Lesson 3: The Great Apostasy

Posted on March 20, 2014 by Mithryn

Oh boy, here we go.  Actually verifiable information that we can look up, post information about, and get into detail with.

“The Apostles, after the Ascension of Christ, continued to exercise the keys He left with them. But because of disobedience and loss of faith by the members, the Apostles died without the keys being passed on to successors. We call that tragic episode ‘the Apostasy’” (Henry B. Eyring,“The True and Living Church,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2008, 21).

The great question that needs to be asked is “When”.  When did this apostasy take place? When Peter went to Rome and became the first pope according to the Catholic historical record, had the apostasy already occurred?   When did the apostles die and who were the replacements that didn’t have authority?

The bible doesn’t tell us about any except for Judas ( Acts 12:2) and gives hints that John the Revelator (beloved) was the last alive.  But the 7 churches mentioned in revelations had not by that point, fallen into apostasy.

Eusebius, “the father of Church history”, whose Ecclesiastical History was written in the early fourth century gives the best historical accounts.  Bishops traced their lines of succession back to individual apostles, who were said to have dispersed from Jerusalem and established churches across great territories. Christian bishops have traditionally claimed authority deriving, by apostolic succession, from the Twelve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_(Christian))

So how does Mr. Eyring have an insight into the apostasy?  What Joseph Smith said Jesus said is the best I’ve got.  I’d love to know if he actually used any other source, but I find no evidence for it.  Appeals to authority, all the way up.

The Object lesson

Bring to class a mechanical part that is necessary for a machine or piece of equipment to work (such as a power cord from an appliance or computer, a chain or wheel from a bicycle, or spark plugs from a car). Show students the part and ask them what it belongs to and what it does. (If you don’t have access to a mechanical part, draw one on the board.)

This is a fascinating object lesson, because it implies that the church would stop without this essential component.  Perhaps most LDS mormons don’t know that the some of the seven early churches existed into the 4th century (such as the church of Corinth, destroyed in 375 a.d.) and Thessalonica survived to the modern day.

Further many of the early christian writings still exist and were there in and around the 1st and 2nd century BC. These mention subjects such as infant baptism (~100 a.d.) and female bishops/deacons (~2oo a.d.) only a few years after the book of Revelation was written (~80 a.d), and certainly taking place during the life span of people who knew and spoke with apostles.  It is very difficult to imagine such ideas springing up without the bishops/apostles knowing.

Apostles and prophets form the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ.

To help students identify another essential element of Jesus Christ’s Church, display the picture Christ Ordaining the Apostles (Gospel Art Book, no. 38)

It is interesting to note that in the bible it actually states that Jesus “Breathed on them” and never mentions the laying on of hands, something pretty key in the LDS church-commissioned drawing that is shown to the students.  Other churches state that the washing of the feet is the “ordination” of the apostles.  To be clear, the LDS faith shows a picture depicting the way they think it happened to the students to help the students “think clearer”.

in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority” (“The Doctrine of Christ,” Ensignor Liahona, May 2012, 86).

I propose a challenge to students and teachers of seminary alike:  Please write down what is and is not doctrine of the church.  Discuss how doctrine is defined, and whether the church has released any new doctrine in the latest 100 years.  Is the word of wisdom as given by Heber J. Grant (Weak drinks of barley -beer “forbidden” as opposed to “good” as stated in D&C 89)?  Is the proclamation on the family doctrine?  Is the manifesto doctrine?  What about the recent PR reports about homosexuality, or essays published on LDS.org.  Are they doctrine?

Show students the Basic Doctrines list found in the appendix of this manual or in students’ scripture study journals. Explain that seminary students are encouraged to gain a deeper understanding of the Basic Doctrines throughout their time in seminary.

Point out that this “Basic doctrines” list was not put together by prophets and apostles, and does not include key things that prophets and apostles taught such as the Adam-God doctrine taught by Brigham Young for over 37 years.  Point out the humor in that the “basic doctrines” list is, in fact, not doctrinal as a list of basic doctrines.

Discuss questions that are frequently asked (Evolution as the origin of life, the big bang theory vs. 6 day creation, etc.) and ask the children or teacher why prophets have not made statements of doctrine about these questions.

Further, point out these scriptures that define “doctrine” quite differently from “Whatever LDS apostles say”:

3 Nephi 11: 31, 40

Testify that in the Church of Jesus Christ we can receive ordinances that are necessary for our salvation.

What is interesting here, is that the lesson manual has, in fact, not gone into the LDS church history about the priesthood authority at all.  The fact that there is no date recorded for the Melchizedek priesthood, no mention that Elders used to be part of the Aaronic priesthood, and other questionable moments in mormon history is not covered weakens the supposition that the LDS prophets and apostles can be so precise as to know that all apostolic power was lost before, when they don’t even know the date they got it back.

 Jesus Christ leads and guides His Apostles through revelation.

This is problematic to leave this statement out there without definition.  There is no description of the process.  It makes one feel as though the Apostles make decisions day to day by interacting with a divine being.  However; there seems to be little evidence that this is so.  Even friends and family of apostles make no claims that the apostles have seen Christ since Lorenzo Snow made the claim in 1890.

As the students or teacher how they could identify a second apostasy today.  If apostolic priesthood power were lost, what changes would we expect to see in the church.  Might it refocus its efforts from salvation to building malls?  Would it perhaps be reflected in reduced charitable works to the poor and the needy (Today, only about $3-$4 per member per year of money given to the church for humanitarian works ever makes it to assist the poor and the needy).

