Picking a Babysitter

So a couple with two young children is about to go out for the evening, and they call a babysitter service. Since they called with short notice, they only have two potential sitters to choose from. The service sends over a short description of each that outlines their plusses and minuses.

“So who have we got?” Dad asks.

“Hmmm,” Mom says. “The first one is a guy named Jeffrey Dahmer.”

“Okay, is he any good?” Dad asks.

“Well, there are problems,” Mom says. “Says here that he’s killed seventeen people.”


“Yeah,” Mom says, nodding. “Plus he dismembered them and ate them. Pretty gross, actually.”

“Don’t tell me you’re even considering him.”

“Well,” Mom says, “the other choice is Jerry Sandusky.”


“He’s the former assistant Penn State football coach who was convicted of 52 counts of child molestation.”

“A football coach!” Dad says. “Cool! Wasn’t he a good football coach?”

“Well, yes,” Mom says, “but -”

“That shows he’s competent,” Dad says. “Certainly more competent than that Dahmer guy. What, has he ever even held a job? Sandusky was very well-respected. He won awards and everything.”

“He’s a serial pedophile.”

“Well, yeah, but if you set that aside for a moment…”

Mom gasps. “Set that aside?!”

“Well,” Dad says, “wouldn’t you agree that he’d be better than Jeffrey Dahmer?”

“Sandusky molests children! We can’t leave our kids alone with him!”

“Well, molesting children is bad, but isn’t killing them and eating them worse?”

Mom can’t believe what she’s hearing. “Neither one of them is acceptable,” she insists.

“But for the sake of argument,” Dad says, “wouldn’t you agree that you’d rather have our children molested than murdered?”

“What? How am I supposed to answer that?”

“I’m not saying having our kids molested is good,” Dad says. “I’m just saying it’s better than the alternative. I, for one, would rather keep my kids alive, thank you very much.”

“I, for one, would rather make sure my kids are neither murdered nor molested. I’m calling a different sitter.”

“What?” Dad says, shocked. “You can’t call a different sitter. This is the service we always use!”

“But neither of these choices is acceptable!”

“Well, one is clearly more acceptable than the other.”

“No. Both are unacceptable.”

“So you think pedophilia is as bad as cannibalism?” Dad asks, his voice rising. “Is that it? Are you really saying that?”

“I’m saying that the comparison itself is ludicrous,” Mom says. “Both pedophilia and cannibalism are so awful that neither can ever be considered as viable options.”

“These are the choices,” Dad said. “And I, for one, want my kids alive when we come home.”

“I do, too, but..”

“And look here!” Dad says as he checks his email inbox. “The service just sent us a new Mp3. It’s a secret recording of Dahmer where he talks about how much he likes to eat people. He even uses a bad word!”

“So?” Mom asks.

So? Doesn’t this change your mind? Doesn’t this mean we have to pick Sandusky?”

“Is there any information in there that you didn’t already have?” Mom asks.


“You already know he’s a cannibal. How does hearing him talk about cannibalism make him even worse?”

“I knew it,” Dad says. “You’re a closet cannibal lover.”

Suddenly, the ground opens up and swallows everyone whole.


The end.


While going through my father’s papers, my mother stumbled on this shocking exposé from a 1957 edition of the Daily Utah Chronicle, the University of Utah’s student newspaper. I now have to reevaluate my whole life and come to terms with my father’s scandalous past.

14114466_10153986622954075_61756639_oText of the article:


ASUU Pres. Bob Bennett has been apprehended and charged with looting the Union Mothers Club fountain. A Chronicle photographer caught the tall, spectacled campus leader pilfering money from the pond Friday, March 29, during a quiet period in the afternoon.

Student Senator John Price has announced that Mr. Bennett will have his financial activities investigated as a result of the recent discovery.

Mr. Bennett was booked at city jail Friday night, and held in lieu of a $25 bond. He has claimed himself innocent of the charges. When informed of the Senate’s intention of looking into his financial records, Mr. Bennett said, “Even though I’m completely innocent, I’ll not have those Senators pawing through my records with their grubby hands. I’ll invoke the fifth amendment. In fact I’ll invoke the second, third and fourth amend-ments, too, while I’m at it.”

Francis Martin Erickson, assistant Union director, states that authorities have several bits of incriminating evidence. They include a sample of water drained from Mr. Bennett’s arm shortly after apprehension. Mr. Erickson said that the water sample, along with several dimes and pennies found in the student body presidents possession, all reveal the presence of certain chemicals common to fish food.

The witness, Union receptionist Marva Rae Goring, said that she overheard Mr. Bennett tell Theron Storer Parmelee that he was merely examining the algae formation at the bottom of the pond. “He seems like such a nice man, too,” said the receptionist.

V. Farrell Thomas, who was present at the time of the preliminary investigation, made one of his typically sage comments. “There’s something fishy about the whole affair,” he said. Senator Thomas then quickly jotted the comment down in a small black book which he was carrying. “Another real gem!” he exclaimed.

Investigating detectives also claim to have samples of a greenish substance removed from beneath the suspect’s fingernails. They have sent the samples to the FBI in Washington.

When questioning Pres. Bennett’s mother about his recent financial dealings, the Senate rackets committee learned that he’s been carousing considerably lately. “Bob’s always been a quiet boy,” Mrs. Bennett said, “but lately he’s been chasing around a lot. Just last week, last Saturday in fact, he took a girl to a show.”

The Chronicle photographer, who prefers to remain anonymous, gave the following testimony to investigators: “I had just returned from seeing the art department about enrolling in next quarter’s Life Drawing class, (it’s already filled up due to a sudden increase in enrollment among faculty members,) and had just said goodby to a dejected Pres. A. Ray Olpin, when I strolled onto the scene. Bob was crouched on the edge of the pool with one arm in the water up to his arm pit. He was so busy withdrawing coins and chuckling gleefully that he failed to notice me. So I snapped his picture.”

Mr. Bennett’s father, Senator Wallace F. Bennett, stated, “I’ll be happy to accept the law’s decision in the case. It just shows what a lack of religious upbringing can do.”

Odious Hillary

“Please tell me what you find odious about Hillary Clinton,” a cousin of mine asked on FB last week. “She might be dull, but odious? Dishonest? Corrupt? I’m really not seeing it. She is smart, educated, qualified, capable, and even tempered. She has spun things her way, because that’s how one gets into office — it’s called politics. But I just see a public servant, one who is genuinely interested in leading the country, for good. The contest with Donald Trump isn’t even a contest, if we’re talking qualifications or character.”hot-head-hilary-beat-bill-unconscious-ne-short

Why is Hillary odious? It’s a fair question, and one that deserves a substantive response. I didn’t comment on his FB thread, as I think the answer requires a great deal more time and thought than the normal constraints of social media would allow.

I also, at the outset, want to clarify that in this post, I’m only going to talk about Hillary’s odiousness. I am not going to compare and contrast her odiousness with Donald Trump’s odiousness. Which one wins the race to the bottom of the slime-coated Pit of All Human Odiousness is certainly a legitimate discussion, but it’s not one I’m going to engage in here. My cousin, and many other Hillary supporters, see Hillary as “smart, educated, qualified, capable, and even tempered,” but they’re “really not seeing it” when Hillary is labeled as odious, dishonest, or corrupt. So I thought it would be helpful, in a Trump-free environment, to make the case as to why Hillary Clinton is odious, dishonest, and corrupt.

We begin with Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who came forward to allege that Bill Clinton violently raped her in a Little Rock, Arkansas hotel in 1978.

All right, many of you have already tuned out. Perhaps you think Broaddrick is a product of the right-wing noise machine, or that her allegation is nothing more than a “discredited and long-denied charge,” as NBC News called it in a Today Show segment on May 19 of this year. It’s curious that NBC would be the ones to claim she has been discredited, as it’s their network that first introduced Ms. Broaddrick into the national conversation. Broaddrick had told her story to five contemporaneous witnesses shortly after the rape allegedly occurred, but she was reluctant to come forward until the Monica Lewinsky investigation unearthed her claims and compelled her to go public.

If you have not seen the segment where she outlines the charges, you probably should take a look before we take this discussion any further.

Go ahead. I’ll still be here when you get back.

Okay, now let me share with you some comments by Caitlin Flanagan, a contributing editor for The Atlantic and a self-described lifelong Democrat who wrote a piece for Time Magazine titled “Why This Democrat Won’t Vote for Hillary Clinton.”

In 1999, she described his visit to her hotel room and the sex he forced on her. I sat in my living room watching her describe that rape and I thought: “She’s telling the truth.” My response was not considered; it was visceral. If it’s possible that one woman can listen to another woman tell her story of rape and just sort of know that she’s telling the truth, I had that reaction.

I’m not a woman, obviously, but I had a similar reaction while watching that video. I am convinced, as sure as I am of anything, that Juanita Broaddrick is telling the truth. Which means I am convinced, deep in my bones, that Bill Clinton is a rapist.

It’s also worth noting that Broaddrick’s accusation is not unique. Rape allegations against ol’ Bubba extend back to a woman named Eileen Wellstone, an English woman who insisted that Bill raped her outside a pub when he was studying at Oxford in 1969. (Bill maintains that the sex was consensual.) Arkansas state troopers came forward to say that they helped arrange liaisons with then-Governor Clinton using state resources, and that Bill didn’t always take “no” for an answer. Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock during this time period, reported the following incident in Clinton’s hotel room in 1979. (Warning: Graphic description ahead.)

“I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room.”

At least fourteen women have made claims of sexual assault by Bill, and most of these accusations were in the public record long before Bill was president or even a candidate for president. These are not allegations of infidelity. They are allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. In my mind, this makes Bill Clinton unfit to walk my dog, much less serve as President of the United States. Bill Clinton, in the wise words of George Will, “is not the worst president the republic has had, but he is the worst person ever to have been president.”

In short, Bill Clinton is odious. Really, really odious.

If you haven’t tuned out already, you’ve probably noticed that I’ve only talked about Bill, not Hillary. I’m pretty sure Hillary hasn’t raped anybody, and the sins of a husband shouldn’t be laid at the feet of a wife. Or, in the words of my cousin, “many problems people have with Hillary are really problems they had with Bill.”

Okay. Time to pivot here. Because I promised to make the case that Hillary Clinton is, herself, odious, not just that she stood by an odious husband. But the preceding facts need to be in evidence before we can proceed.

So let’s turn back to Juanita Broaddrick. We know what she’s said about Bill. Here’s what she had to say about Hillary when they ran into each other at an event two weeks after the alleged rape occurred:

She came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said: “I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.” I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase — looking less friendly and repeated her statement — “Everything you do for Bill.” I said nothing. She wasn’t letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering.

She later said, ““I could have passed out at that moment. . . . Cold chills went up my spine. That’s the first time I became afraid of that woman.”

Broaddrick believed Hillary was threatening her. And there is every reason to believe that assessment was correct.

Every time Bill has been (literally) caught with his pants down, Hillary has come to his rescue. When the audiotapes of Bill with his mistress Gennifer Flowers surfaced, it was Hillary who stood by his side to denounce Flowers and give cover to Bill. (Both were lying, which Clinton was later forced to admit under oath.) When the Lewinsky affair surfaced, the first person to go to the press was Hillary Clinton, who insisted that there was nothing to the charges other than the efforts of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to bring her husband down. Multiple people close to both Clintons have stated that it was she who led the effort to destroy the “nuts and sluts” – Hillary’s phrase, not mine – who came forward to denounce her husband.

So it’s not just that Hillary was an “enabler” in the sense that she was wearing blinders when her husband strayed. It’s that she proactively went after the victims of his sexually predatory behavior to shame them into silence, to make them hurt until they went away.

That’s odious. And that’s why lifelong Democrat Caitlin Flanagan “won’t vote for a candidate who helped ‘destroy’ the credibility of women who came forward to report that they had been preyed upon sexually by a powerful man.”

