Gays and the LDS Church

I am a heterosexual male. I have never questioned my sexual orientation, so I'm not going to pretend like I know what homosexuals experience in general.

In particular, I'm not going to pretend to know what dilemmas homosexuals face if they are members of the LDS Church (or are considering becoming LDS). I do know that many of them choose to be LDS and still have fulfilling lives. There are homosexuals who have found ways to reconcile their religious beliefs with their attractions. I think the media should do more to broadcast the voices of such people.

Some homosexuals enter into heterosexual marriages, some don't. Some "change" their sexual orientation (although I know there's controversy as to whether that's possible), some don't.

One thing the media has downplayed is the LDS Church's teaching to reach out in kindness towards homosexuals, even the ones who leave the Church. The media seems to be eager to portray the bad apples in the LDS church who are genuinely guilty of intolerance. The media seems to have neglected stories of Latter-day Saints who are compassionate in reaching out to the LGBT community.

In my opinion, an LDS homosexual who abstains from sex outside of marriage is similar to an LDS heterosexual who abstains from sex outside of marriage. That's because they know that there's more to life than sex, and even if they don't yet have the romantic relationships they long for, they can still find joy in life.

The main difference, of course, is the religious approval of one type of relationship over the other, which is one of the dilemmas that LDS homosexuals face.  So it’s important to be compassionate towards people who either are in the LDS church who have same-sex attraction, or who have left the Church in order to have a same-sex relationship. Those of us that don’t have same-sex attraction don’t know what it’s like. Most importantly, being homosexual and/or not being LDS does not make anyone a bad person.

On the legal side, I actually think it's okay for gay marriage to be legalized. In the past I was opposed to its legalization mainly on religious grounds, but I changed my opinion when I realized I didn't know of very many compelling secular reasons to oppose it.

However, I still think it's okay for religions to prohibit gay marriage among their followers. This is because, legally speaking, association with a religion (and thereby abiding by its policies) is voluntary. The law cannot mandate association with any religion, nor can it prohibit dissociation. 

I also feel that legally requiring religions to allow gay marriage within their religion is a violation of the first amendment.

It's important to remember that the first amendment allows people the legal freedom to voice their opinion. Thus, people (religious or otherwise) who are opposed to gay marriage are allowed to voice their opinion and vote accordingly. People who support gay marriage are also allowed to voice their opinion and vote accordingly. Both groups are also allowed to disagree with each other.

That said, if I were friends with a same sex couple that were going to be married, I'd be happy to be invited to their wedding.

One last note: The Book of Mormon doesn't say much about sex (a little, but not much), but it does say a TON about how destructive pride is. So if you think that homosexuality is grounds for withdrawing love from a loved one, your pride is more damaging than any sin you think your loved one engages in.

The benefits (i.e. blessings) of being Mormon

I don't care what the naysayers say, church is a haven from the cares of daily life. It's nice that once a week I can give my mind a break from what's going on the other six days a week. I usually take naps on Sunday, so my body gets a break, too :)

It's a great way to spend time as a family. It provides a community of friends to call on for help (i.e. for moving, meals for pregnant wife, helping pay for a missionary, etc.) or just fulfill the basic human need for friendship (i.e. people to do fun stuff with).

My wife and I can get free marriage counseling from our pastor. If we're referred to a professional marriage counselor, we can still have that free of charge, courtesy of our congregation (we ourselves contribute to those funds regularly).

The teenagers (including myself when I was one) get to learn practical life skills that are useful. The boys have boy scouts and the girls have young women.

I have the peace of mind that comes from having supplies and knowledge that will see me through a disaster safely. i.e. emergency preparedness.

I care for my family more than I ever would if I hadn't been instructed to. This also includes my ancestors. I likely wouldn't have gotten into genealogy as a hobby if I hadn't been instructed to. But since I'm familiar with my forebears, I know myself better. Their awesome stories are appreciated and not forgotten.

I have easy access to literature (i.e. the Bible, the Book of Mormon, words of living prophets) that gives me solace and answers during genuinely tough life events. And during times of ease, too.

These are the result of the bizarre (unique) beliefs and practices of the Mormons.

These are the benefits (i.e. blessings) of church.

I'm not sure if I'll share these publicly, because these might be trampled on by people who don't appreciate stuff like this.

Ya know what, they can have at it. Their ad hominem attacks that have no basis in intelligent argument can fly. Their rude comments won't alter how awesome church is. At least they'll boost my page views (and therefore my earnings). So the more they toss this around and belittle it, the more money I'll make. Is that what they want?

So thank you, naysayers, for opening my eyes to the positive side of church, and for helping me make money off your negative attitude.

Response to First Vision challenges

This is the second blog post I write in response to “Letter to a CES Director: Why I lost My Testimony” by Jeremy T. Runnell. This post deals with the challenges to the First Vision. You can read my first post, where I respond to challenges to the Book of Mormon, here.

The author of this letter is troubled by apparent discrepancies in the record of the First Vision.

First off, I'm going to share a personal story and my record of it, and compare it to the accounts of the First Vision.

I will never forget the day when I was 13 and my family saw my brother Grant off at the airport for his mission to Germany. I briefly mentioned it in my journal (in cursive handwriting that's even uglier than my handwriting now):

"Monday, 10-18-99 At the airport, we said by to Grant with wet eyes as he left to Utah and on his mission."

