I found this excellent article here.
Hinckley has blown some real opportunities to shine as a true leader, let alone as a real prophet.
Here's some examples of what President Hinckley could have said, compared to what he actually did say:
1. War in Afghanistan
In speaking on the start of the war in Afghanistan in October 2001, as a real prophet, Hinckley would have said:
"Now we are at war. Great forces have been mobilized and will continue to be. Political alliances are being forged. The Lord has assured me that America will soon vanquish the Taliban from Afganistan. The Lord has told me that this conflict will not adversely affect the progress of the church, but that we are to help in relieving the suffering of the Afghani people as much as possible."
"I testify that the Lord is aware of our times and is watching over this people. He expects us to be a beacon of charity in service to those who suffer from oppression. I am optimistic. I know the Lord will provide for the true needs of the church, even if some of you may struggle with paying a full tithe for a season. The Lord understands. He is forgiving."
"Now, brothers and sisters, we must do our duty, especially as citizens of this great nation. The Lord has warned me that some may use this time of crisis in order to limit civil liberties. Peace may be denied for a season, but as members of the church, and as responsible citizens, we must be vigilant in upholding our liberties and defending the great principles of the constitution. At this time may we all follow the righteous example of Captain Moroni in the Book of Mormon, of which was written: "And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people." (Alma 48:11-12) Our safety lies in defending the freedoms and rights granted in the constitution. Our strength comes of our commitment to social justice."
Instead, this is what he actually said:
"Now we are at war. Great forces have been mobilized and will continue to be. Political alliances are being forged. We do not know how long this conflict will last. We do not know what it will cost in lives and treasure. We do not know the manner in which it will be carried out. It could impact the work of the Church in various ways."
"No one knows how long it will last. No one knows precisely where it will be fought. No one knows what it may entail before it is over. We have launched an undertaking the size and nature of which we cannot see at this time."
"I do not know what the future holds. I do not wish to sound negative, but I wish to remind you of the warnings of scripture and the teachings of the prophets which we have had constantly before us."
"Now, I do not wish to be an alarmist. I do not wish to be a prophet of doom. I am optimistic. I do not believe the time is here when an all-consuming calamity will overtake us. I earnestly pray that it may not." There is so much of the Lord’s work yet to be done. We, and our children after us, must do it. I can assure you that we who are responsible for the management of the affairs of the Church will be prudent and careful as we have tried to be in the past. The tithes of the Church are sacred."
"How grateful I am for the law of tithing. It is the Lord’s law of finance. It is set forth in a few words in the 119th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. It comes of His wisdom. To every man and woman, to every boy and girl, to every child in this Church who pays an honest tithing, be it large or small, I express gratitude for the faith that is in your hearts. I remind you, and those who do not pay tithing but who should, that the Lord has promised marvelous blessings (see Mal. 3:10-12). He has also promised that “he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming” (D&C 64:23)."
"Now, brothers and sisters, we must do our duty, whatever that duty might be. Peace may be denied for a season. Some of our liberties may be curtailed. We may be inconvenienced. We may even be called on to suffer in one way or another. But God our Eternal Father will watch over this nation and all of the civilized world who look to Him. He has declared, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Ps. 33:12). Our safety lies in repentance. Our strength comes of obedience to the commandments of God."- Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Times in Which We Live,” October 2001 General Conference (Ensign, Nov. 2001, Page 72)
2. Nature of God
In a January 2002 interview, Hinckley was asked to characterize God's connubial relationship. With prophetic power he could have explained:
"Brigham Young was a great prophet of the Lord who received many revelations pertaining to the salvation of mankind, as have many other church prophets. We know through modern revelation that there is eternal progression and worlds without number for those who live worthily. As you learn more about the gospel, you come to a true understanding of the nature of God and what eternal progression means."
Instead, this is what he actually said:
"Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that." Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was called, Hinckley said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about what he said about those things." I asked whether Mormon theology was a form of polytheism. "I don't have the remotest idea what you mean," Hinckley said impatiently.- Hinckley Interview in "Lives of the Saint", New Yorker, January 2002
3. The Celestial Kingdom
When a young woman in the church wrote Hinckley and asked him if women can go to the Celstial Kingdom without a man, Hinckley answered her question from the tabernacle puplit. Here's what he should have said if he were a true prophet:
"Beyond the wonderful and descriptive words found in sections 76 and 137, the Lord has revealed to me that yes, righteous women, as well as righteous men, will receive full blessings and fellowship in that kingdom. I know this question troubles many worthy sisters in the church who, for whatever reason, have experienced divorce. Some in the church may be confused and incorrectly think that women cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom without a man. But let me make it clear that the Lord loves righteous single women as much as righteous married women and their relationship with the Lord is not diminished by the absence of a husband."
This is what Hinckley actually said:
"Beyond the wonderful and descriptive words found in sections 76 and 137 [D&C 76; D&C 137] we know relatively little concerning the celestial kingdom and those who will be there. At least some of the rules of eligibility for acceptance into that kingdom are clearly set forth, but other than that, we are given little understanding."- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Daughters of God,” Ensign, Nov. 1991, Page 97
4. Why Eve Was Created From Adam and Why Adam should Rule Over Eve.
When asked this question, Hinckley as a prophet could have said:
"The next question you ask is why Eve was created from Adam. I can understand why this part of the Genesis narrative could be interpreted as a evidence that Man is superior to women. But nothing could be further from the truth. As I have prayed and pondered over your sincere question, I have learned from the Lord that as an all-wise Creator he did not in fact create Eve in this way, nor did he command Adam to rule over Eve. These parts of the story of Adam and Eve are not doctrinal."
