Quote and Massive Upchuck Mormon Detritus
May 16th, 2006“You are more Ex-Mormon than I am Mormon.”
Which is kind of funny. I didn’t embark on a course of rigorous study to leave Mormonism (but I did when I decided to go on a mission for the church) and it has only been within the last couple of years that I’ve read anything remotely “ex-Mormon”. I’ve read Martha Beck’s controversial Leaving the Saints, but the above quote came as I was discussing with a former coworker a book that he lent me, By his own hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papryi (Text of the book available here). The book calls into question Joseph Smith’s translation of a set of Mormon scripture called The Pearl of Great Price, specifically, the book of Abraham. The book also ends with a plea to embrace Jesus as your savior, so it kind of shoots itself in the foot in the objectivity department.
I hesitate to write about this at any length because it’s a loaded topic. Any time somebody questions Joseph Smith, it’s an invitation for a range of responses and arguments. I’m not coming at this from an anti-Mormon or confrontational place at all. I’ve resolved all my issues with the Mormon church in such a way that I’m more interested in the church from an anthropological or sociological place than anything else. I live in Utah and I believe the cultural and political structure of Utah is unique in the United States. Most of my opining has come from examining, criticizing and poking fun from that angle. If you think that I should “leave it alone”, you might have a point. But I think talking about this book has value. I don’t think I’m going to sway anybody (either towards or against the Mormon church) and that isn’t my goal.
So what about this book? Published in 1992 by Provo, Utah resident Charles M. Larson, who was ostracized and suffered job-related harassment (his own account here) from publishing By His Own Hand, the book examines the claim that Joseph Smith was able to translate the Egyptian papryi into Mormon scripture. The papryi were purchased from an Irish man who had travelled with Egyptian mummies to Kirtland, Ohio in 1835. The church purchased the papyri for Joseph Smith to translate. Smith did so and at the time, the followers believed that Smith was divinely inspired.
The original papyri were lost in the Mormon exodus and re-surfaced at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1966 and so they were returned to the church. The church then had it’s pre-eminent scholar, Hugh Nibley, take a look at the papryi and encouraged him to verify both the authenticity of them as well as Joseph Smith’s translation. Mr. Nibley worked with the pre-eminent Egyptologists of the day and they differed from the Joseph Smith interpretation, determining that the scrolls were generic funerary scrolls, nothing more. Joseph Smith translated the papryi as Abrahamic in nature and that they supported previously “revealed” Mormon temple ritual (see fascisimile 2 [of 3] here).
Mr. Nibley is the father of Martha Beck, her book alleges her father abused her in part because of his realization that Joseph Smith couldn’t have translated that book as Smith and the church say. Ironically, both father and daughter have critics who assert they play loose with the facts and with sources. Here’s Beck’s ex-husband reviewing Leaving the Saints. Here’s a “defense” site put up by her family (using what appears to be shady SEO tactics). Here’s a refutation of Nibley’s findings regarding the papyri and his methodology. Higher up on that same page is an echo of many LDS scholars:
“By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient system of religion that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own–precisely what he sets out to demonstrate in the first place.”
(Link).
The main issues at play in all of this for me are as follows:
Continual efforts by some Mormons to prove their faith via scientific means but not scientific method.
For example, showing pictures of Mayan or Aztec ruins and then equating them to Book of Mormon passages. When I counted myself a believer, I used to get into this, but whenever I’d look a little deeper, the research always seemed biased, incomplete and/or full of hope as opposed to full of sound practices and findings. I was also troubled by the paradox of most of the faithful decrying the science of Darwin, yet fawning over archeological finds that supposedly bolstered Mormon conjecture.
There have recently been other “Ex” books published and one that I came across researching this blurb looks to be pretty interesting. It’s a book reviewing the scientific claims made by Joseph Smith and others trying to prove the doctrine of the church through science. Like the Beck book, it comes from a personal place. Which may or may not strengthen its claims.
