Dallin Hoaks

Let me explain something to you about Dallin H. Oaks: he is a prophet, seer, and revelator. Well, according to some. Millions of Mormons around the world sustain him as such in his position of Apostle in the Mormon Church. Determine on your own what it means to be those things, to hold those titles, but by my definition this person should be able to see, prophesy and reveal the word and will of God. Pretty important role this guy has.

All this makes it a little disconcerting when you realize Mark Hoffman, a forger and murderer, was able to make Dallin and other prophets, seers, and revelators believe documents from early Mormon church history he had produced were legitimate. Dallin even gave a talk explaining away some of the disturbing information Hoffman had brought to light, only to find out such explanation were unnecessary; Hoffman was discovered to be a fraud. But that is a story for a different time, I suppose.

For the purposes of this story, let me identify a few other guys who were also sustained by Mormons as prophets, seers, and revelators: George Albert Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (they have all passed away long ago). Well, these three had particular things to say about what it was like in the pre-existence, the time before any man was born on earth, when all the spirit children of God were assembled together.

George Albert Smith (as president of the church and leader of the first presidency of it, who released the following statement in 1949 about why people with black skin could not receive the Mormon priesthood):

"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes."

Bruce R. McConkie published the following in his book Mormon Doctrine:

"Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate."

And Joseph Fielding Smith in his Doctrines of Salvation:

"There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."

Sounds pretty clear, but you know what? The church doesn't believe it. It has disavowed such statements. They aren't true and the church acknowledges as much. Again, confusing, how a prophet, seer, and revelator could say something so wrong, but whatever, I guess. The common excuse made by Mormons is that these men spoke things commonly believed at the time, you know, the ideas were somewhat the product of the thoughts and ideas of people in their era.

So let's fast forward to 2018 and Dallin H. Oaks, in a talk he delivered on Saturday, October 6:

"Gender is eternal. Before we were born on this earth, we all lived as male or female spirits in the presence of God." 

But you know what? He has been wrong before. And so have his predecessors. SPECIFICALLY about what it was like before we were born. And his current notions of gender being static are common at this time. Which makes me wonder:

Why should I accept what he says?

I'll Say it Again--Don't Read This if You Are a Mormon

I posted the following on my Facebook page:

------------------
"Dallin H. Oaks said this at LDS General Conference: "[God] does not prevent all disasters, but He does ... blunt their effects, as He did with the terrorist bombing, that took so many lives in the Brussels airport, but only injured our four missionaries."
So God lessened the effects of the bombing in Brussels to save the lives of four LDS missionaries, but not to save the lives of thirty-two other people? He has it in His power to "blunt the effects" of something like this, and "He did" do that in this situation, but only for the LDS missionaries. I am not making this up or taking his words out of context. Go look it up. [It's the last two minutes of his Sunday afternoon talk.]
And if you think I am being a literalist with this man's words, I would remind you he is sustained by all members of the LDS church the world over as a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. And he was speaking at a general conference to all members of the church in his capacity of Apostle. Additionally, Mormons believe that God said, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." So what he said is the word of God.
If you are Mormon and believe this, I would like it if you could tell me why you think God would do this. DM me. I am genuinely curious."
-------------------

But it continues to disturb me, and I am writing now to work through the anger and frustration I feel. I am angry. I am frustrated.  Because I used to be Mormon. A short time ago, I would have "believed" this. I used quotation marks there because I am not sure if I REALLY would have believed it, or if it would have just fallen in with all the other things I said I believed in, but never really thought about. Because, you know, I don't think all Mormons believe nonsense like that. And it is nonsense. I know many Mormons, and I respect many of them, and I know many of them are highly intelligent people. There are those as I have just described in my own family. I truly don't believe they believe that God chose to save the LDS missionaries and not other people, as Oaks just claimed He did. And if they do believe it in a general sense, they would begin to doubt it if they started to truly think about it. Thought. Logic. Reason. God did not "blunt the effects" of those bombs to save the LDS missionaries. Come on. But I also know Mormons will not pursue this line of thought. They will leave it. When logic and reason fly in the face of faith, logic and reason must be suspended. Faith takes over.

You want to know why this bothers me like it does?

