Far off in the distance, the wail of a siren and the pop pop pop of a gun. Another hit and run? Another dimestore robbery?

The smoke from your cigarette makes curls around acidic raindrops. You sigh, drawing yourself into the shadows of the City that Doesn’t Sleep In On Sundays.

You think to yourself – Just another night in Logan.

It’s a rough town. You grew up on the East Side, where Johnny Nametag and the 3^rd Ward kept things calm for a while after Hootie strung up that kid for using the Lord’s name in vain – but it wasn’t long before Big Ezra and the Relief Squad came up hard from across the tracks. They were packing sugar cookies (real sugar cookies!) and everybody in town wanted a taste. They called those the Bake Days, and you don’t want to remember them. Thinking back hurts too bad.

Logan’s a sugar town. Everybody wants a taste of the sugar. There’s always a drug war going on somewhere – whether it’s the 8^th Ward with their Oatmeal Squirts or Don Ephraim importing ice cream from Hyrum (it keeps the Aggie Ice Cream crew up at night). The stakes are high, and don’t be surprised if you run across some poor kid with a bullet wound headed for outer darkness. Just walk on by – just walk on by.

The cops are nowhere to be found – they gave up or sold out a long time ago. The town’s too rough, and the State has given up on Logan (I hear the politicians are calling it “The Jungle” up here) and we only have one, maybe two cops left. Sometimes I think about leaving this place, but there’s nothing for me out there. Once you leave Logan, where can you go?

Seriously, though – Logan is a rough town for a non-believer. Every Sunday, a black and white stream pours out of the churches by the thousands, and the empty dystopian city appears to have been eaten by zombies. A massive majority of people are LDS – these are the people you work with, the ones you date, the ones you order your Baconator from, the people signing your checks and teaching your classes.

What brought you to Logan? Did you grow up here? What experiences have you had with the pressures of living within a very closed community with rigorous (ridiculous) divine moral standards, from which not even our gas fumes can escape?

Logan has a veritable army of churchgoing police officers with their eyes out for anyone in a black T-shirt. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Would you prefer to live in a secular city with a higher crime rate? What about the influence the church has on gender roles, dating and relationships?

How has such an environment shaped you and your experiences?

Jack, you’re an incredibly courageous person. Thanks for sharing your inspiring story! I regret not having gotten to know you better while at USU.

That said, the musical did get several things wrong about Mormonism, especially where its history and theology are concerned. The musical was guilty of the fashionable claim that Joseph Smith never let anyone see or handle the gold plates, instead (quickly and conveniently) returning them to the angel Moroni. The implication, of course, is that Joseph Smith never had the gold plates; a point Stone and Parker also belabored in the South Park episode “All About Mormons.”

The story of Mormonism’s origins and the gold plates is vastly more nuanced, however. In this post, I’ll argue that Joseph Smith actually had gold plates (or a passable substitute). Contrary to popular belief outside of Mormonism, Smith did reveal the gold plates to a number people—namely the 11 witnesses, but a few others as well.

In fairness to Stone and Parker, there are serious critics of Mormonism who contend that Smith never had the plates, and that the witnesses’ experiences were visionary in nature, not literal or material. Fawn Brodie in No Man Knows My History and Grant H. Palmer in An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins take this approach, for the most part.

I’m ultimately convinced this view cannot adequately explain all of witnesses’ accounts (for reasons I’ll make clear later), but it’s not totally unfounded. Frontier America in the early 19th-century was a hotbed of superstition and religious fervor. Reports of visions and revelations were commonplace, as were occultist practices and folk magic. As a young adult, Joseph Smith supplemented his family’s meager farm income by ‘treasure-digging’, whereby he would use seer stones to locate buried treasure (though he never successfully recovered any). Olivery Cowdery, a Book of Mormon witness, believed in the efficacy of divining rods. And Martin Harris, another witness, was incredibly susceptible to religious persuasion, having changed faiths at least five times throughout his life.

So for many of the witnesses, the line between the magic/spiritual and the real was blurred, and this is evident in their remarks about the gold plates. When Martin Harris was asked whether he saw the plates with his natural eye, he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” Other times, he claimed to have seen the plates with his “eye of faith” or in a vision. David Whitmer, reputed to be the most rational of the three witnesses, admitted later in life that he didn’t see an angel so much as feel an “impression” of it.

The testimony of eight witnesses found at the beginning of the Book of Mormon more clearly suggests a physical experience, as it claims that the eight handled the plates and inspected its engravings. It’s important to note, however, that the witnesses didn’t write the statement, they only signed onto it. And of the eight, only three reported having seen or touched the plates themselves. John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, stated that the plates were shown to him “by a supernatural power.” If the plates were a material object, what role need a supernatural power play?

It is for these reasons that some doubt the literalness of the witnesses’ experiences and the very existence of the gold plates. But despite all this, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Joseph Smith had something physical, because several accounts of the gold plates cannot easily be explained away as wholly imagined.

The first account that challenged my former belief that the plates never existed was the following statement by Emma Smith:

The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book….

I long knew about people having seen the plates hidden under a cloth, but never thought much of it. It’d be easy to hide something under a cloth and claim it’s the plate. That he’d have the covered plates unattended and in plain view is more interesting. Perhaps Smith felt secure that no one would take a peak at the plates, for he warned of spiritual calamity for those who did. No, what I find the most compelling about Emma’s account is her actually feeling the pages of the book through the cloth.

Martin Harris too, who usually cast his experiences in spiritual or visionary terms, claimed to have held the plates on his knee for half an hour, examining them “plate by plate.” In Whitmer’s last interview, he similarly reported to have handled the plates uncovered. His account is particularly impressive, because, while all of the three witnesses apostatized at some point, only Whitmer never rejoined. And still, he retained a testimony of the gold plates as a physical reality.

Another evidence for the plates’ physicality is that the reports of their dimensions, weight, and color are fairly consistent. It is largely agreed that the plates were 7 by 8 inches, had the thickness of a tin sheet, weighed about 60 pounds, and had the appearance of gold. It is difficult to make sense of this consistency were the plates merely the figment of others’ subjective imaginations.

The totality of the testimonies, notwithstanding the spiritual trappings of some accounts, then suggest that Joseph Smith possessed actual, material plates.

Let’s entertain the possibility that Joseph Smith had the gold plates. Does it necessarily follow that Smith was a prophet or that Mormonism is true? No. As I mentioned earlier, Smith made a modest career digging for buried Spanish and ancient American treasure. It’s remotely possible that he actually uncovered gold plates in one of his treasure-digging projects and might have mistaken them to be a history of ancient American peoples called Nephites and Lamanites, just as he mistook Egyptian funerary papyri to be the writings of Abraham.

Even if Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of the plates, it doesn’t mean that Smith was a prophet beyond that. Indeed, David Whitmer held that Smith’s divine commission largely ended with the translation of the gold plates, and that he was a fallen prophet with his subsequent revelations, especially polygamy.

Then there is the possibility that Smith and/or co-conspirators fashioned together a prop to pass for gold plates. This is an uncomfortable position, because the conclusion that Smith was, at least initially, a deliberate fraud is almost inescapable.

Why might he have done this? It’s impossible to know for sure. I suspect a slight financial motive, if not for himself, then for his destitute family. Yet I imagine there must have been easier money-making schemes than starting a new religion!* Consequently, the prevailing theory among secular scholars of Mormonism is that Joseph Smith’s primary motive was instead religious—that he was a “pious fraud” who sincerely hoped to bring people to Christ through the Book of Mormon.

The question of motives aside, would it have been possible to create a convincing enough prop to fool the witnesses? I think so; look to the historical cases of the Voree and Kinderhook plates.

During the 1844 succession crisis following Joseph Smith’s death, James Strang was able to convince thousands of Mormons to join his breakaway sect. Early on, Strang enjoyed the support of several Book of Mormon witnesses, prominent Mormon leaders, and all but a few of Joseph Smith’s family. Like Smith, he professed to have translated an ancient American document called the Voree plates by the power of god. But unlike Smith, he made these plates readily accessible for public viewing. The evidence points to Strang having manufactured these plates from ordinary tea kettle brass, but, even after close inspection, thousands believed in their historicity and Strang’s prophetic pretensions.

Joseph Smith himself was fooled by the fraudulent Kinderhook plates—a proven hoax intended to expose Joseph Smith as a charlatan. Smith was presented the plates and asked to interpret them. He never translated the plates, but he did erroneously declare them to be a history of one of Ham’s descendants. The LDS Church maintained that the plates were authentic well into the 20th century.

Because others were able to fabricate seemingly ancient plates, Joseph Smith could have done the same. And given the credulity of many of the witnesses, in addition to Joseph Smith’s charismatic and persuasive personality, a relatively crude prop might have done the trick. (Please note, though, that there is no hard evidence that Smith ever did create such a prop.)

