My Mormon Rant

I’ve gotta say, its pretty hard to be stoic nowadays. Even though I doubt the truth of it, its still difficult to see my supposed “stubbornness” be identified by those dearest to me as the root cause of their current strife. To some I have approximated Korihor; surely if I have recently become dubious towards particular religious dogma than it follows that I have been captiviated by some devil and now assert that there is “no sin.” This is not a dramatization. If I question key tenets of Mormonism (God, prophets, spirit, etc) so much so that I doubt their veracity almost entirely, and act upon these questionings boldly (e.g. don’t go on a mission), then according to Mormon logic, I have wandered away into the mists of darkness, because the great and spacious building was just too damn appealing (you caught me – the underbelly of the whore of Babylon just looks soooo succulent).

But for the sake of argument, lets say that drawing a parallel between good ol’ Korihor and I is indeed a dramatization. If anything, I might be labeled a “lost sheep” (which is arguably a mere euphemism for a Korihor-like figure, but sheep aren’t argumentative morons and most aren’t trampled to death, so I think there is a difference). Lost sheep are the fellows who aren’t necessarily ogling at the great whore, but have fallen sway to the ways of the world. These are the fellows who somehow found more spiritual value in the open-minded words of Einstein or Spinoza, in the complex melodies of Beethoven or Mozart, or in the supposedly strident speeches of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Tyson or Sagan (who are all zealously worshipped by millions of YouTubers, including me) than they did in the trite Mormon colloquialisms repeatedly forced down their throat on several days of the week.

Some might argue that such fellows are not being fair to the church, and are guilty of cherry picking out the more mundane bits of church life. Churchgoers might accuse these poor lost souls of utilizing the straw-man fallacy, where they unjustly label members of the church as old, boring or anti-intellectual, which allows them to make conclusions which are complacent with their pre-existing, church-opposing beliefs. Calling out this fallacy is pretty much a fancy way of criticizing bias, which is a perfectly healthy gesture, since some anti-Mormon attacks aren’t justified with sufficient evidence and are too emotionally charged. But let’s not be brash and hasty, but rather take “anti-Mormon” words for what they’re worth (which is quite a lot in my opinion). Does it make sense to rightly be infuriated by the generalizations that some pathetic church critics make (namely, we are a devilish cult, we’re not Christian, we hate blacks, we hate women etc etc) and then subsequently toss a blanket over anything that even slightly opposes the church, and call anything under our little blankie militantly anti-Mormon?

And I’m not talking to the the sinning Mormons, who don’t understand the gospel and misrepresent our church with their judgmental, disserviceful eyes. I’m talking to the (so-called) good Mormons. Two weeks ago, the church’s Public Affairs Department posted a video on their YouTube channel “Mormon Messages.” The video is named “Anti-Church Material” and starts off with the host, Ruth Todd, saying that the internet is great, but “there’s a lot of anti-Mormon information that’s being… moved about.” For those who have not lurked the bloggernacles and critic sites currently on the web, the anecdote which followed this vague, offensive, straw-man-fallacy-using, introduction may have been convincing. But for those who have, the video was somewhere in between disheartening and downright sickening. Michael Otterson, the managing director of the PA dept, pretty much discounts all anti-Mormon material as “patently absurd, frankly”, and defends this bold claim by recounting his own reassuring experiences. No details or anything – I guess the 3.5k people who have already viewed this video will just have to take his word for it. My reaction? Let me tell you – being an arrogant and confused “lost sheep” in the mists of darkness never felt so right.

Granted, most of this hasty judgment is unintentional. In most religious discussions I have, they’ll agree that there are morons on BOTH sides, but then they’ll change the subject, going on to say that what I am guilty of is making a false dichotomy between in-church spiritual experiences and out-of-church experiences. I am told that spiritual experiences can occur not only in church, but in many other times and places: in a blossoming relationship, in a powerful speech, after a game-winning touchdown, during the climax of a song, in making a scientific discovery etc etc.

Generally, at this point in the conversation I am dumbfounded, as several questions come to mind. If spiritual experiences can occur elsewhere (and for me, more often elsewhere) then why the hell do I need church? Do I need the church to make my spiritual experiences more powerful or more frequent? And if so, is it not then fair to separate the frequent & powerful in-church experiences from the occasional out-of-church ones? Why have I felt more spirit in a single piano improvisation session (a hobby which has been with me almost as long as the church) than in my entire 2 decades of church experience? And lastly and most importantly: who are you to give me guidance concerning my incredibly personal spiritual experiences? If asking questions like this incessantly is the practice of a lost lamb, so bet it. Maybe if people are nice, I’ll shave, and fashion them a nice warm wooly sweater.

And who knows?!?! Maybe I’m wrong about the church! Can’t ever rule out that marginal possibility!
Maybe millions of people did die on Hill Cumorah, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that such a slaughter took place.

