1.  True Latter-day Saints know that there is good in every religion.

2.  I wanted to show that LDS opinion on Islam was knowledgable and even-handed.  Most Latter-day Saint I know are not willing to accept the worst of Islam just because some loudmouth says so.

I would suggest reading Brother Spencer Palmer’s book, Mormons and Muslims, for a more thorough scholarly treatment.

3.  Many people that I know, both LDS and non-LDS, seem to conflate Islam with its virulent cousin, what David Horowitz calls “Islamo-Fascism.”  I felt that I had to properly define Islam before I could define Islamo-Fascism in contra-distinction.  The two are different.

4.  Perhaps most important, I am aware of attempts by people like Jon Krakauer and Timothy Egan to define the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by its worst elements–especially those who were cut off from the mainline Church long ago.  The Church shouldn’t be defined by apostates who were excommunicated long ago; Christianity as a whole shouldn’t be defined by the behaviour of medieval knights a millennium ago; and certainly, Islam shouldn’t be defined by those who violently pervert it.

There are several differences between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) and its apostate cast off (the FLDS):

1.  Though both accept the principle of polygamy, the Mormons–according to its law-abiding principles (See D&C 98:5-6 and AF 1:12)–discontinued the practice after the US Supreme Court declared its outlawing constitutional.  The FLDS–to this day–lives in defiance of the relevant laws.

2.  Even during their polygamy period, the Mormons limited the practise to those who could otherwise legally be married.  The age of consent was lower during the 19th century, but as it rose, the so did the age of plural wives.  Whether it is the first wife or the 25th, marrying underage women means excommunication.  On the other hand, it is reported that the FLDS still forces 14-year-ols women into marrying.

3.  Related to #2, among the Mormons, polygamy was entirely voluntary.  Not only must the intended husband and wife consent, so must every other wife.  The FLDS, to the contrary, leaves no choice regarding who marries whom.

4.  The Mormons did NOT require the practise.  There is a story about Elder Reed Smoot, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who was facing expulsion by the US Senate because of the Church’s polygamy.  Like the woman taken in adultery [John 8:3-11], Senator Smoot was dragged to the GOP Senate leader.  Spotting a few adulterers in the midst, the leader bellowed, “I would rather have seated beside me in this chamber a polygamist who doesn’t polyg than a monogamist who doesn’t monog.”  The FLDS tend to shun men who refuse to partake.

I will leave distinguishing extremists from normative Christians to the Apologetics Index, which declares, “The Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kansas, is a hate group masquerading as a Christian church.”  Over the past two and a half centuries, the USA has been working on the art of marginalising extremist Christians.  While we are still imperfect, the fact remains that the denizens of Topeka, Kansas need not worry about getting slaughtered by Westboro Baptists.

For the sake of those of us who must fight Islamo-fascism, and normative Muslims who wish to obey Allah’s will, rather than some mullah’s, I now distinguish the former from the latter:

1.  Devout normative Muslims care about morality; Muhammed Atta and his ilk were seen in strip clubs on 10 September 2001.

2.  Islamo-fascist state Iran executed a 16-year-old rape victim for “crimes against chastity.”   Devout normative Muslims believe that it is the rapist who should be executed (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4366).

3.  As my colleague, Dr. Greg Smith, pointed out, to a mainline Muslim, Jihad means to wage war against one’s sinful desires.  To the Islamo-fascist, it means, ”Kill the Infidel!” or, more accurately, “Kill anybody not like me!”

4.  To the Islamofascist, possessing the Bible is worthy of death; normative Muslims want to possess the Bible to better understand their Christian neighbours.  Moreover, mainline Muslims know that the Qur’an commands that Muslims study the Bible [Al-Baqarah, 2:121].

5.  To the Islamofascist, Christians and Jews are infidels to be killed.  To normative Muslims, they are “People of the Book,” and thus, allies in the fight against godlessness [See, for example, Quran, Al-Imran, 3:79-80].

6.  As I said in my earlier post, Islam preserved and extended knowledge.  Islamofascists prefer that we all live in the stone age.

7.  Normal Muslims see honour in being good hosts.  Killing Nick Berg, as the Islamo-fascists did–and prefer to do, is NOT hospitality!

