Apostatizing Over the Irrelevant

Mormonism continues to receive heavy media attention, and not just in relation to Romney's presidential bid.

It seems that discussing Mormonism's losses may be a popular subject lately.  The Washington Post has its own spin on Marlin K. Jensen's recent comments about apostasy in the ranks.

Jensen's job is not one that I envy.  He's the church's historian, so he has to produce scholarly-sounding historical research that minimizes the church's checkered past.  But he can't ignore it completely, because too much of it is public record or too well-researched by non-Mormon historians.  So he has to somehow make the church's history look not-so-bad and reconcile the differences between the wild early church and the tame, civilized image the church projects now.

Square peg, round hole?

It appears that one of the ways Jensen tries to downplay the church's past is to claim that it's irrelevant to the church's current teachings.  From the Washington Post:

The church “has made no effort to hide or obscure its history,” Jensen said, but some aspects — such as polygamy — “haven’t been emphasized often because they were not necessarily germane to what is taught at present.”

I have two problems with this.  First, there is an implied disparity between what was taught in the past and "what is taught at present."  I suppose this just refers to the fact that polygamy is no longer preached or practiced by the official church.  But for a church that claims to worship a god who is the same yesterday and today, whose word never changes, that reeks of an inadvertent admission of "changing the word."  Maybe that's just semantics.

What isn't just semantics, however, is Jensen's dismissal of the church's history because it's "not necessarily germane."  If he's a historian, he should know better.  The history and how it unfolds shapes the present.  American society still feels the effects of the Vietnam War, World War II, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and all the other events in between.  To say that an organization's history is irrelevant is ignorance.

And from a more religious angle, the church's history is anything but irrelevant.  The polygamy, the violence, the failures, the changes and "clarifications" of doctrines all contradict the church's claim of truth.  They all demonstrate a changing church that adapts to its times instead of remaining constant.  They illustrate a picture of the church's founder that, instead of depicting him as a Christlike prophet, show him as a simple treasure hunter and a power-thirsting demagogue.  But the truthfulness of the church and the reputation of its founder isn't necessarily germane, right?  It's all gravy.

None of that seems right to me.

Consecrated Oil

Consecrated Oil:  I don't get it.

Even when I was a faithful, believing member of the church, consecrated oil struck me as a kind of odd touch that didn't seem in keeping with the church's style.

So here's my understanding of consecrated oil:  It heals the sick.  But if you give someone a blessing without the consecrated oil, it's no big deal.  The oil-less blessing is still valid and ostensibly still has the same healing power.  So what's the point?

Let's apply a similar philosophy to another aspect of Mormon doctrine:  baptism.  Baptism cleanses you of sin and makes you an official member of the "true" church.  It helps you take advantage of the atonement and is the first important ordinance on your path to eternal salvation.  But if you skip baptism, it's no big deal.  Your life is still valid and your deeds ostensibly accomplish exactly the same amount of good.  So what's the point?

Okay, I actually agree with all that, but any True-Believing Mormon would be appalled by a claim that baptism is superfluous.  But it seems like a church that prides itself on having the "fullness" of the gospel and a monopoly on religious truth wouldn't have so many extra appendages and unsightly love handles...it would be free of abandoned or altered doctrines and without unnecessary practices or rituals.

It seems like that kind of church wouldn't have attempted and failed to enact the Law of Consecration.  That kind of church wouldn't have practiced polygamy and discontinued it later.  That kind of church wouldn't have preached about the less-valiant souls in the preexistence and then repealed its ban on blacks in the priesthood.  And that kind of church wouldn't make special vials and advise that all Melchizedek priesthood holders carry them if they really aren't necessary.  Especially since it's supposedly God who heals through the power of the priesthood, not the oil.

So consecrated oil is just this extra little piece of church practice that hangs around serving no real function. That does not have the mark of divine inspiration.  It doesn't sound like the perfect structure and organization that should come from an omniscient deity.

That doesn't seem right to me.

When Is a Member Not a Member?

According to this recent Reuters article, Mormonism may be losing members at the highest rate since 1837.

The church claims to have a worldwide membership of more than 14 million, but there is a common theory (I don't know if this has ever been proven) that the church inflates its numbers.  That 14 million is probably simply a count of baptisms.  It still includes people like me--I haven't been to church in more than three years.  I'm angry at the church for brainwashing me and cheating me out of the first twenty years of my life.  I would advise any friend and most of my enemies not to join the church.  I take a sick pleasure in reading bad publicity about Mormonism or individual Mormons.  But I was baptized when I was eight years old...so I still count, right?

According to the same article, unnamed "sociologists" have estimated the church's actual active membership around the world to be in the neighborhood of 5 million.  And if you believe the estimation that convert retention stands at 25%, then you could surmise that most of the growing the church is doing is from its nearly endless crop of children born into the covenant.  There's probably a much higher retention rate for victims of the child brainwashing machine than for converts who haven't grown up with the church being all they have ever known.  Although I'm betting retention among brainwashed kids is probably dropping too.