There’s also the matter of Hillary saying that “[e]very survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” She even made a video to this effect. I can’t even link to it, because it makes my stomach turn.

Really, Hillary? Every survivor? Then why doesn’t Juanita Broaddrick have a right to be believed?

It’s not just right-wingers who find her credible. Shortly after Donald Trump reminded America of Juanita Broaddrick, Vox.com – not a house organ of the right-wing conspiracy Hillary was talking about – wrote a thoughtful piece titled “The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained.” They referenced Hillary’s statement about how survivors deserve to be believed and concluded that “[t]here’s no easy way to reconcile that view with her allies’ dismissal of Broaddrick’s allegations.” They also maintain that “the allegation is serious, and should not be easily dismissed.”

It’s also noteworthy that the NBC has quietly scrubbed the May 19, 2016 statement that Broaddrick’s charges have been “discredited” from their website. It has not been discredited. It should not be easily dismissed. Yet Hillary is applying one standard to all survivors of sexual assault except those sexually assaulted by her husband. No, those are women who should be smeared and debased.

That’s odious.

My cousin also mentioned dishonesty and corruption, insisting there’s nothing there. That’s simply not accurate. Hillary is demonstrably and provably dishonest, even about things she has no decent reason to lie about. Why did she repeatedly tell people she ran for cover getting off the plane in Bosnia to avoid sniper fire? (Video has surfaced proving that she stayed on the open runway for a greeting ceremony that lasted over an hour.) She told the four families of those killed in Benghazi that their loved ones died because of a spontaneous demonstration spurred by an anti-Islamic YouTube video, and that she would put the filmmaker in prison. Hillary now says that she said nothing of the kind and that all four families are lying. (Although she did put the filmmaker in prison, even though he had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks, and Hillary knew that from the outset.) She lied repeatedly about her email server, and then she lied when she insisted that the FBI Director said she didn’t lie. There’s plenty more where that come from.

Put simply, she is a first-degree liar. This isn’t just off-the cuff misspeaking or ignorance. She lies with premeditation, in cold blood.

That’s odious.

Is she corrupt? Well, you tell me. Do you believe that all the six/seven-figure donors to the Clinton Foundation with business before the State Department got favorable responses from Clinton’s office when she was Secretary of State out of sheer coincidence? Do you believe she turned $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures virtually overnight because she “read the Wall Street Journal?” I don’t. I think she’s demonstrably the most corrupt person to run for office in the history of the republic.

That’s odious.

Of course, you can look at all this and roll your eyes and say, “Really? Benghazi again? He’s even bringing up that old saw about cattle futures? Give me a break. Old news. Right-wing smears.”

I wrote about this before on my blog when I described the “Clinton Discount.” I noted that whenever a new scandal emerges, the Clintons, especially Hillary, begin a process of “tirelessly grinding away at the nation’s patience” until what was shocking at the outset is old news after the electorate is exhausted. It was genuinely troubling to the vast majority of voters in January of 1998 that a president might have been having sex with an intern in the Oval Office. But the story became tiresome and boring by August after eight long months of stonewalling and rationalizing. Eventually, the grind ran its course, and the nation’s standards were permanently lowered in the process.

See, by August, we all knew that everyone lies about sex, that everybody does it, and that a middle-aged president carrying on with a barely-of-age intern wasn’t anyone’s business but Hillary’s, even though such behavior in the private sector would have gotten any CEO fired. (I say “would have gotten” because, post-Clinton, those standards don’t exist anymore.)

And who led the grind to the point where the abhorrent became acceptable? Hillary. Even more than Bill. It was Hillary out front at the beginning, Hillary guiding strategy mid-grind, and Hillary providing cover at the end. And now the nation no longer expects a president to be straightforward, faithful, or even honest under oath as long as the economy is in good shape.

That’s odious.

I cannot vote for her. And no, I cannot vote for Trump, either.

I’m sure there will be plenty of people who will want to argue with me as to why one is way more odious than the other, but in my mind, both of these odious people have crossed a line of basic human decency that makes such comparisons utterly worthless. Both should be shunned, spurned, and cast out of polite society. My conscience will not allow me to sustain or support either of these horrible human beings, even in the smallest degree.

Could I change my mind and vote for Hillary to stop Trump? Only if Juanita Broaddrick gives me the okay.

Ramming Icebergs

There is no more tired political cliche than a tortured Titanic metaphor, but what can I say? I really like rearranging deck chairs.

As we join our tortured metaphor, already in progress, the Titanic ship of state is steaming straight toward the iceberg of total, Greece-style fiscal insolvency, frozen in place by an aging nation demanding the fulfillment of governmental retirement promises that are mathematically impossible to keep.

The iceberg is clearly visible across the port bow and has been for quite some time. It blots out the horizon to the west, stretching out as far as the eye can see. There is safe passage to the east, and a small shift to starboard earlier in the journey would have easily prevented disaster. But the rotating roster of captains balked at making even the slightest adjustment. It seems the western waters offer much smoother sailing than the choppy eastern current, and the fickle and restless passengers have been known to make the skipper walk the plank if they rock the boat. So each captain has blithely kept the ship plowing forward, assuming that a successor would make the necessary course correction when the time comes, each one think to himself, “Better that the next guy gets thrown overboard, not me.”

According to the duty roster schedule, the current captain’s term of service is almost up.  His time at the helm was marked by a hard turn to port and an increase in speed, which everyone found exhilarating as they stood out on the deck and let the wind whip through their hair. Now, as the passengers gather to choose someone new, two distinctly unappealing boatswains, one a paranoid criminal and the other a narcissistic imbecile in orange clown makeup, step up to try and take the wheel.

The criminal promises turning even harder to port for an even smoother ride. The imbecile promises to simply barrel ahead until he decides to turn to port. Neither even raises the possibility of  a decrease in speed, let alone the unthinkable option of a starboard turn. Heated discussions ensue about which potential captain will better accommodate the upcoming shuffleboard tournament.

When Lola, a sensible gal who doesn’t play shuffleboard, steps forward and mentions that neither of these possibilities is going to avoid the iceberg, she is shouted down from both sides. You have to vote for one or the other, they all say. Supporters of the criminal point out that the criminal, while demonstrably corrupt, is a very competent and accomplished criminal. The imbecile’s backers point out that his clown makeup keeps the kids entertained, and at least he’s not tacking further to port. Many who are reluctant to back the orange guy do so in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, as he’s diddling with the steering wheel, he might accidentally turn the ship the right way, although there’s an equal possibility that he’ll step on the accelerator because he doesn’t know what the pedals do. (Do boats have pedals?)

So, given that dismal metaphorical reality, what choice do Lolas like me have but to jump ship?

Order of the Arrow Ordeal Secrets: The Final Word

In light of my Order-of-the-Arrow-themed Deseret News column published today, I decided to write a definitive summary of this blog’s illustrious history as the unwitting leader of the anti-Order of the Arrow movement. Rather than make it a regular post, I made it a page, which means as new posts move this one down the feed, a link to my final word on the O of A will always appear below the stallioncornell.com header, alongside Neverland: The New Peter Pan Musical and The Miracle of the Christmas Poo. I plan on making a CES Reply page in the near future.

But as far as the Order of the Arrow goes, you can read my final word on the subject here.


And thus it is that this post shall conclude the serialized reproduction of my lengthy reply to “Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony” by Jeremy Runnells.


I doubt this is the last I’ll have to say on the subject, but this is the last selection from my original reply, which I’ve been cutting up into bite-sized chunks over the course of the last three months.

You can read the whole thing at once by clicking here.

As always, Jeremy’s original words are in green, the color of life. My words are in black, the color of darkness.


Oh, thank heaven.

“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false…”

– President Joseph Fielding Smith

Amen and amen.

When I first discovered that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon,

Play it again, Sam.

that he was married to 11 other men’s wives,

All together now: Sealings, not marriages, no sex.

and that the Book of Abraham has absolutely nothing to do with the papyri or facsimiles…

How can the Book of Abraham have nothing to do with the facsimiles? They are the Book of Abraham.

I went into a panic.  I desperately needed answers and I needed them 3 hours ago.  Among the first sources I looked to for answers were official Church sources such as Mormon.org and LDS.org.  I couldn’t find them.

I then went to FairMormon and Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS).

FairMormon and these unofficial apologists have done more to destroy my testimony than any anti- Mormon source ever could.  I found their version of Mormonism to be alien and foreign to the Chapel Mormonism that I grew up in attending Church, Seminary, reading Scriptures, General Conferences, EFY, mission, and BYU.   Their answers are not only contradictory to the scriptures and teachings I learned through  correlated  Mormonism…they’re  truly  bizarre.

I  was  amazed  to  learn  that,  according  to  these  unofficial  apologists,  translate  doesn’t really  mean translate, horses aren’t really horses (they’re tapirs), chariots aren’t really chariots (since tapirs can’t pull chariots without wheels), steel isn’t really steel, Hill Cumorah isn’t really in New York (it’s possibly in Mesoamerica), Lamanites aren’t really the principal ancestors of the Native  American Indians, marriage isn’t really marriage (if they’re Joseph’s marriages? They’re just mostly non-sexual spiritual sealings),

Hey! There it is! My last “sealings, not marriages, no sex” finally paid off!

Sorry. I’ll let you conclude without further interruption, unless you mention the rock in the hat again.

and prophets aren’t really prophets  (only when they’re heretics teaching today’s false  doctrine).

Why is it that I had to first discover all of this – from the internet – at 31-years-old after 20 years of high activity in the Church? I wasn’t just a seat warmer at Church. I’ve read the scriptures several times. I’ve read hundreds of “approved” Church books. I was an extremely dedicated missionary who voluntarily asked to stay longer in the mission field. I was very interested in and dedicated to the gospel.

How am I supposed to feel about learning about these disturbing facts at 31-years-old?   After making critical life decisions based on trust and faith that the Church was telling me the complete truth about its origins and history?   After many books, Seminary, EFY, Church history tour, mission, BYU,  General  Conferences,  Scriptures,  Ensigns,  and  regular  Church  attendance?

So, putting aside the absolute shock and feeling of betrayal in learning about all of this information that has been kept concealed and hidden from me by the Church my entire life, I am now expected to go back to the drawing board.   Somehow, I’m supposed to rebuild my testimony on new discovered information that is not only bizarre and alien to the Chapel Mormonism I had a testimony of; it’s almost comical.

I’m now supposed to believe that Joseph has the credibility of translating ancient records when the Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook Plates destroy this claim?  That Joseph has the character and integrity to take him at his word after seeing his deliberate deception in hiding and denying polygamy and polyandry for at least 10 years of his adult life?  How he backdated and retrofitted the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood restoration events as if they were in the Book of Commandments all along?  And I’m supposed to believe with a straight face that Joseph using a rock in a hat is totally legit?  Despite this being the exact same method he used to con people out of their money during his treasure hunting days?  Despite this ruining the official story of ancient prophets and Moroni investing all that time and effort into gold plates, which were not used because Joseph’s face was stuffed in a hat?

(At least you didn’t mention the rock. Sorry. Continue.)

I’m supposed to sweep under the rug the inconsistent and contradictory First Vision accounts and just believe anyway?  I’m supposed to believe that these men who have been wrong about so many important things and who have not prophesied, seered, or revealed much in the last 169 or so years are to be sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators”?

I’m supposed to believe the scriptures have credibility after endorsing so much rampant immorality, violence, and despicable behavior?  When it says that the earth is only 7,000 years old and that there was no death before then? Or that Heavenly Father is sitting on a throne with an erect penis when all evidence points to it really being the pagan Egyptian god of sex, Min? The “most correct book on earth” Book of Mormon going through over 100,000 changes over the years? After  going through so many revisions and still being incorrect? Noah’s ark and the global flood are literal events? Tower of Babel is a literal event? The Book of Mormon containing 1769 King James Version edition translation errors and 1611 King James Version translators’ italics while claiming to be an ancient record?