Most Mormons are unaware of the conflicting views of the translation and that the evidence points away from Joseph Smith translating the Book of Abraham.
And why should they be aware? Larson’s book is explosive in its assertions. It throws out a chunk of revealed doctrine and puts serious doubts forward about Joseph Smith being a prophet. Joseph Smith is, according to teachings when I attended, the keystone of the religion. If he’s not a prophet, the whole thing falls apart. If the church hasn’t moved away from this line, I’d be surprised. As the church has tried to become more mainstream, it has changed things about itself in minor ways.
The subject of the rediscovered papyri never came up during my years of attending church meetings. This is troubling on two counts, 1) When one is investigating the church, one is strongly and constantly encouraged to ask God of it’s truth; and 2) Once you’re in, the environment is such that questions are discouraged. Any questions regarding Joseph Smith, “revelations” or alleged revelations is a recipe for being marginalized, getting a talking to by local leaders and if you don’t let it go, or persist on asking the questions in public it can be grounds for being disfellowshipped or excommunicated.
Then there are the apologetics. The biggest organized bunch is a part of BYU, called the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). They are often accused of fabrication, being loose with sources (much like Nibley was) and at times making even mainstream Mormon scholars uncomfortable. Here’s the FARMS take on the Larson book. Note the usage of ad hominem and how they shift blame for any inaccuracies away from Joseph Smith. Smooth. But as much fault as there is in the Larson book (published by a fundamentalist Christian press with an obvious agenda), it’s hard to find fault with Larson’s research and presentation of the papryi or his assertion that there is no way Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham. Here’s one LDS scholar who apparently agrees with Larson.
The lack of an official response by the church either supporting the true findings or denying them. This one is the most troubling, as it implicates the church in a mute cover-up.
Undoubtedly, church leaders know full well that the rediscovered papryi casts significant doubts about Joseph Smith. Their lack of response and keeping the book of Abraham (and Smith’s translations of the facsimile) in their accepted scripture implies that they are willing to wait this out. The nature of the culture inside the church means members are discouraged from calling out inconsistencies of this kind.
It would appear that the church has chosen silence because to respond to the evidence puts so much of its past in play. What is most interesting about a nearly forty year-old situation versus, say current DNA evidence and long held Mormon claims that Native Americans are descendants from Israel, is that the church is using PR and an army of apologists to fight any counter-claims. The church has chosen PR (it doesn’t appear they’ve actually watched the series… it’s screamingly clear that the central characters aren’t Mormon) to address the HBO series Big Love (which we are watching rather squirmingly and I’ll write about once the season ends).
So why write all of this? You left the church. What’s the big deal?
I’m fascinated by the machinations of the church. It’s a business, it’s a religion, it’s a political player and it’s relatively young. For now, it has a lock on the state legislature and gets looks at any legislation it wants. It’s a lobbying force and it’s deferred to constantly by municipalities as well as other religions in the region. Plus, it was founded by a character. And its followers defend him as though he was superhuman. I don’t think this has always been the case. In the early days of the church, many of the founders bailed out, largely due to differences with each other and Joseph Smith. Over time, the church has chosen to play up the good stuff about Smith and downplay the crazier stuff. But that crazy is deep in the DNA of the church.
The church is writing its history and creating an iconography in near real-time. It has changed itself ever so gradually with the times, albeit slowly and usually twenty to forty years behind mass U.S. society. Couple this with its apocalyptic/millenialist bent and it’s something that I find hard not to look at or into. If I didn’t live in Utah, I’d still be watching, but with the occasional telescopic view instead of the near daily microscope. The church in Utah is pervasive. It’s always in the news. You can’t avoid the Mormon influence in Utah. o
Very nicely written, Jon. When my family gets together, there is an unspoken rule that we won’t bring up things like the validity of Joseph Smith as a prophet or the whole thing surrounding the book of Abraham or polygamy etc. But, one of my sisters always brings up how the church must be true because of the power of the priesthood. She knows that Iíve had priesthood blessings and felt real change in my physical body and/or found the lost keys or whatever. And sheís right. I have. The difference is that I donít think it has anything to do with the person blessing me or where they got their ëpriesthoodí from. I think it has everything to do with the person getting blessed and how apt they are at tuning in to their own inner strength. You were blessed with and given priesthood keys and went on a mission. I would be super interested in any thoughts you have about the priesthood.
