Postmodernism and Mormonism: Part 3

When we left off, Mormonism was dealing with the clash between modern scientific ideas and its own truth claims. I used the example of Darwinian evolution because it’s instructive as to the response of the institutional church to new and challenging theories. But this wasn’t the only front in the conflict. Far from validating Mormonism’s claims, advances in such diverse fields as archaeology, history, and Egyptology had brought new challenges to the faith. No longer were criticisms of the church coming solely from polemical “anti-Mormons,” but even the religious anti-Mormons were employing scholars in their critique of Mormonism. Rev. Franklin Spalding, for example, in 1912 sent copies of the three facsimiles from the Book of Abraham to noted Egyptologists, who confirmed the spurious nature of Joseph Smith’s explanations of them.

Initially, then, the institutional response was to exclude challenging or controversial scholarship as topics of discussion both in church and educational settings among members. Just as we have seen with Evangelicals, science and religion seemed to have been relegated to different spheres with different purposes, “two sciences” dedicated to the building of different but equally valid structures, although it must be said again that Mormonism always privileged spiritual truth over rational or scientific truth. Joseph Fielding Smith said in a conference address in 1930, “The word of the Lord means more to me than anything else. I place it before the teachings of men. The truth is the thing which will last. All the theory, philosophy and wisdom of the wise that is not in harmony with revealed truth from God will perish. It must change and pass away and it is changing and passing away constantly, but when the Lord speaks that is eternal truth on which we may rely.” Simply put, when faith and “the teachings of men” collide, one must always choose faith.

Eventually, however, the teachings of men could not be ignored, and they slowly made their way into the curriculum at church institutions. By the time I took a freshman biology class in 1982, evolution was taught openly and clearly. However, the professor (who would shortly thereafter serve as a mission president) began his discussion of evolution with a disclaimer to the effect that he had a testimony of the gospel and of our divine heritage as children of God but that for the purposes of science, evolutionary theory had the most explanatory power of any theory and thus would be taught. Similarly, two of my Latin American history professors insisted that what we would be studying about pre-Columbian history was in no way related to what we would read in the Book of Mormon. One of the professors went so far as to say that “there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Anyone who tells you othwerise is lying.”

Thus the exclusion of religion from “real” science had not only become complete, but Mormon scholars had apparently accepted that exclusion. Study of Mormonism’s religious claims was to take place in a religious context, not in the scholarly study of anthropology, history, literature, and archaeology. That doesn’t mean that scholarship wasn’t brought to bear on religious ideas, but rather the intent of the scholarship was not so much to discover as it was to bolster the faith claims of the church. As such, then, apologetics is a different pursuit from secular science and thus properly has no place within the secular academy. Daniel Peterson, head of the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS) wrote,

The unspoken conventions of the academy work strongly against sectarian apologetics or confessional testimony. Arguments directly for or against the truth claims of Mormonism would be beyond the pale at a mainstream academic conference or in a mainstream academic journal — just as arguments for or against Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, or Buddhism would be.

For what it’s worth, I appreciate this convention. I think it proper and useful. It helps, among other things, to maintain peace in the “public square.”

Am I hesitant to advocate my position? Am I embarrassed by my religion? Do I lack confidence in my overall beliefs? Good grief. I should think that if anything about me is obvious, it ought to be that the answer to those questions is an emphatic No. But I would no more bear my testimony of Mormonism in a secular academic conference than I would bring a ham sandwich into a mosque, wear a tuxedo to a football game, or start a political argument during mass.

Strictly speaking, to engage in “faithful scholarship” is not so much a process as it is a perspective or attitude toward the process. Apologetics brings secular knowledge and research to the effort to validate or rationalize religious truth claims, an effort that as Dr. Peterson rightly says would inappropriate in an academic setting.