That there’s actually a polygamous god who revealed a Warren Jeffs style revelation on polygamy that Joseph pointed to as a perverted license to secretly marry other living men’s wives and teenage girls barely out of puberty?  That this crazy god actually threatened Joseph’s life with one of his angels with a sword if a newly married pregnant woman didn’t agree to Joseph’s marriage proposal?  And like the part-time racist schizophrenic god, I’m supposed to believe in a god who was against polygamy before he was for polygamy but decided in 1890 that he was again against it?

I’m told to put these foundational problems on the shelf and wait until I die to get answers? To stop looking at the Church intellectually even though the “glory of God is intelligence”? Ignore and have faith anyway?

I’m sorry, but faith is believing and hoping when there is little evidence for or against something. Delusion is believing when there is an abundance of evidence against something.  To me, it’s absolute insanity to bet my life, my precious time, my money, my heart, and my mind into an organization that has so many serious problematic challenges to its foundational truth claims.

There are just way too many problems.  We’re not just talking about one issue here.  We’re talking about dozens of serious issues that undermine the very foundation of the LDS Church and its truth claims.

The past year was the worst year of my life.  I experienced a betrayal, loss, and sadness unlike anything I’ve ever known. “Do what is right; let the consequence follow” now holds a completely different meaning for me.  I desperately searched for answers to all of the problems.  To me, the answer eventually came but it was not what I expected… or hoped for.

As a child, it seemed so simple;
Every step was clearly marked.
Priesthood, mission, sweetheart, temple;
Bright with hope I soon embarked.
But now I have become a man,
And doubt the promise of the plan.

For the path is growing steeper,
And a slip could mean my death.
Plunging upward, ever deeper,
I can barely catch my breath.
Oh, where within this untamed wild
Is the star that led me as a child?

As I crest the shadowed mountain,
I embrace the endless sky;
The expanse of heaven’s fountain
Now unfolds before my eye.
A thousand stars shine on the land,
The chart drafted by my own hand.

– The Journey –

Jeremy T. Runnells


Well spoken, Jeremy. As of this writing, and as of this Internet posting three months later, you and I have never met, but I hope that changes at some point. I have tremendous respect for your integrity and honesty, even though it has led you outside the boundaries of the Church.

I don’t know if anything I’ve written here will be remotely helpful or persuasive. It breaks my heart that you reached out for information and found nothing to strengthen your faith. But if one person reads this response and is helped the way I was when I read “The Truth About the Godmakers” all those years ago, then this will have been time well spent.

I remember my own feeling of panic when I bumped into the weird Church that “The Godmakers” was telling me was my own. I think, however, that I was coming at it from a different angle. The premise of “The Godmakers” wasn’t so much that it was all a fraud so much as that it was a Satanic deception, and that being a Mormon would consign to an eternal hell because I wasn’t really a Christian.

I can remember on my mission coming across many evangelical Christians who condemned me to hell unless I was willing to accept Jesus into my life. Invariably, I would use the opportunity to, then and there, accept Jesus into my life. I would say whatever little prayer they had printed on their cards or flyers and then look them in the eye and say I agreed with every word in it. It still wasn’t enough. I remember talking to one family at their doorstep, who said I needed to accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.

“Fair enough,” I said. “I cheerfully accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I recognize that I am helpless without Him, and that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I invite him into my life, and I know He is the only way to heaven.”

They stood there, flummoxed.

“Is that it?” I said. “Do I have to do anything else?”

“Yes, you do,” the mother said. “You need to repent of your Mormon faith.”

Yeah, okay.

See, that’s the problem. These guys insist that all you have to do is accept Jesus, and, presto, you’re saved. But if you say you accept Jesus and still want to hang with the Mormons, you didn’t do it right. If you press people hard enough on this, they’ll tell you haven’t really accepted Jesus, you’ve accepted some other Jesus. The Godmakers constantly refers to Jesus as being separate from the guy the Mormons worship, who is repeatedly identified as the “Mormon Jesus.” The problem is that the Mormon Jesus is pretty much identical to the other Jesus – he was the Son of God, born to a virgin in Bethlehem; he grew up in Nazareth; he called twelve apostles and taught the Gospel, and then was betrayed and crucified on Calvary. Three days later, He rose from the dead, and He commissioned His apostles to teach his Gospel to all the world. Now, unless the Mormon Jesus did all this same stuff down the street or something, it’s pretty hard to distinguish between the two.

The problem is that Mormons believe Jesus did more than this. The Book of Mormon tells of His visit to the Lost Tribes of Israel, and Joseph Smith and other modern prophets talk of seeing Jesus on several occasions. So what these Christians are saying is that Jesus only did what is chronicled in the New Testament, and only the Mormon Jesus did all this extra, weird stuff.

So, when you get right down to it, the way to hell isn’t a lack of belief in Jesus. Apparently, the danger lies in believing too much about Jesus.

I’m not quite sure what to do about this. I can go into almost any Christian church in the country, and they’ll tell me things about Jesus that I will heartily agree with. I believe He did everything the Bible says He did. But I also believe Jesus is more than just words on a page. I don’t worship the Bible; I worship Jesus, who is not bound like the pages of a book.

I can recall quite vividly one of the first experiences I had that built my own personal witness of Jesus Christ. I was in a pageant at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles called III Nephi, which dramatized Christ’s visit to the New World after His resurrection. I was nine or ten years old, I think. I played one of the children who greets the Savior, and we were taught two songs to sing on that occasion – one was “I Feel My Savior’s Love,” and the other was “The Love of God.” I can recall feeling a very powerful witness that Jesus was real; that He loved me, and that He knew me by name. I can remember a testimony meeting right after the dress rehearsal, where one of the men stood up and said “That which you feel right now is the love of God.” He was right. I knew he was telling the truth, just as surely and plainly as I knew I existed.

The song “I Feel My Savior’s Love” was written for that pageant, and it has since become something of a staple among Mormon children. I’ve heard it a billion times. But I hadn’t heard the song “The Love of God” since the day I last sang it on the stage of the Shrine. That is, until one Easter stake conference, when the stake choir sang it as a counterpoint to “I Know that My Redeemer Lives.” And instantly, I felt that same sweet assurance, the power of the Spirit reminding me of the certainty I learned so long ago.

That which I felt was the love of God.

Maybe that means I’m damned for all eternity. Maybe the Mormon Jesus has deceived me. Maybe, maybe, maybe – but I really don’t think so. There are some things that sink too deeply into your soul to deny them.

I recognize that much of what I believe is too foreign or alien to you, and I think think the best point you make in your letter has to do with the idea of prophetic infallibility. We do a massive disservice to people by implying that the Church is perfect, that prophets never err, and that it’s faithless to recognize that nobody gets their agency extracted, not even prophets.

Discipleship required us to be patient enough with an imperfect church that we were willing to endure error in order to sustain leaders who, unlike a perfect Christ, have weaknesses and blind spots and therefore actually need to be sustained.

And isn’t that a better story anyway? Isn’t it better to imagine a church that develops and grows and learns from its mistakes?

That’s the story, incidentally, that the Lord has always expected us to tell. I don’t think that people who stand up in a testimony meeting to praise this as “the only true church” realize that they’re misquoting the Lord, who never actually said that. What he did say was this was the only true and living church. (See D&C 1:30)

Plenty of other churches have truth in them. Some have gobs of it. But this church is both true and living. It is more than just correct principles; it is the living people doing everything in their power to apply them. And the Church, like all living things, develops, grows, and learns from its mistakes.

I don’t say that to be critical. I love the Church. I love its doctrines, which provide a cohesive and glorious vision of the universe that has no equal in the other religions and philosophies of the world. But I also love the Church in practice, which has repeatedly come to my rescue, temporally and spiritually. 

I will always be grateful for a ward that rallied around my family when my oldest daughter injured her spinal cord in a skiing accident and was left partially paralyzed. They organized a massive, successful fundraiser that covered most of our more-than-significant medical expenses, and they assembled a team of thirty-or-so people who came into our house and scrubbed it from top to bottom. They also fixed broken cabinets, replaced damaged electrical wiring, and installed a new kitchen sink, three new toilets, an entire handicapped-accessible bathroom, and double railings on two stairwells and in our front and back entrances.

Their main focus, however, was completely redecorating my daughter’s bedroom, which now includes an entirely new bedframe and bedding, new furniture, a fresh coat of paint, and a beautiful mural of a flowering tree just above her bed. And just to make sure that my other daughter didn’t feel left out, they entirely redid her room just for good measure, installing a built-in new window seat at the base of her bed.

None of that has any bearing on whether the Book of Abraham is an accurate translation or not, but I think it’s important not to lose sight of what the Church really is on a practical, day-to-day level. On the whole, it makes bad people good and good people better.

This church is also transformative because people have had a genuine, powerful experience with Jesus Christ, often through the Book of Mormon. I have seen, firsthand, what the power of Christ can do, and I have encountered God in this Church in an intimate, personal, and undeniable way. I don’t think those kinds of spiritual experiences require me to abandon reason or stop asking questions, but they keep me from panicking the next time I hear an accusation against Joseph Smith or the Church that I’ve never heard before.

I have found God in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I pray you find Him wherever your faith journey takes you.

Jim Bennett

This wasn’t in my original reply, but I want to add a section from my father’s final sermon. In my last conversation with Dad prior to his stroke, he told me had read my reply to you from beginning to end. It may, in fact, be the last thing of any length that he read in this lifetime. So, Jeremy, this was probably not your intent, but your letter gave me a precious and sacred bond with my father in the final days of his life that I will always cherish. I cannot thank you enough for that.

The day before the stroke that took his life, Dad was engaged in a little “unofficial apologetics” of his own, and, as a fireside in Arlington, Virginia, he offered a vigorous defense of the Book of Mormon, addressing many of the issues you raised in your letter. But he concluded with a story from his own mission in Scotland, which I quote below:

When we called on Bill and Marian Proctor for the first meeting, we had left a Book of Mormon with Marian. We had gone tracting that morning, came back that night. He was reading it – Bill Proctor was reading the book by the fire, which I took as a good sign.

And then he stood up and came to me, and he said, “Look, lads, I know why you’re here, and you’re wasting your time. I have no intention of joining your church. But this is an interesting book you have.  So I’ll tell you what let’s do. I’ll buy your book, and you go on your way, and we’ll both save time. Agreed?”

I said, “Agreed. Yep. But as long as we’re here…”

Okay, so as long as we’re here, we sat down, and we gave them the first discussion of the Book of Mormon. And then we asked the magic question – when would be a good time for us to come back? And he gave us an appointment back, and there’s much more to the story, but very powerfully, before I left Scotland – excuse me, I get dewy-eyed at the dedication of a parking lot – before I left Scotland, I said to him, “When did you know? Bill, when did it happen [that you knew] the Book of Mormon was true?”

And he said, “Oh, that first night.” He said, “The Spirit was there overwhelmingly, telling me it was true.”

He didn’t need any internal or external validations, or any intellectual analysis. All he needed was an open heart and the presence of the Holy Ghost, and he knew. The Book of Mormon can survive any attack by any enemy of the Church because the Proctor example has been repeated millions of times, in every culture, in every country, all around the world. The Lord’s wisdom in having Mormon do all that work, and having Moroni deliver those plates to Joseph Smith, and then the translation, is validated again and again. The Book of Mormon is, indeed, another witness of Jesus Christ, and a precious gift that God has given to warn us.

In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.



CES Reply: Purging Dissidents? (The Penultimate Installment)

We’re coming to the end of this series of posts, which are a serialized reproduction of my lengthy reply to “Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony” to Jeremy Runnells. Jeremy Runnells insists that nobody has answered his questions, and, when people bring up my answers to his questions, he insists that I didn’t actually answer his questions, and that all I did was make jokes and attack him personally.

Here’s my next-to-last batch of jokes/personal attacks. You can read all of them at once by clicking here.

