The Encyclopedia (Brown) of Mormonism

Posted on January 18, 2015 by Mithryn

(In the style of and tribute to Donald J. Sobol’s novels)

Now you may have never heard that Joseph Smith once visited Idaville, but he did.  Idaville looked like many other seaside towns its size.  It had lovely beaches, three movie theaters and four banks.  It had churches, a synagogue and two delicatesens.  But no Mormons.

It all came down to when William Law, one of the mormons slapped a quarter into the jug that sat next to the sign on which the words “25 cents per day, plus expenses – No case too small.” were scrawled.

25 cents was worth a lot more back then

“Mr. Brown”, William Law began, “I need your help.  A certain bully is trying to cheat two girls out of their fortunes.”

“How is he trying to cheat girls out of their fortunes?” asked Sally Kimball, Encyclopedia Browns friend, business partner and Bodyguard.

“By marrying them both!” Replied the man.  He then explained that Sarah and Maria Lawrence were both to inherit a large sum of money from their parents.  William had learned from his wife that Joseph intended to marry both the girls and use the money before they became of age to use the money for themselves.

Just then none other than Mr. Smith sauntered up to the detective agency accompanied by a very grungy looking man with hair down to his shoulders.  Sally and Porter locked eyes and exchanged threatening grimaces as Ol’ Joe began to speak:

“I assume you’re talking to the boy detective about my plans to marry the Lawrence girls, William?  You know God commanded me to marry them.”

William Law shrugged his shoulders.  “I know an angel with a sword commanded you to engage in polygamy but.. oh dear oh dear, Maybe they will have to marry you.”

“You can cancel the wedding” replied Encyclopedia Brown picking up a bible.  “There is no way God commanded you to marry the girls”.

How did Encyclopedia Brown thwart the marriage?  Turn to page 87 to find out

_______________________________________________________________

Continue reading →

Posted in Mormon Murder Mysteries | 1 Comment

What would Sherlock Holmes say about Mormonism?

Posted on January 6, 2015 by Mithryn

Greetings avid readers.  I have taken on a vain ambition in 2015 to apply the simple problem solving skills heard in the “Murder Mystery” genre and to think how the famous detectives and problem solvers would apply that thinking to great moments in Mormon history.

You see I often find myself remembering Columbo asking “one more thing”, or having an Angela lansbury moment while sifting through history; and as such thought it might be fun to let my readers experience the kind of thoughts that come from it.

And to kick it all off, why not start with the very man who created the genre, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The Man Himself

And in fact we can start with the very novel that started it all: A Study in Scarlet 

“Beware the Mormons” would have given away the ending

That’s right, the very first Murder Mystery featured the villains to be none other than the Mormons.  Specifically Danites the Mormon secret police (although in the book they are far more like ninjas, magically materializing through walls and such).

The story flashes back to the Salt Lake Valley (in modern Utah) in 1847, where John Ferrier and a little girl named Lucy, the only survivors of a small party ofpioneers, lie down near a boulder to die from dehydration and hunger. They are discovered by a large party of Latter-day Saints led by Brigham Young. The Mormons rescue Ferrier and Lucy on the condition that they adopt and live under their faith…

According to a Salt Lake City newspaper article, when Conan Doyle was asked about his depiction of the Latter-day Saints’ organisation as being steeped in kidnapping, murder and enslavement, he said:

“all I said about the Danite Band and the murders is historical so I cannot withdraw that, though it is likely that in a work of fiction it is stated more luridly than in a work of history. It’s best to let the matter rest”.[4]However, Conan Doyle’s daughter has stated: “You know, father would be the first to admit that his first Sherlock Holmes novel was full of errors about the Mormons.”

Years after Conan Doyle’s death, Levi Edgar Young, a descendant of Brigham Young and a Mormon general authority, claimed that Conan Doyle had privately apologised, saying that

“He [Conan Doyle] said he had been misled by writings of the time about the Church”[4]

and had

“written a scurrilous book about the Mormons.”[5]

However, in a preface to Volume II of The Complete Novels and Stories of Sherlock Holmes, Loren D. Estleman noted the implied criticism of the Mormons. He states that the story was not controversial at the time of the story’s release, probably due to reports of the Mountain Meadows massacre and the small membership of the church.

So I don’t even have to project what Sherlock would have done because the idea of murder mysteries and mormons launched the genre.  I will attempt to update a new entry in this category each week.

Posted in Mormon Murder Mysteries | Leave a comment

The top 15 (new) reasons to question in 2015

Posted on January 4, 2015 by Mithryn

This is not going to be a list like the letter to the CES Director.  This is going to be a short list (call it “Dan Petersen” length) of new issues not discussed previously by apologists or church leaders of things that should cause one to ask tough questions of the LDS church in 2015.  Apologists are constantly stating “We’ve heard all that before” or “those are old issues”, so for 2015, some brand shiny new issues.  You’re welcome.

15.  Thomas S. Monson owns 2 houses one he kept secret for most of his life worth $383k.  This, coupled with public records showing apostles’ wives getting homes at a discount and the whole idea that they council people to buy modest homes and then do not do it themselves.  Compare this to the Book of Mormon’s view on priestcrafts and “working with one’s own hands” for support as a church leader and one should come away with at least a question or two.

14. That two members were involved in writing and authorizing torture.  Sure sure, they were just members and “The Church is Perfect, the people are not” but the belief system allowed two individuals in two different wards to feel absolutely okay with instigating extreme pain in other of “Heavenly Father’s Children”.  That should at least make one ask a question or two, such as the apostles of old when told one would betray Christ, “Is it I?”.  Could any member end up justifying that kind of behavior?

13. Chapel Cleaning fees – Whenever someone gets married in a chapel, they have to pay a $50 cleaning fee.  However, it is the membership who cleans the chapel (And the families of the Bride and Groom are expected to clean the church as well), so where does the $50 go?  Well, according to the CHI all local funds go to Salt Lake City.  Yeah, Thomas S. Monson directly receives those cleaning fees.  Now, I don’t think this was maliciously done, I think that this is an oversight that was left over from when the church swapped from paying  janitors to unpaid members, but they still collect it, and it goes to say, pay for $300k houses.

12. The failure of Prop 8 and the Church’s stance on Polygamy.  Prophets and Seers who failed, failed, and failed again to prophesy or see the outcome.  If you don’t see why this is an issue, I’d recommend you read the prophet’s on the wrong side of history on race issues and the complete disregarding Brigham Young’s words on Race and the Priesthood and imagine what this whole era’s leaders will sound like in 50 years from now.

11. The new institute manuals moving away from scripture, and more into folk doctrine and current policy.  Anyone who loves the scriptures should be wary about this issue.

