On April 23, 1843, six bell-shaped brass plates were unearthed from an Indian mound near Kinderhook, Illinois. These plates bore strange engravings and appeared to be of ancient origins. Among those who found the plates were two Mormon Elders. They were excited by the discovery and suggested that the plates be taken to their prophet to be translated. And within a week, the Kinderhook Plates (as they became known) made their way to Joseph Smith.

Unbeknownst to Smith, the plates were a hoax meant to expose him as a charlatan. W. P. Harris, a witness to the Kinderhook Plate’s discovery, wrote the following in an 1856 letter:

“…I was present with a number at or near Kinderhook and helped to dig at the time the plates were found…Bridge Whitten said to me that he cut and prepared the plates and he…and R. Wiley engraved them themselves…Wilbourn [Fugate] appeared to be the chief, with R. Wiley and B. Whitten.”

Fugate himself confessed to being the architect of the hoax, albeit (oddly) decades later:

“I received your letter in regard to those plates, and I will say in answer that they are a humbug, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitten and myself….We read in Pratt’s prophecy that ‘Truth is yet to spring out of the earth.’ We concluded to prove the prophecy by way of a joke. We soon made our plans and executed them. Bridge Whitton cut them out…Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid and putting it on the plates.”

Well, their ruse worked. William Clayton, Smith’s scribe and confidant, recorded in his journal that “Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.”

This is problematic for the church, because, to quote critical author Charles A. Shook, “Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates.”

We have good reason to trust Clayton’s journal entry. Clayton earned a reputation for being meticulous and methodical. So much so, in fact, that Joseph Smith hired him for the specific purpose of accurately detailing Smith’s every word and activity. If Smith trusted Clayton, why shouldn’t we?

Furthermore, we know that Clayton was with Smith the day he wrote the journal entry in question. He was even at Smith’s residence (the Mansion House) when he wrote it. George D. Smith, editor of An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, noted that “William Clayton found himself involved in nearly every important activity of Nauvoo, but especially the private concerns of the prophet. For two and a half years, until Joseph’s death in 1844, they were in each other’s company almost daily.”

Perhaps most importantly, Clayton’s words were deemed so reliable that they were attributed to Smith in the 1856 edition of the History of the Church—and with the blessing of Brigham Young no less. Refer to the image below:

Clayton’s account isn’t the only indication that Smith attempted a translation of the Kinderhook Plates; it enjoys several collaborating evidences.

Charlotte Haven, a non-Mormon writing about her visit of Nauvoo, wrote on May 2, 1843 that “[Smith] said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them.”

Two month’s after the Kinderhook Plates’ discovery, The Nauvoo Neighbor published a broadside of the fascimiles with this statement: “The contents of the plates, together with a Fac-simile of the same, will be published in the ‘Times and Seasons,’ as soon as the translation is completed.”

And just weeks before his murder in June 1944, The Warsaw Signal (which was admittedly an anti-Mormon paper) reported that Joseph Smith was “busy in translating them. The new work which Jo. is about to issue as a translation of these plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to the Book of Mormon…”

LDS apologists contend that because we don’t have Smith’s translation of the Kinderhook Plates, he must have caught on to the deception. But as per the above evidence, it seems possible that, had Smith not been suddenly killed, he would’ve produced a full translation. Also, were the claim that Smith was translating the Kinderhook Plates a mere rumor, he could have easily dispelled it. That obviously didn’t happen, however, as we’re still discussing this controversy.

Another weakness in today’s apologetic response to the Kinderhook Plates is that it represents a total departure from the church’s historical stance.

Just as with the Book of Abraham papyri, the original Kinderhook Plates were lost for many decades. Scientists, consequently, were unable to determine the veracity of the plates—that is, whether they were an ancient American record or a frontier fraud. The LDS Church believed the former was true.

The Kinderhook Plates were taught as evidence for Smith’s prophetic prowess by church leaders (like B. H. Roberts) and in many LDS publications—Times and Seasons, the Nauvoo Neighbor, the Prophet, missionary pamphlets, the Millennial Star, the Desert News, the BYU Archaeological Newsletter, the Improvement Era, and others.