 Apostasy occurs when people turn away from the true doctrine of the gospel and reject the Lord’s authorized servants.

Quotes that indicate the church is already in apostasy:

I would be surprised if ten percent of those who claim to hold the Melchizedek priesthood will remain faithful to the gospel at the time of the seventh president and that there would be thousands that think they hold the priesthood at that time, but would not have it properly conferred upon them. (Minutes of a meeting, September 7, 1886- probably the first presidency meeting.)

Brethren, this church will be led onto the very brink of hell by the leaders of this people, then God will send the one mighty and strong spoken of in the 85th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, to save and redeem this church. (Brigham Young quoted about D&C 85:7, Truth, March 1, 1936, 1:10, p. 135)

“The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of God, they considered to be false prophets and hence they killed, stoned, punished and imprisoned the true prophets, and these had to hide themselves “in deserts and dens, and caves of the earth,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Pg. 205) (If anyone gives the argument that the church is big, and ergo the true church, this is a good counter argument)

“If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does” Wilford Woodruff JOD 13:165 – p.166

“I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that.” (Joseph F. Smith Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, pp. 28-31)

Ask the students or teacher, why, if there are so many indications that the LDS faith would be considered as “apostate” does the manual give the student no firm set of guidelines for testing for apostasy in the church other than “Follow the leaders”?

“James was killed in Jerusalem by Herod. Peter and Paul died in Rome. Tradition holds that Philip went to the East. Much more than this we do not know.

“They scattered; they taught, testified, and established the Church. And they died for their beliefs, and with their deaths came the dark centuries of apostasy” (“The Twelve,” Ensign orLiahona, May 2008, 84).

I know that SOME of you probably wondered about me quoting Eusebius, and listing it as as source.  But here we have Boyd Packer quoting Eusebius as though it were solid history and perhaps even doctrine.  But Esebius mentions Peter going to Rome to become Pope, which means that Boyd K. Packer has read the history and agrees with it, I guess, right up until the line “And Peter became the first pope”, and then he tosses it out?  Or maybe he has some secret source other than what the rest of the world has.  It’s a pity that apostles and prophets never cite original sources.

As the centuries passed, the flame flickered and dimmed. Ordinances were changed or abandoned. The line was broken, and the authority to confer the Holy Ghost as a gift was gone. The Dark Ages of apostasy settled over the world” (“The Cloven Tongues of Fire,” Ensign, May 2000, 8).

[CITATION NEEDED].  When did it flicker?  Was it 300 a.d. as Orson Hyde said? because then women bishops and infant baptism would be pre-apostasy.  Was it the day John the Revelation died/was translated/left the isle of patmos?  This quote seems to imply that false doctrines entered slowly over time, that the priesthood withered over generations.

Why do you think it is important to understand the Great Apostasy and its consequences?

Because it is important to question everything.  Even the very thought of the Great Apostasy.  If the great apostasy didn’t happen, then there was no need for a restoration, and Joseph Smith is a con-man, plain and simple.  The entirety of the set of mormon claims, including the LDS depend upon a rock-solid explanation of a great apostasy.  But here we are given no dates, no deaths, no explanation of what was lost when.  No details no citations, no history.

In fact, the entire lesson could be summed up as “The great apostasy happened because we say so, and priesthood authority was lost because we say it exists and only we have it now even though we give no dates or details.”  A very poor argument indeed.

You may think me harsh, but consider for a moment what this lesson is claiming.  That everyone, everywhere since about 300 a.d. (or earlier) has been absolutely wrong about God, except for the LDS since about 1830.  This is an extraordinary claim, and no where is discussed why God wouldn’t have restored the church before Joseph Smith.  No where is discussed why God would condemn so many individuals who patiently and respectfully worshiped him even giving their lives for their beliefs with Him refusing to give them so much as a shred of priesthood light.  William Tyndale, Joan of Arc, Martin Luther.  Martyr after martyr was insufficient for God to give them priesthood, when even the original apostles failed, according to this lesson, to hold together priesthood power for at most 400 years.

In the supplemental reading, Elder M. Russel Ballard states about the great apostasy:

Our Heavenly Father loves all of His children, and He wants them all to have the blessings of the gospel in their lives. Spiritual light is not lost because God turns His back on His children. Rather, spiritual darkness results when His children turn their collective backs on Him.  (“Learning the Lessons of the Past,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2009, 32).

This is blaming the victims.  It is callous to write off every show of devotion to the christian god throughout history as mankind turning their backs on God.  As the fires burned under the martyrs who stood for what they believed and sealed their beliefs for their deaths, we are to understand they were still turning their backs on God.

This lesson has no sources, citations or history, while making auspicious claims that mankind was all fallen except for the LDS faith.  It is packed with hubris.  It ignores even the church’s own definitions of “apostasy” in order to turn children to redefine it as “anyone who doesn’t follow the dear leaders”.  It provides no tools for identifying systematic apostasy and blames individuals for guilt and sin (also defined as not following what the leaders say.

This lesson is a pure F.  It has little redeeming value and should be demanded to be re-written in its entirety by historical scholars and those who care about not using thought-control to generate devotion in the youth, rather than safeguard against actual “apostasy” as defined by previous church leadership.

Posted in Seminary Manuals | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Ordain Women and cultish behaviors

Posted on March 20, 2014 by Mithryn

Okay, I’ve read the press release, and I’ve heard the replies.  I have friends on both sides. So here are my thoughts for different groups outlined for each:

Ordain Women members:

I don’t get it.  I mean, I get wanting the priesthood, but why not just leave and go to the Community of Christ.  I’m not saying that you should leave, but I look at the testimony of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, and say, “It’s really similar”.  I mean, like your family has been shopping at Walmart for generations, but Target is in the same parking lot, and sells stuff that is very similar.  Why not switch?  Yes, stand where you are, but if you stop shopping at Walmart, and move your business to Target, it ALSO changes things.