Once we grant the physical existence of the plates, provocative questions remain, like, “Where are the plates now?” They could have been destroyed, hidden, or lost. The Kinderhook plates, for example, went missing for many decades, and the whereabouts of the Voree plates is still a mystery. According to LDS lore, the gold plates were returned to the angel Moroni or deposited in a cave within the Hill Cumorah.

Countless questions surround the origins of Mormonism, and I doubt we’ll ever definitively answer all of them. I think with this post, I probably raised more questions than I answered. But it is precisely this enigmatic and elusive quality to early Mormonism that interests me. Its history is often more complex than its believers and critics realize. That’s certainly true regarding the gold plates.

Needless to say, I don’t find the church’s explanation of the gold plates plausible, but neither am I entirely satisfied with the naturalistic account I’ve sketched here. And while it’s not my burden to provide an exhaustive explanation, it is an interesting subject to discuss. I look forward to your thoughts.

*A good point was raised in the comments. It’d be wrong to assume that Joseph Smith always intended to use the plates to start a religion. They might have been an extension of his treasure-digging at first and only later took on religious significance.

But I have a confession to make: For the most part, I actually like the temples. Admittedly, I sometimes get the creeps from the Salt Lake temple. Perhaps it’s just too synonymous with the LDS Church’s inordinate influence in Utah. Otherwise, I’m able to divorce the temples from Mormonism and appreciate them as architectural works and landmarks.

Now I don’t really understand the aesthetics behind good architecture, but I find many of the temples beautiful. The Provo temple is an eye-sore, granted. When I was a student at USU, however, I loved the view I had of the Logan temple. And where I currently live, I enjoy my proximity to the Draper temple as well. Other temples that I like include the Washington D.C., San Diego, and the Laie Hawaii temples.

Having a big, beautiful building around which a city is constructed appeals to my Europhilia, I guess. One of my favorite things about Germany is that every village has either its own distinctive castle or cathedral. That isn’t to say that an LDS temple is the architectural equivalent to, say, Notre Dame. But compared to the big box retailers and chain franchises that dominate suburban Utah, LDS temples are a welcome sight.

I doubt ex-Catholics have the same aversion to European cathedrals as ex-Mormons do toward LDS temples. Many cathedrals in Europe are seen as fairly secular. Indeed, a number of the cathedrals I visited in Germany were not operated and maintained by solely the Catholic Church, but the government too (as they are recognized to be both historic sites and tourist attractions)*. And to the extent that cathedrals invoke the thought of religion, it’s often just as a relic of Europe’s religious past. Today, the pews are empty—save for Easter and Christmas Mass. Even in the 19th-century, Nietzsche referred to churches and cathedrals as “tombs of God”.

Should Mormonism collapse in Utah as Catholicism largely has in Western Europe, would we value the LDS temples enough to preserve them? I hope so.

*I initially claimed that some of these Cathedrals were wholly operated by the German government, but that was mistaken, as I explain in the comments.

The thing, I think, is that both camps are right. Not only are church members typically a little more diverse outside of the Book of Mormon belt, but I personally know a hugely varied range of people who are LDS church members. Not only do they have many different takes on their own religion, but their hobbies, careers, looks, race and everything else run the gamut.

BUT.

I also think the sort of people I attract as friends are semi-atypical of Mormons. While the people within the church may have individual lives, the capital-C Church has worked very hard for the last 40 years to create uniformity. The Mormons may have started out as a rag-tag bunch of trailblazers, but the implementation of correlation created personal conformity in addition to doctrinal conformity. From the top down a very conservative personal dress and lifestyle is encouraged. Many members feel pressure from leaders and doctrine to look and act a certain way, and (particularly in my area) any deviation from that is met with judgment from friends, neighbors and fellow congregants. Watch an R-rated movie? Expect a few whispers. Grow a beard? Better hope you don’t get called into the bishopric. Feel like you, as a woman, should work outside the home? God give you strength to deal with people telling you how you are hurting your family.* So members stay in line to stay in good standing with the church and because it is culturally reinforced.

I think this video kind of says it all. The church is trying to attract ever more diverse populations with a uniform, conservative message. But most church members I know deviate from that norm, at least somewhat. (Hell, my best friend is planning on getting dreads this summer!) So where is the truth on this issue? Does the new ad campaign reflect the reality of LDS membership, even if it doesn’t reflect the reality of correlation? Do I just know unusual Mormons? Or is the whole issue just shades of gray? Thoughts?

*Many of these are becoming more accepted and recent talks from church leadership have softened pronouncements on such issues as birth control, working moms and other divisive issues, but there are still a lot of traditional expectations for members.

At the risk of coming across as a raving anti-Mormon to people who don’t know me well, I offer the following story to those dealing with non and former Mormons.

Matt and I had a couple of people who I assume were from Relief Society (Mormon women’s organization) drop by the other day to welcome us to the neighborhood. It was very nice of them to introduce themselves and ask about us. But as soon as those brief niceties were over, they then asked if we were members and we said no. Which was followed by asking if we had been baptized, to which we said yes. They proceeded to tell us where the church was and what time services are. Then they pointed out all our member neighbors, while seemingly not knowing or not caring about any of the non churchgoing neighbors.

I get that there is a lot of emphasis put on missionary work and fellowshipping (being friendly to with a missionary slant) non and inactive members. But this whole visit was really frustrating to me, because I felt like it went from a really nice “welcome to the area” visit to a “missionary/we don’t care about you if you don’t come to church” visit in 30 seconds.

We were nice to them, but when they asked about religion, our answer was unambiguous. There are few things more frustrating to me than saying “I don’t go to church” and getting the “Well just in case you decide to undo your difficult and emotionally painful, traumatizing journey to that place, we meet at 9!”* in response. It feels dismissive and inconsiderate. Do I reply, “Your religious choices make little sense and are frequently contradictory. Wanna sleep in and keep that 10 percent of your income, leave behind your deeply held convictions, because that shouldn’t be too hard, right?” No! I do not. Because it is rude and does not take into consideration what may be a very nuanced view of religion, and it’s disrespectful of whatever experiences they’ve had that led them to that choice.

And do they not know or just not care to know their non-Mormon neighbors? It frankly felt anti-welcoming by the end, because it was clear that they don’t associate with neighbors that don’t go to church.

It would have been far more effective missionary work if they’d just been nice, introduced themselves, pointed out their houses and told us to come to them with any questions or what not. And if they’d brought baked goods. Cookies or bread never hurt your cause.

*No. People do not literally say that. But it’s how it comes across.

Mormonism is a religion colored by complexities and contradictions. The prolific Mormon essayist Eugene England called the Mormon experience “essentially, as well as existentially, paradoxical.” LDS author Terryl Givens, more recently, posits a similar thesis in his book People of Paradox.

“By proving contraries, truth is made manifest,” said Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the LDS Church. Informed by Smith’s statement, I will discuss Mormonism’s contraries in the hope of explaining the religion. My method in this paper will follow the seven Cs of religious studies: creed, code, cultus, community, culture, confines, and consciousness. In each of these seven characteristics exist tensions that help define Mormonism.

One of the most important aspects of a religion is its creed—its set of core beliefs. The Mormon “creed,” as it were, can be found in the Articles of Faith. Joseph Smith penned a letter to the inquiring John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, articulating 13 fundamental doctrines of Mormonism. The letter was later canonized as the Articles of Faith.

The primary articles affirm the church’s belief in: God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost; free moral agency and accountability for one’s actions; the salvation of man through the Atonement and “by obedience to the laws and ordinances [faith, repentance, baptism by immersion, and the laying on of hands] of the Gospel”; the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly” and the Book of Mormon as scripture; continuing revelation; and the Restoration of the Primitive Church.

The Articles of Faith, though, only sketch Mormon beliefs. They omit many important teachings. We must also look to other canonical sources, like the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

The Book of Mormon purports to be a translation by Joseph Smith of an ancient American document. According to LDS lore, Smith recovered buried gold plates from a hill near his house and translated it by the power of God. The plates relate the history of a group of Hebrews who migrated from Jerusalem to America.

Mormons call the Book of Mormon the “most correct book of any on earth” and the “keystone” of their religion. The Book of Mormon enjoys this privileged position among Mormons because not only is it a test of Joseph Smith’s prophetic abilities, but it also contains uniquely Mormon teachings. For example, the Book of Mormon makes the claim that Jesus visited the Americas after his Resurrection and spread the Gospel to ancient peoples there. Another LDS doctrine that originates from the Book of Mormon is that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne 2:25). The Fall, then, is something Mormons rejoice in rather than lament. This teaching is anathema to much of the Christian community.

But the Book of Mormon, too, is silent on a host of fundamental Mormon doctrines. The majority of distinctly LDS teachings are found in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, including polygamy and the exaltation of man (D&C 132), baptism for the dead (D&C 88:101), the plurality of gods (Abraham 4:1), and many more.

Mormon doctrine does not end with these works of scripture, however. A core tenet of Mormonism is that revelation is progressive and ongoing. God speaks through a living, modern-day prophet who—in his capacity as the “Lord’s mouthpiece”—can add to or amend church doctrines. Revelation is the mechanism by which the church was able to survive doctrinal changes concerning polygamy and the black priesthood ban, for instance.