Death is real. Death is hard. It is devastating to deal with. And thirty-two people lost their lives in the Brussels bombings. These people had families, friends, people who loved them. And it was indescribably difficult for them to lose their loved ones and will continue to be so. I feel for them. They deserve compassion. And Mr. Oaks, who claims himself to be a representative of Christ, who was speaking to the members of the church, yet truly to all nations in his role as Apostle, did not show compassion in his words. Would he have said such things to a gathering that included the families of those killed in Brussels? We all know the answer is no. And if it is no, he has no business saying it from the pulpit of the church, "the one true church upon the face of the earth," no business saying it as a representative of Christ with good news to all nations and all people.

Dearest and beloved Mormon family and friends: Oaks said what he said to leverage the fact the LDS missionaries were not killed, to further his message, to glorify his church. He took advantage of the fact that people died and LDS missionaries did not, to bring more effect, more power to his words. I hardly need to mention how utterly disgusting, despicable, and evil that is. For me, it is beyond comprehension and makes me embarrassed FOR him. You would reject these actions and this rhetoric, would condemn these words if they came from any person outside your church.

But I very well know you will not think about this, you will file it away, store it there with your other doubts. God will explain everything in the next life.

DO NOT READ THIS POST!

You know what I have been told? 'You know, you should be sensitive, be careful what you say about Mormonism. You have family, dear family members, who believe, and you need to keep that in mind. Be kind, be sensitive, don't say the stuff you are saying.'

This astounds me. It really does. It is the most ridiculous one way street ever constructed.

Should I expect require those members of my family, any close friends I have who are LDS, to be sensitive to me? 'Hey guys, don't say anything about the church to or around me. Don't post about it or mention it on facebook. I find it all extremely loathsome and disgusting, so please don't even mention it.'

No. If a family member says something to me, posts something on facebook, writes a blog, it is upon me to turn away, or decide not to consume it, isn't it? Or should I ask them to be sensitive to me? 'Please don't post that thing that is important to you, or makes you feel better. It bothers me and I am sensitive.'

Again, utterly ridiculous.

I have even been told my previous post was inappropriate and offensive and "not right." I was chastised and lectured for (among MANY other things) writing such a thing and then putting the burden on any potential readers to decide whether they should read it. It was suggested I should not have written it at all. Or I should have been more forceful in my warning to those who might not like it. Like, I should have said, 'ATTENTION [specific person 1] and [2] and [3] and [4] and [whoever else]. DO NOT READ THIS. STOP. DON'T DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. STOP. I COMMAND IT.

That is crazy. Without going back to re-read it, I am pretty sure I said, "When I was Mormon I wouldn't have read this." I wonder if that came across a joke. I can't believe it did. But maybe I am wrong. Sometimes I admit when I am wrong.

But it doesn't matter. I don't live a world like that anyway. No one does, if you think about it. My opinion is that Mormons have to turn so many blind eyes to so many things at the direction of their leaders, they don't like it when it is not handed to them what they must do. So when I write what I write, they are torn, possibly. They value me and what I write, but then again, what I write is bad. 'I want to read it, but I have not been instructed by my leaders whether I should. Well, I have been told not to read anti-Mormon literature, and I don't, but this is SUCH a grey area.' And so they throw the burden to me: Don't write it in the first place and we won't have to decide.

But here you are, reading this reluctantly if you are Mormon, and maybe if you are not. But if you have come this far, read this much, and are bothered, and don't know what to do about it, let me help you. I'll tell you what I would have done when I was Mormon: what I did when my oldest sibling left the church. Maybe you wouldn't do the same thing, but maybe you would.

I would read this post, maybe not thoroughly, or without giving it the serious attention it doesn't deserve. But then, I would:

Demonize me. This helps you to make sense of what I am doing.
Tell yourself, "They can leave the church, but they can't leave the church alone." As if that means anything at all.
Convince yourself I just want to commit sins and do evil. That's the only rational reason one would leave the church and say what I am saying.
Tell yourself that, notwithstanding my claims that I am very happy, I cannot truly be. YOU are happy. YOU are happy. Tell yourself over and over, that you are happy, and I am not. Or that yours is TRUE happiness. Mine is temporary, or false.
Swear to yourself you will never talk to me about any of this. Convince yourself that what I believe and feel CANNOT have any merit and DO NOT DISCUSS ANY OF IT WITH ME AT ALL. NOT ONE BIT.