I’m sure you are able to come up with reasons, but I want the point made, that you are sticking with this organization for reasons that may not be completely up to you.  Perhaps it’s the peer pressure on family.  Maybe you have a testimony of Mr. Monson specifically, (although I’d challenge you to pray over the leadership of the Community of Christ, after studying it out in your mind first).  But I think the main reason you are staying in an organization that disrespects you and your goals is because of cultish behaviors the organization used on you.

When groups use these behaviors, even when the group is wrong about end of the world dates, people become more committed.  And I’ve seen several facebook posts and Joanna Brooks statement that the church refusing to allow the protesters in has rededicated people to the cause.

Just think, Target is across the street, it’s cheaper; and you’d get beer in the deal.  Just saying.

To the LDS who rush to defense of the church

The billion dollar organization that had teams of researchers and marketing people on the payroll does not /need/ your voice bullying other members of the organization

Stop it.  Just stop it.  You’re bullying and supporting an organization that is bullying a minority.  Women who dare to want to ask for ordination are easy targets.

But further…

If you cannot state any reason why women should not be ordained beyond “The leaders said so” or “God says so” you’re making the church more cult-like.

NOTICE: I DID NOT SAY THE CHURCH WAS A CULT.  I am not attacking the church.  I’m attacking the behavior that drives the church to be more cult-like.

You see, the word “cult” is almost useless because of how emotionally charged it is.  However, there are behaviors identified by groups as harmful for being “cult-like”.  Here is the big 9 (source Cults 101 + the Human Givens institute for number 9):

  1.  The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader
  2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
  3. Mind-altering practices are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
  4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel
  5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (In this case, Men over Women)
  6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
  7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities
  8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary.
  9. The group discourages learning

Now let’s see how the LDS who rush to the church’s defense create a cult-like atmosphere

First, they unquestioningly support the status quo.  They state that “God wants it that way” despite there being no scriptural backing for women not holding the priesthood (beyond perhaps 1 Timothy 2:12,  where it says that women shouldn’t even speak in church, but I don’t think any members seriously hold with that scripture or else the Relief Society would be a problem.).  Second, they are telling these women they shouldn’t question the status quo.  No doubt in how things are today is permitted.  I don’t think the third point applies.  But in the forth, I think that the Ordain Women press release did try to tell the members how to think and feel.   That they should accept their roles (or rolls) and not be unhappy about it.  I will wager that the church will even have a talk to this effect during conference.

But the LDS member who rushes in defense of the church commonly states something similar as well, saying “Women who want the priesthood are thinking wrong” or “They should be content”.  Thought and emotional control is implicit if not explicitly stated in most posts.

That the group that is “With the leadership” often uses tone of voice to imply they are better than (“I never wanted the priesthood!”) the other group is also cult-like in nature.  That posts and discussion of it often makes statements such as “He’s the prophet, no one should tell him what to do but Jesus” hits right on the head for the 7th and 8th traits of a cult.  The prophet should be held accountable to the membership, that’s what Joseph Smith taught in the law of common consent.  If the membership voted for something even against a revelation he let it stand.

And now the ever famous number 9.  This wasn’t listed on Cult 101, but it’s often cited that the number of degrees and love of learning of the LDS implies the religion is not a cult by members, so I wanted to cover it.

Specifically, if you are a scientist, or a lawyer or a historian;  if your profession is computer programmer or zoologist; and your reasoning is “Because God said so” or “Because the brethren say it should be that way” you are guilty of making the church more cult-like.  You have the learning, but you have to apply it.

Take your profession and apply it to the question at hand.  Would a computer programmer accept that only women can program in C++ because the CEO said so?  Does the historian simply ignore that women ordained and blessed people in the church until into the early 1900’s.  Does the seminary teacher ignore that there is NO revelation (That I’ve been able to find) actually stating that women are forbidden from the priesthod?  Does the scientist appeal to authority rather than construct an experiment (Double blind ordinations and healing where the person being blessed does not know if it is done by a man or a woman, for example to see if God heals at the same rate regardless of gender.  A/B testing with placebos, good enough for websites and penicillin tests, should also help with God, yes?)

My point is if you turn your brain off, shout down the voices that raise questions and rush to the status quo with blog posts and testimonies all based solely on a leadership decree, it’s bullying and making the church a worse place.

Please follow your leader’s advice and “Just Stop it”.

Posted in Current issues | 1 Comment

Lesson 2: Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants

Posted on March 14, 2014 by Mithryn

Original lesson here

We begin with the positive claim that the doctrine and covenants:

 “contain divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days” 

This is a positive claim that must be proven by the author.  Hence I will be evaluating future lessons for evidence that they were given to establish the kingdom of God in the last days.  All points cane be tested.

  1. They are divine revelations
  2. They establish the kingdom of God
  3. They are for the last days

Books of the world

The lesson manual asks the teacher to ask this question directly of the students:

  • What books do you think the entire world would benefit from reading? Why? (Consider displaying a few books that you would suggest.)

Please take a minute to consider this for yourself.  It’s a great question that really states “What knowledge matters most” to the person answering it.

The manual answers this question by a quote with Joseph Smith:

“The Doctrine and Covenants is] the foundation of the Church in these last days, and a benefit to the world, showing that the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom of our Savior are again entrusted to man” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 194).