There are, I’m convinced, contradictions within and among all these books. The Book of Mormon, for instance, is explicitly monotheistic (Alma 11:26-29). In later works of scripture, however, a plurality of gods is taught (Abraham 4:27, D&C 132:37).

The Book of Mormon also seems to endorse a fairly traditional conception of the Trinity—that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one being. “Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son,”declares God (Ether 3:14). This is at obvious variance with the LDS Godhead, where these personages are wholly separate beings (D&C 130:22). These are but a couple examples.

The apparent textual contradictions among LDS canon are the birthing pains of a new theology. Joseph Smith had the difficult task of formulating the early church’s beliefs. Over his life, it seems, he changed his mind on key theological issues. The contradictions above suggest that Mormonism in its infancy was monotheistic and Trinitarian. But come Nauvoo, Smith was espousing a new Mormonism. Perhaps this just underscores the importance of revelatory reform. Mormonism has the luxury to evolve, as per progressive revelation from the Prophet.

There is another tension aside from canonical contradictions—one Mormons are more likely to confront: the perception of a widening “sacred distance” between man and God. In biblical times, it seemed that God was omnipresent. He was always manifest in the world, and his dealings with man were overt. In the Garden of Eden, God walked amidst man (Genesis 3:8-10). He even fought alongside them in battle, as was the case with the Israelites (Judges 1:19). But in the centuries following Christ’s ascendance to Heaven, a period known by Mormons as “the Great Apostasy,” God has kept hidden and man has felt very alone.

Joseph Smith’s First Vision and the subsequent restoration of the Gospel collapsed this “sacred distance” or “divine hiddenness.” As Prophet, Smith announced revelation after revelation. He also promised his members the ability to receive personal revelation. This was proof that God was again intimately involved in our lives. Now certainly, Mormons today still believe this. At the same time, however, it is hard not to notice that revelations (in both gravity and frequency) have declined in the modern era. There are exceptions—the lifting of the black priesthood ban in 1978 comes to mind. But generally speaking, what important radical pronouncements has the church made lately? I think some Mormons long to be back on the theological frontlines—I know I did.

The LDS Church is widely known for its strict moral codes. Non-Mormons often see the church’s prohibitions as weird or draconian. Others agree with LDS values and commend Mormons for living them.

In D&C 89, God revealed to Smith what is commonly referred to as the “Word of Wisdom.” The Word of Wisdom presents a dietary code for Mormons. It stipulates that alcohol and other “strong drinks” should not be ingested. The revelation also strongly advises against tobacco and “hot drinks”—a prohibition that has clarified to include drinks like coffee and tea. The Word of Wisdom promises all those who heed its advice “health in their navel and marrow to their bones,” wisdom, physical endurance, and that “the destroying angel shall pass by them…and not slay them” (D&C 89:18-21).

The second (and more important) code established by the LDS Church is the Law of Chastity. In the Endowment ceremony, participants swear to obey the law so as to guarantee marital fidelity. The Law of Chastity extends far beyond the Endowment ceremony, however. All members of the church are bound to it. The Law of Chastity not only forbids marital infidelity, but homosexual behavior, masturbation, and pornography as well. Impure thoughts that may lead to said offenses are also discouraged.

The consequences for disobeying the Law of Chastity are serious. In Mormonism, sexual impurity is the second greatest evil next to murder (Alma 39:5). Deviance from the law results in revocation of a temple recommend and other forms of church discipline, relative to the severity of the offense.

It is argued that the sexual repression caused by the Law of Chastity contributes to the brief courtships and early marriages. My parents met at a BYU dance and got engaged two weeks later! My parents recently confessed to me that one impetus for the hasty engagement was their wanting to be physically intimate, but within the bonds of marriage. That is anecdotal and unrepresentative of most Mormons of course, but it is true that Utahns marry youngest in our country.

Many Christians are sympathetic to and share LDS values, but nonetheless convict the LDS Church of “legalism”–that is, an over-emphasis on codes of conduct. This criticism also alludes to a larger theological debate concerning the saving power of works versus faith.

The debate over works and faith is most pronounced when discussing LDS rituals (cultus). “Saving ordinances” are those rituals in Mormonism that are required for exaltation–exaltation being the entrance into the highest degree of heave (the celestial kingdom) and the ability to progress to godhood. These ordinances include baptism, confirmation and the reception of the Holy Ghost, and certain temple rituals such as the endowment and marriage.

The temple is one of the most visible manifestations of Mormonism. Over 120 LDS temples are operating worldwide, with many more either under construction or in planning. Mormons give a lot of import to their temples and the rituals practiced therein. Much of the temple work is concerned with the family and its continuance in the hereafter. Marriage partners, for examples, are sealed for “time and all eternity.” Their relationship with their children, too, is eternal (provided the children live worthily).

The ordinances performed in the temple are also extended to the dead. Through living proxies, baptismal rites, sealings, and endowments can be performed on the deceased’s behalf. The dead are free to accept or decline these ordinances in the spirit world. A lot of misunderstanding surrounds these posthumous practices, so they have garnered horror and ridicule from others.

Mormons keep the specific details of their temple rituals secret from non-members and also those members not yet eligible or worthy to enter the temple themselves. The mantra many Mormons say in defense that these rituals are “sacred, not secret.” In truth, they are both. But the label of “secretive” has a special sting for Mormons, because the Book of Mormon forcefully and repeatedly condemns “secret combinations,” “secret works” and oath taking (Mormon 8:27, 40; 2 Ne 26:22; and Hel 6:22, to list just a few verses).

This speaks to a debate within Mormonism between its Masonic and anti-Mason influences. Some scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon alike, who have studied the Book of Mormon believe that those passages that condemn secrecy reflect anti-Masonic sentiments that were common at Smith’s time in the late 1820s. Indeed, some early Mormons even called the Book of Mormon the “anti-Masonick Bible.” And yet notwithstanding these anti-Masonic sentiments, there are also striking influences from Masonry evident in the temple ceremonies.

In March 1842, Joseph Smith was initiated into Freemasonry. Less than two months later, he introduced the temple ceremonies. It is no surprise, then, that there are parallels between Masonic rituals and LDS temple rituals. These parallels include special handshakes, blood-oaths (prior to 1990), and new names given to participants. The church and Freemasonry share symbolic imagery as well: sun, moon, and star symbols, the square and the cross, the beehive, the all seeing eye, and several others.

Community plays a central role in Mormonism. Mormons identify as a people; Mormonism in this sense resembles an ethnic group. This is a macro understanding of community in Mormonism, however. I’d like to focuse on the micro, namely the LDS ward. A ward consists of anywhere between 200 and 500 active Mormons. A ward is not merely a local congregation that meets each Sunday for religious services; it is a community. These members grow so close together that wards are often called “ward families.”

Most members of wards do more than sit and sing together in church. They teach each other’s children in Sunday school. Their kids are in the same Boy Scout troops, sports teams, and dance groups. The members eat dinners together. When a family moves in to a ward, they help them unload and often donate dishes and furniture. And when tragedy strikes the ward, the members mourn and pray together.

This closeness within a ward is not without costs. One consequence of “ward families” is gossip. The Relief Society, the women’s religious service in a ward, has a notorious reputation for gossip. I could share anecdotes, but the fact that church leaders have to routinely address the issue of gossip should suffice as evidence of the problem. A search for the word “gossip” at lds.org yielded 240 results!

The second consequence for ward intimacy is the difficulty in leaving the church. Many who leave the LDS Church find the transition very painful since they are breaking not only religious ties, but also social and familial ones. Leaving the church, then, is tantamount to betrayal—to friends, to family, to the community.

In leaving Mormonism, I was fortunate enough have most of my relationship remain intact. Those friends I lost in my ward were friends worth losing anyway. But others aren’t so lucky. My mother was born and raised in the LDS faith. I’ve often confronted her on why she believes in the church in the face of difficulties like the translation of the Book of Abraham and the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Just a couple months ago, my mother confided in me that she does not believe the church is true, but said she stays with it because it is the only community she has ever known. Her leaving the church would damage her marriage, and make her a pariah among the extended family, at work, and—more immediately—in the neighborhood.

Similar social pressures often prod young Mormon males into missions. I had a friend leave on a mission for no other reason (sadly) than that he’d make a more marketable bachelor in Utah as a returned missionary.

Closely related to community is culture, another important characteristic of religion. Most people only know Mormonism by its culture, not its doctrines. Mormons are perceived to be honest, hard-working, sober, friendly, family-oriented and generous—almost to a fault. Indeed, despite this image (or perhaps because of it), many people are still uneasy about Mormonism. Some may think that Mormonism’s smiley façade masks a darker reality. And if Utah is any indication, this concern is not entirely without warrant.

According to a 2007 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Utah leads the country in non-medical painkiller abuse.

