Sexism In The LDS Church

Since the subject of racism in the LDS church was brought up in my previous post, I decided to talk about another type of discrimination that has and still exists in the LDS church and that is sexism.
Gender Roles In Mormonism

The LDS church is definitely gender specific when it comes to roles, particularly in parenting.

According to the Marriage and Family Relations Study Guide, The roles of men and women are different. The primary responsibilities of men are to provide for the material needs and spiritual leadership as the priesthood holder. The primary responsibility of women is to stay at home and nurture the children.

The problem here is that when a woman is financially dependent on a man, she pretty much has to be subordinate to the man. The other issue is that under this model, if the woman is in an abusive relationship, it is more difficult for her to leave if she is once again financially dependent on her husband.

Women And The Priesthood

Why are women denied the priesthood? I grew up with the idea that women were much more in tune with the spirit. If that is the case, you would think that they would be the ones that were running God's church. Not only that, but how can women enter into the celestial kingdom without the priesthood?

Women being denied the priesthood is against the teachings of Joesph Smith. According to some LDS historians, women received the priesthood under Joseph Smith as part of the temple endowment. Although women have never held priesthood offices, women could administer to the sick and afflicted with the priesthood under Joseph Smith. Once again, Brigham Young is the one that changed this doctrine.

The Community in Christ (formerly known as RLDS) continues the original teaching of Joseph Smith by continuing the practice of giving women the priesthood, but they have recently taken it a step further by allowing them to hold positions in the priesthood leadership.

Perhaps women will be able to hold the priesthood one day in the LDS church just as they did in the early church under Joseph Smith. Future generations will probably look at the church today and wonder why we were so sexist. However, it is no different than looking back at how blacks were denied the priesthood. Many people at the time didn't see it as being racist, just as a majority of Mormons, including women, do not consider it sexist that women are denied the priesthood.

Many say that men have the priesthood organization and women have the relief society and therefore they have equal treatment. However, the big difference is that the relief society does not have any leadership roles except within the relief society itself, whereas the priesthood organization is in a position of power and authority over the whole church.

Male Depictions In Mormonism

When you look at how men are depicted in Mormonism, they are exaggeratedly masculine, strong and beefy as demonstrated in the widely accepted Arnold Friberg paintings.












Phallic Symbols In Mormonism

Many people have pointed out that Captain Moroni's sword sheath is a phallic symbol. If it was not intended as being a phallic symbol, it is an unfortunate coincidence to say the least.













Many also see the tabernacle as phallic, although I think it was more influence of freemasonry, because like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young was also a Mason. You can compare a picture of the Mormon Tabernacle and on George Washington's Masonic apron and see obvious similarities.







Female Depictions In Mormonism

In Mormonism artwork including modern day statues, women are fragile fully covered submissive and almost asexual creatures with little distinguishing physical features. The hypocrisy is that the pictures of the men are very sexually explicit. There is a definite distinction between the roles of men and women as depicted in these two paintings. You have the men in the center gathering around Lehi and the Liahona as if they are the decision makers. You can see Lehi's wife Sariah in the background waiting to be told where to go and 2 women, presumably the daughters of Ishmael standing to the side. In the other painting, the submissive women are seeking comfort from the men as it is obvious that men are the ones in charge of the ship. It appears that the women are just there for the companionship or the ride. Either way, women have no positions of leadership or authority because after all, they are women, right?


Gender Roles In Heaven

Regardless of current attempts by the LDS church leaders to distance themselves from polygamy, it is still part of the core doctrine of the church that there will be polygamy in heaven. There are an equal number of men and women that have lived on the earth, so once again, this implies that women are much more spiritual than men. That will cause the celestial demographics to be lopsided. And yet once again, I ask the question if women are that much better, more worthy, more spiritual and closer to God by nature, why don't they have a say in what takes place on Earth or heaven?

What exactly is the role of women in the celestial kingdom? Let's say you are a woman and make it into the Celestial Kingdom. What will your responsibility be? Since God is perfect, one can only assume that the current model is the one and only way things can be, otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. It looks like the role of women in the celestial kingdom will be the same as mindless cattle-to produce offspring. Although if they are lucky enough, they might get mentioned in one verse of a hymn, but they still have no say in what goes on in the worlds their husbands create. I guess they will be like the daughters of Ishmael in the Book of Mormon- they will be referenced but will bear no real importance to the story except to serve the men.

