In Oliver B. Huntington's journal, he quotes Brigham Young as saying the following:
"The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being six feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could see whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see."
Huntington's patriarchal blessing also mentioned that he would "have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."
See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_moonmen
Pretty silly. Obviously we know today that the moon is not inhabited. Now, to be fair: Joseph and Brigham and other early church members were not the only people who thought that there were people on the moon - it was a widely held opinion at the time, even backed by some scientists. So, Joseph and Brigham were simply products of their time in this respect.
I don't hold their incorrect belief against them, because they had no way of knowing that the moon was not inhabited. The troubling part is the fact that, not only did they teach that there were people on the moon (and sun) but they actually described them in rather meticulous detail. Manner of dress. Average height. Unusually long lifespan. Since these moon people don't actually exist, how could they possibly go into so much detail?
At this point, knowing what we know now, it seems very much like we've caught a 5-year-old in a fantastical lie.
In summary: the problem isn't that Brigham thought there might be people on the moon. It's that he described them. He didn't make a good faith mistake. He lied.
There are other events in church history that are similarly troubling. One is the Greek psalter incident. The short version: a Professor Henry Caswall claims that, to attempt to uncover Joseph Smith as a fraud, he brought to him a Greek psalter (collection of psalms) and asked what it was. Joseph affirmatively responded that it was a "dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics."
As recounted by Caswall, Willard Richards later came to him and said that "sometimes Mr. Smith speaks as a prophet, and sometimes as a mere man. If he gave a wrong opinion respecting the book, he spoke as a mere man."
Caswall's reply:
"Whether he spoke as a prophet or as a mere man, he has committed himself, for he has said what is not true. If he spoke as a prophet, therefore, he is a false prophet. If he spoke as a mere man, he cannot be trusted, for he spoke positively and like an oracle respecting that which he knew nothing."
The point I'm trying to make here is the same as Caswall's. If he didn't know what it was, why did he speak as if he did? It's misleading and dishonest at best.
One more example: as recorded in History of the Church, Joseph Smith prophesied the following: "the coming of the Lord...is nigh - even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." This was in 1835, so that would mean "the scene should be wound up by 1891." Was Joseph giving his opinion? If so, why was it so incredibly specific? 56 years is an oddly precise "opinion" to have.
To illustrate my problem with this, let me contrast these examples with what I would do. If you ask me when America will have its first female president, I can't answer you definitively because I simply don't know. So, being an honest person, I will do one of two things: I will either say "I don't know," or I will say something like "I imagine it will happen within the next 20 years." If I were to say "it will happen within 37 years," that would be an oddly and inappropriately specific pronouncement that is not merited by my knowledge. Wouldn't it be strange if my "opinion" was that we would have a female president "within 37 years?" Being an honest person, when I express my opinion, I don't dress it up as fact or prophecy.
Moon people, a Greek psalter, and the second coming. Hopefully you can see my point here. If prophets sometimes don't speak as prophets, why do they always act like they are speaking as prophets? And if you can later demonstrate that something a prophet said "positively, like an oracle" is absolutely false, how are you to trust everything else they say? How can you trust someone who declares something so specific without the slightest hint of doubt when they clearly know nothing about it? Why wouldn't they just humbly admit that they have no idea whether there are people on the moon or what those moon people look like?
At the very least, Mormon leaders should exercise a little more humility when talking about things they don't know anything about.
(I will put this comment both here and on your blog since I don't know what you prefer.)
ReplyDeleteI read your post and I will admit this isn't a non-trivial issue and I have not tried to make it a trivial issue. You say:
> At the very least, Mormon leaders should exercise a little more humility when talking about things they don't know anything about.
And I agree and since Brigham leaders have been *much* more careful. I really do think the best thing for *anyone* to take is a scientific/testable (We do have Alma 32) approach to the statements of Church leaders.
Do I personally recognize statements that have been made in error? Yes. Then how do we know what is right and wrong? Here are a few observations:
A. More and more I think the brethren, and Church members, have come come to understand the wisdom why leaders are in quorums. The quorums act like filters in an inspired sense. In the New Testament Christ had leaders of the Church discuss things in quorums before they came to inspired answers. The D&C talks about the imoprtance of quorums and decisions being unanimous etc... This protects from a random wild thought going unchecked. Therefore, to fist order, I would be skeptical of *anything* not backed by quorum support.
B. And even after a statement is supported by the quorum yes I *do* believe in testing in an Alma 32 sense. It is like science. When top scientists converge on a claim through peer review it should to first order be trusted but at the same you should be open to further testing.