Another positive claim that needs to be backed up.  Certainly if alien life (Kolob-ians) had communicated with man and given him super powers to know the future and heal the sick, that would be something that should be read by just about everyone.  It’s a very key claim to make.

Another quote is given that the Doctrine and Covenants is

it is worth more to us than the riches of the earth

And certainly, I think Richard Dawkins and Niel Digrasse Tyson would give up everything they own for a chance to have such an interaction with alien life.

And I would bet that if actual aliens claimed to believe in Jesus Christ, that even Richard Dawkins would give up counter claims. This is big stuff, and the manual is right to bring it out.  These claims are truly extraordinary and thus, require extraordinary evidence.

The lesson is peppared with emotions instead of evidence however.  Statement after statement is having students talk about how the book has already helped them, or how everyone on earth would benefit from such a book or from stronger testimony.  These are sales pitches.

Imagine that a major magazine published an article that a scientist made contact with alien life, and granted to him super powers.  At first, it might seem to be the most important thing you could read, especially when it mentioned that the alien wants to give super powers to all humans if they will listen.

But then the magazine doesn’t give any specifics.  No dates, times or details about the communication.  Just testimony after testimony and lots of statements about how this will change mankind.  Now imagine that you close the magazine and find out that this was dated 100 years ago.  What might lead you to be skeptical of the claims in the magazine?  What changes in the world might you expect if the magazine’s sources were accurate?

The Lord

Then the lesson states:

You may want to explain that in the Doctrine and Covenants, terms such as “the Lord” or “God” generally refer to Jesus Christ.

This is interesting.  In the King James version, Jehovah was replaced with “The Lord” to respect the name of God.  Not knowing this resulted in shock on my mission when running into people of other faiths, and I can only see this as ill-preparing the youth for understanding how “The Lord” is viewed  by most of the world.  It is only the mormon faiths that view “Jehovah” as Jesus’s pre-existence name, and it is interesting that Joseph and the being he was talking to used the King James term “The Lord”, that doesn’t exist in any other language, as the name of Jesus when communicating back and forth.

Next the manual asks the teacher to show pictures.

What is interesting is that they show the actual real life portrait of Emma smith, but an LDS artist’s rendition of Joseph Smith instead of the portrait painted of Joseph at the same time

Joseph Smith. you can see the style matches the style used with Emma fairly clearly

Then the lesson gives an activity:

Display a piece of paper with the word You written on it. Point out that just like individuals from Church history, we also go through situations in which we need divine guidance.

At first I was all like “okay they are going to talk about how the individual can know these things”, but then no, it was more of the “imagine how awesome this would be for you”.  Again, no evidence, but lots of appeal to emotion.

These claims are not small, and they deserve to be critically and skeptically approached.  Even just a note “We will be reviewing evidence that Joseph Smith truly did have contact with God in later lessons” would be sufficient.  But in honesty the lesson never doubts or allows room to question IF Joseph did these things.  It makes every attempt to stop children from having thoughts about how to tell which “revelations are of man, which are of God and which are of the devil” (Something that Joseph Smith actually said) and instead assumes all of them are of God.

 

Finally the lesson states to

Invite students to summarize what they have learned

I’m not sure the students have learned anything.  Things have been claimed and stated at them, but there was no actual chance to learn anything.

Invite students to turn to the “Testimony of the Twelve Apostles to the Truth of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants,” which is in the introduction. Ask a student to read the first two paragraphs aloud

Without a mention that many of these apostles recanted their witnesses later, or that some had “fallen away” previous to this point.  Not even a qualification.

 Invite students to write in their class notebooks or scripture study journals how they hope the Doctrine and Covenants will benefit their lives and what they will do to help this happen

Over and over, “This will help you, tell me how it will help you; write down how you think this will help you”.  This is not objective thought and reasoning together, this is closer on the scale of cultish tools.  It is stating and restating over and over emotionally-focused self-convincing statements that push others to accept the conclusion before actual learning has occurred.

Commentary and Background Information

First is a statement by a prophet.  Just an appeal to authority.

The second discusses the history of the Doctrine and Covenants castigating the opponents as a “mob” without further background.  It leaves out changes made to the revelations which were the reasons that many of the leadership (including David Whitmer) left the church.  But they do discuss the lectures on Faith that were removed by name.  It seems that they KNOW the details, they just don’t share all of them; something defined as lying in lesson 31 of the Sunday school manual on honesty.

Finally after making numberous specific claims, they only reference the Joseph Smith Papers main website as a source. This is just poor scholarship.  They made the claims, they should list sources for each claim that link directly to a source about that claim.

SUMMARY: Emotion focused rhetoric ending with a lie and bad scholarship when making extraordinary claims.  Very poor lesson in deed.  See me after class.  0 points.

 

Posted in Seminary Manuals | Leave a comment

Doctrine and History of the Church Seminary Manual Lesson 1: The Plan of Salvation

Posted on March 14, 2014 by Mithryn

Lesson 1: The Plan of Salvation

The seminary manual begins with Boyd K. Packer’s quote about the importance of teaching the plan of salvation.  It correctly cites the source, although it is an appeal to authority, we’re going to have to accept that appeal to authority is going to be common here.

I’m tempted to doc points because this was a lecture to CES teachers, which makes it a circular reference.  It would be better to find some source of a quote outside the CES system.  Something like quoting the principle of one’s high school in one’s English paper.