Here's what I said in 9 years later in 2008 (it took me a whole decade to make another written record of that day):

"I can still remember the day Grant left for his mission. The entry I wrote on that day (Mon, Oct 18, 1999) is an overwhelming understatement. We were at the terminal (airport security wasn't as tight back then). Dad put his around Grant and embraced him. Grant and I looked at each other and a tear dropped swiftly down his cheek. We all came unglued (except for Mark and Spencer, they don't like to cry; neither did Seth-he was only two years old). Dad, Mom, Janet, Brian, Mark and Spencer and Seth all individually hugged him several times. The tears were streaming uncontrollably. Janet (and/or Mom) told Seth to hug Grant one last before he got on the plane, but Seth chose not too. When Grant got on the plane, Seth wanted another hug but it was too late (when Grant neared the completion of his mission, Seth told us that he remembered that Grant was nice to him). We looked out the window and we could even see him (he had a window seat). As Brian cried, Dad said to him, "It's like taking away a part of you." I'll never forget that day. Grant's example inspired me to serve a mission as well. ¡Y qué bueno que sirviera una misión! No paso ningún día sin pensar en mi misión [And how great it is that I served a mission! Not a day goes by that I don't think about my mission]."

You can see that as significant as that day was, I totally omitted huge aspects of it in my first obscure journal entry. For one thing, my parents, my brother Brian, my sister Janet, and me bawled our eyes out. My younger brothers Mark and Spencer didn't cry because they don't really show emotion, and my nephew Seth was only 2, too young to understand.

I had also completely neglected to mention that that day reaffirmed my resolve to one day become a missionary (this is the first time I could remember a genuinely voluntary desire to do it).

Another detail I omitted from both of my journal entries: my brother serving his mission in Germany made me think that Germany was the coolest country and that German was the coolest language (but now as a linguist I think all languages are equally fascinating).

My record of that crucial day was spotty. And that's allowing for the fact that I kept a journal at all. I didn't keep a daily journal until about 3 years ago.

I wasn't inconsistent in the first journal entry. I merely omitted huge details. The first is not as complete as the second journal entry, yet the information is still consistent. I never made claims that contradicted what I said earlier. And all that's despite the fact that this is a historically verifiable event (between his journal, plane ticket, church records, etc.)

How is that like Joseph Smith's varying accounts of the First Vision?

Like my journal entries, none of the First Vision accounts contradict each other. They simply don't share all the same details. Here's how they easily mesh and are therefore consistent:

Jesus Christ is an angel. The conversation was primarily with Jesus Christ, the host of angels could have easily been present but he didn't appear to converse with them, and the 1838 account says Christ told him many more things besides just that all the churches were wrong, which could have easily included a remission of his sins.

It's not unreasonable to assume that Joseph wanted forgiveness for his sins AND wanted to know which Church was right. Let's also remember that Joseph reports in each account that he appealed to the Bible.

The 1832 account talks about forgiveness for Joseph's sins, but Jesus Christ still discusses the falsehood of other churches. The 1835 account mentions an unidentified personage introducing Jesus Christ. That could easily be God the Father. And again, the Father and the Son fit the bill as angels. This account also mentions the part pf the story where he was impeded from praying. Further consistency. This link makes it clear that even when Joseph started recording history, he was pretty incomplete at it.

As far as the claim that Joseph already knew that all the churches were wrong, let's look carefully at the wording of the 1832 account: “by searching the scriptures I found  that mand<mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that  they had apostatised from the true and liveing  faith and there was no society or denomination  that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament”

And the wording of the 1838 account: “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know  which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join...(for at this time it had never  entered into my heart that all were wrong)”

The 1832 account shows that Joseph was disillusioned with society as a whole (probably non-religious as well as religious) for not actually drawing unto God. It also shows that Joseph was frustrated with the religions he had contact with, in that they didn't appear to base their teachings on the New Testament. Even the full 1838 account reveals this frustration and confusion. Both are consistent in showing his disillusionment and yearning for real answers. But the 1832 account does not say specifically that Joseph Smith though that all of the churches were totally wrong; it says specifically that that none of the churches (at least the ones he knew of) “built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament.” In other words, he felt that none of the churches truly adhered to that specific part of the Bible. He doesn't say anything like “and therefore it was obvious that all were (completely) wrong.” The 1842 account indicates that Joseph had at least a sliver of hope that one denomination might have been (at least partially) correct.

Have you ever noticed that the biographies of Joseph Smith have to rely mostly on what OTHER people said about him? That's because he never got the hang of being a thorough record keeper, not even about his own life. He had to rely on other people to be official church historians.

Plus, what teenager makes a habit of keeping records? Especially one that lives in a time and place where keeping a life record is probably the last thing on his mind. I mean, the average teenager might witness their school burning down, but if you ask them how their day went, they'd say, "Good." Then go back to whatever it is teenagers do.

Even in the 1838 account, what did Joseph say that he told his mother first? That he figured out the Presbyterian church was not for him. Talk about the biggest understatement! According to that, he made no hint that he had a prophetic experience talking to God and learned way more than just the fact that one church was not true. See what I mean about adolescents and their underwhelming descriptions of earth shattering events?