C. History, in my opinion, shows that LDS leaders, for all their faults, usually should be more trusted then defectors. RLDS leaders had intelligent reasons for believing Brigham was a bad leader but look at them compared to us today. The FLDS people had intelligent reasons to think the Church went astray and again look at who is better off. Etc...
D. To me this shows, despite their occasional missteps, by and large the leadership of the Church is consistently leading the Church in the right direction and that those who hold on progress in ways that those who don't miss out on. I can't think of a *single* group of detractors that on statistically signifiant levels are better off then those who stayed faithful. To me, this means 1000 times more then a moon-statement here and there.
E. But, given I *do* think we should be scientific about it I would love to conduct a survey by taking a random sample of 100 temple attending TBMs from /r/lds with 100 exmormons from /r/exmormon. I would be interested in tracking a bunch of things over the years: who attains the higher levels of education? Who has the lower divorce rates? Who report the higher levels of happiness? What percentage of the children go to college, report high levels of happiness and have strong families? Who has the higher household income? Who gives the most time and money to charity? Who become successful members of society like CEOs and politicians? Who... this list can go on...
I am willing to be the temple attending TMBs will score higher for most things with signifigance. Does this make them better people? No! But they are following a set of principles largely defined by these same leaders who sometimes makes crazy statements. *To me*, this is and will always be evidence that those who follow these "sometimes crazy" men are better ff for doing so and that *something* these guys are saying is true and correct.
And it is our job as members to test and use Alma 32 to extract what is causing all the good and hold fast to it. Sure we could get angry over one crazy statements here or there, but by and large those who stay faithful seem to be rewarded in ways that can only come from there being a lot of truth to what is being followed. And for those who want a place to start statements endorsed by quorums, not just individual men, are the best place.
Thanks so much for your very detailed response. I appreciate you taking the time to explain what you think.
DeleteOne thing that you didn't really address is the odd specificity of the statements made by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. (I could also pull out more recent examples, such as "we will never put a man on the moon.") The main point I'm trying to make here is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young gave a very odd level of detail about something that they clearly didn't know anything about. To me, that goes to their character and their trustworthiness. Your take seems to be that, while these statements are indeed strange, there's plenty of other good stuff in the church so let's not focus on them.
"History, in my opinion, shows that LDS leaders, for all their faults, usually should be more trusted then defectors. RLDS leaders had intelligent reasons for believing Brigham was a bad leader but look at them compared to us today. The FLDS people had intelligent reasons to think the Church went astray and again look at who is better off. Etc..."
You're using membership levels and financial success as a metric for truth. The same argument could be made by mainstream Christianity: Mormons are essentially a splinter group from them, but haven't enjoyed nearly the level of success.
"I can't think of a *single* group of detractors that on statistically signifiant levels are better off then those who stayed faithful. To me, this means 1000 times more then a moon-statement here and there."
I can't think of a single study that has compared former Mormons with practicing ones. I would love to see such a study. You're jumping to assumptions here without the necessary data to base them on. To throw out an anecdote, since leaving the church, I'm doing just fine! In fact, I'd say that my life has improved.
"I would be interested in tracking a bunch of things over the years: who attains the higher levels of education? Who has the lower divorce rates? Who report the higher levels of happiness? What percentage of the children go to college, report high levels of happiness and have strong families? Who has the higher household income? Who gives the most time and money to charity? Who become successful members of society like CEOs and politicians? Who... this list can go on..."
This is an interesting way to approach our differences, and I would be interested in seeing it done as well. I don't agree with the premise that "if Mormons are more successful in life, then the LDS church is true," but I get the feeling that that's less important to you. It seems like (and let me know if this isn't fair) a lot of the appeal you derive from the LDS church is through the good it does, not necessarily its truth value.
I can answer one of your questions though: atheists apparently have lower divorce rates than Mormons (who officially list a rate of 6%, but only count sealing cancellations in their official numbers.) Mormons have the same divorce rate as the national average; atheists and agnostics are lower. http://web.archive.org/web/20020616112707/www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=39&Reference=B
The jury is definitely still out on how Mormons compare to other groups in most of the ways you described. I'd be careful about jumping to conclusions without evidence that may be biased by your own group membership.
(Continued)
DeleteAs a scientist, I recoil a little bit when I hear Alma 32 referred to as a "scientific" test, because, well, it's just not.
"Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me." (Alma 32: 28)
The scientific method consists of formulating and testing hypotheses. A major part of that process is to determine how a hypothesis could be tested in a way that would provide evidence either for or against it. For example, if I wanted to test whether temperature affected the range sizes of lizards (something I've been working on recently), the obvious test would be to compare the range sizes of lizards at different temperatures and try to determine if there's a significant trend.
The "hypothesis" inherent in Alma 32 doesn't test anything. "The thing I was told in church is true and is from God" simply doesn't logically follow from "I feel good about it" or "my life goes well when I do what I was told to do." You can feel good about something that's wrong, and it's easy to use this method to manipulate. There's also too much stochasticity in life to attribute things that go well to specific causes.
Anyway, I know we're going to disagree on a lot of things, but I really do appreciate your participation, and I feel like I get a lot out of hearing others clarify their views.
As you know science is about the ability to falsify a hypothesis. I believe the application of Alma 32 can, in principle, falsify bad religious ideas. Though I admit it would be hard to write up in a detailed easily repeatable description as it is so personal.
Delete"The main point I'm trying to make here is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young gave a very odd level of detail about something that they clearly didn't know anything about."
DeleteI agree. I was just reading a book by Brant Gardner saying early Mormons did a great job of creating stories that tied their confusion together. Brigham I am sure knew the scriptures talked about life on other worlds and read about the terrestrial world being liked to the sun and formed interesting story in his mind connecting the too accordingly.
And people do this today. I get emails about people taking true principles in physics and extrapolating them to realms where they come to hilarious conclusions. They are not right and yet the physics they are using to make the extrapolations are true. It is *my* opinion that many principles of the gospel are still true even when members (even the prophet) extrapolate *way* too far.
edit: I mean liked to the moon.
DeleteYou grant him the benefit of the doubt, and I don't (like I said, "it seems very much like we've caught a 5-year-old in a fantastical lie.") I'm not sure *why* there's a difference to our responses (it's not because I'm an ex-Mormon, because even as a believing member I would've felt the same way) but it's something I'd like to understand.
DeleteA study comparing ex-Mormons to current LDS church members would have to take into account factors like how being ostracized from your family or lifelong social group (or kicked out of BYU) affects your earning potential, education, and emotional well-being.
DeleteIt would also have to take into account Mormons' tendency to self-report extremely good mental / emotional states, despite Utah's sky-high youth suicide and anti-depressant prescription rates, and how Mormon culture encourages this kind of inauthenticity.
The Community of Christ is numerically smaller than the LDS church, but is more progressive and accepting, and is therefore much closer to the actual teachings of Jesus Christ IMO. They also did not build a multi-billion dollar shopping mall.
PS. I see you study evolution. Good for you. Because of this I am sure you are aware that "better" complexity has a higher chance of survival from gradual evolution then revolution. Drastic mutations usually end in destruction not progression.
ReplyDeleteThough you may not admit it, the LDS Church is great in many ways. With a little help from bright members like yourself it can slowly evolve into an even greater organization. One of my qualms with Mormon defectors is they seem to come across as if large defections will lead to progress. I think history and evolution in biology rules that out. Revolution doesn't create as great of results as gradual evolution.
And like any other organism that suffers large-mutations, they usually die of leaving those who only make small changes surviving and moving onward. If think if you *really* want to make the world better start with something already good in many respects, like the LDS Church, and instead of demanding revolution be a part of slow but gradual evolution.
I'm not a proponent of applying concepts of natural selection to society. That doesn't always go so well - the logical extension would be social Darwinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism), which I'm opposed to. I'm also not convinced that the same constraints that operate on genes and organisms are the main constraints driving societal change. I'm an ecologist, so I'm very aware that scale is the primary determinant of what mechanisms are important to a system.
DeleteI absolutely would not say that no good can come from the LDS church. But, I don't believe that the good in the LDS church is unique to it. A pithy way of saying this is that "the good teachings are not unique, and the unique teachings are not always good." I'm willing to recognize that there are good and bad aspects to the LDS church; similarly, there are good and bad aspects to any organization. Some of the bad - a higher rate of science and evolution denial, discrimination against homosexuals (and racism, which fortunately has improved significantly since the 70's and is now limited to very conservative members in rural areas), and sexism. We could argue about whether or not these are "doctrinal" but at the very least they're cultural, and therefore attributable to the church. And then, of course, there are the truth and historical claims which I believe are demonstrably false and the attitude that feelings and faith outweigh rationality and evidence. Here's where we part ways: I believe we could have all of the benefits the LDS church brings, without the negative effects. I think the growing Humanism movement is just as capable of doing good (for its own sake) as any religion, without the aspects of religion that tend to hold people back.