Some critics have suggested that engaging in apologetics taints one’s academic reputation. It’s not surprising that some apologists take offense when their apologetics are criticized; although they recognize that apologetics and secular scholarship are separate fields, they clearly feel that there is some overlap and that their apologetics are a reflection of their “legitimate” academic activities. Witness, for example the sarcasm apologist Bill Hamblin uses in announcing the publication of a biography of Muhammad: “More proof (if any is needed) that DCP is a pseudo-scholarly hack.” The implication is that, if the apologist is a recognized scholar in another field, his or her work in apologetics must likewise be respected.

So, there is often an awkward tension between the desire to be taken seriously in producing apologetic works and the recognition that one must sacrifice some academic legitimacy in doing so. An instructive example is Dr, Jeffrey Meldrum, a biology professor at Idaho State University. Meldrum brought his academic credentials to a FAIR treatment of “DNA and the Book of Mormon,” but the article turned out to be an apologetic work based on the premise that DNA evidence does not apply to Lamanites because kinship is not necessarily related to genetics: “memes are stronger than genes.” But at the same time Meldrum’s expertise is called on to bolster Mormon claims, his work in Bigfoot studies is dismissed as irrelevant. The reason for this is that Bigfoot studies and Mormon apologetics have both been banished from the academy, while proponents of both seek legitimacy for their own endeavors.

This outline of the relationship between scholarship and apologetics is not meant to suggest dishonesty or shoddiness among those who would defend their faith. I have interacted with many apologists whose integrity and intellect I respect completely. But I would suspect that, although they would see their endeavors as legitimate, they would agree that they are outside the boundaries of academic study.

Advertisements

9 Responses to Postmodernism and Mormonism: Part 3

  1. Jeff Meldrum says:

    Your characterization of my paper, coauthored with Trent Stephens, is superficial to say the least. The significance of memes was one point concerning the ultimate implications of the discussion. We succinctly addressed the limitations of applying scientific methodology to the fundamental question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, in order to evaluate the claims by critics that modern population genetics REFUTE the Book of Mormon. You should turn to our book, Who are the Children of Lehi? for a fuller treatment of these issues from a scientific, not merely apologetic perspective. In short, there is not a valid experimental design to demonstrate the refutation some claim. They ignore the fundamental principles of population genetics and the historical fate of the recent indigenous populations, and limitations of their data, which have rendered any such claims vacuous at best and ignorant and bigotted at worst. You imply that consensus validates the interpretation of data — That betrays a lack of understanding of both the process and the history of science. Many correct notions in science have started out unpopular, as have many incorrect ones been eagerly embraced based on incomplete scholarship. Evaluating the data and their interpretation lies wholly within the realm of academic study, whether we are considering whether the influx of a small band of Israelites would leave a discernible trace in the current shallow gene pool of Native Americans, or whether objectively evaluating evidence attributed to an unrecognized primate in North America.

  2. runtu says:

    Certainly a blog post isn’t a place to do much more than a superficial treatment. I appreciate your response, and I’m not one of those folks who believes DNA evidence refutes (whether capitalized or not) Mormon claims. I do, however, agree with John Clark that DNA evidence does pretty much negate the hemispheric model of Nephite/Lamanite population.

    I don’t “imply that consensus validates the interpretation of data,” and I’m not sure where that’s coming from. As Kuhn argues, “unpopular” scientific theories have become accepted because they explain anomalies in the data. As far as I can tell, apologists for the Book of Mormon have discovered no anomalies but rather are in the business of explaining why the data thus far doesn’t support their faith.

    As I quoted Dr. Peterson, most Mormon apologists recognize that their efforts are rightly separate from academic study. I don’t think that makes apologetics either dishonest or shoddy, as I said.

    • Lamanite says:

      Hi John,

      Hit me up via e-mail. I can’t tell if you are active on MADB. Just checking in mon ami!

      For some reason your post made me think of Henry Eyring Sr. and Sterling McMurrin. When contemplating each man’s Mormon hermeneutic, I am always left with one prevailing thought. Find your own way!

      It is my faith that allows me to wonder and wander in a world full of idea’s. And when reconciliation seems impossible…I simply wait.