Disillusioned Mormon
Read more!

The LDS Church And Racism

My thoughts regarding racism and the LDS church:

Since the subject of racism in the LDS church was brought up in the comments of a previous post, I thought I would dedicate a new post to the subject and copy all the comments from previous posts and paste them here, since they really have nothing to do with the original posts. I don't mind getting off on a few tangents, but the response was so overwhelming I decided to move the comments to a new post.

Racism Is Taught In The Book Of Mormon

The overall story of the Book of Mormon is the continual struggle and battles between the "white and delightsome" Nephites against the "dark and loathsome" Lamanites. The original Book of Mormon includes the phrase "white and delightsome" much more often. Modern versions of the Book of Mormon now say "pure and delightsome" in place like 2 Nephi 30:6. You can read the original text here, and compare it with the current text here. You can see how they have replaced the word "white and delightsome" with "pure and delightsome".

However, the phrase "white and exceedingly fair and delightsome" still managed to slip by the LDS PR patrol in their revisions of the Book of Mormon.

Before we continue, it is important to also point out that there is really no such thing as a "white" person. Nobody's skin is truly "white" white, it is just a lighter shade of tan.

The worst part regarding the Book of Mormon and racism isn't just the racial conflicts, but it is that the dark skin was a curse placed on the Lamanites and their posterity.

Some have said that the Lamanites were cursed and that the dark skin was only a "mark" of the curse, and not the actual curse. However, that is not what the Book of Mormon says.

2 Nephi 5:21 "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Alma refers back to the incident when they were cursed with the dark skin.

Alma 3:6 "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren"

Alma 3:6 says specifically that the mark WAS the curse. So the dark skin wasn't a mark on the cursed people, the mark WAS the curse put on the people.

The Ban On Blacks And The Priesthood Until 1978

Joseph Smith never taught that blacks could not hold the priesthood. In fact, the first black LDS Elder was Elijah Abel, ordained an Elder by Joseph Smith himself on March 3, 1836 and ordained a seventy a few months later by Zebedee Coltrin. Elijah later became a seventy and served honorable missions. Although he was ordained to the office of seventy, he was not considered a general authority at the time. Other blacks were given the priesthood under Joseph Smith, but very few. However, the fact remains that Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to blacks.

Brigham Young is the person that changed the doctrine that placed a ban on the blacks to receive the priesthood. In fact, under Brigham Young, Elijah Abel was barred from receiving his temple endowments because he was black, even though he still remained a seventy and continued doing missionary work.

Brigham Young's Famous Journal Of Discourses

The journal of discourses is probably the most dreaded official church document by most LDS members, yet it is a favorite among those that are critical of the church. The entire journal of discourses can be read in the right column under "reference material". Some "spiritual thoughts" by Brigham Young as found in his Journal:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).

"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.)

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

What About The 2nd Article Of Faith?

To say that a darker shade of tan is a curse from God is bad, but to go further and say that their descendants also have a curse goes against the 2nd article of faith:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

The second article of faith says that Adam's sins are not passed down to his children. So how is it that Cain's punishment of the dark skin is passed down from generation to generation, but the original sin, Adam's transgression, is not? Perhaps it should have said:

"We believe that white men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression, however black men will be punished for Cain's transgression".
Read more!

Mountain Meadows Massacre

Click Here PBS Frontline-Mountain Meadows Part 1



Click Here PBS Frontline-Mountain Meadows Part 2

In case you are unfamiliar with the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the above videos are the 2 parts produced by PBS Frontline that give an accurate account of what happened in Mountain Meadows.

LDS Church Responds

The LDS church has published an article regarding the tragic event that happened in Mormon history. Although the article is part of the September Ensign in commemoration of the 150th anniversary, the early publication on the website comes as no surprise. I think the timing of the publication on the website is in response to the Living Hope Ministries publication, the PBS Frontline Documentary that dedicated a large portion (that can be viewed here) to the event as well as the upcoming movie "September Dawn".