So, I will continue to demand revolution. And, with a little help from people like you who combine reason and compassion, I believe the world could be a much better place *and* be free of some of the negative effects of religion.
"I'm not a proponent of applying concepts of natural selection to society. "
DeleteHaha. Yeah, well I am semi-libertarian in my views partly because I think natural selection and "the invisible hand" in economics works so well without a central governing authority regulating everything. But I would say I am a bleeding heart libertarian in that I do feel feel a desire for the government to step in when someone is being pummeled when they are doing their best. Like the single mother working full time and can't get health care for her kids. My heart goes out to such people but to first order I do believe natural selection and market forces trump central regulating authority.
Well that right there is a whole different discussion. But when you say that dramatic social change is less likely to be successful than gradual change, as of yet I'm not convinced. Revolutions happen all the time. The American revolution was pretty dramatic, for example, and it seems to have affected change that simply wouldn't have occurred gradually.
DeletePS. I thought you might say "If you are against central governing authority what is the deal wit God/creation? Isn't that the ultimate regulating authority?"
DeleteGlad I pretended you asked. :) I think there are two type of God that are advocated by Mormonism and can't tell which of the two is the real one. (Or is it a combination?) The first I will call the King Follet/Richard Dawkins God. Dawkings says this in The God Delusion pg. 72-73:
"Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century. Imagine his response to a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, a hydrogen bomb or a jumbo jet. As Arthur C. Clarke put it, in his Third Law: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters, or Jesus walking upon them. The aliens of our SETI signal would be to us like gods, just as missionaries were treated as gods (and exploited the undeserved honour to the hilt) when they turned up in Stone Age cultures bearing guns, telescopes, matches, and almanacs predicting eclipses to the second."
If that doesn't sound like the God of the King Follet discourse growing into a God on another planet I don't know what does. This is the God that was not a God in the beginning but grew up on a planet like ours mastering the laws until He has become the supreme intelligent Being in the universe, a universe filled with a myriad of intelligent beings (think Book of Abraham), and to us seems supernatural and quite possibly "saw proper to institute [a gospel] whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.". (King Follet discourse.)
The second I will call the John Conway/traditional God whom is the author of the laws of the universe.
Science can tell us what the laws of the universe are but not where they are from. If they "just exist" then I guess the Dawkings/King Follet God is most probable. But if the laws have an author then I maintain He must be the ultimate John Conway with our universe being the ultimate game of life. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdMzngWchDk
Conway made the rules, and even spent time playing around until he found the rules that gave him what he wanted (see 2:02), and then set the rules in motion. If this doesn't sound like a council in heaven on a micro scale I don't know what does!
Is Conway's game random? Yes. Where the rules intelligently designed to achieve certain outcomes. Yes again. Could his creatures potential discover through experiment that only 3 rules exist and from those simple rules all complexity emerges? Yes. ***Does that rule out Conway being the author of the rules?*** No!!!
So which is it? Laws that just exist where a intelligent being learns to become *really* intelligent in the Dawkins/King Follet sense? Or is God the ultimate John Conway Who frames/intelligently designs specific simple rules with the intention of getting the kinds of ends He hopes for?
Both versions are consistant with Mormonism in my opinion and I believe one of them is right.
PS. I can just see the creatures in Conway's universe: "We have discovered the only three simple laws needed to form all complexity using science, therefore God isn't needed!" Which Conway sits back and has a great chuckle wondering where they thing the 3 simple laws came from in the first place. :)
DeleteAt that point, to them, there would be no God in a practical sense. If no one's interfering and their universe is completely self-contained, it doesn't really matter if someone created it.
DeleteMormons make terrible Deists, though.
"At that point, to them, there would be no God in a practical sense."
DeleteIt would if the great secret was, embedded in the game itself, was the knowledge of how to become like Conway yourself.
PSS or PPS or whatever: I see most of your concerns are about historical anomalies in the part or issues like the word horse in in the Book of Mormon. Would it have been better off if our ancestors were killed off because it was discovered the human body has imperfections?
ReplyDeleteTo me the answer is no. Despite it's imperfections the human body is overall great and with years of progress in science, medicine, diet, exercise the body can be even better.
So the Church and its history isn't perfect? But you have a brain. Use it to take the good of the Church and make it better. CEOs aren't successful because the are good at criticizing dirt they dig up on a former CEO 40 years ago. Great CEOs are great because they take the company, find it's strengths and build upon them.