10. Kate Kelly’s excommunciation.  When so much of our scriptures depends on individuals (including women) asking questions and getting answers, to see someone excommunicated for asking about women having priesthood like they did in 1920 should be very disturbing to members

Sections of scripture dependent on Questions and Answers:

  • D&C 89 (Asked by a woman!)
  • D&C 77
  • The Aaronic Priesthood restoration (Joseph and Oliver asked a question)
  • Deborah in Judges is a Prophetess who the generals ask to prophesy for them.
  • Joseph Smith asking about which church is true

9. John Dehlin’s pending excommunication.  Anyone who feels anything at all on LGBT issues and is familiar with the science behind the LGBT issues has to feel heartburn that he was challenged with excommunication

8. Rock Waterman’s pending excommunication.  Here is a man who believes the church doctrine to the extreme, but he was also threatened in his membership.

7. The Apologist responsible for defending the Book of Abraham, the only one with a degree in Egyptology, had his license revoked for making inaccurate statements last year.

6. The lack of response to the Letter to the CES Director. That the FAIR conference didn’t even really deal with it beyond Ad Hominem attacks.  Nor did the CES system answer the questions officially, or any answers at conference.  This should be somewhat troubling.  Oh, the FAIR conference said that one could buy several $80 books to get the answers, and that sure seems like priestcraft to me, but hey, simple answers take a lot of effort to find.

5. The Boat Speech at conference.  Speaking of the lack of answers at Conference, the boat speech should be a true red flag.  I worked for a company that was involved in illicit set of dealings.  The CEO would point out all the benefits of working for the company (Call them blessings, if you will) and tell people not to leave.  Anytime someone is more interested in telling you to stay rather than answering questions, one should be wary.

Imagine you were on a real boat and the captain came by every few minutes saying “Stay in the boat”.  The first time you might say “sure, ya, why would I leave?”  But about the third or fourth time you might start to wonder.  Then you find that there is a rumor that people are being called to bail out water in the bottom of the boat.  You should probably investigate that claim.  The captain saying “Stay in the boat” becomes evidence there is a problem with the boat.

4. The Polygamy Essay admitting to Helen Mar Kimball, Drawn Sword forced marriages, and Joseph having done it to 30-40 women.  Perhaps more troubling was the instance that Fanny Alger was a wife, when Joseph’s interaction with her was in 1832 and the marriage recorded in 1836, but the essays breeze over it my just mentioning the marriage happened sometime in the 1830’s.

3. Real Estate investments like the Mall, the living space near the new temples and so forth.  It’s a big deal.  Anytime the question of a religion investing into billions of dollars of real estate, one should ask a few questions.

2. The Church’s Essay about Joseph translating using a rock.  This isn’t a new one, but the church admitting this last year and then NOT UPDATING THE IMAGES so that they are  still showing Joseph using the Golden Plates to translate, and this illustrates the church’s willingness to deceive.

1. Trust.  One word.  All the other items on this list lead up to it.  The church is completely built on trust.  One trusts the leadership, one trusts one’s feelings are the prompting of the Holy Ghost.  One trusts that the scriptures are accurate.  Each of these items on the list illustrates a breach of trust.  And the church needs to refocus winning trust as it is the only capital the church trades in.

Posted in Current issues | 6 Comments

How a coffee shop is like an airline

Posted on December 21, 2014 by Mithryn

The topic of whether the church is growing, shrinking, thriving or failing is constantly being discussed.  From the idea in the 90’s that it would grow at a constant rate and fill the earth ( most recently stated in Mark Koltko-Rivera, Ph.D., an award-winning social scientist, in his latest book, The Rise of the Mormons: Latter-day Saint Growth in the 21st Century) to Marlin K. Jensen’s statement on Apostasy being like that of Kirtland’s there have been a plethora of individuals talking about the topic, and almost all of have them have gotten it wrong.

And by that, I don’t mean that I’m going to be right, but I want to take a new approach to understanding why everyone is wrong on church growth.   And to do that, we’re going to need a cup of coffee.

Well, actually we don’t need a coffee, someone else needed a coffee, we’ll just observe

Back in the 2008 I was at a Barnes and Noble waiting while relations selected books.  I wandered over to the snack counter and was pondering which delectable treat I might consume when I beheld a most fascinating sight.

A man walked up to the counter, and the woman called him by name and handed him his coffee perfectly made the way he wanted it.  This, in and of itself was not something particularly spectacular, but the interesting bit was, he hadn’t ordered.

I walked up to the counter and said “I bet he is one of your top 3% of customers and they account for 25% of your revenue”.  She nodded.  “And the next 7% of customers care about loyalty rewards and status upgrades and account for the next 25% of revenue”.  Again, she agreed. “And the bottom 10% are a lost for your company”.

“Just who are you and how do you know so much about our store?” she demanded.

You see, I was working for an airline in their CRM (Customer Resource Management) department.  We were doing analysis on the most loyal customers, and focusing on what motivated each of the groups and how much revenue those groups drove.  And the numbers stated above applied to the airline, just like the coffee shop.  The most valuable thing to the airline top 3% was that the flight attendant knew their name and preferences.

And so the coffee shop customers were exactly like the airline customers.  I could instantly see the same dynamic in parking spaces at shopping malls.  My mother was one of the 3% shoppers at our local mall, and she would drive for 10 minutes to get a closer parking spot; because she knew how much we would bring home at the end of the (all day) shopping trip.  If one mall had set up a set of “favored customer” shopping spots and known which stores she preferred, welcoming her, I would have lived my early years out of a shopping mall.

Here are the relevant numbers:

  • Top 3% of customers – Regular, repeated customers or big spenders, 25% of revenue
  • Next 7% of customers – Typically business partnerships, care about upgrades and loyalty rewards.  Treat them like a superior member and they respond well.  Next 25% of revenue
  • Next 80% of customers – 50% of revenue a mix of coupon consumers and occasional buyers.
  • Bottom 10% of customers – Cost 10% of your revenue, use coupons exclusively, only shop when there is a deal

So we return to the question of church growth.  Typically individuals only focus on the raw statistics.  LDSStatistics.com tells us a lot about growth from the church’s own reported numbers.  We can see that growth has peaked and has remained basically flat in overall numbers.

But then why all the talks about “Stay in the boat” and Marlin K. Jensen’s Q&A session talking about apostasy.

It’s because the WHO of who is leaving has shifted.  Any leader in the church can tell you that the roles have had huge numbers of individuals who came once or rarely attend.  Primaries are filled with empty seats.  Most estimates put church attendance between 30-50% around the world.  And it’s been this way for a long time.

Most of the posts about people leaving the church in “droves” talk about how the collapse of the church is imminent because so many are leaving.