Maybe the Nephites did grow wheat and barley thousands of years ago, even though we have no proof that such plants were actually grown there (just to clarify: pollen is practically indestructible and can last millennia; scientists have combed South American waters thoroughly, to no avail)
Perhaps horses, elephants, cows, goats and pigs did live in the Americas at one point in time, but we have no compelling evidence that any of those animals ever did. Horses are probably the most popular and controversial of all of these anachronisms; most scientists believe that horses went extinct in the Americas at the end of the Pleistocene era, only to reappear post-Columbus. I think its hilarious that apologists have tried comparing horses to tapirs using an info-lost-in-translation argument. Could chariots be driven by tapirs? The only worthwhile argument for American elephants, which was largely supported by the corners of a worn-down pillar, which appeared to depict an elephant, has been refuted by science. Scholars can now decipher the hieroglyphics on these pillars, and have concluded that these are not carvings of elephants, but rather
incomplete macaws ( a bird).

It might be that Quetzacoatl, the great white God, was Jesus Christ; however, there are other equally valid hypotheses. Dr Michael Coe, a renowned Yale professor of anthropology, mentions in a podcast on mormonstories.org that the Spaniards had every reason to make Quetzacoatl into a white man, namely Cortes, the white conquistador. Dr Coe says that “they wanted a story that.. would justify and clinch the idea that Cortes was a God”

It might be that the native Americans are indeed descendants of the Lamanites, but none of the DNA testing we have done supports the idea that any of these natives have Jewish ancestry.
Perhaps Joseph’s 1st vision did indeed happen precisely as it was vividly recounted several decades later, after what appear to be significant revisions( tall tales change and improve over time). Even Mormon scholars acknowledge that Joseph’s story was
modified over a long period of time.

It might be that Joseph Smith did actually possess golden plates, a portion of which he translated by putting a stone with magical translating properties into a hat and seeing what resembled parchments of paper (1993 Ensign, A Treasured Testament, Nelson). Joseph obtained this stone while digging a well – the Smith family was poor, and to earn money, the boys ended up doing a lot of local odd-jobs.

It could be that Joseph Smith’s treasure-hunting beginnings (which are explicitly described in one of the best Joseph Smith biographies, Rough Stone Rolling, authored by LDS member Richard Bushman) allowed him and his family to accept the legitimate and important will of God. But it also seems plausible that these magical excursions made it easier for superstitions to thrive within their family.

It might be that polygamy was a spiritually and morally sanctioned practice, however historical documents (specifically those concerning Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger, a relationship which Oliver Cowdery called a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair) leave accepting such questionable practices open to debate, at best.

It might be argued that the some of the earliest leaders of the church, were men too and therefore made mistakes, but I can see how people would think that this discounts some of the overtly racist or misogynistic comments made by prophets of the Lord (Brigham Young, the founder of the school I’m attending, was a feisty one).

It might be that homosexuality is a sin, but experiments have overwhelmingly shown it to be a very real thing. I feel bad for the steadfast and immovable Mormons, since they have to resort to arguments from ignoranceto explain why God created people to be gay if they were supposed to have heterosexual relationships to be exalted (namely: we don’t understand why they have this “problem”, but God must have his reasons- you can’t factor out that possibility! He loves us!) Day by day, it becomes easier to believe that today’s homosexuality debate will end up just like yesterday’s slavery debate the right choice being strikingly obvious, and the counterarguments being almost laughable).

Perhaps Joseph Smith did accurately translate what is now called the Book of Abraham from ancient Egyptian documents that he obtained from a traveling peddler. Nevermind the fact that practically every sane Egyptologist agrees that facsimile #1 is actually the beginning of a funerary document, the Breathing Permit of somebody named Hor. Never mind that all of the Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the facsimiles are considered to be absolute nonsense. Besides, I’ll bet Joseph Smith was making some kind of spiritual translation, which doesn’t necessarily have to comply with a literal translation. Something of that nature.

It might be that the temple rituals have Masonic influence, some of which are pretty creepy (like the slitting-of-throat secrecy oath which was wisely removed not too long ago) but none of these sacred exercises, when interpreted correctly, should ever be viewed as cult-like!

It might be fine that church leaders today don’t seem to be very concerned with all of the things I have just discussed and have intentionally left questions unanswered (if we had evidence, why would we need faith??). Granted, every now and then they try, but things get hush-hush when the answer seems to contradict or cast doubt on the church (the investigation of the book of Abraham is a great example which demonstrates just this). Who wouldn’t value prudence over total honesty if they were trying to maintain 14 million members (questionable # hard to keep track of), many of which are not well educated? Anybody in their difficult position would develop a severe case of scrutiny-phobia (and thus we get unfair excommunications – the September Six is a great example of this, look it up) Every detail that comes out of their mouths is ferociously observed by members of the LDS church for decades. Just imagine what would happen if Thomas S Monson explicitly tried to explain several of the problems of Mormonism (which remember are fundamentally irrelevant! Spirit is what really matters!) In my experience, the closest that any general authority has ever come to doing just this is Elder Holland’s 2009 talk “Safety of the Soul.” Unfortunately, this talk doesn’t offer that much accurate, well-reasoned defense, since the bulk of the talk is a rhetorical, emotional rant (kinda like what I’m doing now). Personally, I don’t think it could safely be done by the church leaders. I wouldn’t label any of them as cowards.

