I've noticed a pattern.
This is not any official church doctrine or even any unofficial church folklore. It's just an annoying habit that seems to be a frequent result from the Mormon mindset.
It seems that Mormonism teaches people to push doubts aside and ignore them entirely. I'm not talking about cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias (which are also big problems), I'm talking about something that seems more akin to selective hearing.
I've noticed this lately in internet discussions and realized that I've come across it before. On YouTube, TBMs commenting on exmo videos tend to get annoyed and exclaim vaguely that the truth has been twisted and distorted. When asked to provide specific examples, the vague exclamation is repeated without ever addressing an issue in detail.
It reminds me of the conversations I had with my father when I told him that I was leaving the church. I told him that I'd prayed about the Book of Mormon many times and never received the confirmation that I sought.
And he'd stare at me with that pained look in his eye, and say, "But why do you want to leave the church?"
"Because I don't think I ever really believed it," I told him. "After giving up on Moroni's promise, I looked back at some of the church doctrines and I realized I had a problem with some of them. I've never found a good reason for why the church banned blacks from holding the priesthood, and even the stuff with polygamy way back when seems pretty fishy."
And he'd look at me sadly and say, "But you haven't told me why."
Yes I did. How did he not hear what I just said? I just gave him three reasons why I left, and he still seemed to think that I hadn't provided any kind of explanation.
My mother had a similar reaction when she asked me why I wasn't going on a mission. I told her I didn't want to. She didn't try to address any specific concerns of mine...she just asked me how I couldn't want to.
Acknowledging the possibility of disbelief is put aside in favor of incredulity. How can you not believe? They're too bent out of shape over the impossibility of apostasy to worry about the reasoning. They don't want to hear the reasoning. They just want to hear the opposite of what they just heard.
I guess this is the mentality that leads to the simplistic dismissal of the apostate's reasoning, once it's been accepted that the apostate is actually doing the impossible. When they realize that someone can seriously decide to not believe in the church anymore, they begin writing that person's decision off as trivial--you left because you couldn't live the standards, you left because someone offended you, or you left because you wanted the freedom to sin.
From the beginning to the end of the process of apostasy, all an upstanding member of the church can do is assume that it's impossible to want to leave and if it is possible, it can't be because of doctrinal flaws.
And that doesn't seem right to me.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
1 Nephi 13: Delusionist History
But Seriously...We Don't Hate the Catholics
In this chapter, we hit the first mention of the "great and abominable church." It claims that this church is "abominable above all other churches," that one of its chief motivations is riches and that it's formed following Christ's death. Historical clues might lead you to believe that this refers to the Catholic church, but I was taught in seminary that it's not referring to any specific church. The great and abominable church represents any and all churches that preach falsehood, persecute the LDS, or have impure motives. So really, Mormons don't dislike Catholics any more than any other church, since they all contain the incomplete gospel and preach falsehoods.
Ironically, however, the Mormon church preaches falsehood, persecutes its own members and has impure motives.
The Divinely-Inspired Mistake
Take a look at verse 12:
Genocide is Just Another Word for the Wrath of God
Verse 14:
And if the Lamanites wiped out the Nephites a little after 400 AD, why would God wait more than a thousand years to punish them for it? It's not like any of the actual perpetrators of the crime were still alive.
Chiasmic Chaos
See if you can follow verse 29:
Instead of going so far out of his way to try and create some convoluted parallelism to support his claim of the Book of Mormon's historical legitimacy, Smith probably could have just written the verse in a more straightforward fashion and avoided suspicions that the Book was simply written by a bad writer trying to recapture the style of the Bible:
In this chapter, we hit the first mention of the "great and abominable church." It claims that this church is "abominable above all other churches," that one of its chief motivations is riches and that it's formed following Christ's death. Historical clues might lead you to believe that this refers to the Catholic church, but I was taught in seminary that it's not referring to any specific church. The great and abominable church represents any and all churches that preach falsehood, persecute the LDS, or have impure motives. So really, Mormons don't dislike Catholics any more than any other church, since they all contain the incomplete gospel and preach falsehoods.
Ironically, however, the Mormon church preaches falsehood, persecutes its own members and has impure motives.
The Divinely-Inspired Mistake
Take a look at verse 12:
And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.That's saying that Christopher Columbus was inspired by the Holy Ghost to discover the Americas. Interesting, because later on in the Book of Mormon, Moroni tells us that "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Except, it would appear, in Columbus' case, when the Spirit inspired him with a little white lie ("There's a shortcut to India if you sail west!").
