I guess it's time... for a new post that is. Here is an update of where I am at in my journey. I have done more and more reading. I am currently in the process of reading Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. It is kind of a slow read for me, but interesting non the less. I am pretty convinced the church is not true, but I am having mixed emotions about leaving. One minute I am ready to send in my resignation letter and the next I am in a full blown panic attack fearing that I'm making the wrong decision.
I have read a lot lately about Mormonism and its cultish nature. I used to cringe when people compared the church to a cult because the word has such a negative connotation to me. However I am beginning to realize that the church has certainly brainwashed me in many ways and greatly influenced the way that I think. Is this enough to consider it a cult? I guess it depends on who you ask. I still feel like it is too strong of a word, but I can see how one could conclude such.
I have researched much about Joseph Smith and his life. I have to say that there is much that is certainly not mentioned by the church. I recently saw the Joseph Smith movie at the J.S. Memorial Building in Salt Lake City. The movie did not show any parts of Joseph's past that might be questionable. No portrayal of polygamy or the burning of the Nauvoo Expositor or his treasure digging schemes or his peep-stone in a hat translation process. In fact the movie didn't even mention why Joseph was being sent to jail in the first place. The amazing part is that when I asked true believing members of my family they did not know the answer to this question. How can we have been raised in a church for 20+ years and still believe that the only reason JS was put in jail was because of religious persecution?
The fact that the church keeps its members uneducated really bothers me. Being an educator myself I find it preposterous that the church is hiding its past. If the church is true then what's the big deal? On the flip side I do ask myself how the few Mormons that do know the whole truth- such as Richard Bushman- still continue to believe? Is there something I am missing?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Scholarly Wisdom
I found this great website that has given me much enlightenment. It is the "testimonies" of exmormon scholars. http://www.exmormonscholarstestify.org/index.html I appreciate words of wisdom from those who are educated and truly studied out their decision to leave the Mormon church. I'm still thinking I need to leave the church as there are too many questions left unanswered. The problem now will be navigating my way out. I know this will not be an easy journey concerning my family and my husband's family.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Today's Enlightenment
I think I'm addicted to morn- reading about Mormons online. Kind of like porn, only I'm not in any way saying I look at porn or anything like unto it, morn just has the same addictive nature to it.
Today's morn is a menage a trois, that is to say "The Three Witnesses." I decided that if I am going to really find out if the Book of Mormon is true then I will take on Moroni's challenge and see what happens. I have read the Book of Mormon cover to cover probably three or four times in my life. I memorized all the scripture mastery verses and even lettered in seminary. To be honest though, I never earnestly knelt down to pray about it's truthfulness. I don't think at the time I needed or desired to. I already "knew" it was true. I didn't need to find out if it was or investigate it any further.
Today I opened my BOM to the very beginning where the introduction and witness accounts are found. I think in my previous readings I skipped over these parts just as one would skip over the preface of a textbook in college. Like an Oreo cookie the important stuff in in the middle right? Well apparently I missed the wholesome chocolaty goodness of the outer cookie! I read today the accounts of the three witnesses and then of the the eight witnesses to the BOM. After reading only what is written in those few paragraphs I wrote down a few questions I had.
1. Why were the first three witnesses shown the plates by an Angel, but the eight witnesses were actually shown the plates by Joseph Smith himself? What is the significance there?
2. Why were many of these men related to Joseph?
3. Was the Urim and Thummim that was used to translate the first pages of the BOM the same "seer stone" that some claim Joseph put in his hat to translate the rest of the BOM?
Well I googled my morn and found two differing articles discussing the witnesses to the BOM. The first is written in favor of the church http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=21 and the second not so much http://www.exmormon.org/file9.htm. Both articles make good points and I'm trying to remain as objective as possible while doing my research because my mom once told me not to believe everything I read (with the exception of the Book of Mormon).
My conclusions:
1. The first three witnesses were perhaps visited by an angel rather than shown the plates because they were in a different location at the time.
2. I'm still not sure if the three witnesses ever physically held and handled the plates. Some accounts say they did and others say that their witness was more visionary.
3. The second article I linked to states that 4 of the 8 witnesses only saw and held the plates covered in a cloth which I find interesting as the account written in the BOM lead me to believe they all actually saw the plates. I suppose that could be my own misinterpretation.
4. For whatever reason many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church at some point- some later returned other did not. The church's standpoint is that even though some left the church they never denied their testimony of the BOM.
5. There are differing opinions about the personal character of these eleven individuals.
6. The "seer stone" was not the same as the Urim and Thummim.
7. Many of the witnesses were related to Joseph probably because they were the ones who were in closest contact with him when he was translating.
All in all I am not sure that I am one bit clearer about whether the church or the BOM is true. Yea Verily.
Today's morn is a menage a trois, that is to say "The Three Witnesses." I decided that if I am going to really find out if the Book of Mormon is true then I will take on Moroni's challenge and see what happens. I have read the Book of Mormon cover to cover probably three or four times in my life. I memorized all the scripture mastery verses and even lettered in seminary. To be honest though, I never earnestly knelt down to pray about it's truthfulness. I don't think at the time I needed or desired to. I already "knew" it was true. I didn't need to find out if it was or investigate it any further.