What’s really happened is that the “inactive” were always part of the bottom 60% of the church’s business.  They consumed most of the humanitarian aide.  They used a lot of the resources and attended little.

Tithe paying members are that top 10%, who mostly care about feeling special.  Think about how the lessons are structured, they talk about how many perks the members get, and how they are special in the special knowledge.  Members get access to special rights (temple attendance, missions, blessings, etc.)

The top 3% of contributors are the people who bring the casseroles, the bishop knows them all by name.  The Stake president knows them.  They always have a handshake waiting for them.

  • To break it down the LDS Church claims 14 million members (As of earlier this year)
  • 3% top members who care about namedropping and knowing their preferences – 420,000 members
  • 7% loyalty who care about perks – 980,000
  • 10% who consume humanitarian resources and only come when the church is servicing them – 1,4 million

You can see it in any given ward on any given Sunday.

Census records indicate that only about 5 million members self-identify as LDS.  That would break the numbers down even further to how few people would need to leave to really impact a revenue stream.

So when members say the numbers aren’t that different, or “There have always been inactives” they are right.  When exmormons and anti-mormons say the church is losing members they are also right.

What has happened is there has been a shift where the top 10% have started to question.  They have started to leave.  The most loyal ones are caring less about the handshake, and the loyalty rewards; and far more about the actual product being sold.

In airline terms, the route that they traveled on is being shifted; and it is impacting the customer base negatively.

The organization needs to understand that the demands of their customers has actually altered if they are going to respond to the issue.  They must match the product to the demand, or else they will lose their most loyal customers.

And you can see this shift; the Letter to the CES Director, John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories, and other factors are impacting the top customers’ expectations ; while the overall membership is remaining relatively steady.

50% of revenue comes from your top 10% of customers

But the impact to revenue (in this case, tithing) is not small. Remember our coffee shop?  50% of revenue came from that top 10% of customers.  In the church, that top 10% produces half the tithing.  For our airline, that top 10% paid all of our bills, and all bonuses, new routes, marketing and new technology was purchased out of the remaining 50%.  It was the “Bread and butter”.  Shifting the top 10% impacts the day-to-day operations, because the remainder of the organization loses R&D opportunity.  The “Share the gift” social marketing push, the Meet the Mormons film, all of these come from a budget that is threatened by the shift in the demand of the top 10%

That is why Ordain Women, Mormon Stories, and other NOM groups are threatening to the church.  That is why there is a sudden push for talks to keep people from leaving the church (Which is a failing strategy, btw; stop with the talks and instead meet the market demand!).  It is all in this dynamic of the shift in the break down of the members rather than an impact in overall membership numbers.

The church can continue to claim 14 million members and even make up 20% growth but that will not matter compared to the hard breakdown into what camp those members break down to.

Posted in Current issues | 6 Comments

1886 Revelation of John Taylor and the FLDS timeline

Posted on December 9, 2014 by Mithryn

A chart of few cousins among the mormon elite: Pratt-Romney-Eyring-Kimball-Woolley

Feminist Mormon Housewives podcast on John W. Woolley for more details.

Basics about the Woolley family:

Woolley was born to Edwin D. and Mary W. Woolley, the first of Edwin’s seven wives, in Newlin, Chester County,Pennsylvania. Edwin Woolley was originally a Quaker farmer, but converted to Mormonism in 1837. The Woolley family emigrated to Utah Territory with the Mormon pioneers in the late 1840s. Edwin would later become Brigham Young‘s business manager, as well as one of his closest friends, and a bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints(LDS Church) from 1853 to 1881.
Woolley held many civil positions in Utah Territory, such as constable, justice of the peace, deputy sheriff, deputy territorial marshal, and county commissioner. Within the Nauvoo Legion (in the State of Deseret), he served as aLieutenant, Captain, Sergeant and Major. He participated in the Black Hawk War, and was one of the ten who crossed the Little Mountain to meet Johnston’s Army in 1857.

Having been ordained a high priest of the LDS Church by Brigham Young, Woolley served in a bishopric, as a high councilor in the Davis Stake, and was later ordained a patriarch in the church. He also was an ordinance worker in theSalt Lake Temple and he opened meetings of the church’s general conference with prayer on more than one occasion. Woolley was among the first to meet the handcart companies in 1856, and in 1860 and 1863 he brought emigrants across the plains himself. On the last occasion, Joseph F. Smith acted as the chaplain in his “company”, and they became lifelong friends, with Smith having picnics with the Woolley family and speaking at his wife’s funeral.

George E. Woolley (Lorin’s uncle an John’s Brother) asked to approach some of the General Authorities on his behalf to see what he would have to do to be reinstated into the Church.

Cousin: Ernest R. Woolley shrewed businessman

Vinnie Woolley (Mary Lavina Bentley Woolley) funeral (sister) – John W. Woolley asked to dedicate the grave of his sister. George Woolley worries that John doesn’t have priesthood, but it is unclear, tells him not to, and John does it anyway but without the priesthood.

Lorin C. Wooley born SLC, October 23, 1856 and son of John W. Woolley.  Married Sarah Ann Roberts on Jan 5, 1883 in the endowment house 9 children “hard-working and generally respected by his peers.”

TIMELINE

1851– John Taylor decries polygamy while having 6 wives (source: Doctrines of the Gospel, by Orson Pratt, 1851 ed., p. 8)

October 23, 1856 – Lorin Wolley born

April 7, 1866 – John Taylor calls non-polygamists apostates (source: Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 221, April 7, 1866)

March 20, 1870 – Lorin states he was made an apostle by Brigham Young when he was 8

March 10, 1873 – Lyman Woolley ordained an Elder at the age of sixteen by John Lyon

I got it wrong, it was $500 and $300, on the podcast I said $100

The wanted poster I mentioned on Feminist Mormon Housewives

1882 – the United States Congress enacted the Edmunds Act, which declared polygamy to be a felony

Taylor moved into the Gardo House alone with his sister Agnes to avoid prosecution and to avoid showing preference to any one of his families. However, by 1885, he and his counselors were forced to withdraw from public view to live in the “underground”; they were frequently on the move to avoid arrest.

In 1885, during his last public sermon, Taylor remarked,

“I would like to obey and place myself in subjection to every law of man. What then? Am I to disobey the law of God? Has any man a right to control my conscience, or your conscience? … No man has a right to do it”.