Utah culture is arguably one of culprits. Marked by denial, conformity, social pressure and guilt, this culture contributes to the state’s drug problem (among others). In an interview in the local documentary Happy Valley, one addict said that recovery in Utah is especially difficult because our society is so judgmental—people don’t want to be honest and open about their addictions for fear of how others might perceive them. He asked that Utahns “look in the mirror, before looking out the window.”

Youth suicide is also an epidemic in Utah. And disproportionately represented in these suicides are gay youth, who are three to five times more likely to commit suicide. Overall, Utah had the 7th highest suicide rates in the country from the years 2000-2004.

Chief among the risk factors for suicide is an unwillingness to seek help due to the stigma attached mental disorders like depression. “We have this ‘All is well in Zion’ kind of thing going here,” Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told the Deseret News.

“We’d rather not talk about [depression] at all or maybe to go talk to the bishop about it,” he said. “If there really is a mental health issue you need help. It doesn’t work to talk to the youth leaders or ecclesiastic leaders.”

In rape, too, Utah exceeds the national average. One in eight Utah women will be raped at some point in their lifetime. And sadly, few rapes will be reported.

A recent report by the Deseret Morning News found that 90 percent of Provo rapes go unreported. A BYU police officer explained, “Most Provo residents are religious and have a tendency to stigmatize discussion of sexual assault and sometimes to demonize the survivor.” And I wonder whether the rapes themselves result, in part, from our unhealthy climate of sexual repression.

It is also true that Utah is home to green jello, low crime rates, healthy residents, and the highest literacy and language fluency rates in the country. I only give focus to the state’s ills because they so often get ignored.

For most of the church’s history, Mormonism has been inescapably associated with Utah. And while I believe that there is a Mormon culture distinct from Utah culture, there is nonetheless overlap between the two. Mormonism has undoubtedly affected many aspects of Utah culture. But the distinction between Mormonism and Utah will only grow sharper as Utah becomes less Mormon and the church becomes increasingly global.

A religion’s confines—that is, its spatial and geographical location—is the sixth C in the seven Cs of religious studies. I just touched on the important relationship between Utah and Mormonism, for example. But there are still other aspects of Mormonism’s confines to discuss.

Mormons yearn for Zion, for home; they desperately want to belong. It is odd that members of a uniquely American religion like Mormonism can feel like strangers in their own land. But historically, they very much have been strangers. Persecution drove the saints from New York to Ohio, then to Missouri, then to Illinois, and finally in 1847 to Utah (what was then a distant territory). So it’s obvious that Mormons believe it is imperative that they have sacred space in which they can worship and practice their faith freely.

The idea of sacred space is incorporated into all church buildings. The temples are built very intentionally to be conducive to “the spirit” (a spiritual feeling that accompanies worship). The temples’ rooms are filled with penetrating white lights and adorned with lavish carpets and elegant furniture. Every floor in a temple is soundproofed, to ensure a still, reverent quiet. The endowment room, where Mormons receive special ordinances, is distinguished by walls painted to depict a wooded setting. And the sealing room boasts beautiful, gold-framed mirrors on either side of the room that create an endless reflection, representing the eternity in which couples and their children will continue.

Some Mormons feel that the sacred space in LDS meetinghouses has been compromised in recent decades. Virtually all LDS chapels have a basketball court. It is a curious sight, but the church wanted their meetinghouses to be more than places of worship; they wanted them to be community centers and “cultural halls.” There is a tension with this desire, however. Something as worldly as basketball can crowd out sacred space in an LDS chapel. At what point does an LDS meetinghouse feel too much like a community center and not enough like a church?

I noticed this concern when I was Mormon. In my ward, it took the form of a stigma against those families (like mine) who sat on the basketball court half of the chapel during sacrament meeting. It means they were late to church and had other priorities, like finishing watching a quarter of a football game.

And finally, the enigmatic Mormon consciousness. The Mormon mind is a congress of contradictory ideas and identities.

Mormons, out of doctrinal necessity, are a very gender-conscious people. God created man and woman and commanded them to “multiply and replenish the earth” (Moses 2:28).

On one hand, the LDS Church is an ultra-patriarchal system. Many point to the practice of polygamy as degrading to women. Emma Smith, Joseph Smith’s wife, found the practice abhorrent and also harbored a deep resentment for it. Smith commanded her to accept the practice on threat of damnation (D&C 132:52). One main justification for polygamy was the bearing of children in this life and of “spirit children” in the next. Some women object to this teaching, as it seems to reduce a woman’s role to solely procreation.

The church has long since abandoned polygamy, but other patriarchal practices remain. Women are unable to receive the priesthood, for example. Another example: In the temple, women promise to obey their husbands in everything so long as their husbands obey God.

On the other hand, women can find their role in Mormonism very empowering. A case could be made that the church has historically been progressive on women’s issues. Polygamy was partly justified in order to afford women financial security, for instance. Women in the Utah territory were also the first to receive suffrage. In regards to the temple ceremonies, women are endowed with a certain priesthood power and, under the authority of a male priesthood holder, can exercise that power (and have historically). And then doctrinally, Mormons reject original sin and thus do not see Eve (or women generally) as responsible for the Fall. If anything, Eve is revered as a heroine.

A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that Mormons are the most partisan religious demographic in America. Fifty-two percent of Mormons are strongly Republican, as opposed to only 15 percent who are strongly Democrat.

I don’t find the survey surprising, but I think it glosses over Mormonism’s rich history of political diversity. In The Mormon Quest for the Presidency, we read about several LDS presidential candidates who ran on surprisingly liberal platforms. Consider Joseph Smith. For his time, Smith held some very progressive ideas. He campaigned on the abolition of slavery and a blanket pardon for and release of all prison inmates. Today, Senator Harry Reid, a practicing Mormon, is the Democratic leader in the Senate. And the Udalls are a LDS family who are also prominent in contemporary Democratic politics.

Integral to the Mormon identity is a profound sense of persecution—dare I say a martyrdom complex. Being a “peculiar people” and being persecuted for it allows Mormons to connect with their pioneer forbearers, who suffered violence back East and weathered fierce blizzards moving west. The balance between being “mainstream” and “peculiar” in LDS consciousness is a difficult and delicate one. This difficulty was explored by historian Kathleen Flake’s book, The Politics of American Religious Identity, when during the Smoot hearings the church had to disavow polygamy in order to be integrated into the mainstream, while emphasizing other uniquely Mormon teachings like the Godhead and the First Vision to preserve its peculiarity.

Mormons are perceived to be peculiarly wholesome, but their reputation as prudes is hardly deserved. Unlike puritanical Christians, Mormons have a lust of life. The Articles of Faith encourage Mormons to seek after “virtuous,” “lovely,” and “praiseworthy” things. D&C 58:26 asks Mormons to be “anxiously engaged in a good cause…” We see this zeal in Mormon participation in the arts.

Music and dance are almost sacrosanct in Mormonism. Mormonism’s contribution to music is best embodied in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which is world-renowned and has performed for several U.S. Presidents. And about the LDS tradition of dance, Terryl Givens says the following in the PBS documentary The Mormons:

“Because we believe that God the Father, as well as Jesus Christ, are physical, embodied beings, that elevates the body to a heavenly status…And so dancing, I think, is in many ways, just an emblem or a symbol of a kind of righteous reveling in the physical tabernacle that we believe is a stage on our way to godliness itself.”

Mormons also celebrate the mind. “The glory of God is intelligence,” says D&C 93:36. Mormons, then, put a special emphasis on education. The church even manages several universities, with the flagship being BYU Provo. Interestingly, Mormons are among the only demographic for whom religiosity increases with education.

At odds with the Mormon emphasis on education is a definite anti-intellectual streak among Mormons. A lot is revealed about the Mormon mind in how they deal with criticisms of their faith. Many Mormons’ beliefs are immune to reasoned argument. Like my mother, they belong to the church for its community and emotionalism. When confronted with criticism, they retreat to their personal, spiritual experiences. This is often coupled with a dismissive attitude toward reason and science.

Over the years, church leaders have taught members to be wary of the “philosophies of men.” They are also admonished not to trust in the “arm of flesh” (D&C 1:19). This message is shared with church educators, too. Boyd K. Packer infamously told a group of church educators at BYU, “There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.”

The most profound conundrum in the Mormon consciousness is that Mormons belong to a hierarchical and authoritarian church, yet one that has remarkably individualistic qualities (a reflection of the individualism of the Jacksonian era).

“Obedience is a fundamental law of the gospel…Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction — whether it be recorded scripture or the words of modern prophets — to be worthy of obedience.”

But Mormonism—in theory, if not in practice—also affords members enormous freedom. As stated in the Articles of Faith, people are endowed with moral agency and are not held to account for “Adam’s transgressions.” Agency is central to the LDS understanding of the “war in heaven” and Christ’s “plan of salvation.” Joseph Smith also told his followers that they had the ability to receive personal revelations for them and their families. This can create (and at times has created) a tension between the members and church leadership.