"On September 11, 1857, some 50 to 60 local militiamen in southern Utah, aided by American Indian allies, massacred about 120 emigrants who were traveling by wagon to California. The horrific crime, which spared only 17 children age six and under, occurred in a highland valley called the Mountain Meadows, roughly 35 miles southwest of Cedar City. The victims, most of them from Arkansas, were on their way to California with dreams of a bright future"

The perpetrators were members of the LDS church at the time including local leaders. The Mormons killed a group of emigrants from Arkansas without any provocation. Under the direction of priesthood leaders, the Mormon members killed the unarmed men first, but didn't stop there. After they killed the men, they went to the wagons that contained the women and children and shot and killed everyone over the age of 6 in cold blood. The reason the Mormon members killed the women and children is because they didn't want witnesses.

I remember being taught a brief lesson about the Mountain Meadows massacre in seminary. I was taught that the incident was initiated by a small group of renegade apostates that were not affiliated with the mainstream church. However, my seminary teacher was lying to me, whether he knew it or not. Dallin H. Oaks has made the first public admission that members of the church including local leaders were behind this terrible event. However, in the same interview, Dallin H. Oaks also said that it is wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true. So if the members at the time questioned the massacre, would they be in the wrong?

"As is true with any historical episode, comprehending the events of September 11, 1857, requires understanding the conditions of the time"

As stated in the article, it is important to understand the conditions of the time to better comprehend what lead to that atrocity, so I will talk about a few key events that lead up to the massacre.

Events that led up to the atrocity

It is important to point out that Parley P. Pratt, a member of the quorum of the 12 apostles(and happens to be Mitt Romney's great-great grandfather) was killed in Arkansas in 1857, the same year as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Since the Fancher party was from Arkansas, there were rumors that some of the people from the Fancher party were responsible for Pratt's death, even though those rumors were unfounded.

It is even more important to point out exactly why Parley P. Pratt was killed in Arkansas. A woman by the name of Eleanor McLean had converted to the Mormon church, but her husband did not. Elanor McLean left her husband and married Parley P. Pratt in a polygamist marriage. However, Elanor was still legally married to Hector McLean, her original husband, because they never got divorced. When Parley P. Pratt went to Arkansas in 1857 on a preaching mission, Elanor's legal husband killed him because he felt that Parley had taken her away from him.

So Parley P. Pratt was killed by a jealous husband of one of Pratt's plural wives, who was still legally married to Hector in Arkansas. The Fancher party had absolutely nothing to do with the assassination of Pratt, but because they were also from Arkansas, rumors had flied around that members of the party were responsible for Pratt's death. I think it is reasonable to say that Pratt's death could have influenced the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. In the minds of the Mormons at the time, they were in a way avenging the death of their apostle.

Other events that led to the Mountain Meadows massacre included the United States government breathing down their necks. I think that Mormons at the time had a frame of mind that America was the enemy.

Lessons Learned from Mountain Meadows

I think the Mountain Meadows massacre demonstrates the danger that exists when you have an organization that claims divine authority. To say that it is wrong to criticize the leaders of the church even if the criticism is true is exactly the mindset that led to this horrible atrocity. The people that participated in the murders and execution of innocent people were devout Mormon leaders and followers that did what their church leaders told them to do.

Mormon Hypocrisy

The LDS church had publicly denied involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre for 150 years. However, now 150 years later, they are making the position that it is in the past and behind us. The big hypocrisy in the LDS church is that they claim to embrace and celebrate the past, but only the history that paints the church in a good light. It is good to learn about the past, but only the past that has been re-written by the LDS church. However, regarding the "little flicks of history" that don't paint the church in a good light, they say "let the book of the past be closed".



Couple that with Dallin H. Oaks comments that Mormons, including local leaders of the church were the prime movers in the Mountain Meadows Massacre and participated in the killing, and yet it is wrong to criticise the leaders of the church even if the criticism is true.

Disillusioned Mormon

Read more!

At What Point Does The Spirit Enter The Body?

According to Nephi, son of Nephi, son of Helaman, Jesus spoke to him the night before he was born.

3 Nephi 1:13-14

Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets. Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh. And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given

At this point in time, Mary was 9 months pregnant with Jesus and ready to pop. That night, the sign was given to the Nephites of the birth of Jesus. So according to the Book of Mormon, Jesus' spirit had not entered into the world at this point, since his spirit had appeared to Nephi. It would be reasonable to conclude that according to the Book of Mormon, the spirit enters the body at birth, and not a moment earlier.