One of the plates was rediscovered in 1920 at the Chicago Historical Society, where it had been mislabeled for decades as a gold plate from the Book of Mormon. Here it is:

Finally, in 1980, the Chicago Historical Society gave scientists permission to perform destructive methods on the plate in order to conclusively ascertain its authenticity. The indisputable results of those tests: The Kinderhook Plates were a 19th-century invention.

By themselves, the Kinderhook Plates may not constitute the most damning evidence against Mormonism. They should nonetheless give Mormons pause. Because at the very least, the Kinderhook Plates force one to believe that either Joseph Smith was fooled by a hoax or that the LDS Church mistakenly espoused the opposite view for nearly 150 years. And neither belief is particularly faith-promoting.

Please visit Mormon Think to learn more about the Kinderhook Plates. The site is an invaluable resource that I often mine.

For those wanting to be in the know, my next post will concern failed Mormon prophesies (though I’m amenable to your suggestions).

If there is only one thing upon which my Mormon friends and I will agree, it’s that sacrament meetings are sometimes insufferably dull. Kids have their baggies of Cheerios, but the rest of us are left to find other means of avoiding the tedium of church. My distraction of choice was the Book of Abraham. I was especially intrigued by the facsimiles that accompanied it. I mean, what other sacred text can also function as a coloring book?

As I matured, so too did my interest in the Book of Abraham. The illustrations aside, it’s a fascinating and important work of scripture. I began to more faithfully study it and its teachings. The Book of Abraham discusses some of Mormonism’s most peculiar doctrines—the plurality of gods, the pre-existence, and polygamy. It also introduced the scriptural basis for the black priesthood ban.

Despite its importance, many Mormons are unaware of the history behind the Book of Abraham and the immense (if not insurmountable) difficulty it poses to their religion. For those who don’t find this post persuasive, I hope it will at least be informative.

In the summer of 1835, traveling salesman Michael Chandler pulled his wagon cart into Kirtland, Ohio—then home to the fledgling LDS Church. Chandler was marketing an ancient Egyptian exhibit, which contained four mummies and several rolls of papyri. He had heard of Joseph Smith’s alleged ability to translate ancient documents and hoped Smith would be interested in his papyri.

The young prophet was certainly intrigued. After briefly purveying the papyri, Smith proclaimed them to be “the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” The church purchased the papyri for $2,400 dollars (an estimated $75,000 in today’s dollars).

By his prophetic powers, Joseph Smith began “translating” the Egyptian papyri into a work of scripture. The Egyptian language was still virtually unknown at the time. And while the Rosetta Stone had been deciphered a decade earlier, this knowledge had yet to travel to America. Consequently, Smith’s professed knowledge of Egyptian was all the more impressive and curious.

There is little doubt that Smith claimed to have been actually translating ancient Egyptian. While working on the Book of Abraham, Smith and his scribes constructed an Egyptian alphabet and grammar (known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers).

Joseph Smith’s diary entries also suggest that he viewed his role as a translator:

“…I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics…a more full account of which will appear in its place as I proceed to examine or unfold them.”

“The remainder of this month I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”

“This afternoon I re-commenced translating from the ancient records…”

“I returned home and spent the day in translating the Egyptian records…”

That the Book of Abraham was intended to be a literal translation of the papyri is made explicit in the book’s preface: “A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.”

Joseph Smith was so confident in his Egyptian that he even boasted the following in the Mormon newspaper Times and Seasons:

“Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim ‘Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is’…”

Smith’s statement, however, is gibberish and bears no resemblance whatsoever to Egyptian. In fact, neither the Kirtland Egyptian Papers nor (more importantly) the Book of Abraham coheres to any Egyptological understanding. To put it less charitably: Joseph Smith was either consciously dishonest or profoundly self-deluded. Both are uncomfortable conclusions for a believing Mormon.