Very well done, Jon. I have been fascinated with Mormonism since I was a kid — actually with all religions. We had Mormon neighbors and I was so curious about the rituals they talked about, some of it sounding so strange to me, and I have carried that curiosity to today. With the Internet it’s easy to research any religion’s practices, but I really prefer to learn from someone who’s actually practiced the practice. I know and respect your hesitancy to delve into this subject publicly — family harmony being one reason — but I sure do appreciate your thoughts on the subject of Mormonism; and I’m gratified to see that my conclusions match yours. There’s so much that can be said on the subject; it is so very interesting.
Jon.
Not to start the firestorm here but your inaccuracies and lies have compelled me to write. I have been misquoted and I think that we all know how misquoting somebody is that slippery slope upon which lies are fabricated and later accepted as truth.
For the record, I stated:
“Dude, you are more Ex-Mormon than I am Mormon.”
C’mon man, you know that I always begin a sentence with “Dude”. I’ve been consistent with this fact since ‘89…check my record.
Seriously though, I said this because I find it interesting how many times I read Mormon/exMormon references on Armstrong Media LLC. blogs. I just did a search on my blog and in 136 entries I found only six times that I have used the word “Mormon”. However, when I read Heather’s bio she dedicates two whole paragraphs to the topic of her ex-ness.
Honestly, I really don’t care but rather find the whole topic amusing. So when you and the co-worker were talking about the book it made me think about the last time I read a Mormon book (other than scripture, of course…but that doesn’t count as I don’t consider that to be extra curricular reading). Anyway, it’s been a long, long time since I read something Mormon.
Yeah, but aren’t ALL organized religions founded by or based upon a “character?” And, aren’t they all businesses in one form or another? One could argue that Jesus was just a guy that the storytellers of that time built up into something bigger than what he really was and those storytellers were influential enough to gather together a following. Was he the son of God? Who the hell knows. He might’ve just been a really cool dude that helped a bunch of people. Overall, I think religions are based in fear — fear that if we don’t believe in something or someone, that something bad will happen to us (oh, and here’s the offering plate). And, organized religion tends to teach people that they are absolved of any personal responsibility — good or bad — because of the presence of a higher power. “That’s okay, God has a bigger plan” and crap like that. Wow, maybe I’m leaning more atheist than agnostic these days.
Dude. Patatomic, I’ll let your comment stand as a correction.
That was very informative. Not being a religious person, I am always very curious about how religions are organized. They ALL have parts that make you go HUH? Now I have to go back and real all the links. I can’t wait to read your post about Big Love once the series is over.
Aw man! You totally scooped me! I was going to clean up my draft and post tonight.
Great post. For the record, this book wasn’t the first place I heard of this. Nope. I heard it in my BYU religion class from the Department Chair, Dr. Stephen Robinson. And I’m amazed that the hurdles he went through in class didn’t tip me off sooner.
People have often accused me of “leaving but not leaving it alone.” But on something this important, tell me why I *shouldn’t* I have read the thousands of pages I did to come to my conclusion? And if it’s that important and you’re in, I think my position is just as valid. If I thought it was the all-encompasing truth that it claims to be, I would be afraid to spend much time reading anything else.
I was like that once. I’m glad I got my life back.
Suddenly, I’m reminded of going to a Sunstone symposium and then getting a “talking to” about having attended.
ugh.