Unfortunately, all this gets lost when, as commenter Rudy said in responding to my previous post, “moderate groups like CAIR” defend not only Muslims in general, but even extremists.  It is one thing to say that one abhors killing; one must also move to ostracise the extremists, or risk being tied to those extremists. 

I think that Islam could take a lesson from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It excommunicated Samson Avard and his Danites before they could do much damage. Unfortunately, that may have been too late to avoid Missouri’s extermination order.
Furthermore, the Church excommunicated not only the main perpetrator of the Mountain Meadows Massacre (John Lee), it excommunicated local authorities who were present at the atrocity–and did nothing to stop it. While Brigham Young was removed as Utah’s Governor, the excommunications probably prevented the US Army from continuing its quest to detroy the Church.

Why is there no overarching Muslim authority that condemns Islamofascist Jihad?  One possible answer is that normative Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity.  Not only is there a difference between Sunni and Shia Islam, each major group has many subsets.  Osama bin Laden is the leader of an extremist group in the ultra-conservative Wahabbi sect of Sunni Islam, the Qutbists.

Perhaps the normative Muslims are afraid of the extremists…. That is entirely possible, seeing that many of us won’t help protect the good ones from the bad….

The good Muslims need our prayers; the bad ones need to receive exploding daisy-cutters.

UPDATE:  There is a correction in the third from last paragraph.  Hat tip to Ray Agostini.

Check it out:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2008/05/hilarious-anti-mormon-attack-from.html

What we have in Mormon historiography is two Josephs: the one who started out digging for money and when he was unsuccessful, turned to propheteering, and the one who had visions and dreamed dreams, restored the church, and revealed the will of the Lord to a sinful world.

While Vogel argues that the pious fraud model can give us special insight into the mind of the prophet, the model is deficient in providing much explanation on other subjects. Richard Bushman pointed this out about Brodie’s (and by extension, I think, Vogel’s) biography in comparison to his own Rough Stone Rolling:

Many will prefer Fawn McKay Brodie’s account in No Man Knows My History. She portrayed Joseph Smith as a pious fraud who became a prophet despite perpetrating a hoax with the Book of Mormon. That does not work for me. In Brodie’s narrative. Mormon believers inevitably become simpleminded dupes. If Smith was a charlatan, everyone who followed him was deluded—including myself and all my Mormon friends. Making Joseph Smith an impostor may accord with our modern view of what is possible and impossible—no gold plates or angels, please—but it does not explain why he succeeded. Why did people then and now believe him? To understand their belief you have to get inside his world, in my opinion,and think of him as his followers did.

Pious fraud theory does a very poor job at handling the existence of the plates. However where students of Mormon history might be persuaded is in Joseph’s pre-translation activities as a village seer. Here Vogel’s thorough-going naturalism has the potential to more plausibly (in an Occam’s razor sense) explain the data in the early accounts. To paraphrase, Vogel asks us what is more plausible: believing in bleeding ghosts, slippery treasure, and seeing things underground that comes with the territory of treasure seeking folklore or simply believing that Joseph Smith deceived people into thinking he had spiritual gifts? As least one regular bloggernacle contributor (a very bright individual I might add) has embraced the latter:

Nor do I believe that God gave Joseph (and only Joseph out of the many, many treasure seers of early 19th-century New England) the power to actually see underground in his seer stones. So I’m left with some idea of Joseph the treasure seer as a fraud and a kind of backwoods con man.

The remarkable forthrightness is commendable, when so many historians merely report the substance of the treasure digging accounts and leave it up to their readers to judge their authenticity. In terms of apologetics, I think it is wise to be agnostic to things that are not part of our common experience like bleeding ghosts and slippery treasure, but I also think we need to go further and try to explain the consequences of choosing one position over another. To play Devil’s Advocate: If Joseph Smith misrepresented what he could see with his seer stone, I see no reason to tar his entire body of work. He was young and could have repented. If the data about his days as a treasure seeker are ambiguous, his religious works are not! Just about every high point in religious innovation came accompanied with profound spiritual experiences witnessed by multiple people.