As always, Jeremy’s original words are in green, the color of life. My words are in black, the color of darkness.

I’m also adding an image, because when I post this on FB and Twitter, it has this weird empty box if there’s no image in the post. So I’m adding a superfluous picture of Cylon and Garfunkel, because even though the late Glen A. Larson based much of Battlestar Galactica on Mormon theology, the Cylons never got a single mention in your letter.

That ends NOW!

med_1442042243_00032Great! On with the reply!

Going after members who publish or share their questions, concerns, and doubts:

September Six:

“The September Six were six members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were excommunicated or disfellowshipped by the Church in September 1993, allegedly for publishing scholarly work on Mormonism or critiquing Church doctrine or leadership.”

Who are you quoting?

I find it telling that to illustrate the idea the Church routinely goes after members who “publish or share their questions, concerns, and doubts,” you have to reach back more than 22 years to find actual examples. If this really were an ongoing practice or concern, surely there’d be a great deal more support for your allegation.

In any case, the September Six are now the September Four, as two of these scholars have rejoined the Church in full fellowship. They continue to function as both scholars and faithful members of the Church.

A few months before the September Six, Boyd K. Packer made the following comment regarding the three “enemies” of the Church:

“The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever- present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals.”

Boyd K. Packer, All-Church Coordinating Council, May 18, 1993

You’re insinuating that Elder Packer ordered these excommunications, but there is no evidence that this is true, despite 22 years of innuendo to that effect. Even if Elder Packer was engaged in a systematic crackdown on Mormon scholars, you’d think that he’d have more than six excommunications to his credit over the course over 22 years.

Strengthening the Church Members Committee (SCMC):

The spying and monitoring arm of the Church.  

That’s rather melodramatic.

It is secretive

Indeed! So secretive that the First Presidency issued a public statement affirming its existence and purpose in the Church News in 1992.

Here’s the statement.

First Presidency statement cites scriptural mandate for Church committee

Generally, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not respond to criticism levied against its work. But in light of extensive publicity recently given to false accusations of so-called secret Church committees and files, the First Presidency has issued the following statement:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established in 1830 following the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith in upstate New York. This sacred event heralded the onset of the promised `restitution of all things.’ Many instructions were subsequently given to the Prophet including Section 123 of the Doctrine and Covenants:” `And again, we would suggest for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them. . . .

And also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries. . . .

And also the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions, as far as they can get hold of them and find them out.

And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat;

And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published…(Verses 1-5.)’

Leaders and members of the Church strive to implement commandments of the Lord including this direction received in 1839. Because the Church has a non-professional clergy, its stake presidents and bishops have varied backgrounds and training. In order to assist their members who have questions, these local leaders often request information from General Authorities of the Church.

The Strengthening Church Members Committee was appointed by the First Presidency to help fulfill this need and to comply with the cited section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics. It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.

Members who have questions concerning Church doctrine, policies, or procedures have been counseled to discuss those concerns confidentially with their local leaders. These leaders are deeply aware of their obligation to counsel members wisely in the spirit of love, in order to strengthen their faith in the Lord and in His great latter-day work.

– The First Presidency

and most members have been unaware of its existence since its creation in 1985 after President Ezra Taft Benson took over.

Actually, it looks like various versions of this committee have been around since Section 123 of the Doctrine and Covenants was received in 1839.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland admitted it still exists (2:29) in March 2012.

The transcript of that admission:

John Sweeney: What is the Strengthening Church Members Committee?

Elder Holland: The Strengthening Church Members Committee was born some years ago to protect against predatory practices of polygamists.

Sweeney: I asked what it is, not was.

Holland: That is what it is…

Sweeney: So it does still exist?

Holland: It does still exist…it does still exist…

Sweeney: And it…. looks at….it’s there to defend the church against polygamists?

Holland: Principally, that is still its principal task.

Sweeney: So what is its subsidiary task?

Holland: I just…. suppose to…. to be protective generally, just to watch and to care for any insidious influence. But for all intents and purposes, that’s all that I know about it….is that it’s primarily there to guard against polygamy. That would be the substantial part of the work. I’m not on that committee so I don’t know much about it.

The historical evidence and the September Six points to SCMC’s primary mission being  to  hunt  and  expose  intellectuals  and/or disaffected members who are influencing other members to think and question, despite Holland’s claim that it’s a committee primarily to fight against polygamy.

Then it should be a simple task for you to provide that historical evidence, which you don’t.

“When the prophet speaks the debate is over”:

N. Eldon Tanner, 1st  Counselor in the First Presidency, gave a First Presidency Message in the August 1979 Ensign that includes the following statement:

“When the prophet speaks the debate is over.”

In practice, he’s absolutely correct. The Church does not function as a democracy. Members do not debate and vote on doctrines or policies, and we do not change doctrines or policies by debating our prophets, who ultimately have the final say on such things.

This reminds me of President George Albert Smith, who responded to the false statement that “when the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done” that I referenced earlier. (WAY WAY earlier. This thing is up to well over 100,000 words now. Sheesh!) Let me requote President Smith’s response to the earlier statement. This will only be a second requote, so there’s no need to drag Stephen Burnett back into this.

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church… [which] gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.

Granted, the two statements are not exactly the same idea, but this principle is important to remember as we try to make sense of what President Tanner is saying. Because saying “the debate is over” is not the same thing as saying “the prophet is never wrong.” We do not believe in infallible prophets. To the extent than anyone did or does, including even a good and wise man like N. Eldon Tanner, they are incorrect.

Some things that are true are not very useful

Which you misinterpret.

+ It is wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true

Which you also misinterpret.

+ Spying and monitoring on members

Which is a gross distortion.

+ Intellectuals are dangerous

“So-called intellectuals” was the phrase Elder Packer used. He was making to those dissidents who hide behind intellectual credentials. The Church adores faithful intellectuals. What was the mighty Hugh Nibley if not an intellectual?

+ When the prophet speaks the debate is over

We just covered this.

+ Obedience is the First Law of Heaven

That’s an ancient biblical principle. What’s wrong with it?

= Policies and practices you’d expect to find in a totalitarian system such as North Korea or George Orwell’s 1984; not from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Funny you should mention 1984. I recently re-watched the John Hurt/Richard Burton film adaptation of that seminal work. (And yes, it was an R-rated movie.) My memory is fresh enough to recognize this as a ridiculously hyperbolic comparison. At what point have Church leaders set up video monitoring screens in all members houses to enforce orthodoxy under threat of torture by means of a bucket of rats attached to their faces until they publicly confess to non-existent crimes?

The North Korea comparison is equally absurd. Were the September Six sentenced to Mormon gulags where they were worked and starved to death? Are rank-and-file members hauled off to such camps when they take down the framed pictures of Thomas S. Monson that they are required by law to have on display in their homes at all times?

As a believing member, I was deeply offended by the accusation that the Church was a cult. “How can it be a cult when we’re good people who are following Christ, focusing on family, and doing good works in and out of a church that bears His name?  When we’re 14 million members? What a ridiculous accusation.” It was only after I lost my testimony and discovering, for the first time, the SCMC and the anti-intellectualism going on behind the scenes that I could clearly see the above cultish aspects of the Church and why people came to the conclusion that Mormonism is a cult.

The word “cult” is objectively meaningless. It used to have reference to any religion and was essentially a measure of size – i.e. a cult is “a small group of religious followers.” In today’s vernacular, though, the word “cult” is reserved for spurious or unorthodox religions that deserve scorn and ridicule. People who throw the word “cult” around with regularity and think they’re saying something factual are simply telling you which religions they don’t like.

The best and most useful definition of “cult” came from my brilliant high school government teacher, Lee Shagin, who put it thusly:

“A cult is someone else’s religion.”

Dr. Walter Martin, arguably the most influentially vitriolic critic of the LDS Church in the 20th Century, wrote a book titled “The Kingdom of the Cults” in which he derided several different groups that went afoul of his thinking of what Christianity ought to be. However, in order to begin mudslinging at all the cults he despised, he had to have an ironclad definition of same to anchor the discussion.

The problem was that every part of Martin’s definition could also be applied to early Christianity. All cults, according to Martin, follow a charismatic leader and insist that they’re the only way to heaven. They require sacrifices; they have their own vocabulary. Sounds like he’s describing all those folks following Jesus of Nazareth circa 33 AD. Martin spewed an awful lot of words in an attempt to clarify what a cult is, but ultimately, Lee Shagin’s definition is the better one.

In any case, the way you’re using the word “cult” in connection with 1984 and North Korea suggests you see the Church as some kind of prison that wreaks great havoc on dissidents. But that’s demonstrably nonsense. The fact is that the Church welcomes all, and it also allows all to leave.

This is no totalitarian state; you’re not going to get shot on your way out. As soon as you resign your membership, a simple process that only requires a single letter to your bishop, you will be free and clear. No one will follow you; no one will spy on you, and no one will punish you. Even your home teacher will leave you alone.

[I wrote this prior to your resigning of your membership. You now know by your own personal experience that no 1984 tactics have been employed to bring you back into the fold.]

There is the likelihood, however, that your Mormon friends and family will still love and care for you and pray on your behalf, but, alas, such kindness can’t really be stopped.


CES Reply: Not Very Useful

Continuing my reply to Jeremy Runnells “Letter to a CES Director,” with Jeremy’s original words in green:

(Don’t worry – we’re almost done!)


“Some things that are true are not very useful”:

Packer said the following:

“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.”

And I really wish he hadn’t said this, as it is open to the kind of misinterpretation you’re applying to it. Because when you consider the intent of his statement rather than his poor choice of words, this becomes a rather artless way of stating an undeniably true – and useful – principle.

In fact, the CES Letter is a perfect example of Elder Packer’s premise. Your purpose is to persuade people that the LDS Church is a fraud, so you cite truths that are useful to making that case, and you ignore the truths that are not. So you cite three different dubious hearsay statements about Martin Harris and repeat them over a dozen times, but you ignore the dozens of more reliable firsthand accounts that undermine your case, because those statements, while true, aren’t useful to your purpose. (Actually, the analogy isn’t really perfect, because the statements you quoted about Martin probably aren’t true. But I’m sure you get the idea.)

The word “useful” is instructive, especially when you consider the audience to whom Elder Packer’s remarks were addressed. He wasn’t talking to the general membership of the Church in Conference; he was talking to a gathering of CES instructors, who are in the employ of the Church for the specific purpose of building the faith of LDS youth. There are many truths that are not useful to that specific purpose. It is true, for instance, that I played the role of Schroeder in “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown” in several productions in the Los Angeles area between 1981 and 1985. Is this true? Yes. It is a useful fact for CES Employees to use in their instruction of LDS youth? Probably not, no. (Although I’m proud that I’ve figured out a way to make both “Seinfeld” and “Dilbert” useful in this reply.)

Joseph using a rock in a hat instead of the gold plates to translate the Book of Mormon is not a useful truth?

Elder Packer probably didn’t think so at the time, no. I think he was wrong about that, and I think  the Church has recognized that mistake. That’s why Elder Ballard’s recent talk to a similar audience of CES employees takes the opposite approach to Elder Packer’s. This time around, Elder Ballard counseled them to know all the details of the recent gospel topics essays “like the back of your hand” in order to be able to provide true and useful information that allows the Church to get out in front of these controversial issues. And, yes, that includes your beloved rock in a hat.

The fact that there are multiple conflicting First Vision accounts is not a useful truth?

I think it would be useful to demonstrate the truth that the accounts don’t actually conflict.

The fact that Joseph Smith was involved in Polyandry when D&C 132:61 condemns it as “adultery” is not a useful truth?

No, because it’s not a truth. Joseph Smith wasn’t involved in polyandry. (Sealings, not marriage, no sex.) It would be useful, however, for CES instructors to point out the true reasons why this charge you continually repeat is not accurate.

He continues:

“That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith – particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith – places himself in great spiritual jeopardy.”