Rough Stone Rolling indicates that Joseph's understanding of the vision evolved over time. He didn't feel the need to share it the way missionaries do now. He viewed it as a personal experience, although he privately approached a minister to ask what he thought. Perhaps he feared ridicule? And given that Joseph had to be commanded by Moroni himself to tell Joseph, Sr. about Moroni's visit, it's not surprising to find out that Joseph didn't talk much about the First Vision at first. But let's not forget, Joseph did talk about the First Vision to his mother (albeit in an indirect and incomplete way, as stated previously).

The author says, “the historical record shows that there was no revival in Palmyra in 1820.” Which historical record?

In any case, the LDS church stated: “Documentary evidence, however, supports Joseph Smith’s statements regarding the revivals. The region where he lived became famous for its religious fervor and was unquestionably one of the hotbeds of religious revivals. Historians refer to the region as “the burned-over district” because preachers wore out the land holding camp revivals and seeking converts during the early 1800s.6 In June 1818, for example, a Methodist camp meeting took place in Palmyra, and the following summer, Methodists assembled again at Vienna (now Phelps), New York, 15 miles from the Smith family farm. The journals of an itinerant Methodist preacher document much religious excitement in Joseph’s geographic area in 1819 and 1820. They report that Reverend George Lane, a revivalist Methodist minister, was in that region in both years, speaking “on Gods method in bringing about Reformations.”7 This historical evidence is consistent with Joseph’s description."

Another concern he has: “Why did Joseph hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, as shown

previously with the Book of Mormon, if he clearly saw that the Father and Son were separate

embodied beings in the official First Vision?” It's not like Joseph Smith clearly had a trinitarian view that permeated his work (as the author claims happened with the Book of Mormon). I don't know of any historical evidence where Joseph lays out on the table that he believes in a trinitarian view of the godhead.

Additionally, Runnell is the only person I know of who arrived at that conclusion. That's also keeping in mind that he's not a historian.

So it's unfair to build upon a hypothesis that he has which is shaky.

“Like the rock in the hat story, I did not know there were multiple First Vision accounts.” I'm sorry to hear that. But I did know about the multiple First Vision accounts, actually. Even before my mission: the first time I heard about it was when I saw God's Army at age 13 (incidentally, that was shortly after Grant left for Germany). It's not like the Church keeps those accounts in the dark, or disciplines anyone who asks for them. They're there. See for yourself. Granted, this website is new, but the availability and knowledge of the information is not.

The 1838 account has the most detail relevant to the message of the Restoration, which is why it was chosen to be the one publicized more than the others.

Apparently there's discrepancy in the date in the historical record (by a year or two). It's obvious that Joseph didn't keep meticulous records of that event. So is it any wonder that the exact date is fuzzy?  Even the 1838 account doesn't say what day in 1820 that it happened. So what if it's off by a year or two? Don't tell me you've never told a story about yourself that happened when you were 8, but you were actually 7, or something like that; either way, you're still consistent in referring to the approximate stage of life you're in. Either way, the First Vision can be placed in Joseph's adolescence. It would be different if he were contradictory about the stage of life he were in (i.e. claiming in one occasion it happened in his childhood then claiming it happened in adulthood on another occasion).

By the way, I've often told people that I was 12 1/2, 13, or 14 when I tell the above story. I have to refer to my journal to get my own age right.

Thus concludes my rebuttal to this portion of the letter. More responses will likely be forthcoming.

Response to Book of Mormon challenges

I write this post in response to “Letter to a CES Director: Why I lost My Testimony” by Jeremy T. Runnell, submitted April 2013. This post just deals with the Book of Mormon challenges, although I may write responses to other portions of the letter.

Errors in the Book of Mormon

Runnell asks why the Book of Mormon has errors from the Bible (specifically the edition of the King James version that Joseph Smith would have had).

This website indicates that Joseph Smith wasn't necessarily shown the precise words to write in English. One of his scribes, Oliver Cowdery, tried translating like Joseph did, probably assuming that the words would pop out at him, nice and easy. But it turned out to be more complicated than that (D&C 9). So while it's clear from the history that Joseph could claim divine guidance, it's also clear God made Joseph struggle and work for the translation, at least to a degree.

I myself am a professional translator, so I know what it's like to be presented with an idea in a foreign language. Usually I know of equivalent English expressions right off the bat. Other times I have to do some research in order to find a satisfactory equivalent. And once in a blue moon, there is absolutely no equivalent in English. Then I have to make a decision: do I give a literal but awkward sounding translation? Do I copy the word from the original language and make a translator's note explaining the meaning of the word or phrase?

Back to the point: why are those errors from the Bible in the Book of Mormon? Perhaps Joseph was given an idea and had to turn to the Bible in order to figure out the best way to put those ideas into words. I'm not going so far as to say that he definitely did, but I'm not dismissing the idea either.

To be fair, most of the passages in the Book of Mormon that almost totally coincide with Bible passages are attributed as such. For example, Nephi quoted extensively from Isaiah, and straight up says within the text that he is copying the words of Isaiah.

Another point: above I said almost totally coincide. Many of those passages have significant differences from what's in the Bible. For example, use this list to find the aforementioned Book of Mormon passages and compare them to Isaiah.

