Date Night

My wife and I went on a date last night. It was nice to ditch the kids at the babysitter's and spend some quality time alone. We went to a mongolian barbeque place. Wow, those places are tasty!

Anyway, it was nice to sit down together and actually be able to talk about things other than the kids. Somehow it came up in the conversation that my wife thinks I will be called into a bishopric in the near future. I told her that there is no way that would happen, and even if it did, I wouldn't accept it.

"Why?" she asked.

I told her there were lots of reasons the Church would not like me in any leadership position. If I were in a position to do it, I would like to do and teach things the way I think they should be, which may not necessarily be the way the Church wants.

For example, I told her, gay marriage is a point on which the Church and I disagree. I think it is mighty unfair for God to make people born gay and then force them to be lonely for the rest of their lives. I think that if two people love each other then what they do in their bedroom is up to them, hetero and homosexual alike. There is no reason to assume that gay couples aren't equally devoted to each other as hetero couples. Granting them the ability to marry would give them benefits like hospital visiting rights and power of attorney.

This was an area in which we seemed to agree. It was nice to build common ground somewhere outside Church teachings. I then moved on to other things.

I explained to her that I would work toward getting the Church to apply the Word of Wisdom as it was originally intended. I just don't think people who drink alcoholic drinks are any less closer to God because of those drinks. A friend of mine analogized the WoW to Pres. Hinkley's counsel that women only wear one pair of earnings. David Bednar (at the last General Conference?) called women who did not immediately take out their second pair of earings "slow to hearken to the prophet's counsel" and said that this failure to follow was likely a symptom of a much deeper spiritual deficit. This is ridiculous! Like my friend said, what if Pres. Monson said, "It's a good idea to buy domestic cars." Does that mean that I'm a bad person for driving a foreign vehicle? Similarly, failure to follow the Word of Wisdom, though it may be wise counsel, should not be taken as proof of spiritual defficiency.

Our conversation then moved on to garments. I told her that I think grament-wearing should be optional, and those who chose to not wear them should be allowed to instead cary a card with them, upon which is printed the same symbols as on garments. It is a fact that garments have evolved with changing social views of what it means to dress "modestly." Immodesty in the 19th Century was to show forearms and calves. Not so much today. If garments could change to reflect this trend, why couldn't they simply be done away with? I don't buy the propaganda that garments are a protection, either spiritual or physical. Chances are that if someone who is about to fornicate has already undressed far enough to see their garments, those garments aren't going to stop them. And plenty of faithful Mormons have died while wearing garments.

My wife said that she liked dressing modestly. Why should we assume that making garment-wearing optional that we would automatically dress immodestly? I said that how she dressed didn't necessarily have to change, but then told her to look around the restaurant: I'm sure that we were the only ones wearing garments, and yet no one else looked to be dressed immodestly. Anyway, this point may take some time and convincing with her.

Finally, I told her that I would de-emphasize the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price in favor of the New Testament. She doubted that I could do that since all lesson's come from Church HQ anyway. But I told her I thought it would be so nice if the Church would focus more on Jesus Christ, rather than how many earings we should let our women wear (sexism intentional). She agreed that we could stand to focus on Christ a little more in the Church.

So, I guess my point to all this is that my wife is starting to think a little more about what's wrong with the Church, which makes me happy. And also that I would be a bad person to have in the bishopric or EQP. Good thing I wear colored shirts to church.

Further Light and Knowledge

I just returned from the temple. This was my first time going in about a year and a half. Fortunately, or unfortunately, due to family circumstances, I probably won't be going back for another year or so. Not that I will miss it. I realized tonight that I just don't get it.

I don't really want to say what I don't get, but I think it is sufficient to say I don't get any of it. I don't understand why we have to do it. While I was sitting there tonight, an interesting thought occurred to me: Does Jesus need someone to do his temple work for him? I mean, it is an essential ordinance - no one can pass by the angels who guard the gates of heaven without having first been endowed. Jesus couldn't have been endowed when he was on the earth because the temple ceremony didn't exist until the mid-1850s. Jesus, who was perfect, still had to receive baptism, if only to be an example. So it seems to me that Jesus would have to be endowed before he can go to heaven. Right?

Also, if I were prophet, I would cut down the length of the endowment ceremony by at least 30 minutes. There are simply too many unnecessary pauses and too much scenery shots. Do we really need to see 15 different kinds of animals and 20 different plants?

Doesn't the Church teach that we will be doing temple work during the Millennium? I can't imagine 1000 years of watching the temple video, even in fast forward. That just doesn't seem like any kind of heaven to me.

I wish I could just read a book on the temple to understand what is happening. I want to know what the meaning is supposed to be behind the clothing, and everything else in the endowment ceremony. I am tired of hearing, "Well, you just have to go back more to understand it." It seems like no one really understands it (perhaps because there is nothing to understand), but yet still holds on to the idea that with repeated attendance, they will suddenly understand things. But I doubt someone who has gone 50 times really has much better insight than someone who is only on their second time. It's the classic "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. If everyone tells themselves that the experience is inspiring and uplifting and insightful and amazing enough, then they start to believe it.

But where are the real answers? I wonder if the Masons know....

What I Believe

I'm not sure what I believe about God. It has only been recently that I have started separating the concept of "God" from the concept of "religion."

I think I still believe in God, if for no other reason than the fact that if I didn't believe in God, I'm not sure what I would believe in - and I still feel a need to believe in something. Brandrahoon on NOM posted a quote about this phenomenon. "You can't convince a believer of anything: for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." Caral Sagan. I guess that applies to me.

I also thought this quote from Domokun was interesting:

If God is an interventionist, He's doing a piss poor job. He helps middle-class americans find their keys while thousands suffer and die in other parts of the world. If God is an interventionist, I don't think He's worthy of worship. If God isn't an interventionist, and we are on our own, what practical difference does it make if we believe in Him or not? Either way, I just don't see the point in worrying about God anymore. Either what He is like, what He wants, or even if He exists.