Again, this is not the way I’d teach this principle, but Elder Packer is entirely correct here. Look at the verb he uses – “delights.” It’s one thing for a historian or scholar to acknowledge or plainly state the “weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders,” especially if they do so in context and with an appropriate sense of balance. It’s another thing to “delight” in discussing those weaknesses above all else, as such an approach will paint a distorted picture of reality and, yes, destroy faith. It also would, indeed, place someone in spiritual jeopardy, as they would destroy their own faith, too.

Right, because being honest to members about Joseph’s “weaknesses and frailties” of secretly marrying other men’s wives while denying and lying about it to everyone for 10+ years just might destroy faith.

Again, this statement is neither true nor useful. Joseph did not secretly marry other men’s wives.

But let’s not teach this historical fact because “some things that are true are not very useful.”

I’d prefer we not teach it because it’s not a historical fact.

What’s interesting about Packer’s above quote is that he’s focusing on history from the point of view that a historian is only interested in the “weaknesses and frailties of present and past leaders.”  Historians are also interested in things like how the Book of Mormon got translated or how many accounts Joseph gave about the foundational First Vision or whether the Book of Abraham even matches the papyri and facsimiles.

Sure. That’s fine. Historians should be interested in such things. CES Employees have a different responsibility than professional historians. Should a CES instructor “delight” in focusing solely on controversies surrounding those other issues and not the whole picture, they would not be fulfilling their purpose, and they would be destroying their own faith and the faith of their students.

Besides, it matters in the religious context what past and present leaders “weaknesses and frailties” are. 

I think you’re absolutely right. Key word there is “context.” Elder Packer is talking about Church employees who “delight” in taking things out of context in order to focus on the weaknesses and ignore the strengths.

If Joseph’s public position was that adultery and polygamy are morally wrong and condemned by God, what does it say about him and his character that he did exactly that in the dark while lying to Emma and everyone else about it?

Thank you for providing an illustration of my previous point. This question represents a perfect example of taking something out of context in order to focus on the weaknesses and ignore the strengths.

How is this not a useful truth? 

It is not a useful truth because it is false. But it seems to be, for you, usefully false.

A relevant hypothetical example:  President Monson gets caught with child pornography on his hard drive. 

Relevant? I doubt it. I can think of few things that would be more unlikely.

This matters, especially in light of his current position, status, and teachings on morality.  Just because a leader wears a religious hat does not follow that they’re exempt from history and accountability from others.

I think it would matter a great deal, yes.

The question should not be whether it’s faith promoting or not to share ugly but truthful facts.  The question should be:  Is the right thing to do?  Is it the honest thing to do?

In your hypothetical, the right and honest thing to do would be to call the police and have President Monson arrested. Few things are viler in the eyes of the Lord than using ecclesiastical influence to assault the innocence of a child. As I mentioned previously, that’s a truth that the Spirit confirmed to me while I was watching an R-rated movie.

Do you truly think President Monson is depraved enough to have child pornography on his hard drive?

Criticizing leaders:

  • Dallin H. Oaks made the following disturbing comment in the PBS documentary,

The Mormons” (0:51):

“It is wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.”

The full quote here is helpful:
“I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever.” [Emphasis added]

As with Elder Packer’s statement, this is something I wish Elder Oaks hadn’t said, as it, too, is open to misinterpretation. In addition, the snippet you link to is a sort of “preview of coming attractions” for the next episode of the series, so in that footage,  the one sentence gets yanked out of any surrounding context and is even more susceptible to being misunderstood.

His point is not, as many critics imply, that the church does not tolerate disagreement. It is that public criticism, especially that which is focused on how they “misbehaved as a youngster or whatever,” is the wrong way to handle disagreements. One should “work to correct them by some other means” other than publicly embarrassing leaders, especially on irrelevant points that are discussed solely with the intent to embarrass.

This is actually a Biblical principle. “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matthew 18:15, emphasis added)

Researching  “unapproved”  materials  on  the  internet:

Elder Quentin L. Cook made the following comment in the October 2012 Conference:

“Some have immersed themselves in internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and in some cases invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.”

Why do you put the word “unapproved” in quotes? Elder Cook didn’t use that word or anything like it. His counsel – don’t “immerse” yourself in materials that provide distorted or false information – is good counsel. Do you advocate immersion in materials that provide distorted or false information?

Elder Dieter Uchtdorf said the following in his CES talk “What is truth” (33:00):

“…Remember that in this age of information there are many who create doubt about anything and everything at any time and every place. You will find even those who still claim that they have evidence that the earth is flat. That the moon is a hologram. It looks like it a little bit. And that certain movie stars are really aliens from another planet. And it is always good to keep in mind just because something is printed on paper, appears on the internet, is frequently repeated or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true.”
With which part of this entirely reasonable, common-sense statement do you disagree? And why do you cite this as evidence that the Church is cracking down on “unapproved” materials when President Uchtdorf doesn’t use that word or anything like it?

Who cares whether you received the information from a stranger, television, book, magazine, comic book, napkin, and even the scary internet?

Certainly not Elder Cook or President Uchtdorf in the quotes you cite. There is no counsel here to avoid any medium of information; the counsel is to make sure that information is true, regardless of where it is found.

You repeatedly use the phrase “scary Internet,” as if that phrase represents the mindset of the Brethren. It doesn’t.

“We are blessed to live, learn, and serve in this most remarkable dispensation. An important aspect of the fulness that is available to us in this special season is a miraculous progression of innovations and inventions that have enabled and accelerated the work of salvation: from trains to telegraphs to radios to automobiles to airplanes to telephones to transistors to televisions to computers to satellite transmissions to the Internet—and to an almost endless list of technologies and tools that bless our lives. All of these advancements are part of the Lord hastening His work in the latter days.”

“Whatever the question is, if we need more information, we search it online. In seconds we have a lot of material. This is marvelous. The Internet provides many opportunities for learning.”

  • If Ye Lack Wisdom, by Marcos A. Aidukaitis (First Quorum of the Seventy), April 2014 General Conference

“You live in a world where technological advances occur at an astounding pace. It is difficult for many of my generation to keep up with the possibilities. Depending on how technology is used, these advances can be a blessing or a deterrent. Technology, when understood and used for righteous purposes, need not be a threat but rather an enhancement to spiritual communication.”

For Peace At Home, by Richard G. Scott (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles). April 2013 General Conference

And on it goes. You are making an accusation that your citations don’t in any way support.

Elder Neil Andersen made the following statement in the October 2014 General Conference specifically targeting the medium of the Internet in a bizarre attempt to discredit the Internet as a reliable source for getting factual and truthful information:

“We might remind the sincere inquirer that Internet information does not have a ‘truth’ filter.  Some information, no matter how convincing, is simply not true.”

How is this “specifically targeting the medium of the Internet?” It’s specifically targeting information that is not true. In the same talk, Elder Andersen mentions false information that appeared in Time Magazine. Are we to interpret that as Elder Andersen specifically targeting Time Magazine? I don’t think so.

With all this talk from General Authorities against the scary internet

You’ve provided no examples of “talk from General Authorities against the scary internet.”

and daring to be balanced by looking at what both defenders and critics are saying about the Church,

You’ve provided no examples of General Authorities counseling anyone to avoid “looking at what both defenders and critics are saying about the Church.”

it is as if questioning and researching and doubting is now the new pornography.

You’ve provided no examples of General Authorities saying anything that would justify this ridiculous analogy.

Truth has no fear of the light. 

Agreed. Which is why General Authorities are encouraging members to seek truth and not falsehood in the statements you’ve provided.

President George A. Smith said, “If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak.”

Correct. You’ve provided no examples of General Authorities discouraging investigation of their faith.

Under Cook’s counsel, FairMormon and unofficial LDS apologetic websites are anti-Mormon sources that should be avoided.

That’s like saying “the sky is green.” Elder Cook said nothing that could possibly be tortured into meaning this.

Not only do they introduce to Mormons “internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and in some cases invent shortcoming of early Church leaders”

Elder Cook’s verb was “immersed,” not “introduce.” Big, big difference. FairMormon does not immerse people in material that magnifies, exaggerates, or invents shortcomings of early Church leaders.

but they provide many ridiculous answers with logical fallacies and omissions while leaving members confused and hanging with a bizarre version of Mormonism.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. The logical fallacies and omissions that have piled up in the CES Letter give this accusation a “mote v. beam” vibe.

What about the disturbing information about early Church leaders and the Church which are not magnified, or exaggerated, or invented?

What about it? All the statements you cite here encourage people to seek truth and not falsehood. We have nothing to fear from truth, no matter where it’s found.

What about the disturbing facts that didn’t come from the flat-earthers or moon-hologramers but instead from the Church itself?

Elder Ballard’s recent talk insists that you should learn as much as you possibly can about them.

“Church leaders today are fully conscious of the unlimited access to information, and we are making extraordinary efforts to provide accurate context and understanding of the teachings of the Restoration. A prime example of this effort is the 11 Gospel Topics essays on LDS.org that provide balanced and reliable interpretations of the facts for controversial and unfamiliar Church-related subjects.

It is important that you know the content in these essays like you know the back of your hand. If you have questions about them, then please ask someone who has studied them and understands them. In other words, “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” as you master the content of these essays.

You should also become familiar with the Joseph Smith Papers website and the Church history section on LDS.org and other resources by faithful LDS scholars.

The effort for gospel transparency and spiritual inoculation through a thoughtful study of doctrine and history, coupled with a burning testimony, is the best antidote we have to help students avoid and/or deal with questions, doubt, or faith crises they may face in this information age.”

– M. Russell Ballard, “The Opportunities and Responsibilities of CES Teachers in the 21st Century,” February 26, 2016

Are those facts invalid when someone discovers them on the scary internet?

No, and, again, no General Authority has ever referred to the “scary internet.”

What happens when a member comes across Elder Russell M. Nelson’s obscure 1992 talk or the Church’s December 2013 Book of Mormon Translation essay where they learn – for the first time in their lives – that the Book of Mormon was not translated as depicted in Sunday Schools, Ensigns, MTC, General Conference addresses, or Visitor Centers?

Depends on the person, I guess. You and I certainly reacted differently. In any case, we’re about to find out, as the Church is making a concerted effort to get this information in front of as many members as possible.

Is this member in need of repentance when he’s troubled by this inconsistency and deception?

I wasn’t, as I didn’t consider it inconsistency and deception. And no General Authority said that doubts make anyone in need of repentance.

Is it the member’s fault for discovering the Book of Mormon translation deception still perpetuated by the Church? 

This is a “when did you stop beating your wife” sort of question. It is not axiomatic that people who learn about the infamous rock in the hat will assume that it is a “translation deception still perpetuated by the Church.”

Why is the member required to repent for coming to the conclusion that something is very wrong?

I think the Church is confident that if members get all the facts and context, they won’t come to that conclusion.

Most of the information I discovered and confirmed online about the Church is found from Church friendly sources. I confirmed Joseph’s polygamy/polyandry from LDS- owned FamilySearch.org. 

Except you have woefully distorted and misinterpreted that information. Joseph was not engaged in polyandry. Sealings, not marriage, no sex.

I confirmed Adam-God theory and other doctrines taught by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses.

And you have interpreted that information in the worst possible light by ignoring how this anomalous theory fits in a broader historical context.

I confirmed Nelson’s rock in the hat endorsement from his 1992 talk buried on LDS.org.

What rock in what hat?

Even reading the scriptures and seeing all its problems can cause members to question and doubt. 

Of course. That’s why President Uchtdorf said, “It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty.”

If it wasn’t for the internet, I’d still find the information from physical books. Like the internet, books contain positive and negative as well as true and false information about the Church and everything else on earth.  Are physical books to be avoided as well?

No. And neither is the Internet. That’s why no General Authority has ever counseled people to avoid the Internet.