It is difficult for me to advocate the pious fraud theory in such a manner. It seems to say more about a proponent author’s judgment on whether (and why) Joesph Smith lied on case by case basis (D&C 19, Zelph, polygamy denials, etc.) than it does about Joseph Smith. After polygamy and racial issues, the 3rd most common query to FAIR involves people disoriented by learning about seer stones. I think it is much more helpful to steer these individuals towards the literature that supports a prophet-in-training model as described by Mark Ashurst-McGee and to a lesser extent, Richard Bushman. As long as one doesn’t take the position that any explanation is better than the provided supernatural one, than I think this model holds up fairly well.

I actually think Joseph Smith was able to see treasure underground. He was able see the Book of Mormon in his seer stone before uncovering it. He had a reputation for being able to locate well water. He was able to read from the page of book with his back turned. He beat Martin Harris in a foot race through the woods with a blindfold on and relying only on his seer stone. He located a pin Martin dropped in a pile of straw. He described what inns David Whitmer had stopped at on his 3 day journey from Fayette to Harmony. He described the homestead of Josiah Stowell from a similar distance. He located some animals that had been lost for 3 days for a neighbor and a mare for another neighbor. Stowell found a buried money at “Bend Mountain” as Joseph represented it. Joseph kept tabs on whether the plates were safe through his divining aid. Dale Broadhurst pointed out to me an account where Joseph Smith sucessfully pointed out at which point a Judge Clark had dropped a wallet in a stream on a cross country trip. Many of these references are quoted in a message board thread I participated a few years ago on. I am aware that I am cherry picking the success accounts and not engaging in responsible source criticism.

Just to move forward, let’s take these anecdotes at face value. The question becomes how did Joseph see all of these objects obscured by distance or dirt? One model that I lack the expertise to thoroughly evaluate and hence leave for others is whether Joseph was crazy or mentally ill. The crazy model does an unsatisfactory poor job of explaining things observed by a group even when the power of suggestion, hypnotization, and propensity to hallucinate are considered.

Another model I won’t consider at length is the one used in the counter-cultists that concede that supernatural power was involved, but that it was all witchcraft and magic of the sort that the Bible strongly condemns. I think the Mormon apologetic response has been adequate in this area. Joseph Smith and many before and after him that had the gift of seeing thoroughly situated in the supernatural narratives of the Biblical good guys like Moses, Aaron, Samuel, Jesus, and the Apostles. In the Bible the presence of true wonder working prophets frequently drew competitors who duplicated miracles but drew power from false gods and evil spirits. If this paradigm has any understanding to offer, it might help explain some of Joseph’s failures as a treasure seer. Mischievous spirits could have been messing with Joseph Smith. It is not trivial that historical sources about Joseph incrementally have him learning how to discern evil spirits and the source of revelation whether it be of man, God, or the devil.

Moroni 7 is one such text that has been put into the service of the pious fraud model. Verse 16 reads in part

I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God

Looking through the lens of pious fraud. this passage might seem to suggest “the end justifies the means.” Restated, it is appropriate to lie if it brings someone closer to Christ. Such a reading, though, can at best be an ad hoc justification for something that has already occurred and produced observable pious results. It can’t be used in concocting a scheme, because the potential for disillusioned faith is immense if exposed. Whether the pious fraud is exposed or not, the impact, in general, is such that it strains the relationship the deceiver has with God. In sum, Mormon’s keys to discernment provide an interpretive framework when intent is not directly knowable. Mormonism has never embraced a strictly utilitarian philosophy if I read my Blake Ostler volumes right.

Vogel concluded an article locating numerous treasure digs by emphasizing Joseph’s failure as a treasure seer in contrast to his later success as a prophet. In some of these accounts of failure Joseph is described as reluctantly participating while being pressured to do so. Mormon apologists can comfortably admit that there were failures but some critics can’t admit to a single success despite overwhelming evidence. Vogel’s favorite story that illustrates that Joseph Smith was a pious fraud involves a friendly witness that described uncovering a feather but the treasure beneath it slipped away. Vogel considers it more plausible that Joseph planted the feather, but we have no evidence either way.