      It’s a very comfortable place to be. To some it may be naive, but I usually fall asleep and wake up with a smile.

      Big UP!

      Lamanite

  3. Velma says:

    FACTS FROM MORMONS

    by a Utah resident

    [In recent decades LDS scholars have discovered many early documents throwing fascinating new light on Mormonism’s history. The facts herein, drawn almost entirely from LDS leaders and scholars both past and present, briefly summarize them. Photocopies of (and sources for) all of these facts can now be obtained from the Salt Lake City organization listed herein. To save space, some abbreviations are used: M (Mormon), J.S. (Joseph Smith), B.Y. (Brigham Young), B of M (Book of Mormon), D & C (Doctrine & Covenants), PGP (Pearl of Great Price), etc.]

    (1) PGP contains J.S.’s account of his First Vision occurring in his “15th year” during which “two” personages (Father and Son) appeared and told him to join no church since all were wrong. J.S. “told but one story” of this (Preston Nibley). Upon this vision “rest the truth and value of his subsequent work” (Apostle John Widtsoe). “Its importance is second only to belief in the divinity of Jesus” (James Allen) – for it is foundational for “plurality of gods” and “God became an exalted man.” Some claim that J.S. couldn’t have seen the Father-God and Son-God in 1820 because D & C 84 says that “without…the priesthood…no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.” (J.S. didn’t even claim to have the priesthood then!) This “official” account was “first published…in 1842” (Hugh Nibley).

    (2) In 1953 LaMar Petersen wrote that Levi Young has discovered, in the LDS archives, documents revealing another First Vision account. Young “was told not to copy or tell what they contained” (Petersen). M scholars now admit that leaders had suppressed several First Vision accounts, written or dictated by J.S., for 130 years. (Hugh Nibley wrote that he himself was “refused” permission to see his own great-grandfather’s journal even though he was the one who donated it to the archives!) In one of the newly-found accounts (1835), J.S. said that when he was “about 14…many” personages appeared to him and that he then “knew not who was right or who was wrong.” In his earliest account (1831-32), J.S. said that in his “16th year” only one personage, who said nothing about other churches being wrong, appeared to him. Still another account has turned up. “There are four official accounts of the First Vision” (Richard Anderson).

    (3) Top M historian B. H. Roberts wrote that some of J.S.’s “ancestors…believed in fortune telling, in warlocks and witches.” Many in J.S.’s day, including his family, were “money-diggers” (seekers of lost and buried treasure) and often used occultic “divining rods” or “seer stones.” J.S. used both. He claimed to be able to find treasure by “pretending to see by means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face….the manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!” (Isaac Hale, J.S.’s father-in-law). J.S. wrote that he “only got fourteen dollars a month” for money-digging.

    (4) “Some of the rodsmen or money diggers who moved into Mormonism were Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Orrin P. Rockwell, Joseph and Newell Knight, and Josiah Stowell” (Marvin Hill). J.S.’s revelation that Cowdery had “the gift of working with the rod” (Book of Commandments 7) was changed to “the gift of Aaron” (D & C 8). “During the Nauvoo period Apostle Heber C. Kimball ‘inquired by the rod’ in prayer” (D. Michael Quinn). B.Y. used Cowdery’s “rod” when “he pointed out where the Temple should be built” in Salt Lake City (Anthon Lund journal).

    (5) J.S’s “talisman, which he worked during his lifetime and which was evidently on his person when he was martyred…can now be identified as a Jupiter talisman….Jupiter was…Father of the Gods….the celestial intelligences…guaranteed to the possessor of this talisman the gain of riches, and favor, and power…” (Reed Durham). After his death J.S.’s mother, in a family history, revealed their obsession with obtaining money via the occult – a book banned by B.Y. from Utah but later reprinted after much of it was deleted.