Wow! This was by far the best reading material I’ve stumbled across in several days. I’ve got so much I want to say here, but I’ve also got kids to pick up from school in half an hour. I am active in the church, but I’m not afraid of anti-LDS material either. Most of it, as you describe, is written to play on our emotions and I can easily discard it. I believe in the restored church and I believe Joseph was certainly the man who got the ball rolling. For his sacrifices, for his suffering, and certainly for his murder in cold blood; I respect him. However, that doesn’t mean he was perfect, that doesn’t mean the church was ever meant to center around him, and that doesn’t mean some of the things he did weren’t misinterpreted as revelation when, in reality, he was really just acting as a man of his own accord. The problem is, we weren’t around back then and can’t discern which is which. I have read the scriptures in question, and I’ll admit that the idea of finding such appropriate passages from a man who was traveling around displaying Egyptian mummies. But, as God never intended for people to find religion via scientific means or method, I use faith to reconcile to the two. It may make me sound more ignorant and blind than I like, but it also gives me structure for my life and help in raising my children. It helps me make sense of the world, which is the whole point of organized religion in the first place, isn’t it? Anyway, I just wanted to say that while I usually enjoy Heather’s blog more than yours (what can I say-I’m a fan of poop humor), this was wonderfully compelling and thought-provoking, not things a soccer mom like me usually gets to experience in her daily reading. Thanks.
What makes the Morman church so interesting is that it, like Scientology, is a relatively recent religion/belief system, so it is so much more easily dissected and criticized.
Like DinerGirl says, every single religion is a business, and a deeper look into history reveals it as such quite clearly. Catholicism is the most obvious, and widely-cited.
What’s interesting about your perspective and mine, given where I live, is the blurred line of government and religion. I live in a very special part of Florida, and last week attended a business event where Tom Monaghan spoke (Founder of Domino’s Pizza, Catholic to the extreme and a man who is actually *founding a Catholic town* near me. Yes,TOWN. Theocracy. Where there will be no birth control sold, and a variety of other things afforded to us by our democracy will be banned). He actually talked about how HAPPY he was that Florida, with its extreme right-wing politics and blurred religious lines, was so WELCOMING to his vision, when most states told him to stuff it where the sun doesn’t shine, citing church and state. And yes, the politicians love him. And that was a secular event put on by the local Chamber where he spoke of this. And people applauded and whistled.
It’s hard for people who live in more progressive states to understand the oddities of living in areas like we do, and I’ll admit you have it much worse. Areas where religious books, magazines and pamphlets are sold where US Weekly and People are in other places, and where there are more Christian superstores than Starbuck’s.
It makes you think.
Jon, I have thought of what I’m about to write many times, but have never asked you: as an ex-mormon, do you now consider yourself an agnostic? An atheist? A Christian? A believer in a higher power? I’m just curious, and I apologize if this has been covered before. Cheers.
while I don’t consider myself “ex”-Mormon, I haven’t been active for nearly 3 years. I appreciate reading your and Heather’s comments regarding your points of view and experiences regarding religion. I am still not sure where I stand regarding church stuff, but know that my family – like yours – will always be there for me no matter what road I choose.
Thanks for sharing!
I myself am a Protestant Christian, and have always been facinated with those systems of belief that (in my circles) are labeled as “cults”. I’ve read a lot of material designed to debunk Mormonism, and have come across this story regarding “The Pearl of Great Price” already.
What interests me is how the LDS church and their scholars respond to criticism of this nature – especially the assertion that there is virtually no archeological evidence for Book of Mormon events, while the Old Testament and New Testament scripture have ample archeological backing.
Am I to understand that this subject is simply not raised at all? Is there some sort of cover-up to protect the faith of those involved? Are questions of this type not dealt with at BYU?
If anyone out there can point me to some LDS produced material, I’d be very happy! Thanks!
That was really interesting, thanks for sharing it!
One of my best friends is an ex-Mormon. Her husband is an ex-Jehovah’s Witness. I just find that… hysterical!