The interesting bit, for me is that Boyd gives this reasoning for why to teach the plan of happiness:

“Young people wonder ‘why?’—Why are we commanded to do some things, and why are we commanded not to do other things? A knowledge of the plan of happiness, even in outline form, can give young minds a ‘why’”

Namely, controlling what people do or not do (or if you prefer the milder version, answer why individuals are permitted or not permitted to do things).  It straight out states that the atonement and the plan of salvation answers that question.

It then has a student quote from the Book of Moses as to the purpose of God’s activity (See Moses 1:39).  It has no description of where the book of Moses came from (there was no text translated from, it was simply Joseph Smith stating that this was scripture).  It does not discuss alternate purposes God states for himself in the bible, or what other faiths might believe the purpose is.  There is no alternative view.

Some of these scriptures:

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalms 19:1 NASB)

The heavens declare His righteousness, And all the peoples have seen His glory. (Psalms 97:6 NASB)

this is what the LORD says– he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited– he says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other. (Isaiah 45:18)

Which is to say, that God did it to show off His glory.

Perhaps this refusal to discuss other views, or other scriptures is an oversight… or maybe they just need to focus.  It’s the introduction after all.

Immortality vs. Eternal Life

But then the lesson focuses on this as the ONLY definition, and jump straight into a quote by Bruce R. McConkie:

“God’s life is eternal life; eternal life is God’s life —the expressions are synonymous” (Mormon Doctrine,2nd ed. [1966], 237).

Right off the bat we have a contradiction.  Are we supposed to believe in the book Mormon Doctrine, as it defines things?  Was there never a time when a prophet, from the pulpit, stated the difference between immortality and eternal life that wouldn’t cause a doctrine vs. non doctrine issue in the first lesson?  No wonder mormon doctrine is so difficult to define, when the church’s own education system uses non doctrine to define terms in the first lesson.

The Plan 

The plan as defined is given from a few verses in the Book of Abraham.  Despite it being rejected by virtually every other Mormon sect, and being dis-proven to be a funerary text by scholars, who have even directly rebutted the remaining explanations by apologists in published form.

So why use such a disputed source?  My answer is “Product differentiation”.  This is one of the main doctrines that holds the LDS faith different from every other faith.  The plan of salvation doesn’t really answer the question “Why did god make man”, it just pushes it back a generation (“Why did God’s father, grandfather, or the first God ever create creatures to become gods?  In fact it opens up a theological can of worms that there are no answers to: How did that happen?  Which came first, man or god? Could God be un-created by whatever made the first god?), but it does put forward one of the distinguishing characteristics of the religion.

So -2 points for claiming an answer that doesn’t answer the question, but I can accept that a sales pitch is a good way to start a teaching manual.

Questions

How were we different from our Heavenly Father in the pre-earth life? (He had a perfected body and character. We did not.)

I’ve always hated when a manual gives the teacher a single answer.  From everything my education-trained relatives have told me, it’s a really poor teaching methodology because it encourages teachers to stop students from giving additional answers.  -5 points for bad educational etiquette.

But further, this answer doesn’t even totally make sense (They worded it carefully to force the response).  The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead without a body.  He has all the powers of the Father.  Somehow he/she/it became a god/part of the title “God” without having to go through an Earth life and obtain a body.  So bad question formation -10 points

The diagrams… I’m not sure how those are supposed to help more or less than the standard “Plan of salvation” used for 30 years.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with them updating diagrams.  I just don’t see that this is necessarily an improvement.

Why did we need to leave God’s presence in order to become more like Him? (Students’ answers may include the following: to gain a body; to learn and grow by using our agency.)

Again, the answers given to the question don’t really answer the question.  The Holy Ghost has no body and is near God.  And in the war and heaven, agency was used; despite it being prior to this earth.  At least they said “Answers may include” to suggest there was more than one right answer.  Still poor form as compared to guiding the students to the next principle regardless of what answers are given, or heaven forbid, discussing the student’s answers and learning with them.

“God has given us a plan. He has sent us all to earth to obtain bodies and to gain experience and growth” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 25).

Again, whether this is a source for doctrine or not is really very questionable.  Why not find a quote from a prophet at conference?   Or are they implying that anything printed by apostles (Bruce R. McConkie never became a prophet) is doctrine?

According to President Kimball, what are some reasons God has sent us to the earth? (As students respond, they should identify the following truth: God has sent us to the earth to obtain bodies and to gain experience and growth.)

Despite the fact that this answer doesn’t really match the question, does it need to be the 3rd question with the same answer in a row?  I’m a big fan of “I’m going to tell you, I tell you, Here is what I told you” but this seems more like repetition for the purpose of almost chant-like responses.  This borders on cultish behaviors.  Imagine if you went to history class and you knew the answer to every question was “Because George Washington loves us”.  It becomes less history, and more patriotic  rhetoric.

What role do the challenges of temptation, sickness, sorrow, pain, discouragement, disability, and other mortal difficulties play in our efforts to receive eternal life?

Finally, a good question with a really deep answer.  I mean, this is the kind of thing that people of all religions and faiths discuss for lifetimes.  One can explain a lot of Mother Theresa’s activities by her answer to this question (In suffering we become nearer to God) + 5 points

(As students respond, help them identify the following truth: Sin prevents us from becoming like Heavenly Father and returning to live with Him. See also Moses 6:57, which teaches that through repentance, we can return to live with God.)

Here is another question but they use “Guide to the next principle” rather than one answer.  +5 points

According to these verses, why does sin prevent us from becoming like Heavenly Father and receiving eternal life? (Students may give a variety of answers. Help them identify the following truth: No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God.)