"You ask whether men are more important than women. Let me assure you that that notion is also false doctrine and has no part in the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
This is what Hinckley actually said:
"The next question you ask is why Eve was created from Adam. I can only respond that an all-wise Creator did it that way.... Now, Virginia, you call attention to the statement in the scriptures that Adam should rule over Eve. (See Gen. 3:16.) You ask why this is so. I do not know."
"You ask whether men are more important than women. I am going to turn that question back to you. Would any of us be here, either men or women, without the other?"- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Daughters of God,” Ensign, Nov. 1991, Page 97
5. Doctrine that God Was Once Man
When asked if the church believes that God the Father was once a man like we are, Hinckley should have said:
"One of the great blessings of this church is that we have the fullness of the gospel and through modern revelation know the true nature of God and the purpose of life. The prophet of the restoration, Joseph Smith revealed that 'God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.' The Prophet Smith declared that 'That is the great secret... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us.... Here, then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves,... the same as all Gods have done before you...' (Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345) That revelation has been sustained many times by other leaders of this church, as I sustain it today."
Hinckley actually said:
"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997
6. Blacks and the Priesthood
In a January 2002 interview, Hinckley was asked: "Until 1978 no person of color attained the priesthood in your church. Why it took so long time to overcome the racism?"
If Hinckley was a real prophet, he could have answered:
"We are under the dictates of our Heavenly Father, and it was not my policy or the Church's policy. It was the policy of the Lord who established it. We are subject to revelations of the Lord in cases when he wishes to make changes. The Lord had his reasons, which were revealed by the prophets alive during the time of the priesthood ban on blacks. But as we are blessed with on-going revelations from the Lord, that is all behind us know."
Instead, this is what Hinckley actually said:
"I don’t know. I don’t know. I can only say that. (long pause) But it’s here now."- Gordon B. Hinckley Interview – ZDF German Television, Salt Lake City, Utah January 29, 2002.
7. Tattoos and Body Piercing
Here's what a real prophet should have said:
"I can understand why some young men and women would be tempted to follow recent fashion trends of body piercing and tattoos. Each generation of youth struggles with the desire for acceptance and feelings of rebellion. Many parents have asked church leaders to speak out against tattoos and body piercing. However, the spirit of the Lord reminds us of the wisdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith when faced with a similar issue. The Prophet was once asked by a visitor to the city of Nauvoo how it was that he governed so many people who lived in such peace and prosperity. The Prophet said, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves” (Journal of Discourses, 10:57-58)."
"This same advice would apply to the changing fads and fashions of the world. It is neither possible nor proper for Church leaders to comment on how members should react to every fad that comes along. We know from the teachings of Jesus Christ that the body is a temple at that we should strive to keep it holy. No more church direction need be given."
"However, there is a larger issue involved in the question of bodily adornment that we as Latter-Day Saints must consider. The Lord has taught us that his true disciples should not judge others too harshly, especially in matters of outward appearances. I am reminded of the great council the Lord gave Samuel when He said, "Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart." (1 Sam. 16: 7)"
"This simple scripture contains much wisdom. It reminds us that outward appearances can be deceiving. It also tells us that if we can look past the tattoos or earrings that many a youth bear on the outside, we may find great hearts willing to do good."
"How sorrowful the Lord must feel when we are fooled by appearances and reject good people who could benefit from our loving fellowship and His gospel."
But instead, this is what Hinckley actually said:
"I cannot understand why any young man—or young woman, for that matter—would wish to undergo the painful process of disfiguring the skin with various multicolored representations of people, animals, and various symbols... Fathers, caution your sons against having their bodies tattooed. They may resist your talk now, but the time will come when they will thank you. A tattoo is graffiti on the temple of the body."
"I submit that it is an uncomely thing, and yet a common thing, to see young men with ears pierced for earrings, not for one pair only, but for several. They have no respect for their appearance. Do they think it clever or attractive to so adorn themselves? I submit it is not adornment. It is making ugly that which was attractive. Not only are ears pierced, but other parts of the body as well.. It is absurd."
"May I mention earrings and rings placed in other parts of the body. These are not manly. They are not attractive. You young men look better without them... As for the young women, you do not need to drape rings up and down your ears. One modest pair of earrings is sufficient."- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Your Greatest Challenge, Mother,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 97 and text of a talk given to youth and young single adults on 12 November 2000 at the Conference Center in Salt Lake City and broadcast by satellite throughout the Church.
My thoughts are:
I have no faith in this man whatsoever in his ability as a prophet, seer, and revelator, spokesperson for God, or authority figure of a major religion. I actually heard first-hand his conference talk about the earrings, and I remember sitting there with baited breath, hoping that he wasn't about to decree that the wearing of earrings, even ONE pair was no longer going to be allowed. I was actually relieved when he said that the church would take no position on the wearing of one pair of earrings by women. And the entire crowd present in person at the conference let out an audible sigh as well.