Today I opened my BOM to the very beginning where the introduction and witness accounts are found. I think in my previous readings I skipped over these parts just as one would skip over the preface of a textbook in college. Like an Oreo cookie the important stuff in in the middle right? Well apparently I missed the wholesome chocolaty goodness of the outer cookie! I read today the accounts of the three witnesses and then of the the eight witnesses to the BOM. After reading only what is written in those few paragraphs I wrote down a few questions I had.
1. Why were the first three witnesses shown the plates by an Angel, but the eight witnesses were actually shown the plates by Joseph Smith himself? What is the significance there?
2. Why were many of these men related to Joseph?
3. Was the Urim and Thummim that was used to translate the first pages of the BOM the same "seer stone" that some claim Joseph put in his hat to translate the rest of the BOM?
Well I googled my morn and found two differing articles discussing the witnesses to the BOM. The first is written in favor of the church http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=21 and the second not so much http://www.exmormon.org/file9.htm. Both articles make good points and I'm trying to remain as objective as possible while doing my research because my mom once told me not to believe everything I read (with the exception of the Book of Mormon).
My conclusions:
1. The first three witnesses were perhaps visited by an angel rather than shown the plates because they were in a different location at the time.
2. I'm still not sure if the three witnesses ever physically held and handled the plates. Some accounts say they did and others say that their witness was more visionary.
3. The second article I linked to states that 4 of the 8 witnesses only saw and held the plates covered in a cloth which I find interesting as the account written in the BOM lead me to believe they all actually saw the plates. I suppose that could be my own misinterpretation.
4. For whatever reason many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church at some point- some later returned other did not. The church's standpoint is that even though some left the church they never denied their testimony of the BOM.
5. There are differing opinions about the personal character of these eleven individuals.
6. The "seer stone" was not the same as the Urim and Thummim.
7. Many of the witnesses were related to Joseph probably because they were the ones who were in closest contact with him when he was translating.
All in all I am not sure that I am one bit clearer about whether the church or the BOM is true. Yea Verily.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Straw
Last night I again found myself glued to my computer doing research. I don't think I ever spent this much time researching one topic even in my entire higher education. As I was reading, I came across something that really disturbed me. Actually disturbed is too mild of a word, more like it rocked me to my core. Here is the link to the post I was reading http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon508.htm
I realize this a first person account and could possibly be totally fabricated, however I did some additional research and found that the second anointing is in fact an ordinance that was once practiced in the temple. Here is a link to an old church publication called the Millennial Star, a church published periodical, that confirms that second anointings did at one time exists and were practiced. As to whether they still are today, I guess all the proof I have are other's personal accounts. http://www.archive.org/stream/latterdaysaintsm121850manc#page/n3/mode/2up
I will have to look up the exact page number that references this ordinance as the whole thing is over 800 pages.
I guess what disturbs me is not the ritual itself, but rather the fact that it is something that is reserved for only a few members and that it is to be kept a secret that one has received it. I also read a part of the blessing (if my source is accurate of course) that states that the woman will be "Exalted to her husband's exaltation." http://www.archive.org/stream/latterdaysaintsm121850manc#page/n3/mode/2up
Now back up a minute. Did I read this correctly? I will be exalted to my husband's exaltation! Does that mean I can only go as far as my husband does? What if my husband is a complete douche bag, a sex-predator, or a thief (mine is most definitely not, just hypothesising here)? Will I only be able to progress as far as he does even if I've never done a thing wrong in my life?
If I am reading this statement wrong then please tell me so. If I am understanding this correctly then all I have to say is BULL SHIT!
I guess you could say this is the straw that broke the camel's back.
I realize this a first person account and could possibly be totally fabricated, however I did some additional research and found that the second anointing is in fact an ordinance that was once practiced in the temple. Here is a link to an old church publication called the Millennial Star, a church published periodical, that confirms that second anointings did at one time exists and were practiced. As to whether they still are today, I guess all the proof I have are other's personal accounts. http://www.archive.org/stream/latterdaysaintsm121850manc#page/n3/mode/2up
I will have to look up the exact page number that references this ordinance as the whole thing is over 800 pages.
I guess what disturbs me is not the ritual itself, but rather the fact that it is something that is reserved for only a few members and that it is to be kept a secret that one has received it. I also read a part of the blessing (if my source is accurate of course) that states that the woman will be "Exalted to her husband's exaltation." http://www.archive.org/stream/latterdaysaintsm121850manc#page/n3/mode/2up
Now back up a minute. Did I read this correctly? I will be exalted to my husband's exaltation! Does that mean I can only go as far as my husband does? What if my husband is a complete douche bag, a sex-predator, or a thief (mine is most definitely not, just hypothesising here)? Will I only be able to progress as far as he does even if I've never done a thing wrong in my life?
If I am reading this statement wrong then please tell me so. If I am understanding this correctly then all I have to say is BULL SHIT!
I guess you could say this is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)