The glory of God is intelligence
-D&C 93:36
I am thirty-something year-old
man in the midst of a "crisis of faith," similar to what Hans Mattson, a
former general authority, described in a recent New York Times
article.
I'll spare the details, but suffice it to say that for me, it started
this spring and involved the discovery of troubling aspects of the
founding of the LDS church. (There are aspects of the modern church that bother me as well, but they are irrelevant to this discussion) Most likely if you are reading this post
then you are already very familiar with these issues.
For
further background information, I am a lifelong member of the LDS
church, attended and graduated from BYU on scholarships, and served a full
time mission.
I
am a reasonably intelligent person. If standardized testing is any
indication (and it isn't always), I possess well above-average
intelligence. Additionally, I have had opportunity to
exercise my intelligence through education. I hold a doctorate degree
and currently work as a successful professional. I tell you these things
not to brag, but to set the stage for this discussion because I am the
demographic the church is hemorrhaging: young, educated males. I do
not consider myself to be an intellectual giant, and I will be the first
to acknowledge that there are gaps in my knowledge base. That being
said, I feel like I have a reasonable capacity to analyze data and draw
conclusions.
Over
the past six months I have learned more about church history than I had
previously in my entire lifetime. I have read books and sources both
critical to, and supportive of the church. I've seen the numerous
criticisms against the church, and the apologist's responses. I have
analyzed the data, and I have come to a conclusion: the church is
not true, at least not as true as it claims to be. Understand that I
make that statement very much to my own chagrin. I really really want
the church to be true. I want an eternal family. I want to know that
God is watching over me and understands my problems, and has even given
me said problems in order to strengthen me. In many ways, the world is a
much happier place if the church is true (the obvious exception being
if you are gay-but I digress). The point is, coming to this conclusion
was not inconsequential to me. It was life-shattering. My world
crumbled, and continues to crumble.
I'd
like to share with you an important part of how I arrived at that
conclusion. Interestingly, the apologists at FAIR, FARMS, and around
the internet played a very important role in all this. Not by simply
confirming that the controversies are real and historically accurate, as
they have done for many, but by providing answers and explanations to
the various controversies. I find it safe to say that the apologists
have an answer to each and every point that critics make. Not usually
good answers. Not usually satisfying answers. But answers
nonetheless. Often the answers are far-fetched, and require "mental
gymnastics" to the extreme. But they address everything that critics
throw at them, and this forces me to concede that the church
could be true.
However,
when the apologists' explanations are examined together as a sum total, a very disturbing picture is painted. This picture leads to an
additional uncomfortable conclusion: If their explanations are correct,
then God is a trickster who is looking to
deliberately trip up those who think critically, while simultaneously
rewarding those who follow blindly or are too lazy or dimwitted to
conduct meaningful investigation.
This
situation seems evident when there is direct evidence to contradict the
teachings of the church. On the other hand, it does not apply to
criticisms which rely on a lack of evidence
for the church's
teachings. An example of this is the criticism against the Book of
Mormon on the grounds that there is no archaeological evidence to
support the existence of the civilization described in the BoM. While
such lack of evidence raises a valid concern of the truthfulness of the
BoM, lack of evidence is not evidence, and cannot be used as an argument
for a trickster God (unless one argues that the evidence is missing
because God took it away or hid it as a test of faith).
Lets
examine a few instances where there is evidence to contradict church
teachings, in such a way that a trickster God seems apparent:
The Book of Abraham
For well over a hundred years, the church has
taught that the BoA was the product of Joseph Smith's translation of
some Egyptian papyri. This was taught and understood to be a literal
translation- he looked at the scrolls, understood the writing thereon,
and wrote it down in English. Egyptologists now tell us that his
interpretation has nothing to do with what was on the scrolls. The
church has now backpedaled and labeled it as an "inspired translation,"
whatever that means. Incidentally, it is not clear how this new
information came to light. The prophet did not make a statement saying
he had received revelation regarding this matter. The PR department
simply made an announcement and, presto, new doctrine that seemingly
explains away one of the church's most glaring problems.
Apologists
feel the need to supplement the "inspired translation" explanation with
further explanations, and frequently state that there is some scroll
material missing, so
maybe what we find in the BoA came from the
missing scroll portions. How convenient. But fine, I'll concede the
point. Lets focus on solely the facsimiles.
In the
case of the facsimiles we have copies of the source material, Joseph's
interpretation thereof, and Egyptologists' interpretation. Joseph's
version does not match up with the Egyptologists. How can this be?
"LOOK,
HE GOT THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH RIGHT!" the apologists scream in a
frenzy. Ok, fine, Joseph Smith earns a 1% on his Egyptian test. To
any thinking person, the 99 things he got wrong is what stands out over
the one or two things he happened to get right. There is no way around
it, Joseph was very very wrong in his interpretation of these figures.
What
does this mean? If the church is true, it means that God knowingly
allowed his mouthpiece to present erroneous material as if it were
scripture. He would have to have known that scholars would later
examine the material and declare it to be wrong, and therefore he would
have to have known that this would be a huge stumbling block to
intellectuals, both members and investigators alike. Why would God do
such a thing? To test our faith? I can understand God not wanting to
"prove" every aspect of the gospel to his children, and that he wants us
to exercise our faith. As such, I'm fine with a
lack of evidence for certain aspects of the gospel. But to allow there to be such strong evidence
against gospel truths is a whole different matter. It makes no sense, and it disproportionately punishes those who think critically.