“And it is always good to keep in mind just because something is printed on paper, appears on the internet, is frequently repeated or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true.”  The exact same thing can be said of Mormonism and LDS.org.

Yes. The exact same thing can be said of any information found anywhere.

Next: Purging Dissidents?

My Father’s Final Sermon

Happy Father’s Day.

To help me get through my first Father’s Day in a post-Bob Bennett world, I’ve transcribed the 45-minute fireside my father delivered in the Arlington, Virginia LDS Chapel three weeks before his passing and less than 24 hours before the stroke that took his life. (In Mormonspeak, a fireside is a sermon delivered in the evening outside of regular worship services.) He had been preparing for this speech for quite some time, and as he was battling pancreatic cancer in the final months of his life, his mantra was “I’ve got to stay alive for the fireside.” He was too weak to stand and deliver the sermon, so he stayed seated. Yet he spoke clearly for over 45 minutes without using any notes. (Dad never used notes when he spoke. He was pretty magnificent that way.)

EDIT: I just spoke to my mother, who tells me Dad was on a stool, but he frequently stood throughout the presentation and referenced a chalkboard that he was using to describe all the timelines and things that he discusses in the speech. So there’s a visual element to this fireside that was not recorded. 

9781609079567The topic of the sermon was the Book of Mormon, notably its authenticity as a historical document. He was reviewing material that he had explored in his 2009 book titled Leap of Faith: Confronting the Origins of the Book of Mormon.  When that book was released, many thought it was just a campaign gimmick to endear himself to Mormon Republicans, but time has demonstrated that this was a serious work, one which BYU professor and prominent Mormon apologist called “surprisingly good.”

President Henry B. Eyring, who was the concluding speaker at my father’s funeral in Salt Lake City, went even further. At the funeral, he called Leap of Faith “the best defense of the Book of Mormon ever written.” I think that would make a pretty good blurb on the back of the paperback edition.

This sermon essentially serves as a summary of that book, but it’s delivered in a much more conversational and personal style. In transcribing the fireside, which I did not attend, I’ve had to rely on an iPhone voice memo recording that is hard to hear, so I’m sure I didn’t get everything right. In addition, I’ve taken some mild editorial license, particularly in not transcribing Dad’s occasional verbal stumbles, so when he says, “Mormon ideologists, excuse me, I mean archaeologists,” I just wrote down “Mormon archaeologists.”

If you’re a purist who wants to hear Dad’s words for yourself, I’ve embedded the audio in this post. If you’d like to take a stab at your own transcription, feel free.

The recording also started just a little late, so it sounds as if he began by saying that most of the visions and stories of Joseph Smith can be dismissed fairly easily, but the Book of Mormon cannot.

We join the fireside, already in progress.

… dismiss the witnesses; they were just bamboozled by his charisma. (Actually, we think he was kind of dull, but to make the case that he confused everybody, we have to change our description of him depending on what it is we want to attack with respect to his background.) We can go through all of the rest of that outcome with a complete explanation – and then there’s the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon exists. (Now, that seems fairly fundamental.) That means somebody wrote it. It didn’t come out of an imagination of something into a speech. Somebody wrote it down. Somebody created it before 1829. You have to explain who wrote it. It’s here. It’s physical. It cannot be waved away the way some of the descriptions of visions and other things could be waved away.

If we step back and think of it for just moment in something other than straight religious terms, but marketing terms, we have to say, “What a genius decision if we want to launch this new religion to give it a book that cannot be waved away.” It has to be examined in terms of answering the fundamental question – who wrote it?

You can’t get around that question. You can’t avoid it. Who wrote it?

Okay. One of the things that we know about books is that the book always tells you something about who wrote it. You can’t hide it. You can disguise it, but you can’t hide it. And in today’s world, unlike the world of 1829, you really can’t hide it, because you can use a computer to do an analysis of the syntax used, of the sentence structure, and the paragraphs, and all of the rest of it, and the computer can say, “This person wrote it.”

They’ve done this in controversies as to who wrote Shakespeare. They can take certain Elizabethan phrases or sonnets and so on and say, “Yeah, this is from the Elizabethan era. This clearly comes out of the time when Queen Elizabeth was around, but these words were not written by Shakespeare. The computer says no.”

That was not available early on.

So we’re going to start out tonight with the desire to find out who wrote it, with the understanding that every book always tells you something about its author.

Okay, do we have a 24-year-old anywhere in the crowd? 

[Someone raises their hand in the audience.]

Okay, you just got picked. Stand up.

All right, I want to create a forgery of a religious book for my own purposes, and I pick you to write it. You’re 24 years old. That’s how old Joseph Smith was – everyone turn around; take a good look at him, that’s Joseph Smith. That’s how old Joseph Smith was when the Book of Mormon was published.

Now let me describe to you what I want in this book. I’ve got it here in an outline kind of form. Actually, I want three books. They’re all going to be crunched together in one volume. I want three books, and here’s the timeline. 600 BC is when you start, and 385 AD is when you die. So you’ve got to fake something – this is coming out in 1829, which is a little bit later than the year 385, so you’re dead. You’re doing all of this a thousand or so years after you die.

Okay, that’s kind of a challenge for any author, but you look like a pretty smart 24-year old, so you may be up to this. Now the first book which I have here, I’ve labeled that “Family Journal.” You’re going to write a family journal. That means first person: “I. We.” You’re going to describe what happens in your family, or in this family. Now you’re not just going to sit down and write it straight through. It goes from 600 BC to about 124 BC. And it’s going to be filled primarily with four principal authors. Which means you’ve got change who you are three times.

You can start out being Nephi – that’s the name I’ve picked. You can start out being Nephi describing your circumstance, and then you’re going to pass this on to your brother, Jacob, and he’s going to write for a while, and then he’s going to pick a prophet than nobody’s ever heard of called Zenos, and he’s going to write some stuff in there, and then you’re going to fill up the rest of it with quotations from Isaiah, and they’d better be the right quotations, because there are certain points I want to make here.

So you’ve got four people. One of them is very easy; that’s Isaiah. You can crib him from the King James Version of the Bible. Now don’t crib him exactly. We want to make some changes along here, because we’ve got some points to make, and the changes will helps us make those points.

Okay, are you up for this?

Now, at the same time, this fellow Nephi, who we’re going to put at the front of this family history, writes another book simultaneously. This one he calls the Large Plates of Nephi. This runs all the way from 600 BC on to 325 AD. This is a history. This is not a family journal. This is not first person. This is third person. Nephi writes a little bit of the history in the Small Plates, the family stuff is all in there, but here in the Large Plates are the kings, and the wars, and the government, and all of the logistics of a major society. So that when Nephi dies, then the next historian comes along, and then the next historian, and they just pass this record on down, and on down, and on down, until the final guy who gets it, who’s name is Mormon, is going to summarize it.

So, you’re Nephi. Now you’re Mormon. And you’re going to go back over a thousand years of history and describe the wars, and the rulers, and the government changes, and all of the rest of that. And this time, it’s not just four people who are going to be talking. There’s a whole bunch of people who are going to be talking all the way through. A thousand years.

Are you ready for that?

Okay, now, in addition, I want a third history. We have no idea when it began, but I won’t hold you to a date, because we’ll tie it to the Tower of Babel. So 3,000 B.C. Pick a date. Anytime that’s convenient. You’ve got to go forward with this history, and this history ends about the same time the other one does, as these people destroy themselves.

Now the problem is that the folks in the first history all start out in Jerusalem. They’re all Jews. Hebrews. Israelis. Pick whatever name. They all start out in Jerusalem, so through their history, everything will have the flavor of the culture in which they were born. You can’t deviate from that. Yet the folks in the last history have nothing whatever to do with Jerusalem, and you can’t allow any of the first history to leak into this one. This one has to be completely different.

Oh, by the way, we’re going to have to erase the first 116 pages of the history in the Large Plates of Nephi, because they were lost. So you have to start the history about the same time these other two begin, which means it has to come across like a movie that you have stepped into twenty minutes after it started, and you have no idea who any of the people are.

So, okay! Let’s go!

That’s the Book of Mormon.

You have First and Second Nephi, and Jacob, and then the additions made by Jacob’s descendants in the Small Plates, and then you have the remaining part of the Large Plates after the 116 pages were lost, and it just so happens that the ending of the Small Plates comes pretty close to coinciding with the beginning of walking into the movie. So in the Book of Mormon today, we just slid the Small Plates down a level. So you read the Small Plates and then you get to the history of the Large Plates, and the transition is very confusing. You don’t quite understand how that works, because you go immediately from a first person family history to a third person history of the all these folks, and there is still a gap, because up here in the Small Plates, most of this by Jacob’s descendants has no history in it all. All it says is, “I got the plates from my uncle, and I put my name on it and passed it on to my son.”

And then suddenly King Benjamin is talking. Who is King Benjamin? We don’t know. Ask the 116 pages. And it gets very difficult when you get into this for you to be a forger, because Mormon, who is reading all of this history coming from all of these other folks, is quoting them at length. So you can’t just pretend to be Mormon. You have to pretend to be King Benjamin. And if you want to make this thing look real, King Benjamin cannot sound like Mormon, nor can he sound like Alma.

Alma is the most quoted of all of the people that Mormon uses to quote directly. There’s first person in this, but it’s never Mormon. It’s always the people he’s quoting. And so Alma takes up 36 pages, and if you read Alma carefully, he doesn’t sound like King Benjamin. He doesn’t even sound like Amulek, who is his missionary companion. The two of them are out there together, and Alma has one way of preaching, and Amulek has a different way of preaching. He doesn’t sound like Abinadi, who’s standing there quoting the Law of Moses. You go through all of these – you start with Abinadi, and then you’ve got Benjamin, and then you’ve got Alma, and then you’ve got Amulek, and you’ve got Samuel the Lamanite, and you’ve got Zeniff, and you’ve got Helaman, and Helaman doesn’t give any sermons at all. Helaman just tells you about the wars. I’m sure Mormon would love to quote some sermons from Helaman, but Helaman didn’t give him any.

So as you do all of this, you’ve got to be switching from talking about war and all back and forth –

Quick aside: Does it bother you that Alma doesn’t sound like Amulek? Does it bother you that Elder Holland doesn’t sound like Elder Oaks? They’re both testifying of the same thing, but each is responding to his own experiences. And Elder Holland is a great classroom teacher whose lots of fun to listen to and tells wonderful stories, and Elder Oaks is a former State Supreme Court Justice who lays it out in a kind [of way] that lawyers like Elder Hardy can understand.

And you’re not through yet. Because it all gets down to Mormon, and he’s completed all of this, and he gets killed in 385 [AD], and his son Moroni comes along. Mormon has completely neglected this third book about the people from the tower of Babel. And Moroni, with plenty of time on his hands, decides, “I’ll add that to Dad’s record.” So Moroni sits down and gives us this record.

Well, these people are really weird. They have kings that rule in captivity through their whole lives, and they father children in the captivity, and then the children try to overthrow the other king, and they have weird names that don’t [make sense.] Why in the world is that there? Because Moroni decided it was important to put there. [That’s odd] from our point of view, but you’re the forger, my instructions are to you that I want this in there. Now, you’re 24 years old, which means that you’ve got to be doing this before you get to that age.

And, by the way, you write a little bit yourself. And here come the computers. You don’t sound like King Benjamin.  The writing that Joseph Smith put into the first edition of the Book of Mormon describing what happened to the 116 pages – we don’t have that anymore; we don’t put them in the Book of Mormon anymore; people apparently don’t pay much attention to them anymore – but Joseph felt strongly about it. So strongly that he put it right up front. And you read that paragraph, where he describes that, and you say, “Whoever wrote that didn’t write anything in the Book of Mormon.”  There is no connection.

Well, all right, here come the computers. You have to have been such a good forger in making up all of these different personalities and changing the way they talk that the computers are fooled. And the computers say all of these speeches in this one, all of these sermons, are by different people, and Joseph Smith is not one of them. We checked Joseph Smith against Alma – nope. Joseph Smith didn’t write Alma.