General Authority and Church Historian B.H. Roberts recognized the gravity of the problem:

“…if Joseph Smith’s translation of the Egyptian parchment could be proven discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon, and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught.” (Comprehensive History of the Church 2:138)

And as early as the mid-19^th century, equipped with an increased understanding of Egyptian, scholars did discredit the Book of Abraham as fraudulent. The French Egyptologist Theodule Deveria was the first to identify the facsimiles found in the Book of Abraham as common to Egyptian funerary documents. Ancient Egyptians would bury or entomb their dead with a collection of hymns, spells, and instructions to allow the deceased to pass through obstacles in the afterlife.

Later, in 1912, Episcopalian Bishop F.S. Spalding solicited the expert opinions of eight Egyptologists concerning Joseph Smith’s purported translation. Below is a representative sample of their conclusions:

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.”—Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford, England

“A careful study has convinced me that Smith probably believed seriously to have deciphered the ancient hieroglyphics, but that he utterly failed. What he calls the ‘Book of Abraham’ is a funeral Egyptian text, probably not older than the Greek ages.”—Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, University of Munich

“The ‘Book of Abraham,’ it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication.”—Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, Dept. of Egyptian Art

The weight of evidence against Joseph Smith’s translation of the ancient Egyptian papyri into the Book of Abraham cannot fully be appreciated until one examines the facsimiles. They are a stunning visual demonstration of just how wrong Smith was.

Let’s look at Facsimile No. 1. The parchment on which this facsimile was located was in such poor condition that Smith had to pencil in his best guesses to complete the picture. Here is the facsimile before and after Smith’s restoration:

Smith believed this to be a depiction of Abraham “fastened upon an altar” before a wicked priest who sought to sacrifice Abraham to his pagan god. Flying above Abraham is “the Angel of the Lord.” Under him lay idolatrous statues of pagan gods.

Smith’s restoration and explanation of the picture was imaginative, but erroneous. From Dr. Richard Parker of Brown University: “This is a well-known scene from the Osiris mysteries, with Anubis, the jackal-headed god, on the left ministering to the dead Osiris on the bier…The apparent upper hand is part of the wing of a second bird which is hovering over the erect phallus of Osiris (now broken away). The second bird is Isis and she is magically impregnated by the dead Osiris and then later gives birth to Horus who avenges his father and takes over his inheritance. The complete bird [on the right] represents Nephthys, sister to Osiris and Isis. Beneath the bier are the four canopic jars with heads representative of the four sons of Horus…”

Compare this Egyptologically correct restoration of the facsimile with Smith’s attempt above:

Where Smith’s interpretation most went awry is where the original parchment was torn. That Smith drew Anubis without a jackal-head, for example, is very problematic. It was also wrong to have Anubis holding a knife, for ancient Egyptians found it disrespectful to depict a knife near the deceased.

I’d also like to draw your attention to Facsimile No. 3:

Joseph Smith explained that figure 1 was “Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king…” Abraham was brought before Pharaoh’s court to expound upon “the principles of astronomy.” Behind Abraham stands the Pharaoh, and in front of him stand the prince and two servants.

Yet again, Smith was wrong. Egyptologist Klaus Baer provides the proper interpretation: “Facsimile No. 3 shows a man (5) his hand raised in adoration and a cone of perfumed grease and a lotus flower on his head (ancient Egyptian festival attire), being introduced by Maat (4), the goddess of justice, and Anubis (6), the guide of the dead, into the presence of Osiris (1), enthroned as king of the Netherworld. Behind Osiris stands Isis (2), and in front of him is an offering-stand (3) with a jug and some flowers on it. Over the whole scene is a canopy with stars painted on it to represent the sky.”

Notice how Smith misidentifies figures 2 and 4 (who are obviously female) as men! Smith renders Isis as “King Pharaoh” and the goddess Maat as “Prince of Pharaoh.”

For more than a century, all that Egyptologists had to study from the Book of Abraham were these facsimiles published in the Times and Seasons and later in the Pearl of Great Price. The original papyri were lost shortly after Joseph Smith’s death and believed to have been destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871.