I CANNOT BELIEVE HOW STUPID THAT WAS.
Why would I give a damn what a 90+ year old man thinks about piercings? He doesn't even know the doctrine of his own church, and he doesn't have the ability to bring forth answers to questions posed about doctrine. What the hell good is he if he can't even act in the capacity as a PROPHET? What is it that he does, if it is not prophesy, or speak for God? He doesn't have any answers for us, so why is he exhalted as a PROPHET?
When was the last time a prophet of this church actually STOOD FOR SOMETHING?
Why would we listen to those leaders who can't even excercise the "priesthood powers" to get some direction and some insight as to what God wants in his "true church"?
Occam's razor, people. Please, apply it here.
The simplest answer is the one that Gordon B. Hinckley has supplied himself.
HE DOESN'T KNOW. Nobody in the church knows, and therefore they cannot claim to have any authority to speak for God. None of them have any more "divine knowledge" than any other member of the church, and therefore, each member of the church is left to discover their own answers, or to simply set aside their questions on the "we don't have the answers shelf" and move on with the masses who continue to FOLLOW THE PROPHET, HE KNOWS THE WAY.
HE HIMSELF says he DOESN'T KNOW.
How much more plain can it be?
Thursday, December 07, 2006
How Heavy Were Gold Plates, Anyway?
Paramount in the story of the Latter-day Saints is the account given by Joseph Smith of a visitation he received from the angel Moroni on September 21, 1823. He stated that after he retired to bed, his room became filled with light. At his bedside stood an angel who called Smith by name and told him that God had a work for the young boy to do. Smith claimed to have been told how, "there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang" (Joseph Smith - History 1:34).
Smith claims that he was not allowed to retrieve the buried plates for another four years. In verse 54 of his testimony, he related that the day he was allowed to dig up the record came on September 22, 1827. Mormon historian Leonard Arrington notes that, "Sometime after midnight in the early morning hours of September 22, Joseph and Emma drove to the hill, obtained the plates and hid them in an old birch log about three miles from the Smith home. With neighboring ruffians seeking the plates, thinking they were of great monetary worth, Joseph changed the hiding place several times and managed to keep them from being discovered and stolen" (Mormonism: From Its New York Beginnings, Dialogue, Vol.13, No.3, p.122). Eventually Joseph Smith would bring the plates home to be translated. His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, remembered the day this way:
"The plates were secreted about three miles from home... Joseph, on coming to them, took them from their secret place, and, wrapping them in his linen frock, placed them under his arm and started for home.
After proceeding a short distance, he thought it would be more safe to leave the road and go through the woods. Traveling some distance after he left the road, he came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it, and gave him a heavy blow with a gun. Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed. About half a mile further he was attacked again in the same manner as before; he knocked this man down in like manner as the former, and ran on again; and before he reached home he was assaulted the third time. In striking the last one he dislocated his thumb, which, however, he did not notice until he came within sight of the house, when he threw himself down in the corner of the fence in order to recover his breath. As soon as he was able, he arose and came to the house. lie was still altogether speechless from fright and the fatigue of running" (History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Smith, pp.107-108).
Smith stated, "These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed" (History of the Church 4:537)
Numerous LDS leaders and historians have concurred with Smith's description. As to the size and thickness of the plates there seems to be no dispute.
Paintings of Smith show him receiving the plates with outstretched arms or resting on his knee. Although these are just an artist's perception, these descriptions do cause us to ask, "If they really existed, just how heavy would those plates have been given the size and description by Smith?"
The answer to this question is varied. We do know that gold weighs about 1200 pounds per cubic foot. Given the dimensions by Smith, some have concluded that the plates could have weighed as much as 234 pounds to as little as 100 pounds. The heavier weight is based on what would probably be the total weight of a solid block of gold measuring the size of Smith's plates. This weight would tend to be unlikely given the fact that engravings on a thin plate of soft metal such as gold would probably not lay perfectly flat. If such indentions did tend to cause the plate to "bulge," it would also seem likely that the engravings would have been difficult to read.
Mormon metallurgist Reed Putnam estimates that if the plates were made of pure gold, they would have probably weighed around 100 pounds. In perspective, that would be like carrying a bag of Portland cement under one's arm.
The possibility of the plates being too heavy for Smith to carry has not escaped the notice of LDS apologists. To credit their founder with the ability to carry such a weight while running at "the top of his speed" would seem to conclude that Smith had no idea how heavy gold really was, thus making it appear that he fabricated this story.
Researchers for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) have attempted to come to Smith's rescue. In a bulletin cover (number F-15) they provide an explanation for this anomaly. Entitled "Where the Gold Plates Gold?" it theorized that the plates were not made of pure gold at all. Rather, they theorize, that they were composed of an alloy called tumbaga. This Central American alloy, the article states, is made up of 8K gold and copper. In other words, the plates would have been primarily composed of 66% copper and only 33% gold.
The article debunks the notion that the plates could have been made of pure gold since "pure gold would be too soft to make useful plates." However, this argument overlooks Mosiah 8:9 in the Book of Mormon that mentions 24 Jaredite plates that were "filled with engravings, and they are of pure gold."