Doing all these things will help you process it, dismiss it, and see what I am writing and doing for what they are: the bitter ramblings of a poor, pitiable, and obviously unhappy soul who once had the superior understanding you still have.

OR

Don't do what I did to my brother. Try to accept the reason I would write what I write and say what I say: Because it is as important to me (and more so) now than the church ever was. You know that whole thing about how much joy and peace the church will bring to your life and how feeling that will make you want to share the gospel with everyone? Never felt it. Never WANTED to share the gospel with anyone. Never wanted to give anyone a Book of Mormon, bear my testimony to anyone, go out with the missionaries, visit inactive less active members. If I wanted to, it was from guilt, you know, that weird force that makes you adopt a belief and cling to it and want it to be true so badly that you can eventually tell yourself you believe it. Don't mistake me. I am not saying I was never happy while a member the church, didn't have spiritual experiences, didn't feel love and peace and joy. I just never wanted to go tell all my friends about it. That part was truly a duty. A responsibility. A chore.

But I WANT people to know how I feel now. How I feel peace, don't feel the constant, incessant, depressing, and debilitating guilt and lack of self-esteem I walked around with for forty plus years. How I don't worry as much or make myself physically sick concerned with the future and things I cannot control. And how the people I have met recently who have left the church are good people, doing good in the world, who think for themselves. I don't like them all, I don't like all the things they do, but I like what they stand for. And no one is telling them to be good humans and they don't do it out of fear of eternal consequences. They struggle and they have problems and faults and failures, but they are not a bunch of people who were offended, who wanted to sin, who didn't try hard enough, or who just wanted to persecute those who now believe as they once did. It feels strange to say it in these words, but I KNOW that to be true.

Reflections from the Last Year

When I created this blog, back in the good old days, you know, 2008, I added the following under the name of my blog: "I write stuff and you decide whether you want to read it or not." I think I recognized I was writing mostly for me, but I sure wouldn't mind if someone else read it and possibly enjoyed it. Well, here I go again. Writing for me. And you decide whether you want to read it or not. In this case, if you are Mormon, I am almost certain you don't want to. I wouldn't have when I was a Mormon. Then again, you might. I mean, you do have free agency, right? In any case, if you don't like what you read below (whether you are Mormon or not) remember you decided to read it.

It was almost literally one year ago that I committed a serious wrong in the eyes of the LDS Church (the Mormons), and read some "anti-Mormon" literature. I used quotes there because it was not anti-Mormon literature, but I had been raised, and lived until I was nearly forty-four years old believing that's what it was. I had been taught and had truly internalized the teaching in the Mormon church to not read anti-Mormon literature. So I never did. Not in high school, when an insanely zealous born again Christian friend offered it to me, and even opened books and put them in my face. Instead, I followed another Mormon teaching to simply avoid talking of such matters altogether. The result of this was that this friend of mine, no longer was a friend. At least not NEARLY to the degree he had been. He became an acquaintance. I never speak to him now. I never read anti-Mormon literature while serving a full-time two year mission for the Church in Brazil, when angry opponents to our message wanted me to. And I never read anything during the 20+ years after my mission, during which time I was sealed in the Mormon temple in Dallas, raised three children in the church, and was an active member of the congregation in every ward I lived. But I did a year ago. More on what it was shortly.

The Book of Abraham. Ever heard of it? If you're not Mormon, probably not. The Book of Abraham for Mormons is scripture, the word of God, its teachings just as important as what is in the Book of Mormon, or the Bible. So what is the Book of Abraham? Well, I am looking right now at a copy I have had since my childhood, my name stenciled in gold on the front cover, so I can tell you EXACTLY what it says on the title page:

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.--The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

I will confess I never knew all the backstory to the bringing forth of the Book of Abraham as is briefly mentioned on its title page (and believe me when I tell you it is part of no lesson ever taught by any teacher in any class I ever attended at church, if by any teacher in any class), but I am sure I was happy the Lord had seen fit to somehow have delivered into the hands of his chosen prophet Joseph, this papyrus, upon which Father Abraham himself had written.

So you know what's funny? And by funny I mean I didn't find it funny in the least. What I read that most disturbed me, that upset me the most, that planted the first seed of doubt in my mind, the thing that caused me such great stress and rattled my testimony, this terrible fact I was exposed to simply by committing the error of reading anti-Mormon literature? The Mormon church did not refute it, did not deny it, and indeed, LDS scholars had researched and written long indecipherable treatises on the subject. 