I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense for God to help people find something as trivial as their car keys while at the same time, ignoring the thoughts and prayers (in whatever form) of millions of starving children and their parents. I have also long thought that it is unfair of God to get all the credit for everything good that happens to people and then, when bad things happen, He stands back, points at us humans and shouts, "Free will, free will!" On that note, I am reminded of an episode of Mr. Deity. Mr. Deity is a video series "that looks at God and the Universe with a smile...." In this episode, Mr. Deity checks his voicemail (listens to prayers) and explains to Jesus why he does or does not answer prayers.

As far as religion goes, I am starting to be of the mind that all religions are true and no religions are True. Perhaps God sends messengers from time to time to different people preaching different messages. Look at people like Confucius and Mohammad. Look at Jesus and Moses. They are all people that may have been messengers from God to tell their respective audiences, "Shape up!"

The problem arises from what those messengers and their followers do with that message. "Well, God spoke to us so we are the chosen people. That means you are not chosen. That also means we are right and you are wrong." Claiming a monopoly on the truth leads to hatred, racism (or religionism?), wars, etc. I'm guessing that IF there is a God up there, he is looking down upon all of us just shaking his head. Maybe if there is a God AND there is a Satan, claims of exclusive truth are actually part of Satan's plan to cause hatred on the earth, whereas God just wants us all to be friends.

People of all religions also claim some kind of spiritual witness to the truthfulness of their beliefs. Regardless of the facts, people will believe anything if that feeling in their heart tells them to. This makes me doubt any claim of exclusivity of truth. If Mormons are right, why would a loving God confirm the truth of the Koran to Muslims? Because they have SOME of the truth? Well, that, of course, is the Mormon answer. But take a step back for a moment - If the Mormons really are right, doesn't it seem like God is jerking the Muslims around? If the Catholics are right, why would God confirm the truth of the Book of Mormon to some people? I have a hard time believing in a god who plays mind tricks with his children whom he is supposed to love.

Of course, an easy solution to the confirmation problem is that there is no god or spirit, but that people all have a feeling inside of them that makes them feel good about whatever it is that they want to believe.

Oh Henry!

Henry Bailey Jacobs was born on May 5, 1817 in Manchester, New York to Henry and Maryette Udall. See Familysearch.org. He was the sixth of ten children. Not much information is immediately available about his youth, but it is a fair assumption that at some point between 1823 and 1840, his family joined the Mormon church and left New York to follow the Saints (his last sibling was born in 1823 in New York, his father died in Nauvoo in 1844, and Henry married in Nauvoo in 1841), though it is known that he was "a handsome and a talented musician." See WivesofJosephSmith.org. What is also known about him is that Henry loved a girl named Zina Diantha Huntington.

Zina Diantha Huntington was the daughter of William Huntington and Zina Baker. She was born on 1821 in Waterstown, New York. William was a well-to-do farmer who was dissatisfied with the choices of religion available to him. See Peterson, Janet; Heroes and Heroines:Zina Diantha Huntington Young—Angel of Mercy; The Friend, February, 1989. In the spring of 1835, the Huntington family was baptized after hearing the message of the Restored Gospel from Hyrum Smith and David Whitmer. See Firmage, Mary Brown; Great-Grandmother Zina:A More Personal Portrait; The Ensign, March, 1984. One year later, Joseph Smith Sr. visited the Huntington family and advised William to sell his farm and join the Saints in Kirtland, Ohio. Id. Over the next several years, the Huntingtons followed the Saints from Kirtland to Far West to Adam-Ondi-Ahman to Commerce and finally to Nauvoo in 1839. Id. The Huntingtons were forced to leave their valuables in Kirtland, leaving them "bare as a sheared sheep." Id. Zina's mother died from cholera shortly after their arrival in Nauvoo. Her death left Zina nearly inconsolable.

[A spiritual experience helped comfort her and confirmed her faith.] As she paced the floor, almost brokenhearted in her loneliness, she heard her mother’s voice: "Zina, any sailor can steer on a smooth sea, when rocks appear, sail around them.” She paused and cried, “O Father in heaven, help me to be a good sailor, that my heart shall not break on the rocks of grief.” A sweet peace stole over her sorrowing soul, and never again did she give way to such heart-rending grief. (“Mother,” The Young Woman’s Journal, Jan. 1911, p. 45.)

Id. It was during this time that Zina Diantha Huntington met Henry Bailey Jacobs.

Henry and Zina courted until their marriage on March 7, 1841. See Familysearch.org. However, Henry wasn't Zina's sole suitor - before or after their marriage. Zina had also caught Joseph Smith's eye. In fact, Joseph secretly proposed to Zina, even though he was already married to his first wife, Emma. See Wikipedia, Zina D.H. Young, citing Compton, Todd; In Sacred Lonliness, 1997. Zina was actually quite torn and prayed for guidance. “O dear Heaven, grant me wisdom! Help me to know the way. O Lord, my god, let thy will be done and with thine arm around about to guide, shield and direct...” WivesofJosephSmith.org. Ultimately, Zina rejected Joseph's proposal and married Henry.

Zina and Henry's marriage ceremony was performed by John C. Bennett, who was the mayor of Nauvoo. The Jacobs family was so upset that Joseph didn't perform the ceremony, as was customary, that they inquired of Joseph as to why.

According to family records, when the Jacobs asked [Joseph] Smith why he had not honored them by performing their marriage, allowing John C. Bennett to officiate instead, he replied that "the Lord had made it known to him that she [Zina] was to be his Celestial wife" (Cannon, "History," 5).

Mormonthink.com. Within months of Zina's wedding to Henry, Joseph had seen enough. He would have Zina as his wife if it was the last thing he did. Literally.

“[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother, saying, ‘Tell Zina, I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth I would lose my position and my life’”. Joseph further explained that, “the Lord had made it known to him she was to be his celestial wife.”

WivesofJosephSmith.org. Just like the first time she received a proposal from Joseph, Zina was confused and uncertain what she should do. She prayed for guidance.

“When I heard that God had revealed the law of celestial marriag...I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in this church...I made a greater sacrifise than to give my life for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved...”. Zina continued, “It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years”.

WivesofJosephSmith.org.

Upon consenting to this polyandrous relationship, Zina married Joseph on October 27, 1841 - just under eight months after she married Henry. WivesofJosephSmith.org. It is unknown whether this marriage was actually conjugated, but no children were ever born out of this relationship. At the time of this sealing, Zina was seven months pregnant with Zebulon William Jacobs. DNA evidence has confirmed that Zebulon was Henry's son. See Wikipedia citing Perego 2005.