Genocide is Just Another Word for the Wrath of God
Verse 14:
And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.Oh, so all the atrocities committed by the Europeans against the Native Americans are cool because it was just God getting his vengeance against the Lamanites for wiping out the pretty white Nephites. Joseph Smith's alternate history of the early Americas seems more and more to be simply an excuse for hating the Native Americans.
And if the Lamanites wiped out the Nephites a little after 400 AD, why would God wait more than a thousand years to punish them for it? It's not like any of the actual perpetrators of the crime were still alive.
Chiasmic Chaos
See if you can follow verse 29:
And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yeah, even across the many waters which thou has seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest--because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is the Lamb of God--because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.That's a lot of repetition, and it sounds to me like Joseph Smith is trying a little too hard to use chiasmus to bolster the historical accuracy of his writing. Only it doesn't break down like chiasmus at all. It doesn't work out to any kind of symmetrical construct. Instead, it goes deeper and deeper into a more complicated structure that never gets back to the first phrase to resolve itself.
Instead of going so far out of his way to try and create some convoluted parallelism to support his claim of the Book of Mormon's historical legitimacy, Smith probably could have just written the verse in a more straightforward fashion and avoided suspicions that the Book was simply written by a bad writer trying to recapture the style of the Bible:
And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.There. That makes the same point that verse 29 made, only in less than half the time and without the confusion. And it illustrates more evidence that the Book of Mormon was poorly written instead of divinely inspired.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The Gift of the Gospel
About halfway through my sixth grade year, my English teacher got married. The other teachers organized a little party for her during the school day. Many of the students brought small gifts for her. I wasn't going to bring a gift. I had no idea what a newly-married schoolteacher would want. But my dad had a brilliant idea--I should get her a copy of the Book of Mormon.
I was pretty uncomfortable with this idea. But it's not like I could say no to spreading the word of the gospel. That was supposed to be one of my primary objectives as a good Mormon boy. Besides, if I was expecting to serve a mission someday, I'd need to get comfortable with the idea of sharing the truth with the world around me. So I dutifully wrapped up one of those cheap paperback copies of the book and brought it to school with me.
I was really nervous about giving it to her. I put the book on the table with the other gifts and walked away.
A few days later, after my teacher had taken all her gifts home to her husband and opened them, she thanked me for it. But it was not sincere gratitude. It was a forced attempt to be gracious. It was delivered in awkward, tight-lipped speech that made me think it had pissed her off but she was struggling to be polite nonetheless. I was embarrassed.
In the years following, I occasionally fantasized that someday when she was at a low point in her life, she'd find that Book of Mormon in some box in the attic, read it, and let it change her life for the better. And I dreamed that she'd credit me with her membership in the church and her eventual eternal salvation.
From my new perspective, I feel even more embarrassed about what I did. At the time, I thought I was being selfless by sharing the source of my happiness with her. But now I realize that I was being selfish by taking a celebration about her and turning into a marketing platform about me. A box of chocolates would have been a much more appropriate gift. The other small issue is that I wasn't happy but I was still trying to share the source of that not-being-happy-ness like it was something special. Because that's what I was supposed to do.
And that doesn't seem right to me.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
1 Nephi 12: Generalized Characterization
Joseph Smith Doesn't Know People
In Nephi's sweeping vision of the future of his posterity on the American continent, there's this little part about how Jesus comes down and visits his descendants (I'll get to that later...like, Third Nephi later). And then Nephi says that after Jesus visits the people and establishes church leadership (twelve apostles), three generations "pass away in righteousness." This is simply impossible.
Come on. It's a full-blown society that's been thriving and growing on the continent for six hundred years, so there's thousands upon thousands of people (minus the deaths from the catastrophes signalling Jesus' crucifixion). And those people, who are all converted upon Jesus's arrival, later have grandchildren who don't depart from the beliefs of their elders? No dissent whatsoever until the fourth generation?
Human nature, pal. Maybe the majority will stick with the status quo, but there's always those people that want to be different, or want to rebel, or need to question what they've been taught. Unless Jesus is there to reign personally (which, of course, he wasn't), I don't think you're going to get three solid generations of righteous believers. That's just silly. It sounds like a happily-ever-after-fairy tale in which everything is an extreme--the female lead is the most beautiful, the male lead is the most honorable, the antagonist is pure evil, and everything else is appropriately exaggerated.
Hey, Look! Racism!
You know it's not real Mormonism until you're quashing the status of a supposedly inferior group of people! In Nephi's future-vision, he witnesses his descendants get wiped out by the descendants of his brothers (Laman and Lemuel, the non-believers). And then, after all the Nephites have been eradicated, Nephi witnesses the Lamanites become "a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." So, from this Book of Mormon passage, we learn that Native Americans are, in fact, filthy, loathsome and abominable. Nice.
