Someone is Lying

Since I haven't done so yet, let me explain how my faith crisis came about... someone was lying. Not just anyone mind you, an Apostle of the Lord!  A little over a year ago, I was preparing a lesson for my YW class.  I was searching on the internet, when I came across a PBS interview with Elder Holland.  I couldn't believe what I was reading! The interviewer asked him about the priesthood ban on the blacks, here's the question he asked Elder Holland:

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

Let me explain at this point, I was a completely devout Mormon, married in the temple, raised our family in the church. I never questioned anything about the church.  So when I read this question, the first thing that seems odd to me, is the use of the word "folklore", I had never heard that word used to describe any of our doctrine, "folklore" why was this interviewer calling our doctrine "folklore"?

This was Elder Holland's response:

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ...

What?  Why was Elder Holland expounding on the word "folklore"?  Why didn't he refute it by saying, this was not folklore, this was a revelation from God.  I had been taught my entire life that the ban on the blacks was a revelation from God and that the reason for the ban was that black people were from the lineage of Cain and that curse was placed on them because of Cain killing Abel.  These people were less valiant in the pre-existence, therefore they came to earth through that lineage.  Elder Holland went on to say:

I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...
It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

Now my mouth is hanging open!  Did he just say ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place. 

What is he talking about?  First of all he is an Apostle, so how can he not know how a doctrine came about?  AND, I thought our doctrine came from God.  How could he say he doesn't know?  I thought ALL our doctrine came from God.  That's what I had been taught my entire life.  And by the way, this is not some insignificant doctrine!  This is huge, racist, life altering, life denigrating doctrine.  It attacks the character of all black people.

At this point I get up to find my husband. I read him what Elder Holland said in the interview.  I ask him, did you know that an Apostle could claim to not know where our doctrine comes from?  He was as shocked as I was.  Then I hear my self say, "Elder Holland is lying."  He has to be, there are only two choices, either he's the dumbest member of the church I have ever run across to say he doesn't know where that doctrine came from, or he's lying.  All of his squirming around and saying as, one of the newer and younger ones to come along... blah blah blah, have you ever had a child lie to you?  You can see right through it, and I could see right through his lies. 

Next, I began to see a pattern of lies.  Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, had one thing in common... many wives.  They even had some of the same wives in common.  Brigham married several of Josephs wives after Joseph was killed.  But with all of this in common they couldn't get their story straight... one of them is lying.  Joseph said in his 1844 Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo, "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.  I am the same man and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."  In an 1838  Elder's Journal, Joseph answered the Question: Do Mormons believe in having more wives than one?  The answer,  No, not at the same time.  But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again..."  

So here we have Joseph Smith saying he only has one wife and that Mormons believe in only one wife at a time, monogamy in other words.  Yet the Church says he was a polygamist; they show his multiple wives on their family search website, and they have D&C 132 in their canon of scriptures that clearly states the acceptance of polygamy and the rules for it.  So again, someone is lying!

Brigham was a big polygamist, we all know that.  He taught about polygamy numerous times in his sermons, these quotes, among many others, can be found in the Journal of Discourses: 

      Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had.  He may inform them that I shall have wives and children by the millions, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and Kingdom after Kingdom, and reign triumphantly.
    
     Talk about polygamy! There is no true philosopher on the face of the earth but what will admit that such a system, properly carried out according to the order of heaven, is far superior to monogamy for the raising of healthy, robust children!

And these are just a few of Brigham's quotes found in the Deseret News:
    
     Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further, and say that this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord had given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.
    
     Why do we believe in and practice polygamy?  Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. And is that religion popular in heaven?  It is the only popular religion there...

Then we have a recent prophet, President Hinckley, comment on polygamy in a Larry King interview.   When asked if he condemns it, President Hinckley said:

      I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. 

Again, I hate to keep repeating myself, but someone is lying!! Either it's not doctrinal as President Hinckley says, or you're going to be damned if you deny it, as Brigham Young said,  Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned..

President Hinckley, in the same interview, said "When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale... The figures that I have are from--between two and five percent of our people were involved in it.   The Church's own essay on plural marriage states, that the "practice of plural marriage was instituted among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the early 1840's. Well, that's before they came west. The essay also states that:  "Probably half of those living in Utah Territory in 1857 experienced life in a polygamous family as a husband, wife, or child at some time during their lives."  That's just ten years after they came west. If half of the people would be involved in polygamy as a family member sometime in their life, then it was on a much larger scale then "two to five percent," as President Hinckley said. Then to illustrate how the number diminished, the essay says: "By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years." Again, do I need to say it?  Someone is lying.  And I'm not going to couch it in terms like, "well his facts may not have been accurate, or he didn't know".  Sorry, if you are going to go before the world and proclaim yourself the Prophet of the world, Christ's mouthpiece on the earth, then you have no excuse for bad data, you are the Prophet. Sorry, either you're lying or the essay is. That's just how life is, to coin a phrase from President Hinckley, I still believe in, "right is right and wrong is wrong."  I was taught by this church that any intent to deceive is a lie, and I'm holding our leaders to that standard.







   

I really want to believe, but the Essays won't let me!