During this time period he also said:

“Now, treat your wives right, but do not subject yourselves to the infamous provisions of the Edmunds’ act more than you can help, avoid all harsh expressions and improper actions, act carefully and prudently in all your social relations. Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. A gentleman in Washington told another, who related it to me, in answer to the question, What will the ‘Mormons’ do with their wives and children when this bill passes? he was told: Turn them out in the streets as we do our harlots. I say in the name of God we will not do any such thing, and let all Israel say Amen. (The vast congregation, amounting to from 12,000 to 14,000 persons, responded Amen.) We will stand by our covenants, and the Constitution will bear us out in it. Among other things, that instrument says that Congress shall make no law impairing the validity of contracts. You have contracted to be united with your wives in time and in eternity, and it would not do for us to break a constitutional law, would it? (Laughter.) Others may do it, but we cannot. We cannot lay aside our honor, we cannot lay aside our principles; and if people cannot allow us freedom, we can allow freedom to them and to all men. We will be true to our wives and cherish them and maintain them, and stand by them in time, and we will reign with them in eternity, when thousands of others are weltering under the wrath of God. Any man that abuses his wife, or takes advantage of this law to oppress her, is not worthy of a standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and let the congregation say Amen. (The immense congregation responded by a loud Amen.) – Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 23, p. 68

“God has given us a revelation in regard to celestial marriage. I did not make it. He has told us certain things pertaining to this matter, and they would like us to tone that principle down and change it and make it applicable to the views of the day. This we cannot do; nor can we interfere with any of the commands of God to meet the persuasions or behests of men. I cannot do it, and will not do it.”- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 25, p. 309

13 October 1882 – Heber J. Grant called to be an apostle;  Joseph F. Smith said on this occasion that without polygamy the keys would be turned against them and higher law must preside over lower law

September 26, 1886 – The famous revelation itself, B. Harvey Allred and others testify to the event

Taylor told Woolley and about eleven others of his experience, wrote down the revelation and had his secretary L. John Nuttal, make five copies.  All present entered into a “Solemn covenant and promise that they would see to it that not a year should pass without plural marriages being performed and children born under the covenant.  5 individuals were set apart for this purpose John W. Woolley, Lorin C. Wooley, George Q. Cannon, Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wikken.  They were ordained apostles at this time (Quorum of the seven apostles (Joseph F. Smith would be included later)

The Revelation hardcopy that we have

Text of the revelation

May 22, 1888 – Samuel Taylor – Eternal marriage is plural marriage

“You ask some other questions concerning how many living wives a man must have to fulfil the law. When a man, according to the revelation, marries a wife under the holy order which God has revealed and then marries another in the same way, he enters into the new and everlasting covenant,” —Samuel W. Taylor, Rocky Mountain Empire, pp. 20-21, footnote #15

1891 – Heber J. Grant had violates his amnesty agreement by trying to marry Fanny Woolley.

1890’s – Testimony in the temple lot case states that John Taylor taught that exaltation required plural marriage

“Yes, sir, President Woodruff, President Young, and President John Taylor, taught me and all the rest of the ladies here in Salt Lake that a man in order to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom must have more than one wife, that having more than one wife was a means of exaltation.”

– Temple Lot Case, p. 362

 

1895 – Wilford Woodruff Manifesto

1899 – Heber J. Grant found guilty of “Unlawful cohabitation” with Fanny Woolley (Salt Lake City Tribune, 9 Sept. 1899)

18-19 Nov. 1900 – Abraham Woodruff

Abraham Woodruff: “…no year will ever pass, whether it be in this country [Mexico], in India, or wherever, from now until the coming of the Saviour, when children will not be born in Plural Marriage. And I make this prophecy in the name of Jesus Christ.”(source: Journal and Notes, 61, 18-19 Nov. 1900, Church Archives) also in the book “ Solemn Covenant”)

1902 – Reed Smoot seated at the U.S Congress

1904 – Reed Smoot Hearings Joseph F. Smith testifies at the smoot case that he is still living in polygamy even though the church does not endorse polygamy any more

1904 – the Second Manifesto, was put forth by church president Joseph F. Smith, which stated that those who did not cease the continuation of the practice would be excommunicated from the church.

1911 – John W. Taylor excommunicated

At his trial in 1911, John W. Taylor explained:

“Brother Joseph Robinson came to me and asked for a copy of it [the 1886 revelation] upon the suggestion of Brother Cowley and he got it from Brother Badger. Brother Joseph F. Smith Jr., also got a copy, but I don’t know how many have got copies from these.” (Collier and Knutson, Trials of John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley.) See also Abraham H. Cannon Journal 29 March 1892.

‘‘My Father received a revelation which however was never presented to the Church, and I refer to this not because it was a revelation to my Father; I don’t think a revelation because it came through him was any greater than one received through any other President of the Church…This revelation is either true or it is false.
Assuming that it is true, it seems to me that it would be better to offer leniency on the side of the Lord, if you are to offer any leniency, than on the side of politics…Brother Lyman, what do you think of the revelation to my Father?’’ Minutes of Council of Twelve Meeting concerning fellowship of John W. Taylor, son of John Taylor, and Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, held in the Salt Lake Temple, February 22, 1911, at 10 am, at which were present: President Francis M. Lyman, Heber J. Grant, Hyrum M. Smith, Charles W. Penrose, George F. Richards, Orson F. Whitney, David O. Mckay, Anthony W. Ivins, and Joseph F. Smith, Jr.

‘‘The date of this Revelation is Sept. 1886, four years before the Manifesto of President Woodruff and I remember at that time that President Taylor and all his brethren were very strongly entrenched in the principle of plural marriage. From 1880-1890 men were almost commanded to enter it, especially the officials of the Church…’’ Published Minutes of John W. Taylor’s Church Trial.

1911 – John Woolley called as Davis County Patriarch.

October 6, 1912, John W. Woolley wrote the first known account of the reception of the 1886 Revelation  Council of friends organized

March 30, 1914 – John W. Woolley excommunicated from the LDS church

Olive Woolley Coombs (daughter) told of a time after John was excommunicated, ad Bountiful stake conference (At the tabernacle) when Joseph F. Smith was present, he left via another door and bet John telling him they were ready (The twelve) to have him rebaptized but in secret.  John said it had to be done openly.

April 1921 – Heber J. Grant announces that no patriarchs have the right to perform plural marraiges.

October 1923 – Reuben Clark admitted that Joseph F. Smith had appointed them (Source: D. Michael Quin p 182 “J. Rueben Clark the Church Years. Sealings performed by Patriarchs were undone. Heber didn’t care for Clark’s legalisms on the matter)

January 1924 – John W. Woolley excommunicated over lying about Heber J. Grant and James Talmage taking other wives as a secret service member.

James Talmage on January 18 1924: “the Chief of the United States Government Secret Service, and he positively denies that Lorin C. Woolley was connected with that service in any capacity whatsoever; and, moreover, he further intimated that he may have to proceed against Woolley for making any such claim.”

December 13, 1928 – John W. Woolley dies

1929 – Joseph W. Musser compiles John W. Woolley’s stories into one narrative.  John signs off on the version.