Meanwhile, Henry, who was aware of the wedding, accepted Joseph's authority and direction as if from God, believing that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man.” WivesofJosephSmith.org. Joseph called Henry to serve several missions over the next few years, including missions to Chicago, Western New York, and Tennessee. WivesofJosephSmith.org. Henry, who was deeply in love with Zina, missed her and their son greatly. One of Henry's mission companions recalled Henry "bragging about his wife and two children, what a true, virtuous, lovely woman she was. He almost worshiped her...”. WivesofJosephSmith.org.

Joseph was killed on June 27, 1844. Within two years, though, Zina entered into another polyandrous relationship -- this time with Brigham Young.

On February 2, 1846, in an inner room in the Nauvoo temple, Zina Huntington Jacobs stood by the side of Brigham Young....Somewhat apart stood Henry B. Jacobs, whom Zina had married in a civil ceremony in March 1841. She was now seven months pregnant with their second child...That Henry Bailey [Jacobs] was inside the temple shows that he was considered a faithful, worthy Latter-day Saint. Zina and Brigham turned toward each other and Kimball sealed (married) Zina to Joseph Smith for eternity; Brigham stood proxy for the dead prophet, answering in his stead when the ceremony required a response. Then as was customary in temple proxy marriages, Zina and Brigham turned to each other and were sealed to each other for time. Once again Henry stood as witness. ....

Mormon Polygamy - From Men and For Men, citing Compton, Todd; In Sacred Lonliness.

Zina and Henry continued to live together until the Saints reached Mt. Pisgah, Iowa some time in the winter of 1846-47.

At this temporary stop on the pioneer trail, Brigham Young announced "it was time for men who were walking in other men's shoes to step out of them." "Brother Jacobs," he advised, "the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit" (Hall 1852, 43-44).

Mormonthink.com. Brigham and Zina then commenced living together as husband and wife. Henry was left single and lonely. To make matters worse for Henry, Brigham immediately called him to serve a mission in England. Witnesses reported that Henry was so sick at that time that people had to put him on a blanket and carry him onto the boat to get him on his way. Mormonthink.com.

Though Henry missed Zina during his time in England, he seemed resigned to the fact that his life with her was over. Upon hearing that Zina had gone on to Salt Lake City and was living with Brigham as his wife, Henry asked his brother and mission companion, Oliver Huntington, to write a letter to Zina. “He says all is right, he don't care. He stands alone as yet. I have had almost as much trial about you as he has. I have had to hear, feel and suffer everything he has--if you only know my troubles you'd pitty me." Mormonthink.com

When Henry returned from England, he settled in California and married again to Aseneth Babcock in January of 1848. Mormonthink.com and Familysearch.org. His heart, though, was still with Zina and he frequently wrote letters to her expressing his love.

On 2 September 1852 he wrote: "O how happy I should be if I only could see you and the little children, bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." "I am unhappy," Henry lamented, "there is no peace for poor me, my pleasure is you, my comfort has vanished....O Zina, can I ever, will I ever get you again, answer the question please." In an undated valentine he added: "Zina my mind never will change from Worlds without Ends, no never, the same affection is there and never can be moved. I do not murmur nor complain of the handlings of God no verily, no but I feel alone and no one to speak to, to call my own. I feel like a lamb without a mother, I do not blame any person or persons, no--May the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham and all purtains unto him forever. tell him for me I have no feelings against him nor never had, all is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph."

Mormonthink.com citing Van Wagoner, Richard; Mormon Polygamy, pgs. 44-45.

Meanwhile, Zina and her two children from Henry, were living with Brigham and Brigham’s other wives in Salt Lake City. Zina and Brigham eventually gave birth to Zina Prescinda Young, who married Charles Ora Card and became the great-grandmother of novelist Orson Scott Card. See Wikipedia. Zina also reared four of Brigham’s other children from deceased wife Clarissa Chase. Id.

Henry and Aseneth eventually relocated to Salt Lake City, where Henry died on August 4, 1886 essentially childless -- “childless” because he and Aseneth did not have any children together and his other children were being raised by Zina and Brigham. Familysearch.org.

Henry Bailey Jacob’s story is special to me. Why? The name of Henry and Zina's second child (with whom she was pregnant when she was sealed to Brigham) was Henry Chariton Jacobs. Henry Chariton Jacobs is my Great Great Grandfather.

Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young is revered in the Mormon Church. Mormons talk about how great of a woman she must have been to be married to the first two prophets of the Restored Church and they talk about the sacrifices she made to cross the plains. She is also well-known for her position within the Church as the third president of the Relief Society (one of the world’s largest women’s organizations), which position she held from 1888 until her death in 1901. Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, Henry’s story is not nearly as well-known. Those who mention him do just that – small mention. See, e.g., Firmage, Mary Brown; Great-Grandmother Zina:A More Personal Portrait; The Ensign, March, 1984 (“Zina was first married to Henry Bailey Jacobs, and gave birth to two sons. Later, she married Brigham Young and gave birth to his daughter, Zina Presendia.”). Other articles defame him. See, e.g., Peterson, Janet; Heroes and Heroines:Zina Diantha Huntington Young—Angel of Mercy; The Friend, February, 1989 (“After Henry deserted (WHAT?!!) Zina and the two little boys, Zebulon and Chariton, she married Brigham Young and crossed the plains to the Salt Lake Valley with his family.”) Essentially, Henry is remembered as a wife-deserter and a footnote.

I also can’t help but read this story and be reminded of a well-known Bible story: David and Bathsheba.

Contradicting Revelations

Here's something that I think is interesting - how do you explain revelations from God that are directly contradictory? I'm not talking about revelations like Old Testament "Hate your enemy" and New Testament "Love your enemy" revelations. I'm talking about revelations on the same issues that tell different stories. I'm sure that Mormon apologetics have some kind of explanations for these. I doubt I would find them satisfactory. Are these issues interesting to anyone else?


In What Order did the Events of the Creation Occur?