Vogel considers the failure accounts fit well within the general pattern of a charlatan in contrast to other historians have fit Joseph in the backdrop of other religiously-striving visionaries. What is interesting to me is despite having a law in the books against vagrant, defrauding seers and having over four years to build their case; Joseph’s opponents were unable to get a conviction. It seems odd that Joseph would form a profit-sharing company if he didn’t expect to find anything and he stuck around with his employer long after the initial dig was deemed a failure. If Joseph was a deceiving magician he was exceedingly bold to continue to do business in the same locale he was exposed. Perhaps Joseph didn’t read the How to be a Huckster guide very well.

I am open to suggestions how to better frame the issues or represent the arguments for or against the pious fraud model  of understanding Joseph Smith and what the challenges of advocating the seer-in-training-model are.

MarkW said: Actually, his wife did speak publicly about this at the exmo conference. So there is corroboration from her. I don’t remember how specific or on-point it was, so we’d have to go back and review that. And while her witness would not be direct corroboration of Tal’s meeting with the SP it’d be corroboration that the SP did say the type of things in question to someone else.

Craig Paxton, in a later comment, also indicated that Tracy had corroborated Tal’s story. I appreciated the tip; I had never taken the time to listen to Tracy’s comments at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference. (She was a member of a panel presentation on Sunday morning, October 15, 2006.) I found her comments very interesting and very moving. Tracy is obviously a person who loves her husband, her children, and at one time loved her life in the Church. During her 30 minutes or so of describing her exodus out of Mormonism, she indicated that Tal had gone and talked to the stake president, and then she said this:

I then went to visit the stake president myself because I thought surely something went awry in Tal’s meeting, and surely the stake president really did not say that; he couldn’t have–although I did believe Tal; I totally had believed him, but I had to see for myself. (That’s my way; I have to find out the hard way.)

As tears rolled down my cheeks, I asked him about all the distortions and problems, hoping he could give me some explanation as to how Joseph Smith could be a true prophet given everything he and I both knew. He unemotionally said “I don’t really know how he could have done these things, maybe it was just magic.”

As I walked out of the office with a broken heart, I realized that all of my most sacred beliefs were just lies.

That’s it; that’s the sum total of her description of talking with the stake president. Since it is nowhere near as detailed as what Tal has been saying for years, I’m not sure that this is the “independent corroboration” that some might view it as being–but more on that in a minute.

Tracy and Tal had read a lot of books before going to talk to their stake president. (Tracy said in her comments that she had read No Man Knows My History, Mormon Enigma, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, and Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith. It was this last one that convinced Tracy, in her words, that Joseph Smith was insane.)

By both of their admissions, Tal and Tracy reached their “it ain’t true” decisions before going to their stake president in separate interviews. In other words, their minds were already made up before they went to talk to him. It is hard for anyone–let alone a stake president–to make a difference against a mind that is already made up.

But, back to the idea of whether Tracy’s comments at the Exmormon Foundation conference corroborate Tal’s story. I don’t think they do because there simply is not enough information provided by Tracy to say that what she thought she heard was really corroboration.

Many purported histories (including, I believe, Brodie and Palmer) use words like “magic,” “folk magic,” or “magik” to describe the environment in which Joseph lived. Does the fact that people in his era believed in magic or practiced magic or felt closer to the divine than we do today make Joseph any less of a prophet? No, I don’t think so. Does the recognition that “magic” may have been involved and that the stake president may have told that to Tracy mean that he believed Joseph Smith was not a prophet? No, I don’t think so.

But I surely understand how Tal and Tracy could have been shocked by what they read in those books. I was knocked on my butt when I first read Mormon Polygamy: A History by Van Wagoner. I felt adrift for some time because the picture of Joseph painted by the author was markedly different from the picture that I had in my head. Right after reading it, in August 1990, I looked up the author’s address and went to his house, then in Lehi. He graciously let me in and, after exchanging pleasantries, I asked him point blank how anyone could learn these things and maintain their testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.

His answer? “I don’t know; everyone has to figure that out for themselves.” (He also signed my copy of his book: “Allen, best wishes in your search for the ultimate truth–that is the most rewarding pathway although not always the safest.”)

I was able to regain my footing through more study (not apologetics–just reading histories), lots of prayer, and lots of faith. It was through that study that I later learned (by going to original sources) that Van Wagoner presented a history that suffered from selection bias. This bias tended to put Joseph in a bad light, even when alternative views of the facts where possible.