April 1931 – Heber J. Grant publically denies allegations of John W. Woolley in general conference.

April 4th 1931 morning session of conference: One man by the name of Lorin C. Woolley said that Anthony W. Ivins and Heber J. Grant went to Los Angeles, that he followed them, that they went into a hotel and that Anthony W. Ivins married a plural wife to Heber J. Grant.

Anthony W. Ivins and Heber J. Grant were never in a hotel together in Los Angeles. Heber J. Grant has never suggested to any human being during his entire administration as President of the Church that anybody should ever enter into plural marriage. On the contrary, every man or woman who has ever opened his or her mouth to him on this subject he has taught to the contrary. (Conference Report, April, 1931, p. 10.)

October 1931 – George Q. Cannon states that Patriarch authority to seal ends when the Prophet dies (All of Joseph F. Smith’s and John Taylor’s patriarchs authorized to seal plural marriage are at this point officially ended)

January 26, 1933 – Woolley ordained six new members to the Council of Friends, designating them “apostles and patriarchs to all the world”: J. Leslie Broadbent, John Y. Barlow, Joseph W. Musser, Charles F. Zitting, Dr. LeGrand Woolley, and Louis A. Kelsch, Jr. From at least December 1933, when Lorin Woolley was critically ill, Leslie Broadbent was designated his “Second Elder” and successor. (source: wikipedia entry for  Lorin C. Wooley)

September 19, 1934 – Lorin Wolley dies

July 26, 1937 – The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE publishes an interview with LDS President Heber J. Grant implies as soon as law changes polygamy will be followed again.

“We never believed polygamy was wrong and never will.  One of the cardinal rules of the Church is to obey the law. So long as polygamy is illegal we ourselves will strictly enforce the law.”

1953 – Arizona police and national guard raid polygamous commune at Short Creek, Arizona, arrest all its adults

As of 1980 – it was alleged that only one descendant of John Taylor had been involved in fundamentalist polygamy, and she had the marriage annulled as soon as she became aware that her husband was a polygamist. (Blog of the descendents of John Taylor)

May 6, 2002 – FBI puts Warren Jeffs on 10 most wanted list

July 2005 – eight FLDS men are charged with sexual misconduct in Arizona for relationships with underage plural wives

August 26, 2006 – Warren Jeffs was arrested.

December 9 2012 – Newspaper reports women leaving FLDS

January 9, 2014 – Judge orders forfeiture of Texas polygamist ranch under false pretense of child molestation by colorado woman known to have ill mental health.  Find evidence of marriages as young as 12 years old during search.

Posted in Timelines | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Greg Trimble insults the founding fathers, veterans and teachers in an attempt to attack atheists… why does anyone listen to him again?

Posted on December 9, 2014 by Mithryn

I have just taken Trimble’s article and flipped it to so that one could see how it would sound if said in the exact reverse.  I hope this illustrates how offensive and hurtful this kind of divisive rhetoric is (oh yeah, and I added sources for my points, something Mr. Trimble should have listened more to his teachers about):

What I wish I had said to my seminary teacher:

It seems like you and so many of your colleagues don’t like Science and don’t like America. I don’t know if it’s just because you’re trying to be a rebel or if you’ve just studied your scriptures so much that you can’t stand the fact that there might be an intelligent being out there that knows more than you. It won’t mean anything to you, but in your own Bible, Paul tells Timothy that there would be some people just like you that would be “ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Hey! That sounds like you!

So here’s the deal. We live in a country that was founded by the philosophy that religion should be separate from the state. There is no way around that.   Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and others were atheists, deists, and the rest were a mix of faiths.  The Treaty of Tripole even states that this is not a Christian nation, and John Adams, one of the very religious, even wrote that.  You can try and push forward God’s role in the establishment of this nation all you want, but if you study hard enough…there is no way to force miraculous divine interventions into the history of human endeavor and understanding that took place in the early days of its history. Separation of church and state is woven into the laws, the architecture, and the hearts of the American people. No one, ever… can take that away from this great nation. Or can you?

It’s funny, ironic…no…it’s sad, horribly sad that you are living so well…and so free on the backs of those patriots, some of whom are not your faith or even christian,  that gave their lives in the name of God and country. Now…all you do is sit in your class and fight against the very things that enabled you to be who you are today. You’re devoting your life to molding and shaping the minds of the rising generation and simultaneously attempting to suppress and extinguish the only thing that is keeping this nation together.

If you want to believe in God…that’s fine. That same constitution gave you your agency to not worship Him/Her/It/whatever the dictates of your own conscience are. If fact…that’s what freedom is all about. Not forcing anyone to do anything that they don’t want to do. But now look at what we have. A bunch of loud “educated” influential voices like yourself trying to turn a Free nation into a God-driven nation, like the Taliban.

You’re not trying to support religion. You’re trying to make mormonism the state religion.

You say that atheism is nothing more than brainwashing…but I say it’s you that is doing the brainwashing. The worst part of it all is that you have a captive audience because many parents force their kids to go to seminary in order to stay respected in their own homes. It’s sad that so many of these kids around me see the “Brother” in front of your name and think you know what you’re “all-knowing”…even god-like. You evangelize “your beliefs” to curious, ignorant, and unsuspecting students each and every quarter and then they grow up to be just like you until we have a nation of correlated members who don’t even know the basics of their own faith, let alone their own country’s history.

Some of them might even be dumb enough to begin to blog.

[update:  I realized he kept going.  So I kept going.  But my main point is above.  The rest is just painful to go through.  My apologies to those who continue]

Continue reading →

Posted in Current issues | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The true problem with the New Church Essays

Posted on November 24, 2014 by Mithryn

I’ve seen a lot of posts on the blogsphere, on twitter, on facebook and even op-eds in newspapers about the essays the church published, particularly the polygamy essays, but none of them, I think really come right out and state the problem.

The problem is, that the essays are driving the church to be more cult-like.  Now I can already hear a few of you pulling your keyboards closer to start the flame-war /hate comment that these essays are meant to open up the church and its history.  And that is a good thing.  I’m not going to disagree.

The problem is the spin that surrounds it.  Let me illustrate:

Greg Trimble’s article (which I talk about how it is inaccurate in another post) tells the faithful that not knowing these things were the member’s fault.

As they come across your Facebook or Twitter feed in the morning, you’re hit with a title that makes it seem as if no one had ever known about polygamy prior to this week.

Got that?  That’s blaming the victim, or the person sharing the information.  “They presented the information wrong” or “Why didn’t you already know about this, what is wrong with YOU?”