Because the white guys that came by several hundred years later, kicked them out of their homes, tricked them into signing treaties, gave them small pox and slaughtered them...those guys weren't loathsome at all.
On a related note--weren't the people in Joseph Smith's day a little less enlightened than we are about racial issues and the equality of people as human beings and stuff? Wasn't it normal to consider the Native Americans to be savages, second class citizens, or a lower form of humanity? I'm sure saying bad stuff about the Native Americans didn't create too many waves back then, but considering Mormons believe in a god who loves all his children, that kind of bigotry just doesn't seem to jive with the church's modern image. It's like the religion is founded by a book that was entirely fabricated in the mid-nineteenth century or something.
...Also, More Visions.
The Book of Mormon is like Inception. When you're watching Inception, you're trying to figure out how much of the movie is actually happening in real-time, how much of it is a flashback, and how much of it is a dream or a dream within a dream.
When you're reading the Book of Mormon, you're trying to figure out how much of the book is actually happening in real-time, how much of it is an editor's note by Mormon, and how much of it is a vision or a vision about someone else's earlier vision.
In Nephi's sweeping vision of the future of his posterity on the American continent, there's this little part about how Jesus comes down and visits his descendants (I'll get to that later...like, Third Nephi later). And then Nephi says that after Jesus visits the people and establishes church leadership (twelve apostles), three generations "pass away in righteousness." This is simply impossible.
Come on. It's a full-blown society that's been thriving and growing on the continent for six hundred years, so there's thousands upon thousands of people (minus the deaths from the catastrophes signalling Jesus' crucifixion). And those people, who are all converted upon Jesus's arrival, later have grandchildren who don't depart from the beliefs of their elders? No dissent whatsoever until the fourth generation?
Human nature, pal. Maybe the majority will stick with the status quo, but there's always those people that want to be different, or want to rebel, or need to question what they've been taught. Unless Jesus is there to reign personally (which, of course, he wasn't), I don't think you're going to get three solid generations of righteous believers. That's just silly. It sounds like a happily-ever-after-fairy tale in which everything is an extreme--the female lead is the most beautiful, the male lead is the most honorable, the antagonist is pure evil, and everything else is appropriately exaggerated.
Hey, Look! Racism!
You know it's not real Mormonism until you're quashing the status of a supposedly inferior group of people! In Nephi's future-vision, he witnesses his descendants get wiped out by the descendants of his brothers (Laman and Lemuel, the non-believers). And then, after all the Nephites have been eradicated, Nephi witnesses the Lamanites become "a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." So, from this Book of Mormon passage, we learn that Native Americans are, in fact, filthy, loathsome and abominable. Nice.
Because the white guys that came by several hundred years later, kicked them out of their homes, tricked them into signing treaties, gave them small pox and slaughtered them...those guys weren't loathsome at all.
On a related note--weren't the people in Joseph Smith's day a little less enlightened than we are about racial issues and the equality of people as human beings and stuff? Wasn't it normal to consider the Native Americans to be savages, second class citizens, or a lower form of humanity? I'm sure saying bad stuff about the Native Americans didn't create too many waves back then, but considering Mormons believe in a god who loves all his children, that kind of bigotry just doesn't seem to jive with the church's modern image. It's like the religion is founded by a book that was entirely fabricated in the mid-nineteenth century or something.
...Also, More Visions.
The Book of Mormon is like Inception. When you're watching Inception, you're trying to figure out how much of the movie is actually happening in real-time, how much of it is a flashback, and how much of it is a dream or a dream within a dream.
When you're reading the Book of Mormon, you're trying to figure out how much of the book is actually happening in real-time, how much of it is an editor's note by Mormon, and how much of it is a vision or a vision about someone else's earlier vision.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Gay People Aren't Poisonous
Gay people are poisonous.
At least that's what I used to believe. As a teenager in the Mormon church, I was kind of scared of gays. Not in the "them homosexuals is ruinin' our family values, get the shotgun mama," kind of way, but more in the "these people are weird and there's something wrong with them" kind of way. I was scared to associate with them because it felt like associating with a drug dealer--why get that close to something that's so wrong? I didn't want to endanger my own worthiness.
The way it was taught to me, homosexuality was an aberrant behavior that some people participated in. They weren't born that way, it was something that they did. Homosexuality was a sin, and these people needed to repent and marry women and have kids like normal people.