So my thesis to you is if you’re going to approach the Book of Mormon on a strictly intellectual basis rather than on a spiritual basis and just analyze it for what it is and what it says, rejecting Joseph Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon is the way to go. I would think in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, you can demonstrate that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith, I have great confidence in your ability, but Joseph Smith didn’t write all these things, and put them all together, and have them hold together.

Now, you talk about forgery, and I’ve had some experience with forgery. And I wrote a book asking the question, “Is the Book of Mormon a forgery?” And in the process, I analyzed for my readers, “What is forgery?” And there are three tests for forgery, traditionally three tests. There are internal tests, and there are external tests. And then there is the fundamental question of motive.

Well, I think I’ve demonstrated with this that the Book of Mormon passes the internal tests. You can’t look at it and how it’s constructed, and how things relate to each other, and say there’s anything in this that says forgery. Oh, and by the way one of the other things I [need to add] – the longer the forgery, the easier it is to detect.

Remember the forgeries of Mark Hofmann that he foisted off on the Church? The Salamander Letter, and all of these kind of things? Very short. Not much to check. Very easy in a very short presentation to see to it that it fits together internally. It can pass the internal test.

We want to see whether this forgery passes the internal test. By the way, it’s 535 pages long. That’s not very short. That exposes you to all kinds of possibilities of mistakes if you’re going to write something that long.

The other thing that goes with that on the internal test – there is an old saying: “Truth is the daughter of time.” The farther away you get in time from the forgery, the less convincing the forgery is. You go back to the Hofmann forgeries and at the time in which they took place, they all looked pretty good, because people were talking about the subjects he was forging things on. There were a bunch of scholars that were saying, “Oh, Joseph Smith was caught up in folk magic.” Oooh! Okay, so let’s write the Salamander Letter that proves that Joseph Smith was given to folk magic and therefore not inspired. People lost interest in folk magic, and you look at the Salamander Letter now, and you say, “Why did people pay any attention to this?”  But at the time, “Yeah! This looks good!”

Truth is the daughter of time. And short is better if you want to make it as a forger.

So what has time done to the Book of Mormon? Let’s go the next area, which is a fertile ground of external tests. The Book of Mormon may pass all of the internal tests of all of these things put together, but what about the external tests? And in your mind, construct a ledger. And on one side of the ledger, here on the right, are all of the external evidences that the Book of Mormon is not genuine. And all over here on the left are all the external evidences that the Book of Mormon is true. And we date the ledger “1830.”

What are you going to find?

You’re going to find on the right a whole series of things that demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is nonsense – external evidence this is nonsense. And over here on the left, well, all you’ve got is Joseph’s word, and the word of some of his associates, the witnesses. That’s it.

Metal plates? Who writes on metal plates? That’s absurd. Big cities on the American continent? Everybody knows the Indians are nomads who go around with teepees and move all the time, and the idea of cities – no! That’s nonsense! This whole thing is crazy.

My grandfather used to have an ongoing controversy with one of his business associates who was not a Mormon. He said, “Heber, the Book of Mormon says they built cities out of cement! There’s no cement among the Indians!” My grandfather would say, “If the Book of Mormon says they had cement, they had cement. It’s as easy as that.” Well, you know, they don’t resolve that kind of a controversy.

Okay, well, I’ll just a run through a few of them for you. Metal plates? Today, we know that people of the Abrahamic covenant regularly wrote sacred things on metal plates and buried them in the ground for future generations to find and sometimes put them in stone boxes. We have found in Iran the stone box that looks just like the stone box that Joseph Smith describes the plates came in, in which there are metal plates, on which there are engravings, and the plates are exactly as Joseph Smith described the plates for the Book of Mormon, except these plates are a bit bigger. Joseph Smith’s plates were a little smaller. The Darius Plates, as they were called, named after the Syrian king, are a little bit bigger.

There are over a hundred, maybe by now two hundred or more, I don’t know if some folks lost count, of examples of people of the Abrahamic covenant writing on plates and burying them. Okay, you’ve got to take that off of this side of the ledger as a statement against the Book of Mormon and move it over to this side, because no one in Joseph Smith’s time knew about the plates except Joseph Smith.

Names. Up here, all the people came from Jerusalem, so all of their names in the Book of Mormon should be Jewish names. Names tell you a lot about where people come from. If your named MacGregor, you’ve got Scottish ancestry. If you’re named O’Malley, Irish. The most common name in England? Smith. The most common name in Wales? Jones. What’s the most common name in the Book of Mormon? Anybody got a guess?

Ammon. Where did that come from?

Well, going back to that family journal, Nephi points out that he had an education. His father provided him with an education, and it’s very clear that his father was a wealthy man. How did you become wealthy in Jerusalem in 600 BC? One really good way to do it was to trade with the Egyptians. Now let’s take Lehi for just a minute. Lehi was married. Let’s assume he got married young by our standards – 17, 18. He began his career, and they had two children, and they named them standard Jewish names: Laman, Lemuel. Same kind of names everybody else used at the time. But he was doing business in Egypt by now, and he knew Egyptian, and he had two more sons, and he named them Sam and Nephi.

Now “Sam” is not a contraction of the New England name of Samuel. “Sam” is a perfectly legitimate, stand-alone-by-itself, Egyptian name, and so is Nephi. So, okay, he’s now out of his teens and had his first kids and is now into his twenties and in his career, and he gives his next two sons Egyptian names. Then he get called as a prophet and told to leave and spends his eight years or so wandering in the wilderness and reading the scriptures, and he has two more sons. Now what does he name them? Jacob and Joseph. Two of the most important prophets in the scriptures that he’s reading about.

So you’ve got to have some Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon as well as Hebrew names in the Book of Mormon if it’s going to be internally consistent. And the most common name in the Book of Mormon is Ammon. What was the most common name in Egypt in 600 BC?

You don’t need any hints. Ammon.

Getting down to this third group from the Tower of Babel, and there are no Ammons, and there are no Lemuels. They are Coriantumr or Shiz and a whole bunch of weird names. Do those names ever leak up into the other history? They do. There are some Jaredite names that are in this history. Where did they come from? Well, about the same time that this happened, the last Jaredite makes his way up in to Zarahemla and takes enough culture with him from that world that there are a few Jaredite names from that time forward, nothing prior to that point in the Book of Mormon.

Okay, take the names off the ledger on this side. Move them over to this side.

This is another demonstration – poetry. Every culture has its own poetry. When you get introduced to a haiku, you know you’re talking to somebody who knows something about Japan. Because nobody writes poems in haiku except the Japanese.

Get in 1 Nephi. Read Lehi’s statements to his sons in the Valley of Lemuel. You have desert poetry. Perfect example of desert poetry. Nobody in Joseph Smith’s time knew anything about desert poetry. Move this one over; let’s keep building up on this side all of the good things for the Book of Mormon and keep reducing all those things on the other side.

Well, I could ramble on, but we’re getting towards the end and I want to wrap this up. I just have one more statement about the things that have come to light in external evidence. One of the greatest complaints against the Book of Mormon by its critics is archaeology. There is no dependable Book of Mormon site anywhere in the Americas that can be identified as a Book of Mormon city by anybody other than a Book of Mormon archaeologist. Mormons think they’ve found cities that correspond to the Book of Mormon, but they can’t convince any other archaeologist that they’ve done so. So that stays over here on the list of external evidence that the Book of Mormon is not true.

Guys, you’re looking in the wrong place.

It’s like the old story that’s attributed, interestingly, to the Middle East as an example of the problems of dealing with the Middle East. A fellow says to his neighbor, “I’ve lost a very valuable ring. Come help me look for it.” The neighbor says, “All right, I will,” and they’re out on the street, looking. The street lamp is on, and it’s at night, and the neighbor says, “Where did you lose it?” and he says, “I lost it in the house.” The neighbor says, “Well, why are we looking out here?” and he says, “‘Cause the light is better.”

The Book of Mormon doesn’t give you enough information to find an an archaeological site in the Americas with any kind of accuracy. The family journal, that first part up there, gives you clear information about the family wandering on the Arabian peninsula. And that’s the one of the few places in the world that probably still looks exactly today like it did in 600 BC. There aren’t any superhighways across the Arabian peninsula. They just leave it alone. It’s just the way it was. And if you follow Nephi’s description of their journeys in the Arabian peninsula exactly, you find a gold mine. Why do you need a gold mine? Gold plates. That’s where we get the gold.

They came across a city, and the Hebrews do not use vowels. The archaeologists uncovered right about where Nephi would have to had to have been where Ishmael died and they buried him; they buried him in a town called Nahom. N-A-H-O-M. Which was a burial site. Archaeologists within the last fifteen years have found the site on the Arabian peninsula right about where Nephi said Nahom would be, and they have uncovered the description of the name of the town, and it says “NHM.” And the Hebrews don’t use vowels.

This is an archaeological bullseye!

You’re out there looking under the street light, guys, when the archeology of the Arabian peninsula makes it very clear that you should be looking in the Arabian peninsula for validation of Nephi’s description of where they went. If you do, you’ll find the Land Bountiful, where there’s plenty of wood to build a ship right where Nephi said he would. You turn directly east, and it takes you right smack into an area that would be similar to the Land Bountiful, and nobody in Joseph Smith’s time had ever heard of it.

Well, I could go on and on and on. The external evidence is piling up and piling up on this side of the ledger and shrinking and shrinking on this side of the ledger. Truth is the daughter of time, and the longer your forgery, the more likely it is to be uncovered. Here we are, 180 years since the publishing of the Book of Mormon with far more evidence that says it’s genuine than you had at the time it was published.

Well, the time is gone, but I need to end with the main point. (You say, “Gee, you’ve been rambling for forty-five minutes. Get to the main point.”)

All of this is interesting, and it’s fun, and it’s important for us to know as we get attacked by those who are leaving the Church by telling Joseph Smith was a fraud, the Book of Mormon is a forgery, and so on – important for us to have the tools. Elder Ballard said we need to gather this now.  We didn’t used to have to have this. We do now.

But it’s not the main point.

You don’t need to know about the location of Nahom. You don’t need to know about the proliferation of plates. You don’t need to understand about ancient names in order to live a more successful and worthwhile life.

You need to know about the Lord Jesus Christ.

And the Book of Mormon did not come as a history to be interesting and filled with these kind of parallels. That’s not why it was part of the Restoration. That’s not why the Lord made it available to Joseph Smith so that he could say to people, “Here. This exists. Somebody wrote it.”

Now what is its message?

And so we have to add a fourth criteria to – I skipped over “motive” because of the time. Okay, you get the point anyway. Yeah, internal evidence, external evidence, what’s the motive, but if the Book of Mormon does not pass this last test, it is not valid.

And the last test is relevance. In our lives. In our day.

You know how much work that represents? We had our 24-year-old going over this. As I got through all of this writing my book, I was interviewed on a closed-circuit TV in Deseret Book, and I got asked a question that I had not anticipated and not thought about.

I was asked, “Who is your hero in the Book of Mormon?”

Moroni? Lehi? I had never thought about that. But she asked the question. I got the answer. I’m not saying it’s inspiration; I’m saying it’s me. I’m not saying that anybody else has to share it.

And she said, “Who is your hero in the Book of Mormon?”

I said, “Mormon.”

How much work was that? How much work was it to bring it to us, and why do we have it? Because it truly is another testament of Jesus Christ.

Go back to the Isaiah passages that are in the family journal that Nephi and his brother Jacob pulled out and put there. What do they talk about? Two things. (This is in Isaiah, now.) The gathering of Israel, and the Last Days. The coming of the Messiah to Israel. That is a message as old as human history that God has wanted all of his children to receive. He foresaw the time where we live where that message would ignored. Ridiculed. People would turn their backs.

