher standard to have to live helping them? They can’t even act out in tiny ways heterosexual people don’t even consider a sin, such as a date, holding hands, or a kiss. The standard they must live when it comes to intimacy is far beyond what straight people must. The fruits of these teachings in how many gay LDS youth are homeless, commit suicide, or are ostracized from their families and communities should be evidence enough of foul fruit, but somehow it is not because of the traditions of old men masking it as the will of a loving God.

           As for how much Christ like good the church does? Why are they so closed about finances. Where does all the money paid in tithing go? Why isn’t there complete openness about this if there is nothing to hide? Do they do some good, absolutely. And I like seeing that. Do they do as much good as they could? Honestly I don’t think so. There are other organizations that put far more of their donations (tithes) toward helping better this world. There are also those that do far less too though.

           I have personal experiences (also not opinion) that I can’t deny, and there are things that feel completely, and unquestionably wrong, and have been done wrong by this church. What truthfulness may be there has become masked to me by what has been hidden, filtered, and done wrong but taken so long to be admitted to. The teachings that seem so pure, often have contradictions. Mostly through actions taken.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 10, 2014 at 1:13 pm

           You should look up blacks and the priesthood on LDS.org. It gives a full history of the practices of the church and teachings of the prophets. We know Joseph Smith did not come to understand the “Word of Wisdom” until he sought divine guidance. The Lord doesn’t just freely give everything to the prophet without him meeting the requirement set forth by the Lord to receive that guidance (D&C 130:20-21). The prophet would not be able to experience growth and be a real leader if the rules didn’t apply to him. The 4th Article of Faith states, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. So, Brigham Young was able to search and find out that God did not want the blacks to hold the priesthood yet, but it would come at some future date. As the church grew with more complications in determining racial background and the desire of the brethren to know if it was time for all these blessings to be given to the blacks, President Kimball did the same thing that Brigham Young did in his day. It was a beautiful moment in the temple when the spirit of the Lord was poured out upon them. The church did not change their mind, but the Lord revealed the day that Brigham Young had prophesied would come.
           In Acts 3:20-21, we are told there would be a restitution of all things. It is clear the practice of plural marriage was instituted at times in the Old Testament. The Book of Mormon states in Jacob 2:27-30, “…for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife… For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me I will command my people…”. As part of the Latter Day Restoration the principle was restored, but the Lord revealed the ending of the practice. The Book of Mormon was clear that we are to have one wife unless the Lord commands it. The church did not change it’s doctrine, but continued to reveal the will of the Lord.
           LGBT people are no different than anyone else that has the weakness of the natural man. The church would not show real love by excusing them any more than any other lust of the flesh. Some people may have sexual addictions that make them desire to have multiple women all the time. They may have been born with these tendencies, but God would have us use the Atonement of Christ and his grace (Power to do right from Holy Spirit), to overcome these weaknesses. Part of the growth in mortality is learning to “Put off the natural man” and become a saint, by following the spirit. True love is trying to help people in the eternities by teaching them God’s will. The church has never supported anyone being mean or cruel to anyone. If a church member or even Bishop made a mistake, it still doesn’t represent the church and its doctrine or teachings.
           As for the finances of the church. We can open our eyes and see the temple building, church building, purchase of property, electricity, other utilities, media, etc. The 12 apostles are definitely not sitting back in their mansions, living the good life. These are successful men who could spend their last years enjoying the treasures of the world instead of constantly preparing talks, visiting the sick, giving blessings, conducting interviews, meeting with all of the authorities of the church, going over budgets, worldwide broadcast, etc. These men are sacrificing valuable time with their families and friends and setting examples for the other leaders of the world. This is not the fruit of imposters and secretive rich men. I am willing to open my heart and mind to see and understand things as they really are. I don’t think I am anything special, but my views are not clouded by the desires of the flesh or anything else. I know this church is true and this little of writing doesn’t begin to express all of what I know and have come to understand through my studies, prayer, and experiences.

         • 

           Jenn on September 10, 2014 at 2:32 pm

           Robin,
           I am glad you have had a witness, have a testimony and it brings you peace and joy. But please know that experience is not universal. Revelation, witnesses, and all spiritual experiences are highly subjective- which is why Brigham Young could feel right about teaching the Adam-God theory as part of the endowment ceremony, and John Taylor could feel equally right about removing it and declaring it to be false doctrine. Our spiritual understanding is fallible.

           Additionally, all of us are subject to confirmation bias- for instance, you feel strongly that the evidence you have seen shows that Joseph Smith could not have written what he did without divine help, but there is plenty of evidence that he could have (“The Late War”, for starters). In the end, we’ll both believe what we are predisposed to believe, evidence notwithstanding. Neither you nor I are capable of seeing things clearly because of confirmation bias- I could argue you point for point but it won’t matter, we might as well be speaking different languages; we are working with different bodies of evidence and different starting assumptions.

           That blacks and the priesthood article (and the other new articles I’ve been following) is a fairly new addition- it was not there during my faith crisis. In truth, while I’m happy to see more transparency and acknowledgement from the church on these issues, many of the new articles on lds.org are creating more questions then they answer, such as “why does this article contradict past statements from the church which were crystal clear and presented as doctrine?”
           A good friend of mine who has been trying so hard to ignore sources that weren’t faith-promoting and keep her testimony intact has finally been pushed to her breaking point because of the new lds.org essays (specifically BoM translation, Book of Abraham, and first vision). Something she had been taught at church, had previously defended, and felt she had a spiritual witness of, is now shown to be false by the church’s own admission. It’s possible that her previous understanding of the gospel was incorrect and these essays set her straight- but if that’s true, what else that she once thought was 100% gospel truth is also subject to change? It’s not finding out that Joseph Smith translated the BoM from a stone instead of a Urim and Thummim that did her in- it was realizing that her past spiritual experiences had led her to believe something that wasn’t true, and therefore everything is up in the air and subject to questioning.

           Maybe God will tell her to stay anyways, but that wasn’t the path he chose for me, because before I even dove into any of the difficult issues, my question wasn’t “is this true” (I felt sure that it was, and I wanted it to be), but rather “why does it feel so wrong?”
           For me, all apologetics and dirty church history aside, the one question no apologist could answer was this: why, when I was at my most sincere, most righteous, and most wanting to stay in the church, did my personal revelation so contradict what church leaders were saying?
           I remember sobbing in the celestial room because after years of attending the temple and feeling icky during endowments, I had gone in, fasting, asking for a positive experience, but instead felt dark and wrong- what I once would have called the Holy Ghost actually seemed to be telling me to flee the temple.
           Since I apparently wasn’t going to get a witness, I decided to try studying my way into faith instead, but at the time the church had few correlated resources I could turn to to learn about temple history. So I went to unofficial (but theoretically still faith promoting) materials- Richard Bushman, FAIR… and my levee started to fill. I began to see that the correlated gospel I felt I knew so well, that “eternal principals” I had personal convictions of, were in fact subject to change- they had changed in the past and very well may change again when the current line of senior leadership passes away.

           Defend the history all you want, tell me about your own amazing experiences, testify of the goodness YOU see, but it won’t answer my questions: When I wanted a witness, why did God lead me out of the church instead? And why in the three years since have I been the happiest and most peaceful ever? In apostasy I’ve realized how wrong I previously was in my assumptions about how much good the church does in the world and any unique abilities it had to make its members, or the wider world, a better place.

           The faith crisis itself was one of the most painful things I’ve been through in my life, not because losing my testimony felt wrong (it didn’t- it was jarring how few “red flags” came up) but because of all the side effects- feeling betrayed, leaving my community, dealing with people judging and making assumptions about me, hurting my family with my loss of faith. But actually accepting inwardly that God (whoever or whatever that is) didn’t want me to believe the mormon narrative anymore? It was one of the most right, freeing things I have ever felt – not in a “eat drink be merry” kind of way, but in a “the world is good, I’m doing what God wants me to do” way.
           I understand that is my experience- and will happily accept that my own spiritual experiences are not meant to apply to anyone else. I’m not saying because I felt this, no one else should be mormon- in fact, I rejoice for people who can use mormonism as a tool for good in their lives (unfortunately it fails as a tool once you can’t will yourself to believe in the unique power of the priesthood).

           But no one who believes the LDS gospel is the universal and eternal truth can explain my experiences without discrediting my own powerful spiritual revelations and subsequent positive consequences. Until someone can admit that their spiritual experiences ARE subjective, that our understanding of the evidence is subject to confirmation bias and should not be taken for granted, there is no path forward for respectful, productive dialog.

         • 

           Dusty on September 10, 2014 at 5:36 pm

           Not allowing me to reply below, so I will try here and see if it posts.

           Robin, I have read the newer things the church has put out on LDS.org. While it is nice to see in ways, it also makes me wonder why they weren’t up front about other things earlier. Not to nitpick either, but just a small correction I believe that is the 9th article of faith, not the 4th. Didn’t Brigham Young teach not just that eventually black people would get the priesthood, but when? After every eligible male (white) has lived and had the opportunity to receive it.

           LGBT people are no different than anyone else. That part of the statement you made, I wholeheartedly agree with. But the rest of your comments about them shows a complete lack of understanding about them, and toward them. As human beings they find that exact same desire for love and acceptance you and I do as straight people. That same desire for approval from loved ones, and the comfort (and challenge) that companionship can bring. Their attraction and desires for these things happen to be toward the same gender, with no temptation toward the opposite gender. There is no challenge, or weakness here unless a straight persons desire for love and companionship is also seen as weakness, rather than part of our mortal experience. I don’t know how to state this any more clearly than this also, but being gay is not all about sex. It is no more about sex than being straight is. Those temptations will remain the same regardless of orientation, as will the desire for love and acceptance. Love and being loved being greater portion of attraction, and loving fulfillment in life. Constantly being told they are afflicted, or just have tendencies, having the door constantly slammed in their face at being able to find and fulfill any loving desire (such as having a complete family)… these are not teachings of love, truth, and helping them find eternal good. These are teachings that keep them in a temporal state of misery, self loathing, and guilt for simply being born the way that they are. Nobody should be punished for being born a certain way, or for something that was not chosen by them.

           With the finances, yes you can look around and see all those things, but what you can’t look around and find is any record of how much actually goes to these things, and how much actually goes to helping those in need. I don’t see any real need to argue that these things such as shopping malls, buildings, and property aren’t completely needed, and money spent aiding those that are starving, or have not much of anything would be a better place to spend it. That is just a personal opinion. Why not show where the money goes to? Why not open those records so people can see what portion of their tithing is actually going toward these charitable works? There just doesn’t seem to be any good reason not to, if everything is in order.

           I am also willing to open my mind and heart to see and understand things as they really are. My views are also not clouded by the desires of the flesh or anything else but to see this world and life be a better place for everyone, no matter how different they may be from me, or how much they may even disagree with me. I too, am nothing special and come to these conclusions through the same method you have. Prayer, feeling, and study. But I don’t know that the church is true or false. No matter how much I want it to be true, and all the wonderful things about it to be everlasting truths, I cannot sit here and tell people I “know” when it comes down to mostly what I feel, and what I want influencing my perception.

         • 

           John burnett. on September 10, 2014 at 10:13 pm

           May i venture a few comments from the outside looking in? I’m following this conversation with great interest, and i thought that your commentary above, Robin, was really worthy of response. So I’m not writing to put anyone down, but just to say how i think a reasonable person (which i hope i am) might respond to your remarks. This isn’t going to be “supportive”, but I’ll try to be serious and respectful.

           You wrote,

           “Either every church is wrong or there is one true church. My study of the Bible concludes there would be one in the last days.”

           If you begin with that, then you also have to agree that there would have been one true church all along, and not just in the latter days. Doesn’t Jesus say, “Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the end of the age”? (Mt 28.20; KJV says “alway” but the Greek says “all days”). My point is not to dispute whether there was a “Great Apostasy”, but to point to the fact that a selective reading can’t help being a little short of convincing.

           Somewhat in the same vein, you continue,

           “Jesus Christ taught in Ephesians 4:11-14 it would be led by apostles and prophets.”

           That would actually be St Paul, not Jesus, who said that, but not to worry, i’m not quibbling about who said what. It’s just interesting that you would begin with these two assertions, as if the mere existence of a church with “apostles” and “prophets” in what you take to be the “end times” (something uncertain) somehow proves it’s the “one true church”.

           Slightly more to my general point, which i’m getting to, the text you quote doesn’t actually say the church would be “led by apostles and prophets”, it just says that apostleship and prophecy are two gifts given to to the church in the persons of some of its members. The difference is significant because elsewhere in the NT the post-apostolic leaders are called either ‘episkopoi’ (bishops) or ‘presbyteroi’ (elders). The few ‘prophets’ that are mentioned do not seem to be in leadership roles as such, but exercise a ministry within the church but alongside or subordinate to the actual leaders. It seems that ‘apostles’ (the Twelve; the Seventy; others like Paul) are those who were directly sent by Jesus to proclaim the arrival of his reign, but Paul says somewhere that wherever he went, he installed ‘bishops’ or ‘elders’— not ‘apostles’— to lead the churches after him. My point is not to dispute whether the Mormon Church is “right” or “wrong” in having prophets and apostles at its helm, though. My only point here is that we have to read the Scriptures for what they actually say, and not just claim that because words found in one passage are also found in another book, the one demonstrates the truth of the other. We too easily slide into making claims that aren’t really supportable!

           And that brings me to my more general point. You say,

           “I could list many other scriptures that support LDS doctrine as opposed to others. Actually, I spent a couple years going through chapter by chapter the New Testament identifying doctrines that back LDS teachings. In most of the chapters of the New Testament, I was able to find something.”

           It’s not surprising that you would be able to go through the New Testament and identify doctrines that seem to “back LDS teachings”. If in fact the Book of Mormon was written after the New Testament by someone for whom the New Testament was a major part of his education, there would certainly be a reflection of the NT in the BofM. But really, should you be looking for “doctrines that back LDS teachings” in the New Testament? Since the LDS teachings are the ones in dispute, shouldn’t you be looking to see if LDS teachings agree with the New Testament? Weren’t you really trying to prove that LDS teachings were right by looking for parallels in the Bible wherever you could find them?

           But that’s not how to read the Bible in the first place. In fact we can take such an approach only because our whole culture, especially in Utah, is really at a loss as to what the Bible is, or how to understand it, or what to do with it. But isn’t it obvious that we at least have to read it for its own story and see what it’s actually about, as a whole, on its own? And that we then have to read the Book of Mormon also, and see what *it’s* about, as a whole, on *its* own? Then we’d be in a position to consider some comparisons.

           Because finding that Ephesian 4:11-14 mentions “prophets” and “apostles” proves absolutely nothing about the truth or fidelity or not of the Mormon Church, which also happens to designate its leaders “prophets” and “apostles”. And the same could be said for any “doctrines”.

           Most of us have never really been taught to read the Bible except as a repository of moral tales and “doctrines”, though, and we tend to come to it with many, many preconceptions, and very little context. So we tend to read it with all kinds of prejudices, none of which are conscious. But if you read the Bible and the BofM-PGP-D&C separately, and really look at the worlds they assume and depict— just as you might read, say, Lord of the Rings and a Ken Follett trilogy— you’d really find out whether and in what ways they are quite separate books with very different stories, worldviews, and values— even if they do share certain images and themes.

           You say you studied and taught the New Testament and then the Book of Mormon in seminary, and that you were “amazed at the correlations of doctrines”.

           But the New Testament is not about “doctrines” which can be lifted from their first-century Jewish context, let alone from their narrative context, sorted into some kind of scheme, and “correlated” with other “doctrines” lifted out of Smith’s books and “correlated” the those lifted from the Bible! Nor can you start the other way around. We really need to read both books in their own right and in their own context. We need to see them in their own light and look at what’s going on in them.

           You say, “No farm boy or school teacher could have written that book without divine guidance”. I wonder what you base that statement on.

           When I read the Book of Mormon, there isn’t the slightest question, as far as i can see, about it as a tale told by an early American frontier guy with a basic education, a lively if sometimes inconsistent imagination, some considerable familiarity with the Bible, but only on a “Bible stories” level, and somewhat less than optimal familarity with Elizabethan grammar. Smith’s was a monumental effort, obviously, but his rhythms, his diction, his settings, his themes, and his characters are all straight out of Upstate New York, Vermont, and onward. To one who can read Hebrew and Greek, there is absolutely not one whit of recognizable Hebrew culture in a single line of his story, any more than we find a single real Egyptian or the Patriarch Abraham (1900 BC) in the PGP. Nor, of course, is there anything recognizably Native American in it, either— let alone some “transitional culture” between those of 6th-century Israel and 1st-century Native America. Yet surely that would have been the case if “lost tribes” had come from Exilic Israel to these shores and founded the local culture. We can read Mayan glyphs now. Do “Lady Water-Lily Hand” or “Lady Snake Lord” ring *any* bell, either the Book of Mormon or the pre-Exilic Jewish culture from which its characters came?

           Make of all that what you will— honestly, i’m not trying to insult you or tear down your belief— but those are the things you have to face up to, if you want to make the kinds of claims you do. Missionaries always ask me if I’ve read the Book of Mormon. I have, and those are the only answers I can give them. Is the fantasy “inspired” in any way, then? That would be a different discussion. For me, I would have to ask how it comported with the story in the Bible, which i take to have a prior claim. And that it does comport, seems to be hard to assert. Its values are American, not Israelite. In fact it’s a story about America, not Israel, and it strikes me as “inspired” not so much as autobiographical. But we can discuss that some other time.

           You wrote, “If [Smith] was a fraud, he wouldn’t even attempt to write a book and it could never line up with the Bible b/c he would not have the spirit to guide him.”

           Overlooking the fact that you begin with the *assumption* that Smith “had the spirit”, i wonder, again, about the basis on which you assert that a fraud “wouldn’t even attempt” to write a book that lined up with (his understanding of) the Bible? The history of religions is full of all kinds of “sacred writings”, fraudulent and not, of varying merit. Why could someone who was fairly familiar with the Bible never tell a story that sounded biblical, unless he had the spirit to guide him? And why is it that, if he did have the spirit, the more you really know the context and purpose of the documents of the Old and New Testaments, the less anything in the BofM “lines up” with them? It’s an *American* book, through and through. Yet one doesn’t have to speak of fraud— that is, of intent to deceive, for gain; there are many who sincerely believe, or have come to believe, in the stories they tell. So the question would be only, How good is the story, in its own right. (I gather that some others here are trying that approach.)

           You also wrote, “A fraud would not ask everyone to sacrifice so much to build a Temple that would do nothing, but draw people nearer to God.”

           Again why not? Haven’t you heard of all the televangelists who’ve gotten in trouble for fraudulently requiring donations for their projects and their organizations and their lifestyles, whose interests are not so much in fine clothes and Lear jets (though they have those), but in power? It’s all “for the Lord”, or anyway that’s what they say and that’s what people believe. Whether it really “does nothing but draw people nearer to God”, though— again, that’s a claim for which you’ve given no warrant. How, in fact, can a man knowingly take a rotting papyrus, claim that it’s “the Book of Abraham”, and build a religion around it? He’s either convinced himself of something untrue (for the papyrus is *not* any Book of Abraham; “The translation by both Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists bears no resemblance to the text of the Book of Abraham as purportedly translated by Joseph Smith”— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham), or he thinks he’s going to get away with it. And if you’ve convinced a lot of people that that your tale of exaltation, divine plurality, priesthood, pre-mortal existence and all the rest is a true story, what’s next but some kind of temple building?

           It’s hard to think of Smith as being that cynical, but the point is, that unless you can actually justify your claim that he “wouldn’t even attempt to write a book and it could never line up with the Bible b/c he would not have the spirit to guide him”, and the rest — then other accounts are possible, perhaps even more plausible, and quite damning. Seriously, I’m not trying to insult you, but just to bring into view the kinds of objections that a reasonable person would spontaneously think of when s/he hears your claims.

           It strikes me that the *desire* to believe (Alma 31.27) plays a greater role in what you say than anything solid. Or as it says a few verses ealier, in 31.21, “… faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” Faith, on this account, seems to be hoping that things you have no evidence for, are true!

           “If the church was trying to hide something from us, why would they ask us to study and ask God for the answers?”

           Most Mormons sincerely believe in their religion, and you wouldn’t expect the Church to say anything but “study and ask God for the answers”! But that’s not proof of righteousness, much less of rightness. Jehovah’s Witnesses say the same thing, as do a thousand other sects, and even charlatans. The proof of *rightness*, in particular, would be actual *right answers*. And there seem to be a lot of people who have studied and asked God in all sincerity, and found either no answers forthcoming, or else answers that are not congruent with what they know from elsewhere. Have you really dealt with the incongruencies? Or are you recommending just to “have faith” and to “seek a testimony”?

           Regarding a testimony, you write, first of all, ” It would be wise to not criticize a Prophet of God, when you have not seen, heard, and felt what he has.”

           There’s some truth to that— but we *are*, in fact, urged in 1 Thess 5.21 to “prove all things [and] hold fast that which is good”, and we should have no fear of honest questions, if God is the Author of Truth Itself. And if we have such fear, then the warning not to criticize really comes down to confirming that we should not ask questions, but only obey. That doesn’t seem worthy, as I’m sure you’d agree.

           And in the end you say, “I have personal experience (not opinion) that I can’t deny and I am a living witness of the truthfulness of the gospel restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

           In what way do you think you are a “living witness”? Just because you believe something to be true and go around asserting that it is? Would you get away with that in court? Perhaps you *have* had experiences that you take to be proof of Mormonism. But if you can’t actually share them, then as testimony, it’s— well, worthless.

           I’m fascinated by people’s religious experiences and interested to hear what anyone has to say, but in the end, if you come down just to some private experience that you’ve had, inaccessible to anyone else— you’ve said nothing.

           Forgive me if my words have wounded anyone. I’m just trying to express, as sensitively as i can, my honest response to what i’m reading. I sense real pain about these issues. I hope i haven’t bruised anyone by handling too roughly the things they hold sacred.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 11, 2014 at 8:15 am

           I would like to respond to all the comments that were made about my post, but really I don’t think I am changing anyone’s mind, experiences, or desires. Jenn, I can’t explain your experiences, because I havn’t lived your life. I don’t know how anyone can live LDS doctrine and not find happiness. We are taught love, serve, and help one another. We are taught to live the attributes described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 to develop charity. To suffer long and still be kind, to envy not, to not be puffed up, to not behave yourself unseemingly, to seek not your own, to not be easily provoked and to think no evil. I could go on and on about the wonderful teachings and how it has changed my life and blessed my family.

           The Savior taught in Matthew 13 about how he hid his doctrines from those whose spiritual ears are not ready to hear such things. He also taught about not casting pearls before swine that would trample these doctrines under their feet. I don’t think LDS doctrine has changed. I think some have spoken as men and not as the prophet and then individuals have taken those statements and ran with them as if they were LDS doctrine. I think the brethren today are not trying to explain to the world everything they may know and understand because the world is closed to those teachings. Possibly, the site would be written as a book and most would not read it to try to understand it completely. We know that Christ taught, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” in Matthew 15:24. But in Matthew 28:19, he said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. If Jesus shared his purposes of these teachings with some not prepared they would call him a racist in today’s world. I believe it had something to do with the pre-mortal life, because he is a just God who loves all his children and seeks to bring the blessings to all in His right time and in the right way.

           John, I can assure you I have read the Bible and taught the New Testament with the content it has within its pages. We are taught to examine a scripture to how it falls in its context, in its historical setting and how does it fit in the whole gospel plan. That is what’s so cool about the scriptures as we have them. I have studied them intently for over 20 years, kept to memory over 200 verses, kept to memory numerous partial verses, memorized general content of numerous chapters, have access to internet, books, and much more education than Joseph Smith, and there is no way I could attempt or pull off writing a Book like the Book of Mormon. With every year I study and come to understand doctrines more clearly the testimony of specific content amazes me. I didn’t understand it the first time I read the book over 20 years ago. My witness at that time was more spiritual with a little logic to help firm it up. Naturally, the translation of the Book of Mormon would be written in the American words that would bring the intent of the ancient writers in their language. Many of these characters were pictures and would need to be put into words that represented the doctrines taught. These ancient writers were preparing a message that would be for our day and they knew it. The message is translated in over 100 languages and has changed lives all over the world. The history of the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon bears a powerful witness to the world. Oliver Cowdery left the church because of pride. If he had lied about his testimony of handling the Golden Plates, seeing an angel, being with the Prophet Joseph Smith when the priesthood was restored by John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, and other revelations, it would not make since for him to all the way to Utah to tell Brigham Young (who excommunicated him from the church) that he wanted to have no high station in the church, but just wanted to be a part of them. Then, he passed away while preparing to go on a mission to another country. There is even more to his story, but this is not the behavior of an imposter. David Whitmer never returned to the church but bore witness of his testimony to the day he died on numerous accounts. I heard James E. Faust talk about a moving experience he had as a young man hearing the personal witness of a man who spoke to David Whitmer personally.

           I did not share the verse in Eph 4:11-14 to insinuate that this scripture alone (I would have to write a book to share all of those scriptures I am familiar with) means the church is true. Besides, proof of scriptures does not convert, but the Holy Ghost is that witness. But this verse does let us know that there is the need of Prophets and Apostles to keep the doctrine pure and to have unity in the faith. Paul spent 30 plus years travelling from church to church and city to city striving to keep the doctrine pure. The New Testament contains many of his letters written to different churches trying to keep them straight. When the apostles were killed and the individual Bishops assumed authority is when we had the division that Paul warned about that would happen without proper leadership. In the last days God has made it possible for His Church to keep the gospel message pure with current technology. In Revelation 14 it speaks of an Angel flying in heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. The gospel message would have to be pure and we believe the Angel Moroni brought that message to the Prophet Joseph Smith in the form of the Book of Mormon. I have attended many churches and grew up attending 2 different Christian schools. Although, I enjoy hearing others teach about Christ and have felt the spirit in some settings. But, I have never felt anything to compare with the spirit I feel in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is not just one sermon or one message, but the entire message. You are right, I will not share all of my personal experiences with everyone on the internet. Some are too sacred to share with anyone, but those that I am close to. I will tell you that me and one of my brothers was told in a Patriarchal Blessing (given by an ordained Patriarch of the church) something that was impossible for the Patriarch to have known about our personal lives. It was not something general, but something very specific. I have a good friend that was a business associate of the guy that owned the property where they built the Houston Temple. He would not sell it to the church because he had great plans for a structure that would bring him great revenue. After telling the church he would not sell it the spirit spoke to him in an audible voice to sell the property to the church. After that night, President Gordon B. Hinckley called his land guy to call back the land owner because he was going to sell them the property. The land owner was stunned at the experience because he was not a spiritual guy and he related the whole story to my friend. Before relating the story, he told my friend that he was going to think he was crazy when he tells him this experience. The kind of experiences have happened all over the world while the church has built temples. Of course, evidence and a voice speaking to someone can all be mocked by those who don’t want to believe.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 11, 2014 at 9:27 am

           I would love to respond to everyone’s comments, but I really don’t think I am going to change anyone’s opinion, experiences, or desires. Jenn, I am sorry for you experience with the church and I could never understand it. The teachings of the church and the striving to develop real charity and spoken of by Paul and Moroni have been nothing been a blessing to me and my family. It has changed my life and brought great peace and joy to my life.

           John, I did not share Eph 4:11-14 to suggest that this scripture alone is proof of LDS church being God’s church on the earth. This verse does show the necessity of having Apostles and Prophets to keep the doctrine pure and have a unity of the faith. Paul served over 30 years trying to keep the churches in check doctrinally and much of the New Testament is his letters to different churches. After the death of the Apostles we see the Bishops assumed separate authority and the doctrine became polluted as Paul warned it would. There came a separation in beliefs and doctrines were changed.

           If you would read Alma 32 more thoroughly you would understand that it talks about comparing a testimony of Jesus Christ to planting a seed with the attempt of growing a tree, or a testimony of Jesus Christ and his gospel. Initially, you plant the seed without having proof that it will grow. Initially, you should only have a desire to believe. Then, you plant the seed and as it grows in your heart you will feel the swelling motions and be able to know that the seed is good because it beginneth to enlarge my soul, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. The evidence of the Tree, or Jesus Christ and his gospel, comes after the seed is nourished and grows in your heart and mind.