Disillusioned Mormon Read more!

I No Longer Actively Participate In The LDS Church

I thought I would write one of very few blogs about me personally. The whole reason for this blog was to provide a way for me to organize my thoughts. I have found it therapeutic and very helpful in getting a clear picture of how I view the church. As I organize my thoughts, it isn't just one criticism of the church, it is when you look at everything that the whole thing just falls apart.

Imagine a Jenga tower representing your perception of the church. You are told that the Jenga pieces are glued to each other and the tower is glued down to the table. You are taught that no amount of wind can take it down. Then, You run into information that might cast doubt on the validity of the church, and suddenly a gust of wind comes in and a Jenga block is removed from the tower. You listen to apologetic responses to the criticism and you carefully place the Jenga piece back on the top of the tower, but as you do so, two or three more Jenga pieces fall out of place. You frantically try to place all the pieces on top of the Jenga tower. However, one-by-one more and more Jenga pieces fall out of the tower. As you try to reconcile all these pieces that keep falling out, you wonder why you were always taught that the Jenga tower was glued down. You then are told that it was just "speculation and one man's opinion" that the Jenga pieces were glued in place. Meanwhile, as the Jenga tower gets higher and higher, it also gets more and more hollow. By this point, your Jenga tower sways back and forth. It is just a matter of time until a final Jenga block is removed and the entire tower comes crashing down. You desperately try to salvage what you can, but you realize that the Jenga tower can never be rebuilt.

That has been my experience. I will continue to post other thoughts and ramblings about things that have led to my disillusionment, but at the current time, I have pretty much come to the conclusion that the church is not what it claims to be. Although I no longer actively participate in the LDS church, I still continue to attend sacrament meetings to support my family.

Now that I know what I don't believe, the question is what do I believe. Right now, I am still looking at the scattered Jenga pieces, so I can not say what I believe. I am a blank slate. I will say this: My feelings are not a good indication of what is true. Perhaps when I am ready, when I have completely left the LDS church I can begin a new quest on what I do believe. In the meantime, I will continue to post and discuss other topics that got me to this point.

Disillusioned Mormon Read more!

Lehi's Dream-Did Joseph Smith compose it?

Boyd K. Packer, who was acting president of the quorum of the 12 apostles at the time, gave a speech at a BYU Devotional on January 16, 2007. In his speech, he talks about how the Book of Mormon is the cornerstone to his testimony. He goes on to talk about Lehi's dream, as found in the Book of Mormon and how the symbolism of his dream can be applied to our lives. At one point, he asks a very important question regarding the origin of Lehi's dream. What I discovered shocked me to the very core.

Lehi's Dream In The Book Of Mormon

For those that are unfamiliar with Lehi's dream, it is a story of a prophet named Lehi that receives a vision in the form of a dream, during which time he was living in the desert and the year was around 600 B.C.. In 1 Nephi chapter 8, we read about Lehi's vision. In this chapter, Nephi describes his father's dream:

I saw a man, and he was dressed in a white robe; and he came and stood before me...I beheld a large and spacious field...[I] beheld a tree... I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof...and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen...And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also...I beheld a river of water; and it ran along, and it was near the tree of which I was partaking the fruit...I beheld your mother Sariah, and Sam, and Nephi...I did say unto them with a loud voice that they should come unto me, and partake of the fruit, which was desirable above all other fruit...And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood...on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth And it was filled with people... and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

Later in the Book of Mormon, Nephi records a similar vision in 1 Nephi 11, this time Nephi himself sees the vision of the tree of life. Eager to ask the spirit what the meaning of the vision is, Nephi is told that the field represents the world. The tree of life represents the love of God. The Iron rod represents the word of God, that leads up to the tree of life. We also learn that the great and spacious building represents the pride and materialism of the world.

Did Joseph Smith Compose Lehi's Dream?