So what does this have to do with Tal and Tracy and their ex-stake president? Quite a bit, actually. In Tal’s subsequent move away from the Church he has often stated that he doesn’t understand how people could learn the “facts” about the Church and Joseph Smith and still not conclude it is all a lie and a fraud. They and other critics invent “reasons” why people would stay in–it is safer, it is more comfortable, great social aspects, etc. Every reason they dream up avoids the one reason that they cannot face up to–that reasonable, intelligent people can examine the same set of facts and still conclude that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Church he founded is neither a fraud or a lie.

This, I believe, is where President Keyes was coming from. He could say that, yes, Joseph did some of these things. He could say that, yes, he understands how they may look bad. He could say that, yes, the information is disturbing. He could say that, yes, there may have been “magic” involved. But even with all that, it doesn’t change the fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet, divinely called of God to do an amazing work.

Would Tal and Tracy, who had already made up their minds that the Church was a fraud, have understood what the stake president was saying? Doubtful. Instead, they heard what they wanted to hear–validation for all the “bad” stuff they had read and, unfortunately, unintended vindication for the conclusions they had reached before meeting with the stake president.

The continuing thing that Tal and other critics fail to grasp is that it is a long way from “yes, Joseph did some of those things” to “he was a fraud.” There is plenty of room in between for belief and faith, but not for those who already have their minds made up.

-Allen

1. Islam asks for alms of 2.5% of Muslims’ income to care for the needy. As you know, we Latter-day Saints fast for two meals per month, then give a fast offering, for the same purpose. As our Prophets and Apostles and other authorities ask for a generous fast offering, I think the Muslim 2.5% level is a good benchmark in determining generosity of offerings.

2. Muslims care for personal morality. When I was a grad assistant several years ago, some of my Muslim students approached me asking about a Evangelical-led protest of the university’s “Gay Pride Week.” They wanted to join the Evangelicals’ protest against moral degeneration. I’ll tell you how it went another day.

3. The Quran often fills in historical gaps left by the Bible. For example, rape was a capital crime in ancient Egypt (actually in most societies–until recently), yet, the Patriarch Joseph was imprisoned, rather than executed [Genesis 39:7-20]. Why was that? The Sura, “Yusuf” (”Joseph”), clarifies: Potiphar’s (The Quran calls him by his title, Aziz) wife was a known liar, but to prevent Potiphar from losing face, Joseph had to suffer some punishment [An unfortunately too-common occurance throughout history! See Quran 12:27-33].

4. Muslim culture seems to put a high premium on hospitality. In my experience, typical Muslims seem quite eager to give the shirts off their backs–if that is what it takes–to show their guests a good time. It is so important to them, they will feel insulted if they are not permitted to show hospitality.

5. Remember all those Greek and Roman plays and other writings? While some of them were preserved by medieval Christian monks, it is quite possible that much of the literature, history, and other accomplishments of ancient Greece and Rome would have been lost forever without the Muslims copying them down. As things stand, it took more than a millennium to regain the flush toilet; imagine how long it would take if we would have had to “reinvent the wheel.”

6. The Muslims didn’t just preserve knowledge; they extended it. For example, the bane of high school freshmen everywhere, algebra, was a Muslim invention, from 1,000 years ago.

7. Moreover, the Muslims have enriched our lives with fine literature like the stories of Sinbad, the sailor (not the comedian!), “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves,” and Aladdin and his genie.

There are many more things for which I admire them that I haven’t listed.  Maybe some other day.

Another reason I thought that this list was a good idea was that many people think of Islam as a barbaric religion. These people tend to confuse Islamofascism with Islam. I will distinguish the two some other time.

Part of Tal’s exit story revolves around his interaction with his stake president at the time, Randy Keyes. Tal often tells, with incredulity, how he heard from his stake president that he didn’t believe in different aspects of the gospel either.

It appears that President Keyes has finally read some of Tal’s comments, notably a message left by Tal on the Mormon Discussions message board run by the infamous critic “Dr. Shades.” The comments by Tal are not new; he has been making the same comments for some time. (For example, in an abbreviated exit story on the Post-Mormon site.) I first read similar comments by Tal on the Recovery from Mormonism message boards about four years ago.