All of these things are possibilities. They might be true! Do I believe they are true? No. Do I have the faith required to cast aside all of these reasons to doubt, and be satisfied with not understanding the world. No. Absolutely not. Is there a chance that I will eventually gain this faith and serve an LDS mission? I highly doubt it.

This is the rant that stews in my head ever time people I love assume me to be something that I am not. My concerns are legitimate. My pain is real. I am not Korihor. I am not a lost sheep. Anybody who assumes otherwise is simply making detachment from the church more appealing (a choice which would effectively alienate myself from pretty much all of my friends and family). From my perspective, supposedly going “past feeling” as is described in Moroni 9:20 doesn’t sound half bad. I’d love to consider the case closed. When I began carefully studying the hushed corners of our church ( through a wide array of websites and books, some pro and some anti) I intended to do just this: let the jury go home. However, I didn’t expect myself to end up on the other side (feeling quite lonely). Now I know the meaning of the phrase “ignorance is bliss.” If only I hadn’t bothered to investigate Book of Mormon anachronisms, or questionable church history – how much happier I would be where I am (@ BYU, surrounded by Mormons)

And I’m not even close to some of the worst-case scenarios demonstrating cognitive dissonance! I think of B.H Roberts, who wrote hundreds of pages on the Book of Mormon and its connection to the View of the Hebrews, believing that he would be able to “look without fear upon all that can be said against it,” and that the church must “stand or fall.” Sadly, he later conceded that through his study, he found that Joseph Smith “possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question” that he could “produce such a work as the Book of Mormon” (I give this as an example to the question: how could an uneducated farm boy have written the Book of Mormon?? – it amazes me that we defend our church with our founder’s supposed stupidity)
I think of Thomas Stuart Ferguson, one of the biggest defenders of Book of Mormon archaeology, and founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He believed that his efforts would support the book of Mormon. However, he later admitted that he had wasted 25 years trying to prove this book. He stated “you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere- because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology”

How sad it is to think that their goals were never even slightly met, that there life’s work was essentially futile. I cringe at the pain they must have felt as they exhaustively worked to find a speck of evidence that agreed with their beliefs, and gradually fell away from the church after finding none.
People say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I counter that with another great quote by the popular, accessible, albeit smart scientist Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Both statements are true; we musn’t doubt so quickly (and end up like the Flat Earth society, look them up hahahah), but we also musn’t accept too quickly. We have an array of beliefs to choose from; it is up to us to establish some kind of credence to particularly influential beliefs (for me its Mormonism). We must find out what is most probable, what is unlikely, and what is essentially impossible, and stick all of our beliefs into this spectrum. We need to observe the evidence, and then make conclusions, not the other way around (in my opinion, this flip-flop is precisely what many apologists are guilty of). Its amazing to me how many people do not understand this inductive form of reasoning.
So, like I said, its becoming increasingly more difficult to be stoic nowadays. As conversations with my loved ones have gradually grown more violent and distant, I have an extremely hard time keeping my composure. Being patient and understanding is becoming near impossible. I just want to break out in a red-faced rage or cry like a little baby. But I know I musn’t do this. Although this problem sometimes seems artificial to me, it is very real to them, and due to this I must remain sympathetic. But, I’ve got to tell you, it is extremely painful.

Who knows what my family will think of me in a year or two, when it becomes evident that I will not be serving a mission.
Who knows what my closes friends will think of me (perhaps to them, I will be a milder case of somebody who neglected the tree of life, and fell away into the mists of darkness.)

Who knows if I’ll get married or have a family, since that seems to be a pretty big contributing factor here @ BYU (which I’m afraid to leave – where would I go? Ive got close to 0 non-Mormon friends)

Who knows if I’ll even be happy in my future, since many of the human connections needed to be content that I have right now are practically hanging by a thread ( and will remain this way for some time, as I endure mission status limbo). I worry that many of them will be painfully, unsjustly severed, and I’ll have to live the sad life of a family pariah. I do live a quiet and somewhat intellectual life (at least I try), but I never intended for this to be perceived as my clver way of using science to push myself away from everybody I love.

Yesterday evening, I took a walk on one of Provo’s beautiful, pretty well hidden trails. About midway, I paused to take a look to the west, at all of the things that I am practically guaranteed if I remain a member of the Mormon church. Beautiful families, beautiful homes, beautiful everything (and I mean this, no sarcasm). I wondered, “Is it reasonable to worry that none of these things will be possible without this church? Is it true that our church is the one true church, and is thereby the best way for everybody to live their life?”

At that moment, I smiled, and kept on walking.