This argument also fails to take into account a photograph in earlier editions of the Book of Mormon that showed a "gold tablet found in Persia in 1961, dating to the time of Darius II (Fourth century B.C.), covered with cuneiform engravings." The caption went on to say, "This tablet is about the size of the gold plates of the Book of Mormon." In his book entitled An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Dr. Hugh Nibley also mentioned this parallel as evidence to the fact that Smith had plates of gold. If the plates deposited by Moroni were really an alloy made primarily of copper, why go to such lengths?
The FARMS' article supports the tumbaga theory by referring to William Smith, Joseph's brother, who was quoted in the Saints Herald (31, 1884, p. 644) as stating that the plates were a mixture of gold and copper. One can only imagine how William arrived at such a conclusion since there is no evidence to suggest that the plates were ever analyzed. Making William's statement even less credible is the fact that he admitted to having never seen the plates. He claimed, "I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them, as was contrary to the commands he had received. They weighed about sixty pounds according to the best of my judgment" (A New Witness for Christ in America 2:417). FARMS insists that tumbaga plates would have weighed only about 53 pounds. In other words, it would be like carrying a sack of redi-mix concrete.
Despite the effort from FARMS to change LDS history, it appears that the tumbaga theory is not being taken too seriously. As recently as May 15, 1999, the LDS Church News ran an article entitled "Hands-on opportunity." Speaking of Joseph Smith, it read, "He had also been instructed by an angel, Moroni, who had met with him each year for four years. On his last visit, he was entrusted with plates of solid gold, which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit."
My thoughts:
I have once seen a physical representation of what the Book of Mormon plates would have looked like. It was during a showing of some Dead Sea Scrolls, and it was held at a Mormon Visitor's Center. I doubt very much that such a thing could have existed in reality, based on what I know NOW.
Gold is heavy. The more there is, the heavier it is. And I DON'T believe that Joseph Smith put a 100 pound book of solid gold in a bag and RAN with it through the woods, jumping over a log and running at the top of his speed while being assaulted three different times. It's a lie. And I can go on believing it's a lie UNTIL IT'S PROVEN TRUE. Not the other way around.
Too often, members of the LDS church are challenged to believe such impossible theories and FPR's (faith promoting rumors) until it's proven false. And given that they are instructed to only gather their information from those who are worthy to impart it, with the proper spirit, it is unlikely that anything they are taught will ever be proven false in their world view.
I find it simply amazing that any story or version of events that is uttered by a General Authority is taken as truth immediately, without so much as a comparison of previous versions of events or previous editions of the story. They simply discount everything they heard that was different from what they are currently told. To check it against previous accounts is to question the "Lord's Annointed" and to hold yourself and your own intelligence in higher regard than those who you are supposed to be your teachers and Elders.
And how is this different than being a Moonie, or Branch Davidians, or Heaven's Gate? Each one of these cults had loyal followers that believed what they were taught, and took it for TRUTH until it was proven false. A thinking, reasoning person doesn't believe in something just simply because it is written in a book or testified as true by some charismatic leader. I certainly have learned not to believe everything I read or everything I'm told on TV. I use my intellect to reason and test my own beliefs and theories, and adopt those things I believe to be true, yet I also retain the knowledge that at any time, things I believe to be true COULD turn out to be false. And I'm okay with that. I have no desire to protect my beliefs from being changed. I welcome new thoughts in my head daily. I seek information, not only to bolster what I believe, but also things that do not agree with my current system. It's a delicate system of checks and balances that I have developed as a result of living such a 'one sided' existance, battling an unseen enemy. That enemy turned out to be nothing more than my own consciousness and sense of right and wrong.
I knew many times when I was receiving information that didn't make sense to me, and I forced it out of my mind, "put it on a shelf" and refused to deal with it for fear of losing my testimony. I thought I was combatting Satan everytime I had a stray doubt or considered the possibility that things just weren't right. Turns out the only battle I was fighting was against my own common sense. I didn't want to hear anything negative about my beliefs because it took so much time out of my life just to maintain them through scripture reading, preparing talks, making music plans for primary, attending conferences and temple sessions, going on Visiting Teaching tours, and the endless string of activities and responsibilities I kept up with. I was very busy maintaining my testimony and I literally did not take the time to think about problems with timelines, historical events, hidden truths kept tucked away because of their "un-usefulness" in keeping a testimony strong.
I once gave a talk about maintaining a testimony, and all the things that were required in doing so. While researching the topic and preparing the talk, I noticed how weird it was that the only thing I could come up with was staying away from things that cause doubts. While speaking it, I noticed how I sounded up at the pulpit, telling everyone that the only way to maintain a testimony is to "limit your reach" for knowledge. In effect, I told them to be content in their fishbowl, for that was the Lord's way of protecting you from being led out.
In a flash I remembered that this is exactly what we were taught was "Lucifer's" design in the pre-existence. We were taught that Lucifer would make sure all would be saved and not one soul lost, because there would be forced conformity, and 'limited reach'. To hear myself repeat this very same thing to the members of the ward gave me chills. I was not part of a "Christ-centered" organization after all. We had no freedom to develop our own beliefs. There was only one way to earn our salvation, and that was 'conform'.