I don't believe that this church is what it says it is; I want to, I really do, but their own essays (essays the church put out this year to explain some of the problems with its history, who knew, huh?)  won't allow that, because the church is saying in them, it's not what it says it is.  I can't help that, I didn't write them, they did; at least I think they did, the essays are not signed by the author(s), but they are posted on the Church's website.  So going back and pretending everything is the same as the way I was taught in Primary, Sunday School and Seminary just doesn't work.  It's not my fault, I was the faithful spouse, I always remained true and never lied, I was faithful, always working in behalf of, supporting, and defending my "spouse" (the Church).  I didn't know my "spouse" had a dubious past, I didn't know it covered up and changed it's history, I didn't know, I swear I didn't know!!  And just as an unfaithful spouse will tear your world apart, cause you to fall to your knees in tears, rip at your very heartstrings, cause angst and threaten your family structure, so do you dear church "partner, spouse."  You have caused tears, sleepless nights, confusion, anger, regret, distrust, confusion, and confusion, more confusion, did I mention that already? I don't know I'm a little confused!

In my youth, attending Seminary, I was just a little "sponge" absorbing all the wonderful things that were being taught, like:

Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon using the golden plates and Urim and Thummim.  I was told it occurred just as the church's pictures show, Joseph reading from the plates to the scribe, translating through the power of God with the use of the Urim and Thummim, that was "kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord" for this very purpose.   From the Church's essay I learn that Joseph found "in the ground...a small oval stone or 'seer stone'..." which he used "to look for lost objects and buried treasure." Joseph "often translated with the single seer stone...placed...in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."  Emma "described Joseph 'sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stones in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."  There was no mention of a hat in the lessons I was taught, or that Joseph used his own seer stone that he had found years earlier and which he used to look for buried treasure.  Why would the Lord go to so much trouble to hide away the Urim and Thummim for this purpose, just to have Joseph opt to use at times, his own stone? I didn't get to ask that question in Seminary because this scenario was never taught. Why do the pictures show Joseph translating from the golden plates, and not from a seer stone in a hat?  This good and faithful spouse would like to know, so I won't be so confused. 

I was taught that the Book of Abraham was translated by Joseph Smith from ancient Egyptian papyri, which the church bought, that was written by the hand of Abraham himself.  In the Church's essay on the translation and historicity of the Book of Abraham it says, "None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham's name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham.  Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do no match the translation given in the book of Abraham...Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.  These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."  But I was never taught that in Seminary, so I couldn't ask how Joseph Smith could have claimed the papyrus were written by the hand of Abraham since they are from the wrong time period, and why the characters on the fragments do no match the translation in the book of Abraham. This good and faithful spouse would like to know so I won't be confused.

In Seminary I remember being taught the reasons for blacks being denied the priesthood. They had been less valiant in the preexistence, and they were from the lineage of Cain, who was cursed with a black skin after killing Abel, and that this was doctrine from God.  From the Church essays I learn: "During the first two decades of the Church's existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood...There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith lifetime."  "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood...Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied.  Jane Manning James...similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestor, but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances." The essay goes on the say that,"Today the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else." Wow, that's quite a lot to absorb!  This good and faithful spouse (me) believed my untruthful spouse (the Church) when he said that blacks could not hold the priesthood because they were less valiant in the preexistence and were from the linage of Cain, which had a curse on it disallowing them to hold the priesthood. What about the revelation? I was told it was doctrine from God and we get our doctrine from God through revelation.  When Brigham Young publicly announced in 1852 that blacks can't hold the priesthood, did he just come up with that on his own?  My untruthful spouse didn't explain to me that blacks had been given the priesthood by Joseph Smith, my "spouse" withheld that information from me.  So I didn't know to ask, how that could have been?  It's all very confusing. 

I remember learning about polygamy, oh thank heaven, I do remember being told about that!  This can't be a cover up, I know I learned about that, and there were really, really good reasons for it, I remember that.  Maybe because I'm a woman and had a vested interest in knowing that there was a really good reason for polygamy (just in case there was a day when I would be asked to share my husband with another woman) I would only want to do that if God really, really needed me to.  And there were really, really good reasons for it. And there were lots of reasons I learned in Seminary, such as, the Church had to grow so there needed to be lots of children. Also, there were a lot more women then men, something to do with women being more righteous, so of course there would be more of those people in the Church.  And this was the fullness of times, so everything had to be restored, including polygamy, even though the men really didn't want to do that, really they didn't!  But Joseph asked about it, and if the Lord told him, he was then bound to obey it (That concept really lodged in my teenage spongy brain, don't ask God anything unless you are seriously going to live it) In fact, Joseph was so hesitant to marry another woman that an angel had to come and threaten his life with a sword. And not only that, if that weren't enough, their entire salvation was at stake!  Okay, I get it! Death, salvation, God is very serious about this, this is the Mother of all doctrine, no pun intended. You just can't be sleeping with all these women and be in God's good graces unless he told you. Which he did in D&C 132. Of course, in D&C 132 it says the women have to be virgins, which would mean they had never been married before, and that wasn't the case in many of the plural marriages, and that the first wife had to consent, which didn't always happen, especially in Joseph's case, where Emma didn't know about most of his wives until long after the marriages.  So again I turned to the Church's essays  to clear up my confusion.  It says "During the years that plural marriage was  publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God"  That's a bit toned down from what Joseph experienced, the angel threatening him with a sword and all.  They don't mention that part. But they do mention there was a revelation, so there you go, even though they don't quote from it.  But hey, its sourced once in the footnotes, so I know they know about it.  And even though sharing your husband with other women is a really big deal, the essay does offer this warm comfort: "Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages..."  Oh that's good, because divorce certainly wasn't a difficult circumstance to endure, especially in the 1800's, out in the West away from everyone, yeah, it's a good thing that was available. And the fact that the Church's main identity is 'families are forever', divorce really cuts at the heart of that, I'm glad the Church made divorce "available" for women, that makes polygamy so much less confusing. 
.