So one cannot make the claim that Joseph flat out copied and pasted from the Bible he had on hand.

Another concern the letter expresses is that if the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book," then why are the passages in the Book of Mormon passes that are similar to the Bible significantly different from the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible?

The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible was a continual work in progress. He worked on it off and on for many years. He wasn't completely done even when he died. There's no claim that it didn't need any further revision; and therefore it was imperfect.

Another thing: Are you defining "most correct" as "flawless"? If so, the problem with that is even the Book of Mormon text itself acknowledges that it is imperfect:

Mormon 8:12  "And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you."

Mormon 9:31-32 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

And on the title page of the Book of Mormon, written by Moroni: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

So what does "most correct" mean? It would imply that any other book is less correct in some degree. Or that if there is other literature out there that is also supremely correct, it would be on equal footing but not more correct than the Book of Mormon (there's no reason to say they can't share such a distinction). 

So if Joseph Smith were to be asked if the Book of Mormon were more correct than his translation of the Bible, I think he would have said that either the Book of Mormon is still more correct, or they are equally correct.

Further reference: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book

Apparent Trinitarian views in the Book of Mormon

The apparent discrepancies of Trinitarian doctrine in the Book of Mormon can be addressed by the Book of Mormon itself, Mosiah 15. Abinadi, before being killed, explains how Christ is both the father and the son. It explains how Christ can simultaneously have the title of "Father" and "Son," yet be a different person from Heavenly Father. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon never once asserts that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father share the same body (which is central to the doctrine of the Trinity according to the Nicene and Athanesian creed).

DNA and linguistic evidence

It seems like science is constantly coming out with new evidence for the ultimate origin of Native Americans. There is no scientific consesus on where they all originally came from. Further, DNA studies seem to be an inexact science, especially when dealing with ancient history. Further, cultural intermingling (which would have inevitably happened among the descendants of Lehi) can easily muddy the genetic waters.

But let's assume that scientists have irrefutably proven that no modern Native Americans have a single drop of Middle Eastern blood. That would not trouble me. Why?

Consider this:

The peoples who are recorded in the Book of Mormon must have been a fraction (a small one at that) of all the peoples living in the Americas. Anthropologists and historians can attest to the disappearance entire tribes of people.

Even the peoples who were counted as descendants of Lehi could not all possibly have been his literal descendants. Are all Americans (even those of European descent) literal descendants of the Mayflower pilgrims or of George Washington? Yet all Americans can be counted as figurative descendants of those people because we have inherited their cultural legacy.

And if the Book of Mormon itself has “mistakes of men,” then certainly supplementary information added to it certainly may have “mistakes of men,” too. That's why there is the change in the intro from “the principal ancestors” to “among the ancestors” of the American Indians.

The lack of linguistic influence among modern Native American languages from Hebrew is easily accounted for: linguists know of languages that disappear completely. And since the peoples of the Book of Mormon were probably in a geographically limited area (more on that later), it's reasonable to assume the language of the descendants of Lehi would have only influenced a fraction of the dozens of the indigenous languages spoken in the Americas. Of the indigenous languages that haven't disappeared, the European legacy of discouraging natives from speaking those languages and their tendency to neglect a thorough linguistic study of all those languages means we still don't know everything about surviving indigenous languages.

Hebrew influence may yet be found, or it may have disappeared with the dozens of indigenous languages that have disappeared.

Archeological evidence

I am not disturbed that no archeological evidence has been found that indisputably proves the existence of the descendants of Lehi. It's not like every square inch of the earth's crust has been excavated, and groundbreaking discoveries concerning ancient peoples are made all the time.

Also, consider that in ancient times:

-Communications technology was primitive.

-Transportation technology was primitive

This means that any record made in those times could not have been supplemented by information from means that we take for granted in modern times: travel, telephone, newspaper, television, internet, etc.

Thus, most of the events of the Book of Mormon likely took place within a radius of a few hundred miles, and maybe not even that far. Just think of all the stories that can be told in the past 100 years in just the town you live in.

Many records of the past were destroyed by the invading Europeans. Who knows what kinds of questions (related and unrelated to the Book of Mormon) we could have answered had those records and artifacts been preserved?

And let's be honest, even if archeologists found definitive proof of the existence of the descendants of Lehi, that still wouldn't be enough to convince the naysayers. How many people know they can find Jerusalem on a map yet don't believe in Jesus?

Concerning the Hill Cumorah

Have archeological excavations been done at the hill in New York? If so, please tell me. I'd be intrigued to hear who did it and what they found.

"This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.” What did Joseph Smith teach? What did the other prophets teach? Which prophets? I'd like to see sources cited for this so I can provide an adequate response.

In the account in the Pearl of Great Price that Joseph Smith gives about the origins of the Book of Mormon, he never calls the hill in New York where the plates are deposited “Cumorah.” It would appear that name was given later by someone other than Joseph Smith.

Also, in the text of the Book of Mormon, Mormon 6, there is a battle that is to take place in the “land Cumorah” (verse 5). Mormon urges his son Moroni to hide the Book of Mormon, such as it was, in the “hill Cumorah” (verse 6). This indicates that the hill where the record was hidden was not necessarily in the exact same location as the battle field. I mean, would you want to hide a one-of-a-kind collection, one that you know your enemies want to destroy, right where your enemies might stumble upon it?