Brigham Young and others teaching falsehoods
Brigham was
extremely racist and taught doctrine that was incorrect. Not a little
off base, not just slightly misguided. . .but dead, no doubt about it,
WRONG. Later-confirmed-by-subsequent-church-leaders wrong, and that's
saying something.
The "bigger" false doctrines
that Brigham taught were Blood Atonement and Adam-God theory. If you
are unfamiliar with these, then Google can help you; I will not discuss
them in any detail. Suffice it to say that the church has strongly
stated that we do not believe what Brigham taught on these subjects.
There are other troubling teachings as well, such as interracial
marriage being punishable by death, and monogamy being an inferior form
of marriage compared to polygamy.
Brigham Young is not
alone among prophets who teach falsehoods. Spencer W. Kimball taught
that same-sex attraction was a choice. We now concede that for most
people, that tendency is inborn. Spencer W. Kimball taught that
masturbation leads to homosexuality. No one since has made such an
assertion, because it is ridiculously untrue. Many prophets and
apostles taught that black people were denied the priesthood because
they were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence. We now deny
this. Many prophets and apostles taught that the Lamanites were the
principle ancestors of the American indians. We have now backpedaled on
this, due to scientific evidence that contradicts that assertion.
Once
again, why would God allow His messengers to preach falsehoods while
fully realizing the resulting confusion and doubt that would come later
on because of it? We claim our church is different from others because
we have a direct mode of communication with God. Is our connection so
poor that the prophets misunderstand and are allowed to just spew random
thoughts and doctrines while God stands by and does nothing to correct
it? Once again, having prophets who teach falsehoods is going to
disproportionately shake the faith of critical thinkers over those who
follow blindly or those who aren't bright enough to realize that what
prophet A said completely contradicts what prophet B said.
Joseph's Polyandry
Polyandry, in my opinion, presents one of the
biggest obstacles for critical thinkers. Whenever polygamy is brought
up, apologists and others love to point out that there is plenty of
polygamy practiced by prophets in the Bible. Fine. There is spiritual
precedent for the practice. I don't like it, but I won't argue that
it's wrong. But what about polyandry? To the best of my knowledge,
Joseph Smith is the only one who has been allowed to engage in this
practice. I won't count Brigham Young, who "inherited" some of Joseph's
polyandrous wives when he died, despite the fact that the first
husbands were alive, well, and practicing mormonism.
There
is absolutely no precedent for what Joseph did. It feels slimy,
particularly the way he sent some husbands away on missions and then
married their wives, and the manipulative ways he proposed, telling
young women that their salvation, or their families' salvation depended
on them marrying him. It feels like when David sent Uriah away to
battle so he could have Bathsheba. Except that the church teaches that
it was ok for Joseph to do so. Or, at least, the church won't come out
and say it was wrong for him to do it. Really, the church says almost
nothing at all about it, which is part of the problem.
Obviously,
if the church is true, God knows this issue will be a huge stumbling
block for his children. Why would he not give us some guidance or
explanation? Is Joseph Smith really so special that he alone gets
special rights to "access" other mens' wives? Even more confusing is
the fact that we understand polygamy to be acceptable only to "raise up
seed," yet we know of no offspring produced by Joseph's
polygamous/polyandrous relations. So what was the point? Did God allow
these contradictions and then give no explanation as a test of our
faith?
Other issues
There are many other aspects of LDS doctrine and
history that simply do not make sense from an intellectual standpoint.
Discussing them all in depth would make this post unnecessarily long.
However, I'll list a few additional intellectual stumbling blocks:
1. The presence of anachronisms in the BoM makes no sense if it is divine in origin.
2. The presence of KJV translation errors, word for word, in the BoM makes no sense if it is divine in origin
3. The existence of a book (
View of the Hebrews) published 5 years prior to the BoM, which describes the same basic "plot" as the BoM makes a little too much sense
4.
Joseph not needing to look at the plates to "translate" them makes no
sense. Why were they necessary then? And why couldn't Nephi find a
rock to put in a hat and use a similar method as Joseph, rather than
killing Laban so he could get plates?
Conclusions
These are only a few of the issues I could mention,
but I think they suffice for the sake of this discussion. I personally
can't fathom a God who would set up his church in such a way that one
has to abandon all pretext of logic and common sense to be able to
believe in it. We believe in God as a supreme intelligence who has
commanded us to use our own intelligence to learn and explore the
world. Obviously He does not want us to abandon spirituality, and he
wants us to come to Him with questions and concerns. But I don't
believe in a Trickster who purposefully sets "intellectual traps" in
order to test faith. Any such system, as the title of this post states,
rewards those who never question or who are incapable of questioning.
And I just don't believe that God is sowing the seeds of his gospel in
hopes of reaping a crop made principally of mindless followers.
Postscript
In anticipation of criticism, I want to make it clear
what I am NOT saying. I am not saying that one must be stupid in order
to believe in Mormonism. I know many believing members who are far
brighter than I. What I AM saying is that in order to fully believe in
the the church's teachings, one must almost completely disconnect one's
intellect from one's spiritual beliefs. This is true of most religions,
though perhaps more so with Mormonism because of the many firm "truth"
claims we make, and the many subsequent findings that seem to contradict
those"truths". In response to some of these difficult questions about
the church, I hear some members say things like "I don't know the
answers, but I don't believe it is essential to my salvation so I won't
let it bother me." Fine, if that works for you, great. However, as
time goes on and information regarding the church's past becomes more
accessible, fewer and fewer people are going to be able to set aside
these issues which prick at our intellects, and the church will continue
to hemorrhage young, educated members.