Millions of people with disparate beliefs and from different backgrounds profess to be Mormon. It is because of the complexities and contradictions in Mormonism that such a diversity of people and beliefs can claim the same faith.

By “proving the contraries,” we gained insight into the LDS faith. The “truth” about what exactly Mormonism is, however, has not quite been “made manifest.” It still eludes us. And that for me is precisely Mormonism’s intrigue.

For their time, early Mormons were actually quite progressive on the matter of race. Joseph Smith, for example, ordained several black males to the priesthood (the black priesthood ban wasn’t fully articulated or enforced until Brigham Young became president). Many early Saints also had abolitionist sympathies, and the fear that Mormons wanted to free slaves is partly why the church was driven out of Missouri. And when Smith ran for president of the United States in 1844, he campaigned on a platform of abolition. Appreciating this context, it’s not hard to see how these black members might have felt welcome among the Saints.

When Jane arrived in Nauvoo, she was directed to Joseph Smith’s Mansion House. There, they were shown extraordinary hospitality, and Jane even lived with Smith for some time. Shortly before Joseph Smith was murdered in 1844, Emma Smith extended an invitation to Jane to be sealed to the Smith family as an adopted daughter. Flattered, but unsure what exactly the offer meant, she declined—a decision that would prove to be a life-long regret. More about that soon.

After the death of Joseph Smith, Jane followed Brigham Young faction to the Utah territory. She remained a faithful Latter-day Saint all her days. She was active in the Relief Society and donated funds to the building of several temples. Church authorities recognized her tremendous contributions and would occasionally reserve the front seats of the Tabernacle for her and her brother. And when she died in 1908, President Joseph F. Smith spoke at her funeral.

That’s the church-approved biography of Jane Manning James, and it’s all true. One aspect of her life, though, is consistently omitted in the church’s accounts. Remember that, while living with the Smiths, Emma asked Jane whether she wanted to be sealed as an adopted daughter and Jane declined. Toward the end of her life, she reconsidered the proposal and petitioned the First Presidency to be sealed to the Smiths. Normally, this wouldn’t be a problem. Countless people were sealed to Joseph Smith after his death, many as plural wives. But because Jane was black and couldn’t receive temple endowments, the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith repeatedly ignored her requests.

What the First Presidency offered instead, and what Jane begrudgingly assented to, is astounding. In 1894, they sealed Jane to Joseph Smith not as a daughter, but as a servant.  She was “attached as a Servitor for eternity to the prophet Joseph Smith and in this capacity be connected with his family and be obedient to him in all things in the Lord as a faithful Servitor” (Salt Lake Temple Adoption Record, May 18, 1894, Book A, p. 26). Because Jane couldn’t participate in temple ceremonies directly, Bathseba W. Smith acted as her proxy for and Joseph F. Smith as proxy for Joseph Smith.

A year later, dissatisfied with this compromise, Jane appealed one last time to receive the sealing Emma had offered her half a century prior. And again, she was denied.

Some Mormons have come to terms with there being polygamy in the celestial kingdom, but how many are comfortable with Joseph Smith having a black servant?

For all its patriarchy, the LDS Church was nonetheless among the first to support woman suffrage, making Utah the second territory and the first state to afford woman the right to vote.

(What follows is an abbreviated version of the talk. Here is the full text.)

Standards have changed much in our universities. Through the influence of a few, restrictions on dormitory living have been pulled down. Standards have been abandoned in favor of coeducational living in university housing.

New courses are being introduced in many universities, under the general heading “Alternatives to Marriage.” Some of those alternatives, if accepted, would give our communities kinship with the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The trend sees enrollments declining, endowments withheld (some withdrawn), a loss of confidence in our system of higher education, and worse than that, the graduates from many institutions of higher learning are moving into private and public life well-trained, technically proficient, even talented, but somehow without that attribute of character called integrity.

Graduation is a time for assessment and appreciation for things gained at school. At the dorm and at the apartment you are sorting through things that have accumulated during your school days. Some, such as old work books and test papers, will be discarded. Others you will carry away with you.

The question I ask the graduate is this: In all the review of what you have gained, are you giving any attention to the things you may have lost?

Did you come as a freshman with idealism, and put it aside?

Did you come with faith, and carry away in its place skepticism?

Did you come with patriotism, and replace it with cynicism?

Did you come free from any binding habits, and now leave with an addiction?

Did you arrive aspiring for marriage, a home, and a family, and now have abandoned those aspirations?

And critically important, did you come with virtue and moral purity, and now must admit to yourself that while you were here you have lost it?

How did this happen? … [S]ome few professors (thank the Lord at this school there are but a few) delight in relieving the student of his basic spiritual values. Throughout the world more and more faculty members look forward to the coming of a new crop of green freshmen with a compulsive desire to “educate” them.

Each year, many fall victim in the colleges and universities. There, as captive audiences, their faith, their patriotism, and their morality are lined up against a wall and riddled by words shot from the mouths of irreverent professors.

I hope that while you were taking courses you found time enough, after the study of your subject, to study the professors. One may well learn more from studying the professor than studying the subject.

Most of them, I repeat, have influenced your lives for good. But there are others, those few, who delight in destroying faith. I have found it generally true that a professor who ridicules faith and religious beliefs and downgrades patriotism, who continually presses for the loosening of standards of campus discipline for both faculty and for students, is a very interesting subject for study. A student would do well to look him over. May I predict what you will find.

Be assured that one who strives to widen the breadth of accepted moral conduct does so to condone what he is doing. Not infrequently you will find such a one unworthy. If he derides spiritual development, it can generally be concluded that he failed in the subject. He defends himself by declaring it an unnecessary discipline. He is the one who ridicules faith and humility, who would smile in contempt when anyone mentions virtue, or reverence, or dedication, or morality.

Let me give you a clue. There is something very interesting about a person who is anxious to forsake the standards of his church, particularly if he leaves them and encourages others to do likewise.

Have you ever wondered what it means when he can leave it, but he cannot leave it alone? Normal behavior would have him cancel his affiliation in the church and let that be that. Not so with this individual. He can leave it, but he cannot leave it alone. He becomes consumed with it and obsessed with it. That says something about him.

And one might ask, Is he talking to students, or is he really talking to himself? You might ask also, and he might ask himself: Is he happy, really happy?

This is the man who ridicules belief in a hereafter and says there is no such thing as God. He’d better hope he is right. For if, as some of us know, the opposite is true, the final scene will be his, and justice more than poetic and penalties adequate in every way will be exacted from him.

There is a crying need for the identification of atheism for what it is, and that is, a religion—albeit a negative one, nevertheless it is a religious expression. It is the one extreme end of the spectrum of thought concerning the causation of things.

Those who are spiritually sensitive recognize God as the cause, a living being who rules in the affairs of man. The so-called atheist declares that God is not—not just that he isn’t the cause of things, but that he indeed is not.

Atheism, as theism, is divided into many sects—communism, agnosticism, skepticism, humanism, pragmatism, and there are others.

The atheist proclaims his own dishonesty in accepting pay to teach psychology, sociology, history, or English, while he is indeed preaching his atheistic religious philosophy to his students. If the atheist wants to teach his doctrine at a public university, let him purchase property off campus and build himself a building and offer classes. Let him label them for what they are.

In the separation of church and state we ought to demand more protection from the agnostic, from the atheist, from the communist, from the skeptic, from the humanist and the pragmatist, than we have yet been given.

Remember, graduates, there are some rights and wrongs. We must come to understand that there are basic truths and basic principles, basic conformities, necessary to achieve happiness. There are some things that are false, that are wrong. For instance, we cannot be happy and at once be wicked—never, regardless of how generally accepted that course may be.

Thoughts? I don’t really have much to say by way of commentary. I agree with Packer that some professors may be overzealous in challenging students’ religious beliefs. Students should have to confront atheism in philosophy or religion classes, but it’d be inappropriate for the topic to be forced in most other classes. Where I disagree with Packer is his (mis)characterization of atheism and his smearing nonbelievers as amoral and unhappy.

It’s a shame SHAFT wasn’t around in 1973, because I’m sure Packer would’ve had a thing or two to say about us. 

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

This admonition hasn’t stopped the LDS Church from trying however. Anthropologist Daymon Smith, in The Book of Mammon, contends that the LDS Church tries to serve both God and mammon, prophet and profit. The result is an organization that is too corporate to be truly religious, and too religious to be truly corporate (members’ deference to ‘inspired’ church leaders makes competition and accountability difficult).

(What follows is my brief review of the book. I’d encourage you to read these more thorough reviews.)

The book recounts Daymon Smith’s experiences in the Church Office Building, where he worked as a media evaluator. Daymon gives us a rare inside-look into the church’s business practices, day-to-day operations, and office politics. Thread throughout the book are fascinating anecdotes about Mormon history and astute insights about Mormonism more generally.