And -5 for having a single answer again although they at least say “Help them identify”.  I mean some questions only have one answer; but if one takes the book of Job literally, then Satan and God speak together and even meet each other.  If no unclean thing can be in the presence of God, how did Joseph Smith see God during the first vision (was he cleansed?).  There is a host of theological material here, but we see a tendency to thought-stop.

Yes, I know the teacher has a limited time, but that does not excuse narrowing the discussion to thought stopping techniques rather than a broad teaching experience where all can be edified of all.  In fact, the manual should have topics to cover, and the TEACHER should control the discussion.  What we have here is a manual that attempts to control the teacher.

According to Doctrine and Covenants 76:40–42, what makes it possible for us to overcome sin? (Students may respond with different words, but make sure they identify the following truth: Jesus Christ suffered and was crucified for the sins of all people.)

Theological differences between myself and the manual writers aside, this matches their thesis, and plays into their stated goals without dictating or controlling the teacher.  +10 points

if we are obedient to the principles and ordinances of the gospel, we can overcome sin through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

This is an interesting conclusion given the discussion so far.  It isn’t a conclusion that God loves us so much He redeems us.  It isn’t a discussion of the redemptive power of Jesus’s actions.  It isn’t even a decrying of Satan’s behavior.

No, the point of the lesson is obedience to the church.  And this is where we have another cult like moment.  This same lesson could have been taught a dozen different ways. Each one could glorify god, discuss how He is a great planner, or point out some other characteristic of God.  Instead we teach teenagers that salvation comes only through their actions (which they are probably going to screw up) as the main point of all of God’s plans.

The physical death section that follows is immediately cleaned up.  It isn’t an issue and that could be another moment of glorifying God, or discussing the physics of heaven, or how it could possibly be just for one god to die and clean up all the sins of the world… but it is used as a counter point to illustrate that the teenagers themselves really are all that stands between them and God.

To conclude the lesson, explain to students that in their study of the Doctrine and Covenants, they will learn many more truths related to the plan of happiness.

I wonder how many other lessons will end in obedience.

The commentary and background information is just quotes from apostles and prophets, at least all of them are from Church approved magazines.  So that’s something.

Supplemental Teaching idea:  This is very cultish in its nature.  Have students take five minutes and get each other to say that they now know the topic.  Again, imagine if in History Class you were asked to find students who believe in Bill Clinton’s NAFTA bill, the names of every student in the class, and who can explain why NAFTA was good for the US.  A little less like history and a little more like learning by propaganda.

 

Posted in Seminary Manuals | Leave a comment

Introduction and stated goals

Posted on March 6, 2014 by Mithryn

The seminary manual states its goal is to:

“…help youth and young adults understand and rely on the teachings and Atonement of Jesus Christ, qualify for the blessings of the temple, and prepare themselves, their families, and others for eternal life with their Father in Heaven.”

A solid statement of belief.  They plan to do this via

“teach[ing] students the doctrines and principles of the gospel as found in the scriptures and the words of the prophets.”

My stated goal is to help members understand an honest view of history, both in favor of the church’s current positions as well as against them, based on the kind of historical scrutiny such a manual would undergo if not produced by a religion.  In short, if it were actually taught in a classroom, or handed in by a student to a history class.  Yes, that’s a pretty low bar, but still that’s the level that I’ve determined.

My thought process is that the membership in the church should at least demand from its church education system a standard as low as what a middle or high school student is expected to turn in.

Now I don’t know, going into this, how much they’ve cleaned up from the previous version of the CES manuals.  It’s possible they’ll pass this test with flying colors.  I’ll do it one lesson at a time.  I suspect some lessons won’t be too bad, while other, older ones, will be plagued with issues.

The manual further states:

The First Presidency has called upon parents, teachers, and leaders to “help youth learn the gospel by their own study and faith, to discover the truthfulness of the gospel for themselves, and to strengthen their families and others by sharing their experiences, insights, and testimony.” Doing so will help them follow the path that “will lead them to conversion” (Teaching the Gospel in the Savior’s Way [2012], 2).

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if the whitewashing, lack of citations, dependence on single sources, and other tactics I expect to be used is really the best method to accomplish the above stated goal.

Also stated:

The curriculum for each organization is designed to help the youth deepen their understanding and testimony of the gospel and learn how to teach it to others.

Please note, they are taking a testimony-building centered focus, rather than a “historical understanding” focus, but they also expect these ideas presented to be taught to others.  If they are knowingly deceiving the children, they expect the children to take those ideas and deceive others.  If they are teaching truth, they expect truth to be taught.  This intent magnifies the right or wrong of what is taught.

It is with that in mind that I hope that these individuals prepared these lessons with at least a middle to high school student’s worth of research put into them.

Posted in Seminary Manuals | Leave a comment

New Seminary Manuals – Introduction

Posted on March 6, 2014 by Mithryn

The LDS church has introduced a new set of seminary manuals.  In the introduction it states:

Comments and corrections are appreciated. Please send them, including errors, to:

Seminaries and Institutes of Religion Curriculum Services 50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84150-0008 USA Email: ces-manuals@ldschurch.org

I think that I may have some comments and corrections.  I’m going to post them here, and perhaps elsewhere for ward members to share, because I couldn’t send them in.  You see, you must list:

Please list your complete name, address, ward, and stake.

Which means that historians are probably not going to be able to write in corrections.  Only believing members can correct church history, I guess.

Perhaps faithful members who care if their children are taught actual history as church history, or prefer that teachers are not misleading children can send in some of my suggestions on my behalf.