In his recent speech, Boyd K. Packer goes on to talk about how we can apply the symbolism of Lehi's dream to our lives. Packer also brings up an interesting question in the middle of his speech, where he says: "Who wrote this incredible vision? There is nothing like it in the Bible. Did Joseph Smith compose it? Did he write the Book of Mormon? That is harder to believe than the account of angels and golden plates. Joseph Smith was only 24 years old when the Book of Mormon was published."

Joseph Smith Sr. Had A Similar Dream

Interestingly enough, Joseph Smith Jr.'s father, Joseph Smith Sr. had a very similar dream when Joseph Smith Jr. was about 5 years old. Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith Sr.'s wife recounted her husbands experience in her narrative Joseph Smith, The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations:

In 1811, we moved from Royalton, Vermont, to the town of Lebanon, New Hampshire. Soon after arriving here, my husband received...[a] vision, which I will relate:

"...I (Referring to Joseph Smith Sr.)was traveling in an open, desolate field, which appeared to be very barren...My guide, who was by my side, as before, said, 'This is the desolate world... Traveling a short distance farther, I came to a narrow path. This path I entered, and, when I had traveled a little way in it, I beheld a beautiful stream of water, which ran from the east to the west....I could see a rope running along the bank of it.

...beyond me was a low, but very pleasant valley, in which stood a tree such as I had never seen before...it bore a kind of fruit, in shape much like a chestnut bur, and as white as snow, or, if possible whiter...I drew near and began to eat of it, and I found it delicious beyond description. As I was eating, I said in my heart, 'I can not eat this alone, I must bring my wife and children, that they may partake with me'.

...I beheld a spacious building standing opposite the valley which we were in, and it appeared to reach to the very heavens. It was full of doors and windows, and they were filled with people, who were very finely dressed. When these people observed us in the low valley, under the tree, they pointed the finger of scorn at us, and treated us with all manner of disrespect and contempt. But their contumely we utterly disregarded.

I presently turned to my guide, and inquired of him the meaning of the fruit that was so delicious. He told me it was the pure love of God...He then commanded me to go and bring the rest of my children...Upon raising my eyes, I saw two small children, standing some distance off. I immediately went to them, and brought them to the tree; upon which they commenced eating with the rest, and we all rejoiced together.

...I asked my guide what was the meaning of the spacious building which I saw. He replied, 'It is Babylon, it is Babylon, and it must fall. The people in the doors and windows are the inhabitants thereof, who scorn and despise the Saints of God because of their humility.' I soon awoke, clapping my hands together for joy."

It appears that Joseph Smith Jr. was not the author of Lehi's dream, on that point, I can agree with Packer. If Lucy Mack Smith's story is true, It is reasonable to conclude that Joseph Jr. simply cribbed Lehi's dream from his own father's story.

Apologetic Responses

One apologetic response I have heard is that it was simply miraculous that Joseph Smith Sr. received the same dream as Lehi in preparation for the Book of Mormon. However, if they received the same dream, why are there subtle but key differences? For example, in Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream, instead of a rod of iron, it is a rope. The rod of iron is an important symbol of the firmness of God's word. If Joseph Smith received the same vision, why would God leave that part out of it?

The only other apologetic response I have heard contradicts the first apologetic response. I have heard the argument that since Lucy Mack Smith recounted her husbands dream after publication of the Book of Mormon, her recollection of her husband's dream was influenced by the text in the Book of Mormon. However, that still demonstrates that he did have a dream that was similar to Lehi's dream. So, Joseph Smith Jr. could have based Lehi's dream on Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream, then Lucy Mack Smith's recollection could have been influenced by the Book of Mormon text. Not only that, but if Joseph Smith Sr. had a dream that was similar to Lehi's in preparation for the Book of Mormon, why would it be similar, yet different? Wouldn't God give him the same exact dream as Lehi in preparation of the Book of Mormon?

Either way, Joseph Smith Sr. did receive a dream similar to Lehi's in the Book of Mormon in 1811, 19 years before publication of the Book of Mormon. It is possible and likely that Joseph Smith Jr.'s father recounted his dream to him.

Skeptical Mormon Read more!

Video: The Lost Book Of Abraham

The information in this video is what made me conclude that the Book of Abraham is a fraud. When I learned about the Book of Abraham, and the fraudulent claims made by the church, I lost complete faith in Mormonism.