I am a Catholic living in Utah, I am also a Catholic who was raised in Utah (I think I am one of three?) Because I was raised in this culture I have a huge knowledge of my own beliefs as well as the beliefs of the LDS. I think people are sometimes taken aback when I respond to something I either agree with or don’t agree with where mormonism is concerned because they don’t expect me to know. Of course I know,,, I’ve been forced to learn due to the society I live in. I say this because I think this serves your point. You research because you are almost forced to research so that you can back your opinion with fact,,, not just something you have been told. Unfortunately, in Utah, I know way too many people who believe in religion because they have been told to, not because they have done the research. I wish more people would really look into the TRUTHFUL background of their church so that they can have honest conversation regarding it, not conversation that include cover-ups and lies. I know the negatives of the Catholic church and unfortunately have to deal with that, I just wish that the congregation in the mormon church would also admit to some of the negatives of their history as well and not re-write it.
As not to throw flame on a luke-warm slight burn, I find myself relying upon a quote my Grandmother put into my scriptures she and my grandpa gave to me before I went on my mission, it goes something like this…
“I’d rather live life believing in a god (religion) and be right, then to go through life in disbelief, and being wrong.”
Religion (unlike business) is faith based. Nobody ever claimed the belief in an all powerful being (in any form) that created the universe was ‘logical’. From a scientific perspective, some would say it’s uncomprehensible. Yet we (those of us that do believe) have lived life with certain experiences that have lead us to believe, for one reason or another, and its unfortunate that those that don’t believe (or have faith), are so hurt, intolerant and desperate that they have to mock those of us that have the slightest smidgen of hope that there is something out there bigger than us.
Okay, off my soap box.
You guys should check out Judaism. There are a lot of eating/food holidays, and no pesky J.C. to deal with. It’s a total blast! Anyone in Utah make a decent brisket?
I thought this was interesting:
The Bible and Mormon WritingsóA Study in Contrasts
1. Bible: Although the exact site is unknown, the garden of Eden was probably in the Mesopotamian region by the Euphrates River.óGenesis 2:11-14.
Mormon Doctrine and Covenants: Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri, U.S.A.óDoctrine and Covenants 57, as explained by President J. F. Smith.
2. Bible: The soul dies.óEzekiel 18:4; Acts 3:23.
The Book of Mormon: ìThe soul could never die.îóAlma 42:9.
3. Bible: Jesus was born in Bethlehem.óMatthew 2:1-6.
The Book of Mormon: Jesus was to be born in Jerusalem.óAlma 7:10.
4. Bible: Jesus was begotten by holy spirit.óMatthew 1:20.
Journal of (Mormon) Discourses: Jesus was not begotten by holy spirit. He was begotten in the flesh by Adamís having intercourse with Mary.óJournal of Discourses, Volume I, pages 50-1.
5. Bible: New Jerusalem to be in heaven.óRevelation 21:2.
The Book of Mormon: New Jerusalem, earthly, to be built by men in Missouri, U.S.A.ó3 Nephi 21:23, 24; Doctrine and Covenants 84:3, 4.
6. Bible: Writers of the Bible were inspired to write Godís thoughts.ó2 Peter 1:20, 21.
The Book of Mormon: Its prophets are said to have written according to their own knowledge.ó1 Nephi 1:2, 3; Jacob 7:26.
7. Bible: Mosaic Law, including tithing, terminated by the death of Jesus. Contributions are to be voluntary, not under compulsion.ó2 Corinthians 9:7; Galatians 3:10-13, 24, 25; Ephesians 2:15.
Mormon Doctrine and Covenants: ìVerily it is . . . a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned (at his [the Lordís] coming).îóDoctrine and Covenants 64:23.
===
…and its unfortunate that those that don’t believe (or have faith), are so hurt, intolerant and desperate that they have to mock those of us that have the slightest smidgen of hope that there is something out there bigger than us.