We know that after Mormon's death at the battle of Cumorah, his son Moroni compiled the Book of Ether and the book of Moroni and added them to the Book of Mormon. This means that eventually Moroni went back to the hiding place that Mormon had picked out. Did he leave the record in the hill Cumorah for good? It's not clear from the text. The beginning of the Book of Moroni indicates that Moroni was on the run, so it's not unreasonable to surmise that, for his personal safety and the safety of the record, the last hiding place for the Book of Mormon may not have been the same as the hiding place described in Mormon 6:6.

I don't understand why the author has this concern: ”Nevermind that the Church has a visitor's center there in New York and holds annual Hill Cumorah pageants.”

Regardless of the location of the battle of Cumorah, the hill in Palmyra that we now call Cumorah is unquestionably historically significant to Mormons. Why not make it a tourist attraction (for lack of a better term)? And in any case, the church can build a visitor's center and perform a play anywhere it wants. The location doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Anachronisms

It has been noted that the Book of Mormon mentions materials and animals which modern historians assert did not exist in pre-Columbian times. Let's ignore the fact that our understanding of the past is always evolving (history can be even murkier than science), and assume that those historical assertions are 100% correct.

I mentioned before that it's likely that Joseph Smith was not handed a word-for-word translation. What's more likely is that he was given an idea and had to work hard to find an equivalent in English. So it's not unreasonable to think that Joseph gave one word when another word would have captured the idea better. Or, as I noted whenever I do translation, perhaps there was absolutely no English equivalent for certain concepts, and a rough approximation was the best he could come up with.

Geography

The Book of Mormon is hazy on exact dimensions, distances, and sizes of landmarks. Remember, cartography was primitive, and distances were measured in phrases like “day's journey.”

Thus, I find it highly unlikely that an artist would create a sketch that happens to look like the Great Lakes area. There are no measurements that happen to lead one to coincidentally create an approximate map that parallels the Great Lakes area.

Who created the map that this author uses? What was the artist's method? How did that person come up with the sizes of the bodies of water and the distances of landmarks in relation to each other?

Similarity of Book of Mormon to other literature; similarity of place names

If one does not believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with divine assistance, then some other argument has to be put forth in order to account for the existence of the Book of Mormon. One would have to believe that Joseph Smith was a copycat and/or a clever writer of fiction.

I don't know of any historical evidence that shows that Joseph Smith ever wrote novels, short stories, or even poetry. You know, the kind of literature that the author confirms are works of fiction meant for entertainment. Even if you believe all of his revelations were made up, none of them is as sophisticated as the Book of Mormon. So the case that he had the imagination to invent all or part of the Book of Mormon is pretty weak.

Now on to the argument that he was a copycat.

What evidence is there that Joseph Smith had access to The First Book of Napoleon? Or to View of the Hebrews? What evidence is there that Joseph Smith had access to atlases to copy place names? And what about the longer list of place names and proper names in the Book of Mormon that don't coincidentally sound like names used outside of the Book of Mormon?

This is acknowledging the fact that The First Book of Napoleon has a similar writing style, even though the ultimate premise of the two books are different (testifying of Jesus Christ versus the history of Napoleon), and they discuss entirely different groups of people. This is also acknowledging the possibility that Oliver Cowdery (who supposedly read The View of the Hebrews) might have been scribe at the time Joseph translated Helaman 13-16.

I should mention the part of The View of the Hebrews where this author compares to Samuel the Lamanite in Helaman 13-16 has only one similarity: a prophet scaling a wall to prophesy. In the former, the prophet is struck dead after prophesying destruction. In the latter, the prophet's life is spared after prophesying of destruction, AND preaching repentance, and foretlling the signs of Jesus Christ's birth. Among other differences...

Remember, the work of translation took place within a few months. Was it possible that Joseph Smith did extensive research, creative collaboration, learned perfectly how to emulate multiple authors' styles, then used his imagination to fill in the rest? I have been writing as a hobby for years, and I know that if I were to undertake such a venture described above, it would take me years to do so, and I certainly would not be able to flesh out a well-formed story on the first go. That's ignoring the fact that I have the advantage of a bachelor's degree and years worth of writing instruction.

You could say that Joseph Smith, on the other hand, was “not smarter than a 5th grader.” Seriously, though, historians know Joseph Smith learned just the basics of his ABCs and 123s. Very uneducated (but not stupid).

Based on the historical evidence, I think it's actually more of a stretch to argue that Joseph Smith made it up and/or copied from other sources. The principle of Occam's razor, which favors the simplest explanation, would point toward the validity of Joseph's claim. Granted, Occam's razor is not a hard-and-fast rule because sometimes the more complicated answer is correct. But I think in this case critics are more hard-pressed to come up with a definitive, believable, plausable, water-tight, and most importantly, simple, alternative to explain the existence of the Book of Mormon.

The exact method of translation

The Church publishes a lot of paintings that are historically inaccurate. So? The paintings arent's scripture. The Arnold Friberg painting of body-builder Moroni talking to despondent old Mormon is inaccurate, too. Even though it's a cool painting: the sky is red, Moroni is sporting Roman-esque weapons.