The LDS church still includes the Book of Abraham as part of their canonized scripture. The only apologetic response for the Book of Abraham being translated from a common funerary text is that it wasn't a literal translation, but a "spiritual translation". I am sorry, but I just can not begin to wrap my brain around that argument.

The most important thing it demonstrates is that Joseph Smith had absolutely no clue how to translate Egyptian. The Book of Mormon was supposed to be translated from a form of Egyptian. Joseph Smith said he recognized the hieroglyphics on the papyri from the golden plates. Who is to say that the Book of Mormon wasn't also a "spiritual translation" and not a literal translation? Perhaps there never were any golden plates.

Anyways, I hope you enjoy this video.

The big double-standard with the LDS church is that they lecture people about honesty and integrity, yet they have known that the Book of Abraham was a fraud since 1967 and have lied about it. Mormon leaders give interviews to members that question their worthiness. One of the questions they ask is if they are honest in their dealings with their fellow man. Maybe we should be interviewing the church leaders and asking them if the church is honest with its members.

The LDS church continues to assert its position that the Book of Abraham is a literal translation from a first-hand account of Abraham written on the ancient documents that went into the possession of the church in 1835. This article was written in the official LDS church publication The Ensign as recent as 1997 that re-asserts this position.

Skeptical Mormon Read more!

Start Your Own Cult!

Enjoy this video on how to start your own cult. Read more!

How Do You Explain 4 Nephi 1:6?

Were The Plates Made From Gold?

If the plates were in fact made from gold, it is safe to say that it was a very scarce commodity. As mentioned in a previous post, there is no evidence of gold being used in Mesoamerica until at least 600 A.D., 200 years after the plates were buried. So, despite Nephi's exaggerations that gold and other metals were found in "great abundance"(2 Nephi 5:15), gold must have been pretty hard to come by.

Moroni said the plates were Gold

According to Joseph, the angel Moroni told him the plates were made out of gold.

When first I looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me and that his name was Moroni. . . . He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the sources from whence they sprang (History of the Church, vol. 1, by Joseph Smith, Deseret Book, 1976, pp. 11-12).

Even if the plates were not made of actual gold, they were gold in appearance and retained enough value that the angel Moroni was worried Joseph would be tempted to make himself rich. The plates were heavy and they were made from a precious metal. If the prophet Mormon knew Moroni might have to carry metal plates 3,000 miles from Mesoamerica to upstate, NY on foot, he might want to keep the load as light as possible. Not only that, but I am sure etching characters was a very time-consuming activity. Therefore, every square inch on each golden plate was valuable real estate, so I am sure that everything written on them was very important and was only included after a rigorous selection process. Mormon wouldn't include a single verse in his abridgement unless it was worth taking up the time and space to write it, and it had some kind of profound purpose behind it.

How Do You Reconcile This Verse?

If every little bit of space on the plates were so carefully selected when making an abridgement from the large plates of Nephi, why would Mormon see it fit to include 4 Nephi 1:6?

4 Nephi 1:6
"And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away."

When this verse was pointed out to me, I laughed out loud. Of course this verse is referring to the years following the mass conversions when there was peace in all the land. No wars, no conflicts, no contentions, just everyone living in harmony and peace as Christians of a single unified church. These years are supposed to exemplify the perfect model of how God intends us to live our lives on this earth; The absolute pinnacle of what we can reach as a church here on earth.

Why Was This Time of Peace Glossed Over?

You would think that we could learn about how they were able to keep peace for so long and read about all the good things that they did for one another and how they helped their fellow man. How they fed the poor, clothed the naked and made sure everyone was taken care of. You would think we could learn from their example and apply their teachings to our lives on how to live in righteousness. However, since there are no conflicts, no wars and no contentions during this time period, it doesn't make good reading.

The entire 200 year period of peace and harmony is merely a hiccup, summarized in one chapter. However, in his abridgement, Mormon thought it was more important to dedicate countless chapters on battle strategies, or the story of how Nephi ended up decapitating a passed-out drunkard, stealing his brass collection, kidnapping his servant and skipping town, as long as the end justifies the mean.

A More likely Reason

I think it is more likely that 4 Nephi 1:6 was included because it was simply one of the many "filler" verses Joseph Smith used in writing the Book of Mormon. Perhaps he needed to think about what he was going to say next or just needed to keep thickening the book up.