           I can assure you that I have taught and read the Bible with the message it contains in its individual pages. We are taught to examine the scriptures in its context in the chapter, book, audience, historical setting, and how it relates to the whole gospel plan. The Prophet Joseph Smith did not need to write a separate book to come up with the doctrines of this church. Others who write books at least have a purpose. The intent of the Book of Mormon is to bear testimony of the Bible, Jesus Christ, and to bring gospel doctrines and principles more light and understanding. The Bible teaches about how Prophets keep the people in check and shows a pattern of God communicating with man through prophets. The Book of Mormon becomes a testimony that the Bible is true and it happens in our day. In Isaiah 29, he speaks of voice speaking out of the dust having a familiar spirit and later in chapter confirms that it was a book and then quotes part of the message given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in the first vision. It should be no surprise that the writings are American since it was translated from Egyptian Characters that had to be represented in words. The translation was given by God so it should be translated in our language. It has now been translated in over 100 languages and is changing lives all over the world. In Revelation, John saw an Angel carrying the everlasting gospel to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. We believe that Angel to have been the Angel Moroni who visited Joseph Smith as a 17 year old boy and told him where to find the Golden Plates. I have more education, access to the internet, books and 20 years of study, and would never attempt or pretend to be able to pull off writing a book as the Book of Mormon. The more I study the doctrines of it and the Bible, the more I see the little things that are taught so beautifully, but in different ways. If you think you could do it, I would love to read your book when you are finished. Such things as the visit of Elijah to restore sealing keys, Moses to restore the keys of the gathering of Israel, priesthood power and administration, pre-mortal life, the natural man, the resurrection, judgment, proper repentance, faith, baptism, the sanctifying power of the spirit, grace, hope, the laying of hands for the healing by the priesthood, the laying on of hands for setting apart for callings in the church, foundation of Apostles and Prophets and Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone, temples, baptism for the dead, and the covenants made to Abraham. We are not talking about generally understood principles, but specific doctrines that a farm boy could not understand to put into scripture in a few months time or with all the time in the world.

           The stories of the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon are a powerful witness when completely understood. There was an amazing experience with the guy who owned the property where the Houston Temple was built. A good friend of mine was a business associate of the guy who owned that property. He would not sell it to the church because he had a big plan to generate a lot of revenue with a large structure. After telling the church he would not sell the property, he was spoken to in an audible voice to sell the property to the church. Then, the next morning President Gordon B. Hinckley told his real estate representative to call back the land owner because he was now going to sell the property. The land owner told my friend of this experience and was totally shocked by it. He was not a spiritually guy and thought my friend would think he was crazy to even tell the story. You are right, I do have personal experiences that are too sacred to share with anyone but my close family, but the gospel is just as true as I am sitting here typing this message.

         • 

           Dusty on September 11, 2014 at 9:29 am

           That’s just it though. Somebody saying something, or relating the story of what they heard or what they feel is not evidence. It’s not necessarily evidence of either truth or fraud on their part. It’s just personal experience, and personal interpretation.

           If your intent all along was to change minds then the whole conversation has been moot. My intent was only to help provide understanding of other peoples view points. I understand yours, and don’t want to change it. I’m quite happy for you that you have been able to find peace, comfort, and happiness in what you feel and believe. Your faith is unflinching, and you believe whole heartedly and without question or reservation because your experiences have been different than many others. I don’t know if it is your intent, but you come across as if you know better, and are right without question. Like you know what is right for everybody, not allowing for diversity. You don’t seem to allow for other people to have had vastly different experiences, even through following the same methods, from the same church, and hearing the exact same teachings. The spirit and what they feel manifesting to them differently, but in just as personal ways.

           I’ve read through the Book of Mormon over a dozen times. Each time following through with Moroni’s promise, and praying with earnest intent. My experience wasn’t that confirming Holy Ghost feeling, but each and every time it is “Something is wrong. Something is off.” When I pray about certain things, I get that same feeling. I have gone to the temple, done all the prescribed faith and testimony building things and still, nothing could shake that “Something is wrong with this.” feeling deep down inside me. I can only apply this on a personal level though, as it is a feeling of something being wrong for me. I don’t have the authority to apply that to everybody. They must walk their own path, and feel their own feelings. Some find confirmation in it, some don’t. None of it is evidence though of anything one way or another. It’s just how my personal experience shapes my views.

           Things that feel unquestionably right for somebody, won’t always feel so right to another person. Human diversity is such a tricky, but wonderful thing in that sense. We cannot expect to shape what people should be, based on what we see or feel for ourselves.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 11, 2014 at 9:36 am

           I am sorry, I didn’t think my first message posted, so I typed another similar message.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 11, 2014 at 11:00 am

           Dusty, I am sorry if I come off the way you have taken it. This article and most of the people responding have expressed themselves as if they think they are right about their own knowledge, experience and feelings. I respect that everyone has the right to feel the way they do about their experience. There is a reason they feel that way and I don’t doubt that. However, not everyone has studied in the same way or done their due diligence that would bring the right answer. I saw a lot of negative post and attacks on Joseph Smith and the church. I feel a great love for him and this church and feel obligated to defend it. There can only be one truth. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he was not. If I don’t try to back up my testimony, then I am wasting my time expressing myself on this site. This site basically challenges the faith of many of us and if it didn’t want to have us share our thoughts and feelings it should have said, “X-Mormons only”. I had a friend of mine who has left the church that shared this on her facebook page.

           John, you should take a look at this article on lds.org. It is about the writing style of the Book of Mormon. I believe it further illustrates the fact that Joseph Smith couldn’t have written the Book of Mormon. Not just because of his lack of education or doctrinal understanding, but his writing style could never have matched that of the Chiasmus. Especially, since the studies of this writing style were not done until the 20th century. Search, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon” and you find the article. I have heard of individual scholars of ancient writing who have joined the church just because of the writing style of the Book of Mormon. I am sure you will always have the enemies of the church and atheist who would argue the style just because they don’t want to believe. Many of those with an open heart and mind have seen with their eyes, and heard with ears, and felt it in their hearts.

         • 

           Dusty on September 11, 2014 at 12:41 pm

           True, many haven’t studied in the same way or done their due diligence, but there are many that have and that have come to different conclusions. The “truth” as you see it is not so clear cut and easy. If it were, then almost everybody would come to the same conclusions. Obviously, they don’t. And it’s not because of lack of study, knowledge, understanding, or a desire to sin, or being mislead by Satan. The “right” answer is so subjective when it comes to topics such as religion and belief. Far too open to interpretation and personal feeling and response to situation and feelings (Which can be both a positive and a negative thing for a person.) The hard evidence is lacking from top to bottom, which is where faith comes in. But faith alone does not make truth, or create evidence.

           The black and white stance that Joseph Smith was either a prophet or he wasn’t has little effect on overall “truth.” Since even prophets are men, and fallible at that and through time have made mistakes. Sometimes large mistakes. To me, it is acceptable to learn from and accept their mistakes if we wouldn’t treat them with such reverence, and near worship as if they were infallible. It is far more dangerous, and feels absolutely wrong to just take everything they say as absolute truth from God on every subject. Harm has already been done because of that mentality, and I just can’t do the mental gymnastics required to do that.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 11, 2014 at 12:53 pm

           In reference to your accusation about Alma 30:9. I don’t know where you are reading your anti-Mormon literature, but this verse is referring to the legislative system of government that existed in their culture. It so happens that their system of government was similar to ours. Which further illustrates why it was written for our day. The Book of Mormon speaks of this country being a free country as long as it serves the true and living God. You might take a look at this article about Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon that concludes with:

           Interestingly, The Book of Mormon, which claims to have its literary roots in the ancient Middle East, shows many excellent examples of what appear to be deliberate, crafted chiasmus. The examples are strong enough that they are difficult to explain if we assume that Joseph Smith (or any other person in the 1820s) wrote the book himself. In my opinion, there is simply no way a poorly schooled farm boy in that era could have crafted sophisticated examples of an ancient writing form that was probably completely unknown to him. And even if chiasmus had been understood then and even if Joseph had been able to craft examples of it in his text, he and his followers would surely have pointed out its existence as evidence of authenticity. In fact, chiasmus was not searched for and discovered in the Book of Mormon until the late 1960s, when LDS scholar John Welch learned of scholarly work on chiasmus in antiquity and hypothesized that the Book of Mormon might contain examples as well [note 4]. His findings were truly surprising, revealing that clear, distinct, and elegant passages of chiasmus existed in the Book of Mormon. Since that time, many chiasmic structures have been found. See, for example, Donald W. Parry’s The Book of Mormon Text Reformatted According to Parallelistic Patterns, FARMS, Provo, Utah, 1992 (order from the Maxwell Institute), which also includes an excellent essay on Semitic poetry in general and the role of chiasmus.

           I really have no desire to argue with you or anyone else. I just hope everyone knows there are many examples of authenticity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s claims to the restoration. I havn’t seen anyone give legitimate proof that it is not true and hope I have opened some eyes to see there may be something there for people learn more about. If anyone would like to know more, I would love to respond, but if I don’t respond to the unfounded attacks it’s because I don’t think the conversation is getting anywhere.

         • 

           Dusty on September 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm

           Not sure if you were responding to me, since your response really didn’t seem to make sense to me. I don’t read anti-mormon literature, and I made no attacks. I do agree though, the conversation is going nowhere.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 12, 2014 at 8:43 am

           John, I will try to explain my point a little better. You cited Alma 30:9 to point out that this and other scriptures like it are found in the Book of Mormon. I suppose to prove that Joseph Smith came up with the verses because it was the American story. You claim there was nothing Biblical about the Book of Mormon story. I will try to teach you about how the Bible teaches about America and the Book of Mormon. In Genesis 49:22 Jacob (God called him Israel)gives his son Joseph (one of the 12 tribes of Israel) a blessing. In this blessing he tells him his descendants would cross the ocean or “branches run over the wall”. The only wall to prevent his seed from migrating was the ocean. There is a lot of language in this blessing that tells the American story. Since we know this country has been richly blessed by the Almighty and the cause of freedom of religion and Christianity has flourished because of this great nation. Judah is promised that Shiloh or (Christ) would come from his vine or lineage. It so happens in Ezekiel 37:15-20 he speaks of two separate books coming together and becoming one. One of those books would be the stick of Judah (the Bible) and the other book would be the stick of Joseph (The Book of Mormon). In Isaiah 29:4 he speaks of a voice speaking out of the dust and out of the ground and it having a familiar spirit and then in verses 11-14 stating, “and the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed …” (The Book of Mormon). Then is verses 13 & 14 he prophesies the words Joseph Smith claimed the Savior spoke to him in the first vision, “Wherefore the Lord said, foreasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder…”. I testify the beginning of this marvelous work came from the Book of Mormon (which was sealed) coming forth and speaking out of the ground, having the familiar spirit of the Bible. These two sticks have come together as two nations testifying of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ and his great work that has gone forth. Yes, the Book of Mormon is the American story! It is a record of the ancient American people and the promises made to their posterity and this nation if it keeps their faith in Christ. And those blessings would be a blessing to the world. Those promises have come to pass just as it is written. The reign of the judges was a system of government that had freedoms much like ours, but their balance of powers were quite different. The message of freedom rings loudly throughout the Book of Mormon and it is related to the freedom we receive from the atonement of Christ. The chiasmus poetry found in the Book of Mormon was obviously intentional and would have not been common for anyone to use in that way in that time. The beautiful way the Book of Mormon gathers doctrines from many segments of the Bible and expounds upon them in a single or few verses is something that amazes me. I find that the Bible does the same thing with different segments of the Book of Mormon. These passages would not be familiar to anyone who doesn’t know and has studied the doctrines of the church or teachings of the Bible in perspective of the LDS teachings. Possibly, this is the reason such instances that I have found through my studies would not be familiar to you or even a common member of our church. I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
           Day Saints testifies to me historically, scripturally, logically, and most importantly, Spiritually that it is the marvelous work foretold by Isaiah. In the sacred name of our Savior, Jesus Christ, Amen.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 15, 2014 at 7:13 am

           John, I grew up attending Christian Schools and being taught by pastors of other churches. Also, I have attended other churches and went out and visited many people of many faiths discussing their beliefs and mine. I can assure you I have read and studied the Bible independently and looked at it from the perspective of these other teachings too. This has done nothing but strengthen my faith in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and the latter day work. You can pretend to know more than all of these other scholars who disagree with you. Your education in Hebrew will do you no good, if you won’t seek to understand the things of the SPIRIT.

           You should also understand that that Ezekiel, Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets prophesied of things to come during Christ time and in the last days. Many of these prophecies had dual meanings and were more applicable to future generations than those living in their day. They recognized that Israel as a whole was rejecting their message and would not be the ones reading it. So, their written message was more for those of us living during the times it would be made available to the House of Israel and the rest of the world. Ezekiel 37 makes reference to the bones and “… there was no breath in them” and then says, “…breath upon these slain, that they may live.” These teachings are referring to the hope that comes through Jesus Christ. The resurrection that brings life to the bones and the symbolism of the spiritual life that comes through faith, repentance, etc. in Jesus Christ.

           You should understand that “sticks” were ancient scrolls written upon and referred to as sticks in biblical times and in some Ancient American Prophets before Mormon composed the Golden Plates in his own language. You should understand that he lived in the 400 century AD and was writing in his own words the writings of the earlier prophets. There are other parts of the Book of Mormon that he didn’t write in his words, but were in the words of the original author.

           The two nations and two kingdoms also has reference to our day and the need we have of repentance and cleansing. In verse 26 in references an “everlasting covenant”, and “multiply them, and will set my sanctuary (Temple) in the midst of them evermore”. The prophecy concludes with more language that shows the application of today, “And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary (Temple) shall be in the midst of them for evermore. He doesn’t say in 600 BC only, but, “for evermore”. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints recognize the need of God’s Sanctuary or Temple to “sanctify Israel”.

           I don’t expect you to agree with me, and we could argue all day long about the meaning of these scriptures. Thus the reason the Lord said through Paul we must have Apostle and Prophets to keep the doctrine pure. This has always been the pattern of God. 2 Peter 1:20-21, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”. Ezekiel 33 speaks of the need to have a “watchman (Prophet) unto the house of Israel” to see the enemy coming and blow the trumpet. You may think this only applied to the history of that day, but I testify that the great promises of the last days were to be accomplished through the pattern God himself has set forth. 2 Thess. 2:1-3, Paul speaks of a “falling away” that would occur before the second coming of Christ. In Acts 3:20-21 we see the importance of the calling of a prophet to restore the work. I don’t expect to change your mind with this testimony, but I know that if you sincerely read the Book of Mormon with an open heart and mind, the Holy Ghost will give you the same witness I have received.

         • 

           Jenn on September 15, 2014 at 7:33 am

           If you intent is not to belittle anyone else and their conclusions, then you can’t make sweeping statements like this. : “I don’t expect to change your mind with this testimony, but I know that if you sincerely read the Book of Mormon with an open heart and mind, the Holy Ghost will give you the same witness I have received.”

           You don’t “know” this. You CAN’T “know” this. You can only speak to your own experience. I believe you when you say this is what you experienced, and can even be happy for you in your faith.
           But as soon as you project that as a universal fact for all people, you are completely ignoring/discrediting the experiences of so many people who tried to replicate your experience and couldn’t. You can guess/hope that your experience is true for everyone, but you have to leave room for the truth of individuals who have had different results.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 15, 2014 at 9:20 am

           Jenn, I am sorry if my testimony offends you. If you told me you had the opposite experience and testified to me I could have your same experience if I did my due diligence to receive it, I would not be offended or feel belittled in any way. I wouldn’t agree with you but, I wouldn’t feel belittled by someone trying to help me come to the knowledge of the truth as they have found it. I still feel the gospel as restored through the prophet Joseph Smith is either true or not. I teach it every school day and the witness of the Spirit bears testimony to me that it is true and I can’t deny it. If I didn’t care about other people and what happens in their life and the life to come and wouldn’t even bother sharing that witness.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 15, 2014 at 9:56 am

           Jenn, In John 7:16-18, Jesus states, “…my doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him”. Some may say they have done his teachings and not received an answer. They could claim his statement belittles them, but I say Jesus seeks to help us, and there is no unrighteousness in trying to help others.

         • 

           Dusty on September 15, 2014 at 10:22 pm

           Robin, I can only testify of my own personal experience. I have read the Book of Mormon several times with an open heart, an open mind, and a strong desire to do the will of God. I have never had anything to lose by doing the will of God within the Mormon framework, in fact all I had stood to lose was if I came to different conclusions, and I certainly wanted all of it to be true and to be a hopeful member of the LDS church, serving my fellow man (I desire and strive for nothing more than to help make life for everybody, and this world a better place in any little way I possibly can) and serving God. Each and every time I read it, and prayed with all of my heart about it I never received that witness you claim to know that I would have received. At times, the distinct feeling I got was even “Something is wrong.” Not anything like “Oh this book is clearly all wrong.” But just a simple feeling that there was something about it all that was wrong, for me, and me alone. I cannot claim to know that others will come to this same feeling and conclusion as I did. Obviously, others have different experiences. And I believe them and their experiences. I believe you, and yours. For you. It just doesn’t apply to everybody. We are far too diverse, and I think it takes a measure of faith to believe that God knows that, and will speak to people in different ways, rather than subscribe to a “one size fits all, one answer for all” claim of faith.

           Now it won’t offend me if you decide to question my purity, or claim that my intent just wasn’t quite right, or you were just better and smarter than me (you very well may be.) The fault lies with me etc. Things I have heard a thousand times before, even though I was living the gospel as dictated by the LDS church and was temple worthy, and really wanting it all to be true to be honest. It was my life. I was afraid of the changes that could happen if it wasn’t completely true for me, and what I stood to lose and did lose. If God does exist, even if God is exactly as the LDS narrative presents him than I am not worried. God will know my heart, and the intent and judge me accordingly. I am ok with this. Even if I wasn’t, it’s not like I can actually do anything about it and overpower a supreme being with my own will. That would take quite the level of hubris.

         • 

           Dusty on September 17, 2014 at 2:46 pm

           Robin, it’s not really about being offended. I haven’t been offended by people, or leaders of the church. It is about right, wrong, and causing harm to people.

           The prophet and apostles are often teaching and encouraging things of great harm, especially toward gay people. You are claiming we need to look at the big picture, and open hearts and minds and we will see it their way, and your way and all the good that it is about. My claim would be the same, but with the opposite effect. That they and you need to open your heart and mind and see the real harm, the real damage, the real conflict these misunderstandings and teachings cause.

           I had the unique opportunity to grow up with a younger brother that is gay. Having this opportunity, I knew it from a very young age. It was completely obvious, and obviously not some choice or affliction he had. It was just a part of him, and who he was. As we grew up and his understanding about himself grew, I was able to talk with him more and gain even more understanding. He had nothing to gain by lying about being gay, or “choosing” to be gay. Growing up LDS, and seeing the pain and depression the teachings about homosexuality constantly caused him. Being treated as if he was afflicted with some sort of disease, or less of a human being, or carrying around some sin he did not choose, but was unquestionably a part of him. Being constantly told that through the savior he could find peace, but no matter how hard he tried there was no peace to be found in this teaching. Only isolation, and the constant reminder that he would always be alone. Except for God. He could have God’s love, but not the full, deep expression of love between him and another person. And if he did seek that, well he would be contributing to the downfall of society, and the destruction of it.

           There is no love in the LDS church’s teachings about homosexuality. There is no greater good to be seen. There is a mask being worn to try and hide the harm behind the idea of a higher morality. A higher morality that would apparently punish those born a certain way, for no other reason than just being born. The traditions of men, and the prejudices of men toward those that are different has spread down through the ages on this one. Men that then used God to back them up. And in our case today, it just kind of became an adopted part of our religion, or “Christianity.” though there is nothing Christ like in the way gay people are treated, or expected to live (complete celibacy with no hope for romantic connection for the entirety of their lives.) We teach that God is Justice, and Just. It doesn’t take supreme wisdom to see the lack of justice in all of this.

           Sometimes the watchmen on the tower can be wrong about things. I just think it is time we start accepting this. It doesn’t mean they are wrong about everything, or even that we need to fault them for being wrong. They are human as well, and mistakes will be made. After all forgiveness is a part of what we are commanded to do, even if that means forgiving a prophet or apostle.

       • 

         Jenn on September 15, 2014 at 10:41 am

         Your testimony of your own experience doesn’t offend me- I took care to specifically point that out. You can believe and testify all you want about what has worked in your life and it won’t bother me one bit.

         The problem is when you state “you know” that other people would have the same experience you did, you might as well be saying my experiences didn’t happen, or the experiences of my husband, my father, my sister…

         Let’s turn the tables- if I, as an unbeliever, were to say “I prayed about it and didn’t get a witness”, no one can really argue about that. Some may make assumptions about me or the quality of my praying/intent/righteousness based on my lack of witness, but hopefully they won’t take offense because I am only relating my own experience.
         If, instead, I were to project my experience onto everyone, and say “I KNOW that people who pray for a witness will not get one” or “no one who has prayed about this has gotten a witness about it” then those who feel they HAVE had a witness would understandably want to correct me. You’ll note I never make such statements, because I recognize that my knowledge is not universal and that the individual I am talking to knows their experience better than I do.

         By saying “I know that if you sincerely read the Book of Mormon with an open heart and mind, the Holy Ghost will give you the same witness I have received” you ARE belittling the experiences of others, something you have repeatedly said you are trying not to do. You are no longer just testifying about your own experience and your own witness, you are testifying about MY experiences and saying they didn’t happen. Even then, it isn’t that I’m offended, it’s that I’m frustrated that no productive conversation can happen as long as you can’t acknowledge that the people you are claiming to “help” with your testimony know their own experiences better than you do.

         Reply
         • 

           Robin Lane on September 15, 2014 at 12:02 pm

           Jenn, If someone says, “I know the Book of Mormon is not true because I had a bad feeling when I prayed about it.”, you can say that this statement insinuates that others experiences are not real and their knowledge is false when they have a different experience. Because two different people can’t have two answers of truth that contradict one another. My point is, if we are looking for offensive statements and trying to be belittled, we can find offense in any form of disagreement if we say we know something that contradicts with another’s experience. I choose not to be offended by the Savior, prophets, and anyone that is sincerely trying to help me with good intent. And, I am sorry if what I say I know or feel others can come to know offends you.

         • 

           John burnett. on September 15, 2014 at 3:51 pm

           Robin, I have agree with Jenn when she says, “you are completely ignoring/discrediting the experiences of so many people who tried to replicate your experience and couldn’t.”

           But it’s also a little frustrating, although not entirely unexpected, to be told that “Your education… will do you no good, if you won’t seek to understand the things of the SPIRIT”, whenever i bring up something factual that doesn’t fit your worldview.

           Your not-so-subtle assumptions seems to be that that education is ultimately meaningless, and that if i don’t find myself supporting mormon doctrine, i have not sought to understand the things of the “SPIRIT”.

           The latter assumption is a kind of personal attack and hence the sort of thing that one doesn’t want to defend too stridently, out of a sense of modesty. I will say that i’ve done a good deal of seeking to understand the things of the Spirit, so the assumption strikes me as a little gratuitous. Or rather, as i say, frustrating, because it discounts the very reason why i’m interested in these conversations. So: what Jenn said.

           Robin, if you take people who don’t agree with you seriously, you can’t use that argument. If your discussion is to be fruitful— whether in this forum or elsewhere— you have to restrict yourself to facts and interpretations— and we must all be careful not to confuse facts and interpretations, either, but to be clear about our warrants for whatever claims we’re making.

           And the thing is, Robin, you’re making certain claims about factual matters that i happen to know something about or, in some cases, know about the context where such facts can be expected to fit in, if true. That’s the value of education, and education is not something opposed to “the SPIRIT”. If you find that it seems to be, it’s important to ask why. For after all, the same SPIRIT who created the facts in the first place, created with them the possibility of learning about them.

           So for instance, you say, “You should understand that “sticks” were ancient scrolls written upon and referred to as sticks in biblical times and in some Ancient American Prophets before Mormon composed the Golden Plates in his own language.” This is a factual claim in two parts. The first part is that “sticks” could mean “scrolls” in “biblical times”. I assume that means, in the Bible itself. The second part is that “sticks” could mean “scrolls” in the Book of Mormon, but that’s irrelevant if the Book of Mormon is the thing we’re asking about.

           Now, you can argue interpretations, but once facts are established, you can’t argue them. They’re the facts on which we can then proceed. Are you the one who crashed into my car at 5 pm last night in San Francisco? No, i was in Sausalito at that time with Bob, and here’s Bob as my witness. Oh, ok then. I guess you’re not the one. That’s a factual. And facts have consequences. I cannot now argue that you owe me damages; for you did not, in fact, crash into my car at 5 pm last night in San Francisco.

           So, going back to the “sticks”, you’ve made an interesting statement to a man somewhat educated in the field where this claim has purchase. As it happens, I’m unaware of any instance where written scrolls were referred to as “sticks” in the Hebrew or Greek Testaments. Now, my knowledge of that vast literature is imperfect, so I’m genuinely open to this factual claim of yours, and i’m asking for further factual information (and this is serious.) Can you kindly show me where i might find such a usage of the word “sticks” in the Bible? It would be very interesting to me if you could. It would not, of course, cause me to immediately support all the claims you make, but it might support one or more of the others, so it would be helpful for both of us if you could establish your claim. It might also be useful for me to know this in other, unrelated contexts, so by showing me the facts here, you would have expanded my knowledge in general.

           However, as i said, i do know a few things about Hebrew, Greek, and the Bible, and i am unaware of any such instance. Moreover, on the basis of what i do know, this factual claim of yours seems doubtful. But since it’s a factual claim, it would be easy enough to establish whether my doubt is justified. You wrote that “”sticks” were ancient scrolls written upon and referred to as sticks in biblical times”, so all you need to do is give me a single instance where this is the case and we can take the discussion to the next step. I suspect, though, that this is the point at which you will tell me i need to seek the SPIRIT.

           Now, I am asking for factual knowledge, which you claim to have. And the proper answer to a question of fact is a verification of fact, not a claim about my relationship with God, unless that is directly relevant. I’m aware that all the holy men of all the ages have universally affirmed that, for example, “the pure of heart… shall see God”, and the impure don’t. But even in this case, you have at least to verify that such knowledge is what we’re talking about, and that it’s available to one who is in the right position to grasp it. If you did not have that purity yourself, you could point to someone who did. Not having such purity myself, i would then have to admit, Well, there’s something i can’t explain. Perhaps i will be motivated by what i see to seek the understanding which seems to be associated only with purity of heart.

           But we’re not talking about whether i can see God or not; we’re talking about whether “sticks” means “scrolls” in the Bible. I grant that purity of heart is one of those things where education, if it takes itself to be more than it is, will get in the way. In that context, your statement that “education… will do you no good, if you won’t seek to understand the things of the SPIRIT” can be true. But that is not a legitimate response when I ask you a question about a *factual* claim that you’ve made, which would not require purity of heart to grasp. For you have not said anything that would require purity of heart to see. You have said that “”sticks” were ancient scrolls written upon and referred to as sticks in biblical times”. That can be verified by a review of the relevant texts. Recourse to an argument that “Your education… will do you no good, if you won’t seek to understand the things of the SPIRIT” at this point would lead me (and actually does lead me) to think you actually don’t know what you’re talking about, and that you’re either bluffing, or deluded.

           For the SPIRIT is not a replacement for education. The SPIRIT can and does work with uneducated people, but it never asks educated people to pretend that the facts are untrue, or that untruths are facts. I know, for example, that Jesus was not Chinese. I don’t have to “sincerely seek the Spirit” about this. I don’t have to ask the Spirit if “sticks” ever means “scrolls”; i can ask YOU to save me some time and review the evidence for me, or i can take time to review it for myself; but if I ever should ask the Spirit if “sticks” can means “scrolls” in the Bible, he’s already given me the answer: it’s called the Text. Maybe, just maybe (but not usually), if i seriously and sincerely ask, a voice will come from heaven saying, “Read it for yourself, dummy— why do you think i taught you Hebrew??!”, but that would only confirm the facts as they are in the Text. So— what’s your warrant for the claim that “sticks” sometimes means “scrolls”, and particularly in that passage whose meaning is quite straightforward *and even interpreted by God himself in the passage itself*?