Painters of LDS stories are capturing the essence of the story, what their personal image of the story is, but aren't pretending to create a life-like photograph.

If you read the Pearl of Great Price account of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith talks about the seer stones being used in translation. So I always knew that the pictures of him translating with just the plates and no seer stones weren't totally accurate (or perhaps complete would be a better word). And where are the plates in those paintings of Joseph looking into a hat (which makes those pictures incomplete, too)?

In any case, if Joseph Smith truly translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, does the precise methods and instruments he use in translation change that fact?

The Church isn't lying about how Joseph Smith translated. If anything, the Church simply doesn't have some of the information (Joseph was still a kid in his early twenties when he translated the book of Mormon; what college-age adult makes a habit of keeping precise records?).

Conclusion  

I can see the wisdom of praying to know the Book of Mormon is true (a directive given in the Book of Mormon itself; Moroni 10:3-5). It can be overwhelming and confusing to read and analyze the entire history, then weigh everything the critics have to say against everything the apologists have to say—and the literature in both camps grows every year. From an intellectual perspective, It can be difficult to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon.

Appealing to God for the truth is actually a fairly rational thing to do. If there is a personage out there who knows EVERYTHING, woulnd't it be smart to take that being's word for it? Instead of trying to figure out on your own whether the critics or apologists are right? And the critics or apologists may be right about some things, wrong about others, and they may be totally objective, or they may be biased by an agenda.

Wouldn't it be simpler if an omniscient being personally told you if it were true or false? Wouldn't that trump any intellectual argument for or against it?

It has been my experience that people who believe deep down that the Book of Mormon is false will never be convinced that it is true even if they are presented with an overwhelming amount of well-researched and well-reasoned defenses. It has also been my experience that people who believe deep down that the Book of Mormon is true will never be convinced that it is false even if they are presented with an overwhelming amount of well-researched and well-reasoned criticisms.

So at the end of the day, you really do have to ask yourself—and God—is this book for real? Therein lies the answer.

If you believe deep down that it's false, then it's easy to see how it falls apart under scrutiny. If you believe deep down that it's true, it's easy to see how it stands up to scrutiny.

The only way a person really can be swayed is if they allow themselves to doubt what they already believe deep down.

“Letter to a CES Director” is long and I may or may not get around to providing my own responses to the rest of it. I'm positive that apologists, like the people at fairmormon.org, have or will come up with responses that are equally well-researched and well-reasoned. This is neither the beginning nor the end of the intellectual debate.

For my part, I have allowed myself to doubt that the Book of Mormon is true. Every time I do so, without fail, its truthfulness speaks to me for itself. My belief is made that much stronger because I genuinely believe instead of forcing myself to believe.

To my single friends

I ask for  your forgiveness as I indulge myself and speak about marriage. Specifically, I want to offer a message of hope to those who feel like they may never get married.

To you I testify that the Lord hasn't forgotten you. He has you graven upon the palms of his hands. He knows what it's like to go
for months without getting asked out or to get rejected again and again.

Remember that the brethren have made it clear that all who are faithful l will be blessed with a spouse in this life or the next. However long the wait is, it will seem like a brief moment. When the Lord makes a promise, it's as good as done.

Here's an important reason not to get down on yourself: I believe that discouragement is one of the tools of the adversary to make us lose faith in the Lord's promises. If you feel like you'll never get married, you might just give up on looking for a spouse altogether.

My favorite example of someone who had to a long time to get married was Elder Oaks' wife. She must have been lovely young lady, but she waited patiently until her 50's. And she married
an apostle. How much worthier of a husband can you have than that?

Now, it might seem easy for me to say that since I'm married. But these thoughts I share with you came to me after 3 years of anxiety and frustration as a an RM itching to get married. So I know what you're feeling.

But when I came the realization that there is always hope for finding a spouse, all of those maddening feelings disappeared. It took another 2 years to find my wife, but,
with the patience that the Lord blessed me with, I felt like I could have waited many more years. But I'm grateful the Lord didn't make me wait :)

Marriage is ordained of God and that it is a commandment. And, like Nephi of old testified, the Lord always prepares a way to fulfill his commandments.

Abortion and why I hate it

I have always loved kids, even when I myself was a kid. My mom has a picture of me as a two year-old feeding a bottle to my younger brother while I drank out of my own bottle. I am normally easy going, reserved, introverted. Yet I become very bold and animated when I see children suffering, especially at the hands of adults. I transform. People say, “Kevin, I never imagined you acting that way.”

Speaking up for kids is worth it.

That personality trait of mine is why my wife and I want to be foster parents, and why we love babysitting. That is also why I ardently speak AGAINST the heinous act of abortion. In my opinion, it is nothing short of child abuse and murder.

I present the arguments infavor of abortion that I have heard and counteract it with my own arguments:

Women have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. Well, there are actually a lot of laws that restrict people's freedom as to what to do with their bodies: for example, ingesting alcohol then driving a car. The law restricts what you can do as far as that goes (i.e. it prohibits it) because it causes harm to other people.