When I was sixteen, I met my first gay guy. Or, to be more accurate, I met the first person who was comfortable enough with himself to let it be public knowledge that he was gay. He worked with me at a fast food joint, and he was a crazy, crazy kid. Always goofing off, singing popular songs, being loud. Most people liked him because his antics were entertaining and harmless. I didn't really know how to act around him. I didn't necessarily dislike him, but his gayness and his stereotypical "gay lisp" (if you can call it that) and his general friendliness gave me the creeps. He didn't hit on me, though, so I mostly got along with him just fine. But I was really worried whenever we interacted that he was going to start hitting on me.
A few months after he left the job, another gay guy joined our ranks. He was much more in-your-face about his sexual orientation to the point of being proud of it. He had a bumper sticker on his car that read There's a party in my mouth and you're cumming. It made me sick. I hated him a little for that public, crude display of his immoral lifestyle. He was a nice guy, though. He wasn't as popular as the first one, but he was friendly and easy to talk to...when I wasn't worried about him hitting on me. He used to complain a lot that his mother in particular didn't understand or approve of his sexuality. I thought he was stupid. If it caused so much family strife, why did he keep being gay? It didn't make any sense to me.
Sometime after this, I had a shocking revelation on the subject of homosexuality. I was involved in a debate in an online forum (for something totally unrelated to any of this) which discussed homosexuality. A gay poster was expressing disbelief that people could actually consider homosexuality a choice. He cited his own life as an example, saying that nobody would choose to be gay because of the family problems and societal prejudices they'd have to deal with. I suggested the only remaining argument that made any sense to me--that homosexuals subconsciously chose to be gay, if only to establish some kind of individuality. I think I went so far as to compare gays to goths, saying that they both displayed behavior that was radically different from what was considered normal to feel as though they had their own identities and could stand out.
And then a girl who'd struggled with bisexual urges earlier in her life changed my way of thinking entirely, claiming that, in her personal experience, homosexuality was a temptation. It was a sin just like any other, and like some people struggle with greed or pride, she had struggled with homosexuality. I couldn't believe I hadn't considered this approach, and I finally thought I'd found the answer that aligned both with logic and with the homophobic teachings I'd grown up with. It's a temptation--that explains everything! I used this as my explanation for my beliefs about homosexuality for years.
Then I went to BYU, and nobody there would admit to being gay anyway. When I came home from BYU three years later, a lot had changed. I no longer believed the church to be true. And a few months after my return, I stopped attending sacrament meeting and cut myself off from the church as much as I could without cutting myself off from my family.
A little over a year after that, I met my girlfriend. As we started dating and getting more serious, I began to meet her friends. And she had a lot of gay friends. And, having stripped myself of most of my Mormon prejudices, I realized--they were actually pretty cool. I wasn't worried about them hitting on me or somehow infecting me with their poisonous gay-osity. I wasn't busy feeling sorry for their sad, immoral lifestyles. I still thought they were kind of weird, but mostly because I still didn't understand how a guy can look at another guy and want to have sex with him.
But I also don't understand how people can enjoy country music, and I still associate with country-lovers. In my first interactions with homosexuals since leaving the church, I was surprised to find that the anxiety and confusion that accompanied my earlier interactions had disappeared. I could joke around with a gay guy like anyone else. I could be friends with these people--what a crazy idea! I've had friends who were blatant racists, arrogant pricks, and bullies. Homosexuality is actually less harmful than all that. The racists and pricks and bullies I'd known had done emotional damage to people. What did my girlfriend's gay friends do that was so horrible--love each other?
What's so wrong about that? Even assuming it's a crime, it's a victimless one. And each time I hung out with these guys, homosexuality was looking like less and less of a crime. I'd been conditioned to see these people as pariahs--confused, immoral, and disgusting. They didn't seem like outcasts, they didn't seem confused, they didn't seem immoral since they weren't hurting anyone, and the only thing I found disgusting was what they did behind closed doors. And, let's be honest, there are plenty of heterosexual fetishes that are pretty nasty. The fact that I found their private behavior disgusting was simply a difference of opinion, not a reflection on their value as human beings.
After a while, I began to understand that gay people aren't poisonous. They're just people, like anybody else, only with one distinguishing characteristic that has somehow been deemed notable and then blown totally out of proportion. Why did I waste so much time fearing these people?
Because I was taught to. Because Mormonism doesn't bother trying to understand who they are and dismisses them as a sinful faction of society.
And that does not seem right to me.
At least that's what I used to believe. As a teenager in the Mormon church, I was kind of scared of gays. Not in the "them homosexuals is ruinin' our family values, get the shotgun mama," kind of way, but more in the "these people are weird and there's something wrong with them" kind of way. I was scared to associate with them because it felt like associating with a drug dealer--why get that close to something that's so wrong? I didn't want to endanger my own worthiness.