           When Mormons ask me “just to pray and seek to know the truth of these scriptures” (meaning the BofM etc), i understand that they are serious in thinking that i would be enlightened if i did. I appreciate this. However, given the facts, this is similar to suggesting that i pray to find out whether the walnut tree in my yard would ever produce pumpkins. God is great, but that’s really not a prayer i can really say. There are some answers you already know.

           However, I really can try to be accommodating. I have in fact, on more than one occasion, prayed with all the sincerity i could muster to be enlightened about the BofM. And when i pray, i don’t pretend, because God can see my heart. And I mean, what have i got to lose, really, if God is himself the author of truth, and never lies? I would fully expect him to show me the truth of the matter— *one way or the other*. And of course his answer is always, “Well, look at the facts and you tell me!” And i say, “You know, Lord, you created the facts, and they are just as you created them. And I have no wish to be unfaithful to what you or to your creation.” And he says, “Ok then.”

           Now you have told me that Mormon lived “in the 400 century AD”. That’s another factual claim, and it has two sides, both worth exploring.

           On the one hand, you’ve made a claim about the timeline of the Book of Mormon. Your claim was a surprise to me, because i’m not deeply familiar with the whole BofM. Because what you said was at variance with what I thought, i went and looked it up. I see now that the BofM places Mormon four centuries after Christ. That was news to me (and I freely admit my former ignorance!), because somehow i had the whole story placed sometime before Christ, and I had put Mormon vaguely a couple of 00s BC! So my understanding of the facts of the BofM is now less faulty, and i thank you for the correction!

           But on the other hand— insofar as you are claiming that this guy Mormon actually lived during that time period and actually wrote that book about a real history in a real America, you are making much broader claims about a substantial civilization that would have had serious monuments, cities, battles, and so forth, in a time-period which is quite accessible to archaeology. And I’m sure i don’t really need to rehearse in this forum the quite stunning lack of *any* archaeology that would back up these quite large claims. But just to give an impression of the scale of the claim itself, let me mention that the 300s and 400s AD is precisely the period in which the Emperor Constantine founded the city of Constantinople (Istanbul), and his mother St Helen built the first Holy Sepulchre Church in Jerusalem (destroyed in the 600s but parts still visible in the present one), the monastery at Mount Sinai, the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, the Monastery of St Sabbas some miles away from Jerusalem, the Church of Hosios David in Thessalonica, and the seven major churches of Rome; the catacombs of Rome had been around for a couple hundred years; some of the earliest extant Christian sites were developed in England (and really all over Europe) during that period (just to mention, among others, a few of the places i’ve seen with my own eyes); it’s the period of the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, from which we have huge amounts of writing and tens of thousands of manuscripts; and from America we have the Cahokia/Late Woodland culture in the Mississippi River area, several thousand years already of Uto-Aztecan culture in the Great Basin area, including the Georgetown Mogollon (200-650), the Bear River Phase Fremont (400-1000), and the Pioneer Hohokam (300 BC – AD 550) cultures; numerous sites such as Palenque in Central America, etc etc. — i mean, there is a *HUGE* amount of archaeology *and even decipherable writing* from this period and earlier in Europe and in America, and NONE of it supports any part of the story in the BofM.

           Nor do i need to rehearse the fact that the genetic and linguistic facts: The people in the BofM are Hebrews but— again, just to illustrate the size of the factual claim you’re making— there are NO genetic links between the Hebrews and any Native American culture, and NO linguistic links between Hebrew and and Native American language— and these are the very claims that the SPIRIT would have to secure if that spirit itself were not a lying spirit, indeed a ridiculous spirit— if indeed the SPIRIT OF TRUTH would have us judge your claim to be TRUE, that the BofM is about FACTS.

           So you have made factual claims and you have recommended that i sincerely pray for God to enlighten me as to the truth of the BofM. But to paraphrase the Acts of the Apostles, if you appeal to history, then to history you must go. And when you do, spirit or no spirit, you find that walnut trees produce walnuts, not pumpkins.

           And *that* fact, my friend, is the reality not just of the physical world but also of the SPIRIT!

           So regardless of how you can answer the question about the sticks— a purely factual issue— any reasonable person has to conclude that the Book of Mormon has no more basis in fact than the PGP does, nor any more relation to any real Hebrews from Jerusalem or thereabouts than the papyri had to Abraham. But whether those books have value as religious texts of some sort, or even as works of early american fiction is a completely separate question. I find the discussion on another thread, by Hans Rosekat, on “The Authorship of Isaiah and Its Bearing on the Book of Mormon” to be quite interesting. Ultimately i think it fails, but it at least flirts with some of the right questions.

           But Robin, sincerely, just going around saying “I testify” this or that, or “if you sincerely seek the SPIRIT, you will know” etc— those arguments don’t work and you just can’t use them.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 16, 2014 at 6:43 am

           John, I was not trying to say that education is not important in receiving guidance and understanding scriptures or doctrines. The more I learn, the stronger my witness of the LDS teachings becomes. However, understanding language and history alone will not bring us understanding of the things of God. It all works together!

           Dusty, I don’t know why your experience is different. I know “there is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundation of this world, upon which all blessing are predicated-And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:20-21). The requirement for each of us is different because we all have different spirits, minds, and experiences. To all of you, I stand corrected on my wording of my statement about receiving a witness by just reading the Book of Mormon with an open heart and mind. Moroni 10:3-5 explains that we must understand much about the history of God’s mercy and ponder it in our hearts. He also references a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ. My testimony has come like the rising of the sun. I have seen the light as long as I can remember, but the more I have studied and pondered in my heart, it has been like watching the sun shed it’s light over the world and the purpose of life. I love the LDS teaching concerning the purpose of why we are here. I can’t imagine as merciful, just and loving God putting us down here to test us to see if we would merely profess a belief in Christ and be saved. Why would he have the test to begin with? Why not just create children and have them all come to heaven to live with him? Why would you create some people more pre-disposed to commit sin of whatever variety and them condemn them for it? Why would you have people born in areas of the world or in times and situations when they would not hear the word of Christ and them condemn them for it? Why would you have people grow to love a spouse with all their heart and then tell them that in “heaven” they have no relationship(that would not be heaven to me)? How could He ask me to be patient, kind, loving, etc. if he was not a just and fair God himself? If the answer to the questions is its the fault of Adam and Eve, then you have to admit that God knew they would partake of the fruit and we would all come here. Besides, in Revelation 13:8, we read that Jesus was, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. So, the idea of Christ coming was way before Adam and Eve and was part of a plan. By understanding God and his mercy has helped me to accept and better understand the fullness of the Gospel.

           John, you asked about the feeling that we receive and then call a testimony. It can happen to many people in different ways. Dusty described many of those instances very well. I have had it come to me in many different ways. One time I was asked to give a talk for a ladie’s daughter that was murdered. The sister asked me to give the talk because she heard me speak at a baptismal service and liked the way I gave my talk. I knew there would be a couple hundred non-members of my faith there and it concerned me deeply about what I would say. I immediately began praying about it and began to receive some guidance of things I could share, but I didn’t know how to put it together. As I sat down and started doing research, I soon realized that it was all too much. I needed to pray for more guidance. I prayed and all of a sudden the inspiration started coming how to organize my thoughts and impressions. After delivering the talk I felt like all of my energy was pulled from my mortal frame. I knew very well what Joseph Smith was describing after visiting with Moroni for the first time. I didn’t regain my physical strength until sometime that evening. The spirit that guided me as I shared scriptures from the Bible and bore testimony of the Latter Day Restoration was very powerful. I had people coming up to me from in the church and non-members sharing with me the feeling they felt as I bore testimony of these things. I had a non-member guy come to my wife’s recital she was putting on a few days later and shared with me the way the words I spoke moved him. I don’t think he understood what that meant, but knew it was the spirit. He asked me if I was going into the ministry. I explained to him we didn’t have a paid ministry and I was just another member of the church who served in a calling. I was speaking with the mother a couple years later about the occasion and she talked about how something happened to me up there as I spoke. I felt like God was standing right next to me. It was a warm feeling that filled my whole being. This is a special experience that I don’t mind sharing with everyone and has been a stepping stone in the development of my testimony.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 16, 2014 at 11:47 am

           John,

           I really don’t want to argue with you about the proof of the Book of Mormon. I will say there are numerous archaeologist who have done substantial research and claim more that sufficient evidence from their findings. I watched a program on TV that was not produced by the church that discussed the pyramids and other findings in South American that came strait from the land of Egypt. On another program it spoke of signs of baptismal fonts found that would represent temple ordinances that were being performed. Their are signs of the remains of a wall that was described by Moroni in the Book of Mormon. There has to be an intense study and understanding of the historical FACTS and stories in the Book of Mormon. For instance, there was immense destruction at the death of Christ that is described in detail that would take down from the civilizations that existed in BC. During Mormons time I don’t recall there being any serious buildings mentioned because they were a ferocious and blood thirsty people. As for the existence of cities during Mormons time, in Mormon 5:5, he describes the burning of cities that would demonstrate to you why those would not be there for us to see, “But it came to pass that whatsoever lands we had passed by, and the inhabitants thereof were not gathered in, were destroyed by the Lamanites, and their towns, and villages, and cities were burned by fire; and thus three hundred and seventy and nine years passed away”.

           As for the genetic makeup, the studies are inconclusive. Especially, understanding there were the people of Mulek and others that came to America separate from Lehi and his family. The Lamanites at the end of the Book of Mormon were so intermixed, we don’t know where all their heritage came from. The studies done by these scientist mentioned on WIKIPEDIA predate the existence of the Bible by over 7,000 years. If this were true, there could have been others here that could have mixed with the people of Lehi, Mulek and others. I don’t particularly trust these scientist who want us all to not believe in Christ and their research is likely faulty. Especially, if we look at the idea their research concludes the Bible to be a fraud too. There is a lot more that I don’t really have time to write and argue all day long. Suffice it to say, the FACTS you are referring to are only facts, if you don’t understand the whole picture. If you would open up your heart and mind you might be able to see the same facts I have discovered that bears witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and LDS teachings.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 17, 2014 at 5:47 am

           Dusty, You seem like a really neat guy. I would like to meet you some day. I know some people in the church can be insensitive and lack the love of the Savior. That would naturally cause a bad feeling for you or anyone else who possesses that kind of love for people. That doesn’t mean that the gospel is not true or the principle they are discussing is not true. It simple means, they are not following the spirit as they deliver that message.

           I can’t say I have ever heard the Apostles or Prophet say something offensive about anyone with any sort of problem. With that said, I understand that anyone can be offended by the “Watchman on the Tower” raising a voice of warning. I would assume they would be a lot more sensitive if they were visiting with someone individually because that’s the type of sweet men they are. In 1 Nephi 16:2, we read, “…the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.” In 2 Timothy 4:3, we read, “…but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears”. I know the words of the prophets can offend those who don’t want to change, but should be considered an act of love for those who see the big picture. It’s like I tell my kids, I wouldn’t even try to tell you something you didn’t want to hear if I didn’t love you. The leaders of the church have nothing to gain by spending their life raising a voice of warning. Almost without fail, I hear their message turn to the peace that comes through repentance and the atonement of the Savior.

         • 

           Robin Lane on September 18, 2014 at 5:53 am

           Dusty, I appreciate you sharing your feelings, experiences, and opinion about your brother and the teachings of the Apostles. I will try to share with you my feelings about the subject. I don’t think we need to see LBGT people as being diseased in any sort of way. I would rather see it as a challenge. Everyone comes to this world with challenges and tendencies that they were born with. I believe these weaknesses are things that were developed in the pre-mortal life, because I know God is a just God. Some people have tendencies to want to have multiple partners and feel they would not be happy with one. There are individuals that may have been born with attractions to small children and feel they can only be happy with this fulfilled. There are men that are attracted to 2 women with him and the women with each other. There are many forms of attractions and sexual fulfillments that some may argue causes them misery to not be able to enjoy. No matter what the challenge may be, it becomes more difficult when we act on it. I had a good friend that was an alcoholic before joining the church. He was in his 60’s or 70’s when he shared with me how much his body still craved the alcohol and the social involvement of the past and he hadn’t touched it in over 20 years. He never lost his craving, but he had become very happy with his faithfulness in the church and served as a High Priest Group Leader. He had asked his wife to have me speak at his funeral because he had heard me speak at the other young ladies funeral a few years earlier.

           I was teaching my seminary class the other day about how important it is to not allow are personal desires (natural man) interrupt the feelings of the spirit (see Mosiah 3:19 and 1 Corinthians 2:14). I have had experiences when someone has offended me, to ponder on the subject and think of all the things I should do (negative reaction to the individual) and why I would be justified in doing so. Then, later re-visit the subject while the Spirit was with me and realize my thoughts were coming from my personal desires and the inspiration was coming from the adversary. The Spirit would then teach me the proper response to the situation.

           God calls Prophets and Apostles, “…for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body (church) of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God…”. I agree the brethren are not perfect in all they do and say, but this teaching is in line with scripture and the Lord would not allow them to lead us astray. Romans 1:26-27, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of the error which was meet”. Once again, the more we act on a spiritual weakness, the more difficult it is to overcome. Acting on these weaknesses begins with our thoughts. Every split second, every square moment is either claimed by God or counter claimed by Satan. I feel a love for your brother and I havn’t even met him. But, be careful not to let your GREAT love for your brother and sympathy toward his weakness override the whisperings of the spirit.

2. 

   Adam Pettey on August 15, 2014 at 5:46 pm

   Very good

   Reply
   • 

     Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm

     Thanks Adam!

     Reply
3. 

   Adam Pettey on August 15, 2014 at 5:46 pm

   Very good

   Reply
4. 

   Matt White on August 15, 2014 at 6:40 pm

   Excellent post and Led Zeppelin is in fact the best band ever and When the Levee Breaks is in fact one of their best songs.

   Reply
   • 

     Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm

     Thank you! I am a HUGE zeppelin fan, plus I really thought that that song matched both the mood and the content of the post I wanted to write so I was very happy to use the two together. I’m glad you enjoyed the article, best of luck to you!

     Reply
     • 

       Mark on August 21, 2014 at 1:30 pm

       But you forgot the warning:

       “When the levee breaks, you have no place to stay.”

       Certainly applicable, as many who allow the doubt to build end up isolating themselves.

       Reply
       • 

         Lori Burkman on August 21, 2014 at 4:53 pm

         I even made a graphic with that written on it, but I thought it was overkill 🙂

         Reply
5. 

   Abe on August 15, 2014 at 11:44 am

   Here’s another metaphor to add to the list: Tetris.

   http://doubtyourdoubts.blogspot.com/2014/01/tetris.html

   Reply
   • 

     Brian Dillman on August 15, 2014 at 12:43 pm

     That is an excellent metaphor and post Abe. I am still a little delusional but I enjoy them. I hope your journey is great where ever you go.

     Reply
     • 

       Abe on August 16, 2014 at 6:59 am

       Thanks, Brian. I appreciate it.

       Reply
   • 

     TigranMetz on August 18, 2014 at 8:12 am

     Also read your post. Great article! It sums up pretty well where I am at the moment with the church as well.

     Reply
6. 

   RL on August 15, 2014 at 1:29 pm

   Thanks, Lori. It is a very painful process when the levee breaks. My husband’s did which forced mine to follow. I think the domino effect is natural when it comes to a loved one going through a faith crisis. It’s true that whether you land on the staying side or leaving side it is painful. You are forever changed. Perspective can lead to empathy, love, and understanding.

   I’m finally at the point I can write about it, talk about it, accept it as real. We have a mixed-faith marriage. And that’s OK. I’m tiptoeing out of the dark to find hope and happiness.

   I’m grateful for sites like Rational Faiths that help me gain perspective. Lots of people with lots of ideas all on a faith journey. It helps me in mine.

   My story is on the Cultural Hall Podcast page and .

   Maybe we can make the “non-normal” a little bit more normal and a little less painful if we just talk about it…

   Thanks again.

   Reply
   • 

     BB on August 16, 2014 at 8:23 am

     Your husband’s levee broke and then your levee broke right? What happened that created the circumstances for you to be in a mixed faith marriage? One of you you stayed mormon? I am in a mixed faith marriage, my levee broke in October and my dh just built a higher levee for himself and now he is the righteous one and I am the wayward spouse.

     Reply
   • 

     Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:07 pm

     I’m so glad this resonated with you. I’m sorry you’ve had such a hard road with it–but it is true that the more we tell our stories, the more people will be supportive and stop being judgmental.

     Reply
7. 

   Casey Randall on August 15, 2014 at 8:35 pm

   Thanks Lori, I'm going to share this with my loved ones.

   Reply
   • 

     Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:07 pm

     I really hope it helps! Thanks for your comment.

     Reply
8. 

   Leah Marie Silverman on August 15, 2014 at 2:00 pm

   ” It can be profoundly fulfilling to be an unorthodox member of the LDS community, but it can also be incredibly wearisome to constantly defend and explain your nontraditional actions or your uncorrelated beliefs.”

   YESSSSSSSS. It becomes so weary, in fact, that many believers who *want* to stay end up getting too tired to keep it up.

   Reply
   • 

     Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:08 pm

     Don’t stop Leah! We need you.

     Reply
   • 

     Heidi Doggett on August 21, 2014 at 7:14 pm

     Add kids into the mix. I may be so tired that I can’t keep it up anymore. I won’t get a chance to find out, because I’m too afraid of letting my 8 year old get spun all around with talk about chewed gum and hiding her shoulders for the boys and how she should get a degree “just in case.”

     Reply
     • 

       Lori Burkman on August 22, 2014 at 2:43 pm

       My kids were the reason I drew lines in the sand about my own attendance. It’s one thing to do as an informed adult–it’s another to submit my kids to the system and hope I can explain/re-explain the issues that aren’t an accurate representation of history, loving theology, or the needs of current humanity.

       Reply
   • 

     Mark on September 18, 2014 at 1:52 pm

     It happens a lot with people who value their politics and love of the secular world over their love of God. It builds to a boiling point and tires the person out from trying to simultaneously live in two worlds. Ultimately, one has to choose whether they are going to serve God or Mammon.

     Reply
9. 

   RL on August 15, 2014 at 2:53 pm

   oops… I don’t know how to do a link…they disappeared when I tried in my comment above.

   http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/2014/07/i-lived-the-perfect-mormon-life-guest-blog/

   http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/2014/07/i-was-a-good-mormon-wife-until-my-husband-stopped-believing-in-god-an-alternative-ending/

   Reply
10. 

    Amy Fine on August 15, 2014 at 10:03 pm

    Thank you Lori! Very well written with thoughtful resources. My levee broke this year and I am now enjoying the most beautiful lake and life. Happiness is vital and different for each individual. Your writing skill touched me today-thank you!

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:08 pm

      Thanks for such a nice comment. It is SO scary at first, but so liberating after it settles. I’m glad the waters cleared relatively quickly for you.

      Reply
11. 

    James Allred on August 15, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    Thank you for your blog and your analogy.

    I am one of those whose levee broke but still remains an active part of an LDS congregation. I love my neighbors. I love their passion for serving those within the fold or those who have a potential of joining the fold.

    But it scares me how much disdain they have for those who are no longer part of the team. Their only willingness to serve the “others” is in superficial attempts to “seduce” them back onto the team with a a plate of cookies or careful invitation to a “neighborhood” party. But those who were once believer but no longer believe are now dangerous and you can see the walls mormons set up to protect themselves from some imagined threat.

    It makes me sad that I am one of the other. They just don’t know it. They treat me with respect because I am still safe in their minds.

    It is becoming harder each day to stay safe for them.

    I try to make the tent larger and more inclusive. But my experience has been that non-believers are considered dangerous in the typical mormon’s mind.

    When they find out my true heart and mind, I expect the same treatment of dismissiveness and fear I see in how they treat the “others” today.

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:10 pm

      That is the hardest part for me as well. It’s hard to even talk about the severity of what I’ve been through because I know the more I explain, the less most of my mormon friends will trust me or wish to be around me. If you express disbelief, not matter how well-founded or how kind your intentions with mormonism still are–you’re simply not in the club anymore. I hope that as more of us share our stories, the bigger the mormon tent can become.

      Reply
12. 

    Michael Tweedy on August 16, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    I always thought that "bursting the levee" was a good metaphor when I was Mormon, and used it a lot. My personal levee burst its banks, and the contents of my metaphorical reservoir washed away. It was cleansing and offered deep relief, but the upshot is that I no longer believe in God, Jesus, or any of that stuff, and don't really care. The fellowship of some church might be nice, but Mormonism opened my eyes to the weirdness of belief. In anything.

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:13 pm

      I had a comparable thing happen to me. Mostly I just don’t see any scripture or leader as Godly binding anymore. I see the human construct in all of it. I’m still a huge fan of Christ because I like the narrative and what he is cited as teaching; but I struggle with literal belief of a resurrection and the like. I also realize that the odds of him ever actually saying anything that is listed in the NT are very, very slim. I’m a theist, I’m a Christian… but those are very lose terms with me. My levee breaking washed away my literal eyes and I now see things for the value they bring rather than the binding nature they might imply. I wish you luck on your path!

      Reply
13. 

    Betty Flocken on August 16, 2014 at 7:48 am

    I found this article on FB .. A friend shared it. Never having been raised a Mormon, I was raised Catholic, I don’t know all that much about the beliefs of the LDS church. I do know however, I was taught in Catholic School, to always question my faith. A faith never questioned, wasn’t deep enough to withstand times of trouble. I know longer am a practicing Catholic, but my faith in the New Testiment remains strong. I loved your article.

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:15 pm

      Thank you for the kind comment! I think mormons are asked to question their faith, but not if it isn’t the type of questioning that might jeopardize that faith, lol. It’s a hard line to walk. I’m glad you’ve found peace on your spiritual journey; I hope we all can!

      Reply
14. 

    Brian Hales on August 16, 2014 at 7:51 am

    Hi,

    I like the idea of a “levee” that can only hold back a limited amount of water before it breaks. In this case, the water is comprised of our “doubts” that may increase and eventually overcome the levees of our “faith.”

    It seems that today many of the doubts that may overflow our levees are not be based upon truth. Joseph Smith defined “truth” as the “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24). If the doubts are not based upon truth, they are not “water” within the levee, but might be better compared to raw sewage.

    As an author/researcher dealing with Joseph Smith’s plural marriages, I believe that much of the material found on the Internet dealing with this topic reflects important inaccuracies that invariably would generate doubt. If people apostatize because of the Prophet’s plural marrying, it is usually before they actually have reviewed the primary documents to understand what actually occurred. Instead, they accept the opinions of writers who invariable “spin” the evidence and it seems that “spin” is often analogous to sewage within the levee.

    Now I know that I’m labelled an apologist and my books are readily dismissed by some. But how about the evidence? It seems unwise to allow one’s doubts to break the levee without verifying the doubts are accurate. Discovering whether they are true may require investigating primary documents. But if our testimonies are at stake, it seems it would be worth the effort.

    I’ve said many times that when all the evidence on plural marriage is reviewed, the documents show that Joseph Smith was a reluctant polygamist and not an adulterer or hypocrite. Soon the Joseph Smith’s Papers Project will publish ALL of the primary documents dealing with the Prophet. Those editors are similarly confident that when everything is known, Joseph does just fine.

    Perhaps, if we can keep the sewage our of our levees, they won’t break.

    God Bless,

    Brian Hales

    Reply
    • 

      Googleisnotevidenceitisasearchengine on August 16, 2014 at 1:18 pm

      Brian….where does one go to find the truth? You discuss these people letting sewage in….however, you fail to mention the countless untruths that the church has spread for years…the sewage that the church has mixed into it’s teachings as faith promoting stories and history and truths….we can call them the philosophies of men moixed with scripture. You discuss again the issue of plural marriage….the church can’t even teach this correctly. If the church is so worried about people leaving then maybe they will actually start teaching truth. If the lords chosen mouthpiece can’t even teach the truth about the given issues without spinning them with twisted facts then who are we to trust? The fact is that of the church itself can’t be honest about their own teachings and the prophet/apostles can’t get the facts right, then it puts the burden on the church to remove the sewage. I’m sick of listening to apologists and the leaders of the church and so many members claiming that it is our fault that we couldn’t make it work…that we aren’t finding correct information….that we are letting sewage into our levees. Way to shift all the burden off the church and the requirement that they have to be honest in all their dealings with their fellow man.

      Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:26 pm

      Thanks for taking the time to read my post and comment on it Brian. I have read and enjoyed your work. I absolutely think that verifying the evidence is an important part to belief; that is what brought me to where I am now.

      I think it is important for all aspects of the restoration narrative to be viewed judiciously and as objectively as possible. Obviously, that is a hard thing to do in a religious social construct–but I really think that so much pain and anguish could have been avoided had the church not correlated their teachings as thoroughly has they have. I believe Mormons deserve the chance to be more informed of the problematic issues through the CES. Steps are being made to rectify this, but it’s too little, too late for many of us.

      As for polygamy–I find it to be damning either way. If you are correct that Joseph was a reluctant polygamist, I honestly dislike what that suggests of God. Why would God send an angel to only appear to Joseph in the first place? Why not Joseph and Emma? Virtually everything about it is just the worst way it could have been handled or introduced. How is any of that divine, of good report, praiseworthy, or lovely in any way? I also can’t get behind it as restoring the era of Abraham’s polygamy–because I find the story of Abraham equally disheartening. I honestly just can’t get behind a Godly narrative in which this is what he requires of his people or that He would ever purposefully toy with marriages and families like that so they’d have an opportunity to show their faith/devotion to Him. The way women and their children are treated in these biblical/restoration polygamy narratives is repulsive to me and I simply do not see God in it. It is also an uncaring thing to ask of a man as well.

      But if Joseph himself brought it about (whether he incorrectly thought God commanded or not) is something I can get behind a bit more. I see this hypothesis synthesized in the history more than any other explanation.

      That being said, I really do respect your work though my views differ. I meant to get a good handshake in while at sunstone but time didn’t allow. Thank you for kindly commenting here.

      Reply
    • 

      Heidi Doggett on August 21, 2014 at 7:33 pm

      I’ve reviewed the primary documents on plural marriage. How primary are you talking? Are you talking journal entries and personal letters from heartbroken women? Because whether or not Joseph thought he was acting on God’s command, whether or not he was reluctant, that was the result. The real result–not the whitewashed “the women loved it!” crap that gets brought up most of the time. Your tactic here is almost exactly the same as the people who claim that if we *really* understood/prayed/obeyed/cared/had a testimony in the first place, we would “know” the gospel was “true” (in quotes because I think most people who use those terms haven’t even thought about what they mean). You are saying, “Well, if you looked at the *right* research, the *right* sources, you would see it all just as I do.” And just as people often tell us to just pray more, assuming that it hasn’t already been done, you seem to assume that anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you clearly hasn’t done the research right. Many, many of the people who find themselves with a breaking levee have done thorough research on their own. You cannot simply claim that any research that would destroy a person’s faith must be “sewage.” Such an argument is neither scholarly nor logical.

      Also, you speak of “allowing one’s doubts to break the levee” as someone who does not understand, and has apparently not picked up from the article, that there is no choice involved in a bursting levee. My own husband responded to this flawed line of thought by describing how there was no iron rod left for him to hold onto; it disappeared even as he tried to hold tighter. As I’ve gone through having my levee break, I’ve grown sick of this poor argument, that people “choose” to be offended, “choose” to have their levees break, “choose” to do anything that doesn’t fit the ideal, as if we all really enjoyed having our faith, our families, our purpose and direction, washed out in an unstoppable wave. That’s what a levee break is. It’s uncontrollable once it begins. It’s inevitable once you run out of sandbags.

      Reply
    • 

      j on August 22, 2014 at 12:37 pm

      What you claim as sewage may very well be truth. I would say being willfully ignorant is far worse than letting your levee hold back “sewage”.

      Reply
15. 