And think of this, if a woman has complete liberty over her body, why is prostitution illegal? It's because nobody lives in a vacuum. If a woman decides to engage in that practice, there are other people involved. The law has decided that the woman and others involved would be negatively impacted. Why can't that same logic be applied to abortion?

Further, I ask, why does the mother have the right to decide what to do with her body but the child doesn't have the right to decide what to do with ITS body? The child is connected to the mother, formed from the mother, yet it has a body of its own. Why doesn't it count as a human being with rights?

This leads to my next rebuttal:

The fetus doesn't count as a human being. I hate this argument, because if people agree that the baby isn't even human, then they rationalize that killing it makes it justifiable and less heart wrenching; in other words, that would mean abortion isn't murder. This argument blatantly ignores the fact that a fetus is essentially a developing child. It feels. It lives. It is a life. How can you see a fetus and not marvel at the human child sprouting? That's the truth, and no euphemistic label can change that.

There are humane abortion procedures. Another reason I hate the argument that the fetus isn't human is that it justifies this argument: it makes people believe that abortion can be humane. They reason that if the fetus isn't human, then it doesn't feel, and you don't have to feel guilty for performing an abortion.

Don't kid yourselves: the child (yes, the fetus is a child) feels, much earlier in the pregnancy than you think. Why do you think they shift themselves in the womb? Why do they kick? Stop rationalizing: there's no such thing as a humane abortion.

Even if there was an abortion procedure where the fetus felt nothing, and died quickly and painlessly, it doesn't change how cruel it is. A murder where the victim doesn't feel a thing is still a murder.

We're preventing the child from having a bad life. You don't know that.There are countless instances of people born into all sorts of less-than-ideal circumstances who overcome and succeed. Should we commit genocide against anyone whose future isn't bright? Who lives in challenging circumstances? Why should a child be killed on the assumption that his or her life will be awful?

Life is sweet, and children certainly don't deserve to be deprived of it.

If the parents (or mother, if the father chooses not to be involved) can't afford a child, they should have the option of aborting the pregnancy. Ok, then with that same logic, it would be justifiable for every parent who goes bankrupt to line up their kids and shoot them in the head. Then would you continue to say, "Parents have a right to choose what to do with their own flesh and blood, so I'll look the other way"?

If poverty meant you couldn't have kids, why are there lots of big families in poor countries? It's partially due to lack of contraception, but it's also because such families realize that they can make things work. No matter how big the family is.

Abortion is not the answer.

And do you think that abortion is cheap?

People are going to do it anyway. They might as well legitimize it so that professionals can do it right. This is a huge fallacy. That argument alone is never a good enough reason to not outlaw something.

For example, let's apply this same logic to murder. Murder is illegal, but people do it anyway. Making murder illegal means it more challenging to commit the murder, which makes the murder uglier instead of quick and clean if it were legal. If you can't stand someone, who am I to get in your way? No one should make you deal with that person. Murder being illegal means those who do it have no legitimate recourses. Therefore they have to resort to dirty, sketchy, back alley methods if they want to do it.

Based on the foregoing logic, murders could be performed more efficiently and humanely if we gave professionals the license to do it without intervention from the law. Why does no one make these arguments in favor of legalizing murder? Because we all agree that murder is wrong and that making it difficult is the point of making it illegal!

Just because people will do something anyway doesn't mean it's permissible.

Those mothers have no other option. So putting up the baby for adoption or raising the child on your own isn't an option? There are thousands childless couples who yearn for the opportunity of raising a baby.

In fact, one adoption agency, LDS family services, which my wife and I were hoping to adopt through, no longer provides adoption services. Why? Because a puny number of children are being placed for adoption. Perhaps more mothers are keeping their babies, but it's hard not to believe that abortions are largely to blame for the paltry availability of children to adopt. That's devastating to my wife and me. We WANT kids and too many biological parents are too selfish to provide people like us with that opportunity.

People should be able to have sex without being forced to give birth to a child they don't want. It disgusts me that people want to have abortion based on this argument. I loathe the thought that abortion is another contraceptive. They angrily demand the ability to have all the sex they want, no consequences, no commitment. People who argue in favor of abortion for those reasons are real monsters.

I hate the idea that children should die so adults can have unrestricted sex.

What about the teenage girls that go too far with their boyfriends? I understand that a teenage couple, thinking with their hormones, can get carried away without fully comprehending the consequences of their actions. That happens. They deserve compassion. Most of the time such people don't deserve harsh labels that they often receive. Raising the baby probably would be disastrous for the parents (or just the mother, if the father chooses not to be involved), although even then there are exceptions.

Adoption can literally and figuratively be a life-saver in that circumstance.

But what if the mother doesn't want to go through a pregnancy? Well, do you think abortion is a piece of cake? Do you think killing an unborn child is like a day at the spa? One cannot expect to be pregnant yet have their life completely unaffected by pregnancy.

But what if the mother's life is in danger? Or the pregnancy is a result of rape? I think abortion is justifiable in a handful of rare circumstances: for example, rape, or when the mother's life is in danger. I met a doctor that says that it's rare that a mother and child's life can't be saved, but it happens once in a blue moon. And it's horrible to me to think a woman should be forced to accept a pregnancy thrust upon her by a vile and criminal act. This doesn't necessarily mean that the abortion wouldn't be heart-wrenching for the mother, so she should ponder the decision carefully.