It makes sense to me that the LDS Church is having trouble keeping members in the modern era.  Religion just isn't as popular as it used to be, especially during Joseph Smith's era and the Second Great Awakening.  With the Internet Age, the church's tumultuous history, doctrinal oddities and other dirty laundry are all easy to find.  All that, combined with the church's continual low-resistance missionary efforts (give 'em the accessible, peachy-sounding stuff first, then spring the weird, less glossy stuff after they're already in) is a recipe for dwindling membership.

But what jumped out at me the most in was a comment from Marlin K. Jensen, the Church's "Historian and Recorder."  The article says:

"The church has a very progressive research and information division, with tremendous public opinion surveyors," he said. Among other steps, it has hired an expert in search-engine optimization to raise the profile of the church's own views in a web search.

That paragraph reeks of secular public relations.  Why does a religious organization with leaders who are supposedly given divine revelation need to survey public opinion to aid its advertising and recruitment?  And why does the supposedly only true church on the face of the earth need to ensure that its own information comes up first in a Google search?  Why would it need to quash unfriendly opinions?  It's a religion, right?  Not a totalitarian regime?

The Church continues to bring in new members (revolving door or not) and inflate its purported membership, all the while doing its best to keep its facade of virtue and infallibility from slipping.  That is corrupt and wrong.

And that doesn't seem right to me.

Half the Wisdom?

The "Word of Wisdom" is the nickname of Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the chapter which famously instructs Mormons not to smoke or drink.  The same section is often interpreted as prohibiting the use of tea and coffee.  Mormons swear by the health and spiritual benefits of following the Word of Wisdom and are proud to follow it.

At least...they follow most of it.

In D&C Section 89, verses 12-15, the Lord seems to be advocating near-vegetarianism.  It says that animals have been provided by God for human consumption, but are to be used "sparingly."  It continues by stating that animals should only be eaten in the case of winter, excess hunger, or famine.

Why is this part ignored?

Eating meat sparingly was at best glossed over in my Sunday School lessons.  When we studied Section 89, it was always "don't drink, don't do drugs, don't drink coffee and tea, and eat healthy."  That was pretty much the  gist of it.  But why only teach half of it?  Why be proud of your obedience to it if there's obviously a part of it that you don't bother with?  That doesn't make any sense.

I have never met a vegetarian Mormon or a Mormon who makes sure only to eat meat when the situation is desperate.  I don't think there are many members who actually follow the Word of Wisdom exactly as stated in the scripture.  I mean, if you stop at a burger joint on a road trip...you're breaking the Word of Wisdom.  If you put bacon in your eggs in the morning...you're breaking the Word of Wisdom.  And if you eat turkey for Thanksgiving...you might be going to hell.

And that does not seem right to me.

Laban's Death

Laban didn't have to die.

It's one of the first and most controversial notable events in the Book of Mormon.  Nephi is commanded by God to kill Laban.  Nephi, being the near-perfect guy that he is, follows the command.

Nephi and his brothers needed the plates of brass, which local rich asshole Laban had in his possession.  When Nephi snuck into Laban's house, he discovers the man passed out drunk.  Aaaaaaaaaand...he has to die.

Wait...if he's hopelessly drunk and asleep, why can't Nephi just take the plates and run?  Sure, the story goes in  Mormon (folk)lore that Laban was a powerful man who would  have hunted Nephi's family down and killed them, but I doubt that this is a realistic analysis.  If Laban had been permitted to live, here's what I think could have happened:

1. Laban decides that if Nephi ever returns to his town, he'll kill him.  Or...
2. Laban realizes that Nephi's family is gone and he doesn't bother wasting manpower searching for them in the desert.  He's angry, but he eventually forgets about it.  Or...
3. Laban's men track down Nephi and his family but the Lord creates a devastating sandstorm that disorients Laban's men.  By a very Biblical-esque miracle, Nephi and company navigate the storm with no trouble, escaping Laban's hit men.

But instead, Nephi gets to cut his head off while he sleeps.  Because that makes way more sense.

Another thing I find interesting about this passage is that it makes God sound defensive.  Nephi comes across Laban's passed-out body, and God tells Our Fearless Leader to kill him.  Before Nephi shares any of his own thoughts on the subject, God launches into a reasoned-out explanation of why Nephi should kill him and why it's totally okay by God to do it.  That doesn't sound very...godly.

Remember Abraham and Isaac?  "Hey go kill your son, I know it sounds wrong, but trust me."  The supposed "same" god also told Nephi, "Hey, go kill this guy, and let me explain exactly why you should do it beforehand, just in case you're questioning my judgement or whatever."  That sounds more like some guy who wrote the Book of Mormon and realized it might be controversial to have a prophet commit god-sanctioned murder decided he needed to throw in a rationale.

And that doesn't seem right to me.