When I finished the temple endowment session sitting in the Celestial Kingdom, I made a move to take my apron off, and was stopped by a patron, who told me to keep it on. I never questioned her, but I should have. Why did I need to keep a symbol of "Satan's priesthood" on in the Celestial Kingdom? I lost my power of self-authority that day, when earlier I had allowed a woman I had never met touch my naked body in areas to be 'washed' and 'annointed'. I was weak enough to allow that, and I didn't question this envasion of my privacy, nor did I take off that apron, even though I didn't agree that it should be worn during my sealing ceremony. Why was this necessary? I didn't want to wear it, but I conformed to the system because they required it, and I gave them authority.
I did have a testimony. It was protected and gleaned from information gathered from within. It was not special, it had no individual meaning, because it too, had conformed. It had all the standard ingredients, and was easily rehearsed and repeated. Nothing but sheer will maintained it, and the desire to conform was very strong. It meant I was one of the chosen, I would gain entrance to the Celestial Kingdom, and all I had to do was keep feeding it "milk", and look to the inside for all my answers.
Now, I have new information. My testimony is still here, only it has additional ingredients in it, it has individual meaning now. I testify that I know the truth about the LDS church. I will never go back to accepting "milk" before "meat" and being treated as a child hoping for some attention. I will not grovel to Bishops or Stake Presidents and ask to be found worthy to participate in temple rituals that only serve to bind members closer to the system. I will no longer be afraid of "Satan" because I know he only exists in the minds of those who fear change. He is a tool of the system, meant to instill fear into those who falter. I am no longer judged by those standards, and I am free to think on my own, use what I trust in and get my knowledge from everywhere. That is the true test of this life. I have freed myself from "limited reach". I can do anything I want now, and live life accepting that I don't know all the answers, and I don't have to accept limits in understanding the unknowns.
Smith claims that he was not allowed to retrieve the buried plates for another four years. In verse 54 of his testimony, he related that the day he was allowed to dig up the record came on September 22, 1827. Mormon historian Leonard Arrington notes that, "Sometime after midnight in the early morning hours of September 22, Joseph and Emma drove to the hill, obtained the plates and hid them in an old birch log about three miles from the Smith home. With neighboring ruffians seeking the plates, thinking they were of great monetary worth, Joseph changed the hiding place several times and managed to keep them from being discovered and stolen" (Mormonism: From Its New York Beginnings, Dialogue, Vol.13, No.3, p.122). Eventually Joseph Smith would bring the plates home to be translated. His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, remembered the day this way:
"The plates were secreted about three miles from home... Joseph, on coming to them, took them from their secret place, and, wrapping them in his linen frock, placed them under his arm and started for home.
After proceeding a short distance, he thought it would be more safe to leave the road and go through the woods. Traveling some distance after he left the road, he came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it, and gave him a heavy blow with a gun. Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed. About half a mile further he was attacked again in the same manner as before; he knocked this man down in like manner as the former, and ran on again; and before he reached home he was assaulted the third time. In striking the last one he dislocated his thumb, which, however, he did not notice until he came within sight of the house, when he threw himself down in the corner of the fence in order to recover his breath. As soon as he was able, he arose and came to the house. lie was still altogether speechless from fright and the fatigue of running" (History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Smith, pp.107-108).
Smith stated, "These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed" (History of the Church 4:537)
Numerous LDS leaders and historians have concurred with Smith's description. As to the size and thickness of the plates there seems to be no dispute.
Paintings of Smith show him receiving the plates with outstretched arms or resting on his knee. Although these are just an artist's perception, these descriptions do cause us to ask, "If they really existed, just how heavy would those plates have been given the size and description by Smith?"
The answer to this question is varied. We do know that gold weighs about 1200 pounds per cubic foot. Given the dimensions by Smith, some have concluded that the plates could have weighed as much as 234 pounds to as little as 100 pounds. The heavier weight is based on what would probably be the total weight of a solid block of gold measuring the size of Smith's plates. This weight would tend to be unlikely given the fact that engravings on a thin plate of soft metal such as gold would probably not lay perfectly flat. If such indentions did tend to cause the plate to "bulge," it would also seem likely that the engravings would have been difficult to read.
Mormon metallurgist Reed Putnam estimates that if the plates were made of pure gold, they would have probably weighed around 100 pounds. In perspective, that would be like carrying a bag of Portland cement under one's arm.
The possibility of the plates being too heavy for Smith to carry has not escaped the notice of LDS apologists. To credit their founder with the ability to carry such a weight while running at "the top of his speed" would seem to conclude that Smith had no idea how heavy gold really was, thus making it appear that he fabricated this story.
Researchers for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) have attempted to come to Smith's rescue. In a bulletin cover (number F-15) they provide an explanation for this anomaly. Entitled "Where the Gold Plates Gold?" it theorized that the plates were not made of pure gold at all. Rather, they theorize, that they were composed of an alloy called tumbaga. This Central American alloy, the article states, is made up of 8K gold and copper. In other words, the plates would have been primarily composed of 66% copper and only 33% gold.
The article debunks the notion that the plates could have been made of pure gold since "pure gold would be too soft to make useful plates." However, this argument overlooks Mosiah 8:9 in the Book of Mormon that mentions 24 Jaredite plates that were "filled with engravings, and they are of pure gold."