===
It’s unfortunate that you’ve made such a gross generalisation about such a diverse group of people (those who don’t believe).
It is also my opinion that for the most part the level of intolerance displayed by those believers who are intolerant (not even close to being all of them) is to a level of extremity rarely seen in those non-believers who are intolerant (also, not even close to being all of them).
I’m not sure how “those that don’t believe” is a gross generalization. I wasn’t generalizing at all. I specifically said, those that “don’t believe”. I guess the comment on being hurt could be construed as being general, but again, I was referring to those that don’t believe that are hurt and intolerant. And yes, there are those that are intolerant on both sides.
I would argue your comment on the numbers. In fact, lets compare the number of blogs focus on anti-religious themes versus the number of blogs for them. I have no idea which one would be higher. I bet you can’t name a blog site out there that has the traffic ranking of kotke, dooce, fark, boing boing, etc, from anybody that supports religion though (and doesn’t mock, protest, bash).
So I appreciate your comment about intolerance on both sides, but don’t try to tell me that the religious side is ‘more intolerant’.
I don’t see much here that is intolerant or mocking. Mormonism has a scripture, which it claims comes from God through human history to us. I don’t see what’s wrong with asking questions that. If the answer is “you’re intolerant”, I’m going to assume you can’t answer the question.
I’m Catholic, and I believe a lot of crazy things. Many of them are indemonstrable, some are pretty much questions in their own right, sometimes the answers are depend on the assumption of an infinite power, which can logically cover a lot of stuff. But none of them are inconsistent with reason, though the reasoning is often pretty convoluted. I can’t prove my faith to you, but if an honest effort can’t make sense of my faith, given its assumptions, that’s a pretty good sign there’s something not right. Or do you think God doesn’t make sense to Himself?
And I don’t find it strange that someone who has left a church spends a lot of time thinking about it. On average — average — most people don’t think much about this stuff at all, but live and die in the faith of their fathers. Anyone person of faith who has left or joined a church has probably given all this more thought than the average person.
Personally, I suspect we’re all better off thinking less about where we don’t find God and more about where we do. But it might useful to understand what’s wrong with a church you left, so you can understand what was right, and then find a church that has those right things. Is the problem here a belief in subordinating ourselves to our creator? Or a questionable scripture? How does this church use its scripture, and where does it find that scripture? Are there faiths that use and find scripture differently, and how do those faiths speak? The Gospel of John is very different thing than the Pearl of Great Price; maybe an understanding of why the latter doesn’t speak to you could help understand how John might.
God is a mystery, and none of us know much about Him. It seems to me that questions like the ones asked here can lead to a world of good.
You know, there is a distinction, I think, that is important in what you’re saying, Skowronek, and what I, at least, was saying about religion-as-business.
The faith part of religion isn’t a business – the personal side of it isn’t, at least, and I’ve studied enough religion and have enough personal beliefs to know that part. No one should be judged for believing in something- that part is admirable.
But I think it’s near-impossible to deny the corruption of faith that the business end has brought to religion, and to many of the faithful, throughout history. And that’s what’s deplorable – not one’s relationship with God, but at the corruption and corporatization (which is so not a word, and I don’t care) that seems to pervade many religions, particularly those that are large enough to require such an infrastructure, like Catholicism or Mormonism. So many doctrines, edicts and scripture interpretations were handed down as religious law because of a larger government or business need throughout history, and it’s many of those same points that are hotly debated today, and used as a platform to judge others.
Ok, this is a little late, but here’s what I went home with:
http://www.eighthourlunch.com/index.php#spiders
(Sorry if posting a link to my own site is bad form, it was too long to post here).
The Mormon influence may not just be in Utah:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp
Is there no independent translation of the papryi available? You wrote that “Mr. Nibley worked with the pre-eminent Egyptologists of the day”, but has no one outside the LDS church tried to translate the papryi recently, for purely scientific purposes?