    Arthur Ruger on August 16, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    I admire this writing tremendously Lori and have excerpted some of it into a "recommended reading" article my own blog: http://mormonborn.blogspot.com/2014/08/your-testimony-is-not-based-on-those.html

    I've also copied the article in its entirety and saved it to my collection of source writings in my OneNote.

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:28 pm

      Thank you for your kind comment; I’m so glad that this was a moving piece and a resource that you will keep. I hope that it helps you on your path!

      Reply
16. 

    Bornagaintruths Kaywileybrown on August 17, 2014 at 2:20 am

    As with everything Mormon, Jesus is just a sideline. He makes up some measure of slack only, if mentioned in testimonies, or reverenced at all like the Mormon leaders are daily. All because of Joseph! HOGWASH! I know, I was indoctrinated in Mormonism also, so I don't blame you for ignorance of the facts because we were never told the whole of Mormonism's teaching or awful true historical events. How can anyone make an educated decision when facts are covered up, doctrines changed often, history rewritten (for brainwashing of generations future-a tactic used by Satan and in modern warfare-as in Korea?. Yes Emma did catch Joseph Smith in the barn having sex with a 16 year old (a foster daughter in 1831); and yes, Joseph did marry other men's wife while they stayed married to their husbands!! They call that swinging today. It is in several historical accounts). What a tragic disservice to all those who might find the true Jesus (not Satan's supposed brother), but the One and only who is found in the Bible -God's only book and only one needed-, and come to believe in the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Life, be born again by the Holy Spirit, and have eternal life. Jesus of the Bible is THAT one! If one listens to man's additions to God's Word (Jesus), he is in religion. If one listens to Jesus he is in relationship. All religions are man-made, man-run, man deceiving. Add anything (supposedly needed for salvation) to the cross where Jesus paid it all for all who will believe Him alone, and you create religion. God hates religion. You cannot find truth by following false teachers, and prophets, leaders, curriculum, ignoring what Jesus has really truly taught, and the gospel He really brought. In Hebrew 1:1. we learn that in former times God used prophets (never taught anything contrary to the coming of a Messiah, a Redeemer who would redeem what was originally His-His creation, until sin entered). But, (and this is the hinge to the Old Testament Prophet's testifying of the Seed of the Woman who would be perfect and able to pay for all sin, once for all, for those who accept He is the ONLY way to salvation-Jesus) HAS IN THESE LAST DAYS SPOKEN TO US BY HIS SON-through the Bible! His gospel NEVER left the earth because He continues to speak in the Bible today, and so do the true and only Apostles who walked and talked with Him while He was here on earth (a prerequisite for any Apostle!!) Temples were only for animal sacrifice to cover (atone) for sin, until "the Seed of the woman" (His name "Jesus" was withheld until told to Mary and Joseph) would come and remove all believer's sin. No marriages were ever done there, only sacrifices and worship offerings to keep believers of the day in relationship with a Holy God. ISN'T IT TIME TO STOP EXCUSING JOSEPH'S AND SUBSEQUENT MORMON LEADER'S ADULTERY THROUGH THE PRACTICE AND TEACHING OF THE DOCTRINE OF POLYGAMY (NEVER CONDONED BY GOD) (I know, some lived in sin and God forgave them…), BLOOD-ATONEMENT TEACHINGS, MURDER IN THE NAME OF VINDICATING THE FALSE PROPHET (JOSEPH SMITH) WHO STARTED IT ALL. CAN THERE BE ANY EXCUSE FOR STAYING IN A RELIGION JUST BECAUSE IT IS A GOOD SOCIAL CLUB WHERE YOUR FRIENDS HANG OUT? WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER (AND BELIEVE ME IT IS) TO BECOME A LITERAL CHILD OF GOD BY THE IMPUTATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (SPIRITUAL REBIRTH), LIVE IN A HEAVEN WHERE YOUR WHOLE FAMILY IS, ALL TOGETHER IF BELIEVERS ALSO, AND SPEND ETERNITY IN GRATITUDE OF THE ONE WHO DIED ON THE CROSS, NOT A FALSE god WHO CREATED A WEALTHY RELIGION VOID OF SALVATION?? AND YES, I TRULY AM HAPPIER AND HAVE MORE FRIENDS THAN I COULD HAVE IMAGINED. I STILL LOVE MY OLD MORMON FRIENDS, BUT I WOULDN'T TRADE THE FREEDOM (ANSWERING ONLY TO GOD) IN CHRIST FOR ANYTHING IN THE WORLD. ONE WANTS TO LIVE BETTER BECAUSE THEY WANT TO AND THE LAW IS NOW WRITTEN IN THE HEART. KNOWING THEIR SINS HAVE SO MERCIFULLY BEEN REMOVED BY JESUS GRACE-THAT IS HAPPINESS, SALVATION, AND HOPE. Love to all.

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:38 pm

      Wow, that is quite the comment! I’m glad your faith in Christ remains intact. It will serve you well. God bless!

      Reply
    • 

      Mark on August 21, 2014 at 1:25 pm

      That’s sad that while you were Mormon, Jesus was a sideline in your testimony. But don’t assume that all Mormons have the same problem that you did. I’m an active member of Jesus Christ’s church, I (try) to read daily from Christ’s ministry (the NT) or his ministry in the new world (BoM), I pray in His name daily, and I teach my son and daughter that the importance of attending Church and taking the sacrament is to show Jesus Christ that they love him. There’s danger in assuming your lack of faith in Christ while you were a Mormon applies to all members of that Church.

      Reply
17. 

    Bornagaintruths Kaywileybrown on August 17, 2014 at 2:30 am

    Grace Reigns Christian Bible Course For Seeking Mainstream and Fundamentalist Mormons" by Kay Brown and Atalie Moore– for more answers and comparisons to the the Christian Faith-Amazon.com -no, not trying to promote book buying, but saving souls is our goal. When you believe Jesus alone, you are a Christ-ian!

    Reply
18. 

    Camilla Stoutner Nelson on August 17, 2014 at 2:30 am

    great article. i loved how you explained it when your ground leaves beneath you. Thanks for the info at the end with some ideas on books to help. I want to share this with my family, but i am still scared of their reaction, maybe in a few months i will be ready.

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 17, 2014 at 7:51 pm

      I think that being open and honest as soon as you can will be the most helpful in the long run–but whenever you feel ready I hope that this article and the resources listed at the end help! I wish you the best in your journey.

      Reply
19. 

    Celeste on August 17, 2014 at 9:46 pm

    “Mean old levee, taught me to weep and moan.” The entire time I was reading your excellent essay, Lori, the Led Zeppelin song
    of the same name was darting in an out of the back of my mind. To have you come out and claim the song at the end as a favorite was icing on an already lovely cake. Thank you. I’m recommending this to my bishop and a friend in the ward who is the sole member of his family to rebuild on the floodplain once their levees broke.

    Speaking of unorthodox Mormons, two of our favorites, Rock Waterman and his wife returned home from Sunstone exhausted and ill. Consider sending them light and prayers.

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 18, 2014 at 1:48 pm

      I almost added in more lyrics throughout! I even made a graphic that said “and when the levee breaks, you have no place to stay…” but I thought it was overkill and becoming destracting from the narrative, lol

      I’m so glad you enjoyed the article and will use it as a resource. I sincerely hope it is helpful!

      I met Rock at sunstone and we are good friends, I hope he gets better soon!

      Reply
20. 

    John burnett. on August 17, 2014 at 9:58 pm

    Hi. Well, the problem is what to do about all that water sloshing behind the cracked levee, isn’t it?

    I’m an (eastern) Orthodox Christian and was never a Mormon, but i grew up in Utah and have a fairly good (outsider’s) understanding of things Mormon. I’m very interested and sympathetic with the struggles that people are having in their faith journey, in the “Land of Zion” where i still have family and friends. Your comments here have moved me write and say if anyone is interested in what the bible or the early church taught, or etc, maybe i can be a resource for you. I’m not out to “convert” you or “dissuade” you or “trash your beliefs”, but am just interested in how things are going for you, and I have degrees in old testament and buddhism, worked in africa for some years as dean of an orthodox seminary, I’m gay, and I’m now teaching in an Orthodox church in california. I’m grateful to mormonism, actually, for making me think a lot about religion, from an early age. So if you feel like discussing any of the questions you’re talking about here with someone who has just such a traditionally grounded but wildly unusual perspective, feel free to contact me at jbb (at) jbburnett.com. I’d love to explore things with you. No agenda, although of course like everyone i’m sure i have a point of view. But i can help you with the factual aspects of bible and christianity, as well as share any snapshots of what i’ve seen and whatever wisdom i’ve gained, if it’d be of use to you, and mostly i guarantee to listen. I don’t usually do this, but I’m deeply touched, somehow, by the deep suffering that it seems a lot of people are going through, and I’d like to be helpful, if somehow i can. Kindly forgive my intrusion!

    Reply
    • 

      Kevin on August 18, 2014 at 4:20 pm

      Thank you for your genuine interest, John. A true spiritual seeker is inclined to reach out and connect if not share in all manner of venues.

      When you get a moment take a look at the Mormon Sunday School Facebook group. An offshoot of the excellent Mormon Sunday School podcast, the Facebook group is oriented to exploring the course of study in the Old Testament in Mormon Sunday School this year, but often jumps to anything connected to the study of scripture and lived religion. A few in the group have PhDs related to scripture–that would include neither Lori nor I! Most of us are just trying to figure out what to make of the lesson we’re scheduled to teach in the coming week. Some of us are content with the correlated lesson curriculum; many of us have taken up Jared Anderson’s vision of ‘challenge the scriptures and be challenged by the scriptures’. Like the Mormon population at large, we range from happy levees to cracking levees to levees that have been replaced by mudflats and seagulls.

      Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 18, 2014 at 6:54 pm

      What a lovely comment! Thank you for reaching out and making yourself available as a resource.

      Reply
      • 

        John burnett. on August 18, 2014 at 11:52 pm

        i appreciate the invitation to the mormon sunday school group, kevin, although i think i will have to decline for now anyway, since i’m a bit overloaded already. I actually know jared somewhat, by the way, since we’ve participated in a “religion and neuroscience” group that was meeting occasionally when i was in slc last year. But if anyone would like to contact me privately, well, my info is as i said. And Lori, thank you for being so gracious.

        from my end, i have a question of my own. I do sorta wonder how people can continue to maintain membership in a church they don’t believe in any more. i marvel at the power of family and culture. I’ve also noticed that what is often called “the dominant culture” in utah actually makes it hard to move to another point of view; it’s hard to conceive of an altogether different *kind* of answer than the kinds of answers given by mormonism. But for me, if i can’t believe in something, i just can’t participate in any rituals of allegiance. Yet i have met any number of folks who seem to be able to do so, and i find this very curious.

        It does strike me that moving from mormonism to, say, evangelicalism seems to be a much larger intellectual and spiritual leap than moving from evangelicalism even to something like eastern orthodoxy, because the whole framework of thought is entirely different, even though all the words— “Jesus”, “God”, “church”, “salvation”, etc— are the same. So those who leave— especially if they don’t become something else but simply *leave* and become “nothing”— they often strike me as still operating with the same assumptions about what kinds of things God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, or whatnot, must mean if they mean anything at all. So there’s that.

        I guess if i thought the book of abraham really was not what smith claimed it was, i might yet think that reality itself was somehow, at least generally, as the book presents. So i might leave mormonism but still be “mormon” in the sense that i have that basic *kind* of belief; or, given that i have such basic assumptions, even though i don’t believe in the book as such, i might still remain mormon because i see it as “sorta” correct in some ways. Is this how it works for you? Perhaps someone here could talk about that.

        Reply
        • 

          Lori Burkman on August 22, 2014 at 11:09 am

          I can’t speak for everyone who isn’t a full believer but still partakes in mormonism–but it can be easy enough to see things as analogies and metaphors. Just because those stories didn’t take place, or those practices aren’t truly God-ordained–doesn’t mean they arent without worth or can’t benefit your life. Mormonism works for a lot of people on that level. Plus they love the community and continuing the family tradition.

          Reply
21. 

    Gary Forrester on August 20, 2014 at 8:25 am

    Brian Hales:
    Hi,

    I like the idea of a “levee” that can only hold back a limited amount of water before it breaks.In this case, the water is comprised of our “doubts” that may increase and eventually overcome the levees of our “faith.”

    It seems that today many of the doubts that may overflow our levees are not be based upon truth. Joseph Smith defined “truth” as the “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24). If the doubts are not based upon truth, they are not “water” within the levee, but might be better compared to raw sewage.

    As an author/researcher dealing with Joseph Smith’s plural marriages, I believe that much of the material found on the Internet dealing with this topic reflects important inaccuracies that invariably would generate doubt. If people apostatize because of the Prophet’s plural marrying, it is usually before they actually have reviewed the primary documents to understand what actually occurred. Instead, they accept the opinions of writers who invariable “spin” the evidence and it seems that “spin” is often analogous to sewage within the levee.

    Now I know that I’m labelled an apologist and my books are readily dismissed by some. But how about the evidence? It seems unwise to allow one’s doubts to break the levee without verifying the doubts are accurate. Discovering whether they are true may require investigating primary documents. But if our testimonies are at stake, it seems it would be worth the effort.

    I’ve said many times that when all the evidence on plural marriage is reviewed, the documents show that Joseph Smith was a reluctant polygamist and not an adulterer or hypocrite. Soon the Joseph Smith’s Papers Project will publish ALL of the primary documents dealing with the Prophet. Those editors are similarly confident that when everything is known, Joseph does just fine.

    Perhaps, if we can keep the sewage our of our levees, they won’t break.

    God Bless,

    Brian Hales

    Your quest to reinterpret the evidence to try to exonerate Joseph from wrongdoing isn’t effective. Even if one were to completely buy in to your interpretation of history (which is out of harmony with the historical method) Joseph’s actions are beyond troubling.

    But setting Joseph aside, there are a hundred other issues equally apt to break the levees of faith. The LDS Church makes so many unsupportable claims that can be tested in the real world that it’s no wonder so many are in faith crisis. The only solution that isn’t a temporary band-aid is for the church to drop the literalism and exclusivity claims. They’re just not supportable.

    Reply
22. 

    Robin Troy Lane on August 20, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    Anyone who truly understands LDS doctrine and the application of it, will find answers to life questions that are not found anywhere else in this world. I have taught seminary for 3 years and found the biggest problems with people in the church are the warnings given by the Savior in Matthew 13 about the parable of the sower. They have cast their seed by the wayside (allowed Satan or desire to sin to take away their testimony), stony ground (have not sufficent knowlege and understanding of gospel principles for the heat of the day), Thorny ground (the cares of the world and worldliness choke their testimony). The LDS answers to those who struggle with faith are all Biblical! I could give you a list that goes on and on of problems with conventional christianity as opposed to the LDS doctrine. As for the historical untruths told about the Prophet Joseph Smith. Common sense would let you know that if anyone would have known him to be a fraud it would have been his parents and siblings (who supported him and some gave their lives in support of him). Also, he asked the membership of the church to keep a journal that would have exposed him. On the otherhand there are hundreds of written testimonies concerning his character and miracles performed. His writings stand as a witness of an uneducated farm boy who became one of the greatest minds of human history (only could have been done with God’s help). The Book of Mormon and its correllation to the Bible stands as a witness to the world. No man could have written that book without inspiration from God. A fraud couldn't write the book because he would lack spiritual insight and understanding. The fact that thousands of people who knew him personally, migrated to the west and the possibility of threatening their lives, proves these false statements about him to be lies. An entire congregation saw Brigham Young stand before them and speak as if he appear and every respect to be The Prophet Joseph Smith as a testimony to them that God called Brigham to be his successor. I could go on and on about historical and doctrinal reasons to believe in the Restoration, but the most clear is the testimony of the Holy Ghost even as I write this message. On the otherhand I feel the darkness of the Adversary as I have read the anti-mormon material. It carries power just as much as the Book of Mormon and I advise all to stay away from it.

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on August 21, 2014 at 12:25 pm

      “Anyone who truly understands LDS doctrine and the application of it, will find answers to life questions that are not found anywhere else in this world.”

      This is your personal interpretation. That has held true for you, perhaps, but that in no way is a factual statement that will apply to anyone and everyone. To imply that those who have come to different conclusions didn’t truly understand or apply LDS doctrine is simply not true and it belittles the sincere efforts and faith of others. I’m happy for you that you have come to the conclusions you have and I hope they serve you well. Many things you cite here though are not accurate to historic record, but I’m not here to pick those things apart. Please just make room for other people’s conclusions and respect them that they have done their due process and came to distinct conclusions from your own.

      Reply
23. 

    garrett on August 20, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Robin Troy Lane,

    Robin….your arguments fall short on so many levels. First of all….the way you feel about something is not a source of discovering truth. The same feelings you have about your Mormon faith are the same feelings that countless other humans have experienced from other religions.

    You also.indicate that the very fact that thousands of people followed his counsel is proof of his divine calling….sorry…that doesn’t provide any evidence. There have been countless people throughout the centuries that have been charasmatic and lead hoards of people…and it has nothing to do with them being divinely called. I can think of numerous cult leaders over the years that have gotten their cult to commit suicide,crimes, etc all in the name of their religion.

    You talk about Brigham as the successor….you might want to actually read up on all the issues of succession.

    And if Brigham being the successor is proof of the truthfulness then I guess his statements on blood atonement, Adam god theory, monogamy being a forty sin, etc are also divine in nature.

    The fact that Joseph wrote a book proves nothing. It doesn’t reveal any new truths, it has zero physical evidence for a society with millions, wars that left behind in evidence etc.

    All these things can obviously be justified and rationalized but dont be surprised when you are asked to back up your beliefs with supporting evidence for which there is none

    Reply
24. 

    Heber Frank on August 21, 2014 at 10:09 am

    What made Mormonism special was the true latter-day revelations they embraced. But Mormonism today lacks what all the churches also lack: real true continuing REVELATION. The D&C is FULL of instructions the church does not live– so why should they receive more? But in John 16:12-13 Jesus promised MORE truth will be given his people when they are ready– until they have ALL truth. What kept my faith in the Word of God is that I found the non-LDS Mormon revelations called the Second Book of Commandments (1961 to present) This book has some of the greatest revelations ever given to mankind, including a clear understanding of who the Holy Ghost is. The 2BC predicts a coming “year of cleansing” of the LDS church by the Lord. I recommend all Mormons get ready for this cleansing.

    Reply
25. 

    John burnett. on August 21, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    The different ways that people are using this metaphor of a levee bursting are interesting.

    Some seem to be talking as if the “water” behind the dam is *doubt*. Doubt piles up and overwhelms your faith.

    But others seem to be saying is that the “water” consists of indigestible *facts* (in other words, undeniable truth) that piles up to a point where it overwhelms and bursts through one’s faith.

    In this case, doubt isn’t so much the water behind the dam, as the cracks appearing in the dam; and “faith”, in this case, appears to be a bulwark not so much against “doubt” as against an uncomfortable *reality*.

    Then the descriptions of the aftermath: some seem to say that it’s muddy and dreary, but others seem to say that it’s a much less threatening, more lovely environment once the stream is allowed to run naturally.

    Reply
26. 

    Bob on August 30, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    You know Brian, every time I read your comments, wherever you post them my head spins with how ridiculous and irritating some of your arguments are?

    “Instead, they accept the opinions of writers who invariable “spin” the evidence and it seems that “spin” is often analogous to sewage within the levee”

    Of course you’re referring to the spin other authors put on their work and but not yours.

    “Now I know that I’m labelled an apologist and my books are readily dismissed by some.”

    Yes, that’s an accurate assessment.

    But even if you were a 100% correct about Joseph Smith’s polygamist/polyandrous past which most everyone including Richard Bushman, Michael Quinn, Marlin Jensen, Richard Turley, Fawn Brodie,and many others have already admitted to, that’s only one part of the sordid story of Mormonism.

    For you to suggest that we’re all being misled by the “sewage”, it’s the LDS Church’s sewage we’ve been treading water in and the smell has overcome our sensibilities.

    It’s your arrogance and condescension of “knowing you’re right” that is so hard to stomach.

    You said, “But how about the evidence? It seems unwise to allow one’s doubts to break the levee without verifying the doubts are accurate.”

    I just picked up a copy of “The Nauvoo Expositor” (is that close enough to a source document for you?) which from everything I read about William and June Law, they were honorable people and he was a confidant and close associate of Joseph Smith who was so troubled by his discovery that he felt obligated to expose it. And even if Joseph Smith wasn’t guilty of the practice (which is highly unlikely), there is so much other compelling evidence in other areas that prove conclusively that all this is a hoax.

    So here’s my question, how is it that all of these other reputable Church historians have come up with a different conclusion than you?

    You said, “I’ve said many times that when all the evidence on plural marriage is reviewed, the documents show that Joseph Smith was a reluctant polygamist and not an adulterer or hypocrite.”

    The Church has a history of secrecy and misrepresenting the truth. It doesn’t matter any more what they “allow us” to see. We know that the Church leaders can’t be trusted on any level.

    When the Church bought all those Hoffman forgeries, it wasn’t for the purpose of putting them on display so the public could see them. It was so they could hide them.

    We know that the only reason any of this has come to the surface is because of the internet. The Church doesn’t do anything until it’s forced to by public policy or threat.

    Just like giving blacks the Priesthood in 1978. It took another 34 years for them to denounce any of the leaders (that would mean every prophet since the Church began) who had racist attitudes and only because to maintain that view would draw more public disdain.

    If the Church publishes any “primary” documents, we know that they’ll have gone through all of it and will show us only that which they want us to see.

    There’s what the public is allowed to see and then there’s what’s really going on. In 1890, the Church publicly pronounced the end of plural marriage. Even today, Church leadership continues to refer the 1890 date. But anyone who knows anything about Church history knows full well that the Church clearly lied about this and secretly continued sanctioning new plural marriages for another 14 years. What part of “being honest” do you not understand?

    Lastly you said, “if we can keep the sewage our of our levees, they won’t break.”

    Brian, with all due respect, it’s not the questions we have been asked to shelve, or dump over the levee, it’s our integrity and honor, our own self respect. It’s like having a trusted friend asking us to keep hidden his crimes which he has promised to not ever commit. At first he claims it was just a simple one time mistake. Hey, we’re only human he says.But over time we can see that it’s not a one time mistake, or even an honest one. He’s a career criminal and by continuing to make allowances for his behavior we’re becoming his accomplices. If given to choose between my integrity and the Church, I think God would want me to choose being honest.

    Reply
27. 

    Nancy on September 1, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    An interesting read, but a couple of red flags for me. First, Ms. Burkman is neither licensed nor credentialed in any capacity to be doling out counsel, though she so freely offers it. As she is fond of the metaphor, I would say it is like someone going through a difficult time in their marriage who opts instead of going to marriage counseling, instead meets up for coffee with a good friend who just recently got divorced (after going through counseling herself). I mean, she can tell you more or less what she learned from it right? Or maybe instead of going to marriage counseling, I’ll start meeting with support groups for the recently divorced. Just in case.
    If you are going through your own “faith crisis”, I think seeking out appropriate advisors who have the same goals that you do would be a necessary first step. You can find religious advisors from all denominations.
    But Ms. Burkman isn’t about promoting faith during a faith crisis. Her emphasis is the transition away from faith and finding support in that transition. Perhaps that IS what you’re looking for. If so, carry on.
    Second, Ms. Burkman claims to be at peace with her decision. I am less than convinced of this as evidenced by the number of pieces she writes related to this very subject. In fact, when searching for pieces written by her it seems to be the only topic she ever covers. It’s like that recently divorced friend who drunk texts her ex at the end of the night to tell him she’s soooo over him. Sure. We’ll believe that when you stop talking about him all the time.
    In short, I’m leery of her advice and her conclusions. She seems to be a decent writer, time will tell if she can prove herself more than a one trick pony.

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on September 2, 2014 at 10:01 am

      Thanks for your comment. I write about my personal experiences and also also what I see happening in Mormonism. I have talked about faith crises or transitions in two of my seven posts, so I don’t feel like a one trick pony at all; but I can’t change your opinion of that if that is how you feel of my work. It is true that most everything I write is from a POV of someone who is disappointed with the current LDS church, and since that is an accurate depiction of my experience with it; I don’t mind that being represented in my writing.

      “Ms. Burkman is neither licensed nor credentialed in any capacity to be doling out counsel, though she so freely offers it.”

      Did you not see the second half of the post where I list many resources of accredited counselors so people can see professionals? Because I totally did. Also, the majority of this post is a narrative. The only advice that I give here in the whole post is: “We all must do our best to listen to each other, empathize, and have charity as we interact with people who have not yet faced or may never face a faith transition and thus do not understand yours.”
      and my thesis that “Just because your levee broke doesn’t mean that your future is bleak; it simply means that you have an opportunity to build something even stronger.”

      If you take great issue with my non-accredited or licensed advice given here, I don’t apologize for it. I stand by that advice and I don’t think anyone is looking to me as a standard by which they will navigate their faith transition but merely an essay that they related to and will use the resources listed at the end for the rebuilding phase, whether that is to stay in or leave Mormonism. And I don’t only side with those who lose their faith; I acknowledge that many retain their faith and move forward with a deeper, more nuanced faith.

      I find your divorcee drunk texting their friend analogy to be rather harsh and uncharitable, but again–if that is your true impression of me and my writing then it is what it is. To imply that I didn’t personally go through proper Mormon counseling channels or to imply I didn’t take proper steps as a person in a faith crisis is conjecture on your part. My process with mormonism was and continues to be more than thorough and I’m speaking from a place of authenticity. No, I’m not licensed–but I never claim to be more than a writer and I assume people take my posts with the appropriate grain of salt.

      Reply
      • 

        Betty Flocken on September 2, 2014 at 10:21 am

        Lori,
        I love your reply to Nancy. I have only recently been acquainted with your blog, and to this particular post (Levee Breaks) in particular, but I too took exception to many of Nancy’s comments. You write about your experiences and not as an authority on all things relating to faith. I’m not a Mormon and never have been and came across your blog through a friend on Facebook. I was struck by your honesty and the courage you must have to write openly of YOUR experience. One trick Pony simply does not apply to your post or Blog at all and sounds scripted and certainly not very nice. .
        Your message is a valuable one, to people of all faiths. I was taught by the nuns ( 🙂 ) to question my faith or it would never become deep enough to with stand the challenges it’d have through my life. While no longer a practicing Catholic, my own personal faith is stronger for having always questioned it.
        I applaud you and your courage.

        Reply
        • 

          Lori Burkman on September 3, 2014 at 8:56 am

          That is so kind of you to say! Thank you for your support, comments, and sharing your own experience as well.

          Reply
      • 

        Kevin on September 16, 2014 at 8:27 am

        Well said, Lori. It’s hard to tell what lens Nancy is viewing your post through but it’s not the same one I’m viewing it through. I sent a link and a recommendation for ‘When the Levee Breaks’ to both my bishop and a friend in my ward who is going through a faith crisis.What a sweet compliment from Betty Flocken. Do continue writing–about anything your heart can speak to.

        Reply
28. 

    John burnett. on September 2, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    Doesn’t say that much, but may be of interest:
    http://phys.org/news/2014-08-churchgoers-moral-identity.html

    Reply
29. 

    John burnett. on September 11, 2014 at 11:36 am

    Robin,

    …this article on lds.org. It is about the writing style of the Book of Mormon. I believe it further illustrates the fact that Joseph Smith couldn’t have written the Book of Mormon. Not just because of his lack of education or doctrinal understanding, but his writing style could never have matched that of the Chiasmus. Especially, since the studies of this writing style were not done until the 20th century.

    Robin, it’s not just about the style— that’s the least of the issues, because *of course* it’s purported to be a translation. It’s the setting, the assumptions, the worldview, the issues that drive the plot, the whole story! I mean, it’s just American, and it has early frontier America written all through it. *Nothing* of that book is even remotely Hebrew, or Native American, or in-between— which it’d have to be if Hebrew “lost tribes” were the ancestors of the Native Americans.

    Alma 30.9, which expresses the *narrator’s* point of view, not that of any character in the story, says, “Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.” That is straight out of American culture. It is most certainly NOT anything you’d ever find in the Bible, nor do you find its underlying conception of God or of worship in the Bible either. The BofM etc is packed with that sort of thing.