The Book of Mammon is a must-read for serious students of Mormonism, but Daymon’s writing may deter the lay reader. Much of the book reads like an 19th-century exposé. It’s wordy, and flamboyantly so. I personally found it exhausting—initially, at least. It’s as if Daymon feels the need to prove his erudition on every page, lest the reader forgets he has a PhD. Thankfully, he does tone it down later in the book (or perhaps I just got used to it). The style wasn’t totally without its charms, however. It did occasionally make for fun and playful read.

My reservations about the style aside, I strongly recommend this book–especially to my Mormon friends. This is, in a sense, a vigorously pro-Mormon book. Daymon Smith is trying to rescue Mormonism from the LDS Church. Correlation and corporatism have replaced some of Mormonism’s finer truths. I have expressed a similar concern at this blog before.

Lastly, because many of you won’t read the book (it is, after all, 400 pages and $25 bucks), I want to share some of my favorite quotes and factoids from the book:

• “There is too much time given to corporations, stocks, bonds, politics, etc. by our leaders to please me. We are in all kinds of business interest.” — Brigham Young Jr., April 1890
• The LDS Church, as a church, doesn’t actually exist. It is a corporation, and was incorporated by Brigham Young in 1851.
• Eastern bankers found the LDS Church a sound financial investment, due to Mormons’ “sense of community,” “obedience to authority,” and “uniquely productive work ethic.” Similar attributes led sociologist Max Weber to compare Mormons to the German Army.
• Presiding Bishop Charles W. Nibley “made his fortune on stolen timber and child labor,” to quote his grandson, Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley. An entry from Charles’ journal reads: “It has become the custom in the church to give high seats in the synagogue to men who have made ‘money’.”
• President Heber J. Grant was the subject of a federal investigation in 1920 because of alleged war profiteering by the Sugar Trust (Mormons had a monopoly on beet sugar).
• In 1981, the LDS Church released the ‘Quad’–a combination scripture set (complete with footnotes and chapter headings) that many Mormons use today. Initially, sales for the new scriptures were sluggish. The CEO of Deseret Book worried that the new emphasis on Jesus was to blame (the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon was subtitled, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”). The more likely culprit was Deseret Book itself, which heavily advertised the pricey leather-bound sets to the exclusion of cheaper ones.
• Perhaps it’s no coincidence that, amid the Quads’ disappointing sales, Ezra Taft Benson made “flooding the earth” with Books of Mormon a theme throughout his presidency.
• Lorenzo Snow instituted the 10-percent tithe, and stripped bishops of stewardship over their congregations’ tithes.
• The LDS Church was working on (but eventually scrapped) a Mormon alternative to the social networking sites MySpace and Facebook.
• Of General Conference: “[T]he speakers seem to be conspirators in some extended Stanley Milgram study. How diminished can the content be, and still command silence, if spoken by a “prophet”?”
• The last year the LDS Church publicly disclosed its finances was 1959.
• Computers issue and sign mission calls. These computers employ an algorithm that sends missionaries primarily to those areas that will yield the most tithes. (Why the church presence in Latin America, then? The converts may be poorer, but they are also more numerous.)
• Half a million dollars are spent every year on vehicles for general authorities.
• The LDS Church once urged members to keep a one-year supply of food, but they suspected most members weren’t heeding this counsel. The church commissioned a survey to see how much food storage the average member has. The majority kept only a three-month supply, so the church lowered the bar and made that the new ideal.
• The LDS Church gives an estimated 1-2% of its annual revenue to charity (comparable to Walmart’s rate). “I would not be surprised if more was spent on PR than on those good works which are PR’ed before men.”
• “Even as early as 1962 David McKay expressed private doubts about Correlation, suggesting … that by these same means the early Christian church was made to stumble into darkness …”
• A group of African-American Mormons (the Genesis Group) submitted a script to the LDS Church for a play about black Mormons from the 1830s to the Civil War. The church approved the play, so long as they omitted the references to Elijah Abel’s priesthood ordination and Brigham Young’s polygamous wives, among other things.
• In 2009, the LDS Church not only vicariously baptized the late St. Damian of the Roman Catholic Church, but also married him to a spiritual wife.
• The FBI consulted with the LDS Church after the 9/11 attacks to model some of their security systems after the church’s genealogical software.
• The LDS Church initially declined to purchase the domain name Mormon.com. When its owner turned it into a porn site, a wealthy member bought it for upwards of a million dollars and donated it to the church.
• The LDS Church attempted to trademark the term ‘Mormon’, but were denied by the U.S. Trademark and Patents Office.
• The author was asked to evaluate church media geared toward ‘Latinos’. He ruffled feathers when he responded that ‘Latino’ is a fictitious demographic, imagined by advertisers to conveniently lump Mexicans, Chileans, and others into a single group. His boss threatened him with probation for being “too academic, too verbose.”
• A church contractor from 1997 to 2000 bribed the Argentine government to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to expedite national identity cards for missionaries. Other documents that were  needed to legitimize the church’s presence in Argentina and were harder to procure were forged.

Here are this year’s nominated SHAFT posts and their respective categories:

LDS leader look-a-likes — “Funniest Humor Piece”

My bishop: “Masturbation leads to homosexuality” — “Best Chat with Church Leader”

BYU censors letter to the editor critical of Prop 8 — “Best News Reporting”

My apology to Pastor Ted Haggard — “Best Religion-and-Homosexuality Discussion”

This is your brain on god — “Best Science Piece”

Gordon B. Hinckley and the downplaying of Mormon peculiarity — “Best LDS Church Watch”

We are winning in four of those categories, and are competitive in the other two. Please consider voting not only for this site, but for all the other Mormon/ex-Mormon blogs you wish to recognize.

Vote here, and vote soon.

Thanks again for your continued support.

In a recent Facebook discussion about racial insensitivity in the Book of Mormon, one of my cousins called me a “confused” and “angry” apostate. He said this site is “one-sided”, and full of “half-truths” and “war room spin.” My immediate family and several LDS friends came to my defense, saying that they’ve always found me sincere, well-meaning, and respectful. But I suspect that many others who read that Facebook thread quietly agreed with my cousin. So in this post, I hope to explain why I blog about and criticize Mormonism. Then we’ll discuss whether I satisfy the definition (or rather, definitions) of anti-Mormon.

My first project at this blog was the “Why I Don’t Believe” series. I anticipated people dismissing it as anti-Mormon, so I began the series with an explanation of my motives. I’ll quote them here, because they also apply to why I blog about Mormonism more generally.

The basest motivation behind my “Why I Don’t Believe” series is simply an interest in Mormonism. It’s said that you can leave Mormonism, but Mormonism can’t leave you. In Utah, at least, that’s pretty true. Mormonism is all around you and you can’t escape it even if you want to. Most days, though, I don’t want to escape it. I enjoy studying and discussing Mormonism; it’s a fascinating religion.

Perhaps the primary reason for this project is to get people to reevaluate their religious beliefs. While I disagree with several teachings of the LDS Church (the emphasis on obedience, the rhetoric against homosexuality, etc.), I don’t think Mormonism is a uniquely harmful religion. So my opposition to the LDS Church has less to do with any one particular doctrine, and is instead about the very nature of faith.

Our culture is wrong to venerate faith as a virtue. Believing in something for which there is no or little evidence—or worse, believing in something despite contrary evidence—is not admirable. In fact, beliefs untethered to reality are often dangerous (case in point: September 11th). To be sure, not all faith manifests itself as violence. The real danger with faith is that, by faith, anything can be justified.

In every other facet of life except religion, we demand evidence of people for their beliefs. Were I to tell you that I walked on water the other day, you would rightly be incredulous. Yet Christians—and I include Mormons here—profess that a man did just that (walk on water) nearly two millennia ago in the backwater of the Middle East and the only reports we have (the gospels) were written several decades after the alleged event by anonymous authors who were not themselves eyewitnesses. Why the double standard? Religious beliefs ought to receive the same scrutiny that other beliefs do. No, religious beliefs actually merit more scrutiny, because, as Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

I oppose any false belief and all dogmatic thinking. The reason I target religion is not that it’s necessarily the most dangerous dogma. The political dogmas of Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism claimed more lives during the 20th century than did religion. It’s just that religion, unlike other belief systems, remains largely unscrutinized. That’s why opening a frank and civil dialogue about religion is so important.

Also, that I give particular attention to the Mormonism in this series does not betray an animosity toward that religion. Mormonism is just more relevant for my group of friends and I’m in a better position from which to critique it given my familiarity with it.

If I don’t dissuade anyone from Mormonism, I hope that at least this conversation increases Mormons’ understanding of why people leave their church. Offensive misconceptions abound about ‘apostates.’ The LDS Church tends to divide ex-Mormons into two camps: those who were offended by a church member and those who leave to pursue a life of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. These descriptions may aptly describe why some leave, but, in my experience, countless more leave over legitimate concerns about Mormon history and doctrine—the very issues I will explore in later posts.

Later in the post, I explained how my challenging Mormons about their beliefs is actually a sign of respect.