But in 1966, twelve fragments of the papyri were remarkably rediscovered in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. It was clear that these were the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated—at least in part. They were pasted onto paper that had “drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area” on the back and an affidavit by Emma Smith stating that they had been in the possession of her husband.

In all, these fragments account for roughly a third of Joseph Smith’s total collection. Still, it is widely agreed that much of what was rediscovered constitutes the Book of Abraham. Consider the fact that Fascimile No. 1 was among the fragments. Also, Smith’s attempted Egyptian alphabet and grammar seems to correspond to the found papyri.

Now, scholars could examine the source text of the Book of Abraham and either confirm or falsify Smith’s translation. The LDS community anxiously awaited the reports, hoping that they would validate Smith.

Egyptologists, both Mormon and non-Mormon alike, quickly took to the task of translating the papyri. It soon became readily apparent that there were no similarities between the Book of Abraham and the actual content of the papyri. The consensus was, in accordance with earlier suspicions, that these papyri were common funerary documents. Specifically, they belonged to the Book of Breathings and were written for a priest named “Hor.” The name “Abraham” appears nowhere in the text.

The papyri also dated to almost 2,000 years after Abraham supposedly lived. It’s not surprising, then, that the Book of Abraham contains a number of gross anachronisms.

One such anachronism occurs in the very first verse of the Book of Abraham, which sets the story “In the land of the Chaldeans…” But the Chaldean people didn’t appear until at least the 9^th century B.C.E—a whole millennium after the time of Abraham! The Old Testament makes a similar mistake when, in Genesis, it mentions “Ur of Chaldeans” as Abraham’s birthplace (Genesis 15:7).

The Book of Abraham claims that Egypt was named after “Egyptus,” which is Chaldean for “forbidden.” The immediate problem: “Egyptus” is not Chaldean, but Greek, and in no language does in mean “forbidden.”  What’s more, ancient Egyptians didn’t refer to their land as “Egypt,” just as Germans don’t call their country “Germany.” They called their land “Kemet,” meaning “black,” in reference to the rich dark soil of the Nile Delta.

Another anachronism, and the last one I’ll mention, is Smith’s use of the word “pharaoh.” According to linguist Richard Packham: “The linguistic problem is that the word “pharaoh” originally meant “great house.” It did not become a title for the king until the beginning of the New Kingdom (18th Dynasty), which began about 1567 B.C.”

None of the aforementioned problems raised by the Book of Abraham are new or original to me. Church leaders and LDS apologists have known of these issues for decades. How have they responded?

The LDS leadership has largely responded with silence. But career apologists like Hugh Nibley, Michael D. Rhodes, Daniel C. Peterson, and others have volunteered a number of rationalizations over the years.

I can’t possibly address all of their arguments here (though I anticipate their discussion in the comments). Like previous posts, this one is just meant as an introduction to the issue—not some exhaustive treatment. I will, however, say a few things about Book of Abraham apologetics in general.

First, apologists are deeply committed to their religious beliefs and this biases their research. The primary purpose of apologetics is to defend Mormonism’s claims—the evidence be damned. To be sure, nobody is objective. But whom should you trust: A few BYU professors or the entire Egyptological community?

Second, nearly all apologetic approaches to the Book of Abraham are ad hoc. It was only after the evidence was clear that the Book of Abraham was not an accurate translation that some Mormons posited that Smith’s translation was “spiritual” rather than literal. God could have spared the LDS Church a lot of embarrassment and apologists a lot of time had he simply told Smith and subsequent prophets that the Book of Abraham wasn’t really a translation of ancient Egyptian papyri.

And third, there exists serious disagreements among Mormon apologists about the Book of Abraham and how to rescue it. Some apologists, for instance, admit that Smith botched the facsimiles, while others contend that his explanations of them were inspired. Because of these disagreements, apologetic arguments have short shelf lives. To wit, much of Hugh Nibley’s work on the Book of Abraham is no longer regarded as credible (or at least relevant).

The foremost Book of Abraham apologist today is BYU professor John Gee. At last month’s FAIR Conference, Gee gave a talk entitled, “The Larger Issue.” In his talk, Gee made a startling statement: “The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ… [H]ow the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.”