    (6) J.S.’s Nauvoo newspaper reported that when he anticipated uncovering the gold plates, he was thinking of “the certainty of wealth and ease in this life.” Paul Cheesman found a long-suppressed document written by J.S. stating that he “sought the Plates to obtain riches.” The PGP reprinting of J.S.’s history deleted all references to “wealth” and now says he had “no other object in view in getting the plates but to glorify God” (JS-H 1).

    (7) For a century anti-M’s had claimed that J. S. was convicted in Bainbridge, N.Y. of using a “seer stone” to defraud. M leaders had long reacted: “no existing proof that such a trial was ever held” (Apostle Widtsoe); “no such record” (Francis Kirkham). If an authentic court record could be produced, “it would have been impossible for him to have organized the restored church” (Kirkham) and would be “the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith” (Hugh Nibley). M leaders knew that someone had long ago removed the Mar. 20, 1826 courthouse records.

    (8) In 1971 historian Wesley Walters found, in the Chenango County Jail basement, the original bills charged to the county for costs in warrant-serving, arresting, and trying J.S., bills submitted by Judge Albert Neely and Constable Philip DeZeng. Neely’s bill listed “Joseph Smith The Glass Looker” as having been tried on the “misdemeanor” charge on “March 20, 1826.” Walters also found a letter written by Judge Joel Noble (who tried J.S. in Colesville, N.Y. in 1830, when his occultic money-digging was again aired) which stated that “Jo. was condemned” in this 1826 trial. M scholars now admit that J.S. was at least “brought to trial in 1826” (Marvin Hill, Leonard Arrington, Davis Bitton) – a year before he said he discovered Cumorah’s gold plates

    (9) J.S. said he returned the B of M plates to an angel. But long-suppressed facts about the eleven B of M “witnesses” to the plates remain as external evidence that can now be analyzed. (Eight of them eventually apostasized.)

    (10) J.S. said that Oliver Cowdery was led astray by a “seer stone” owned by Hiram Page, another B of M “witness.” By 1841 Cowdery had denied the B of M. He accused J.S. of lying, teaching false doctrines, and adultery. Other M’s claimed that Oliver had committed “adultery.” J.S. testified that Cowdery was “engaged in making a purchase of bogus money and dies.”

    (11) J.S. said that David Whitmer was “too mean to mention” and a “dumb ass,” and the M’s said that Whitmer belonged to a “gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs.” Whitmer wrote that by 1838 the “heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness.”

    (12) In two D & C revelations, J.S. called Martin Harris “a wicked man,” and in 1838 he accused Harris of “swearing, lying, cheating, swindling, drinking” and “debauchery.” Harris said that “Joseph drank too much liquor when he was translating the Book of Mormon” and that J.S. knew what was in the B of M “before it was translated”!

    (13) These three “witnesses” was eventually excommunicated along with Sidney Rigdon and other M leaders. During the Kirtland period, “apostacy” overtook “one of the First Presidency, several of the Twelve Apostles, High Council, Presidents of Seventies, the witnesses of the Book of Mormon…” (Apostle George A. Smith). In 1838 Stephen Burnett wrote that he heard “Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes [but] only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it…” (long-suppressed letter, J.S. papers).

    (14) The translation of ancient Egyptian fascinated J.S. “I can read all writing and hieroglyphics….No man can learn you more than what I have told you….I know more than all the world put together…” (J.S.) J.S. said he translated, from Egyptian papyri, his “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” which M scholars have viewed as his “key” in translating the “Book of Abraham” (PGP).

    (15) In 1935 James Clark and Sidney Sperry discovered the original J.S.-written “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” in the church’s archives. It had been “hidden and suppressed” (Hugh Nibley) for 130 years. “I am amazed how we managed to persuade the Church authorities to let us bring that Egyptian grammar down here to the BYU…” (Sperry). On p. “G” J.S. drew a column of “Egyptian numbers” from 1 to 10 which, embarrassingly enough, almost completely resemble numbers used today by Americans – which caused Sperry to state that J.S.’s “translation” of numbers “is not used in conventional Egyptian.” “Most of the scholars…have already disagreed with” J.S. “on his translation” (James Clark). “Joseph Smith never pretended to understand Egyptian, nor that the book of Abraham was a work of his scholarship…” (Hugh Nibley).