Temple endowment ceremony creation order* (from Rethinking Mormonism):

1. Organize matter
2. Separate the water from the land
3. Day and night
4. Plants
5. Animals
6. Man

Book of Moses (and Genesis) order:

1. Create light and darkness on formless earth
   
2. Separate the water from the land
3. Plants
4. Day and night
5. Animals
6. Man
   

Am I missing something here? I'll overlook the differences in the First Day as simply different ways of saying the same thing; that is, saying that "It all started with a big chunk of dirt." Or something like that. But I'm not quite sure what to make of reversing Day Three and Day Four in the endowment ceremony.

In both cases, the instruction was received directly from God. God told Moses how he did it. Then God told Joseph Smith (perhaps through his seer stone, though I'm not sure of the mechanics of the Bible re-translation) what he told Moses. God told Moses, "Plants on Day Three, day and night on Day Four."

In the endowment ceremony, God told Joseph exactly how it happened (again, I'm not sure of the mechanics). God told Joseph, "Day and night on Day Three, plants on Day Four."

Was God mistaken with Moses? Or was he mistaken with Joseph? Was Joseph mistaken with the Book of Moses? Or was he mistaken with the endowment ceremony? And there is no wiggle room to say that the Book of Moses or the endowment ceremony was altered by wicked men of evil designs because they came straight from God to Joseph.

I admit, the endowment ceremony version makes a little more sense - it seems difficult to have healthy plants with out sunlight. Maybe Joseph also noticed this problem and decided that he could fix it by adjusting the days in the endowment ceremony. Then the creation story doesn't conflict with science (you know, that crazy thing called "photosynthesis").

Or then again, maybe it's all made up and Joseph just made a careless mistake by reversing their order in the endowment ceremony. He probably should have checked his facts first.

*I'm sure that someone with a good enough memory could recite these days from said memory. I, however, do not have a good memory. To make up for that fact, I referred to the website "Rethinking Mormonism" for a transcript of the endowment ceremony. It is not my intention to be offensive. The fact of the matter is, though, that this stuff was there long before I started writing. And I really don't see a problem with discussing the Creation (and its order of occurrences) on this blog.


Changes to the Sermon on the Mount

Here’s another interesting example: The Sermon on the Mount. As it appears in the Gospel of Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount contains several errors, at least according to Joseph Smith.

Joseph was instructed to translate the New Testament, presumably due to the fact that several important truths had been removed by wicked men of evil designs. So Joseph, either through the Urim and Thummim, or through the seerstone he found while digging his neighbor’s well, re-translated the New Testament, thereby reinstating the lost truths.

Anyway, the changes Joseph made to the Sermon on the Mount range from some small word additions to the insertion of several new verses. However, there is one in particular that strikes me as interesting. There could be more like this, but I’ll just focus on this one for now.

The KJV of Matthew 7:4-8 reads as follows:

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

The JST of Matthew 7:4-13 (covering the same teachings) reads as follows:

4 And again, ye shall say unto them, Why is it that thou beholdest the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
5 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and canst not behold a beam in thine own eye?
6 And Jesus said unto his disciples, Beholdest thou the Scribes, and the Pharisees, and the Priests, and the Levites? They teach in their synagogues, but do not observe the law, nor the commandments; and all have gone out of the way, and are under sin.
7 Go thou and say unto them, Why teach ye men the law and the commandments, when ye yourselves are the children of corruption?
8 Say unto them, Ye hypocrites, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
9 Go ye into the world, saying unto all, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come nigh unto you.
10 And the mysteries of the kingdom ye shall keep within yourselves; for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their feet.
11 For the world cannot receive that which ye, yourselves, are not able to bear; wherefore ye shall not give your pearls unto them, lest they turn again and rend you.
12 Say unto them, Ask of God; ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
13 For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and unto him that knocketh, it shall be opened.

At first glance, the changes appear fairly benign. They could be easily explained by saying that the Pharisees and others didn’t like the manner in which Jesus was speaking about them. Perhaps they or their sympathizers of future generations simply removed this reference to them so it didn’t look like Jesus was directly chastising them. Not very interesting.

However, what IS interesting is comparing these sections with the sermon in 3 Nephi 14:4-8 that for the most part directly mirrors the Sermon on the Mount.

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye—and behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7 Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
8 For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.

Here’s the thing – Why is it that the sermon in 3 Nephi mirrors, almost exactly word for word, the sermon in the KJV of Matthew? Even excluding the part about the Pharisees, there are several changes made to those verses that Joseph thought important enough to change and therefore risk backlash from a world that may not appreciate changes to the Bible. Yet at the same time, the verses in 3 Nephi remain exactly like the verses in the KJV, which had been altered by wicked men of evil designs.

Which explanation makes more sense? That Jesus knew exactly how the sermon in Matthew would be altered in the future and incorporated these changes into his sermon to the Nephites? Or that Joseph copied the sermon in 3 Nephi directly out of the KJV New Testament before he started re-translating the New Testament?I'm sure there are other interesting contradictions, but I'll leave it at these two for now.

Edited 3-1-2008 to add the following:

From A New Name:

KJV: And lead us not into temptation……
BofM: And lead us not into temptation……..
JST: And suffer us not to be led into temptation……

The Church makes a big deal out of this, that the Lord would not lead us to temptation. But then they footnote the BofM verse with the JST reference, which must cause all sorts of questions. But I think most people don’t think, they just let it slip by. I, like most of you NOM’s, have been cursed with a “Why” gene.
______________________

From makeitadouble:

Book of Mormon, Jacob 2: 24:

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing
was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

D&C 132:39

David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan,
my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in
none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his
wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his
portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto
another, saith the Lord.

The D&C verse says David's only sin was adultry with Bathsheba, Uriah's wife; not any of his other wives. But the BofM verse says they were all an abomination.

Since the D&C verse was written well after the BofM verse, it appears SOMEONE CHANGED THEIR MIND ON WHETHER POLYGAMY WAS AN ABOMINATION or "not a sin".