Gee is effectively saying that a canonical work—and one rich with doctrinal insights—is expendable. Ask yourself: Were there any compelling evidence for the Book of Abraham, would Gee have said what he did?

In a different era, Gee might have been excommunicated for this talk. But interestingly, his remarks were published in a recent Church News article, over which the church exercises direct editorial control.

Does this mark the beginning of the end for the Book of Abraham? It’s possible that the LDS Church ultimately remove it from the standard works, as they did the Lectures on Faith. Time will tell.

Until then, the Book of Abraham will continue to spark debate and stand as a witness against Joseph Smith’s prophetic pretensions.

For more information about the Book of Abraham, I’d highly recommend this link.

Historical and doctrinal racism in the LDS Church has been a subject of my study for years. It also figured prominently in why I left Mormonism.

I could write at length on this issue (and have), but I don’t want to deter people from reading this. My previous posts have been tedious enough. So I will try (and probably fail) to keep my commentary to a minimum and instead let church leaders’ words speak for themselves.

For the purposes of this post, all I ask is that you consider the following statements and whether they are befitting of men of God.

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110)

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…[Negroes] should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Volume 7, pages 290-291)

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God;… (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Volume 22, page 304)

Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pages 101)

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, page 61)

Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Book of Abraham 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them…Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pages 527-528)

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin….But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom…What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. (George F. Richards, General Conference Report, April 1939)

Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation?…If [the] Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory. (Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems As They Affect The Church, BYU address, 1954)

In 1947, Dr. Lowry Nelson, a faithful Mormon and sociology professor at Utah State Agricultural College (now USU), wrote the First Presidency a letter that challenged the LDS Church’s teachings and policies toward blacks. He wrote, in part: “The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. I do not believe God is a racist.”

In an official letter, signed by all three members, the First Presidency responded:

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now…We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency…toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

Two years later, the First Presidency again reiterated the church’s position:

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time…The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality…Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

Another case study in church racism is Ezra Taft Benson. Benson was a vehement opponent of the civil rights movement and allied himself with fringe, far-right groups like the John Birch Society. His politics would sometimes seep into his conference talks. In one such talk, Benson dismissed the “so-called civil rights movement” as little more than a Communist front.

We must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder. [The civil rights movement's] planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own. (Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference Report, October 1967)

Benson was so convinced of this conspiracy theory that he even wrote the foreword to the book, The Black Hammer: A Study of Black Power, Red Influence, and White Alternatives.

Many Mormons are aware of their church leaders’ prejudices and yet it doesn’t trouble their testimonies. Their understanding is that prophets are men and thus fallible. They are, as we all are, products of their time and don’t always speak in their capacity as mouthpieces of the Lord. I find this rationalization of church racism unsatisfying, however. The statements above are not mere musings—they are doctrinal pronouncements from respected church authorities. Church leaders claimed divine sanction for their bigoted views. All of the statements included here were taught as doctrine and expressed over the pulpit and published in church publications.

I see at least two other shortcomings to the “prophets are men” explanation. First, God cannot allow his prophets to lead the church astray. And yet, that’s exactly what church leaders did for many decades on doctrines concerning race. Second, while I don’t demand perfection of prophets, I do expect of them something better than racism. Matthew 7:16 says, “By their fruits, ye shall know them.” And few fruits are more rotten than racism.

Racism in the LDS Church isn’t restricted to church leaders’ statements over the years, either. It is also readily apparent in the LDS canon. The Book of Mormon, for example, teaches that God marked the Lamanites (the alleged ancestors of today’s Native Americans) with dark skin to segregate them from the righteous Nephites.

And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. (2 Nephi 5:21)

When the Lamanites were righteous, the curse was removed and their skin would again be white.

And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites… (3 Nephi 2:14-15).

O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. (Jacob 3:8)

With little exception, church leaders believed and taught that a literal change of skin color would occur in Native Americans who were repentant or converted to Mormonism. Spencer W. Kimball, as recently as 1960, held this view as evidenced by his observations of the Lamanite adoption program.