    Call it sacred; tell me you “have a testimony”; say you “know in your heart”— but you can’t call it Hebrew, or derived from Hebrew thought, nor is it really aware of the story in the Bible *as a whole* (though it is aware of many “Bible stories”)… and yet the book claims to be written by descendants of pious Hebrews who have never suffered any outside influence.

    As to chiasm in the BofM— chiasm is actually an extremely common form of composition, especially in oral cultures— and my understanding is that, by all accounts, Smith was composing orally as he looked into his hat, not himself “writing” the BofM, so the presence of chiasm doesn’t surprise me. And though it wasn’t studied in depth by *modern* scholars, it’s always been a well-known literary trope; in fact the name “chiasmus” is from the ancient Latin and Greek grammarians. And btw, it’s not limited to oral cultures only!— my thesis advisor, who studied the subject to death in the Bible, used to point to numerous *modern* speeches, books, poems, and even newspaper articles as examples. Most of the time, chiasms seem to have been produced more or less unconsciously, as just a natural way of organizing your thoughts. There’s something very satisfying about weaving a rug that’s symmetrical; about finding the way out by repeating in reverse the steps you took to get in. Storytellers, in particular, use it all the time.

    You concluded by saying, “…and felt it in their hearts.”

    That’s what it really always comes down to, isn’t it?

    Reply
30. 

    John burnett. on September 13, 2014 at 3:07 am

    Well, i was going to go back to lurkerdom, Robin, since somebody already said they thought the conversation wasn’t getting very far, but since you’ve addressed me specifically twice, i’ll reply. I hope this is helpful for some of our readers, at least, and i beg the indulgence of the others.

    Earlier you said you “didn’t know what anti-Mormon literature i was reading” to get my views on the americanness of the BofM, so i should assure you, there is none. The last time i read anything of that sort was probably 20 years ago and i’ve pretty well forgotten it, since i have little occasion to rehearse it.

    What i did read was Alma 30ff, as i mentioned. It’s always instructive to read the primary texts, once you know what questions to ask, and a friend had recommended i look at the story of Korihor and its aftermath. Now, coming back to the BofM after so many years and so much more familiarity with texts of all kinds, i found myself quite fascinated when I did.

    There isn’t, as i said, a snowball’s chance in hell that any of that had any roots in anything Hebrew, which you’d expect it to have, if it really were a history of hebrew tribes living alone on a continent with no other cultural impacts, within a few hundred years after leaving their motherland. And I really can say this, with a Master’s in Old Testament and quite able to read Hebrew and Greek for myself— though in the present case i’m not talking about linguistic patterns so much as cultural ones. So although i’m grateful that you’re willing to “try to teach [me] about how the Bible teaches about America and the Book of Mormon”… i’m afraid i can’t buy it.

    Let’s see… here’s a book that somebody claimed in 1835 was written by Hebrews living in America BC, that tells about life in the USA around 1835. And whaddaya know, it describes everything perfectly! Everything, that is, except anything Hebrew or biblical. Well, you can get away with that sort of thing when nobody really has a good sense of what the Bible is talking about, and they’re predisposed to think of the whole field of religion as haunted by prophets, ghosts, and latter-day scenarios of all kinds. But what happens if you actually look at what it’s talking about on any given page?

    Your *applications* of biblical passages (i cannot call them exegeses; they are *applications*— and you should learn the difference)— are…. well, amusing. Sorry; i really don’t mean to insult you, but i just don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You can’t just pull a phrase out of Scripture— say, the one about the “two sticks”— and call it a “prophecy that describes the Book of Mormon and the Bible” etc just because it has two of something and someone named “Joseph” is mentioned in it. It’s only our profound ignorance of Scripture that lets us ignore the context like that. Are you really looking at what Ezekiel is about? Can you tell me what Ezekiel, the book, is about?

    The passage you cite (Ez 37:15-20) is part of a series of passages in Ezekiel about the restoration of Israel, whose temple has been destroyed and whose king and ruling classes and artisans and others languish in exile in Babylon ca 600 BC. In fact it comes right after the famous prophecy of the dry bones, which ends with, “Then [God] said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off…. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel….” (Ez 37.11-12).

    The “sticks” passage, which you’ve said “marvellously” foretells the BofM, is actually talking about “Judah” (just read it!), the southern, Davidic kingdom ruled from Jerusalem, and “Ephraim”, also called there and everywhere else in the Bible, “Joseph”, the breakaway northern kingdom ruled from Samaria— two nations of Israelites who knew they were one, but who for their entire history after Solomon never managed to be united. And what does it say about them? Again, just read it! After Ezekiel holds the sticks in his hand as if they were one and shows them to the Israelites, God tells him, “when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?” (Ez 37.18), he *himself* then explains it: “I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen [of Babylon] whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all…” (Ez 37.21-22).

    Now, you are saying that, “It so happens in Ezekiel 37:15-20 he speaks of two separate books coming together and becoming one.” It just so happens??— What part of this has anything to do with two separate books coming together and becoming one? What warrant do you even have, for saying “stick” means “book”?

    Well, there’s no need to belabor the point but we can— indeed we must!, if we want to learn what the Bible is about— we *must* do the same thing with every one of the passages you cite. We have to read them in their own context!

    By the way, a “familiar spirit” in the Bible (please bear with me for a moment) is an “ob” in Hebrew, related to the word “ab” (you would be more familiar with “abba” in the New Testament), which means “father” or “ancestor”. An “ob” is an ancestral spirit. Many Africans and Asians even today practice ancestor-worship or even divination based on contact with the spirits of the dead; that’s what is meant. Since ancestors are ancestors of “families”, the KJV translates this as a “family (or: ‘familiar’) spirit”. But in the Bible a “familiar spirit” is not a good thing; any contact with them is strictly proscribed and anyone who acts as a medium for one is to be stoned to death! So I would not be hasty to claim Isa 29.4 as a prophecy of my favorite sacred book!

    But I think you’re trying to tell me that Isa 29.4 somehow predicts that the BofM would be found in the ground and give voice to marvelous things. Isaiah 29 in general, though, is a prophecy of *destruction and exile* to be visited upon Jerusalem for her infidelities. She would be laid low, “and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit [more modern translations say: ‘ghost’], out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust”; that is, out of the grave. But then 29.7-8 promises deliverance from the nations that will have laid her low. Again, what part of this has anything to do with the Book of Mormon? Are you even looking at what Isaiah 29, let alone Isaiah in general, is talking about??

    You write that the Bible “gathers many segments of the Book of Mormon” and expounds upon them, and vice versa. You then say that “These passages would not be familiar to anyone who doesn’t know and has studied the doctrines of the church or teachings of the Bible in perspective of the LDS teachings.”

    That’s the whole thing right there, isn’t it. You’re looking at “teachings” of the Bible, lifted quite out of context, rather than at the actual *narrative* of the Bible— the story it tells— and you’re looking at those “teachings”, moreover, “in perspective of the LDS teachings”, rather than within their own context and their own perspective.

    This comes as no surprise; everybody does it because the Bible is a difficult book and without some training, we hardly know what to make of it. Still, as with any other book, we have to read it whole and we have to read it for what it actually talks about. We can’t just enthusiastically memorize passages that strike our fancy or seem like “beautiful teachings” or appear (or so we are told) to “back” our own point of view, or in your case the Book of Mormon.

    Wrapping up, let me just say I’m glad that you agree with me that, “Yes, the Book of Mormon is the American story!” One thing it’s not, though, is the biblical story. It breathes a completely different spirit than the Bible, an alien one that knows of Christ only superficially and deeply distorts your view of him. Perhaps indeed it *is* breathed by a “familiar spirit” after all. It might even testify to you “Spiritually”. But not spirit is divine, not every “marvelous work and wonder”….

    well, you can see where i’m going with that. I deeply apologize if my words distress anyone. It must be terrible to see all that you were told was true, was not. I’m sure i can’t even comprehend how that must feel.

    Reply
    • 

      Kevin on September 16, 2014 at 10:00 pm

      John,

      I have no interest in convincing you of the truth claims about the Book of Mormon. However, for your own intellect curiosity consider taking a look at the work of Rod Meldrum and Wayne May, proponents of the view that the Book of Mormon peoples correlate with the Hopewell and Adena cultures that preceded the Native American cultures by hundreds of years. In contrast to tenuous, loudly-argued claims for the Book of Mormon taking place in Mesoamerica, it turns out there are dozens of solid correlations between the Book of Mormon and the Hopewell and Adena cultures. There even appear to be traces of an early North American Hebrew culture that have sifted down into the Native Americans, especially among the remnants of the Algonquin Nation.

      DNA? While the vast majority of Native American DNA is Asian, a tiny fraction of samples from the Ohio River Valley contain haplogroup x DNA, found nowhere else but in the Middle East. Hebrew language? Ethnographers have happened into Native American groups descended from the original Algonquin Nation whose vocabularies include Hebrew words and symbols. Advanced metallurgy? Vast, sophisticated mining operations from the time of the earlier Adena culture ring the southern shores of the Great Lakes.

      Again, for your own intellectual curiosity, when you get a moment ignore the Book of Mormon for a moment and consider the remarkable story of the two highly advanced civilizations that preceded today’s Native American peoples. If any of that finds a match with the Book of Mormon, all the merrier. It’s a strange and delightful world. Meldrum and May are focused on the Book of Mormon but their work serves as a great introduction to the Adena and Hopewell cultures. http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/

      Reply
31. 

    John burnett. on September 15, 2014 at 11:13 pm

    You know, i got to thinking and maybe people here could answer a longstanding puzzlement for me. Would anyone be able to explain or describe what this “testimony” that Mormons always talk about actually is, or how or in what form you experience it? I really am baffled. Sometimes the way people talk about it, it’s a “burning in the bosom”, in the sense of an actual physical sensation; other times, it’s like it’s a kind of insight, but when I ask questions about it, there never seems to be any particular noetic content. I’ve had the impression from some that it’s a physical sensation that you get when you read the book of mormon, which others who know about it can tell you that it means the book is true. But then sometimes that doesn’t seem to be the case either.

    So I’m wondering if those of you who have had it and either still have it or no longer have it would be able to tell me exactly what it is. Is it a special kind of feeling, or the kind of aha experience you get when you resolve some tricky problem, or what? Do you get it in connection with the Book of Mormon only, or with other books?

    I would be very grateful if you could help me understand what it is. Thanks in advance!

    Reply
    • 

      Dusty on September 16, 2014 at 1:21 am

      I think what you are referring to is the feeling of the “Holy Ghost” or “Spirit” which is often used to strengthen a persons testimony. The Holy Ghost bearing witness to truth or something of value/spiritual importance, is the feeling of the burning in the bosom you have heard reference of. Others describe it as a “still small voice” that can guide you away from danger, or sin. Like a soft whisper in your head, or from your conscience to guide you (the insight part you mentioned.) The Gift of the Holy Ghost, which is more in conjunction with the latter part of what I just said is given upon baptism and allows us to frequently call upon these feelings/insights to help guide and protect us, though even without baptism all people are born with the Light of Christ and able to feel the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit confirm some things to them and help decipher good from evil.

      A testimony is more a person’s relationship/understanding of the gospel, and the strength of their faith and belief/devotion in it. Bearing your testimony as a Mormon would be very similar to how many other Christian sects bear witness, or stand as witness, though the tone of which is often done with more reverence and meekness than your common street preacher. The idea of bearing your testimony with the power of the Holy Ghost is that the spirit will give that feeling so somebody will know what you are saying is true/valuable (often after they have prayed about it, or been invited to pray about it.) So testimony, and the burning in the bosom feeling (Holy Ghost) are two separate things, but often used or thought about in conjunction with each other in the LDS context.

      As for experience with the physical sensation of feeling the spirit to strengthen my testimony, that is something I can’t tell you first hand. I’ve never had the burning in the bosom, or “felt the spirit” as many have had. I wanted to feel it to confirm things to me, it just hasn’t happened. Hope that explains things a little better.

      Reply
      • 

        John burnett. on September 16, 2014 at 2:12 am

        dusty, thank you.

        but you haven’t had this feeling, i take it. Can someone who has had it talk about it first-hand?

        what’s interesting to me is that there seems to be no noetic content. It’s always described as a “feeling” that something is true, but never as knowledge in the sense that truth is knowledge, like when you work an equation and get the right answer and go, Yeah, that’s how it works.

        You said, “A testimony is more a person’s relationship/understanding of the gospel, and the strength of their faith and belief/devotion in it”. But it always strikes me that the emphasis is on the faith and belief more than the understanding.

        i went to a sacrament meeting with a friend once and after a while noticed that the organist seemed particularly disconnected from all the testimonying. To my immense surprise she got up toward the end of the meeting and said, “You know how you can just sit there and doubt that a word of this is true?” And nobody seemed to not-know what she meant. So she went on, “So I decided it’s time. For me to get up”— she said this as if it were a chore of some sort— and *bear my testimony*. I believe that every word of this book is true”, etc.

        But the fact was, she was actually saying she doubted every word of it. So ever since then i’ve wondered what a “testimony” was. She seemed to be talking about it in the sense you said, of faith and belief, and (as in Alma 32 or so) of the *will* to believe. But she also seemed to indicate that there was a thing, and it’s called a “testimony”, and you can “have” it, and she did, and that meant it’s true.

        So I asked my friend about it after the meeting, and he said it’s “a burning in the bosom”. I said, You know, I really wanted to get up and say something at that meeting too, but it wouldn’t have been well received. None the less, I *strongly* wanted to get up and respond to that girl. What she was saying was just absurd! I wanted to say, Listen to yourself! And my heart was pounding and my bosom was burning but i just said, John, you’re going to sit right here and you’re going keep your mouth shut. So is that the burning you’re talking about? And he said, Maybe… sorta. And i said, So you have some kind of physical sensation and if you get it, it means this other thing is true? And he said, Yeah like that. And i said, But it doesn’t actually show you the truth of the other thing; it’s just that somebody said this thing means that thing is true. And he said, Sorta.

        So i’ve been wondering about that girl and her testimony and the subsequent conversation with my friend for all these years. Unfortunately, he’s not a real reflective type, so i never got much more out of him than that. But would you say that’s really how it works? I don’t ever have a chance to ask anyone about this, so i am really wondering.

        Reply
        • 

          Dusty on September 16, 2014 at 2:31 pm

          I wish I could provide further answers, but I can’t. I can only offer my own opinions and perceptions based on experiences I have seen those around me have at various times, or experiences they have related to me, but my opinions just aren’t universal truths.

          I am familiar with the way you described what you felt. That burning feelings, and strong desire to correct what you perceive as an injustice. It’s at times heartbreaking for me, and I feel it strongly any time I am at church and I hear ignorant messages about homosexuality, or women’s equality that just seem so lacking in love. I want to speak up so much, and feel so strongly compelled to do so. Often I don’t out of fear, and self preservation. I know the pain of being ostracized for not “going with the flow” on these things, and it has an effect on both my perception and actions due to my own weaknesses. Is that me ignoring the spirit by not standing up, even though what I am feeling is contradictory to what is currently being taught by the church? I honestly don’t know. It could be the spirit, or it could be my own human experience, and perceptions of injustice prompting me. It could even be me being mislead, as I am not infallible. I try to be open to all possibilities, and shun pride in claiming I know I am right about something no matter how strong of a feeling I have.

          Reply
          • 

            John burnett. on September 17, 2014 at 8:44 am

            i’ve got to run today and so i’ll have to hope i can get back to this later this evening. But I imagine not everyone would point to the kind of experience that Robin describes. So i really do hope that a few others might also chime in with what their ideas of a testimony is and how it’s gained. Yes i know: just pray and read and you’ll get one. But what is the “one” that you’ll get? What is the “testimony” that you feel you have, or feel you had but no longer have, or never had?— not its content (e.g., “I believe this book is true”) but its nature (e.g., “burning in the bosom” or whatnot— and please describe, if you can). Can you have a ‘testimony’ in this sense about anything else? For instance, i don’t think i’ve ever heard a Mormon say they got a ‘testimony’ about the Bible. If not, why not?

            Thanks in advance.

32. 

    John burnett. on September 18, 2014 at 11:07 am

    Robin, you wrote, “I don’t think we need to see LBGT people as being diseased in any sort of way. I would rather see it as a challenge. Everyone comes to this world with challenges and tendencies that they were born with. I believe these weaknesses are things that were developed in the pre-mortal life…” And then you go on to compare being gay to being an alcoholic.

    Would you describe opposite-sex attraction and the desire to settle with an opposite-sex partner as a “weakness” and similar to alcoholism, also?

    I appreciate your desire to be helpful, but do you see the problem that a gay person might have with what you’re saying?

    Reply
33. 

    Robin Lane on September 18, 2014 at 12:09 pm

    John, Same sex attraction and alcoholism are only comparable in the fact that they are physical and can be emotional weaknesses. They are both weaknesses that individuals may have a greater tendency from birth to be more predisposed to that weakness. I am not saying they are the same weakness nor am I saying they may have the same physical, emotional, or psychological affect upon an individual. Opposite sex attraction can also be a weakness and often is a weakness. Some struggle in a marriage and seek other relationships for sexual, emotional, or psychological fulfillment. Some have a greater tendency to want to have it all the time and with multiple partners. Some seek the companionship of small children. Pornography may contribute and even cause some of these tendencies with same sex or opposite sex attraction.

    As we put-off the natural man and follow the spirit (God’s grace), we are able to have peace and be enriched by the Lord Jesus Christ as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 1:3-6. Mosiah 3:19, described putting off the natural man and becoming a “saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father”.

    Reply
    • 

      Jenn on September 18, 2014 at 12:50 pm

      So, let’s say that homosexuality IS a weakness/disposition towards weakness (which I don’t agree with, but let’s go with that assumption). There is still a key difference between alcoholism and homosexuality, especially regarding God’s plan for them on earth.
      If an alcoholic abstains from drinking, they can enjoy all the blessings of life- marriage, family, intimacy, knowledge of what they can accomplish in this life to build their eternal family. Their withstanding temptation in this life is rewarded with the ability to move forward with finding an eternal partner, grow your posterity, and being worthy of them.
      This drive to find our partner and begin our eternal family is something we hear about over the pulpit every sunday in LDS churches, a key part of our existence, a common goal for all church members, and an important part of our very identity. Alcoholics can have that. Porn addicts can have that. All other “sins” that we abstain from in this life help us TOWARDS this goal of love and family. Homosexuals who follow the church’s current doctrine/policy are not just giving up a sin, they are giving up some of the best things the gospel has to offer on this earth. We are asking them to spend their life in limbo, not only not partaking in particular sins, but also not partaking (and not even being able to work TOWARDS) in our favorite blessings.
      Yes, there are others in the church who may not marry in this life- but at least they don’t have to live every day trying to ignore or squash their desire for love and family. They can work towards it, they have a purpose, and until the day they die they can hold on to a hope and work towards being a worthy partner to whoever they might find. But a homosexual 14-year-old in the church may become suicidal not because the temptation to have gay sex is too much to bear or because they want to be in a relationship immediately, but because as soon as they know they are not attracted to the opposite gender, they know they can’t even work towards a temple marriage in this life, they can’t pursue relationships, heck, they can’t even be a boy scout leader as an adult. They lose their ability to even work towards marriage and parenthood (or church leadership in many cases).
      It’s one thing to be abstinent, it’s another to know that you can’t share with your LDS brothers and sisters their priorities of marriage and family being the most worthy thing you can do in this life, with your only consolation being that in the afterlife you might be “fixed” by losing a part of the only identity you knew in your mortal life so that you can finally partake in the blessings of creating an eternal family. You are relegated to a supporting role to us other lucky souls who were born with the ability to be attracted to the opposite gender.

      My marriage and parenthood is the single most important and rewarding accomplishment of my life. It has also been the best refiner’s fire for making me more christlike and helping me find who I want to be for eternity. I could live without sex easily enough- I certainly don’t want to, but I could, especially if I could still keep the family relationships I have worked so hard to build. But living without even the hope of finding a partner, my family, and all the blessings associated with that? That I can’t do, and I can’t ask others to do it either.

      Reply
      • 

        John burnett. on September 18, 2014 at 1:23 pm

        Jenn, thank you. No one could have said it better.

        Robin, i didn’t say you were claiming that gayness and alcoholism were the same weakness, but you were in fact claiming that gayness was a weakness, like alcoholism is a weakness. But you do not call heterosexuality a “weakness”, and you do not presume that one has to put it off, in order to become a saint.

        So, what Jenn said.

        Reply
    • 

      Dusty on September 18, 2014 at 1:19 pm

      I don’t mean to be insulting in any way, but you do show a lack of understanding about homosexuality and the available studies and information. The LDS church itself is trying to get away from statements and teachings of it being just a tendency, or a weakness. All studies, all available information does not back up any of your statements or beliefs about homosexuality except for the prejudices and traditions of man. There is no correlation between being gay and having an addiction to either alcohol, sex, or any other addiction. There is also no correlation between being gay and either pedophilia or pederasty. As accusatory as this is, from your statements I don’t think you know any gay people. And I don’t mean know of them, I mean interact with regularly and have truly befriended and listened to any of them. I mean truly listened. In essence from your statement you are calling them all liars about their experiences and what they share, because sorry gay folk, that’s not God’s plan. You just need to overcome your natural man and weakness while we straight people can go ahead and overcome little parts for periods of time, but then get married and not worry about a lot of it. No marriage for you though. Ever.

      My love for my brother hasn’t clouded me from being able to feel the spirit. It has opened my eyes to an ongoing injustice that man has managed to use God for so long to demean and oppress so many people for so long. Different groups are using God in different ways to hurt so many others. We allow it when the majority of the belief system behind it supports what we feel or believe, and this saddens me. We seem to readily admit the infallibility of our leaders, but any time something comes up to confirm that we contest it so vigorously rather than work to stop the harm these injustices have caused. And if these prophets, seers, and revelators will never lead us astray then why have they already been allowed to in the past? (Most prominent case being black people and the priesthood, and the churches recent change about that.)

      Now I don’t think you mean any harm by what you say. You seem very strong in your faith, and come across as trying to be obedient and do the right thing as your perception dictates. The right thing in this case to you (though this is a very simplified condensation of it) is “follow the prophet.” The love you claim to feel for my brother comes across more as the love you have for your faith, and the commandments you believe you are supposed to follow. Which is great. My brother has many weaknesses, but being gay isn’t one of them. I for one cannot fault him for wanting to break away from the abuses he has suffered at the hands of the Church, Church Leadership (from top to bottom), and from just regular every day imperfect people following the prophet. Though at times I very much feel the same way as him, I am still willing to give things chance, after chance. See if they get better. See if the great love of God that I was taught was there, actually starts being there for all people and not just hollow proclamations and words saying “We love you.” followed with no actions showing that love.

      Reply
34. 

    Robin Lane on September 18, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    Jenn, I am not sure whether everyone of those with a same sex attraction can’t find someone of the opposite sex that they can have a relationship with in this life. Especially, if they sought help through the atonement of Christ to overcome that weakness every day of their life. With that said, I am sure there will be those who can’t find someone and I certainly wouldn’t be trying to judge whether they would have the right to an eternal marriage just because they were not sealed in a temple while in this life. God will be the judge of their circumstances, weaknesses, challenges and how well they sought for improvement in this life. I don’t believe any of the blessings of eternity will be withheld from anyone who seeks to be obedient and improve all of their life. Those who approach any weakness with this attitude will overcome that challenge in this life or in the life to come. Thus, they will reap all the blessings Plan of Salvation has to offer.

    Those who have some of the other sexual weaknesses I mentioned in my prior statement will have to give up something in this life to reap the blessings of eternity. I don’t think anything we give up in this life can compare to what awaits us in the eternities.

    Reply
    • 

      Dusty on September 18, 2014 at 2:28 pm

      Flip the scenario as a straight person. Is there somebody of the same gender we could have a relationship with in this life? Or is there no temptation, no desire, and no want for such a thing, therefor it just doesn’t even register as an option for you and me?

      The church used to encourage gay people to do just that. Get into a straight relationship and marriage and that would help them overcome their weakness. This caused a tremendous amount of harm to the individuals and families as a result. The church has very much distanced themselves from this practice and encouragement, and in fact does not encourage it anymore.

      Those who have sexual weaknesses (again, being gay is not one) may have to give up some of what they desire for the blessings. Reign in some of what they feel. Applying this to gay people means they have to completely abandon it, and abandon any of the good parts about it (what Jenn mentioned, and did a far better job than I could at expressing.) They are being asked to give up great blessings as well, all for a promise that will only come after they die. It is no wonder suicide has such a high rate among LDS gay youth when it is seen as the only way out of who they are and what they feel. Especially if this is a prevailing attitude.

      Reply
35. 

    Robin Lane on September 18, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    Dusty, I don’t think comparing the church’s position on the blacks holding the priesthood and same sex marriage is a good comparison. The church has always taught that all of God’s children will have the opportunity of receiving all the blessings of the priesthood and gospel in this life or the life to come. The history of the Bible shows that there were times when only certain races or people held the priesthood. The churches position on priesthood can be demonstrated in the scriptures. The scriptures do not demonstrate the idea of their being exalted beings that are married and practicing same sex. God did not create men & women of the same sex to be able to procreate. If they were suppose to be sealed together for all eternity, you would think he would have made that a possibility, so they could bear children to have sealed to them.

    I would refer you to a real person who tells a real story. If you get on lds.org, you can look up this talk, “My Battle with Same-Sex Attraction”. She quotes Elder Oaks as using the word, “susceptibilities” which is similar to the word I used, “tendencies”. She also uses, “challenge” and “problem” to describe her weakness. She gives real life solutions to her problem and I believe it may be a formula used by many others to overcome. I don’t believe the blessings of eternity will be withheld from anyone that strives to be obedient, even if they still struggle in this life. I have a good friend that I home teach who shared with me (by typing on his phone) his desires of a relationship with a girl during this life. He was a really cool kid and a great athlete who was in an automobile accident when he was 13 years old that was no fault of his. He can’t speak and has limited use of his right side of his body. After I testified to him for about 15 minutes of his purpose of life and ability to bless his family with his faith and example that may have only come because of the wreck. He typed on his phone, “thank you”. I asked him if he would trade getting to have a girl if it meant, he would loose one of his siblings in eternity. He shook his head, “no”. When we see the gospel from the eyes of our Father in Heaven, it is all about learning to sacrifice of ourselves for the blessings of others.

    Reply
    • 

      Dusty on September 18, 2014 at 2:52 pm

      It is a fair comparison to show where they have been wrong before, and current statements by the church reflect the idea that these were not doctrinal teachings about black people being unable to receive the priesthood like you are defending, but the traditions of men. That’s the current stance of the church, not my own personal stance. I was only mentioning it as an example of leaders being wrong about something. There are others such as Adam-God theory, and blood atonement as well. Teachings that were not true, that are no longer taught and distanced from.

      That is great if all those things work for that one person you refer to, and I am happy for them. What about the countless others it does not and has not worked for and their testimonials? Are they to be disregarded because they do not support your own personal belief, or the belief system of the LDS church? The others I have interacted with and listened to where that only caused great harm? It is all coming full circle right now, and back to the original disagreements with you. Your belief that you just know better, and there is this one prescribed way that will work for everybody. They just have to do it properly, and will come to the same conclusions. I’m sorry. Things just don’t work that way, and I don’t know how to explain it any further than we have already treaded through over and over. It’s like I am being ignored, so that I can be corrected rather than seeing the truth behind all of this and how your life experiences have led you to your conclusions, and mine have led me to mine. Through the same faith, the same process of prayer, the same desire to love, serve, and bless others… we have used the same process, the same God and come to quite different conclusions.

      Reply
    • 

      Dusty on September 18, 2014 at 3:06 pm

      Also, there does seem to be a way through which couples can have and raise children, and have them sealed to them even if they are incapable of birthing them. Adoption. There are families with adopted children sealed to them. This could easily apply to same sex couples, and from even just a practicality stand point is a wonderful, loving thing. Loving homes being provided to children that otherwise would not have them, because due to the agency of all people they were born.

      Reply
36. 