Glaring contradiction.
___________________

From George Orwell:

Here's my favorite:

D&C 8:1-4:

1 Oliver Cowdery, verily, verily, I say unto you, that assuredly as the Lord liveth, who is your God and your Redeemer, even so surely shall you receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask in faith, with an honest heart, believing that you shall receive a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records, which are ancient, which contain those parts of my scripture of which has been spoken by the manifestation of my Spirit.
2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.
3 Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.
4 Therefore this is thy gift; apply unto it, and blessed art thou, for it shall deliver you out of the hands of your enemies, when, if it were not so, they would slay you and bring your soul to destruction.

Only to follow it up later that month with D&C 9:3, 7-9

3 Be patient, my son, for it is wisdom in me, and it is not expedient that you should translate at this present time.
7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

God tells Oliver that if you ask in faith you will "receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask". And then when Olivers asks, but doesn't get what he is asking for (to translate from the plates), God responds with "Whatever gave you the idea that all you had to do was ask. Silly boy."

______________

Thanks, everybody, for your contributions.

Pharisees and the Word of Wisdom

Jesus Christ, on several occasions, made a point of calling out the Pharisees for their wickedness. See, e.g., Matthew 23. LDS church leaders have also cautioned members to be unlike the Pharisees. See, e.g., N. Eldon Tanner, First Presidency Message, Dec. 1982. Yet, why is it that so much commanded behavior of the Church seems to be just what Christ (and Elder Tanner) were warning against? Why is today's LDS church so wrapped up in letter-of-the-law rule following? Here's the Bible Dictionary definition of "Pharisees":

A religious party among the Jews. The name denotes separatists. They prided themselves on their strict observance of the law, and on the care with which they avoided contact with things gentile. Their belief included the doctrine of immortality and resurrection of the body and the existence of angels and spirits. They upheld the authority of oral tradition as of equal value with the written law. The tendency of their teaching was to reduce religion to the observance of a multiplicity of ceremonial rules, and to encourage self-sufficiency and spiritual pride. They were a major obstacle to the reception of Christ and the gospel by the Jewish people.

Here's a specific and simple example of letter-of-the-law rule following. In Old Testament days, Jews were commanded not to eat certain animals, such as pigs, camels, and rabbits. Deuteronomy 14:7. However, Jesus Christ repealed that law:

¹⁴Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. ¹⁵Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

¹⁷After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. ¹⁸"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? ¹⁹For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

²⁰He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' ²¹For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, ²²greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. ²³All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Mark 7:14-23. After that declaration, Christian Jews were allowed to eat whatever they wanted.

The reasons for the original prohibition are unknown (at least, to me), but I'm guessing it had something to do either with superstitions of the time ("If you eat camel meat, you'll sprout a hump on your back!") or perhaps the manner in which the meat was prepared often caused people to get sick, e.g., food poisoning from eating oysters. Either way, the Jews were taught to understand the prohibition as a spiritual law. Jesus Christ told them that was a bunch of baloney (no pun intended) and that people's spirituality wasn't determined by what they ate.

Fast forward to 1833. Joseph Smith announces a "Word of Wisdom...to be sent by greeting, not by commandment or constraint...." D&C 89, 1-2. This instruction cautioned against drinking wine, strong drink (interpreted as alcohol), and hot drinks (interpreted only as coffee and green tea), and also prohibited tobacco.

The seldom quoted portions of the Word of Wisdom suggest that we should only eat meat in times of "winter, or of cold, or famine," and that barley is useful for "mild drinks." See verses 13 and 17. I have no idea why we don't follow these verses as intensely as the others. Typically, when people mention them in Gospel Doctrine or even discussions among friends, those verses are simply laughed off as crazy talk. Many Mormons, myself included, make fun of those wackos at P.E.T.A., but perhaps those wackos are just trying to teach the rest of us how to better live the Word of Wisdom. See Letter from Bruce Friedrich, Vice President, P.E.T.A. to President Thomas S. Monson, February 7, 2008.

It is obvious that Joseph Smith didn't take the Word of Wisdom as serious as we do now (or at least the prohibition against wine).

Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us.... I believe we all drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards.

John Taylor, History of the Church, vol. 7, page 101. Joseph drank wine on the eve of his death. Joseph believed he would die at Carthage Jail (he said he was going like a "lamb to the slaughter"). If drinking wine was as evil as we now are instructed that it is, why would Joseph drink it immediately prior to going to the "Ultimate Temple Recommend Interview," i.e., Judgment?

Over several years, and even decades, the Word of Wisdom took on a life of its own. Compliance with part of the Word of Wisdom is required for temple admission. It has become somewhat of a badge of honor - those who comply are easily to satisfy the "sniff test," as it were, for the bar of spirituality required for temple worship. Those who don't comply are evil and should be avoided, lest they tempt us with their evil ways.

Returning to my original question, why is today's LDS church so wrapped up in letter-of-the-law rule following? I read somewhere (perhaps in Brodie's "No Man Knows My History") that in Joseph's day, a new school of thought taught that all the items prohibited in the Word of Wisdom were unhealthy and should be avoided. It wasn't uncommon for churches to preach against those things to help their membership become healthier. Joseph may have observed those teachings and adopted them as his own, as advice to his congregations. However, as compliance with the Word of Wisdom became more commonplace, it was integrated into the temple recommend interview, thereby completing its transformation from a "greeting" into a "commandment. See D&C 89.

This transformation of the Word of Wisdom from advice to commandment seems to be exactly what Jesus Christ was teaching against. Pharisees "upheld the authority of oral tradition as of equal value with the written law." See Bible Dictionary, "Pharisees." Jesus Christ taught taught that "nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean.'" See Matt 7:18. Joseph gave the Word of Wisdom as advice. See D&C 89. Yet for some reason, compliance with the Word of Wisdom is now a litmus test for spirituality? It should also be noted that Jesus Christ himself would likely be denied a temple recommend under today's standards. Am I missing something here?

False Dichotomies

I have only recently been noticing the false dichotomies taught within Mormonism.

"[A false dichotomy] involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exists one or more other options which have not been considered.

"When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering the whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic." -- Wikipedia, "False Dilemma"

The first, and most obvious to me now, is that the Church is either all true or it is all false. I don't believe this anymore. What about the teachings in the Church that have been entirely rejected?

• Polygamy
• Adam-God
• Blood atonement
• Lamanites as "primary ancestors" of the American Indians
  

Or teachings that weren't part of Joseph's church when he restored the "only true church on the face of the earth?"