Skeptical Mormon Read more!

A Banana Testifies Of The Genius of God's Creation

Kirt Cameron says that a banana testifies of the genius of God's creation.

He talks about how a "well-made banana" is specifically designed by God to serve humans. I think his argument is cute, and I do think that a banana demonstrates the genius of God's creation, but not in the same way as this particular example.

What is a "well-made banana"?

Bananas come in all different shapes and sizes. Bananas have been cultivated and selected by humans to benefit humans. Say you have 50 different types of bananas. You would pick the one out of the 50 that best suits human interest and cultivate just that one. As time goes on, any time you come across a variation that benefits humans, you would select that one and cultivate it. If you run across a banana that is too big, or too small, you wouldn't cultivate that one and that gene dies off. The point is that the definition of a "well-made banana" is simply that by its own self-serving definition. The bananas that best serve humans are the ones that are selected and cultivated by humans themselves.

What about corn?

Does corn testify of the genius of God's creation? Of all the varieties of corn in the world today, not one is wild. The reason is simply because the plant we call corn today is physically incapable of regenerating itself without the active assistance of man. To the left you can see a picture of teosinte, an ancestor of modern-day corn. Teosinte is not edible and still exists today in Mesoamerica. It is a grass and has tiny little cobs inside of little pods about 4 cm small and they do grow naturally. Compared to modern day corn, It is practically useless, and I would not consider it "well-made" in the context of describing a plant that is beneficial to humans.

Why Can't Corn Reproduce Naturally?

In my research into the cultures of pre-Colombian Mesoamerica, I learned about how they cultivated maize from a grass-like plant to modern corn. During this research, I came across an interesting tidbit on how modern corn had to have been manipulated genetically by humans and by no other means. In Reader's Digest Mysteries of the Ancient Americas, it says:

Modern corn's strength and its weakness lie in its unique grain-bearing "ear," a highly specialized flower cluster whose hundreds of seeds are compactly arranged along a rigid cob, the lot enclosed in tight-fitting, multi-layered husks. These husks prevent the seed kernels from dispersing on their own either on the stalk or when the ear falls to the ground. in fact, only when the ear is shucked and the kernels are forcibly freed can the seeds go fourth to start another season's growth...corn had somehow been manipulated genetically, from varieties that were less satisfactory in size and productivity to varieties that were large and yielding more food value.

What is a "well-made" ear of corn?

When defining a "well-made" ear of corn(as in beneficial to humans), you would consider the food value, the size fits well in your hands, not too big, not too small, it tastes good, etc.

The paradox, if you are to consider intelligent design, is that corn doesn't grow naturally. What you would consider a "well-made" ear of corn has been cultivated by humans over time to benefit humans. This is evident in the fact that there is no such thing as wild corn. Corn has been cultivated over time and the variations that benefit humans the best have been singled out, selected and cultivated. The ancestors to corn like tripsacum and teosinte are of little use to humans, and when compared to corn, they would in no way be considered "well-made" in this context. There did exist wild corn some 7,000 years ago, but it was very similar to teosinte in that it was very small and grass-like. Wild corn doesn't exist anymore today and the only corn that exists is what has been cultivated and selected by humans.

I don't dispute that God has given us this wonderful thing called nature in all its splendid beauty. After all, without teosinte, we wouldn't have corn, so for that I do thank God. However, I do dispute the argument that everything is designed perfectly by God to benefit man as defined and explained in the video. Now, I have to be careful, because I am not saying that God didn't design everything perfectly, I am saying that the definition of intelligent design that I have heard is not congruent with what one can see simply by looking at an ear of corn. God has given us the tools and means to cultivate our agriculture to our benefit by our own liking, or own choosing and by our own definition. It is almost as if we are given some kind of "free agency" in this selection process. The true intelligent design is the fact that God has provided us with plants and animals that can change and adapt to the environment as well as what we consider "well-made". It seems to me that the most intelligent design is something that can change and go through a selection process.

If there is such a thing as "intelligent design" as defined by many, I think the banana is a very poor example to use. The ability of obtaining the most beneficial banana to humans through the selection process is really what testifies of the genius of God's creation.

Skeptical Mormon Read more!