And that is a cult-aspect as defined by the various agencies, non-profits and international groups that try to help people survive the experience of leaving a cult

Now this is what I DID NOT JUST SAY.  I didn’t say the church is a cult.  I didn’t say that Greg Trimble is building a cult.  What I said was that the behavior that Greg illustrates is defined internationally as “Cultish”.

What I’m seeing in the spin around these essays, in an attempt to defend the prophet or preserve faith is a LOT of cult rhetoric.  The kind that can turn a church inward and make it more and more fringe and self-harming and less and less about open dialogue, which is what the essays were supposed to do, right?

This post on Mormon women stand splits those who talk about polygamy into an “Us vs. Them” mentality with lines like:

Books have been written and papers published that have accused, inferred, or suggested that Joseph Smith committed adultery multiple times.

Yes, yes they were, because Emma and Oliver both accused Joseph of adultery.  And according to the law of Illinois, it WAS adultery.  But the spin on how they say it, it makes it divisive as though anyone reading should distrust the majority who read anything about Joseph.

This post that praises Joseph even with 40 wives sounds like it could have been written by a member of the FLDS or a closet Allred Group member.  In addition to stating:

In fact, being a student of Joseph Smith and history, I learned of these 14-year-old “brides” (another baggage-laden word) and 30-40 wives in my early twenties as a student at Brigham Young University

He spins anyone who doesn’t see the world from his point of view as somehow being a failure another cult trait.

[update: The church’s Ensign article on the subject of “Only one question matters” falls right in line with these thought-stopping cult tactics as well.  You could, in fact, rename the article to “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” and lose nothing in the transition.]

In fact, let me list the cultish traits that are generally agreed upon by these groups

  • The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
  • ‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
  • ‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
  • ‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
  • ‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
  • ‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
  • ‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
  • ‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
  • ‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
  • ‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
  • ‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
  • ‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.
  • ‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
  • ‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
  • ‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Now read through those articles again and identify lines that match up to this list.  Again, I’m not saying the LDS church is a cult, I’m saying that if members allow the vocal of the groups to speak out using cult rhetoric, it can become more and more cult-like.  If you must defend the charismatic leader who founded the organization at all costs, the cost is going to be your organization’s integrity and allowance for free will and thinking.

Another aspect that is truly disturbing about these Essays is that it appears that Brian Hales was tasked at writing the Essay on Polygamy after reading his reply defending the essay  (In addition, he restructured his website to match the essays around when they were published).  Which means that a church that has the following

  • A prophet who claims direct access to God
  • A church historian paid for that purpose
  • A Church education system
  • Two universities with history departments filled with accredited PHD’s in history

Turned to an anesthesiologist for the answers on Polygamy.  Not that there isn’t a place for amateur history research, and I understand that Mr. Hales paid for a researcher, but was there no one better qualified to tackle polygamy, or just no one willing?

It smacks of favoritism, and “giving the question to the man who says he can answer it, whether he is right or not”, which also match up to cultish and North Korean-like practices.

How much stronger would it have been if the church had hired independent PHD historians to write the definitive story of Joseph Smith, and published those Essays.  It would have spoken to openness, and historical accuracy.  You can bet that individuals like myself would have reviewed our own notes and books if the independent sources had come to a new conclusion.

You can bet that the essays published then would have cut through the half-truths Elder Neil L. Andersen was so worried about last conference and made scholars take note.  A new gold standard would be set.

But instead, we see spin, we see victim-blaming, we see protecting the charismatic leader at all costs and criticism equated with being part of “them”.

And what worries me is that it could turn the LDS church to be more like the FLDS.  Charismatic leaders pushing vocal members to defend their faith through cultish tactics is exactly what turns a modern-open, friendly religion into a dangerous, abusive, tight-group.

What you need is transparency, and openness to discussion and criticism which means that people need to shout down those who would blame members for not knowing about polygamy.  You need to have classes that open up discussion about hard topics.  You need to encourage critical thinking and criticism of bad policies.  And what better policy to strike down than something that encourages pedophilia and abuse in the church?

As my closing thought, I leave you with an active member of the church, who believes, and envisions a more open discussion.  Imagine if these thoughts were implemented instead of “Defend the image of the church” rhetoric in the essays and the bloggers around them, how much less “like a cult” the church would be.  A younger me would have agreed with him, the current me, however, sees him as optimistic, because I’m afraid, the incentives all lie down the cult path… unless the members change the incentives.

 

 

Posted in Apologetics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Greg Trimble, the word is “Adultery”

Posted on November 18, 2014 by Mithryn

In this post Greg Trimble makes a plea for the world to stop “hating mormons” for polygamy.

Let’s get one thing straight, polygamy is the nice word.  It was adultery.

From the perspective of the state of Illinois in 1833 forward, these marriages were illegal.  They were not performed by a justice of the peace or any other figure of authority, and hence were not marriages.  That makes any “plural marriage” in Illinois really just an adulterous relationship according to the law, where some empty promises were stated.

From the perspective of the temple ceremony, one should only have sexual relations with one’s spouse to whom they are legally and lawfully wed in order to be chaste, which makes these relationships unchaste.

From the perspective of Emma, the Fanny Alger interaction in 1832, 4 years before a ceremony was recorded, and 3 years before the sealing power was restored was adulterous.  She called it a “Transaction”.

So let’s be straight, it’s time the LDS church stop the spin words and call it “Adultery”.  Jews, muslims, and atheists all get to mock members who see “Adultery” as sacred.  That’s perfectly within their right.

Now, let’s cover the lies that Greg Trimble  spreads:

“the fact that polygamy took place 150 years ago in the LDS church.”

Nope.  In 1905 Mathew Crowley, an apostle, was sealed to a 19 year old.  That means that polygamous marriages that were condoned stopped in the U.S. about 109 years ago.  But Apostle Ivins was sent to Mexico to continue the practice where it was also illegal.  So 150 years isn’t even remotely true.

The media has no idea why Mormons practiced polygamy…so don’t listen to them.

Mr. Trimble , the media was very much “listening to them”.  The essays were published not just by some loser on the internet with a computer like you and me, but by Church Headquarters.  THAT is why it was news.  Because for the first time, in the lifetimes of the reporters at the New York Times, the LDS church was upfront about the “Why”.

The Church is making a big push to get everything aired out. They’re cleaning out their closet.

Except that they left out a ton of details.  The infamous “Footnote 40” for example points out that all of the sources on the line “Emma knew about some of the marriages”, all the sources listed indicate she did not know about the marriages.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy that the church is being more open, but until the PR department stops with the double speak, the religion that asks its members to be honest in their dealings with their fellow men will be mocked for not being open and honest.  You can live with that, or you can leave with that, but don’t blame us.

detractors of the Church are otherwise presenting in a decontextualized fashion.