    (16) Until 1967, M writers had been led to believe that the Egyptian papyri J.S. used in translating the “Book of Abraham” had been destroyed in the 1871 Chicago fire. But then came word that they had been quietly “discovered” in 1966. The PGP introduction to the “Book of Abraham” describes it as the “writings of Abraham…written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” “I commenced the translation…found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham…” (J.S.).

    (17) Top M scholar B. H. Roberts wrote that the author of a 1912 work “submitted the facsimiles” of the “Book of Abraham” papyri “to a number of the foremost of present day Egyptian scholars.” Their summaries of J.S.’s translation effort: “impudent fraud….Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham” (A. H. Sayce); “too absurd to be noticed….not one single word that is true….” (W. M. Flinders Petrie); “absolutely ignorant of…Egyptian writing” (James H. Breasted); “pure fabrication….a farrago of nonsense….imposture” (Arthur C. Mace); “pure imagination” (S. A. B. Mercer). Hugh Nibley referred to these men as “the most formidable roster of scholars that have ever declared against Joseph Smith as a prophet….”

    (18) M leaders had long declared that the “Book of Abraham” is 4000 years old. “…the book of Abraham…hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years…” (Wilford Woodruff). M scholars, however, date the papyri much later: “…early Christian times, and thus follow Abraham by about two millennia. Abraham could therefore not be the author of the papyri” (John Tvedtnes); “…in the first century A.D.” (Hugh Nibley).

    (19) Scholars have noted the spectacle of “translating” an impossible number of words from a simple character. Hugh Nibley has written that “when a symbol as brief as cat is ‘translated’ by an involved paragraph of over one hundred words, we are not dealing with a ‘translation’ in any accepted sense of the word….” Nibley translated a few Egyptian characters in the “Book of Abraham” papyri and came up with the two English words “born of”; J.S. “translated” the very same characters and came up with 130 English words found today in PGP beginning with the first word in Abr. 1:29. J.S. derived Abr. 1:11-12 (135 words from the Egyptian word meaning pool or lake, and also derived Abr.116-19 from the word Khons. Leading Egyptologists, when translating the papyrus J.S. used in bringing forth the Book of Abraham, have come up with an average of only 87 English words J.S. squeezed “5,470 words” (Sperry) from the same papyrus; “…a handful of Egyptian symbols was apparently expanded in translation to the whole book of Abraham” (Hugh Nibley).

    (20) Leading Egyptologists have long declared that the “Book of Abraham” papyrus has nothing whatever to do with the Old Testament prophet Abraham or his religion. They have also stated that the same papyrus is really part of an Egyptian funeral document known as the “Book of Breathings” – actually, instructions for including this “Book” with a mummy. The papyrus drawings show occultic, pagan, obscene sketches. Fig. 7 (which is upside down in Facsimile No. 2 in the “Book of Abraham”) is actually an altered reproduction of the original sketch portraying two pagan Egyptian deities known as “Nehebka” and “Min” (Michael Dennis Rhodes, R. C. Webb) – both of whom exhibit an aroused and exaggerated male sex organ.

    (21) In his newspaper in 1842, J.S. reproduced this “explicit portrayal” which then “offended Mormon sensibilities” (Ian Barber). Later PGP editions whited out the phallic portion. But when the “triple combination” came out in 1981, M leaders incredibly restored in Fig. 7 the long-censored “pornographic phallus” along with J.S.’s blasphemous “interpretation” that these two heathen gods represent the “Holy Ghost” and “God sitting upon his throne”!! M scholar Grant Heward wrote a scholarly paper demonstrating that the “Book of Abraham” is a fraud. After he handed out copies of his paper at the church’s 1967 annual conference on Temple Square, he was excommunicated.