This argument also fails to take into account a photograph in earlier editions of the Book of Mormon that showed a "gold tablet found in Persia in 1961, dating to the time of Darius II (Fourth century B.C.), covered with cuneiform engravings." The caption went on to say, "This tablet is about the size of the gold plates of the Book of Mormon." In his book entitled An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Dr. Hugh Nibley also mentioned this parallel as evidence to the fact that Smith had plates of gold. If the plates deposited by Moroni were really an alloy made primarily of copper, why go to such lengths?
The FARMS' article supports the tumbaga theory by referring to William Smith, Joseph's brother, who was quoted in the Saints Herald (31, 1884, p. 644) as stating that the plates were a mixture of gold and copper. One can only imagine how William arrived at such a conclusion since there is no evidence to suggest that the plates were ever analyzed. Making William's statement even less credible is the fact that he admitted to having never seen the plates. He claimed, "I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them, as was contrary to the commands he had received. They weighed about sixty pounds according to the best of my judgment" (A New Witness for Christ in America 2:417). FARMS insists that tumbaga plates would have weighed only about 53 pounds. In other words, it would be like carrying a sack of redi-mix concrete.
Despite the effort from FARMS to change LDS history, it appears that the tumbaga theory is not being taken too seriously. As recently as May 15, 1999, the LDS Church News ran an article entitled "Hands-on opportunity." Speaking of Joseph Smith, it read, "He had also been instructed by an angel, Moroni, who had met with him each year for four years. On his last visit, he was entrusted with plates of solid gold, which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit."
My thoughts:
I have once seen a physical representation of what the Book of Mormon plates would have looked like. It was during a showing of some Dead Sea Scrolls, and it was held at a Mormon Visitor's Center. I doubt very much that such a thing could have existed in reality, based on what I know NOW.
Gold is heavy. The more there is, the heavier it is. And I DON'T believe that Joseph Smith put a 100 pound book of solid gold in a bag and RAN with it through the woods, jumping over a log and running at the top of his speed while being assaulted three different times. It's a lie. And I can go on believing it's a lie UNTIL IT'S PROVEN TRUE. Not the other way around.
Too often, members of the LDS church are challenged to believe such impossible theories and FPR's (faith promoting rumors) until it's proven false. And given that they are instructed to only gather their information from those who are worthy to impart it, with the proper spirit, it is unlikely that anything they are taught will ever be proven false in their world view.
I find it simply amazing that any story or version of events that is uttered by a General Authority is taken as truth immediately, without so much as a comparison of previous versions of events or previous editions of the story. They simply discount everything they heard that was different from what they are currently told. To check it against previous accounts is to question the "Lord's Annointed" and to hold yourself and your own intelligence in higher regard than those who you are supposed to be your teachers and Elders.
And how is this different than being a Moonie, or Branch Davidians, or Heaven's Gate? Each one of these cults had loyal followers that believed what they were taught, and took it for TRUTH until it was proven false. A thinking, reasoning person doesn't believe in something just simply because it is written in a book or testified as true by some charismatic leader. I certainly have learned not to believe everything I read or everything I'm told on TV. I use my intellect to reason and test my own beliefs and theories, and adopt those things I believe to be true, yet I also retain the knowledge that at any time, things I believe to be true COULD turn out to be false. And I'm okay with that. I have no desire to protect my beliefs from being changed. I welcome new thoughts in my head daily. I seek information, not only to bolster what I believe, but also things that do not agree with my current system. It's a delicate system of checks and balances that I have developed as a result of living such a 'one sided' existance, battling an unseen enemy. That enemy turned out to be nothing more than my own consciousness and sense of right and wrong.
I knew many times when I was receiving information that didn't make sense to me, and I forced it out of my mind, "put it on a shelf" and refused to deal with it for fear of losing my testimony. I thought I was combatting Satan everytime I had a stray doubt or considered the possibility that things just weren't right. Turns out the only battle I was fighting was against my own common sense. I didn't want to hear anything negative about my beliefs because it took so much time out of my life just to maintain them through scripture reading, preparing talks, making music plans for primary, attending conferences and temple sessions, going on Visiting Teaching tours, and the endless string of activities and responsibilities I kept up with. I was very busy maintaining my testimony and I literally did not take the time to think about problems with timelines, historical events, hidden truths kept tucked away because of their "un-usefulness" in keeping a testimony strong.
I once gave a talk about maintaining a testimony, and all the things that were required in doing so. While researching the topic and preparing the talk, I noticed how weird it was that the only thing I could come up with was staying away from things that cause doubts. While speaking it, I noticed how I sounded up at the pulpit, telling everyone that the only way to maintain a testimony is to "limit your reach" for knowledge. In effect, I told them to be content in their fishbowl, for that was the Lord's way of protecting you from being led out.
In a flash I remembered that this is exactly what we were taught was "Lucifer's" design in the pre-existence. We were taught that Lucifer would make sure all would be saved and not one soul lost, because there would be forced conformity, and 'limited reach'. To hear myself repeat this very same thing to the members of the ward gave me chills. I was not part of a "Christ-centered" organization after all. We had no freedom to develop our own beliefs. There was only one way to earn our salvation, and that was 'conform'.