The papyrus from which Joseph translated the writings of Abraham, a papyrus which is in the possession of the Mormon church still, does NOT in fact contain the writings of Abraham, nor any mention of Abraham, and it is universally known by scholars Mormon and non-Mormon, to be a common Egyptian funerary text from a time well after it is estimated Abraham would have been alive. This is fact. The Mormon church knows it and accepts it. And when I read this, it bothered me greatly, as I hope you can imagine it might have. I felt betrayed and tricked. I felt I had been treated as a child. I truly believed I should have been trusted to accept the truth of how the Book of Abraham came to be, whatever that truth was. "Dear Brother, we want you to know the Book of Abraham was NOT translated from papyrus, and Joseph simply felt inspired to write it." Sold! "Brothers and Sisters. It has come to our attention that the papyrus we previously believed to have been translated as the Book of Abraham, is a hoax, and we are removing it from our canon." Sold! "Dearest members, notwithstanding it is clear from Joseph's journals he believed he had interpreted characters on the papyrus to correspond to phrases and words in English, it is now also clear he did not, and we must conclude the papyrus simply served as a catalyst of some sort for the prophet to receive inspiration to write these great words we revere and rely on so much today." I'll take it! But the Mormon church took and takes no such position. 

And if you think it is ridiculous I might have swallowed any or all of those explanations, consider what I already gladly and fully believed when I read this information (whether the church has changed its position on any of these is immaterial, as I fully believed them when they were accepted church doctrines):

1. A fourteen-year-old boy LITERALLY saw and spoke to the all powerful and omniscient creator of the universe and universes without end, and his LITERAL son, Jesus Christ.

2. This Jesus Christ LITERALLY died, was dead for several days, but began to live again, and lives to this day.

3. A man or woman cannot aspire to reach the highest degree of glory God has prepared for all, if that man or woman;

    a. is not sealed to another man or woman (well, you know--one man to one woman [or more], or one woman to one man [but not more than one].

    b. does not wear a specific set of undergarments at nearly all times of their life.

    c. does not wear a specific set of outer garments (robes and aprons and veils and caps) during an ultra-sacred ceremony one must never speak of outside of the temple upon penalty of death (unless one did not go through the temple before 1990).

    d. does not know specific passwords, grips, and handshakes that guardians of the heavens will ask them for.

    e. drinks coffee and does not go through the full repentance process to clean one's self of this sin.

4. Negroes were spirits in our pre-mortal life with our Heavenly Father who were less valiant in a pre-mortal war between the spirit children of our father in heaven, and Lucifer and his followers. As such, any Negro cannot hold the Priesthood, the authority to act in God's name and perform sacred ordinances.

5. The previous teaching about Negroes was miraculously undone in 1978 by a loving God after constant fasting and prayer and long-suffering.

6. That my oldest brother and my now ex-wife (wife at the time), who both left the church many years ago, would continue to be affected and protected less and less by the spirit of the Lord and would be every day more susceptible to sin, wickedness, and unhappiness. (I shrugged away the reality that both seemed to do the absolute reverse of that.)

So, yes, I very much believe I might have believed any number of explanations about the true origins of the Book of Abraham, if any straightforward answer from the Mormon church had ever been released on the subject. Read the Mormon-church published essay yourself to see if you feel they have.

Just Getting Started

The baseball season only started officially on Sunday. And it's a long season. Very long. Only the third day today. But the Orioles won the first two games. In Tampa. Or wherever it is the Rays play. So some good things have happened. And at this pace, they will be 162-0. A little unlikely, I am told. That's fine. I'm not hoping for a perfect season, anyway. Just a good one. More wins than losses. Hopefully a lot more. But if you know me, you know I will be living and dying by what happens with the Orioles. Doesn't make a lot of sense, but it is what it is. IIWII. That's it is what it is. I might have made that up. Or maybe someone else did. Who knows.

For now, I am trying to see the upside:
Tillman looked good. Chen was decent but not great. Pearce has hit a couple bombs. De Aza looks good at leadoff. And the Yankees suck. Okay, I haven't paid any attention to them, but they still suck. Hardy will be back soon. And Davis tried to bunt. All good things as I see them.

And I am trying not to take these things for granted.

Retired

The co-worker over the cubicle wall from me is leaving for the next couple of days to go hunting. Hunting, people. Yes, hunting. He is doing this, you know, over the course of a couple of days that coincide with the first rounds of the NCAA tournament. Coincide is the wrong word.  They don't occur at the same time. The NCAA tournament occurs. Everything else is a nuisance. An afterthought. A waste of time.

So imagine how much this co-worker of mine have in common. He's very in to guns and motorcycles and chit-chatty small talk. A true candidate for my new best friend.

The NCAA tournament. Yes, I will be taking the afternoons off, or just ditching work (and if that bothers you, figure out who my boss is and go tell him) to watch as many early round games as I can. I get less and less satisfaction out of filling out a bracket and following my success (or lack thereof) in calling upsets, but I still love the games. And I love basketball. Watching it now. Not playing it.

Because I am retired.

I don't play basketball any longer. It is a difficult thing to write, but it has been true for a couple years now.

[Picture about ten blank pages of space here with no writing, since that might come the closest to conveying the first part of my feelings on this matter.]

Yeah, I don't play. And I used to. Used to seek out any and every opportunity to play this game I loved. I still love it. But not playing it.

I was a pretty good player at my best. Not great, but pretty good for a skinny white kid with coke-bottle glasses and sore knees from Caldwell, Idaho, who never saw the floor as a member of the varsity team, which he only made as a senior. I got better in college and perhaps a little more finesse came to my game in my twenties. And I could still bring it in my thirties.

I mean check this out. As a twenty-one year old, I could do the following: Be standing still with the ball in my hands about six or eight feet from the basket. One strong dribble as I moved closer to the basket, and a leap off of both feet (harder that running and jumping off of one foot for most people) and I could rise, cock the ball back behind my head, and then bring it forward and dunk it forcefully with both hands. Pretty neat stuff if I say so, myself. I didn't know (I know there are plenty of people who can, I am just saying I didn't personally know them) a lot of people who looked like me who could do that.

I was a decent shot, from both inside and outside the three point line (although not as good as my son by the time he was 17, dad burn it), and I was quick, could get around people, drive to the basket. I could score. But I never played defense. Never. I got some blocked shots and steals, but it was never a priority. You can't score on defense, you know.

But all I have now are memories of good games I had, times I dominated the gym, gave referees attitude (a lot of that, actually), and the fun it was to play basketball. I don't do it anymore.

I am retired.

I Already Know This (Do You?)

Something happened when I watched Sense and Sensibility. I mentioned this. Something changed inside me. I felt something I had not felt before. Sounds like a cliche, but I believe it.

I have not been a person to share my feelings freely, and when I do, there is some misleading going on. I put on a front, act a part. It is ever-present in my dealings with other people. Ok, yes, I know, same with everyone. Fine. But I don't like people. I don't have close friends. I don't bond. I don't. Ask anyone. Seriously. You'll not find a person on the earth who will say, "Oh, yeah, Phyllis? Good, close friend of mine." No one feels that way about me and that's fine. I don't feel that way back.

It is probably because I don't feel like someone could know me, know all about me, I mean ALL, and still think, oh yeah, totally still want to be his friend. Sure, I hear it all the time from the same sources one would expect about how great I am and I shouldn't think that way about myself, blah blah blah. Every person knows themself the best. So they can be their own worst critic. Typical human failing. So some people are able to overcome it? Perfect. Congratulations.

Maybe it's because I was a crybaby when I was a kid, wearing my emotions on my teenage sleeve for the world to see. Really embarrassing. Shameful stuff. So I taught myself NOT to feel. Or at least worked hard to conceal it. So there you go.

No. This is not a pity party or anything like that. I will make a point. Right now:

When I watched Sense and Sensibility something happened. And it happens every time (just watched it a couple weeks ago) or when I read a favorite novel. I feel something. I love. AND I admit it. Pretty silly thing for me to make a big deal about loving it, huh? I know, but that's it. That tells you how strongly I feel about it and how attached to it I have become. It is now part of my identity, part of ME. I can't remove it. I don't try. I want it to be true about me. I take pride in it.

It confuses people I will admit (if some strange series of events ever leads me to tell anyone about it), as most people will step back and do a double-take. "You? Really? That doesn't sound like you." I know.

But get used to it.