    (22) On May 1, 1843 J.S.’s newspaper reported that six brass plates, with apparently Egyptian characters on them, had been found in a mound near Kinderhook, Illinois by nine men. J.S. wrote that “I have translated a portion of them,” adding that the person the plates described “was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt….” Within a few years W. P. Harris, one of the nine, admitted in writing that some of the others had “cut and prepared the plates” and “engraved them” and dropped them “into the pit where they were found” – a deliberate hoax to test J.S.’s translating ability. Another of the nine wrote a similar statement. In 1965 M physicist George Lawrence tested the one surviving Kinderhook Plate and wrote that its characteristics “are consistent with the facilities of an 1843 blacksmith shop and with the fraud stories of the original participants” in the hoax. In the late 1960’s M scholar Bruce Owens sent copies of the Plates’ “hieroglyphics” to Oriental language experts at the Smithsonian Institution and elsewhere – all of whom replied that the writing is not Egyptian but Chinese (similar to the Chinese found on tea chests in J.S.’s day). Apostle Orson Pratt described the Kinderhook Plates (which, like the “Book of Abraham,” reveal J.S.’s ability to translate Egyptian) as a “fraud.”

    (23) The B of M is another work that J.S. said he translated from Egyptian. In recent times M’s have been told: “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.” But D & C 109:7 commands studying as well as faith: “…seek learning even by study and also by faith.” Apostle Orson Pratt encouraged his hearers to test the B of M’s internal evidence and added: “If…it be found an imposition…the evidences and arguments on which the imposition was detected, should be clearly and logically stated….”

    (24) Famous M historian B. H. Roberts wrote a secret, unpublished manuscript entitled “A Book of Mormon Study” which has recently emerged. He demonstrated many parallels between the B of M and Ethan Smith’s book “View of the Hebrews” – the latter widely circulated for years before the B of M came out. In response to scholars wondering if J.S. could have been the real B of M author, Roberts wrote: “…that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question….” He said that “if it be assumed that he is the author of it, then it could be said that there is much internal evidence in the book itself to sustain such a view.” Edward Ashment, an Egyptologist employed by the M church, wrote that “the book of Mormon reflects the literary language of Joseph Smith” and “does not closely reflect Egyptian and/or Hebrew,” adding that the “triple combination’s” scriptures “were all filtered through the same mind….”

    (25) The B of M is the only “ancient Jewish” history written not in Hebrew but Egyptian. In this “Jewish” book, however, there is no mention of “passover,” “unleavened,” “feast,” “festival,” “temple” (for hundreds of years), “altar” in the western hemisphere, “burnt offering,” or offerings labeled “trespass, meat, drink, wave, or peace.” And there is almost no mention of “sabbath,” “sabbaths,” circumcise,” “sacrifice,” “clean,” “unclean,” and “purification.” Yet Alma 30:3 declares that these Jews “were strict in observing the ordinances of God, according to the law of Moses.”

    (26) At the same time, the B of M contains “every error and almost every truth discussed in New York” during J.S.’s youth – “even the question of free masonry, republican government, and the rights of man” (Alexander Campbell). The B of M even contains exact wording found in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” the Westminster Confession (1729), and one of Josiah Priest’s books (1825) – all of these written many centuries after the B of M was reportedly finished!

    (27) Sidney Sperry admits that J.S. inserted into the B of M, often “verbatim,” at least “seventeen thousand words” from the 1611 King James Bible. This is “too striking…to be accidental…” (J. N. Washburn). Although Apostle Orson Pratt commented that the lad J.S. “was unacquainted with the contents of the Bible,” J.S. himself stated, in a manuscript suppressed for 130 years, that he was “searching the Scriptures…from the age twelve years to fifteen….”

    (28) “The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists” (Dee F. Green). Hill Cumorah in N.Y. “was not large enough to have accommodated the great armies which camped around Ramah-Cumorah” (Thomas S. Ferguson). Hill Cumorah was in southern “Mexico” or in “Central America” (Fletcher B. Hammond, M. Wells Jakeman).