When I finished the temple endowment session sitting in the Celestial Kingdom, I made a move to take my apron off, and was stopped by a patron, who told me to keep it on. I never questioned her, but I should have. Why did I need to keep a symbol of "Satan's priesthood" on in the Celestial Kingdom? I lost my power of self-authority that day, when earlier I had allowed a woman I had never met touch my naked body in areas to be 'washed' and 'annointed'. I was weak enough to allow that, and I didn't question this envasion of my privacy, nor did I take off that apron, even though I didn't agree that it should be worn during my sealing ceremony. Why was this necessary? I didn't want to wear it, but I conformed to the system because they required it, and I gave them authority.
I did have a testimony. It was protected and gleaned from information gathered from within. It was not special, it had no individual meaning, because it too, had conformed. It had all the standard ingredients, and was easily rehearsed and repeated. Nothing but sheer will maintained it, and the desire to conform was very strong. It meant I was one of the chosen, I would gain entrance to the Celestial Kingdom, and all I had to do was keep feeding it "milk", and look to the inside for all my answers.
Now, I have new information. My testimony is still here, only it has additional ingredients in it, it has individual meaning now. I testify that I know the truth about the LDS church. I will never go back to accepting "milk" before "meat" and being treated as a child hoping for some attention. I will not grovel to Bishops or Stake Presidents and ask to be found worthy to participate in temple rituals that only serve to bind members closer to the system. I will no longer be afraid of "Satan" because I know he only exists in the minds of those who fear change. He is a tool of the system, meant to instill fear into those who falter. I am no longer judged by those standards, and I am free to think on my own, use what I trust in and get my knowledge from everywhere. That is the true test of this life. I have freed myself from "limited reach". I can do anything I want now, and live life accepting that I don't know all the answers, and I don't have to accept limits in understanding the unknowns.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Wikipedia turns Anti-Mormon (or maybe just Pro-Fact)
A most excellent discovery at Wikipedia is a section on Joseph Smith's "First Vision" accounts, backed up with dates, places, references and actual facts surrounding the course of events. My favorite part is the picture posted with the article. It depicts a scene in which an early 1820's revival is portrayed, complete with tents, and a tower or stage from which various leaders took turns "exorting", or proclaiming the gospel, and calling the attendees to repentance.
For those who are still contemplating whether or not Joseph Smith may have written the Book of Mormon, in it's pages is a replication of this event, complete with tents, a tower, and an exhorter named KING BENJAMIN. So, one has to seriously consider that, given the context of Joseph Smith's life experience, it wouldn't be that far of a reach to believe that he inserted this story into his writings when developing the characters and the story line of the Book of Mormon. The reasons it was easier to accept this book as a companion gospel was because it reflected attitudes and beliefs of the 1800's, not because it was written and complied by "Lamanites" and "Nephites" 1400 years beforehand. The reason it is so difficult to gain and retain converts today, in the 21st century, is because we no longer identify with the era of "exhortations" and beliefs that the American Indians were members of one of the "Lost Tribes".
The only people who can convert and believe are those who have nothing to compare the teachings to, or worse, refuse to check out other sources for fear of losing their beliefs.
My thoughts are:
If you are SO AFRAID of discovering something that might dissolve your belief, then that belief must not be very strong, or you wouldn't have to go out of your way to protect it. Truth can withstand scrutiny, and if it can't, then it isn't truth after all.
Why would you WANT to hang on to an un-truth? If it can stand criticism, then there is nothing to lose by challenging your beliefs. If it can't withstand criticism, then it isn't really a belief, it's just a hope. If you are just HOPING that what you have been taught is true, simply because you have invested so much into protecting it, then you are really just trying to maintain it so you won't feel betrayed by those who taught you. Truth hurts, but first it will piss you off. Nobody likes getting earth-shattering bad news, but you can't avoid discovering unpleasant things, nor can you call all unpleasant discoveries "lies". Sooner or later, everyone gets their beliefs challenged, and they can do either one of these things:
They can spin, excuse, manipulate, twist, compromise, ignore or otherwise do what it takes to maintain their position.
They can take the new information and test it out against their beliefs, really do the research and reason it all out with their OWN minds that God (or whatever creative essence) gave them, and make choices based on all information available, pro and con.
Then adopt a NEW belief and continue to let that belief mold and change based on what you learn EVERY SINGLE DAY. Your beliefs do not have to be rock solid and unmovable. You do not have to be reduced to a child-like dependence on your ecclesiastical leaders and get your information only from one central source. Adopt your own way of thinking and reacting to the world, don't let anyone put you in a conformity shroud and threaten you with "outer darkness" if you fail to comply and conform.
That was the "alternative plan" after all, and if you really are supposed to be Christ's followers, you would be given the freedom to worship in the way that resonates within YOU, not according to a form and an attendance record and a "calling" responsibility designed to keep you bound to the system. There is no salvation in being forced to conform or be cast out.
This Mormon system preaches "free agency" but it really teaches conformity, through wearing of garments, participation in rituals held in secret in the temples, through doctrines taught in church but denied publicly (i.e. polygamy, men becoming gods, blood atonement), and other structures designed to bind the members closely to the system and casting those who question out of the church, creating a fear of abandonment and shunning from the rest of the members and even close family members. There is nothing to be gained from maintaining a belief in a system that alienates family members from each other, or creates such tension and feelings of inadequacy for shortcomings and questioning "the Lord's annointed". It only serves the system, not the individual, and what's in it for the member? A promise that can't be guaranteed or proven.