    Robin Lane on September 19, 2014 at 8:16 am

    Dusty, I understand your point. Being able to adopt a child is a wonderful thing. I have considered doing it myself. However, adopting a child can never replace the opportunity to pro-create a child that looks like you and your eternal companion (it is your offspring). It’s not just looking like you that makes the experience special. The mother being able carry and get to know the child in the womb. My wife came to know and love our children way before they were born and much more that I could fully understand. The experience is amazing!!! So, do you believe God is being mean and cruel by not letting the LBGT people have this amazing experience? It doesn’t make sense to me that a just and loving God would do that to his children, if it was in his plan to allow them to be sealed together for all eternity. It idea doesn’t fit into God’s creations. Although, compliance with divine law would be difficult and even heart breaking at times for LGBT people, the blessings of eternity would be there because of their obedience and sacrifice. I believe God understands their circumstances and will judge them according to their understanding, what they have been taught, their situation and their determination to serve and obey him.

    Reply
    • 

      Dusty on September 19, 2014 at 5:19 pm

      I am a father myself, and a nurturing personality. Most men are content with the traditional bread winner/patriarch role, I identify much more with the nurturing role and my dream would be to be able to be a stay at home dad, raising children and taking care of things on the homefront (something frowned upon in Utah LDS culture and communities.) I run daycare, and do things of that nature for income, which not many men do. My experience and love for my daughter began well before she was born, I could understand and empathize with my wife in that regard because the bond between my child and I was, and is so powerful. Our bond and connection is powerful, and the most amazing and life changing experience that has only been replicated by the birth of her younger brother… whom is my ex wife and her new husbands child. I have a special bond with him as well. The love for and of a child, regardless of biology or looks is so powerful and amazing. Honestly, in my opinion it is the best part of life. So do I think the process of playing a small part in the creation of a body is this incredible thing? Not in a loving sense, no. It’s fascinating and somewhat miraculous on its own, but love is so deep and fulfilling that creating isn’t a prerequisite to it.

      I don’t feel qualified to comment on what God is with confidence. It’s not God that is mean and cruel by not letting them have the experience of families, and the reciprocated love and experience of raising children (of which birthing is not a prerequisite, and female couples would still be able to accomplish) it’s people that do that. (The bond is just as amazing whether from your loins, or your choice to love.) People dictate that with their own cruelty. They use God to give themselves a false sense of moral authority over others, which in its own right is wrong and shows their lack of divine backing.

      This topic gets into very dangerous territory though, and another topic altogether and that of “Gods creations” and plan. I can explain further, but I honestly I am worried that the topic and discussion would be offensive to possible readers, which I would rather avoid. (As it deals with this idea that procreation only takes place through sex even for Gods which we strive to be, which raises issues with the birth of Jesus, and the omnipotence of God in general etc.)

      Reply
      • 

        Robin Lane on September 22, 2014 at 6:58 am

        To ALL, I hope everyone finds the truth they are seeking. May the blessings of heaven be upon all of you as continue this journey.

        Robin

        Reply
37. 

    Steve Lowther on October 30, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    You are right. Those closest to him would have known him to be a fraud. In fact, their testimony adds to the body of evidence against him.

    !) Joseph's closest friends all discovered his fraudulence. His closest confidants denounced him as such. For example, William Law, the editor of the Nauvoo Expositor, was a Second Counselor to him. He published an expose of Joseph's public denials of polygamy that culminated in Joseph's death. Other counselors played similar roles.

    2) Lucy Mack Smith loved her son, but in her dotage naively admitted to Joseph's plagiarizing his father's "Lehi's Dream" and of entertaining the family for hours of tales of the inhabitants of America.

    3) There are those who defended Joseph's most egregious accusations of polyandry, like Jedidiah Grant, as when he defended Joseph of polyandry. He accused those who were victims of Joseph's philandering as lacking faith in giving their wives to him.

    Reply
38. 

    Robin Troy Lane on October 31, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    The records would seem to indicate that William Law was guilty of adultery and Joseph Smith refused to allow him to be sealed to his wife. Just as Jesus Christ taught in the parable of the sower (cast his seed by the way side or allowed Satan to devourer his testimony). Whether this is true or not, He claimed his problem was with plural marriage and not the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Then, he would have a problem with Abraham who God blessed with a great blessing of his posterity because of his faithfulness, and Jacob who God called "Israel", who were the covenant people of the Lord, from Judah would come our Master Jesus Christ. Anyone who rejects plural marriage as an eternal principle when God commands it, would be guilty of rejecting the Bible and His ancient prophets. Some of those who fell away from the church came back in full humility. W.W. Phelps for instance made false claims against the Joseph Smith and contributed to the Saints expulsion from Missouri and the unlawful imprisonment of Joseph in Liberty Jail. However, he later begged the Prophets forgiveness and asked to re-join with them. Joseph Smith forgave him and read his letter of apology to the Saints and asked them to accept him back. After the death of Joseph Smith he penned the words to the hymn, "Praise to the Man", as a tribute to the Prophet. What about the 11 witnesses to the Golden Plates and 3 of them seen an angel and heard the voice of God of which they never denied? It is interesting that you rarely find those in high standing in the early church that fell away to go about denying the Book of Mormon. Some of them started or became a part of new churches and instituted the Book of Mormon as part of the their beliefs. Which would indicate that pride, unwilling to sacrifice, or worldly pursuits were their real problem! What about the numerous men who stood beside him through all the persecution and sacrifice? I could give a long list, but I think you get the point.

    I was more particularly referring to his mother & father and his siblings who supported him and some were willing to give their lives for the him and the gospel cause. You may say that his mother was saying he plagiarized The Book of Mormon, but her conduct in leaving her church to be a part of the Restoration of the Gospel would put that claim to silence. I believe she was calling to our attention how well he personally knew the people of the Nephites because of his dealings with Moroni and things that had been revealed to him. Anyone who believes Lehi's dream and the interpretations that are explained in the Book of Mormon could have been plagiarized lack spiritual understanding. The doctrinal content of 1 Nephi 8-12 is so beautiful and no boy or man of any form of secular education could write such great spiritual truths without the inspiration of the Almighty.

    Just as the Savior taught the importance of not casting pearls before swine and giving that which is holy to the dogs. He even expressed to his Apostles in Matthew 13, that was the reason he spoke in parables. Joseph knew that plural marriage was difficult for the Saints to accept as a whole, because it was difficult for him to want to live out himself. He sought to teach them individually and in small settings in a way that they could accept and would not be trampled under their feet, because of the negative vibes brought by the enemies of the church. In Acts 3:19-21 it states that all things had to be restored before the Second Coming of the Savior. Amos 3:7 would indicate this would have to be done through the calling of a Prophet. I believe all principles and doctrines (including plural marriage) had to be restored and the Lord provided the circumstances in the early church to "raise up seed unto me". I believe that God could have made it possible for His Church to continue practicing plural marriage, but it was time for the general rule of monogamy to be reinstituted in the church and he provided the circumstances that would cause Wilford Woodruff to seek for will of the Lord.

    Reply
39. 

    Steve Lowther on October 31, 2014 at 4:48 pm

    Robin Troy Lane , funny thing. History proves out William Laws' accusations against Joseph, that he was a polygamist. Joseph Smith denied this time after time and swore that they practiced only monogamy. He often quoted what was then section 101 condemning polygamy and proclaiming "monogamy the only system of marriage practiced by the Church." It is 100% irrefutable Joseph lied repeatedly.

    Joseph's track record is unambiguous that he lied. There is no evidence that William Law lied.

    So whose testimony are you going to believe?

    Reply
40. 

    Max D. Crapo on November 2, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    Um, could you please correct the word "pale" (meaning "light colored") to "pail" (meaning "bucket?")

    Reply
41. 

    Robin Troy Lane on November 2, 2014 at 11:07 pm

    Steve, I suppose you would call the Savior a liar for hiding truths from his enemies. Matthew 13:10-13, "And the disciples came, and said unto him, why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Joseph Smith was given a commandment to live the law of plural marriage when the church was given the law of monogamy. Plural marriage was the exception, not the rule. Joseph Smith would have been correct to condemn others for living a law that was not given to them. The Book of Mormon is very clear in Jacob 2 about plural marriage being an exception to "raise up seed unto me". The Bible shows many examples of plural marriage by the great prophets of the Old Testament. I suppose you want everyone to believe that Joseph Smith condemned Abraham and others. Or, contradicted what was plainly taught in the Book of Mormon. I don't know where D&C 101 speaks of plural marriage! None of your "FACTS" make any sense!

    William Law was "Exposing" Joseph Smith much like the enemies of the Savior were "Exposing" Him. William Law was printing half truths and lies! Much of the way the enemies of the Savior brought up charges against him. Why would the entire City Counsel vote to destroy the printing press if it was printing nothing but truths? The City Counsel would be the people the city held out to be the most honest people in the city. At the time of the destroying of the printing press, the revelation on plural marriage had been given to the Church for almost one year. The church was fully aware of the law of plural marriage and the fact that Joseph was practicing it! Joseph had taught many people in private prior to the July 12, 1843. You should read the account of Heber C. Kimball wife, She received a personal revelation concerning the plurality of marriage while her husband was struggling to tell her about what had been revealed to Joseph concerning the need for him to practice plural marriage. This revelation was given to her prior to the July 12, 1943 revelation being given to the church. Do you think she lied so her husband would follow the PROPHET and practice plural marriage! If William Law was the honest one, why were so many willing to follow the Prophet Joseph Smith and later his successor Brigham Young? Your reasoning doesn't make sense! After the death of Joseph Smith, an entire congregation witnessed Brigham Young appear to be Joseph Smith in every respect as he spoke to the people as a witness that he was the one God called to be his successor. Once again, when seeing church history with an open mind and heart, and an understanding of how God communicates to men line upon line and precept upon precept, it is easy to understand the history of Joseph Smith. Jesus Christ declared that "by their fruits ye shall know them"! Through the restoration of the gospel came temple marriage. Approximately 6% of those married in the temple experience divorce. That is a staggering number considering 50% of those not married in the temple experience divorce. That number would be even higher if you consider those who are living together and not married. If look at tithing donations, fast offering donations, service, sacrifice and other Christ like attributes it starts to shed a better light on the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Savior taught in Mathew 12:26, "And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand"? Satan would not be the author of a church that is teaching more good and doing more good, than any organization on earth! The Savior has given us the way to know of a false prophet and the Prophet Joseph Smith passes the test hands down!

    Reply
42. 

    Robin Troy Lane on November 2, 2014 at 11:20 pm

    Steve, I suppose you would call the Savior a liar for hiding truths from his enemies. Matthew 13:10-13, "And the disciples came, and said unto him, why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Joseph Smith was given a commandment to live the law of plural marriage when the church was given the law of monogamy. Plural marriage was the exception, not the rule. Joseph Smith would have been correct to condemn others for living a law that was not given to them. The Book of Mormon is very clear in Jacob 2 about plural marriage being an exception to "raise up seed unto me". The Bible shows many examples of plural marriage by the great prophets of the Old Testament. I suppose you want everyone to believe that Joseph Smith condemned Abraham and others. Or, contradicted what was plainly taught in the Book of Mormon. I don't know where D&C 101 speaks of plural marriage! None of your "FACTS" make any sense!

    William Law was "Exposing" Joseph Smith much like the enemies of the Savior were "Exposing" Him. William Law was printing half truths and lies! Much of the way the enemies of the Savior brought up charges against him. Why would the entire City Counsel vote to destroy the printing press if it was printing nothing but truths? The City Counsel would be the people the city held out to be the most honest people in the city. At the time of the destroying of the printing press, the revelation on plural marriage had been given to the Church for almost one year. The church was fully aware of the law of plural marriage and the fact that Joseph was practicing it! Joseph had taught many people in private prior to the July 12, 1843. You should read the account of Heber C. Kimball wife, She received a personal revelation concerning the plurality of marriage while her husband was struggling to tell her about what had been revealed to Joseph concerning the need for him to practice plural marriage. This revelation was given to her prior to the July 12, 1843 revelation being given to the church. Do you think she lied so her husband would follow the PROPHET and practice plural marriage? If William Law was the honest one, why were so many willing to follow the Prophet Joseph Smith and later his successor Brigham Young? Your reasoning doesn't make sense! After the death of Joseph Smith, an entire congregation witnessed Brigham Young appear to be Joseph Smith in every respect as he spoke to the people as a witness that he was the one God called to be his successor. Once again, when seeing church history with an open mind and heart, and an understanding of how God communicates to men line upon line and precept upon precept, it is easy to understand the history of Joseph Smith. Jesus Christ declared that "by their fruits ye shall know them"! Through the restoration of the gospel came temple marriage. Approximately 6% of those married in the temple experience divorce. That is a staggering number considering 50% of those not married in the temple experience divorce (the breakdown of the family is one of the most damaging influences on society). That number would be even higher if you consider those who are living together and not married. If you look at tithing donations, fast offering donations, service, sacrifice and other Christ like attributes it starts to shed a better light on the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Savior taught in Mathew 12:26, "And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand"? Satan would not be the author of a church that is teaching more good and doing more good, than any organization on earth! The Savior has given us the way to know of a false prophet and the Prophet Joseph Smith passes the test hands down!

    Reply
43. 

    Colin Douglas on November 2, 2014 at 11:44 pm

    The "levee" broke for me on January 7, 1961, during the opening hymn of my baptismal service–"Come, Follow Me"–but it was the levee holding back faith and hope, with which I was suddenly, unexpectedly, astonishingly flooded with utter certainty that the Book of Mormon was the word of God and that that that boy Joseph was telling truth. Every criticism and objection looks entirely different in that light of that premise. Yes, my understanding has deepened, and I have shucked off some folklore that I once took for doctrine (starting with "resurrection is a free gift, but exaltation must be earned…."), but that shucking has merely brought me closer to the truth that inheres in the revelations given to Joseph Smith. Call me unkind, but when I read or hear the rationalizations of a former member who has rejected the Restoration, the first question that occurs to me is, "Which commandment did you not want to obey?"

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on December 3, 2014 at 10:23 pm

      It’s really insulting to imply that people would only leave Mormonism out of wanting to sin. It is this kind of condescending conjecture that I was referencing in this paragraph:
      “If you do end up leaving the church, it is very likely that other Mormons will assume you were a lazy Mormon or never had a testimony in the first place, that you didn’t have the spirit with you, were offended, were beguiled by Satan, were reading anti-mormon literature with reckless abandon, or had a proclivity for a certain sin so you found a loophole in doctrine to blame for your exit. You will have an endless amount of people bear their testimony to you and promise you that if you study the scriptures and pray, the Lord will answer your prayers in a manner that would lead you back to full activity in the church. This can be incredibly patronizing because of course prayer and scripture study are a huge part of most people’s process so it is really obnoxious for people to assume or imply that it wasn’t. Very few people will ever consider the fact that leaving the church was by far the harder choice to make than simply choosing to stay. Even fewer will believe you if you tell them that you prayed, studied, were faithful and righteous, and that you ultimately felt the Lord confirm to you that it is His will for you to leave the church. It will be very hard for many Mormons to believe you when you say that you are happy, you are at peace, and that your life and internal happiness or spirituality is better now than it was before.”

      I was led out of Mormonism to become closer to God and Christ by leaving a man-made institution that acts in its own interests. It was a beautiful, spiritual experience. Please don’t assert that it was because I longed to sin.

      Reply
      • 

        Robin Lane on December 4, 2014 at 7:23 am

        Lori,

        I don’t believe that everyone that leaves the church will do so because of sin. Some don’t understand certain parts of history, or it has been explained in a derogatory manor (cast pearls before swine or fed that which was holy to the dogs). Some have planted their seed in stony ground (they do not have sufficient understanding for the heat of the day). Some don’t understand certain doctrines and historical adaptions to such principles as plural marriage, casting pearls before swine, teaching in parables, blacks and the priesthood, the word of wisdom, same sex attraction, receiving revelation, translation, the Book of Abraham. For some these can be called water building up and breaking the levy. Jesus taught about how important it was to have eyes that see and ears that hear and being healed. My study of these principles through “Fair Mormon”, “Seek Truth”, and personal pondering and praying as helped me to have spiritual insight into these principles and historical situations. My faith has grown through the process. However, I recognize that if all we do as dump water into the levy or cast seeds of doubt, we will not strengthen our faith. Being able to see the power contained in the Book of Mormon, the spiritual strength attends temple marriage (producing about a 6% divorce rate, and not to mention the spiritual benefits it brings into the home), and then fundamental teachings about the atonement of Christ. The importance of the Atonement helping us overcome sin and not having an excuse to commit sin. The way this understand results in a people who live greater lives of service, sacrifice, fidelity, and moral cleanliness. These are just a few “fruits” of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the restoration of the gospel.

        I don’t understand how people can feel leaving a church that teaches more about following Christ and living a Christ-like life can bring them nearer to Christ. I don’t understand how rejecting the Book of Mormon can draw someone nearer to Christ. I don’t understand how rejecting Temple Covenants draws someone nearer to Christ. Jesus Christ said in Mark 3:23-25, “…how can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand…”. I have attended many churches and listened to many doctrines, but I have never found anything casting out Satan stronger than General Conference. I have my witness!!!

        Reply
        • 

          Garrett on December 4, 2014 at 7:00 pm

          First of all…look at the research. Almost no one actually leaves the church to sin…it doesnt even come close to ranking in the top reasons, so quit talking at all about people leaving because of sin.

          Second….some don’t understand parts of history or it has been explained in a derogatory manner….yup…the church has done an amazing job showing their understanding of its own history by repeatedly denying it, hiding it, pretending things haven’t happened, etc. A derogatory manner….um, please cite some examples that show this derogatory nature.

          Some don’t understand certain doctrines….quit the insults. It’s childish at best to assume that we do t u deer stand the doctrines or as you call them historical adaptations. You are correct, I don’t understand why a so called loving God would send an angel to destroy Joseph smith if he didn’t practice polygamy. Why don’t I understand it….because the same God that supposedly grants agency is willing to take it away if his prophet doesn’t do something so horrible. Blacks and the priesthood….apparently you missed the memo that it was all disavowed….the church Admitted 130+ years of teaching and practice and doctrine were all wrong…and racist.
          Same sex attraction…please stop using that ridiculous terminology. And yes, I do une’er stand homosexuality….it’s called being born and being attracted to someone of the same sex. There is nothing else that needs to be understand about the issue other than that the church is flat wrong.
          The book of Abraham….yup, not much to figure out there either….the translation is wrong. It was made up.
          Word of wisdom….I understand that most of the modern interpretation is wrong. I understand that the early saints all through the early 1900’s continued to make and drink and sell wine and beer in Utah….including many of the apostles and prophets, I understand that there is no rational reason behind no coffee and tea and that there is more rational for beer(mild barley drinks) than their is for not drinking coffee and tea. You go drink your unhealthy diet sodas and I’ll drink my zero calorie, healthy coffee.

          This church that teaches so much about Christ does a great job at focusing more on real estate, investments, and business ventures than anything about Christ. This church that teaches so much about Christ does an amazing job at creating homeless shelters, hospitals, schools,,..oh wait, that’s the seventh day Adventists. They may “preach” about Christ but they are more than willing to let thousands of LDS children all over the word continue to be malnourished and lacking in schooling while promoting mormon advertising for millions and millions of dollars each year.

          Pretty much everything you have said give me reason to pause and feel the need to hit my head against the table….there was nothing rational or logical in anything that was said.

          Reply
          • 

            Robin Lane on December 6, 2014 at 10:42 am

            Garrett,

            Your response proves my point exactly. You demonstrated you are lacking of understanding and I really don’t have time to be able to explain all of your negative responses in full, but I will respond to a few of them. God gave Joseph Smith an opportunity to choose, but the Angel with a sword was there to help him know the consequences of his choices. I don’t know that the Angel was commanded to kill Joseph Smith if he did not obey, but the idea of him being destroyed spiritually was represented to him in this vision. I love the way people like to bring up that Joseph married a 14 year old girl, but fail to mention it was an eternal sealing only and he had no relationship with her physically. The fail to mention should was one of the greatest defenders of Joseph Smith and plural marriage. They forget her mother received a divine vision of the celestial kingdom and plural marriage being practiced by her, before her husband shared with her the command from Joseph Smith that he struggle with so desperately. I don’t know how anyone that calls themselves a Christian can condemn plural marriage as a practice. Doing so would condemn numerous of the great prophets of the old testament that God praised and never condemned that behavior when it was done in his way (David’s behavior with having Uriah killed to marry Bathsheba was condemned and Solomon marrying outside the Israelite race to gain power was condemned). Otherwise, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others were considered great in the eyes of God. Acts 3:19-21 says all things were to be restored before the coming of Christ. There is much more to be said, but to the open minded this should suffice.

            The Word of Wisdom was given originally as guidance on taking care of our bodies. It gave us some simple counsel and warnings, but was not commanded as strictly as it is today. Everything that is bad is not specified, but there are some important concepts and practices that are emphasized that help us understand how we keep our bodies as a temple. Each of us may find further need to live more strict in other areas of health that are not restricted to attend the temple. The idea of obedience to God in some of the basic health practices are emphasized with the hope we will start somewhere. Some believe this stricter command came from the Prophet to keep individuals out of places that would cause greater spiritual harm, such as parties. The “conspiring men” in the last days has proved to be true as the tobacco industry targeted young kids and this addiction. I saw on Fox News yesterday that 480,000 deaths were attributed to cigarette smoke per year. That danger was completely unknown in 1833 by the world. I could spend hours discussing this topic and how the commandment evolved and why it makes sense to those whose spiritual eyes are opened.

            The church did not condemn the restriction on blacks holding the priesthood in the past in this recent essay. They made a point to mention that Brigham Young praised a black member of the church a few years before restricting the priesthood. I believe that was an effort to say it wasn’t about racism, but it was commanded by God. The essay also mentions the restriction being lifted after President Kimball and the other leaders pondered on the comment from Brigham Young about all these blessing and more being given to the blacks and some future time. The essay mentions the way the church always encouraged integration among races when other churches at the time were segregating. This is evidence of you misinterpreting the essay and not understanding what was said.

            You need to read the churches essay on the Book of Abraham. If you have read it you should understand that the studies you are referring to are all inconclusive. People have used the same rationalization to discount the Bible. My faith reaches much further than these so called teachers of the world. I have my evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham and comes from the power of the SPIRIT and I can’t deny it.

            You talk about the church as if they have no concern on spirituality, but are only concerned about making money for the church. That is the most absurd and ridiculous comment I have ever heard. If you served in leadership positions and really came to know these leaders personally you would know how crazy those comments really are. Logic should be enough to let you know that these elderly gentleman who have done well enough in their careers to live a life of golf and enjoying the luxuries of life with family. Instead, like the Prophet Joseph Smith, they sacrifice almost all of their time to preparing talks, studying the gospel, meeting in counsels, speaking in conferences and visiting the sick and afflicted. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

          • 

            garrett on December 6, 2014 at 11:43 pm

            Robin….you.just keep drinking the koolaid….apparently you are willing to twist anything to match your.belief system.

44. 

    Sheryl Christensen Babcock on November 3, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    I disagree with the levee mentality, but can appreciate where the author and like minded individuals may be coming from. A lifer, raised on California and not Utahn bread, my faith was always questioned by family and friends. I was always taught to place my burdens of UN faith ans questions on the Lord. Of course one will break at any level if they are trying to carry a load, or build a "levee" by themselves. My advice to those who have felt themselves drowning in the flood of doubt to reach foe the hand always extended and let Him pull you to a higher ground of faith and learning.

    Reply
    • 

      Lori Burkman on December 3, 2014 at 10:24 pm

      For many, this action is done by being embraced by Christ and led out of Mormonism.

      Reply
45. 

    Robin Troy Lane on December 7, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    Garrett,

    That Kool-Aid (the church & it’s teaching) I’ve been drinking is something awesome!!! I have an amazing wife and 4 children. My oldest son was recently married in the temple and I owe all of my happiness, joy, and success to Jesus Christ, His church and it’s teachings. I teach seminary to High School Students every morning before school. Although, my sleep is often deprived, I have an amazing added measure of strength that can only come from the Savior. I love this opportunity to serve and it is a great blessing in my life. Drinking this “Kool-Aid” taste much better than the over-flowing sewage that some have spent their time drinking and lost their way. I hope for all the best for you and your eternal happiness. May God bless you with all the riches of eternity.

    Reply
46. 

    Steve Lowther on February 6, 2015 at 6:17 am

    Robin Troy Lane I find it particularly bizarre that you are calling Jesus' parables lies of the same category as Joseph Smith publicly denying that polygamy was practiced by the Church.

    Perhaps you could show us an example of a "half truth or lie" in the Nauvoo Expositor that William Law wrote?

    But then you seem to want it both ways. You said "Joseph Smith was given a commandment to live the law of plural marriage when the church was given the law of monogamy. Plural marriage was the exception, not the rule. Joseph Smith would have been correct to condemn others for living a law that was not given to them."

    William Law accused Joseph Smith of polygamy in the Expositor. So did William Law lie or not?

    Reply
47. 

    flyingratman on February 5, 2015 at 10:44 pm

    John burnett.,

    Fun fact- one of the most acclaimed authors to use chiasmas was doctor seus. Mayne the cat in the hat was one of the 3 nephities?

    Reply
48. 

    Robin Lane on February 6, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    Steve, I didn’t refer to Jesus’ parables as lies, but they are a form of righteous deception. Matthew 5:25, “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.” Matthew 13, explains that Jesus taught in parables to hide the truths from those not ready to receive them. Some of the saints felt justified in not telling about their plural marriage, since it was against the law to have an “open” and “notorious” relationship with anyone but the first wife. It was not against the law if it was kept a secret. Also, some felt these laws were unjust according to the constitution because it did not allow them to worship as they believed. God justified killing in the Old Testament because of those trying to oppress and take away from religious freedoms.

    Quoting from the Church Essay, “Nevertheless, rumors spread. A few men unscrupulously used these rumors to seduce women to join them in an unauthorized practice sometimes referred to as “spiritual wifery.” When this was discovered, the men were cut off from the Church. The rumors prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials that denounced spiritual wifery and polygamy but were silent about what Joseph Smith and others saw as divinely mandated “celestial” plural marriage. The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might do so.”

    Some may call it a lie, but I call it a divinely mandated parable that was hidden for a righteous purpose. You would be wise to observe the great fruits of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Look for the reasons to believe! Observe all the testimonies of those who obeyed his counsel and stayed by his side.

    Reply
49. 

    John burnett on February 7, 2015 at 4:24 am

    Wait! Robin!

    Did you just say that Jesus was a deceiver and that we need to find reasons to believe in deception??

    Reply
    • 

      Robin Lane on February 8, 2015 at 7:17 am

      John, Let me explain my point for fully, because it was obviously misunderstood. For some people it can be seen as a form of deception. But, I believe it is a righteous form of HIDING TRUTHS from those not ready to receive them or those who sought to destroy him. These are the same reasons plural marriage was hidden in the early church. Plural marriage was obviously instituted and lived in biblical times by many of the great prophets (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses). I don’t believe any Christian should condemn Joseph Smith and others for following the example of Christ and living a principle clearly taught in the Bible. Jesus told the Jews in John 8:39, “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham”. The Book of Mormon clarifies that monogamy is the general rule, but plural marriage is the exception in order to “raise up seed unto me”. ALL CHRISTIANS HAVE PLURAL MARRIAGE IN THEIR HISTORY!