The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome…The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation…There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. (Spencer W. Kimball; The Improvement Era, Dec. 1960, page 923)

Just as converts would become “white and delightsome,” Brigham Young believed the opposite to be true as well—that apostates would “become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil” (Journal of Discourse, vol. 5, p. 332). Starting with Young and lasting until only a few decades ago, the devil was even referred to as having black skin in the LDS temple endowment ceremony. (“A Kinder, Gentler Mormonism: Moving Beyond The Violence Of Our Past,” by Keith E. Norman, Sunstone, August 1990, page 10)

In light of all the above, some Mormons concede that the church did indeed preach racist doctrines. They stress, though, that the church follows a “living prophet” who can receive revelations that supersede previous ones. This view was most famously articulated by Bruce R. McConkie shortly after the lifting of the black priesthood ban in 1978:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept…We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore. (Bruce R. McConkie, All Are Alike Unto God, pages 1-2)

This view of continuing revelation is too abusive, too elastic, and terribly convenient. New revelations can expound upon existing doctrines, but they shouldn’t outright contradict them. Revelations must generally conform to what has already been revealed. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “If what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.”

And while the church has rescinded the black priesthood ban, it has never officially repudiated or apologized for those racist teachings that justified the ban for over a century. Those offensive racial themes in the Book of Mormon also remain. So absent a total recognition and disavowal of its doctrinal racism, I simply cannot forget and forgive as McConkie would have me do.

Please understand that I am not claiming that Mormons are racist. I’m not even arguing that the LDS Church has been uniquely or unusually racist. In fact, some of Joseph Smith’s views on race were progressive for his time (he opposed slavery), and one can cherry-pick from the Book of Mormon verses that suggest racial tolerance. Rather, I think that Mormonism’s history of racism reveals the LDS Church to be an all too human institution. Not an evil or racist institution, mind you—just an uninspired one.

Satirist Jonathan Swift once remarked, “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” Now, obviously I have more faith in rational discourse than that; otherwise I would not be writing this blog. But Swift’s statement does underscore a difficulty I face in debating religion: Most believers anchor their testimonies in personal, spiritual experiences—not logic or hard evidence. This is especially true for Mormons.

This isn’t to say that Mormons are irrational. Rather, they just mistake their spiritual experiences for evidence. The purpose of this post, then, is to demonstrate that such experiences do not constitute reliable evidence for Mormonism.

Unlike some atheists, I know what it means to feel that so-called “burning in the bosom.” Moreover, I understand that those feelings aren’t reducible to, say, warm fuzzies or heartburn. Spiritual experiences are often powerful and formative in one’s life. They were in mine. Allow me to share a spiritual experience of mine when I was Mormon.

Back in high school, I sometimes slept in the guestroom of the basement because it afforded me greater privacy in prayer and scripture study. There, I would say long emotional prayers and fall asleep to devotional music.

One night, as I lie resting in bed, I felt arrested by a dark and menacing spirit. There was an amorphous blackness above me, and I could not move to escape it—I was paralyzed. And then the oddest sensation: I felt my “spirit” leaving my body, as though the demonic presence came to possess it. After a minute or so, this sensation would subside and (somehow) I’d go to sleep.

This same episode occurred on at least three different occasions. It was terrifying experience for me, but simultaneously sacred as well; I related it to Joseph Smith’s First Vision, and was admittedly flattered that the “powers of darkness” would likewise combine against me.

The spiritual witness I received was undeniable, and it steeled my testimony against whatever doubts I had. I’m sure that my Mormon readers believe they have a similarly unshakable faith. That’s why I’ll be discussing the invalidity of spiritual experiences. Because so long as people are convinced by their spiritual experiences, they may not seriously consider all the evidences against Mormonism.

Oddly enough, I came to question my spiritual experiences by investigating alien abductions—the geek in me has always been interested in the paranormal. I found startling parallels between my most seminal spiritual experience and people’s accounts of alien abductions.