Criticism is not a sign of hate. The opposite, in fact, is true. “The way you respect a person,” to quote secular philosopher Austin Dacey, “is not by agreeing with everything he or she says, but by holding that person to the same intellectual/moral standards to which you hold yourself. Anything less is not respect, it’s indifference. So sometimes in order to respect religion’s peoples, we must critique people’s religions.”

This point should not be lost on my LDS friends. Some Mormons spend two years of their lives proselytizing. And why? Because they sincerely want to share with people “the good news.” The truth is a gift; it would be selfish to keep it to oneself. Likewise, I don’t try to disabuse my friends of their faith in order to win debates or rob them of happiness. As a matter of principle, I just believe that people deserve the truth.

At times the truth may be difficult, like discovering that one’s faith is unfounded. Leaving the LDS church is a painful experience for many. Still, there is something liberating about the truth—about seeing the world as it really is.

And because I would be challenging others’ beliefs, I invited people to return the favor and challenge mine.

I make no pretenses at being objective. I’m an ex-Mormon and atheist; my thoughts about the LDS Church are doubtless filtered through those lenses. But in recognizing my biases, I hope to temper them. To that end I could use your help. I want to hear your thoughts, questions, and (especially!) criticisms. Because absent your input, my “Why I Don’t Believe” series won’t be a dialogue, but a monologue. So hold me to the highest standard of fairness and accuracy. And where my arguments fall short of that standard, let me know and I will make the necessary revisions.

I don’t like being proved wrong (who does?), but I prefer it to holding erroneous beliefs. As such, I try to be amenable to criticism. I substantially revised a post about the First Vision(s) after a Mormon friend disabused me of a bad argument, for example. So while I wouldn’t deny my cousin’s point about my being biased (we all are), I nonetheless try to be fair and accurate.

Now that you have a better idea of why I write about Mormonism, I’d like to address the accusation that I am anti-Mormon. Because this term means different things to different people, I asked my Mormon friends on Facebook to define ‘anti-Mormon.’ Below are a few responses that I feel typify the various definitions.

An anti-Mormon is someone who not only disagrees with the teachings (doctrine, history, or whatever) of the Mormon church, but also makes a conscious effort to attack Mormons and pull members away from the church.

Similar to an anti-Semite. This applies when a person treats Mormons differently based solely upon their religion. This person may also actively seek to destroy the LDS church through lies, distortions, and government policy.

An anti-Mormon is someone who harbors hate for the church, or individual members solely on the basis of their being a member of the Church.

If all it takes to be an anti-Mormon is to make a conscious effort to pull members away from the church, as the first definition suggests, then I’m guilty as charged. I don’t think this definition is adequate, though. I mean, are LDS missionaries who make a conscious effort to pull people away from, say, Catholicism necessarily anti-Catholic? I don’t think so.

I agree with the last two definitions that anti-Mormonism entails a degree of animosity toward Mormons. That’s precisely why the term  ‘anti-Mormon’ stings; it invites the unflattering comparison to historically violent prejudices like anti-Semitism.

Mormonism may be among the least popular religions in America, but I don’t think it is hated. So save for Christian counter-cultists, secular anti-theists, and some gay rights activists, I think the moniker ‘anti-Mormon’ is overused and largely undeserved. I for one do not hate Mormons, as anyone who knows me can attest. I have even written several posts quite favorable to Mormonism.

Could I be fairer to Mormonism at this blog? Probably. Again, despite my honest efforts, I make mistakes and my biases can get in the way of thoughtful analysis. But instead of dismissing this blog with convenient labels like ‘anti-Mormon’, I would ask that LDS readers help make it better by critically engaging my arguments.

Please nominate your favorite SHAFT posts here. Earlier, I shared a list of my favorite 15 posts.

Thanks for your support!

Despite this widespread anti-evolution sentiment within the LDS Church, some Mormons claim that their faith and evolution can be reconciled. BYU biologists uniformly accept evolution as a fact, for instance. And several Mormon bloggers, too, have expressed and explained their belief in evolution. So obviously Mormons can believe in evolution. But given LDS teachings, should they?

The LDS Church claims to have no official stance on evolution. This neutrality stems from the bitter disputes among church leaders over evolution in the early 20th century. James E. Talmage, who was an apostle and geologist, and B. H. Roberts defended evolution, while Joseph Fielding Smith, George Albert Smith, and others vehemently rejected it. In 1931, President Heber J. Grant essentially called for a ceasefire:

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the people of the world. Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

This and other professions of neutrality, however, did not deter some church leaders from wading into the evolution debate. Bruce R. McConkie and Ezra Taft Benson were among evolution’s most vocal Mormon detractors in the last half of the 20th century.

(The history of the evolution debate in Mormonism is fascinating, but I won’t recount it all here. Refer instead to this link.)

Anti-evolution sentiments are still present in church literature even today. In the March 2008 Ensign, President Boyd K. Packer wrote:

We are taught in Genesis, in Moses, in Abraham, in the Book of Mormon, and in the endowment that man’s mortal body was made in the image of God in a separate creation. Had the Creation come in a different way, there could have been no Fall.

If men were merely animals, then logic favors freedom without accountability. How well I know that among learned men are those who look down at animals and stones to find the origin of man. They do not look inside themselves to find the spirit there. They train themselves to measure things by time, by thousands and by millions, and say these animals called men all came by chance.

The 2009 Old Testament manual for seminary and institute teachers also denies evolution, quoting a few of the aforementioned anti-evolution church leaders.

Because it’s difficult to define what are authoritative LDS teachings, those Mormons who want to believe in evolution have largely dismissed  church leaders’ anti-evolution statements as mere opinion. But, oddly enough, I think the conservatives like McConkie and Packer are on the winning side of a theological argument. Mormonism cannot be comfortably reconciled with evolution. I think the LDS understanding of the Fall precludes evolution. (Actually, any traditional/literal understanding of the Fall makes evolution impossible).

Mormons recognize the Fall to be an actual, historical event. From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Latter-day Saints recognize the Fall of Adam and Eve as an actual event that occurred in the Garden of Eden and has affected the entire earth and everyone in the human family. … The creation of the earth was a multistep process in which the Fall of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden were the final necessary steps in bringing about the mortal condition. Without the Fall, Adam and Eve would have had no children (2 Ne. 2:23); hence, the human family would not have come into existence upon this earth under the conditions and circumstances in the garden. The prophet Lehi explained, “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25), and Enoch declared, “Because that Adam fell, we are” (Moses 6:48). … The Fall brought two kinds of death upon Adam, Eve, and their posterity: the separation of the spirit and the physical body, which the scriptures call the “temporal death” (Alma 11:42-43); and being shut out of God’s presence, which is called spiritual death (2 Ne. 9:6; D&C 29:41).

One relevant scripture the Encyclopedia of Mormonism omitted is 2 Nephi 2:22:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state [emphasis mine] in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

It is clear the Fall not only allowed reproduction, but also introduced physical death in the world. It follows, then, that there was no reproduction or death before the Fall. Evolution, however, is driven by those two things—without reproduction or death, evolution cannot happen. So Adam and Eve and all other living things present in the Garden of Eden could not have been the product of evolution.

The conflict between Mormonism and evolution is magnified when you consider that D & C 77: 6 revealed the “temporal existence” of the earth to be only seven thousand years old.

Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was ^asealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, ^bmysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this ^cearth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

In Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith explains the significance of these verses.

Here is a definite statement by revelation to us that this earth will go through 7,000 years of temporal existence.  Temporal, by all interpretations, means passing, temporary, or mortal. This, then, has reference to the earth in its fallen state, for the earth was cursed when Adam, who was given dominion over it, transgressed the law.

This interpretation jives with early church leaders’ statements about the temporal age of the earth as well.

The Lord Almighty never created a world like this and peopled it for six thousand years, as He has done, without having some motive in view. (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p. 8, January 6, 1884)

After passing over the ages and generations of the children of men for about six thousand years, we will come to the present congregation and say the right of heirship is the same now that it was in the beginning. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.307, Brigham Young, April 8, 1853)

The world has had a fair trial for six thousand years; the Lord will try the seventh thousand Himself;(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Five, p. 252, 1842-43)

So at best, Mormons should only believe that evolution has occurred in the past six or seven thousand years (which is itself untenable, given the fossil record and extent of biodiversity). Mormons are welcome to take another view, of course. Talmage maintained that there was evolution, even human evolution, before the Fall. It just seems, though, that this view requires a blatant disregard for what the LDS scriptures plainly say.

Our young people go off to college or leave home for work, and they promptly drop out of the Church. This seems to be happening at accelerated rates compared to the past, and the old assumption that many will eventually come back when they start families of their own seems to be holding less than it used to. In short, we’re losing our young people at an alarming rate.

This trend isn’t unique to Mormonism, of course. Indeed, relative to other Christian sects, Mormonism has fairly low attrition. But what is interesting about those who apostatize from the LDS Church is that they don’t leave to join other faiths. More often, they leave religion altogether. This blog and its readers are evidence of that.