I do this not to attack the church, but to focus on something that matters to me, honesty in history.  Everyone, regardless of belief, deserves to be taught history that has integrity.

Finally, I know I said I would leave it alone, but my own children will soon be seminary age, so I do this as a concerned parent myself, to know what is officially taught to the youth.

 

Posted in Seminary Manuals | 1 Comment

The October/February Surprise – An Analysis

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Mithryn

Recently, the exmormon community lit up with the announcement that Tom “The Anointed One,” famous for having left the church after receiving his second anointing, is taking Thomas S. Monson to court for fraud.

The question I have is, is there any merit to the claims, or is it, as LDS spokesperson Eric Hawkins said, just to “seek to draw attention to an individual’s personal grievances or to embarrass Church leaders”?

First some history.  Grandison Newell was a millionaire in the Kirtland area when Joseph Smith and his mormons moved in.  He ran lawsuit after lawsuit after Joseph, based on tiny grievances or completely baseless claims just to annoy him.  Think of Mr. Burns from The Simpsons. These are the basis for the “baseless claims against church leaders” commonly mentioned by apologists.   Continue reading →

Posted in Current issues | 6 Comments

Prophet Comstock and Brigham Young. A comparison of Bioshock Infinite’s villian

Posted on January 17, 2014 by Mithryn

I recently completed Bioshock Infinite, published by 2k games

Pictured is the protagonist, Booker DeWitt

Some individuals had made some commentary that the antagonist the Prophet Comstock, in some respects, resembled Brigham Young.  I picked up the game after a number of reviews placed it as 10/10 and several friends commented on how they enjoyed it.

Prophet Comstock has the big beard, but is kind of a mix of Wilford Woodruff’s wide head, Lorenzo Snow’s long beard, and Brigham Young’s full beard

 

 

Sure, big beards and the title “Prophet” but what else was similar.

As I played, I looked for specifically historically similar details about the Prophet Comstock and Brigham Young’s history.  At first, I easily dismissed  the idea that someone at 2K games was an exmormon historian, but as the game went on, I had to reject that hypothesis.  What follows is as spoiler free as I can be while naming similarities.

First a word about “Comstock”

I was reading in a mormon manual the other day when it said we could all be our own “Comstocks”.  It’s what prompted me to write this blog post.  I wiki’d the idea of a “Comstock” and found this entry:

Anthony Comstock, who actually served in battle, and became a religious reformer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock

In 1873, Comstock created the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, an institution dedicated to supervising the morality of the public. Later that year, Comstock successfully influenced the United States Congress to pass the Comstock Law, which made illegal the delivery or transportation of “obscene, lewd, or lascivious” material as well as any methods of, or information pertaining to, birth control and venereal disease.

 George Bernard Shaw used the term “comstockery“, meaning “censorship because of perceived obscenity or immorality”, after Comstock alerted the New York City police to the content of Shaw’s play Mrs. Warren’s Profession.

So the choice of the name “Comstock” is not to be dismissed lightly.  On to the similarities and differences

Introduction

In the opening scenes of the game, Mr. Dewitt is sent via lighthouse rocket to a steam-punk city in the sky.  He quickly learns that the city is founded on three principles:

  • The Sword, championed by George Washington. It exemplifies strength, courage and military prowess. Following the death of Lady Comstock,the Sword also grew to symbolize vengeance against Columbia’s enemies.
  • The Key, championed by Benjamin Franklin. It represents justice, righteousness and moral guidance.
  • The Scroll, championed by Thomas Jefferson. It symbolizes wisdom, and is occasionally used among the population to signify intelligence.

Mormon faith also strongly includes devotion to the founding fathers, including the revolutionary war appearing in the Book of Mormon.  This BYU (A church-run school) article praising George Washignton could come straight out of a Columbia press: http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=1746

I know, I, as Mormon was taught the founding fathers were inspired by God.  The prophet Wilford Woodruff even stated that the founding fathers in spirit visited him, requesting their saving work be done in a Mormon temple (Despite their work already having been done previously by someone a little less famous).

The Independence day celebration

Booker is forced to enter the city by baptism.  This baptism is far more an eastern reform baptism and not terribly similar to anything mormon. However, if one looks at Brigham’s history and early Mormon baptisms, one sees that historically, this was far more similar to what Brigham would have experienced.

As Booker continues around the city, he finds a typical 4th of July atmosphere.  Fireworks, hot dogs, cotton candy all restore health throughout the game.  However, the celebration is on July 7th, when Columbia, the city in the sky, succeeded from the United States.

SIMILARITY:  Both Comstock and Young lead their religions followers away both physically and mentally from the United States.  Both declared succession.

SIMILARITY: New York destroyed by fire. As Booker continues along his pathway, he quickly remembers a dream/false memory/vision where he sees New York destroyed by fire. In September of 1832, The Prophet Joseph Smith prophesied that New York would be destroyed by fire.   Further, Wilford Woodruff also prophesied New York would be destroyed by Fire, and Brigham Young confirmed it.

The False Shepard

Again, trying not to give spoilers, I will be vague about the game and more specific about similarities.  Booker is declared a false shepard and all of the police converge for much FPS fun.  Skyrails and Zepplin abound that have nothing to do with Brigham Young.

SIMILARITY: Booker is sent to recover “The girl”.  The girl is attempting to escape the civilization and return to the world below (Paris, in specific).  The Girl’s name is “Elizabeth”, but Booker sometimes calls her Ann.