A lot of alleged abductees report having been paralyzed during their abduction. They also perceive a threatening presence in their room. To the abductee’s brain, that presence registers as an extraterrestrial. Lastly, abductees report having an out-of-body experience or a levitation-like sensation such as being pulled up into a spacecraft by a beam of light.

Each of the above elements—paralysis, the feeling of an ominous presence, and a levitation sensation—was present in my spiritual experience. Interestingly, the same could arguably be said for Joseph Smith’s First Vision*—at least the official 1838 telling of it.**

After doing some research, I concluded that those phenomena are actually symptoms of sleep paralysis. Sleep paralysis happens when you’re about to enter or exit REM, the deepest part of sleep. At this juncture, your brain is awake, though in a dreamlike state, and your body remains asleep (thus the paralysis). Sleep paralysis affects a third of the population, teenagers in particular, and can be genetically inherited.

The cognitive sciences can explain the vast majority of spiritual experiences, in their various forms, as psychological phenomena that transcend any one religious tradition. Prayer and meditation, for example, lessen brain activity in the parietal lobe, which is the part of the brain that orients us in time and space. Consequently, prayer and meditation are associated with a “self-forgetting”—that is, a feeling of one with the universe and/or the divine.

Epilepsy also holds some insights about our brain and spiritual experiences. Epileptics often claim to hear the voice of God or witness angelic visitations during a seizure. Neurologists believe that this is due to epilepsy occurring in the temporal lobe, an area known as “the seat of spirituality.”

The story of Jeff Schimmel is a perfect illustration of how our temporal lobes affect spirituality. Schimmel, a 49-year-old secular Jew from Los Angeles, lived most of his life devoid of any spirituality. That all changed when he had a benign tumor removed from his left temporal lobe. Post-surgery, he began to suffer from seizures. He also, for the first time in his life, started to hear voices in his head and have religious experiences, like visions of the Virgin Mary.

By far the most exciting neurological research on this matter comes from Dr. Michael Persinger. He has created a device (“the God helmet”) that artificially induces spiritual experiences in those who wear it. Subjects wear the helmet, and it electromagnetically stimulates the aforementioned areas of the brain. Roughly 80% of those who undergo this experiment report spiritual experiences. These experiences vary among the subjects and are understood within the context of the subjects’ respective beliefs. A Christian, for example, might see Jesus. A Muslim might find herself before Allah. Even the nonreligious report things like out-of-body experiences.

Watch this short video about the God helmet:

I don’t mean to argue that because spiritual experiences likely stem from the brain, God cannot be involved. But at the point at which scientists like Dr. Persinger are able to manufacture these experiences, how can we be sure that any are from God? It strikes me as unfair that God would communicate with us via so fickle and fallible a thing as our brain. God is, after all, no author of confusion.

There may even be spiritual experiences for which there is no immediate or complete naturalistic explanation. One cannot, however, jump to a supernatural conclusion—that commits the “God of the gaps” fallacy. The ancient Greeks didn’t understand lightning, but that didn’t justify their belief that Zeus was up in the clouds hammering out lightning bolts. A more relatable example: When you see a magic show and are unable to explain a trick, you don’t assume that actual magic occurred. Instead, you rightly figure that there’s a perfectly normal explanation for the trick even if you don’t know it at the time.

The philosophical principle at play here is Occam’s Razor, which states that the best explanation is that which requires the fewest assumptions. And because supernatural explanations make unwarranted or superfluous assumptions (the existence of gods, magic, etc.), the more reasonable explanation is almost always the naturalistic one.

For more information about the science of spirituality, explore this article.

The apparent biological basis of spiritual experiences aside, there is yet another compelling reason to discount your spiritual experiences as evidence for Mormonism—namely, the fact that such experiences are not at all unique to Mormonism!

Spiritual experiences have been commonplace in every society, in every age. The only difference is the god to whom people credit those experiences. People routinely have spiritual experiences in and affirmations of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Catholicism, Norse/Roman/Greek paganism, etc. What’s more, these people are as sincere in their beliefs as you are yours. How is it that you’re able to dismiss their experiences/beliefs (those of the 6.5 billion non-Mormons), but never doubt your own?