They don't have the answers, because it's all based on the false idea that the Book of Mormon is scripture and Joseph Smith a prophet. Once those things are proven false, the rest of the church falters. It is the one thing that the church needs to protect the most or the whole system fails. That's why they go out of their way to "protect" the members by "exhorting" them to shun outsiders and especially former Mormons (their worst enemies). They can't afford to be discovered as a fraud, or risk losing their base, the standard members whose tithes they depend on to keep their enterprises running and keep the pockets lined for the upper eschelons. You'll never make it there unless you already live in Utah as a multi-millionaire. And you can't get the Second Anointing anyway, so all this work is for nothing because you'll never get to the "Holy of Holies" without it, especially if you aren't married to a Mormon.
So, if you can't get there from here using this system, it would make sense to me that the system is the problem, not you. Time to examine your beliefs, compare them to what your church teaches and know your religion before you trump it out to be the "one true church".
For those who are still contemplating whether or not Joseph Smith may have written the Book of Mormon, in it's pages is a replication of this event, complete with tents, a tower, and an exhorter named KING BENJAMIN. So, one has to seriously consider that, given the context of Joseph Smith's life experience, it wouldn't be that far of a reach to believe that he inserted this story into his writings when developing the characters and the story line of the Book of Mormon. The reasons it was easier to accept this book as a companion gospel was because it reflected attitudes and beliefs of the 1800's, not because it was written and complied by "Lamanites" and "Nephites" 1400 years beforehand. The reason it is so difficult to gain and retain converts today, in the 21st century, is because we no longer identify with the era of "exhortations" and beliefs that the American Indians were members of one of the "Lost Tribes".
The only people who can convert and believe are those who have nothing to compare the teachings to, or worse, refuse to check out other sources for fear of losing their beliefs.
My thoughts are:
If you are SO AFRAID of discovering something that might dissolve your belief, then that belief must not be very strong, or you wouldn't have to go out of your way to protect it. Truth can withstand scrutiny, and if it can't, then it isn't truth after all.
Why would you WANT to hang on to an un-truth? If it can stand criticism, then there is nothing to lose by challenging your beliefs. If it can't withstand criticism, then it isn't really a belief, it's just a hope. If you are just HOPING that what you have been taught is true, simply because you have invested so much into protecting it, then you are really just trying to maintain it so you won't feel betrayed by those who taught you. Truth hurts, but first it will piss you off. Nobody likes getting earth-shattering bad news, but you can't avoid discovering unpleasant things, nor can you call all unpleasant discoveries "lies". Sooner or later, everyone gets their beliefs challenged, and they can do either one of these things:
They can spin, excuse, manipulate, twist, compromise, ignore or otherwise do what it takes to maintain their position.
They can take the new information and test it out against their beliefs, really do the research and reason it all out with their OWN minds that God (or whatever creative essence) gave them, and make choices based on all information available, pro and con.
Then adopt a NEW belief and continue to let that belief mold and change based on what you learn EVERY SINGLE DAY. Your beliefs do not have to be rock solid and unmovable. You do not have to be reduced to a child-like dependence on your ecclesiastical leaders and get your information only from one central source. Adopt your own way of thinking and reacting to the world, don't let anyone put you in a conformity shroud and threaten you with "outer darkness" if you fail to comply and conform.
That was the "alternative plan" after all, and if you really are supposed to be Christ's followers, you would be given the freedom to worship in the way that resonates within YOU, not according to a form and an attendance record and a "calling" responsibility designed to keep you bound to the system. There is no salvation in being forced to conform or be cast out.
This Mormon system preaches "free agency" but it really teaches conformity, through wearing of garments, participation in rituals held in secret in the temples, through doctrines taught in church but denied publicly (i.e. polygamy, men becoming gods, blood atonement), and other structures designed to bind the members closely to the system and casting those who question out of the church, creating a fear of abandonment and shunning from the rest of the members and even close family members. There is nothing to be gained from maintaining a belief in a system that alienates family members from each other, or creates such tension and feelings of inadequacy for shortcomings and questioning "the Lord's annointed". It only serves the system, not the individual, and what's in it for the member? A promise that can't be guaranteed or proven.
They don't have the answers, because it's all based on the false idea that the Book of Mormon is scripture and Joseph Smith a prophet. Once those things are proven false, the rest of the church falters. It is the one thing that the church needs to protect the most or the whole system fails. That's why they go out of their way to "protect" the members by "exhorting" them to shun outsiders and especially former Mormons (their worst enemies). They can't afford to be discovered as a fraud, or risk losing their base, the standard members whose tithes they depend on to keep their enterprises running and keep the pockets lined for the upper eschelons. You'll never make it there unless you already live in Utah as a multi-millionaire. And you can't get the Second Anointing anyway, so all this work is for nothing because you'll never get to the "Holy of Holies" without it, especially if you aren't married to a Mormon.
So, if you can't get there from here using this system, it would make sense to me that the system is the problem, not you. Time to examine your beliefs, compare them to what your church teaches and know your religion before you trump it out to be the "one true church".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