I think it's interesting, though, how I hardly ever hear people use that argument. It seems that more often the people in favor of abortion default to the rhetoric of "A woman has a right to decide what to do with her body." Or "She shouldn't have to have the baby if she doesn't want to."

And again, I ask, why does the mother get to have that choice but not the baby? That baby is a human being unto itself. It has rights, too. The fact that it is innocent and incapable of speaking for itself makes the act of depriving it of its life that much more appalling.

But you can't restrict women like that. Well, the tough truth is that being a mother means sacrificing freedoms and suffering inconveniences. Anyone who has ever raised a child can corroborate that. Pro-life people aren't inconveniencing you. Being a mother is.

I know my comments may be offensive to some, and I accept that. I would rather have people be offended so that more children can live. And like I said, I've always loved kids and am very bold and outspoken when defending them.

Immigrants

I feel uncomfortable with all the Canadians running loose in our country. I hate how they steal our jobs, clog up our hospitals, add to our ethnic diversity, and refuse to speak our language. Our European ancestors learned the language of the Native Americans, so why can't they speak American English?

We should round them all up and ship them to Toronto where they all belong.

They're not all from Toronto you say? Well, as far as I'm concerned, anything north of New York is Toronto.

Further, only people who speak the language of the land should live here. So anyone who doesn't speak Navajo, Cherokee, or any of the 300 languages indigenous to North America should leave the continent.

In case you haven't noticed, that was satire. My subtle rebuke of the some things my friends say that I strongly disagree with.

Now I'm going to speak seriously:

As a linguist, it rubs me the wrong way when people demand that immigrants speak only English, demanding that immigrants never speak their mother tongue. I appreciate the linguistic (and cultural) diversity that immigrants bring. After all, how hard did our European ancestors work to learn the Native American languages?

Refusing to allow other languages to be spoken is shutting the doors to a world of insight that can help you learn about your own language.

Besides, lots of immigrants are too old to learn a new language (especially the ones that are 50+). I admit, there are a lot of immigrants who don't learn English who could. The lost opportunities for them not knowing English is a punishment in and of itself. The law does not need to make it worse. Besides, an evaluation of linguistic capabilities is subjective and imperfect, and therefore if people were legally punished for not knowing English, how could it be possible to make a fair punishment for not speaking English? It would be especially cruel to people who are simply incapable of learning English, because of disability, age, or other factors.

Using the law to force people to speak English would be an example of the stick instead of the carrot, backfiring by instilling fear and demotivating people to lean English. The economic realities of the opportunities that come from knowing English are a very juicy carrot that millions of immigrants chase after, motivating them to learn it. And millions of them DO learn it.

Now you may be thinking, "Kevin, the government already requires English proficiency in order to pass the citizenship test." And you'd be right.

I actually think that the English proficiency requirement for citizenship is a good thing because it provides a positive incentive to chase after, instead of a punishment to dread.

But there are people who think that's not enough, and that immigrants should be raked over the coals for not knowing English.

I am against punishing people who don't have English proficiency, but I'm in favor providing positive incentives to motivate them to learn English.

I roll my eyes whenever someone says, "If I was to emigrate to another country, I'd be expected to learn the language there." Ok, then. Put your money where your mouth is, and live in a foreign country (Japan, for example) and learn their language. Oh, and make sure to find a large community of people from the US to associate with.  My bet is that many people who claim they would learn the language of the land would give up, either because of laziness, fear, incompetence, or other factors, and would default to English. Many would be diligent, persistent, and competent enough to learn the language. But not all.

Now, say that it was impossible to find a fellow American or anyone who spoke English? Then it's more likely that an American immigrant would learn the language of the land. You find similar phenomena in the US: immigrants whose communities are smaller are more likely to learn English. But if their community is large, it's easy to default to their native language, especially after they get discouraged about their abilities to learn a tough language (come on, Americans, you gotta admit that even you mess up English, so you can't blame foreigners for not always understanding English).

And you people who gripe about immigrants not learning English, how hard have you worked to help such people learn English? You might have more room to talk if you volunteer or work at schools for teaching English as a second language (which I have done; you don't see me complaining). But as long as you're too lazy to help anyone learn English, you have no right to complain about immigrants being too lazy to learn English.This country has always prided itself on being a country of immigrants. It truly has always been a country of immigrants. Let's learn from each other, and be understanding of each other.

I mean, English is derived from a tribal language spoken by the Angles and the Saxons. It could easily have become a rare or extinct language, like other languages in Angle-land. Instead of claiming English to be superior and forcing people to learn it, let's acknowledge that it's equal to other languages, and HELP people who struggle to learn it.

Another thing that people often say about immigrants that I often disagree with is, "They bring crime into our country." There are indeed many immigrants who commit crimes. But does that mean that every group of people that has criminals should be unilaterally blocked from or kicked out of this country? If so, then NO ONE could live here. Every race and ethnicity has criminals.

The key to curbing crime isn't necessarily in keeping people out--although I fully support the government's efforts to kick out and keep out individual immigrants that are PROVEN to be criminals. What exactly is the best way to curb crime in the US is a matter for another debate.

In short, immigrants are people, too. So they deserve to be treated with the golden rule.