• Word of Wisdom
• Tithing = 10% of gross income
• Monogamy
  

Those are just the low-hanging fruit examples. Were those teachings "all true" now or were they "all true" then? In this "last dispensation" or "the fullness of times," why does God present to us a moving target of salvation? He seems to require one thing of people who lived just 100 years ago, and completely different things of people who live today. For a church presents no wiggle room in the truthfulness of its claims, it certainly seems to be in a bit of a quandary with these.

There is also a false dichotomy in the categorization of all things as either "good" or "evil," with no in between. Why is it that members of the church are automatically labeled as good, while non-members are followers of Satan, or rather, members of the "great and abominable church." I have known so many non-members who are wonderful people: ethical, compassionate, humble, loyal, ambitious, etc. I have also known many members of the church who don't fit in any of those categories. Yet, one group has a temple recommend (i.e., worthy of returning to God's presence), and the other is cast out.

All my life, I have been living in a world of morality and spirituality where black and white are the only possible colors. I am now convinced that the whole thing is just one smear of gray. I'm not even sure if black and white exist. And I think I'm okay with that.

Why I Stay

The other day on NOM, someone asked the question, "Knowing what you now know, why do you stay in the church?"

This is a complicated question. Most people probably have different reasons. I think for me, one of the main reasons why I stay is that I simply have so much invested in the church to cut and run. The church has been a primary source of spirituality, friendship, and temporal teachings for my entire life. There seems to be too much history for me there to break away. Additionally, I'm not sure what leaving would do to my relationships with my wife, my parents, my siblings, my in-laws, and many of my friends, who are all LDS. Part of me thinks they will love me no matter what I do, but then another party of me fears that I will lose all of them. I'm simply not willing to take that risk.

And then, of course, I suppose there is part of me that thinks, "What if it's all true?" Now, I think the chances of that are slim to none, but I would be lying if I said that thought didn't concern me. Living the middle way allows me to not take the church too seriously while at the same time keep one foot in the water.

I'm not sure if my status as a middle-way-er will ever change. Pres. Hinkley believes that it is either all true or all false, implying that there can be no middle way. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision.

"Each of us has to face the matter - either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April General Conference, 2003.

I'll just go ahead and reject this teaching, like I have those on polygamy, racism, etc., and tell myself that the middle way is just fine. At least, for now.

The UN-scientific Method

The process by which Mormons (and to be totally fair, many other religions) are taught to search for answers is backwards. Here is the process of the scientific method:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Here is the Mormon scientific method:

1. Start with the answer
2. Search the scriptures for supporting documentation
1. Ignore conflicting teachings from non-church sources - label them as "anti-Mormon" and understand that they come from the devil
3. Search the teachings of the prophets for supporting documentation
1. Ignore conflicting teachings - label them as "the prophet speaking as a man"
   
4. Pray to confirm your research
1. If you receive a negative answer (i.e., no answer at all), then you are wrong - return to Step 2
2. If you receive a positive answer (i.e., the same feeling that ALL religious people get when thinking about their religions), continue to the next step
   
5. Perform experiment
1. Do what you are told - if it is is what God wants, you will be blessed; if it is just the philosophies of men and not necessarily God's will, you will be blessed
   
6. Ignore the question
   

In a world where "Knowledge is power" and "The glory of God is intelligence," one might think it to be wise to explore one's own foundational beliefs, including questioning documented history and questioning entrenched authority. Why, then, are Mormons spoon-fed all of life's answers? If they begin questioning those answers they are labeled as "apostates." If they want to have an open discussion about the Church's claims, they have to hide behind the anonymity of the internet?

We go to church, not to discuss the tough questions (e.g., the Book of Abraham, the First Vision accounts, polygamy, why God jumps in and gets all the credit for good things that happen to people and then stands back and lets them use their agency to make bad things happen), but rather we go to church to reaffirm everything we have already been taught. In a church where so many teachings have either been abandoned or completely reversed, why can't we explore alternative explanations for things? Why can't we develop alternative hypotheses and then try to find the correct answers?

Allegory of the Young Couple

I read a story on another blog that really captures the way I feel about the Church. Used with permission from New Deep.

This is a story of John (the church) and Mary (me), a couple which have been married for 20 years. It is about their relationship and a decision that must be made by Mary.

Mary met John when she was 20 years old and he was 27. John had just finished law school at Harvard after graduating at the top of his class. He had just been hired by a top law firm and was beginning his career. During his years at Harvard he was the star of the basketball team and a leader in student government. He was handsome and polished and seemed to say and do all the right things. Mary quickly fell in love with John and was very impressed with the way he lived his life and the decisions he had made to get him to where he was in his life. They married and began their life together and Mary came to have great respect and trust in her husband. He was the leader of their home and she came to rely on John’s wisdom and counsel to help her make most of the decisions in her life. She knew she could trust in John’s wisdom because he had gained her faith in him by the life he led and a lifetime of events and accomplishments that proved his astute judgment, wisdom, and honorable character.

John became highly regarded in his profession as a lawyer. On one particular case he was required to defend a man that had been charged with widespread discrimination and sexual harassment in the work place. John was reluctant to take the case because he felt the man was guilty but was required to take it on. The accused had been a good client of his from the beginning of his practice and John had defended him in many other similar circumstances. There was a lot of money to be earned by John if he could get his client off but he felt morally uneasy with continuing to defend a man he realized was guilty. John had used his skill as a lawyer in the past to keep his client out of trouble but this time it was too much. John knew that he could get his client off again on the current charges but instead he used his skills to convince his client that is was morally right to plead guilty to the charges and to change his pattern of discrimination and sexual harassment.

This story makes Mary very proud of her husband and his moral strength to not only do what is right for himself but to convince his client of the morally right thing to do. She knows that John will always chose what is right over money or any other worldly praise or gain.

Another event that happened in John’s life occurred at work late one night. John was forced to stay late to finish up a project with a very attractive co-worker. They are the only two people in the office. The woman starts to flirt with John and comes on to him. John being happily married and loyal to Mary stops the woman’s advances and decides to leave the office immediately and remove himself from a potentially compromising situation. He tells Mary about the episode and she is very proud of him and how he made the right decision. Mary tells her family and friends the story and they are all very impressed with John and praise him for his behavior and loyalty. John and Mary’s relationship is strengthened by the event. It gives Mary a sense of security and trust in her husband. She has a deep feeling inside of her that John is special and different from most other men. The event strengthens her resolve to be faithful to her husband. Mary develops a deep sense of trust and love for John in part due to this event.