      Reply
      • 

        Lori Burkman on February 9, 2015 at 4:13 pm

        I speak at length on the points you bring up in this post: http://rationalfaiths.com/disgracing-god-for-prophets/

        “Polygamy was restored for the sake of restoring the ancient practice of polygamy; there is no moral or practical rationale for it. In fact, polygamy is proven to be less effective to “raise seed” than monogamy (1); so not even that purpose holds weight*.
        Joseph claimed polygamy was needed for a restoration of all things. Which other obscure practices from the dispensations of the Old Testament were restored during the restoration? The Kashrut (Jewish dietary restrictions), animal sacrifice, the Law of Moses, stonings, requisite circumcision… NOPE! But one that God did “need to be restored” for undisclosed reasons is one in which the Priesthood leaders get to marry as many women as they want. I’m sorry, but I’m not buying it. Not to mention, there isn’t a single place in the bible in which polygamy is commanded of God. Yes it is practiced by several prophets, but it is not divinely mandated. The most commonly-referenced story is that of Sarah and Abraham–but God’s directive is absent there as well. Sarah felt pressured to provide promised heirs that she felt she could not produce on her own, so SHE (not God) tells Abraham to take Hagar.
        Genesis 16
        1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
        2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
        3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
        Soon after, Sarah got pregnant. It’s quite possible that the use of Hagar was never in God’s plan in the first place. The use of concubines and the norm of multiple wives was cultural in biblical times, not divinely mandated. Polygamy and concubines existing in the OT aren’t a big surprise since women had no rights and were treated like property in general.
        So why do I say polygamy was for “Polygamy’s sake?” Polygamy nearly ruined early Mormonism (and continues to plague it); early Mormons were rightfully branded as untrustworthy liars for nearly a century. Joseph’s polygamy and his lies surrounding it were a leading motivation for those who sought to murder him. So, so much pain and anguish could have been avoided during the restoration had polygamy never entered the scene. It demoted women to tally marks in an eternal harem, it caused countless children to not have a constant father figure in their home, and created unthinkably complicated and harmful family dynamics. It hindered the acceptance of Mormonism by would-be converts and was a major cause the saints were expelled from their homes and ultimately had to seek refuge by settling in Mexico territory (what would become UT). With all of the emphasis the current church puts on “one man, one woman” marriages and the unchanging importance and divinity of a strong nuclear family– the LDS church is still somehow insisting that God is the sole entity to blame for the travesty of requisite polygamy to gain full exaltation (2).”

        Reply
50. 

    John burnett on February 8, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    Noah had one wife (cf Gn 6.18, 7.7,13, 8.16,18), Abraham had one wife and a concubine, Isaac had one wife, Jacob had two, but only as a result of his father-in-laws trickery, and Moses had one. Isaiah had one, Jeremiah was celibate, and on and on. Which were the “many” prophets who practiced polygamy?

    And where do you get the idea that plural marriage was “obviously instituted” by them? Can you show me even one place in the Scriptures that suggest that?

    Christ was celibate, and apart from that, St Paul gives requires bishops to be “men of one wife” because Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church; he does not have other churches, and therefore marriage is “a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ep 5.32; i recommend reading the whole of Ep 5.21-32).

    You will not accept it if i point out that *never*— that is, *not at any time* in its entire history— did the authentic, apostolic christian tradition *ever* practice, recommend, or permit polygamy, because you think that at some unspecified time after the apostolic period, the entire church apostatized, and thus simply is no “history of the church” at all until Joseph Smith’s restoration. Undemonstrable as that view is, it is actually helpful to us here, because it shortens the conversation immeasurably— it leaves us only with the Scriptures themselves, as a source of information. Therefore all we have to do is ask where the New Testament approves of any plural marriage, whether in principle or in practice. You will not find it.

    What you say simply fails on the facts, and is indefensible *except* on the basis of Smith’s and Young’s doctrine.

    And it’s not somehow “hidden” in the Scripture— or as you put it, “a righteous form of HIDING TRUTHS from those not ready to receive them”. St Paul explicitly says, “We write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge” (2Co 1.13). In modern english he’s saying, ‘There are no secret meanings beyond what you read and recognize right here’.

    Reply
51. 

    John burnett on February 9, 2015 at 9:35 pm

    The story of Abraham and Hagar (Gn 16), far from lending any support to any supposed “institution” of polygamy among the patriarchs, alludes in important ways to three other important passages in the Pentateuch— Gn 3.6, 12.3, and Dt 7.1-6— and makes its points in terms of those. By bringing the events of Hagar and Abraham into the larger context of these other passages, the author points beyond Abraham and Hagar as individuals, and ties their actions to the themes of the Pentateuch as a whole.

    The first sign of this is the notice in 16.1 that Hagar was Sarah’s “handmaid, an Egyptian whose name was Hagar”, as the KJV has it. This is actually a little misleading— the Hebrew actually says that Sarah had “an Egyptian handmaid, and her name was Hagar”. And then, almost immediately, the author again refers to Hagar as “the Egyptian” (16.3), but this time more emphatically— not, “the Egyptian handmaid”, as in 16.1, but “Hagar, the Egyptian, her maid”. Only these two times at the beginning of the story does the author identify Hagar as an Egyptian; everywhere else she’s just “the handmaid”. But this initial and emphatic mention of her geographi¬cal origin has the effect of connecting her with the geographical list that immediately precedes it (15.18-21). In that list, the first placename is Egypt (15.18). Hagar, “the Egyptian”, would then be representative of Egypt and the other nations of that list, and the events in her life of Hagar and that of Abraham in connection with her take place within the larger theological context of Genesis and the Pentateuch where these lists and names occur— that is, within the context of “Israel and the nations”, a major theme in the Old Testament.

    Particularly important are the similarities between Gn 16, the story of Abraham taking Hagar, “the Egyptian”, as his concubine, and Dt 7.1-6, the prohibition of taking foreign wives— a text which had enormous importance in the post-Exilic period (cf Neh 13.23ff; Ezr 9.12ff)— when many scholars think Genesis and the rest of the Torah received their final shape.

    After associating Hagar with the “nations” of 15.18ff, the Hagar story then says twice that Hagar the Egyptian “despised” Sarah (16.4-5). The word “despised” here (Heb. qalal) occurs also at 12.3, when God first bestowed his blessing on Abram. At that time, he not only promised to make Abraham a great nation, but warned, “I will… curse him that curseth thee” (12.3). There, “curseth thee” is the same verb qalal, which appears with this meaning (despise/curse) in Genesis only in these two passages and in 8.21. Since Gn 12.3 is one of the most important verses in the entire OT narrative— no Sabbath-school child would fail to notice that by “despising” or “cursing” Sarah, Hagar is invoking the curse of 12.3.

    As a consequence of despising/cursing Sarah, Hagar is forced into the “wilderness” where she must stay until she submits herself again to Sarah. Only in association with her return to Sarah and her submission to her does the Lord offer her a blessing: “I will greatly increase your seed so that they cannot be counted” (Gn 16.10). This was the same “blessing” which Abraham himself was to receive (17.2) and which Ishmael also was to receive in 17.20 (“I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers”), and its association with the primeval blessing to Adam in 1.26-27 is unmistak¬able. In other words, the actions of Hagar “the Egyptian”, the representative of the list of nations that starts with “Egypt” in 15.18-21, shows how the nations will find either primordial blessing or ultimate curse on the basis of their relationship with Abraham and his family.

    For Eve’s first words after the Fall, the KJV has, “I have gotten a man from the Lord”; more modern translations have, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth [or acquired] a man” (4.1). Either way, we get the impression that her words are positive— acknowledging God’s help, she seems hopeful that the promise of a “seed” to crush the head of the serpent (3.15) might find its fulfillment in her son. But as the Jewish scholar U. Cassuto remarks, the Hebrew can also be read as, “I have created a man equally with the Lord.” In this sense, she would be boasting that just as the Lord created man, so now she also has created a man.

    The immediate context offers little help to decide between two such diverse readings of the passage, whose ambiguities are delicious. But two considerations suggest that the latter interpretation is more likely. First, throughout Genesis, humans attempt and fail to obtain by their schemes a blessing that only God can give— God continually promises someone a blessing, and they push it aside in favor of their own way of getting the blessing. The stories of Eve’s taking the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and of Sarah’s attempt to get offspring through her handmaiden Hagar, mirror each other in just this way, as we shall now see:

    The first section of the Hagar story concerns Sarah’s plan to deal with her own barrenness. Offering her maid to Abram to bear him a child may have been acceptable at the time, but for the author of Genesis, this idea was similar to Eve’s scheme to be “like God”— an attempt to circumvent God’s plan and to get a blessing on her own. How so? Because the writer deliberately shapes his account of Sarah’s plan to get a son with reference to Genesis 3. Each of the main verbs (wayyiqtol forms, if you’re interested) and key expressions in 16.2-3 finds a parallel in Genesis 3. Compare—

    — Gn 16.2a, “so she [Sarai] said”, with 3.2, “The woman said”;

    — Gn 16.2b, “Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai”, with 3.17, “thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife”;

    — Gn 16.3a, “Sarai… took”, with 3:6a, “she took”;

    — Gn 16.3b, “and [she] gave her to her husband [Abram]”, with 3:6b “she also gave some to her husband”.

    In two verses (16.2-3), there no fewer than four unmistakeable echoes of the earlier story.

    The Hagar narrative immediately follows the establishment of a covenant to affirm the promise of a child (15.4). By placing this story here the author suggests that Sarah thought to force the divine promise by supplying it with a human solution. Thus the story falls in line with the theme of the stories which preceded it in demonstrating the unacceptability of human effort in fulfilling the divine promise. Sarah’s plan, though successful, does not meet with divine approval (17.15-19), just as the plans and schemes of those in the previous narratives had ended in failure (3.6-8; 4.3-7; 11.1-9; 12.10-20; 13.1-12; 14.21-24). In fact if Sarah’s plan had been acceptable, there would be a real problem for the coherence of Genesis, since we learn in the next chapter that God intends to bring about his promise through Sarah (17.15-21), and because the narrative has already extolled monogamy in 2.24 (“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”).

    The statement in 17.2 (“I will make my covenant”) poses another question of the coherence of Genesis. Hasn’t God already made a covenant with Abraham in 15.18? Why does he establish a covenant with Abraham a second time? Both concern the promise of an heir and of land. But between these two covenants was the incident with Hagar. There was a need to reestablish the earlier covenant after that unsuccessful attempt to take the promise into their own hands. A similar line of argument can be seen in the narratives of the covenant at Sinai. The covenant is first established in Exodus 24 and then, again, in Exodus 34. Between these two accounts, however, is the incident of the golden calf (Ex 32), which implied a failure on Israel’s part in keeping the covenant, which then had to be renewed.

    So, on the whole, the story of Abraham, his wife Sarah, and his wife’s servant / his concubine Hagar, do not support the notion that polygamy was “instituted” as a “blessing” in Genesis. The story of Abraham is, rather, about God’s intention to bring about and to renew through Abraham the blessing that he had promised to Adam and Eve (1.28). That’s the importance of the fact that the story of Abraham and Hagar (16.1-6) echoes both the story of the fall (3.1-17) and the initial blessing of Abraham (12.1-3), which in turn reflects the original blessing of Adam and Eve (1.27).

    Persons interested in polygamy may note the fact that after the death of Sarah, Abraham took another wife, Keturah (25.1). There is little basis in the Hebrew for the translation, “Abraham had taken a wife” (as in the NIV’s footnote), as if Keturah had been a “concubine” or even a “wife” of Abraham in his younger days, when he was married to Sarah. Support for that interpretation appears to come from the fact that the Chronicler calls Keturah a “concubine” (1Ch 1.32), perhaps on the basis of the concubines mentioned in 25.6. But though the text seems to assume concubinage as natural, concubines are not wives, and 25.1 calls Keturah a “wife”.

    What does emerge from this picture of a new wife and several concubines after the death of Sarah, though, is that the old man of the previous narratives is completely rejuvenated. He continues to be rewarded with the blessing of many offspring. But the writer is careful to point out that none of these sons had any share in the promised blessing: Abraham gave them gifts and sent them away, whereas “to Isaac he gave all that he possessed” (25.5). The focus on Isaac is then reasserted in 25.11, where the writer shows that God himself blessed Isaac after the death of Abraham.

    —(All of this is a digest of John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Zondervan, 1992), pp 111-113, 153-157, and 183-184.)

    Reply
52. 

    Robin Lane on February 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    Lori, the Mosaic law was not restored as part of the restoration. However, the fullness of the gospel was restored. The fullness of the gospel included when plural marriage was acceptable by God. The only clear condemnation of plural marriage is found in the Book of Mormon. This condemnation also gave the exception to the rule. I believe one of the reasons the principle had to be restored is so that we might understand the prophets of the Old Testament and might be able to test our faith in the principles they lived. John mentioned that Christians never practiced it, but I consider some of the men listed below as some of the most faithful Christians that ever lived! Just like God condemned killing, but also commanded it under certain circumstances. The Book of Mormon also clarifies war and the valid reasons for defending yourself.

    I looked up a few references to plural marriage in the Old Testament:

    Abraham’s wives and concubines, with Sarah (Genesis 11:29), Hagar (Gen. 16:3), and Keturah (Gen 25:1. In Genesis 25:6 makes reference to “concubines” which Abraham had.

    Jacob begat the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel with two wives, Leah and Rachel, and two concubines, Bilhah and Zilpah (Genesis 29:23-30, 30:4-9, 32:22). God told Jacob, “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed” (Genesis 32:28).

    Moses was the husband of at least three wives. Zipporah was Moses’ first wife (Exodus 2:21), the Ethiopian woman was his second wife (Numbers 12:1), and Holy Scripture mentions Hobab, the Kenite as the father of Moses’ third wife (Judges 4:11). These are three of the wives of Moses recorded in Scripture and we don’t know if there were others.

    God blessed mighty Gideon, “And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him and said unto him, The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour” (Judges 6:12). “And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives” (Judges 8:30).

    Elkanah, a Levite, the father of the prophet Samuel, had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah, and Elkanah was not a rich man (I Samuel 1:1-2).

    David had wives and concubines and was not condemned by any of this practice except for the situation with Bathsheba.

    Solomon had numerous wives and concubines and was only condemned for marrying outside the Israelite race.

    We really don’t know how many other of the prophets practiced plural marriage because many of them left no family history or very little of their family history. Leaving it open that there may have been many others that practiced the principle of plural marriage.

    Reply
53. 

    Robin Lane on February 10, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    Lori & John,

    Also, I might mention that Paul praises the ancient prophets in Hebrew chapter 11 for their great faith. He concludes in verses 32-40. Including the comment, “of whom the world was not worthy”.

    Reply
54. 

    Robin Lane on February 10, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    Lori,

    Plural marriage is not just about having more children. It is about having a more righteous seed. Or, “to raise up seed unto me”. It is about having children born under the understanding and covenants that God has set forth. This was accomplished in the early church!

    Reply
55. 

    John burnett on February 10, 2015 at 3:29 pm

    Robin, as i noted in my long post on Abraham and Hagar above, Abraham took Keturah as his wife *after* Sarah’s death (Gn 24). And I did mention Hagar the concubine and the “many concubines” of Gn 25.6— but they were “concubines”. If modern Mormons want to revive the institution of concubinage (slave-wives), that’s up to them, but it might be a good idea to recognize the differences between this and marriage. There are certain legal and social distinctions….

    I did mention earlier that Jacob/Israel had two wives, due to the trickery of his father-in-law. Now obviously, within the culture of the day, the father in law was able to pull this off and make it stick, even though Jacob wasn’t all that happy with it (or with Leah herself for that matter), but you can’t argue that this was some somehow a divine commandment, or particularly one that was “instituted” by the patriarchs. In fact as the Bible’s narrative unfolds, people get away from polygamy. What Jacob’s name-change, which you quote, has to do with our discussion of polygamy is opaque to me, so perhaps you’ll explain. If it’s only to support the idea that Jacob was a “righteous” man, nobody was disputing that, although of course his name Jacob basically means “Cheat” and up until that night of wrestling with the “angel” who in the morning changed his name— and that includes the time he was obtaining his wives— he was often a little less than upright. In fact the subtitle of the story about how he won his two wives might be “The Cheat Gets Cheated!” But after that night, “Israel” is humbler.

    Moses did not have three wives. I think maybe you are confused by the fact that Ex 2.18,21 says that “Reuel… gave Moses his daughter Zipporah”. But Ex 18.1-2 mentions “Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law” who took Zipporah back when Moses sent her home. Nm 10.29 then mentions “Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law”. So, the father-in-law of Moses goes by a number of names in the Bible: Reuel (Ex 2:16-22), Jether (4:18), Jethro (3:1), and Hobab (Nu 10:29; Jdg 4:11). There are different *sources* for the story of the Exodus; they were combined apparently in the time of King Solomon and later, and that’s why you often get different names for the same things, like “Sinai” and “Horeb” or even “the LORD” (i.e., “Yhwh”) and “God”. Also, there is telescoping (as well as multiple sources) in the biblical genealogies. If Zipporah is not the only woman from the family of Reuel/Jether/Jethro and Hobab that Moses married, Moses the Lawgiver would be in violation of the Law he gave, which forbids marrying the daughter and granddaughter of the same man.

    If you’re interested in the sources behind the Torah, by the way— and why names can sometimes be confusing— I highly recommend the very exciting and readable “Who Wrote the Bible?” by RE Friedman, a Harvard scholar who’d be a great success in the whodunnit industry if he wanted.

    I think I understand how you might think Zipporah and the “Ethiopian woman” (Nm 12.1) were two different people. However, in Hebrew, she’s the “Cushitess”, a word parallel with “Egyptian” in Isa 20.3–5, 43.3, 45.14, Ez 30.4-9, Ps 68.32. “Cush” seems to be what we now call Sudan , which lies along the southern part of the Nile— Isa 18.2 calls them “a nation tall and smooth” (KJV has “scattered and peeled”, but we understand Hebrew better now). If you’ve ever met any Sudanese, that’s a good description. But it wasn’t just the Sudan. The big Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (“HALOT”) lists all the references and notes, “the lands of the Nile in southern Egypt… Nubia and Northern Sudan… the country bordering the southern Red Sea… in the East… the vast area in the south, reaching far to the east”. This is basically what’s just to the west of Midian, which is “east of the Red Sea”. And Jethro/Hobab etc is precisely “the Midianite”. The Bible doesn’t give any further information about the “Cushite (‘Ethiopian’) wife”, but calling Moses’ wife a “Cushitess” doesn’t imply that she actually came from Cush any more than calling my wife a “Mexican” means she was born in Mexico. All we know about her is that for some reason she annoyed Aaron and Miriam.

    I’m not denying that people sometimes had multiples wives in the OT. I’m just denying that this was ever a divinely instituted “ordinance” that had to be “restored”. Certainly, it was a well-known practice from time immemorial in the ancient Middle East (and still is, among moslems and some native tribes), but it was never a biblical ideal.

    I will add one thing about Gideon, David, and Solomon, though. It seems that these many wives do not enjoy the favor of the Bible’s writer(s). You ought to know about Dt 17.14-20, the “Law of the King”. There we read,

    Deut 17.17 “Neither shall [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”

    1Sm 8.9 says much the same, although it doesn’t go into the matter of wives. Much of the story of Solomon, David, and even Gideon— and the rest of Israel’s kings— is designed to show how they and their sons *violated* God’s Torah— and not just by taking *foreign* wives, too, although that was indeed a problem, since it united them with pagan rulers and entailed the importation of idolatry into the land of Israel. It would be a mistake to think that notices about how many wives Israel’s kings had, were intended to display their “righteousness”. Rather, it showed the grasping and avaricious nature of kingship among men. If I’m not mistaken, the practice is not found after the Exile. “Neither shall [the king] multiply wives to himself.”

    Reply
56. 

    Robin Lane on February 11, 2015 at 6:44 am

    John,

    I think it is absurd to believe that God’s great prophets such as Abraham & Jacob would be guilty of a sin so great as being unchaste or adulterers. And somehow Jacob was justified in being unchaste because of his wives father required him to follow jewish tradition that required the older daughter to be married first. Then, since he was somehow forced to be unchaste he went ahead and had children from two other women that helped form the 12 tribes of Israel. God did not condemn him for this practice at any time! Nothing but good was ever spoken of Abraham and the practice of plural marriage was never condemned by God.

    Solomon married for power and married outside the Israelite race which caused disfavor with God, but he was not condemned for marrying those that were done in God’s way and for his purposes.

    God demonstrated his divine favor for David over and over and the only condemnation was given over the story of Bathsheba.

    Abraham and Jacob are perfect examples of prophets that had great expectations of numerous righteous seed that would come out of their seed. I don’t believe either one of these great men would have chosen a second wife if it wasn’t the will of the Lord. They certainly wouldn’t have continued in plural marriage after they gained divine favor as you suggested. Your ideas are simply not in line with divine scripture and condemn the righteous deeds of our great prophets. Joseph Smith was commanded restore a principle that would test the faith of those who have their minds clouded with personal judgment and ideas. However, it would help us see these great prophets for the men they really were!

    Reply
57. 

    John burnett on February 11, 2015 at 11:27 pm

    [I hope my html works— it seems we don’t have the option of editing!]

    I think it is absurd to believe that God’s great prophets such as Abraham & Jacob would be guilty of a sin so great as being unchaste or adulterers. And somehow Jacob was justified in being unchaste because of his wives father required him to follow jewish tradition that required the older daughter to be married first. Then, since he was somehow forced to be unchaste he went ahead and had children from two other women that helped form the 12 tribes of Israel.

    Who said anything about unchastity or adultery? I was only pointing out that the patriarchs hardly “instituted” polygamy, whether by divine command or otherwise. Your notion of “chastity” and “adultery” in this case is completely anachronistic and inapplicable. I used to live in Africa, and I knew men who had two or even three wives (always in the older generation— the practice was dying out). It simply did not occur to me to think of them as “adulterers” or “unchaste”; that was their culture, and they could be judged only on how they managed it.

    And that goes back to my point that there was no “divine mandate” for Jacob’s double marriage. Nor was Jacob’s marriage a matter of “jewish tradition” that Jacob and his father-in-law were following. First of all, there was not as yet a “jewish nation”; the practice in question is specifically said by Laban to be that of his country: Gen 29.26 “And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn”. So much for any divine mandate, or even for whether the tradition was “jewish”.

    God did not condemn him [Jacob] for this practice at any time! Nothing but good was ever spoken of Abraham and the practice of plural marriage was never condemned by God.

    Again, as I pointed out before, Abraham was not an example of a polygamist; he had only one wife; after she died, he took another, but only one. He also had concubines— but they were not “wives” and this was not “plural marriage”.

    “Nothing but good ever spoken of Abraham”— unless of course you discount his willingness to let Pharaoh and Abimelech mess with Sarah. It was God who prevented it, of course, not Abraham. Generally, whenever a character in Genesis takes matters into his/her own plan, it doesn’t work out well. That’s the point of those stories in the Bible, but it’s not one that’s particularly relevant to our discussion here. Only to say that Abraham too had to learn to trust God.

    Regarding Jacob, well, there was good and bad. He really did start out as a cheat and ended up… well, he was, after all, the bearer of the Promise. That’s the point in Genesis, not that he got himself two wives because the Lord commanded “celestial plural marriage”.

    If I’m not mistaken, you see all the characters in the Bible in terms of a rather simple moralistic scheme in which people are “good” or “bad”. But we need to look at the actual story the Bible is telling. Take for instance Gn 38.6-26:

    “38.18 And [Judah] said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him…. 24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. 25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. 26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.”

    By his own admission, then, Judah the ancestor of David and of Christ himself was guilty. But what was he guilty of?— Incest? No, of failing in his duty to provide an heir for his son Er, his firstborn. The Bible really has other interests than we do.

    I never said anything about God “condemning” polygamy, nor (again) did I say anything about “adultery” or “unchastity”. Of course, “multiplying wives” is not regarded as a positive thing in the Law of the King (Dt 17.14-20), but the wording implies that it’s a possibility, as we do indeed see in the examples we’ve shared. Interestingly, one common motif in these stories where there are two wives (and btw, is there any example where there are more than two, and *that* is regarded as positive?)— is that one of the wives is mistreated or at least treated less favorably, and this is an injustice, which God settled by blessing the less favored one more.

    Solomon married for power and married outside the Israelite race which caused disfavor with God, but he was not condemned for marrying those that were done in God’s way and for his purposes.

    which were those positive examples “that were done in God’s way”? And what do you mean, “in God’s way”?

    *All* marriages in the ancient Middle East were “for power”, Robin. They were certainly not about “romance”; in fact romance is a very recent idea, and not one that’s very important anywhere except in the advanced industrial world where people also make their fortunes individually. Elsewhere, marriage was always about “marrying well”, as they used to say. Family connections are everything.

    So although Gideon refused to be king (Jg 8.22ff), he became rich from war and multiplied his wives like a king, and in view of what Moses / the Deuteronomist had already said about kings, that was not a positive thing. Of course, because he wasn’t a king, he wasn’t in a position to contract international treaties (which is what a wife from another royal house was), but he was rich enough to contract internal agreements with other intra-Israelite families. That’s the significance of the mention that he had “many wives” (Jg 8.30)— the writer there is telling us he was exceedingly well connected. But what is that about? Remember, the Bible is not (as we tend to treat it) a mere collection of random vignettes about individual saints and sinners arranged in a kind of chronological order, useful as moral examples for us individuals to follow. There is actually an order and a plot to the Bible— it is one continuous story— and within this context, no one who has a harem actually comes off lookin’ good. In Gideon’s case, he gets a pile o’ gold, a harem, and falls into idolatry (Jg 8.27). One of his lesser sons pulls off a coup d’etat and murders his other 69 brothers, and finally “a certain woman threw an upper millstone on Abimelech’s head and crushed his skull, and he called quickly to the young man his armor-bearer and said to him, “Draw your sword and kill me, lest they say of me, ‘A woman killed him.’” And his young man thrust him through, and he died” (Jg 9.53-54). But in fact he was killed ignominiously by a woman, and thus ended Israel’s first abortive attempt to have a king, “who had many wives”.

    I don’t believe either one of these great men [David or Abraham] would have chosen a second wife if it wasn’t the will of the Lord. They certainly wouldn’t have continued in plural marriage after they gained divine favor as you suggested.

    You “don’t believe”. Well, that’s fine, Robin, but you’re reading the Scriptures to find support for what you believe— that is, that plural marriage is a divine ordinance— instead of just reading the Scriptures to see what story they’re actually telling. And you know what? the Scriptures are not actually interested in polygamy as such. That is a Mormon issue. The Scriptures are interested in the story of kingship in Israel— how it came about, how it went over the course of 400 years, how it failed, and why it brought about the total destruction of all that was most sacred, including the Temple itself, and the exile of the people to Babylon. That is the story in the Bible! Whether this character or that had one wife or two or “many” is only incidental to that.

    So yes, as both of us have already said, some (but by no means all) of the patriarchs and their descendants— although no prophets, in the formal sense, as i said the other day— nor, as far as i can recall, priests, for that matter— had second wives, in accordance with the customs of the ancient Middle East. Some of them, in fact, were celibate. But *never* was polygamy divinely mandated (as celibacy was, for Jeremiah and John the Baptist, for example), and the *multiplication* of wives was in fact frowned on in the Law of the King. What is more, not one of the 613 laws of the Torah contemplates polygamy in any way.

    Your ideas are simply not in line with divine scripture and condemn the righteous deeds of our great prophets.

    I have “condemned” nothing and no one. I’m just saying the story in the Bible isn’t what you’re claiming it is. You can make the OT support your idea of a divine mandate for polygamy *only* by ignoring, first of all, what the OT is actually about, and secondly, by taking any part that mentions more than one wife out of context in order to use it as proof for your idea of a divine mandate. But even so, you can find no positive mandate for polygamy in the
    Bible. But the most important thing is, you need to work from the Bible as a whole, not from your idea of a divine mandate, for which you ransack the Bible for proof texts.

    Joseph Smith was commanded restore a principle that would test the faith of those who have their minds clouded with personal judgment and ideas. However, it would help us see these great prophets for the men they really were!

    You can claim that JS was commanded to “restore” such a principle, but you cannot show where that principle was mandated in the first place. The Bible does show polygamy as existing, even assumed— but generally only as a function of the surrounding culture. It’s not outright condemned, but nor is it recommended, and never required. The Bible is not interested in proving what you want it to prove, and in fact it rather substantially leads in a direction contrary to what you say.

    If polygamy were such a divine principle, why wouldn’t the Jews have continued to practice it? The Arabs do; many African and American tribes did, and they still do. But when we get to God’s Own Chosen People, somehow they couldn’t seem to keep it together.

    To be frank, though, it would be hard to fit Joseph Smith and his “restoration” into the Bible’s picture of ancient Middle Eastern society ca 1700 BC. You can take the raw idea of multiple wives out of its various social and political contexts in the Bible, and institute it in pioneer America, out of the blue. Hard as the early Mormons tried, and as much as they imagined themselves succeeding, they simply were not recreating ancient practice. They were creating a new thing in the context of a (mostly) Protestant Western nation.