The world is awash in competing—indeed, conflicting—spiritual experiences. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.

The standard LDS answer is that most religions contain shards of the Truth, whereas they (Mormons) have the “fullness of the Gospel.” All people are endowed with the “light of Christ” by which they can know the truths in their religions. Therefore, Mormons don’t entirely dismiss other religions’ miracles and their members’ experiences, just those things that disagree with Mormonism (as if that were somehow ecumenical). But could it not just as conceivably be the case that Islam is true and a merciful Allah allows infidels to enjoy some spiritual experiences?

Another possibility, and one I don’t personally entertain, is that Mormons’ spiritual experiences are not from God, but Satan. As an atheist, I think this line of argumentation is bunk. But given that Mormons believe in Satan, perhaps they should consider the possibility.

The Bible portrays Satan as being adept at deception. Joseph Smith taught, “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.” So convincing were these counterfeit revelations that Smith felt the need to equip the Saints with tests by which Satanic messengers may be recognized. In Doctrine & Covenants 129, for instance, Smith said that if you shake hands with an angel and can’t feel its hand, then that messenger is of the devil. And yet we have no record that Smith ever gave the handshake test to the Angel Moroni or any other angelic visitors.

If you care to pursue this argument further, I’d recommend Richard Packham’s treatment of it.

Finally, Mormons have received spiritual witnesses for things we now know to be false. Paul H. Dunn was a General Authority of the LDS Church. He was a member of the First Quorum of Seventy for many years. In General Conference and elsewhere, he shared personal experiences of his life that were later proved untrue. Elder Dunn claimed, among other exaggerations, that his garments protected him in WWII as enemy machine-gun bullets ripped away his clothing, gear and helmet without ever touching his skin. He also claimed that he was once a professional baseball player. Dunn was forced to admit in 1991 that he had contrived these faith-promoting tall tales. The LDS Church demoted Dunn to emeritus status as a result. Despite their falsity, Dunn’s stories filled many members with the spirit.

So insofar as spiritual experiences are a universal human phenomenon and can testify to falsehoods and result in contradictions, they should not be accepted as evidence for Mormonism or any religion for that matter.

*Here, Dr. Robert Bushman argues that the First Vision was a standard out-of-body experience.

**To read about the conflicting First Vision accounts, check out this link.

I know how sensitive a subject religion is and that I will probably offend (albeit unintentionally) a number of people. Before I proceed with this project, then, let me first explain my motivations and anticipate potential concerns.

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.

A good deal of people—those who most need to read my posts—will dismiss me outright as an “anti-Mormon.” I think believers are too quick to throw that moniker around. Just as it’d be unfair to call Mormons “anti-sinner” for disagreeing with sin, it’s equally unfair to call people “anti-Mormon” for disagreeing with the LDS Church.

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.

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.

Most Mormons stay clear of such discussions for fear that they’ll engender a “spirit of contention.” I am going to do my best, however, to ensure that the discussions on my posts remain respectful (and I’m confident that they will). Personal attacks and comments that display undue antagonism will be deleted.

Another obstacle to having this dialogue is that the LDS Church has, especially in recent decades, cautioned members to avoid the “spiritual pornography” that is any literature critical of the church. But there is another, competing strain within Mormonism that allows for if not encourages inquiry. Consider the following quotes from church leaders:

“I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance even more than I fear cigarettes, cards, and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion. Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut it up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of sunlight and fragrance of the growing world. They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white…”—Apostle Stephen L. Richards

“We should be scientific—that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in. Some say that the open-minded leave room for doubt. But I believe we should doubt some of the things we hear. Doubt has a place if it can stir in one an interest to go out and find the truth for one’s self.”—Apostle Hugh B. Brown

In this same spirit of inquiry, I hope that my LDS friends will consider the arguments that I’ll introduce over the course of the series and follow the evidence wherever it leads. The truth, after all, should have no fear of investigation.

The next post (technically the first of the series) will concern the validity of spiritual experiences/confirmations.