Given that the LDS essays state things like “We cannot know how Emma felt about polygamy” when, in fact, she published anti-polygamy statements in Relief Society and threw the children married to Joseph out of her house, I don’t think Mr. Trimble understands what “Decontextualized” means.

Mormon’s don’t live polygamy today and haven’t done so for over 120 years. So how come the media and others can’t just leave it alone.

Liar!  Mormons still practice polygamy.  The are called the FLDS, and they believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith just like you do; so you shouldn’t leave them out of your definition of Mormon, unless you’re fine with Christians calling you non-christian even though you believe in Christ.  And why do they practice polygamy, because John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young and Joseph said to!  Something about it being a new and everlasting  covenant that would not be taken from the earth until Christ returned, but hey; that’s I guess too direct a definition for the LDS.   But also, as covered, it was only 109 years ago that new marriages stopped.

That 19 year old woman who married Apostle Crowley in 1905, she lived until 1964, meaning you could have a man and two women on the church pew at a ward in 1964 that were polygamous LDS.  That’s only 50 years ago.

There’s a  major problem with how these topics hit the mainstream media. As they come across your Facebook or Twitter feed in the morning, you’re hit with a title that makes it seem as if no one had ever known about polygamy prior to this week.

I think, Mr. Trimble , the surprise was the quantity of marriages.  40.  Think of that number.  To put it in context, imagine a football team on the field, all those men/boys in helmets and shoulder pads, now that’s 22 people on the field.  Joseph was married to almost as many women as both teams put together.  Or perhaps you can pick another sport and use it, as 44 may be going a bit high; but the news wasn’t just “He married a second wife”.  He married a lot of women.

Along with that, the 14-year-old was scandalous.  Do you remember when this made news?

Joseph Smith did this too

Why was that news?  Because it is scandalous.  And admitting that this bastard was closer to Joseph Smith’s behavior than Thomas S. Monson; that is news.

Let’s put it one more way to help you understand.  Let’s say that it was found out that 100 years ago, the Pope had 10 illegitimate wives and two were teenagers.  Do you think, for a minute, that wouldn’t be front page news?  You’re not that special.  Your religion deserves scrutiny.

Joseph was never painted as a perfect man to me.

I take this line to be proof Greg Trimble  never stepped into any visitor center held by the church or talked to the missionaries.  I dare him to pretend to be a non-mormon and ask a pair of missionaries to criticize Joseph Smith and say his greatest flaws.  Yeah.

All you have to do is read some of the first few sections of the doctrine and covenants to watch Joseph Smith get rebuked by the Lord over and over again.

Mr. Trimble  is here using the “Prophets aren’t perfect” defense.  Let me be absolutely clear why this is not okay.  Are you listening Mr. Trimble ?  I hope so,  I hope this gets back to you.  Joseph Smith did not just “sin”.  He didn’t just “make mistakes”.  He wasn’t just “imperfect”.  He committed felonies in banking and was found guilty, manipulated the Lawrence out of their inheritance when their parents died, and then fucked them both (They both bore testimony at the temple lot case), he promised salvation to Helen Mar Kimball’s family giving her 24-hours to decide to marry him, he drove Orson Pratt, an apostle to near suicide, he broke the law of the land, the law of the state, and certainly went counter to the culture at the time.

Reading his actions becomes a manual to those who would manipulate and control women and men for sexual gratification.  EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE JOSEPH DID NOT, one must reject his actions.  The LDS church should not just admit this happened, but decry it as foul, and distasteful to anyone who believes in God and morality, or else you leave open the possibility for future individuals to use Joseph’s methods on youth and unsuspecting individuals in the church.

My own mother was approached in the 1950’s (That’s when there were still apostle’s polygamist wives in pews, remember [update 11/18/2014, I believed that Cowley died in 1954, but had really died in 1940.  I was corrected on this and so changed this from being about apostles being in the pews.  See when we are corrected we should admit it, and correct it.)] to be someone’s fifth wife.  She turned him down, to her credit, but lived in fear of this man the rest of her life.  So this is not just an academic debate to some of us.  It isn’t just the “Church stopped in 150 years ago so what is the big deal”.  It impacted our lives.

Further, Mr. Trimble , if you want to be honest with your readers you should perhaps mention that Polygamy, cannonically, could come back at any time and that church leaders who did not practice it could be removed from their positions, historically.  Yes, this is still open that the LDS prophet could say tomorrow “This is happening again” and it could.. so the argument “This all happened 150 years ago” isn’t only a lie, but a hollow excuse even if it were true.

If he was just doing what he was commanded…and you believe he was a prophet…then plural marriage shouldn’t taint the “practically perfect” picture you initially had of the prophet.

And here, Mr. Trimble  is where you insult everyone else who believes in God.  You see, the idea that God is a rapist, that He would force, against the will, a man and woman to become joined for all eternity is repugnant to anyone who isn’t in love with Joseph Smith.  They see through this as a shallow excuse.  If you really believe that God will force people at sword point to join their fates for all eternity, and perhaps sexually, probably sexually, (I mean, we have evidence to support up to 45% of the women having a sexual relation with Joseph and direct testimony for over 20%), you have a very very different view of God than your audience you began with.

Yeah, they think this is a big deal, because you’re saying “I believe God is a rapist, and you shouldn’t talk about me thinking that”.

The drawn sword doesn’t make polygamy okay, it calls into question whether Joseph was actually talking to God.

That means that it was Jesus that was commanding the most well known and loved Old Testament prophets to live the law of polygamy at various times in history.

And here we have the next lie.  Did God command anyone, ever, to enter into polygamy in the bible?  Abraham DOES, but does God command it?  King David does, but does God command it?

No.  This is only stated in the Pearl of Great Price, written by Joseph Smith (As it has no relation to the funerary text on the papyri as admitted to in another church essay, we can well call Smith the Author until another source document is found) is the only source for this idea.  So no, it’s a lie that God commanded polygamy and every other religion can see that (Except maybe Muslims as they have their own take).

Why do people make Joseph Smith into some kind of a monster but omit the fact that Jesus commanded those Old Testament prophets and that those prophets lived that principle fully?

Because it isn’t a fact, and Joseph Smith didn’t just marry a handmaiden and get traded over mandrake root; he took other men’s wives and little girls under threats, oaths, and to the detriment of his followers.  That makes him a monster.

Why can’t you see that?

Maybe it’s personal bias.  Here is how we could check.  Mr. Trimble , write a piece defending another polygamous person who made the news, Warren Jeffs.  Defend him with all the vigor you defended Joseph and I’ll believe you that, in fact, this isn’t just a big ol’ slab of personal bias aired out for the world to read.

Until then, I think you need to look deep into the mirror and really think about why the rest of the world views Joseph as a monster.  Because the rest of the world would have locked him away as one.  And that’s even in historical context.