Be like a good CEO. Don't pretend the world would be better off if Steve Jobs quit because previous CEOs weren't perfect. Find the strengths of the Church and make it better. This is how the world progresses. Slow but steady evolution by those who can see the good in something and are willing to put in a little elbow grease to make it better. Not those who leave and criticize because of some 100 year old dirt that frankly doesn't really matter in the lives of actual members.
The question I'm hearing here is "even if the church is fundamentally wrong in its factual assertions, can it still be good?" That's an interesting philosophical question that everyone seems to answer in different ways.
DeletePersonally, I wouldn't stay a member of an organization that made incredible claims about its origin (which still affect members to this day, through the continuation of priesthood authority) that I didn't believe in. Also, I think part of the reason I'm so vocal is because I'm studying some very politicized topics (evolution, climate change) and think that one of the major problems facing our country today is our irrational approach to these and other major issues. I think demanding evidence and being skeptical by default is healthy.
I recognize that this isn't the answer for everyone, though. I think everyone should have the right to choose how they respond; I just want the facts to be out in the open.
Also, re: "I see most of your concerns are about historical anomalies in the part or issues like the word horse in in the Book of Mormon."
DeleteIn my mind, when we get to the point where most or even a significant number of Mormons accept that these problems exist instead of buying into simplistic apologetic explanations, *then* we can start to have a deeper discussion about their significance. But I find that the overwhelming response is to reflexively deny anything that seems to counter a claim of the church.
Last thing: I appreciate the invitation to comment. It is fun poking around here. I hope you have fun at UNC. (If you haven't already gone) I have a friend who did physics with me at BYU there. He enjoys it.
ReplyDeleteI'm headed to UNC in about two weeks - it seemed really great when I visited, and the department is very strong for my subfield.
DeleteThanks for participating. I've already upgraded you in my mind from "that one guy who posts way too much on /r/lds" to "a guy who seems pretty cool and is willing to have a reasonable discussion." Kudos!
"from "that one guy who posts way too much on /r/lds""
DeleteI am sure you are not alone in this assessment. Anyways, I appreciate your responses. I do realize where you are coming from and know you have good intellectual reasons for having an antagonistic view toward the LDS Church. I wish you the best and despite what I say or don't say on /r/lds (as I am impetuous and prone to knee-jerk-reactions) hope you know I am also impressed by how cordial your responses are.
Using "which group has a higher level of worldly success" as a yardstick for which one is "better" is not only problematic for reasons I explain in my comment above (a reply to comment #1), I'm also not sure how it's different from simply looking at one's wealth compared to another's, and deciding it means you're a better person than them.
ReplyDeleteIt may be a mindset that's encouraged by the Book of Mormon's "Pride Cycle" teaching, but it's pretty much the opposite of the lesson of Jesus' parable about the Pharisee's and the tax collector's prayers.
"I'm also not sure how it's different from simply looking at one's wealth compared to another's, and deciding it means you're a better person than them."
DeleteRight. I think that's exactly what it is, although Joseph frames it slightly differently: "Does this make them better people? No! But they are following a set of principles largely defined by these same leaders who sometimes makes crazy statements. *To me*, this is and will always be evidence that those who follow these "sometimes crazy" men are better ff for doing so and that *something* these guys are saying is true and correct."
So, it's not evidence that they're better people, but that they're following correct principles. I saw another thread on Reddit that has some great counterarguments to this, such as this: "Why is the sucess rate of LDS and Childrens Hospital (where we assume Priesthood blessings are given at the highest rates) no better than other hospitals with similiar technology, staff, scientific training?"
http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/xf7k9/10_questions_for_a_prophet/
Additionally,
ReplyDelete1. If these men made up information and stated the imaginary as fact, what does that tell us of their ability to fabricate information?
2. If some of their claims can now be tested and proven false, what does that say about the claims that cannot be tested, such as God living near Kolob, Joseph seeing Angels, etc?
3. What does fraud look like? What does falsehood look like? How would you know which of the following are false prophets?
Nostradamus
Ellen White
Edgar Cayce
L. Ron Hubbard
The Pope
Warren Jeffs
Muhammad
Sun Myung Moon
Harold Camping
If you cannot detect which of the above are fraudulent or false prophets, then do not pretend to know which ones are the true prophets. When you know how to detect false prophets, you can apply the same principles to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to see where the cards fall.
To me, the truth is clear, but if you want to maintain that Joseph and Brigham are true while the above are false, then you will need to apply the "special pleading fallacy" to excuse them from the false prophet list.
(see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html)