    I guess people here are deciding it wasn’t such a success after all, and certainly wouldn’t be if it were re-instituted today.

    Mind if i ask a personal question? (And do ignore this if you find it prying!) I’m curious— but only if you’re willing to talk about it here— why you’re so strongly committed to polygamy. Is it simply because you can’t allow the idea that JS might have done something wrong, or are you a polygamist yourself (I’ve known some who are), or do you aspire to keep this ordinance someday yourself?

    Reply
58. 

    Robin Lane on February 13, 2015 at 7:30 am

    John, First of all, I have no desire to ever participate in plural marriage. No one can be in good standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and participate in plural marriage. I have already expressed more than once that the general rule of God is monogamy and that is expressed in the Book of Mormon. This would explain why Paul mentions the Bishop having one wife in 1 Timothy 3:2. This language is in agreement with the Book of Mormon in Jacob 2:27. However, the Book of Mormon explains when God would command otherwise.

    You speak of the Old Testament as if there are no principles taught and they are just stories. Jesus shared some of those stories to teach principles. He taught in parables (stories) to teach principles. The Old Testament gives us many stories and with those stories comes principles to those who have spiritual eyes to see. 1 Corinthians 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”. Concubines can be considered a secondary wife, although they did not have all the privileges of a normal wife. These prophets had sexual relations and they bore him children. The idea that these prophets are men filled with the spirit of the Lord and receive direction from him on regular occasions, will feel it is fine in the eyes of God to have a second wife (Jacob), or to have a concubine (Jacob & Abraham) to have children. Then, God would bless their seed or their descendants with great blessings. The Bible does not condemn the “House of Israel” in the way the 12 sons or tribes came from their Father & 4 Separate women. God blessed Jacob and called him Israel and then called the “House of Israel” or “Children of Israel” the covenant people of the Lord. There are principles and lessons taught in these stories. Do you think Abraham & Jacob ever considered a decision such as having sexual relationships, marriage & having children as something they should pray about? These were prophets and surely they would pray about such decisions and God would reveal to them the answers! Do you think it was tough on his wife Rachel to know her husband and prophet had sexual relationships with other women that bore him children. Sure it was, but Jacob would have been following the direction of his God.

    You mentioned that plural marriage was not about romantic relationship in the Old Testament. Funny, because that is what the LDS church has in their essay referring to the early practice in our church. It was more about being obedient and “raising up seed unto me”. The practice was a test of faith for all that were involved. Like the test given to Abraham to offer up Isaac, it purified hearts and strengthened the faith of the early church members. Lori mentioned that it plagued the early church and it still haunts the church today. It may have plagued those of weaker faith then and it surely does the same for those today. But, It becomes a sanctifying and purifying test to those that followed it then and those who choose to allow the spirit to teach them about it today.

    Reply
59. 

    John burnett on February 13, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    Robin, you wrote,

    You speak of the Old Testament as if there are no principles taught and they are just stories. Jesus shared some of those stories to teach principles. He taught in parables (stories) to teach principles. The Old Testament gives us many stories and with those stories comes principles to those who have spiritual eyes to see. 1 Corinthians 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”.

    Without being aware of it, I think, you’ve put your finger right on the whole problem with the way we approach the Bible today. By ransacking it for timeless “eternal principles”, mostly of a moralistic sort but also for dietary, sexual, and social regulations, we actually miss the story as a whole and what the Bible sets out to teach. So I have a friend who refuses to eat pork because “the Bible teaches us that eating pork is wrong”, but he doesn’t have the slightest clue as to why that’s in the Bible; he just knows it’s a “principle” because he read Lv 11.7 and Dt 14.8, which declare the pic “unclean for you”.

    And actually it’s not a “principle” at all. It’s a specific command that God gave to the Jews, to keep them apart from the Canaanites, who ate pork— that’s the actual story in the Text. Antiochus Epiphanes, the Hellenistic occupier of Israel, later tried to enshrine himself in the Temple and to have pig sacrifices offered to him, since he had adopted it as his totem animal. And then Israel was occupied by the Tenth Legion, whose totem was… you guessed it— a wild pig. So no, Jews don’t eat pork! Ever! But that is not an “eternal principle”; it’s a detail of Jewish reality, and my friend, who is actually a Zulu in South Africa, is mistaken.

    Even worse: approaching the Old Testament as a box of random “principles” allows my friend to actually avoid taking the Old Testament seriously. The OT was not actually written for him; it’s the story of the Jews and was written by the Jews, for the Jews, as their story. If Gentiles are going to get something from it, it’s not going to be by searching it for individual “principles”, but by learning to look at the world in its perspective, understanding its big-picture lessons, and of course in contemplating the history that leads up to Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. But as as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, the Greeks and other non-Jews who came to believe in Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, and to worship the One God through him, were not required to become Jews— that is, to get circumcised, adopt kosher, or keep the Sabbath and the rest of the 613 laws of the Torah— but only to “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality” (Ac 15.29; cf 15.19-20).

    But then this leads to the question, what is the relevance of the OT, if it’s not directly written for you or me to find “principles” in?

    Whether Jews or Gentiles, we have to look at the whole story in Genesis of which this part about Abram and Sarai and Hagar are a part. When we do that, as I’ve said before, we discover that there’s a consistent pattern of people trying to get God’s promises fulfilled “their way”, and it never turns out well. That’s the “principle”, if you want principles, that the story teaches. The very first example is Eve and the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but then we have Eve’s words at the birth of Cain, the tower of Babel, and on and on.

    But it is simply not correct to look at OT stories like that of Sarah giving Abraham her maid Hagar so that she could get a son for Abraham when she was barren and past childbearing age— and to conclude from them that “plural marriage is a divine principle”. The Bible doesn’t teach that; it is not even interested in it.

    God explains to Abraham, “And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year” (Gen 17.20-21). But again, if we’re to derive a “principle” from this story, it’s not that “plural marriage is an eternal principle” and that God blesses it, but that God is faithful to his promise, but he will do it his way, and no human being, not even Abraham, can force his hand or make him hurry. That is what the story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac is about!

    So you write that I “speak of the Old Testament as if there are no principles taught and they are just stories.” No, rather, I would say that you speak of the Old Testament as if it were a box of principles unrelated to what the stories are actually about. You’re not actually very interested in the stories as such, much less the Story in the book as a whole. You seize upon secondary details— “here we find a man with two women”— and you turn it into a “principle”. But simply is not correct to look at that story that way.

    The meaning is in the story, as it’s told.

    Concubines can be considered a secondary wife, although they did not have all the privileges of a normal wife.

    You’re making this up in order to fit the facts into your “principle”, which you have already decided. No, concubines were not “wives”, even though your translation says, “Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian… and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife” (Gn 16.3)— for the word for “wife” there is ishah, which just means “woman”. But she was in fact not a “wife”; she was a slave (Heb. shiphchah, and Sarai could order her to sleep with and bear a child with Abraham; or as the Bible puts it, Sarai “gave her to her husband”. There’s no moral judgment on that, as you keep insisting; it was simply an accepted practice at the time. But that is not a “marriage”. Compare it to the elaborate weddings of Isaac with Rebecca and of Jacob with Leah and Rachel, and you’ll see what I mean. To say that Hagar and the other concubines “did not have all the privileges of a normal wife”, as you put it, is to understate their position, for sure.

    It was a socially acceptable practice, to be sure, but there’s nothing at all in the story to suggest that polygamy is a divine principle of any kind. In fact the story is about how Sarai was impatient with God and about how “Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai” (Gn 16.2) instead of waiting on God himself, and how they thought to circumvent or at least to expedite God’s plan on their own terms. Because God loved Abraham and had committed himself to him(!), God blessed Ishmael, but did not allow him to be Abraham’s heir. “Unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and while he yet lived, sent them away from Isaac his son, eastward, unto the east country” (Gen 25.6). Generally, by the way, “eastward”— and note that this is repeated twice in that verse, for emphasis— is a negative direction in the Torah. Cain went east, Babel was in the east— and of course, Babylon, the land of Israel’s exile, was in the east. Abraham’s polygamous relationships weren’t part of the story.

    In general, the Bible is not setting forth “principles”, but telling the story of God’s irrevocable promise to Abraham and his descendants. It’s telling the saga of his promise “to Abraham and to his seed forever” (Lk 1.55).

    That’s why what you say in the following is beside the point, and rests on an anachronistic and distorted view of what the Bible as a whole, and the stories in it, are about:

    These prophets had sexual relations and they bore him children. The idea that these prophets are men filled with the spirit of the Lord and receive direction from him on regular occasions, will feel it is fine in the eyes of God to have a second wife (Jacob), or to have a concubine (Jacob & Abraham) to have children. Then, God would bless their seed or their descendants with great blessings. The Bible does not condemn the “House of Israel” in the way the 12 sons or tribes came from their Father & 4 Separate women. God blessed Jacob and called him Israel and then called the “House of Israel” or “Children of Israel” the covenant people of the Lord. There are principles and lessons taught in these stories.

    The story you’re telling is that Jacob was “filled with the spirit of the Lord”, “received direction from him on regular occasions”, “felt it was fine in the eyes of God to have a second wife… or… concubine)”, after which “God would bless their seed” and call them “the covenant people of the Lord”. Interesting that the operative thing here was that the patriarchs “felt it was fine” to take a second wife— shall we presume that if after praying about it, we “feel it’s fine in the eyes of God”, then we too should be able to take a second wife (if of course we happen to live in a time when the church approves of this)? —if we “feel it’s fine”!

    Well, regardless of what we “feel”, that’s just not the point of the story in Genesis. We can either go with the inspired text that’s there, which says what it says for its own reasons, and learn the lessons it intends, or we can use the text in order to claim “inspiration” for our own agenda. Now, our agenda may be good or bad; in fact it may even be something that’s part of God’s will— but if it’s not what the text we’re using is actually about, we’re misappropriating it and our reasoning is specious at best.

    Do you think Abraham & Jacob ever considered a decision such as having sexual relationships, marriage & having children as something they should pray about? These were prophets and surely they would pray about such decisions and God would reveal to them the answers! Do you think it was tough on his wife Rachel to know her husband and prophet had sexual relationships with other women that bore him children. Sure it was, but Jacob would have been following the direction of his God.

    You know, we need to stop making stuff up. Do I “think Abraham & Jacob ever considered a decision such as having sexual relationships, marriage & having children as something they should pray about?”— what does it matter what I think? The Text says nothing about that, at all! The basis of Christianity isn’t what you or I or even a General Authority might “think” Abraham “must have” done; it’s what the Text itself actually says, the story it actually tells. Not what you can imagine “must have” happened behind the scenes. The Text says nothing about Abraham and Jacob “praying about such decisions and God would reveal to them the answers”. The Text actually says, “Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai” (Gn 16.2). It doesn’t say, “Abram went and prayed about it and God spoke and gave him the answer, and he hearkened to the voice of the Lord”; it says, “Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai”— and that is the point! Abram was listening to Sarai, not God. We can assume (and we know from archaeology) that the practice Sarai was urging was socially acceptable. But acceptable or not, this was not a faithful act. Sarai was trying to force the issue, just as Eve had tried to force the issue. For Abraham’s sake, God blessed Ishmael, but Abraham ultimately sent him away. Ishmael was not to be the promise bearer, for God had his own plans in mind.

    Whether you or I or a General Authority “think it was tough on his wife Rachel to know her husband and prophet had sexual relationships with other women” is completely beside the point. The Bible isn’t interested in their feelings at all, and to turn those into some kind of a lesson on “obedience” is to abuse the story. The Torah is interested in the history of the Covenant and the Promise that God had made to Abraham. It is not teaching the “principle of plural marriage”. It is teaching that God is faithful despite, and sometimes even within, the devious and unfaithful ways of men.

    “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2Tm 2.13)— that is the “principle” that the Text teaches, the story that we should be getting from the Bible!

    Reply
60. 

    John burnett on February 13, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    Let me just add that if others are tiring of this debate, do kindly speak up and i will desist. I don’t want to take over, but i find the argument helpful in clarifying my own thoughts, so i tend to keep at it. If it’s useful for others too, then good; if not, then not. Thanks.

    Reply
61. 

    Robin Lane on February 16, 2015 at 7:31 am

    John, I don’t think we are getting anywhere with our debate. I could go on all day about the principles taught in the Old Testament. I don’t believe we have a need to obstain from pork today, but I do understand the principle being taught that is applicable to me today. There is a reason why God gives commandments and those with spiritual eyes can find real life application (Especially, when aided with modern prophets). You don’t read the scriptures for spiritual insights and direction from God, but I feel that is the very reason we should study the scriptures. God has condemned the idea of those who have to have signs given or it has to fit with their mortal intellect. I am very familiar with the spiritual aspect of the Bible and Book of Mormon. Thus, I can see the power of the Book of Mormon with spiritual eyes and I can’t deny it! I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I can’t deny my experience and knowledge of spiritual things.

    Reply
62. 

    john burnett on February 16, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    You know, Robin, it it really for oneself to claim “spiritual insight”? Isn’t that like claiming you’re great, or holy, or wise? but if in fact we’re *not* great, or holy, or wise, and if we lack good insight, we need to pay careful attention to the Scriptures and pray for God to enlighten our darkness.

    Otherwise we end up like the samurai general who, quite sure of his grasp of things, went to the zen master and asked him to teach him the Dharma. The zen master had him sit for a tea ceremony, and when it came time to pour the tea, he poured the tea into the general’s cup until it overflowed— and kept on pouring! The general shouted, What are you doing! the cup is already full! And the zen master said, Yes, when the cup is already full, it can’t hold any more, can it?

    “finding real life application” is exactly what gets in our way. If you think about it, we don’t actually read the Scriptures to find out what they’re talking about in their own way, in their own voice, and to their own audience. Rather, we read them to find something in them that we can apply to ourselves. So we really begin with ourselves, and use the Scriptures to support that. You can even buy a “Life Application Study Bible” at Barnes & Noble— it’s one of the most popular on the shelf! But i doubt you know a single person who can really tell you the actual story in, say, the Gospel of Mark— to say nothing of Nehemiah!

    I wonder on what basis you say, “You don’t read the scriptures for spiritual insights and direction from God”. Why else would one read the Scriptures? My point has only been that when we read them, we ought to ask what the writer was trying to say, not try to “find real life application”. Any wisdom or applicability that we get will come later, out of a clear understanding of the book’s own meaning.

    As I said above, we need to stop making stuff up. Do I “think Abraham & Jacob ever considered a decision such as having sexual relationships, marriage & having children as something they should pray about?”— what does it matter what I think? The Text says nothing about that, nothing at all! What does the Text itself actually say, what is the story it actually tells? You can imagine what “must have” happened behind the scenes, but what it says is that “Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai”— and that is the point that the Text is making! Abram was listening to Sarai, not God. This is exactly the same thing that Adam did,— and God said to Adam, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life…” (Gn 3.17).

    You imagine Abraham praying, offstage, to accept the “principle” of plural marriage. But the Text is actually drawing a precise verbal parallel between Adam and Eve and Abram and Sarai. The Text is trying to show you how God promised that if Abra(ha)m would walk beside him faithfully, he would bless him. The matter with Hagar was not an example of “walking beside God faithfully”. It was an attempt to force the matter, and in fact it was Sarai’s voice (in Adam’s case, Eve’s) to whom he listened, not God’s. Therefore, not surprisingly, Ishmael is not the one who got the blessing.

    That’s the story in the Bible. Not your story about Abraham “praying about it” and “accepting the principle of plural marriage”.

    That’s what I’m saying. I’m asking about how we should go about interpreting the Bible— how we’re to get “spiritual insights and direction from God” out of it. Do we pay close attention to what the Text actually says, and patiently work at understanding the story on the page, or do we read it over and then dream up all kinds of “what must have happened behind the scene”s and get our understanding from that? It strikes me that the latter is perilously close to getting your understanding from your own imagination, no?

    Reply
63. 

    Robin Lane on February 17, 2015 at 7:48 am

    John,

    You obviously don’t understand what the Bible teaches about prophets. I don’t think I am making anything up to assume that a prophet prays when making important decisions. Prayer is the most basic form of worship and I would be totally blind to think a prophet would not pray about marriage or sexual relationships with someone besides the first wife. To assume Abraham was guilty of an evil crime like being unchaste before God is pernicious in itself. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say we need to stop making things up and then you make your own assumptions like, “The matter with Hagar was not an example of ‘walking beside God faithfully’. It was an attempt to force the matter”. The “text” does not say that, so why are you making things up? This is exactly why God called a prophet to restore his teaching in the last days. The gospel was suppose to go to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. The gospel can not be preached in its purity without a prophet on the earth. Prophets don’t make things up and they have eyes that see and ears to hear. They teach us how to see and hear the same thing. I am sorry, but I can feel the spirit with so much power as I hear our modern Apostles and Prophets speak. Growing up I attended two different private schools and I have attending many services with other preachers and have never felt or seen the spiritual insights and heard talks that have changed my life for the better like I have experienced in this (LDS) church. I have listened to their talks with hundreds of hours of my time. I have read their discourses with countless hours of my time and feel their power. I have experiences I can’t deny and I know with all of my soul that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ.

    Reply
64. 

    Robin Lane on February 17, 2015 at 7:55 am

    John,

    The Bible teaches us that prophets communicate with God. I don’t think I am making anything up to assume that a prophet prays when making important decisions. Prayer is the most basic form of worship and I would be totally blind to think a prophet would not pray about marriage or sexual relationships with someone besides the first wife. To assume Abraham was guilty of an evil crime like being unchaste before God is pernicious in itself. You say we need to stop making things up and then you make your own assumptions like, “The matter with Hagar was not an example of ‘walking beside God faithfully’. It was an attempt to force the matter”. The “text” does not say that! So, why are you making your own assumptions if you only go off of what is written in the text?

    The gospel was suppose to go to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. The gospel can not be preached in its purity without a prophet on the earth. Prophets don’t make things up and they have eyes that see and ears to hear. They teach us how to see and hear the same thing. I am sorry, but I can feel the spirit with so much power as I hear our modern Apostles and Prophets speak. Growing up I attended two different private schools and I have attending many services with other preachers and have never felt or seen the spiritual insights and heard talks that have changed my life for the better like I have experienced in this (LDS) church. I have listened to their talks with hundreds of hours of my time. I have read their discourses with countless hours of my time and feel their power. I have experiences I can’t deny and I know with all of my soul that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ.

    Reply
65. 

    john burnett on February 17, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    Robin,

    You say we need to stop making things up and then you make your own assumptions like, “The matter with Hagar was not an example of ‘walking beside God faithfully’. It was an attempt to force the matter”. The “text” does not say that, so why are you making things up?

    Gen 16.2 “And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.”

    Right there— Sarai was not with the program. She thought she was too old to have a child and the only way to deal with it was to give her slave-girl to Abraham.

    Then, Abraham—

    Gen 17.17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

    Abraham doubts God, and comes up with a counter-proposal—

    Gen 17.18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

    But God goes, Nuh-uh! we’ll do it my way—

    Gen 17.19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

    I don’t know about you, but there’s nothing there about Abraham resorting to prayer in order to come to a “feeling” that it would be ok to take Hagar as his concubine (not as a “wife”, but that’s a separate discussion).

    Sarai doubted that God was going to give her a son when she was 90, so she comes up with a plan. The point is obviously to make sure Abraham’s descendant receives the Inheritance. And Abraham “hearkened to the voice of his wife” (Gn 16.2), just like Adam “hearkened to the voice of his wife” (Gn 3.17). The writer just dropped you a huge clue. Did you get it?

    You assume that I can only be saying that “Abraham was guilty of an evil crime like being unchaste before God” but that is only because you have trouble thinking about the story in terms other than “morality”.

    Polygamy and concubinage— far from being divine ordinances instituted by the prophets— were commonly accepted practices in the ancient Middle East. “Being unchaste” in the sense you mean it, is simply not at issue in this story or for this writer; again, that’s a frame in which you view it because you don’t know how else to view it. But our modern sense of “morality” in these matters is the end-product of a very long development in which monogamy has become not only normative, but mandatory, and everything else is “unchastity”. That simply wasn’t the case, obviously, for Abraham. There were rules, but they weren’t our rules.

    But the story is not about Abraham’s “morality” in any case. It’s about God’s promise, and what people did or didn’t do to be faithful to Him who had given that promise, and about how God went about fulfilling his promise, often despite our Adamic penchant for straying (sometimes badly, though that’s not the present case). So this story is one instance where the Promise-Bearer is, well… not exactly with the program. As the writer says, he “listened to the voice of his wife”.

    Read the rest of Genesis. It never quite works out when people listen to someone instead of God, when God is the one they ought to be listening to.

    That’s the writer’s story. And if you want a “spiritual principle”, well, we can reflect on the fact that they had to wait a very long time, “hoping against all hope”, as St Paul puts it, before God did, in his own time, what he promised.

    Thank you for your repeated testimony about your belief in prophets but I have to tell you, it really doesn’t speak to me. “I have listened to many speakers and I know they’re right”— is that supposed to convince anyone? It actually sounds— forgive me, and i really don’t mean this to you personally but to anyone of any persuasion who resorts to such an argument— kind of puffed up, like a claim that one is justified in having a high opinion of oneself— just because oine has listened to some audios and liked what they were saying.

    Robin, I don’t question whether “a prophet prays when making important decisions”. I’m just saying that the story in Genesis isn’t about that, at all; it doesn’t at any point show Abraham praying; that’s just not what the story is talking about. I’m also sure Abraham was a good husband and a good father, but the story that the author of Genesis is telling here is not about that, either.

    Reply
66. 

    Robin Lane on February 18, 2015 at 7:46 am

    John,

    You say that Abraham had rules that are not our rules because of his culture and it has nothing to do with morality. I agree with the rules being different because it’s either commanded by God or it’s not. I don’t agree this idea of culture determining right or wrong in the eyes of God. God did not excuse plural marriage because of culture and these great prophets were not so spiritually dead that they would just conform to culture and not have enough sense to look to God. God did not condemn Abraham for taking Hagar as a wife or concubine, but he had not chosen Hagar to give birth to the chosen lineage or the lineage where he would establish his everlasting covenant (this is what is in the text). He said he would establish his covenant through Isaac. You were adding to the scripture the idea that God had condemned the marriage because he had not chosen Ishmael as the future lineage that would receive the blessing of the covenant. Yes, it is obvious that Sarai doubted her ability to have children and made the request to Abraham so he would have children. My wife would never suggest me have children with another woman because she and I both know at this time it is wrong in the eyes of God. Also, if she did make the request I would not even consider doing it because I know it is wrong. It is not wrong to assume that Abraham and Sarai would know if God would frown upon him having concubines even if you don’t think he prayed. And this was not his only concubine! Then you have Jacob who had 7 years of working for Rachel’s father to say a prayer or determine if it is right in the sight of God to have another wife. Surely, this great prophet understood the things of God way more than you do.

    You accuse me of being lifted up in myself, because I trust in the things God has given me to find answers. It’s not about me, but about the scriptures, prayer, The Holy Ghost, and the Lord’s Prophets! You are the one that has all of this trust in yourself and your education and or what someone else tells you the scriptures mean. I don’t put my trust in my education alone, but those things the scriptures teach me to put my trust in. God reveals his secrets through his servants the Prophets (Amos 3:7). God reveals his scriptures through prophets and without prophets we can’t possibly understand them in full. 2 Peter 1:19-21, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    Reply
67. 

    john burnett on February 18, 2015 at 1:20 pm

    You say that Abraham had rules that are not our rules because of his culture and it has nothing to do with morality. I agree with the rules being different because it’s either commanded by God or it’s not.

    No it was a common practice throughout the ancient Middle East, and elsewhere. To suggest that this was “commanded by God” is… imaginary. It was just what people did. Was it right or wrong? Well, the Bible isn’t really interested in that question, at least at that point and in those circumstances. Abraham belongs no more to your world than you belong to his.

    I don’t agree this idea of culture determining right or wrong in the eyes of God. God did not excuse plural marriage because of culture and these great prophets were not so spiritually dead that they would just conform to culture and not have enough sense to look to God.

    This entire narrative of yours— and you seem unable to think of the story of Abraham in any other framework than that of early 21st century Utah Mormonism— is all about religious and moral issues that we face today. You’re going to the Bible for guidance regarding our present lives. But you assume that Abraham would pretty much behave as you would. “My wife would never suggest… I would not even consider…”, etc. But clearly, Sarai suggested, and Abraham “hearkened”.

    Obviously, culture does not “determine right or wrong in the eyes of God”. Culture is just culture. But the need to have Abraham be what we expect a “prophet” to look like today makes it hard to see that Abraham actually was a guy who lived sometime in the early 2nd millennium BC, and that the writer is telling the story in those terms, not ours.

    So of course your wife “would never suggest”, nor would you agree, etc! But i assure you, if you were a muSoga villager living near the shore of Lake Victoria in the year 1985 and your wife suggested another wife so that you could have an heir, you’d probably “hearken”, and not really think twice about it, because that’s just what people have done there since the beginning of time. The practice is dying out now, by 2015, but it still happens because it’s the culture and it makes sense within the culture. It’s not adulterous, or sinful, or whatever. It’s just what people do (or did, anyway). You would talk about “sin” if you saw a man treating one of his wives unjustly, or not feeding his children equally, but you wouldn’t judge him over the fact of polygamy. That’s just how they’ve lived since the dawn of time. It’s only under western (christian) influence that it’s changing.

    It is not wrong to assume that Abraham and Sarai would know if God would frown upon him having concubines…

    It might not be wrong to assume that, but that’s not the point. The point is, what is the story saying? The story just isn’t interested in that topic one way or the other; doesn’t go there; doesn’t even mention it. You may also “assume” that Abraham ate oatmeal for breakfast, or that he paid his workers in goats, not sheep. The writer could have told a story in which those things were relevant. But our assumptions are not what the writer chose to write about.

    As I said above, Abraham “hearkened to the voice of his wife” (Gn 16.2), just like Adam “hearkened to the voice of his wife” (Gn 3.17). In writing the story just that way, the writer gives us a huge signal as to what he wants us to see. We have to pay attention to the little trail of breadcrumbs he leaves, or we lose the path he’s guiding us along. The story is not in our assumptions— however right or wrong we may be about them— but in the Text. He’s telling a particular story, his way.

    I didn’t actually accuse you of being puffed up. I said that’s how it sounds when someone goes on and on about how they have a “testimony” and they “know”. It sounds simultaneously puffed up— and defensive, actually. If we’re looking to discuss our beliefs, we have to be able to support what we say by an appeal to facts, sources, common reason, etc. Of course, if we’re looking only for support and confirmation, others who share the same feelings may respond warmly. But a forum such as this might not be the place to find that kind of support, because such “testimonies” are precisely what people are questioning. Our private (and even public) “testimonies” tend to fall apart when the assumptions and frameworks within which we are used to viewing the world come under question.

    I have suggested that your story— that Abraham “must have” prayed etc— is not what the Text itself is actually talking about. It’s something you imagine to be true, perhaps with reason— he “must have”, right?— but none the less, it’s a story you’ve imagined, and not the story in the Text, because the Text doesn’t refer to it at all. Its interests lie in another direction. You can build a whole theology on what you imagine or assume to be true— but do be honest, in that case, that the basis of your theology is then your imagination, and not the Text itself.

    Reply
68. 

    Rachel Francom on July 14, 2015 at 10:06 pm

    Beautifully put Lori. I can see by the comments that you were dead-on when you describe how we often use "God's laws are higher than our laws" logic to justify Incongruity. I can also see from several comments that it's very difficult for many Mormons to believe that those of us who have broken the dam are at peace with life–more than ever! When people ask me why? How? A return-missionary in her 30s could leave the fold?!?!? I say, "Because I'm happier". They CAN NOT trust this–or they might add a bucket that their levy can't hold. To truly believe that somebody might be happier by leaving the church is challenge assumptions and admit that the Mormon reality is not the best for everyone….opening the flood gate. Anyway, you are a hero and I honor your work is this mission field. (Also just heard your podcast on Faith transitions and can relate big time).

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.