Posted in Apologetics | Tagged , , , , | 17 Comments

Mormons and UFO’s

Posted on September 11, 2014 by Mithryn

Today is my Reddit Cakeday;

And I always like to have something special for that so lets talk about Mormons and aliens

Continue reading →

Posted in Humor and wit, Nutty Mormon History | 8 Comments

A leading FAIR apologist strikes back

Posted on August 25, 2014 by Mithryn

After my last post, some feedback was sent to me by a certain apologist.  I will be reviewing his feedback to illustrate the problems with a lifetime of mental gymnastics.

Complaint the first

 I love the idea that I made “personal attacks on Jeremy Runnells at the recent FAIR [sic] conference.” I never so much as mentioned his name — not a single time –

The idea that one is a bully can be refuted by simply never using the individual’s name.  So if I were to say that the man who produced BYU Studies for years is an ignoramous on social matters, that’s not bad at all.  For me to say that the speaker about the CES Letter at the 2014 FAIR Conference has very little social grace absolves me from all responsibilities simply because I don’t name him.  Clearly the idea that one never mentions a name, but simply identifies them by what they did, could never lead to bullying behavior.

But I never doubted for a moment that, whatever I said or did, I would be accused of attacking him personally and of being a bully. In fact, I predicted it to several people well in advance of the conference.

If you go around calling all the girls on the playground weaklings, and they call you a bully, it takes no predictive power to guess that if you go back on the playground and call another girl a weakling, that you will be called a bully.  If you do the behavior, then you earn the label, Mr. Peterson.

As a service, I will rewrite the intro to your talk, how a non-bully might say it.  There are hundreds of ways to say the same thing without the bully-speak, and it is possible that you’ve been a bully for so long that you don’t know how, so I will help you.

[Voice of Daniel Peterson]:

Many people have asked me to speak about this “Letter to a CES director” so I am.  I have not had time to review the document in its entirety.  However, what I notice is that it contains many of the same questions that most of us at FAIR have had to answer at one time or another.

The typical CES system doesn’t address a lot of these issues.  I don’t think most members are aware, and they can feel blindsided when they read some of these.

That is why FAIR exists.  That is why we have conferences.  We gather to answer the hard questions.  I feel that the author could have worked with FAIR had he reached different conclusions, but we shouldn’t mock, or feel threatened by this letter; because out of good questions, are forged scientists, and sociologists and great men who do good research.

See? The same ideas, the same discussion of lots of questions and feeling that one doesn’t need to read the letter, but without the bully-speak.  It’s easy, you just have to attack the argument and not the man.  Got that?

Complaint the second

Incidentally, I don’t think your friend supplied a link to the transcription of my remarks that’s now up on the FairMormon site. It has some minor mechanical inaccuracies, but I haven’t yet had time to read through it:

Guilty as charged.  Normally I include the link at the top and I forgot on this one.  Good eagle-eye there, Dan.  I have updated the original with the link.  In addition, I have included a novel concept.  It is a datestamp and the symbol “[Update]” to illustrate that there was a modification from the original.  This way, if someone were to read your words, and then check my website, it wouldn’t look like you were a liar, but it illustrates that you were correct, and I responded.

Your friends at FAIR who maintain the CES Letter rebuttal could use this concept. That way they wouldn’t accidentally (I’m sure they’d never intentionally deceive people) implicate that Jeremy was lying by changing issues he cites on the FAIR website without any kind of update.  It’s misleading and could hurt Jeremy’s credibility.  For a list of times they have done this, you can review this page.

Complaint the third

 But cherry-picking and spinning what I said can distort what I said even if what I said is accurately quoted.

It could, but he would have to actually re-read what he said and what I wrote to tell, and he admits:

I haven’t yet had time to read through it.

Bully behavior.  I don’t have time to read my own talk, nor the rebuttal… but I have the ability to cast doubt on the author that he/she is cherry-picking.

I’m sure he’ll insinuate that I’m cherry-picking here, despite actually knowing (and being able to review it at any time) that I have pretty much quoted the entire conversation.  Why defend your own words when you can always create doubt around them?

Complaint the fourth

And I don’t need to read somebody’s web article about whether or not I’m paid for apologetics in order to know what the truth is. However, if you prefer to regard me as a liar, that’s your prerogative. Have a good night!

Let’s discuss whether or not Mr. Peterson was paid, but to do that we need to think like an apologist a bit.

First, notice he says “I’m paid,” present tense.  I said “paid” in the past-tense.  It is true that Mr. Peterson is not currently paid, as he was fired.  So yes, what he is saying is technically true, but what I said is also technically true.

Now as to paid,  Mr. Daniel C. Peterson, did you:

1) Receive any currency for services or goods by the Corporation of the President, the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop  or any of the subsidiaries?

For example, when you were professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University, were you paid any form of currency for your work?

2) Receive any special status, bonus amounts, front-row tickets to conference seats, enhanced opportunities within your job to speak to the Board of Directors of BYU, or any other favor?

For example, when you were  the former editor of the FARMS Review (now the Mormon Studies Review), a periodical produced by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, did you do it solely out of the goodness of your heart, or did you get any business favors out of this effort?

What happened to the funds in excess of the cost of printing for the magazines?

3) Receive funding for special projects in which either travel, equipment, learning materials, etc. were paid for in advance or reimbursed?

When the church says that General Authorities, such as mission presidents, are not paid, it means that they are reimbursed  for all their expenses.

So what Mr. Peterson might mean when he says he is “not paid” is that individuals donate to FAIR when he and others speak, and then those dollars fund trips to South America that allow them to do things they would not otherwise be allowed to do.  This removes the definition of “paid” that the IRS has, but not how we common-folk think of being paid.  For instance, if you allow individuals to use your boat, but do not “pay” them, it can still land one in hot water if they are government officials.

So in Peterson’s mind I’m sure he feels he is not “paid,” but in our minds, I think it is clear that he received dollars from the organization as well as likely special favors.

[update] Regardless of pay, if one receives special favors for the work one does, that should be considered as to the bias it can create.  This is why people are concerned by campaign contributions, for example.

For full disclosure, my total in favors for doing this website is around $37.52.

Free website (thanks nocoolnametom) and webhosting efforts about $7.99.

Two meals at speaking engagements.

One case of beer.

One “Scooby snack” drink at a gathering.

One book trying to convince me that there was a literal Jesus.

Indirect contributions:

I have had lunch with a number of exmos and almost been sued by Will Bagley.  I was invited to a Facebook group of historians for my work, and have an offer to co-author a paper with my research.

[Update]:  Someone else did some additional research on FAIR/FARMS/MAXWELL INSTITUTE special favors and such a long time ago.  

Posted in Apologetics | 1 Comment