Other events happen in John’s life in which he is able to demonstrate to Mary what an incredible and extraordinary man and husband he is. These stories are used in the ensuing years to teach their children about loyalty, honesty, love and other good principles. These stories are also used to convince Mary and the children that John’s wisdom and judgment is greater than all others and that his counsel should be followed and obeyed. When she sees other women’s husbands she notes their imperfections and feels so blessed that she has been given such a perfect husband in John. Over the years John continues to make Mary happy as he leads her and their family in a direction that he thinks is right. Many other experiences happen in their lives that continue to confirm to Mary that John is a truly special man unlike any other and that she can fully trust him do what is right and lead their family. Mary truly loves John and follows him as he leads their family.

After many years of marriage Mary begins to hear rumors that some of the events in John’s life are not quite what he made them out to be. For instance she hears from an old friend of John’s from college that they didn’t go to Harvard but actually went to the University of Massachusetts. Another associate said that he didn’t think that John was the star of the basketball team but was a reserve player that played sparingly. These things didn’t make sense to Mary. Why would John lie about going to Harvard? It’s not like a law degree from Umass would be any less of an accomplishment. Why the need to say he was a star basketball player? Was he really the top student in his law school? Other things occur which seem to put a question on other events in John’s life. He tells her not to listen to others and that they do not have her or their family’s best interest in mind. Besides isn’t she happy? Hasn’t she always trusted him? Hasn’t he always made her happy? Haven’t they had many kind and loving experiences together? What about the good feeling she always felt when John told the various stories from his life. John counsels Mary not to listen to any of these other people and that she needs to have faith and trust in him and that she will be more happy that way. She has become very dependent on John to lead her and help her make life’s decisions. Mary believes John has more insight and wisdom than she does and so she goes along with his counsel believing that he will not lead her astray.

Mary agrees with John and refuses to listen to anything or anyone that may show a different version of events. Eventually though, curiosity gets the best of Mary and she decides to listen to a friend who knows a different version of events regarding that night in the office with another woman. Mary’s friend happens to be an acquaintance with the woman in the office that night. Her friend’s version relates that John encouraged the flirting and intentionally set up the late night at work with no one else around. John is known as a big flirt around the office and many rumors have been attached to his name. John and the office woman have been attracted to each other for some time and had little flirtations in the past. The flirtation continues and eventually they are right next to each other and embrace each other. They both know that the other is happily married but they throw caution to the wind on this night and begin to kiss passionately and continue to embrace. The passion continues and soon they are touching and undressing each other. After several minutes of kissing and touching the half-naked woman pulls herself away from John. The woman says that they should not be doing this and that she is very much in love with her husband and that it makes no sense to do this even though they have a strong physical attraction. John reluctantly agrees with the woman and they both leave the office without anything more happening.

Upon hearing the woman’s version Mary is initially shocked and saddened. However, she loves her husband and does not want to believe that he could have been dishonest with everyone for so many years. Besides, why should she believe the office woman’s version of events? Perhaps she is the one being dishonest in order to save her reputation.

Mary decides to confront John about what she heard and his response is to remind her that he had counseled her not to listen to other versions of the event. He points out how this is making her sad and hurting their relationship and isn’t that evidence that what she heard is not good? He also points out that the information is not reliable because it is second hand and besides her friend that told her about the office woman’s version of events has never really liked John anyhow. John is able to explain away the discrepancies in a fairly complicated but initially satisfactory manner to Mary.

Mary agrees with John and feels guilty that she did not listen to his counsel not to listen to what other people were saying about what happened that night. She also recognizes that she is not as happy as before and that even if things didn’t happen exactly as John had told her she knows he is a good man and has made her happy over the years. She loves him and does not want anything to change the way she thinks about him.

Mary puts her concerns on a proverbial shelf and continues on but is still bothered by what may have happened that night. She reminds herself of all the good things John does for her and the many ways he makes her happy. Besides, no one is perfect and even if things did happen differently than she had always been told that does not make him a bad person. Then one day while cleaning out John’s closet she finds his journal and reads about what actually happened that night in the office. The journal basically confirms the story Mary’s friend told her. She confronts John with this new evidence and he can no longer deny that he has been telling a faithful version of events. He admits that he wrote a different version of events at the time but it’s been so long since it has happened that he cannot totally remember what actually happened and how can anyone be sure what really happened that night. It has been so long ago. Perhaps he wasn’t telling the correct story in his journal when he first wrote it down. Besides, ultimately he did the right thing and he did not have sex with the office woman. Isn’t that the important thing? He says that he always told a faithful version of events because he knew what was best for her and only wanted her to trust him and love him.

Mary eventually forgives John and decides this one instance of human frailties should not be held against all the other good things he has done. However, over time Mary discovers many other things about John’s life that were different than the version he had always told her. And the real version of events always make her husband look a little more ordinary and human than she had believed him to be. Mary finds out that the case involving John’s client charged with discrimination and sexual harassment was actually a settlement forced upon him by the court when John realized there was no way to get his client off this time. His client’s business would be shut down and he would loose all he had if he did not accept a guilty plea.

John tries to explain that it was with good intentions that he told the faithful version of events. He said, “Didn’t the faithful version make you trust me and love me more than the actual version? I knew the actual version of events would cause you to not fully trust me and to question my ability to do what is right and lead you and our family in the way I felt we should go.” John believes that his intentional deceit and pious lies are justified by all the good that comes from them. He feels he was inspired to develop this false impression of him so that he could be a better leader for the family and one the children could always trust and have faith in.