    (29) M-ism teaches that “pre-existent spirits” became humans and that humans can become “gods.” Another “progression” is the way M-ism’s doctrines and historical records have drastically changed since 1830.

    (30) J.S. “progressed” from the Bible to the Bible-verse-riddled B of M (still used to attract potential converts) to M-ism’s distinctive beliefs. Many still don’t know that the B of M actually opposes temple oaths, polygamy, baptism for the dead, and eternal progression. And they aren’t aware that Mosiah 3:19 says that “the natural man is an enemy to God” and that 2 Nephi 10:24 tells us that “It is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved” – reflections of many Bible verses. In recent years many M’s have progressed back to the Bible (J.S.’s original source), have discovered verses like Rom. 3:23, Luke 13:5, Eph. 2:8-9, and John 1:12, and then have prayed (in their own words) this sort of prayer: “Dear Jesus, I admit I’m a sinner and realize that your death paid completely for my sins. I forsake them and all religious beliefs not taught plainly in the Holy Bible, no matter what the cost. I ask you right now to be my personal Saviour and Lord. Please lead me into Your truth and righteousness.” (I testify that if you will pray this sort of prayer with sincerity, you will really start living!)

    (31) This paper’s facts are only the iceberg’s tip. Klaus J. Hansen contends that the LDS archives “may well contain important secret documents,” possibly even records of the secret, political “Council of Fifty” – a “kingdom” within, but not loyal to, the U.S. which even ordained J.S. (and later on B.Y.) as “King” (Kenneth Godfrey, Richard D. Poll) and which some believe is still operating behind the scenes. Documentation (and photocopies) of the facts in this paper of mine can be obtained from: U.L.M. [an independent LDS-documents group], P. O. Box 1884, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110.

    (32) Even though the title page of J.S.’s own “History of the Church” declares it was written by J.S. “HIMSELF,” M scholars now admit that less than 40 percent of it was compiled during J.S.’s lifetime. And even “large portions” covering his lifetime “were written by scribes and later transferred into the first person to read as though the words were Joseph’s” (Marvin Hill). Also, M leaders have changed, added, and deleted thousands of words in the same history. They’ve done this to eliminate J.S.’s original statements, some of which were contradictory, indecent, had profanity, or had prophecies that never came to pass. M scholars now know that J.S. and B.Y. continued using tobacco and strong drink all their lives. They know that J.S. secretly practiced polygamy before his polygamy revelation, violated banking laws, committed property fraud, and protected money counterfeiting. And they know that B.Y. and several Apostles learned that they had been indicted on money counterfeiting charges and were about to be arrested in Nauvoo – the REAL reason M leaders quickly hurried up the exodus from Nauvoo during a harsh winter (which needlessly killed many) “rather than in the spring as originally proposed” (Kenneth Godfrey)! M scholars moreover know that B.Y. supervised money counterfeiting in Salt Lake City and was also indicted for murder!

    (33) M leaders have also greatly altered J.S.’s original revelations and much of M-ism’s original doctrine. Newly found documents show that the long-held anti-black doctrine was actually based on a MISSING portion of the “Abraham” papyrus! The still-suppressed documents in the Mormon archives may well throw light on priesthood-for-women and other current issues.

    (Feel free to make and distribute copies of this non-copyrighted paper)

  4. […] a completely different note, both Todd and Runtu have posted interesting points about post-modernism. And speaking of debating the existence of […]

  5. Bull says:

    The reason that religion and apologetics are excluded from scholarly discussions is that they require accepting a priori highly improbable assertions that non-believers aren’t willing to accept.

    The DNA issue is a great example. While it is possible to construct a scenario where the Book of Mormon people left no genetic trace, you have to start with the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is true and work backwards to figure out what to postulate. If you take the text and it’s author at their word, then those assumptions wouldn’t even be considered.

  6. […] post that asked, “Is Mormonism a Postmodern Religion?” I’ve heard people make the claim before, and I feel there is a strange thing that happens to many Mormons as they try to […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: