What's up with Steve Benson?

Anyone who has fallen out with the LDS Church can identify to a certain degree with Steve Benson. On the other hand, most of them have no idea what it is to be Benson. Grandson of the former president of the LDS Church, Benson grew up in a family that enjoyed the blessing or burdened with the curse, depending on your perspective, of being closely related to the highest levels of leadership in a controversial religious movement.

Benson became an inspiration for disillusioned Mormons everywhere when he dared to question the competency of his grandfather to govern the LDS Church as the man slipped off of this mortal coil. LDS leaders defended the ability of President Benson to continue to lead the Church, but there was a growing sense that others were actually governing the LDS Church in the president's name and with his electronic signature.

Benson then went on to become one of the more prominent personalities of the ex-Mormon movement. I was personally intrigued with his account of a meeting with members of the Quorum of the Twelve, who had invited Steve and his wife in to discuss problems with LDS doctrine, history, and practice. Benson discovered that in spite of the awe most Mormons have for these leaders who counsel with the 'Lord,' they were just men who had no more special insight into the difficult issues of Mormonism than anyone else.

For any of us who grew up believing that these men were actually experiencing literal visitations with heavenly beings who were instructing them in how to run the affairs of God's kingdom on earth, this information was world changing. I was grateful that Steve Benson chose to share this information with the rest of us, since the LDS leadership, while not explicitly encouraging the popular LDS impression of their near-divinity, nevertheless benefits from the aura it confers on them. I became aware of all of this long before I quit attending the LDS Church, but the information certainly helped smooth the ride on the way out.

So, I am grateful to Benson, as many doubters, liberals, ex-Mormons, and future ex-Mormons should be.

Not long ago I started lurking and the Recovery from Mormonism bulletin board hosted by the Ex-Mormon Foundation. I thought it would be really cool to watch these ex-Mormon heroes at work--people like Steve, Tal Bachman, and Bob McCue. At first this is what I saw, and it was often quite cool. Tal has a wicked sense of humor, and it was clear that Bob was on quite a journey of exploration as a former Mormon.

Then there was Steve. Steve was quite an unpleasant surprise in his RfM board persona. Reading his posts was like seeing the rational and sensitive guy of his exit stories morphed into Dan Peterson's more childish, ex-Mormon, and equally evil twin. If someone disagrees with Steve, he starts a campaign of maligning inference, confusion, and red herrings that would make any unscrupulous LDS apologist proud, if only he were on the other side of the argument. It doesn't matter to him that many of his interlocutors agree with the most basic premise upon which he operates--that the Mormon Church's claims are bogus. If you don't agree with Steve to the full extent of his bile and vitriol, you are aiding and abetting the evil cause of Mormonism.

Sadly, one gets the impression that Steve in leaving Mormonism has found and now promulgates a new form of rigid orthodoxy and authoritarianism aimed at insulting his former Church without reason or restraint according to his own narrow vision. In the horror movie of Steve's ex-Mormon imagination Joseph Smith is definitely a con-man and a pedophile. Anyone else who imagines the worst when it comes to things Mormon is definitely on the right track as far as Steve is concerned. He stops short of supporting outlandish conspiracy theories about Mormon plots to take over the world, but I fear only just.

To Dream the Improbable Dream...

Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed that he translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates he uncovered from a hill that has since been given the name "Cumorah." It is unfortunate for those who believe his claims and archaeological science that he delivered these plates up to an angel. This means that we have no way of determining: a) whether he in fact had plates; b) what was written on those plates if they existed; and c) whether Joseph Smith provided a faithful translation of those plates.

Obviously the case for Joseph Smith's claims regarding the Book of Mormon would be much less problematic if we could at least identify ancient congeners from the western hemisphere that matched either the description of the plates or the content of the translation reasonably well. These problems are so obvious that Mormon scholars generally do not refer to them until a critic of the LDS Church raises them. When the problems are raised, most Mormon scholars go into the "it's not impossible" mode.

Because the LDS Church makes faith in Mormonism contingent upon the literal veracity of Smith's claims, it is very important to the Church that these claims not be *impossible.* For those who do not come to the question with a belief in Mormonism, however, it is enough to say that his claims are highly improbable and move on. Lacking the evidence that would truly make their case probable, however, the intrepid scholars of Mormondom focus a lot of attention on the best they can muster. This has led to some chuckle-worthy statements, like Dan Peterson's suggestion that Book of Mormon horses might have been tapirs, and the like.

Recently, the Deseret Morning News published an article on another of the more improbable supports for their case that there were Nephite gold plates in America. The BYU library has just purchased replicas of second century A.D. military diplomas from the ROMAN EMPIRE inscribed on bronze. The author of the article writes about how the BYU scholars are interested in the similarities between the technology of these plates and the description of the now absent Book of Mormon plates once possessed by Joseph Smith.

"The comparable size and thickness, the use of alloyed metal and binding rings, the fact that one part is open and another sealed, the fact that the plates bear the names of witnesses, the combination of all of these factors in a pattern, make the Roman plates relevant to the Book of Mormon plates."

The claim that the Book of Mormon had a sealed portion is also related to these diplomas:

"The ingeniously designed plates feature an open presentation of the text and a sealed interior portion, a double copy that protects the document from those who might tamper with the contents.
"We refer to such records as doubled, sealed, witnessed documents," Welch said."

For those who know little about the subject, all of this sounds very intriguing. It is true that ancient civilizations wrote things on the durable surfaces of stone, metal, and fired clay. In the eastern hemisphere there are many examples of writing on bronze, gold, and other metals, and in both hemispheres there are examples of writing on stone. Indeed, one might say that the ancients understood that something written on a hard surface might last much longer than one written on a more perishable one. This is not very interesting.

What is interesting is the use of a very specific kind of Roman legal document from the second century A.D. as evidence that people living in the western hemisphere could have written a similarly described document in the fifth century A.D.. The first problem, of course, is that as far as we know the peoples of these hemispheres did not have much contact in the first millennium A.D.. It is highly unlikely that the Romans either transmitted this knowledge to Nephites or received it from them. If the Romans picked up this specific practice from the Ancient Near East, where the Book of Mormon peoples allegedly derived from, then it would be much preferable to use the Near Eastern example, with its rings and seals, and dating to the period when Lehi and his family lived near Jerusalem, or perhaps earlier.

The real problem here, of course, is the utter lack of anything closely similar either in physical appearance or literary content to the Book of Mormon plates in the western hemisphere. In the Book of Mormon, the family of Lehi brings the technology of writing on ancient plates from ancient Palestine. They steal a record on brass plates from a distant relative and that set of plates becomes the technological model for most records mentioned in the book. In other words, based on the Book of Mormon text one would think that keeping records on metal plates was a common practice in the western hemisphere. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of evidence in the western hemisphere pointing to the widespread ancient use of inscribed metal as a means of preserving text--not to mention the specific technologies Welch points to in the Deseret article.

In life and scholarship, we are better off placing confidence in things that are likely to be the case. Sure, every now and then the unlikely turns out to be true. But, it is usually discovered to be true through the usual methods of careful investigation in science and scholarship. Mormon scholars at BYU are, at least from a rationalist perspective, placing the cart before the horse when they assume that the Book of Mormon existed in the form Joseph Smith claimed and then use that as the basis of further investigation. Second century military diplomas from the Roman Empire are only interesting to American archaeology when that specific technology has already been established as having been used in the Americas.

It gets worse. We know, for example, that people have erroneously theorized that the technology for building American pyramids came from ancient Egypt. Here is a case in which we clearly have extant pyramids to examine, and the conclusions drawn are in favor of the independent development of the technology of pyramid building--not dependence on the Egyptians. In the case of the Book of Mormon we do not have the plates to examine, and the story of their appearance and subsequent disappearance is unlikely in the extreme. When is the last time an archaeological discovery was made by angelic intervention?

Finally, if we are going to use Joseph Smith's story as the basis for saying that ancient Americans possessed technology of a very specific type, then we need to examine that claim in the context of everything he said about ancient America to determine whether it is likely he was correct about the plates. It is not my purpose to go into the details of Book of Mormon anachronisms or ecological aberrations, but this is exactly where this kind of information would be pertinent if we pursue investigation along the lines I am proposing. If Joseph Smith is wrong about horses, elephants, and many other Book of Mormon descriptions of the ancient Americas, then the probability that he was wrong about the plates increases as the errors mount.

Without observing the proper order of investigation, certain far-flung "connections" act more as a red herring than corroboration. It was interesting to observe that both Egyptians and Ancient Americans built pyramidal structures. In the end, it did not prove that ancient Americans came from Egypt and brought a knowledge of pyramid technology with them. I would like to say that the same is the case with the Roman military diplomas and the Book of Mormon plates, but unfortunately there is no way of determining what the Mormon plates precisely were, or if they were, until we can examine them ourselves or we discover something much like them in the Americas. The LDS community does a grave disservice to its people when it trains them to indulge in such shoddy reasoning. In the end, it will not sustain them.

No Defense Like A Disingenuous Defense

Elder Robert S. Wood of the Seventy wrote a little piece in the most recent Ensign entitled "The Quest for Spiritual Knowledge." Wood begins his article by talking about how the divine witness he received of the Book of Mormon he had received at the age of 16 was almost immediately challenged by a nameless non-LDS friend who happened to have a list of Book of Mormon anachronisms on him. He boldly declared that his friend was "too late" because he already had God's witness. Nevertheless, Wood told his friend he would keep the list.

Wood then goes on to say that over the years item after item on the list has dropped off as the discoveries of academics have vindicated his divine witness. Only one item, which he does not specify, stubbornly remained. Never fear, however, for just a few years ago he mentioned this list while speaking at Cornell University, and a 'distinguished professor' (unnamed) said to him, "You can remove your last item, for our (who?) studies indicate that it is not an anachronism." Wood then poses the question, "What would my life have been like had I withheld my conviction of the Book of Mormon until I resolved all the questions my friend had given me?"

So, what on earth does this guy think he is doing? Is he *trying* to look like he's full of crap? Is he not aware that in an attempt to use evidence to prove one's case it is useful to actually discuss the evidence in question? What was on this list? How were these issues settled? What was the final stubborn item? Who is the 'distinguished' Cornell professor? Is she or he LDS? Let's look at some evidence! Or, if we aren't going to do that, let's quit using non-evidence as though it were evidence.

You see, in most places bold claims require more than, and I mean literally, "I heard it from some guy that the thing in question wasn't a valid argument against my claim to a miracle." Either the Ensign has a supremely daft editorial staff, or this guy really thinks that the fact he said all of this unspecified stuff happened really means anything. I am sorry, Mr. Wood, but it does not. You either come up with the facts, or you don't tell the story.

The problem is that Wood's target reader just may give him a pass on this. After all, that is what they, and most religionists, are trained to do. It's not just the fantastically implausible tale of the Book of Mormon, but also the vast sea of things improbable to damn near impossible that are written in the Bible or the Quran. It seems that if someone gets God involved in telling an improbable story, there are always plenty of folks who will hang around to listen, and a few who will buy the book, join the club, and drink the koolaid. Why? Because God is just that important.

I think Trey Parker and Matt Stone got it essentially right when they depicted Martin Harris saying in response to Joseph Smith's claim that God would not let him retranslate the plates because God was angry, "Gee, if God is angry with him, he *must* be telling the truth!" But let's be perfectly clear about this. The claim that God is in the works is not a license to suspend good judgment. The supreme irony is that the very same people who make fun of Jim Jones and the koolaid will tell you that they would happily hand over their wives to Gordon Hinckley if they believed God had told him to ask for them.

As my atheist friends are wont to say with no small amount of wisdom, "fantastic claims demand only the best evidence to back them up." It is too bad that in our weakness and humanity we hope so badly for things to be other than they are that we are just waiting for someone to pass the koolaid. I know, koolaid is an extremely provocative term, but koolaid it is when the decisions that result cause the misery and death of so many people. I am not saying that religion is uniquely culpable. No. And I think that the exercise of a responsible spirituality can be a marvelous thing. But today we see a rash of hucksterism that reaches into the highest office of the land that has played the religion card almost incessantly. That being the case, I have little patience for Mr. Wood's brand of "evidence."

The Best Part...

So, in my book the PBS documentary "The Mormons" was a wonderful thing. One of the best parts of it, however, may not get a lot of attention. For this reason I have decided to post a link to this awesome resource: the documentary interviews. These interviews are longer versions of the material that went into the documentary. Even these interviews are edited, and I dearly hope that PBS gets wise and puts together a resource for accessing all of the interviews in their unedited entirety.

Here I will quote some of my favorite bits from the Gregory Prince interview. Prince is co-author of the recent biography of David O. McKay. His views match my own so well that I wish I had half a dozen people like him in the boundaries of my ward who were active and reasonably vocal about their views. I might even go to Church again, if that were the case. Anyway, here is Prince...

On gay rights and the marriage amendment:

"The question is, what is the real issue about gay rights, about same-gender marriage? Is this really a threat to the institution of marriage? No. That's a straw man. The threat to the institution of marriage is heterosexuals who either thumb their noses at marriage in the first place or who don't take the marriage covenant seriously. To put all of that on the backs of gays who want to establish a legal union is cruel, and it's wrong. ...

There is irony if you step back and look at the current situation regarding gay marriage, and another situation that also involved marital relations, and that was 19th-century polygamy. ... Where we've come down on the two is quite different, and yes, I think there is irony in that. ... And yet if you are stepping back, each one of those is a reinterpretation of the traditional family. ... There is irony in comparing them a century apart."

On Joseph Smith:

"No matter which way you cook it, Joseph Smith is a bundle of contradictions, an unschooled, roughhewn frontiersman -- which is what New York was in 1820 -- who founds a church that has become a worldwide church. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. ...

[Joseph Smith] was what he was, and it doesn't really bother me. I look at great leaders, particularly religious leaders before and since, and they've all got blemishes, as do political leaders, particularly the charismatic ones. Joseph, if nothing else, was charismatic. And that just seems to be the inseparable baggage that these great people bring with them, and you have to be able to deal with it. …

Some people in the church, even sitting at a high level, tend to reduce it almost to a geometric equation. If Joseph Smith wasn't this, this and this, then the church can't be true. That does us a great disservice, because it turns out not to be as clear-cut as that."

The Book of Mormon:

"Perhaps the most prevalent viewpoint in the church is either the Book of Mormon is a literal history of the Americas before Columbus or it's wrong. There is an alternative somewhere between those two. If you look at the Bible, some of the greatest books of the Bible -- and in my mind in particular the Book of Job, which I feel to be one of the greatest books in world literature, is fictional. Its message is independent of its historicity. That's the key in dealing with the Book of Mormon. Whatever its message is, it continues to resonate with the people who encounter it.

It's not because of its doctrinal sophistication, because if you look at the Book of Mormon compared to the Bible, the level of theology of the two is quite separate. So that's not the attraction. It's not the historicity, because the people who read it don't come away from reading it thinking, "Well, that was an interesting history." It's that there is truth within that book, just as there is truth within the Book of Job that is, in fact, a fictional book. ...

That's the message that people need to get. Forget about the container for a while. Get inside of it and grab the truth that's in there, regardless of the form that it's in, regardless of how it got to be in that container -- and then you win. ..."

On being a Mormon intellectual:

"Being an intellectual in this church is a hard way to make an easy living, for two reasons. One is the wealth of source material: If you go back and look at the history, it's enormous -- and troubling, because it doesn't always square with the public relations version of things. The second reason it's difficult is there is an anti-intellectual bent in the church that in some cases has gone so far as to push people out simply because they were thinking people, either overtly pushed them out by excommunicating them or sending the message that they're not welcome and we'd be a lot happier if you'd just have the good grace to leave, and leave quietly.

So it's not an easy lifestyle, but people don't tend to choose that lifestyle. You are that, or you're something else. I don't think you choose to be an intellectual. It's the way you're wired. It's the way you view the world. So there you are, and if you're going through that journey alone, it's a very perilous and lonely journey. It turns out there are many other people in the church with a similar mind-set, but they are a loose amalgamation at best. It's been with difficulty over the decades that those of us who consider ourselves within that philosophy try to hang on to the church for ourselves and try to hang on to others and keep them in."

On Mormon "certainty":

"There is a strong thread within the church that clings to the notion that I have to be able to say in public, "I know," regardless of what the "I know" involves. Unwittingly that has created a culture that says to the other ones who can't say that in honesty, "Gee, there must be something wrong with me, because I can't say, 'I know,' if I don't know." I think that the desire to be able to go up to the pulpit and say "I know" is not unique to Mormonism. I think that pervades the entire world, and it's why fundamentalism in whatever clothing -- Christian, Judaic, Islamic -- is a dangerous thing, because it gives a false certitude to people. They think that the tough questions in life can all be reduced to one-line answers, and they can't. If you think that's where the world is and you try to live in that world, it's destructive ultimately. So we have to be able to move at some point from, "Oh, yeah, I know," to, "Listen, here's where I am. I think I know some things, and I've experienced some things, and there are a lot of things I don't know. But I'm here for the duration, so let's move forward together and help each other."

On the Book of Abraham:

"One response that has been a very loudly stated response ever since then was, "Those were the wrong papyri." It doesn't address the fact that some of the diagrams, the facsimiles that were part of the Book of Abraham, were with those papyri, and they are the right ones. ... An alternative explanation is to say this is all fiction. ...

There's plenty of ground in between -- and that's the ground that I live on -- that says: "Why does there need to be a one-to-one relationship between historical artifact and modern Scripture? Isn't it the product that we're looking at, and the effect of that product on this community of believers?" And if that is the essential question, and I think it is, then we don't need to worry about the literal relationship between [the artifacts and the Scripture]. ..."

On problems facing the LDS Church:

"Another area is the challenge of feminism; that you have, particularly in the American church, tens of thousands, if not more, women who are not out there picketing, but who are aware that their position in the church is not what they would want it to be. They're looking at this issue different than their mothers or grandmother did.

You have the challenge of intellectualism, and this is a challenge that does not just come from within. Mormonism, because of its importance as an American-born world religion, is ripe for scholarly inquiry. You have scholars, Mormon and non-Mormon, believers and nonbelievers, all focusing their tools on studying this important religion. ... Those are some of the challenges we face now, and not one of those is easy. ...

The strategic problems facing the church don't face me personally. ... The problem I deal with, within my own family, is boredom. My kids ... say, "Dad, this church is boring." When I talk to other kids, they use the "B" word also. If we can't move those kids out of that mind-set, we can lose them. There are so many more alternative voices that they can listen to. You've got hundreds of channels on cable TV. You've got the Internet. It's not the world we grew up in, where you had few competing voices. There are hundreds if not thousands of competing voices, and they are sophisticated and attractive. And if we can't take the essential message that we have and somehow package it in some way that is not so boring to them, we're going to lose them."

On homosexuality and the family:

"We have not yet gotten to the point of understanding the biology of homosexuality, to the point where that understanding enlightens the policy and the behavior of individual Mormons toward homosexuality. ... Are we going to tell [gay individuals], "You must live alone for the rest of your life because you can't fit in this other mold," or are we going to let those people live as what they are, even if it is different than what we are? I hope we can get to that point. What we call it, how we structure it, I don't know. But I think it is cruel to apply different standards of behavior to one group than we do to other groups. ...

The church did a survey 10, 20 years ago and found that half the members of the church were of single families, which means that one-third of the adult membership of the church is single, either never married, widowed or divorced. So to cling to the notion that the only acceptable family unit is a mother, father and children flies in the face of reality. We can accommodate single parents in the church; we should be able to accommodate other forms of family life that are strong, that are nurturing, that are faith-promoting and that are enduring -- but we haven't been able to do that yet. ..."

Reacting to the Whitney PBS Documentary

I finally finished watching "The Mormons," the 4-hour PBS documentary about the LDS Church by Helen Whitney. I very much enjoyed it. Sure, there were some inaccurate, oddball, and annoying aspects to it, but on the whole I thought it was quite positive. Big plusses in my book were the insights and experiences of Sarah Barringer Gordon, Kathleen Flake, and Margaret Toscano. I am ready to run out and buy professor Gordon's books. I was also pleasantly surprised that Whitney used such a positive quote about Joseph Smith by Ed Firmage. Yes, Firmage is ex-Mormon, and yet you never would have known from his statement about Joseph Smith in which he compared the Mormon prophet to Mohammed and Isaiah.

The faithful Mormon response is somewhat predictable. Many, if not most, of them did not like it. In fact, you can follow the link in the title of this post and read Deseret News' collection of largely negative responses to the documentary by a host of faithful LDS people.

One aspect of the documentary that has produced some unintended humorous consequences was the choice not to identify commentators by their Mormon (non-)affiliation. This has led to some complaints about that Islamic Studies professor *Daniel Peterson* who should not have been consulted, according to the unhappy viewers, about his bizarre views of their faith. Yes, folks, these faithful Mormons had no idea that Peterson is the most prominent Mormon APOLOGIST of our day. This funny mistake reflects badly on the general LDS membership, but quite well on Peterson, who comes off much better in person than the jackass persona he has carefully cultivated on the internet.

I must admit that I was being somewhat inaccurate in my description of the LDS interaction to the documentary, when I said they 'did not like it.' Truth be told, many were enraged by it. Their vitriol toward Ms. Whitney and PBS reminds me just how far outside the Mormon mainstream I am. Even if we are kind enough not to identify it as the mainstream, there are so many Mormons who apparently went apoplectic over the show that I am more convinced than ever that I do not want to hang out with these people. You should know, gentle reader, that I doubt they miss me anyway (at least most of them).

At the same time, I have a great deal of sympathy for these folks. After all, they are conditioned to prize obedience to their Church leaders as the only safe way to navigate these treacherous days of apocalyptic wickedness. Then they are fed a version of their own history and image in the world that would make Walt Disney jealous. In other words, it is calculated to produce a certain positive emotional effect (that I cannot denigrate as being insignificant), and it does so with almost mechanical effectiveness. Finally, they are told not to listen to what anyone outside of the LDS Church has to say about their faith.

I hope this helps to explain why so many Mormons offered the moronic 'insight' that people shouldn't go to a Chevy dealer if they are shopping for a Ford. Who came up with that? If I go shopping for a car, I check out all of the makes and models. Of course it would be stupid to go to a Chevy dealer to ask about Fords, IF MY MIND WERE ALREADY MADE UP. But, going out to shop with your mind made up is to ask to be ripped off. We clearly need to look elsewhere if we want to discover why there are so many successful Mormon businessmen. Once again, however, this is a mantra that is habitually intoned in LDS discussions about how non-Mormons, especially representing other faith traditions, generally misrepresent Mormons. Can you blame them for knowing their culture so well and acting accordingly?

To my Mormon friends who are unhappy with the PBS documenary I offer a simple recommendation. Read the title of the series of which this Mormon documentary is a part. It is "The American Experience." If you think about it, that helps us contextualize this particular presentation of Mormonism. The PBS documentary was not written to make you LDS people feel like you just attended General Conference. It was not supposed to be a missionary tool designed to draw more people into the LDS waters of baptism. Instead, this documentary places the phenomenon of Mormonism within the context of the larger American experience. It therefore offers not only those inside voices that praise Mormonism to the skies, but also those of outsiders who have been impacted by Mormonism in some way. In other words, we get to see how America (and others in the world) responds to Mormonism, and from some pretty brilliant folk.

Ex-Mormons are part of that picture, and I thought they were edited quite tastefully. To those of you who hated Margaret Toscano, all I can say is that you are damned lucky Whitney didn't stick a Sonia Johnson interview in there. At least Margaret still loves Mormonism and feels a part of the faith and culture. The fact that she has been exiled from the LDS Church does not seem to have utterly soured her on it. For those of you who are angry that Ken Clark was on, all I can say is that I am mystified by your objections. On the whole, I thought he was quite mellow. It is obvious he does not believe, but I did not find his statements especially disparaging in tone or content.

For those of you who are angry about all of the time devoted to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I have two words for you: September Dawn. Mormons should be dancing in the streets and sending personal checks to Helen Whitney for having presented a generally unsensational and balanced view of this dark chapter in Mormon history. Why? Because that is certainly not what you will get from the film September Dawn, and unfortunately many more people will watch that film than the number who tuned in to the documentary. September Dawn was co-written by a Born Again Christian, and we all know how much these folks love Mormonism. One last thing--you have to consider the context when you ask why Whitney gave so much attention to the MMM. We live in a time when religious zealots are blowing themselves up for their faith. How the extreme and pernicious devotion that led to the MMM should not be pertinent in our day is mysterious to me.

Terryl Givens unhappy about PBS documentary

I recently commented on the Church's advance response to the PBS "American Experience" four-hour documentary on Mormonism. The Church's news release referred to unnamed scholars, some of whom participated in the documentary, who were deeply displeased with its emphasis on polygamy and take on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I was bemused by the omission of the identity of these scholars, wondering why on earth they needed to remain anonymous.

Well, it turns out that at least one of these anonymous scholars, and one who did appear on the documentary, was Dr. Terryl Givens, professor of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond. Dr. Givens recently visited Duke (University, I suppose) and told members of the Church there that (and here I am quoting a paraphrase of his words posted on RfM) "the film will be a major disappointment to Church members who are expecting a favorable or even well-balanced treatment of the Church."

The criticism continues:

"Part of this is due to choices by the director but in some cases higher-ups at PBS' Boston affiliate, WGBH, mandated changes or edits that made the documentary less favorable. Note that the PBS affiliate in Boston is the one handling the documentary. Bro. Givens seemed to think that this had something to do with displeasure over the Romney campaign. My advice would be to watch it, but I wouldn't recommend it to your non-Mormon friends."

Here is an excerpt from the 4/28 article by Peggy Fletcher Stack published in the Salt Lake Tribune:

"But Givens, a professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond in Virginia, takes strong exception to the film's inclusion of footage of some modern polygamists and their leader, Warren Jeffs, who is charged with being an accomplice to rape for conducting a marriage to which the bride objected. The LDS Church discontinued its official practice of polygamy in 1890.

"This does a grave disservice to the church in light of Helen's stated objective to get beyond the stereotypes," Givens said.

"Nineteenth century polygamy is part of Mormon history and deserves to be told. But there is no possible justification for including Warren Jeffs. It is misrepresentation at best and defamation at worst."

That would be like "showing photos of serial killer David Berkowitz, "Son of Sam" in a piece on modern Judaism," said Givens, who was interviewed at length for the film. "They are trying to turn PBS into 'Big Love' or 'Jerry Springer.' "

For a scholar, Givens indulges in some pretty sloppy reasoning here. Warren Jeffs' crimes directly resulted from his pursuit of a lifestyle that had been mandated as essential for exaltation in the kingdom of God in 19th century Mormonism. David Berkowitz claimed to have been a Satan worshiper when he committed his murders. Unlike Jeffs, whose activities were tied up in historical Mormon practices, Berkowitz neither claimed, nor gave any indication, that his crimes were motivated by or related to the Judaism of his adopted parents.

Givens elsewhere took aim at Will Bagley's contribution to Whitney's work on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I am not aware of the piece where Givens does this, unless it is in the lds.org Newsroom commentary I refer to in a prior post. In any case, here is Bagley's response:

"A copy of this fanatical assault on a beautiful film about Mormonism reached me through the email grapevine. Long experience has shown that apologists have little regard for the truth, and I would like to appeal to you to suggest that your fellow ward members watch the film and make up their own minds. I care little for whatever Dr. Givens thinks of my work--altho he shows no evidence of ever having read a page of it--but that work speaks for itself.

What does bother me is his zealotry, which apparently extends now to trying to destroy Helen Whitney's career. I suppose this modern Savonarola was offended he could not act as the film's censor and make it as happy and inspirational and dishonest as a Lee Grosberg or Keith Merrill movie.

"The Mormons" is a sympathetic, humanist look at a new religious movement that baffles outsiders. The American Experience presents all sides and opinions about Mormon history, but the film puts a very human face on Mormons. I expect it will increase understanding and sympathy toward Latter-day Saints and deepen the American public's understanding of a religion that is too often caricatured and mocked.

As for my "personal mission of trying to destroy Brigham Young," I pretty much put that in the tank when I published the heroic portrait Thomas Bullock paints of this frontier dynamo at the highpoint of his career in "Pioneer Camp of the Saints" lo these many years ago. And despite Dr. Givin's [sic] terrors, the Old Boss and his reputation is likely to survive even Helen Whitney's beautiful film."

If I were to guess who it was that wrote the commentary on the Whitney documentary at lds.org's Newsroom, I would say Terryl Givens. Givens perhaps felt silly, or a little vain, writing about himself in the third person, so he instead referred to a nameless collection of scholars that probably includes the Mormon friends he ranted to.

Balancing Reality and Fantasy

Yesterday I posted a piece on the LDS Church's response to the April 22 broadcast of PBS's "Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly" in which the program was criticized for certain comments made regarding temple covenants. Unable to locate the piece a second time, I mistakenly believed that it had been removed. As it turns out, the piece is still there, and so I will now comment on it using quotes.

As I mentioned the first time (I have since edited the post for being erroneous), a high-level Baptist official made a controversial remark about temple covenants on the show, which elicited this commentary from unnamed Church writers:

"Dr. Phil Roberts, president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, claimed, for example, that Church members who attend the temple — including Mormon politicians — swear “allegiance to the Mormon president.” This is simply not true. The center of temple worship is a commitment to God and devotion to the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In a place of quiet reflection, Church members contemplate and decide how their temple attendance will be reflected in their personal lives."

I did not see the broadcast, so I can't comment in full on Dr. Roberts' claims, but I will say that the Church response to them is incomplete and, therefore, arguably evasive. It is true that 'commitment to God and devotion to the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ' are central aspects of LDS temple worship. It is for this reason that for many years I enjoyed worship in the temple with my fellow Latter-day Saints.

What began to bother me, however, was the central position allegiance to the Church as God's kingdom on earth held. In fact, I would say that some of the greatest covenants in the temple center on the devotion of the individual member to the LDS Church. I came to think that the greatest commitments I make in life should be to God instead of a Church run by human beings. This is one of the reasons my interest in participation in the temple waned in recent years.

In any case, to say that 'Church members who attend the temple — including Mormon politicians — swear “allegiance to the Mormon president”' is a reasonable inference, which one might take issue with, but the Church does not so much engage the assertion as misdirect. The reason for this, I suppose, is that the truth of the matter is so close to Roberts' assertion that any attempt at an honest response would leave people with the impression that Roberts was essentially correct.

Who the heck are these people?

In describing reactions to the long-awaited Whitney documentary on Mormonism, the Church relates these reactions:

"A few scholars, including some who appear in the documentary, have seen substantial parts of the program.

Their initial reaction: Church leaders and members are extraordinarily eloquent in explaining the tenets of their faith. The film is not superficial, which is often a criticism leveled at television coverage.

However, some raised concern about what they feel is a disproportionate amount of time given to topics that are not central to the Church’s faith. For instance, polygamy comes in for extensive treatment in the first program, including substantial attention to present-day polygamous groups that have nothing to do with today’s Church. The time devoted to portrayals of modern fundamentalist polygamy seems inconsistent with the filmmaker's stated purposes of getting inside the LDS experience, and of exploding, rather than reinforcing, stereotypes.

Other scholars criticize what they say is an imbalance in the treatment of some topics, particularly the events at Mountain Meadows in 1857. One said the film provides a distorted and highly unbalanced account of Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre alike."

Now here is a model piece of clarity. Why, pray tell, are the "few scholars," the "some," and the "other scholars" not mentioned by name? Are they ashamed of their sound opinions and reasoning? Do they fear Whitney's wrath for having criticized her work? Or, do they even exist? Are they instead figments of some PR firm's imagination?

One thing they do not fear is tooting their own horn ("Church leaders and members are extraordinarily eloquent"). It looks to me that someone in the Church hierarchy, perhaps, wanted to make an anonymous complaint and attribute it to nameless "scholars" in order to add that air of objective authority. I guess I can't blame them. I remain anonymous, but, then again, I am not the one with the power.

BYU students on Cheney's visit and protest

I decided to check out as much of the coverage of the BYU protest as I could find to try to figure out what it was the students were saying about Cheney's visit and the two demonstrations (pro-Cheney, and anti-Cheney). Some interesting rhetoric came from both sides of the issue--rhetoric I find somewhat revealing and disturbing.

To me it sounded as though the anti-Cheney demonstraters had been given a script. They all spoke of how Cheney did not represent BYU or its students, although none of them were very eloquent about the reasons why he didn't. One student referred to the vice president's ties to Halliburton and his permissive attitude about the use of human torture during interrogations. For the most part, however, students expressed that Cheney did not represent them or the University.

One reason for the continuity in the script was because a communications professor at BYU had presented their position more eloquently and probably molded the overall rhetorical strategy for the others. Woodworth's strategy was to condemn Cheney on moral grounds, a position that is likely to find more sympathy among people who purport to take their morality very seriously.

The other reason for this approach was that the university's administration placed some strictures on the protest in advance. In the words of one student, "...they sent an email out with a list of different things you could put on your sign. There's no real freedom of speech here, like a real protest, and you can't criticize the BYU administration at all, which is the point of the protest, but to get the protest approved they had to say they were just protesting Cheney, even though in reality the protest is about the BYU administration's decision to bring Cheney here."

So, there you have it. A polite 'protest' because it is the only kind that is allowed. The students were told when and where they could protest, how long it could last, what they were forbidden to say, and that they had to 'keep it down.' No shouting, etc. When they left the protest area, they were not even allowed to take their own signs home with them. If Martin Luther King and Ghandi had observed such strictures, we would still have segregation and a British India. And this is exactly why BYU handles things this way, because they do fear their youth and don't want change.

Allowing these young people to speak for themselves is very revealing. It helps us get behind the purported intentions and self-representations of those in power to what is happening among these students on the ground. It helps us understand what the BYU system is teaching them to do and to value. I thought this was particularly poignant:

"I've had fellow students to tell me to turn in my temple recommend, or that I am not a real Mormon, or that I don't support the First Presidency, all of which are completely false. We're just regular, good Utah Mormons who happen to disagree with the Vice President." -Diane Bailey, BYU College Democrats

You will not find similar sentiments coming out of the mouths of BYU College Republicans, because no one questions the Mormon loyalty of conservative Republicans. What does that tell you about the LDS Church as it is lived and taught at its flagship university? Leaders and adults may *say* that there is no political bias or agenda, but the behavior of the kids on the ground tells a more revealing story. It's a milder version of the child who reveals something embarrassing about his or her parents in Primary. The child just doesn't know what to hide.

What troubles me most, however, is the rhetoric of the pro-Cheney demonstraters. Regardless of political sympathies, I should think we would all be troubled to hear things like this:

"It's just an honor to have such a large part of the administration come and recognize us and speak at our graduation ceremony...to recognize us as one of the top universities, I mean, usually they speak at the Ivies, and its just such an honor to be up in that caliber." -BYU student

"We're excited to have him come, because we're excited for the opportunity for BYU students to have that close of a personal interaction with someone who has such power and an ability to alter and change the day to day actions of the United States and much of the world." -David Lassen, BYU College Republicans

Doesn't seem like such a big deal I suppose, but remember that this is a university that prides itself on providing a Christian learning environment. In other words, we might expect the values that Jesus taught expressed in the views of BYU students. Instead, we hear quite the opposite. The first student quoted above is impressed by recognition from the world. "BYU is just as cool as the Ivies now!" The second is impressed by POWER. "We get to have close personal interaction with a powerful man." This is interesting in the context of the anti-Cheney demonstraters who essentially made an argument from values and ethics (the recurrent theme of their position).

Hinckley reaches out to touch your BYU student

I recently watched an amateur video shot during the marathon two-hour protest against Cheney's commencement invite that BYU students held in a "free speech zone" on BYU campus. First of all, let me say my hat goes off to all of you idealistic young Mormons who are willing to make your voices heard on Rush Limbaugh's dream campus.

Kudos to you, O Plucky Ones! Your optimism and trust that you are making a difference against all evidence to the contrary is truly touching. And I can see that your fearless master, Cecil Samuelson, took notice and duly deigned to appear in person to show his warm sympathy for your cause. His "we're not afraid" was both heartfelt and utterly convincing. There is a man who truly cares about what you think. And he should, for according to all claims, BYU is a university, where people like Cecil are paid to help improve your thoughts. Do you think he is happy with the results of his hard labor?

Let's look at this from a different perspective. There is a cuddly little nonagenarian in Salt Lake City who wanted to reach out and touch you on that warm spring day. His heart went out to you as you expressed your feelings about the pressing issues of the day. In fact, he was so anxious that you feel his concern that he relied on HIRED GOONS to make sure your signs were gathered into a safe place and that you were shepherded out of your free speech zone to the unfree speech zone that comprises your daily lives on campus.

Consider this, O parents of the BYU students. When a University, a temple of the mind, has to designate a 2-hour free speech zone, you know your child's education is in expert hands.

Anyway, when I saw that giant, cuddly Polynesian bear of a fellow in his Secret Service suit placing his hands on your children, I thought of the love of President Hinckley for each of your little ones. He would have loved to have been there in person to intimidate your precious children into cooperating, but he just isn't that intimidating, and he didn't have time to make the trip.

Sad isn't it, when you think of it. There is a man in Salt Lake City who commands immediate respect from just about every person on that campus. Had he come in person, the bright-eyed, faithful BYU students and professors would have stood in awe, singing 'We Thank Thee, O God, For A Prophet,' eager for any half-credible explanation for his invitation of one of the most despicable public figures since Richard Nixon to BYU campus.

Surely the prophet, being God's primary spokesman on the earth today, would have a real good explanation. After all, not only is he the numero uno spokesman, he is also the Lord's PR man. And besides, he didn't need an explanation. I would wager that the little charmer could have cracked a wry joke, as he is wont to do, and much good will would have been won without any real dialogue or a change in the commencement program.

Such is the charisma of the Mormon prophet. Interesting that he shows absolutely no inclination to get involved and smooth out the untidiness created by the invitation he made. Interesting that the influence of this 'gentle man of God' brought the intimidating presence of Polynesian bouncers to put your children in their place, and will yet bring the bloodstained plutocrat Dick Cheney to serve as their moral exemplar. By the way, I bet they shipped that bouncer down from Hinckley's personal detail, just so that BYU students could fear the hand of the man who clasped the hand of the prophet.

Let me ask you, BYU parents. Is this what you envisioned when you sent your kids to BYU? Is this what proximity to the Lord's anointed wins them? Are you feeling the love? Because you should know that that love is Gordon Hinckley's love. I don't know about you, but I find that disconcerting.

Orson Scott Card: One Odd Duck

OK, let me get something out of the way. I love "Ender's Game." It is a really fun novel, and I hope it is made into a movie some day. Oh, and I suddenly have an urge to read the Alvin Maker series.

Having said that, I find the author of these novels, Orson Scott Card, a completely perplexing individual. Or maybe completely predictable. He is perplexing because as intelligent as he is, he seems unable to parse the problems of the LDS Church in a realistic fashion. He is completely predictable, because like many intelligent people who continue to cooperate with authoritarian regimes, he has a fancy set of partitions and blinders that help him stay on the right side of the regime.

Card begins a recent article entitled "Is Mitt Romney Serious?" with a slew of disparaging comments about Hillary Clinton and high praise for the probity of Mitt Romney. Is *this* guy serious? I quote:

"Everyone knows that Christian evangelicals hate Mormons so badly that if they had to choose between a bribe-taking, FBI-file-stealing, relentless-lie-telling, mud-slinging former first lady, and a Mormon ex-governor who doesn't lie, who's still married to his first wife, and who supports the entire Christian evangelical agenda, they'd still rather die than vote for a Mormon."

All I can say, Orson, is that you have devoted at least part of your dear soul to sheer lunacy. First of all, in your contention that Christian evangelicals would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than a Mormon man, you are laughably off target. I think it should be abundantly clear by now that what Americans really fear is a female president. I am sure evangelicals would be happy to overlook Mitt's Mormonism in order to get his maleness, whiteness, and dubious, opportunistic social conservatism. They, and millions of other more closeted misogynists, would happily sell their mothers to get to the polls to oppose a woman occupying the Oval Office. The fact that it is Hillary they would be opposing only provides a pretext to hide their deep hatred and fear of women.

As for your conviction regarding the moral probity of Mitt, this too is evidence of your indulgence of illusion. Mitt is not honest. The guy betrayed his polygamist ancestry in order to head off the gay lobby's political use of Mormon polygamy. He said that the federal government had been correct in harrassing and persecuting the religious practices of his own ancestors! I would say that if evangelicals have any reason to be afraid of Mitt, that would be the right one.

The fantasy continues:

"They try to leave the impression that the Mormon Church is racist, wacko, breeding like flies, and obscenely rich. "This tithing has helped the church amass an estimated $30 billion in wealth," says The Week. "Mormon holdings include the biggest beef ranch in the world and the largest producer of nuts in the U.S."

Here Card blames the press for attacking the LDS Church instead of facing the issues. In truth, the LDS Church does have things to answer for. I am sorry that Mitt has to take the brunt of this (am I?), but if his beloved Church had acted with sensitivity, integrity, and openness, he wouldn't have half of the troubles he is having.

Let's face it, the African American community has not let the United States off the hook for slavery (and rightly so), and so it is even less likely that the LDS Church will be let off the hook for an implicitly racist theology that persists to this day. And, for the record, I think the Church should be actively pursued by black activists for failing to apologize for racist doctrines and practices.

In other words, let's be realistic instead of whiney. Is it *fair* that people attack Mitt's Mormonism? Is it classy? Hell no! But since when is politics about fairness or class? (Well, it's obviously got a lot to do with social class, but that is not what I mean.) My guess is that Americans continue to be suspicious of Mormonism, and that they believe they have good reasons to feel that way. Mitt will pay for it. The Church and its membership can continue to indulge in persecution scripts, or they can actually openly and honestly address the issues that make others uncomfortable.

There is much talk about Mitt's situation being comparable to Kennedy and his Catholicism. I think there is a *huge* difference here. Sure, at the time people thought that Kennedy might obey the pope instead of acting in the interests of this country. Now we know that American Catholics listen to the pope about like they read Leviticus. They recognize his authority and largely ignore him when convenient. As a Catholic acquaintance of mine once said, "the only way to be an American Catholic is to attend mass and otherwise act like a Protestant."

Mormons have quite a different relationship with their prophet. And all Mormons know this. *They* even contrast him with the pope. Any Mormon can tell you that while the pope is both infallible and ignored, the Mormon prophet is fallible only when you need to make an excuse for him. Otherwise his most irrelevant muttering on Larry King is obsessed over with amazing energy.

It also makes a huge difference that Utah is smack dab in the middle of the Rocky Mountains, while the Vatican is located in Italy. Mormons aspired to have an independent theocratic nation in the Mountain West not even a century and a half ago. Brigham Young sympathized with the Confederacy. He enshrined racism in Mormon theology. Mormons authorities lied repeatedly about the practice of polygamy to the government and their own people.

In other words, unlike the pope, the Mormon prophet has been America's homegrown issue for many, many decades. The fact that this is still an issue in the Romney campaign is less evidence of human prejudice, which we can take for granted as always being present, than of the failure of the LDS Church to deal with uncomfortable issues in a satisfactory manner. The Church must bear the responsibility for this failure. One cannot rely on the fairness of American politics or the uprightness of the press on the best of days. Mormonism's leaders and rank-and-file members should stop whining and do something about things they can change.

Somehow, I am not confident they will.

Dutcher on Dutcher

LDS filmmaker Richard Dutcher recently bid farewell to the community of LDS cinema and the LDS Church too. His comments, some of them barbed, elicited an outpouring of bile from Kieth Merrill, whose worst work (Legacy, Testaments) is one of Dutcher's targets. To his credit, Merrill apologized.

As a Mormon of sorts, I find Merrill's bile and penance a familiar script. Mormons can get angry in the most juvenile ways, and then absolve themselves through their equally dramatic regret (I am quite familiar with this behavior because I have often done it myself). Both the bile and the regret are sincere, and yet oddly calculated at the same time. I know that subconsciously calculated is an oxymoron, but somehow it seems to fit here. Maybe 'culturally programmed' would be the better term.

Dutcher, too, has his stock Mormon rhetorical faults. There is a measure of arrogance in his initial farewell that is also familiar. Yet, Dutcher's rhetoric also has a wonderful self-reflective quality that transcends the usual boundaries of Mormon moral navel-gazing. It seems that every time I see a Mormon I have not been around for a while, that person engages in some talk about being scandalized by the state of the world (usually the lack of morals in the media) in order to communicate their continuing allegiance to the "true gospel."

Dutcher has so much more to offer than this. He understands Mormonism with the sympathy of an insider and the perspective of a more dispassionate outsider, all at the same time. Perhaps this is why his Mormon movies are effective, and Kieth Merrill's Mormon movies are cinematic pop tarts.

Dutcher recently added an addendum to his farewell, and man is it powerful. I think it is even more on target than his original farewell. This guy "gets it." My favorite part was his discussion of the ritual slandering of the "lost soul" in historical and contemporary Mormonism. I'll let him speak for himself:

"Thomas Marsh was one of the leaders in the early Church. Most of us know him only as that silly man who left the Church because his wife cheated another sister out of some “milk strippings.” The matter ended up with local Church leaders who determined that Sister Marsh had, indeed, acted dishonestly. As the story goes, Thomas was so offended and angry that he left the Church and didn’t come back until he was an old man, dead broke and half-senile.

But there’s so much more to the story.

Although the “milk stripping” incident is factual, it is not the reason Thomas Marsh left the Church. He left in those chaotic days in Far West, shortly before Joseph was arrested and taken to Liberty Jail. These were the days of Sidney Rigdon’s reach for power and his “Salt Sermon.” They were the days of the Danites (Yes, Virginia, there were Danites), and the days when Oliver Cowdery left the Church. Oliver’s complex and difficult decision was made at a time when his life was being threatened by other Church leaders. It was a crazy, dangerous time and Thomas was right in the middle of it. I’m sure those old milk strippings were the last things on Thomas Marsh’s mind when he mounted up and got his family the hell out of town.

Yet this man’s complex life, and his difficult decision, has been reduced to an inaccurate Sunday school lesson in Pride. I believe this “lesson” is a slander, and a violation of a very complex human being.

Although it may be out of my hands, I do not intend for something similar to happen to me. At least not without a fight.

It’s unpleasant to acknowledge, but the LDS community has a history of character assassination. It is an ugly truth, but it is the truth. I have often joked (darkly, and among friends only) that when wandering sheep stray from the fold, Mormons don’t go looking for them. What happens is: somebody climbs up on a really tall tower, takes out a high-powered rifle, gets the poor straying soul in the cross-hairs, and then blows his wandering brain out.

When individuals leave the fold, why do we find it necessary to blacken their names? This has been the case since the earliest days. Back then, a church member or leader could be in full fellowship one day and considered a wonderful, decent, loveable human being. The next day, if that individual chose to make an exit, he was the “blackest, basest of scoundrels,” an “adulterer” and a “counterfeiter,” etc.

Today, we’re a little less melodramatic. But still, when a scholar, artist, intellectual, or even a rank and file member of the Church decides to leave, his character is instantly under attack: “I think he’s gay” or “I bet she’s having an affair” or “I’ve heard he’s a drug addict,” etc.

Just for the record: I’m not having an affair. I’m not gay. I’m not a drug addict. I’ve never tried to illegally reproduce hundred dollar bills and I haven’t killed anyone. Sadly, I can’t even claim to have beaten anyone up, not since the 9th grade anyway. (Actually, now that I think of it, I didn’t win that particular fight. A neanderthalic 12th grader beat the snot out of me.)"

Dutcher then continues to speak about his leaving the fold as a progression through Mormonism instead of an eschewing of his experience in it--the latter being the usual ex-Mormon trope. It was this that I tried to express in my last post, but Dutcher does it so much better. I really like this guy.

The Church is "True"

I have been spending too much time over at RfM (Recovery from Mormonism). I question my purpose for visiting almost every time I pop over there. I think I do it because every once in a while some interesting tidbit appears from behind the 'Zion Curtain.' I find myself wanting to believe that the guy who is claiming to have worked at the COB, recently been a mission president, or some such, is actually the real deal. These guys have the unflattering stories that reveal the Church for what the skeptical among us want to see in it: a fumbling organization wherein the ambitious few prey on the good intentions and gullibility of the many.

Yup. It's not pretty. And this is really as good as it gets, at least for me. I am generally tired of all of the stories about the Church destroying people's lives, fabricating history, working for the Republican cause, etc. You see, I take all of that for granted by now. And, revisiting it for the umpteenth time is, well, boring. I know others out there really need to see that they are not alone, that the Church has hurt other people, etc. I generally find more people like myself out there on the good old DAMU. Different strokes, right?

One thing that I truly have lost patience for, however, is the declaration that a person has discovered that the LDS Church is "not true." I understand that for them this is a very important personal discovery, but others out there have discovered something even more worthwhile--that "true" was a problematic assertion in the first place. So if the expression that Church is "true" is fraught with problems and complexities, then the idea of the Church not being true is really vexed. Unfortunately, LDS people never had any discussion about what the former meant, so skipping right through to the "not true" part just leaves so many unanswered questions.

I can agree that I once thought that God had restored His Church through a farmboy named Joseph Smith. I once thought that this knowledge, and the life that I would lead on that understanding, would save me from some woes I now view as either imaginary or beyond fixing. I used to get up at Church and assent to all of this kind of stuff by using the expression, "I know the Church is true." I have to say, however, that I quit using that language long before I quit attending.

I think the problem with it, for me at least, was that it did not begin to cover the nuances of my actual thoughts and feelings on the issue. Such a statement, if used carelessly, could cover a multitude of doubts and misgivings in a manner that I found increasingly deceptive. This is the reason I quit saying it. Not because I suddenly thought the LDS Church was of no value, but because I wanted to express something of my real experience of it. At the same time, I understood that most people did not want to hear about that stuff.

Then I found the internet, and I felt a rush of liberation. I formed a Yahoo! group for liberal Mormons, and some interested friends and I started batting around the ideas and feelings that one is not comfortable sharing in the chapel. Having found that liberation, and having expressed those thoughts and feelings, I increasingly saw testimony baring as woefully inadequate. It was easy to drop it, because I now saw my statement encompassing so much I could not express, that I had no confidence I was sharing anything more than a gross banality. Worse yet, people listening to me say it could jump to whatever conclusions about me they wanted to.

In that wonderful spiritual journey, I grew into secular humanism. Ah, the dreaded evil. A spiritual humanism is the perspective that most appeals to me. Sure, there were many discoveries along the way about the inadequacies of Mormonism and the LDS Church. I found that most of what faithful Mormons believed about the LDS Church, its history, and its doctrine were things I no longer believed, at least not in anything but the most symbolic sense. This has not led me to say, however, that "Mormonism is not true." Somewhere along the way that expression lost all meaning to me. Instead, I came to understand that Mormonism was part of my learning process in life. For a time it gave me some valuable things, a long time. Now I no longer get out of it what I once did, and I do not want to participate in it or assent to it any longer.

Sure, I *could* say that "Mormonism is not true," and that would save a lot of time, but there is also something crass about it that would make me feel as though I never learned anything along the way.