Wife No. 19   is a book written by one of Brigham’s Wives who escaped mormonism.  Her name, “Ann Eliza” stood out to me.  While true the game does not specifically mention polygamy, I think it would have been too obvious if it had.  She divorced young and testified before U.S. Congress in 1875.  Having a girl who leaves the separated city both by the names “Ann” and a form of “Elizabeth” seems more than coincidental.  Ann’s age when she married was 24 when Brigham was 67.

The Philosophy

Throughout the game, one is introduced to the philosophy of Prophet Comstock and others.  Included in the prophet’s litany are features such as:

The Negro is lesser and like an animal.  Also taught by Brigham Young

The worker should not complain but should do his work willingly.  Also taught by Brigham Young

Zachary Comstock’s voxphone recording says:”Your right prophet, but if grace is within the grasp of one such as you, How can anyone else not see it within themselves?” This was often a statement about the prophet Joseph Smith, a poor farm boy, and why God called him.  Joseph prided himself on being “just a man” but also a prophet which feel comes through Zachary Comstock’s teachings.

Comstock says that Columbia “another ark, for another time.”  Joseph Smith taught he was like Noah before the Fire.

Comstock refers to Columbia as like Eden.  Joseph/Brigham placed Eden in Jacksonville, Missouri

Comstock: What exactly was the great emancipator, emancipating the negro from? From his daily bread, from the nobility of honest days work, from wealthy patrons who sponsered them from cradle to grave.  Brigham: Slaves in Utah are “perfectly contented and satisfied.”

{Spoiler warning} The leader of the Vox Populi, Daisy Fitzgerald, a black woman, was a slave in Comstock’s house.  Brigham Young kept slaves.  One of the theories of Brigham’s death is that he was poisoned via arsenic in the sugar bowl he personally used, perhaps via a slave/servant in his home.

One cannot help but wonder about the sheer number of troops that come rushing out to attack the false prophet.  However, reading about Brigham Young’s Danites and the account of Johnson’s army, the setting really is set up for unending numbers of troops who want to attack a false prophet.  See Brigham Young’s quote about giving apostates the answer of his Bowie Knife for how false shepards would have been received.

The final moment where I decided this wasn’t all just coincidence

So all of this is kinda fun, but what was it that really convinced me?  Well if the girl had been a plural wife, it just shouts out “Mormon”.  Especially with the name “Elizabeth” and “Ann”.  But that wasn’t what happened.

The Gunsmith

So among all this new-fangled steampunk tech, one finds a gunsmith at one point in the game.  Joseph Smith (First prophet of mormonism) also had a key gunsmith named “Browning” who built steampunk-esque features for the prophet.  Included were secret passageways and hiding places in the Navoo mansion house, a .50 caliber rifle with a cartridge in the 1840’s (Oh yes, he built a 10 shot .50 caliber), and a refrigerator.  Nothing like the Twins and their floating city, but still interesting that both are key.

And while on your way to the gunsmith, you get a very in-your-face moment with something that is as central to mormonism as multi-wives.

Fink industries’ owner Jeremiah Fink, gives a discourse on how workers should be like the honey bee.  This could have come out of any sunday school manual or priesthood lesson I ever attended.  You see, in the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites (Long story) supposedly take with them “Deseret” or honey bees on steampunk-like submarines, 3700 years before anyone thought of submarines.  This honeybee becomes the symbol of Utah:

Utah State flag features the honey bee quite prominantly

 One can see it in everything built by Brigham Young.  The temple door handles have honey bee hives on them.  Brigham often spoke about being like the honey bee.

Now a main difference is the class difference in Bioshock Infinite. Fink’s statements are of oppression of the worker, whereas many of the businesses in Utah were started as Co-ops, with the workers sharing in the profits.  But the overall “These cult-like people who separated from the United States identify with the Honey bee and have a bearded prophet” was enough for me to say, someone on the writing team knew something of Mormon history.

Other ancillary similarities: 

Brigham hired a gun named William Hickman, who I thought Booker DeWitt was based on for most the game.

Brigham once told the story of praying if he was different from his Ox.  It is humorous and is similar to Comstock’s conversion story in some respects.  Trying not to spoil here but it involves two path ways.

Brigham’s discourses around 1857 about “Americans” and Babylon sound similar to Comstocks rants against the “Sodom below”.

 

 

Posted in Current issues | 6 Comments

Why can’t you leave it alone?

Posted on December 30, 2013 by Mithryn

After seeing the deluge of individuals on the  facebook page (and a few comments on my own blog) saying basically “Why don’t you leave other people’s faiths alone, and go find your own”, I thought it might be fun to help everyone realize that, in fact, mormonism really is just an anti-traditional christian tract in the early days.

Here are quotes from other leaders who, like me, can leave the church [that is, the catholic and traditional christian churches] but couldn’t leave them alone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints[1]

“We affirm that the great apostasy was foretold by the Savior Himself while He lived as a Man among men, and by His inspired prophets both before and after the period of His earthly probation” (James E. Talmage, The Great Apostasy, 19). Continue reading →

Posted in Other Religions | Leave a comment

Mormon Bastards

Posted on December 15, 2013 by Mithryn

A little thought left over from my notes:

“If I am a child of God, and Jesus is the only begotten, does that make me a bastard?  Is everyone on Earth, except for Jesus, a spiritual bastard?”

Given that Brigham Young said that God had sex with Mary, and the LDS church is now in the practice of waving away, via PR statements, what former prophets have said, I might revise it now to:

“Would Brigham Young consider me a spiritual bastard?”

Posted in Humor and wit | 1 Comment