The way it was taught to me, homosexuality was an aberrant behavior that some people participated in. They weren't born that way, it was something that they did. Homosexuality was a sin, and these people needed to repent and marry women and have kids like normal people.
When I was sixteen, I met my first gay guy. Or, to be more accurate, I met the first person who was comfortable enough with himself to let it be public knowledge that he was gay. He worked with me at a fast food joint, and he was a crazy, crazy kid. Always goofing off, singing popular songs, being loud. Most people liked him because his antics were entertaining and harmless. I didn't really know how to act around him. I didn't necessarily dislike him, but his gayness and his stereotypical "gay lisp" (if you can call it that) and his general friendliness gave me the creeps. He didn't hit on me, though, so I mostly got along with him just fine. But I was really worried whenever we interacted that he was going to start hitting on me.
A few months after he left the job, another gay guy joined our ranks. He was much more in-your-face about his sexual orientation to the point of being proud of it. He had a bumper sticker on his car that read There's a party in my mouth and you're cumming. It made me sick. I hated him a little for that public, crude display of his immoral lifestyle. He was a nice guy, though. He wasn't as popular as the first one, but he was friendly and easy to talk to...when I wasn't worried about him hitting on me. He used to complain a lot that his mother in particular didn't understand or approve of his sexuality. I thought he was stupid. If it caused so much family strife, why did he keep being gay? It didn't make any sense to me.
Sometime after this, I had a shocking revelation on the subject of homosexuality. I was involved in a debate in an online forum (for something totally unrelated to any of this) which discussed homosexuality. A gay poster was expressing disbelief that people could actually consider homosexuality a choice. He cited his own life as an example, saying that nobody would choose to be gay because of the family problems and societal prejudices they'd have to deal with. I suggested the only remaining argument that made any sense to me--that homosexuals subconsciously chose to be gay, if only to establish some kind of individuality. I think I went so far as to compare gays to goths, saying that they both displayed behavior that was radically different from what was considered normal to feel as though they had their own identities and could stand out.
And then a girl who'd struggled with bisexual urges earlier in her life changed my way of thinking entirely, claiming that, in her personal experience, homosexuality was a temptation. It was a sin just like any other, and like some people struggle with greed or pride, she had struggled with homosexuality. I couldn't believe I hadn't considered this approach, and I finally thought I'd found the answer that aligned both with logic and with the homophobic teachings I'd grown up with. It's a temptation--that explains everything! I used this as my explanation for my beliefs about homosexuality for years.
Then I went to BYU, and nobody there would admit to being gay anyway. When I came home from BYU three years later, a lot had changed. I no longer believed the church to be true. And a few months after my return, I stopped attending sacrament meeting and cut myself off from the church as much as I could without cutting myself off from my family.
A little over a year after that, I met my girlfriend. As we started dating and getting more serious, I began to meet her friends. And she had a lot of gay friends. And, having stripped myself of most of my Mormon prejudices, I realized--they were actually pretty cool. I wasn't worried about them hitting on me or somehow infecting me with their poisonous gay-osity. I wasn't busy feeling sorry for their sad, immoral lifestyles. I still thought they were kind of weird, but mostly because I still didn't understand how a guy can look at another guy and want to have sex with him.
But I also don't understand how people can enjoy country music, and I still associate with country-lovers. In my first interactions with homosexuals since leaving the church, I was surprised to find that the anxiety and confusion that accompanied my earlier interactions had disappeared. I could joke around with a gay guy like anyone else. I could be friends with these people--what a crazy idea! I've had friends who were blatant racists, arrogant pricks, and bullies. Homosexuality is actually less harmful than all that. The racists and pricks and bullies I'd known had done emotional damage to people. What did my girlfriend's gay friends do that was so horrible--love each other?
What's so wrong about that? Even assuming it's a crime, it's a victimless one. And each time I hung out with these guys, homosexuality was looking like less and less of a crime. I'd been conditioned to see these people as pariahs--confused, immoral, and disgusting. They didn't seem like outcasts, they didn't seem confused, they didn't seem immoral since they weren't hurting anyone, and the only thing I found disgusting was what they did behind closed doors. And, let's be honest, there are plenty of heterosexual fetishes that are pretty nasty. The fact that I found their private behavior disgusting was simply a difference of opinion, not a reflection on their value as human beings.
After a while, I began to understand that gay people aren't poisonous. They're just people, like anybody else, only with one distinguishing characteristic that has somehow been deemed notable and then blown totally out of proportion. Why did I waste so much time fearing these people?
Because I was taught to. Because Mormonism doesn't bother trying to understand who they are and dismisses them as a sinful faction of society.
And that does not seem right to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)