Joyce and I were in Poland. We saw a couple of young men walking cross the town square with white shirts, dark tie, and a black badge on their shirt pocket and were pretty sure we knew what they did all day. So we went out to them, and we chatted with them, and I said, “Poland. Pretty tough.” And they said, “Yeah, Poland’s a pretty tough place.” I said, “Yeah, heavily Catholic.” And they said, “No, no. That’s not the problem. These people don’t believe in God. Catholicism is cultural for them; it’s not religious. We’ve got to convince them that there is a God before we can teach them gospel.”

Karen Armstrong, who is a prolific writer on Christianity and Islam, she and I got in a conversation one day. We talked about the state of Christianity in Europe, and she said, “If you say to anybody in Europe today that you’re a religious person, you’re treated with disdain.” Europe is this post-Christian Europe. This is the world in which we live. This is the world in which we preach the Gospel.  This is the world to which we must bring the message of the reality of Jesus Christ, and the Lord has given us a tool with which to do it.  It requires everybody to recognize this exists. This is here. This is not some pretty speech. This is real. Read the Book of Mormon.

I won’t tell the Proctor story in any kind of detail, but I will close with it. Elder Hardy knew the Proctors. When we called on Bill and Marian Proctor for the first meeting, we had left a Book of Mormon with Marian. We had gone tracting that morning, came back that night. He was reading it – Bill Proctor was reading the book by the fire, which I took as a good sign.

And then he stood up and came to me, and he said, “Look, lads, I know why you’re here, and you’re wasting your time. I have no intention of joining your church. But this is an interesting book you have.  So I’ll tell you what let’s do. I’ll buy your book, and you go on your way, and we’ll both save time. Agreed?”

I said, “Agreed. Yep. But as long as we’re here…”

Okay, so as long as we’re here, we sat down, and we gave them the first discussion of the Book of Mormon. And then we asked the magic question – when would be a good time for us to come back? And he gave us an appointment back, and there’s much more to the story, but very powerfully, before I left Scotland – excuse me, I get dewy-eyed at the dedication of a parking lot – before I left Scotland, I said to him, “When did you know? Bill, when did it happen [that you knew] the Book of Mormon was true?”

And he said, “Oh, that first night.” He said, “The Spirit was there overwhelmingly, telling me it was true.”

He didn’t need any internal or external validations, or any intellectual analysis. All he needed was an open heart and the presence of the Holy Ghost, and he knew. The Book of Mormon can survive any attack by any enemy of the Church because the Proctor example has been repeated millions of times, in every culture, in every country, all around the world. The Lord’s wisdom in having Mormon do all that work, and having Moroni deliver those plates to Joseph Smith, and then the translation, is validated again and again. The Book of Mormon is, indeed, another witness of Jesus Christ, and a precious gift that God has given to warn us.

In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

CES Reply: Follow the Money

Continuing my reply to Jeremy Runnells “Letter to a CES Director,” with Jeremy’s original words in green:

2.Church Finances:

Zero transparency to members of the Church. Why is the one and only true Church keeping its books in the dark? Why would God’s one true Church choose to “keep them in darkness” over such a stewardship?

Why do you provide a really weird link to a scripture in Ether that talks about oaths used to keep murders secret? Are you equating the Church’s unwillingness to release financial statements with deliberately killing people?

History has shown time and time again that corporate secret wealth is breeding ground for corruption.

No, I don’t think it has. Only publicly traded companies are required to make their financial records public, and the vast majority of businesses across the world are privately held and keep their finances to themselves. Almost all of these private businesses are small businesses, while the publicly traded corporations are huge corporations, which tend to be more corrupt than the mom-and-pop store down the street. Yet it’s the family business with private financials who, by your definition, are trafficking in “corporate secret wealth.”

The Church used to be transparent with its finances but stopped in 1959.

I didn’t know that. I also didn’t know, as the Wikipedia article to which you link states, that the Church “does disclose its financials in the United Kingdom and Canada where it is required to do so by law.”

Estimated $1.5 billion megamall City Creek Center:

Which was funded by a for-profit entity owned by the church and not paid for by tithes or offerings of church members.

Total Church humanitarian aid from 1985-2011:  $1.4 billion

Your link appears to be broken, so I don’t know where you arrive at that figure, especially since your broken link was supposed to take me to a welfare services fact sheet put out by the Church. If the Church website is admitting that figure, then how can you say it’s not being transparent on this subject?

So, with a little Googling effort of my own, I found an interesting post over at TimesandSeasons.org that shows where this number came from, and why it’s bogus.

Attributing the figure to an article from someone named Cragun, T&S writes:

Where does Cragun get this information? He draws from a single source: This fact sheet, published by the church. It’s a single-page document, well worth a look. In fact, you should go take a look at it right now. In particular, watch the nomenclature.

The damning language is found in these lines:

Humanitarian assistance rendered (1985–2009)

Cash donations $327.6 million

Value of material assistance $884.6 million

That shows that the church gave about $1 billion in total humanitarian aid over 25 years.

Or does it?

Look at that sheet again. It highlights numbers of food storehouses, food production for the needy, employment training, church-run thrift stores, and so on. The sheet states _also_ discusses global work worldwide on disaster relief (such as responses to tsunami or earthquake victims). It uses different nomenclature for each type of donation. That is donations to worldwide emergency response are classified under the humanitarian label. But the extensive ongoing infrastructure to feed the needy is classified under the church welfare label. I contacted the church today and was able to verify that this is correct…

Given this crucial misunderstanding of the fact sheet, Cragun’s factual claim is incorrect and in fact very misleading on an important point… observers can certainly still make critiques of church financial practices. Such critiques, however, should be based on accurate statements of fact. [Emphasis in original.]

Something is fundamentally wrong with “the one true Church” spending more on an estimated $1.5 billion dollar high-end megamall than it has in 26 years of humanitarian aid.

Given the reality that your figure is, in reality, only a small portion of the Church’s overall welfare efforts, this is criticism based on a substantial error on your part.

For an organization that claims to be Christ’s only true Church, this expenditure is a moral failure on so many different levels.  For a Church that asks its members to sacrifice greatly for Temple building, such as the case of Argentinians giving the Church gold from their dental work for the São Paulo Brazil Temple, this mall business is absolutely shameful.

Why? Members weren’t asked to pay a dime for the mall, and none of their donations were used to fund it. As a for-profit business, the mall generates revenue, which means that the mall will ultimately earn its money back.

Of all the things that Christ would tell the prophet, the prophet buys a mall and says “Let’s go shopping!”?  Of all the sum total of human suffering and poverty on this planet, the inspiration the Brethren feel for His Church is to get into the shopping mall business?|

The mall wasn’t built with the intent to get the Saints to “go shopping.” My understanding with regard to the purpose of City Creek was to stave off the urban blight that was gripping downtown Salt Lake City, which would ultimately have placed Temple Square and the surrounding buildings that constitute the headquarters of the Church into the middle of a dangerous slum. City Creek has accomplished that goal by revitalizing downtown and making it safe for families. The fact that this was done without taxpayer or tithepayer dollars makes it a boon to the community that cost church members nothing at all.

Hinckley made the following dishonest statement in a 2002 interview to a German journalist:

Reporter:  In my country, the…we say the people’s Churches, the Protestants, the Catholics, they publish all their budgets, to all the public.

Hinckley:  Yeah. Yeah.

Reporter:   Why is it impossible for your Church?

Hinckley:   Well, we simply think that the…that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world.  That’s the only thing. Yes.

I don’t see this as dishonest, but I do think President Hinckley and the reporter are talking past each other here. President Hinckley’s talking about the confidentiality of individual contributions, which should rightly remain private, although that doesn’t seem to be what the reporter asked. It may be that President Hinckley misheard the question. Your link plays a very short snippet of this interview, and a broader context might be helpful.

Where can I see the Church’s books?   I’ve paid tithing.   Where can I go to see what the Church’s finances are? Where can current tithing paying members go to see the books?   The answer: we can’t.   Even if you’ve made the contributions as Hinckley stated above??

When I was a counselor in the bishopric, I was actually uncomfortable with how much I knew about the finances of ward members, based on my access to ward tithing and fast offering records. Much of that information is available to counselors and clerks, and it is remarkable to me how responsibly they handle that information. That information isn’t the finances of the entire Church, of course, but my personal experience makes me more grateful for confidentiality than curious about the Church’s books.

Unless you’re an authorized General Authority  or  senior  Church  employee  in  the  accounting  department with a Non-Disclosure Agreement?   You’re out of luck. Hinckley knew this and for whatever reason made the dishonest statement.

Again, I don’t see how the statement is dishonest, although I do see that it seems to be an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. More context would be helpful.

Tithing: I find the following quote in the December 2012 Ensign very disturbing:

“If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”

Ripped out of context, it is disturbing. In the article this advice is given to someone who receives generous financial assistance from the Church in order to get back on their feet, assistance in a dollar amount in excess of the money they paid in tithing.

“Well, God tested Abraham by asking him to kill his son and besides, the Lord will take care of them through the Bishop’s storehouse.”

You put these words in quotes for some reason. Did a real person actually say this, or is this just another strawman argument?

Yes, the same god who tested Abraham is also the same crazy god who killed innocent babies and endorsed genocide, slavery, and rape.

Quite the non sequitur there. The weirdness of many Old Testament accounts does not deny anyone access to the bishop’s storehouse.

Besides, whatever happened to self-sufficiency? Begging the Bishop for food when you had the money for food but because you followed the above Ensign advice and gave your food money to the Church you’re now dependent on the Church for food money.

Just a few paragraphs ago, you were upset that the Church doesn’t offer enough humanitarian aid, and now you’re complaining that they offer too much aid and make people dependent. Which is it?

3.Names of the Church:

After deciding “Church of Jesus Christ” on April 6, 1830, Joseph Smith made the decision on May 3, 1834 to change the name of the Church to “The Church of the Latter Day Saints”. Why did Joseph take the name of “Jesus Christ” out of the very name of His restored Church? The one and only true Church on the face of the earth in which Christ is the Head?

Because there was already a church with the legal right to use the name “Church of Christ” that precluded Joseph from doing the same. (You say that they called themselves the “Church of Jesus Christ,” but from what I can tell, the name “Jesus” was absent from the original moniker.) So, absent any revelation, Joseph chose a name that would distinguish themselves from the other Church. The first time a name was given by revelation was in 1838, and that name, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” is the same name the Church has consistently used from that day to this.

Four years later on April 26, 1838, the Church name was changed to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and has remained ever since (except the hyphen was added about a century later to be grammatically correct).

Indeed. As I stated at the outset, I’m not concerned about fallible grammar.

Why would Christ instruct Joseph to name it one thing in 1830 and then change it in 1834 and then change it again in 1838?

He wouldn’t, and he didn’t.  There’s no evidence that Christ instructed Joseph to give the Church any specific name prior to the 1838 revelation.

Is it reasonable to assume that God would periodically change the name of his Church?

This question only makes sense if you actually have evidence that God periodically changed the name of his Church, which you don’t. The first time we have record of God naming His Church is in 1838, and there have been no changes to the name since the Lord Himself settled the question.

Why would the name of Christ be dropped from His one and only true Church for 4 whole years?

Because another church was using the name “Church of Christ,” which prevented Joseph from using it.

What does this say about a Church that claims to be restored and guided by modern revelation?

It says that we do our best in the absence of direct guidance from heaven, but we don’t mess with the Lord after he provides a revelation with a definitive answer.

If the Prophet Joseph Smith couldn’t even get the name right for eight years then what else did he get wrong?

Since he was a fallible human being with agency like the rest of us, probably a lot. But this isn’t a case of him getting anything wrong – since there was no revelation on the subject for eight years, he was free to use his best judgment during that same time frame. He would only be “wrong” if he had chosen a different name after the Lord settled the question via revelation in 1838. You’ll notice the revelation naming the Church doesn’t scold Joseph for getting anything wrong.

Next: Not Very Useful