Mary could forgive John of one or two stories that had to be explained away but when nearly every significant event in John’s life has to be explained in the most complicated and implausible manner it becomes too much for Mary to believe. She now realizes that John is not the magnificent hero he had always led her to believe. She realizes that he has many faults and can make poor decisions at times. She begins to question her love and trust in John because she now realizes that those feelings she had for him were based on half-truths and pious lies. She realizes that she cannot just rely on all of the things he tells her and that she needs to verify things for herself before following any ideas or counsel her husband may think is best. But Mary still loves John and realizes that most husbands have faults and problems and that overall he is a good man and that he has done many good things over the years. John does indeed have many wonderful and good qualities that Mary admires but his need to be right all of the time and his inability to admit mistakes is overpowering and making their relationship unhealthy.

So Mary tells John that she can still love him and forgive him of past indiscretions and that perhaps they can still be good for each other and make the relationship work. However, John refuses to allow the real version of events to be told to the children or any others and says that he knows what is best for her and their family even though he has made many mistakes in the past. He counsels her to just follow him and have faith in him despite her knowledge of his indiscretions and failings. He knows what is best for Mary and their children. What good would come from letting everyone else know the full truth? Others are happy with the current version of things and the real truth may cause more harm than good if they realize that John is as fallible as anyone else. He tells Mary that it is better that the children see him as an extraordinary man that they can fully trust and follow. He reminds her that his faithful version of events always made people feel good inside. He reminds her that his faithful version of events taught their children good principles and that they are living good lives because of those things. John tells Mary that none of the problems she is now having would have occurred if she would have just been obedient to his counsel and that she did not have enough faith in him. He even suggests that Mary is the one with problems or sins to hide and perhaps that is the reason she is now accusing John of doing wrong. He threatens Mary with divorce if she tells anyone else about the truth. He points out her own unhappiness about things now as proof that he was right all along to tell his faithful version of events. If Mary had been more obedient to him she could have continued in the happiness that he had given her.

Mary feels alone and betrayed by John and all the good things he does and the happiness he once brought has been lost to a large degree. The problem for Mary is not the imperfections in John’s character so much as the false impression given and John’s need to uphold these false impressions in order to maintain obedience to his counsel. For John it has to be all or nothing. Even though Mary agrees with many things that John feels the family should do she does not agree with all things and would like the opportunity to make her own decisions in these areas. But again John will not allow it; he thinks he knows better than her even though he has clearly demonstrated that he is not always right in his judgments. However, John requires that he continue to be viewed as a nearly infallible person with the wisdom and knowledge necessary for others to find true happiness. He will divorce Mary if she tries to tell any of their children about what she knows. Mary wants to learn and try other things that John will not allow and feels stifled by his need for her to be completely submissive and obedient to him. If she wants to teach her children something different than what John wants she has to do it secretively and then tell her children not to tell their father about it.

Mary feels that it is unhealthy to continue to teach the children these half-true stories and pious lies designed to give the false impression of John’s abilities. She sees other families in which the husband does not pretend to be right about everything and the family allows each individual to grow and learn things on their own. Questioning is allowed and even encouraged and old ideas can be replaced with new ones if they are found to work better. She wants a relationship in which the husband and wife can learn from each other and are willing to be honest about difficult issues. She wants a family relationship in which children teach parents, husbands learn from their wives and vice versa. No one is forced to agree with others on all issues but love, respect and understanding is the model.

Mary thinks that she might be better off without John since he is unwilling to change his demand for obedience to his counsel as well as the constant threat of divorce if she says anything to anybody. Even though he has brought her much happiness in the past and can still agree with him on many things, the feelings she once had for him are gone because of his intentional deceit and portrayal of himself as being one who will never lead her or her children astray or give false wisdom and counsel. Mary realizes that John can and has made bad judgments and mistakes and that she needs to think things out for herself before just agreeing to his thoughts. But John will not recognize his mistakes and allow his children to see him as he really is. He is prideful and sincerely thinks his ways are the right ways and that he should not have to be questioned by his wife or children in these matters. So despite all the good things John does and all the ways he has really made her happy Mary realizes the relationship is not a healthy one. She also realizes that John is unwilling to change his need to be followed and obeyed without questioning. In addition she realizes that John will continue to tell everyone pious lies and half-true stories to maintain a perception of near infallibility and superior judgment in order to get obedience to things he feels are right. She even realizes that John really thinks what he is doing it right and ultimately best for her and the children. But Mary believes that it is not.

Why "Bourne Questioning?"

I love the "Bourne" movies. My favorite part in all three movies was the last scene from the third movie, "The Bourne Ultimatum," when Jason Bourne got shot in mid-air after jumping from the top of a building into a river. The camera then moves to below the water, looking up at Bourne's body floating in the water above. This scene was obviously similar to the opening scene from "The Bourne Identity." I loved it so much because it was so poetic to me. It's not very often that movies take us on a journey and end up exactly where we began. I still smile thinking about how harmonious this was.

I chose "Bourne Questioning" as the title of my blog and "Bourne Free" as my identity because in some ways, I feel like I am experiencing something similar to what Jason Bourne experienced. After that opening scene in the first movie, Bourne gets pulled out of the water by a fishing boat and has amnesia when he wakes up. The entire movie follows him as he tries to discover who he is. As he slowly learns that he was previously an assassin, he develops an extreme distaste and fear of who he was before. He tries to distance himself from that past while at the same time build a new present for himself.

This is kind of similar to what I have gone through since starting to study more in depth the history and claims of the Mormon church. I was surprised to learn about the differing and conflicting First Vision accounts. I was surprised to learn about how Joseph Smith used his power as a spiritual leader to take other men's wives away from them (see: Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, an ancestor of mine). I was surprised to learn about the problems with the Book of Abraham. I was surprised to learn about the actual method Joseph used to "translate" the Book of Mormon. I was disappointed to learn that all my life, I've been fed "faith promoting history" rather than the real thing.

These discoveries have led me to question not only who I am, but also who I was. They have led me to feel somewhat of a distaste for many of the things the church claims that it is. I currently feel like I am someone that I don't know who I am. I have so much invested in Mormonism that it hurts me to even think of leaving, yet I'm not sure I can stay (at least at the same level as previously).

Now I am on a quest not only to learn who I am, but to also learn more about who I was. I feel a need to explore more of the church's foundational claims before I can make an informed decision about anything. Hopefully, by the time this all shakes out (if there ever is a destination point), I will come through it stronger and happier than I was before. Just like Jason Bourne. Except without getting shot.