I often hear the sentiment from my LDS friends that, “If Mormonism isn’t true, no religion is.” I think that’s a false dilemma, but I understand it. Mormons become victims of their own devoutness. Their expectations of the church and its leaders are unrealistically high, setting them up for disappointment. When you believe in something (in this case Mormonism) so strongly, and then discover that it’s untrue, you begin to doubt other beliefs you held as certainties—including god.

Perhaps in response to the aforementioned phenomenon, LDS leaders have taken aim at atheism in recent conference talks and public addresses. I find this ironic, though, because Mormonism arguably has more in common with atheism than it does other religions.

At first blush, this observation may sound absurd, even offensive. The most immediate and seemingly insurmountable difference between Mormons and atheists is that the former believe in gods. But the gods of Mormonism are actually compatible with the atheistic/naturalistic worldview. Unlike the traditional Abrahamic god, the gods of Mormonism do not transcend the physical universe; they instead reside within it. They also—with the notable exception of the Holy Ghost—have bodies of flesh and bone. And given the space technology, we could literally ‘hie to Kolob‘ and locate the Mormon god Elohim.

Because these gods are a part of the physical universe, they could not have created it ex nihilo. As Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett discourse, the gods merely ‘organized’ the universe from pre-existing ‘intelligences’ or matter. So Mormons and atheists (should) both reject cosmological arguments for gods.

Like atheists, Mormons are also skeptical of rigid theologies, creeds, and traditions. There are a number of reasons for this, but among them is that Joseph Smith felt these things were too restrictive and didn’t allow for continuing, progressive revelation. This emphasis on progress, for me, now manifests itself as an excitement about scientific advancement.

And one of the more salient similarities: Mormonism and atheism have a shared humanism. Put simply, Mormonism is more concerned with man than gods. 2 Nephi 2:25 reads: “…men are, that they might have joy.” And in the Pearl of Great Price, it explicitly says that God’s work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39)—a far more palatable to atheists than another Christian view that man was created to glorify god.

As always, I’ll explain the picture if you’re not in on the joke.

In a 1997 Time Magazine interview, President Hinckley seemed to dismiss one of the most distinctly Mormon beliefs—that god was once a man as we are now.

Question: Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. …

He told the San Francisco Chronicle something similar in 1997 as well:

Question: “Don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?”

Hinckley: “I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else.”

The couplet to which Hinckley alludes in the above quote is attributed to LDS President Lorenzo Snow. That men may become gods is certainly a Mormon teaching. At issue is whether the first part of the couplet—”As man is, God once was.”—is doctrinal.

While Hinckley is right that this aspect isn’t as emphasized as the latter part of the couplet, the teaching that god was once a man nonetheless enjoys a long history in Mormonism. It was first articulated by Joseph Smith in the King Follett discourse, and has since been affirmed in numerous church publications and conference talks. Here are just a few examples:

“It is a Mormon truism that is current among us and we all accept it that as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.” – Elder Melvin J. Ballard, April 1921 General Conference

“Many religions teach that human beings are children of God, but often their conception of Him precludes any kind of bond resembling a parent-child relationship. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught of a much simpler and more sensible relationship: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.” – “Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female”, January 2005 Ensign

“The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church.” – Official LDS Lesson Manual, “The Teachings of Brigham Young”, 1997

But doctrinal or no, the idea that god was once a man remains a popular belief among Mormons. Hinckley’s comments to Time and the Chronicle confused and upset some members, so he spoke to their concerns in the October 1997 General Conference:

I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. you need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.

What Hinckley told the press, in my view, was intentionally disingenuous. For good or ill, Hinckley was a very PR-conscious church president whose goal was to make Mormonism mainstream. And to that end, he sometimes downplayed Mormonism’s peculiar beliefs, like god-as-exalted-man.

In a 1998 interview with Larry King, Hinckley similarly downplayed Mormonism’s relationship with polygamy. He claimed that the church merely “permitted it on a restricted scale” when Mormons came West, with only two to five percent of members ever participating in it. He also said that in 1890, a revelation was received to end the practice.

Hinckley was wrong on all counts. Polygamy was first practiced in Nauvoo, over a decade before the Saints fled to the West. And when Mormons did settle in Utah where they could practice it openly, it was hardly restricted. The late historian Richard S. Van Wagoner estimated that about 25% of Mormon adults in the 19th century were in polygamous relationships. And as for Wilford Woodruff’s 1890 Manifesto, it only ostensibly ended polygamy. It was primarily a political document to get the federal government off the church’s back. In fact, the First Presidency continued to quietly approve post-Manifesto polygamous marriages for years, until Joseph F. Smith issued the Second Manifesto in 1904. Even today, the LDS Church teaches that there will be polygamy in the afterlife.

The LDS Church has always wrestled with the tension of being ‘in the world, but not of it’. “Full admission into the religious mainstream may require that Mormonism lose its uniqueness”, I wrote in a previous post. Brigham Young wasn’t willing to incur that cost of admission. In one sermon, he said, “I would rather pass through all the misery and sorrow, the troubles and trials of the Saints, than to have the religion of Christ become popular with the world.” Hinckley, if his public statements are any indication, was of the opposite opinion—having been far quicker to sacrifice peculiarity at the altar of popularity.

For those unfamiliar with the Exmormon Foundation, it is a “diverse community of former Mormons or questioning Mormons.” The organization offers emotional support to those who have left or are leaving the LDS Church, and it also sponsors an annual conference about Mormonism. I have never attended one of their conferences, but I’ve been meaning to. I’m advertising this weekend’s conference here because I think it may be of interest to some SHAFTers.

This year’s conference will hear from a range of interesting speakers. The keynote speaker is Jeff Sharlet, author of the nationally acclaimed book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. The book is an exposé of The Family, an evangelical Christian group that wields enormous influence in Congress and Washington at large.

Musician and ex-Mormon Tal Bachman will also speak at the conference. You’ll likely remember his song “She’s So High”, which was a chart-topper in the ’90s. Bachman has been blogging about Mormonism for years, and he was featured in the PBS documentary “The Mormons” and Bill Maher’s “Religulous”.

For more information about the conference, click here.

Other Mormons, and I’m afraid the majority, agree with Packer’s talk. In fact, there is a Facebook campaign by the group “LDS YOUNG MEN & WOMEN” to write Packer 100,000 letters of support. As of today, nearly 18,000 people are ‘attending’ this event.

So this kind of raises the question: Can you be a faithful Mormon and disagree with what an apostle said in general conference? A conservative Mormon friend of mine insists that you cannot.

In a Facebook debate about Packer’s talk, this friend argued that questioning church leaders can in apostasy. That’s undoubtedly true, but I asked him whether members had to uncritically accept every word spoken in conference as inspired. Because if so, that leaves Mormons on the hook for a lot disconcerting things taught from the conference pulpit in the past.

Not necessarily, he argued. Mormons only have to accept those teachings that conform to the following “established prophetic parameters”:

• The statement reflects the belief and opinion of all the brethren.
• The statement deals with morality and exhorts members to moral behavior.
• The statement is consistent with the standard teachings of the church.

Packer’s comments supposedly satisfy these criteria.

Initially, I was impressed. Few Mormons, from my experience, are able to articulate what exactly constitutes their church’s doctrine. But I then asked, “And why are these the authoritative criteria?” This question went unanswered. Honestly, I’m not sure there is an answer.

For a definition of doctrine to be authoritative, it must come from an authoritative source. However, in order to know what is authoritative, you have to first know the definition of doctrine. You can probably see how this necessarily involves circular reasoning. Consider this hypothetical discussion:

“Where did you learn about these ‘established prophetic parameters’?”

“Elder So-And-So articulated them in a recent conference talk.”

“And why should we trust what Elder So-And-So said?”

“Because his talk met the ‘established prophetic parameters’.”

In other words, you have to presuppose that the source defining doctrine is itself doctrinal. (It should be noted that this problem is in no way unique to Mormonism. Many Christians are guilty of the same fallacy in their approach to the Bible. They believe the Bible is the word of God because the Bible claims to be the word of God.)

Looking for other definitions of Mormon doctrine, I found an article by FAIR LDS, and apologetics website, entitled “What is ‘Official’ LDS Doctrine?” Here are their criteria:

• It must generally conform to what has already been revealed.
• It must be voted as doctrine by the body of the Church in conference.
• The Spirit will confirm the truth of it.

Again, no attempt is made to explain how these are the authoritative criteria. Each criterion is also problematic, in my view.

First, if teachings must generally conform to what has already been revealed, then what are we to make of the contradictions within and among Mormon scripture?

Second, truth is not determined by vote. In his conference talk, Packer said that “moral standards … cannot be changed by ballot.” Why, then, must doctrine be accepted “by common consent” of church members?

And third, spiritual feelings and experiences are too unreliable to be a useful measure of truth.

So back to my initial question: Can you be a faithful Mormon and disagree with what an apostle said in general conference? I think so. Absent an authoritative and logically sound definition of doctrine, Mormons—for good or ill—have license to interpret their faith as they see fit.