I am pleased to report that we no longer have to rely solely on Tal Bachman’s version of reality. I’m pleased to share with you an open letter from President Randy Keyes and a separate open letter from his wife, Julie. These letters are posted here with their permission.

Enjoy.

-Allen

Open Letter to Tal Bachman

April 27, 2008

Tal Bachman:

It’s me, President Randy Keyes. Someone brought to my attention that you have been purporting to quote me on the web. I read your comments about the talk we had five years ago on a message board post you made on April 17, 2008. I was surprised at how you reported things I never said, as if I had said them. I now want to speak for myself on what you chose to write.

First, you stated that my term as stake president is over. I’m not sure how you would have gotten such incorrect information, but I am still stake president of the Victoria British Columbia Stake. You also reported that I said that Joseph Smith “hadn’t told the truth” and that he “invented stories” and that he “deliberately took advantage of girls.” I never said these things, nor do I believe these statements. These are your statements, not mine. You have invented things I did not say.

When we spoke, I tried to listen to and acknowledge your thinking, but you obviously did not listen to me. Here is my reality: For as long as I can remember, I have had a knowledge that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God. In my childhood I visited Palmyra often. At age 14 I felt a spiritual witness of the reality of the First Vision while in the Sacred Grove. At age 16 I experienced a spiritual confirmation of Joseph Smith as a prophet while I stood in Carthage Jail. At age 18 I had a life-changing spiritual witness of Christ as my Lord and King. At age 19, while reading the Book of Mormon, I found myself in the presence of prophets (I did not, as you said, communicate with them). There have been many other spiritual events, including at the present time as I serve in the Victoria Stake.

I know God the Father and Jesus Christ personally visited Joseph Smith. I know that Moroni visited Joseph Smith and I felt a strong confirmation of this when I recently stood in the upstairs bedroom of the rebuilt Smith log cabin where Moroni stood. I know he led Joseph to the gold plates, that they were translated by the gift and power of God into the Book of Mormon.

I believe that John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John restored Priesthood authority to the earth because I have seen the Priesthood in action. I regularly feel its power as it moves the Stake along and as it influences the individuals I get to work with and talk to. As I said to you and your wife, I do believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

How is it that our memories of our interview are so different? In our talk I felt your questions and struggles were genuine.; I wanted to help. In my profession as a therapist (as in our discussion) I try to follow the principle of “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” In that initial visit it was your turn to talk. I accepted that you could not find peace on your interpretation of historical items you read concerning Joseph Smith. I listened and reflected what I heard, and when I would nod and say, “sure,” it was an indication that I was listening and that what you were saying was comprehendible.

Because I was listening for understanding, I carefully, mildly challenged some of your views by stating my beliefs and witnesses, and as to “scrutiny,” I am convinced that the Church will continue to stand up well. Over time, truth will prevail and the Church and Brother Joseph will be further exonerated and praised. Misinformation, misrepresentation, and misunderstandings will be diminished.

In your message board post you reported that I said my mission president made up motivational stories to get missionaries to follow him. You also indicated that I said Joseph Smith did the same thing. Let me be clear: I never said my mission president made up stories or that Joseph Smith did. My mission comments regarding motivation centered on the president observing that some people are motivated by external supports (like newsletters that announce top baptismal numbers) while others have quiet, inner motivation. I did not talk about “making up stories.”

Understanding each other—especially in spiritual things—is not a single event but an ongoing process. It was my hope that we would have ongoing discussions so you would get to eventually understand my views and testimony. In the first interview, I provided what I viewed as acknowledgement that I understood what you were saying, not an acknowledgment that what you were saying was true. In future discussions, had they occurred, we would have talked more about those matters, continuing with hope and faith until more information settled your questions. I felt that when I spoke of my spiritual confirmations your response was, “Yeah, but what about…” This was a dismissing of my views, and it is obvious from your message board post that you neither understood those views nor have you reported them correctly.

I decided to choose to listen to you. My hope was that I would be heard on some other day. Regarding your comments about my thoughts of being personally comfortable as a member of the Church, but it not necessarily being for everyone, I meant that not all people are ready for it. Not all people are ready for the commitment, rules and obligations that accompany Church membership. However, as they continue to investigate the gospel and the Church, this engagement will hopefully expand with time, involvement, and repeated episodes of being touched by the Holy Ghost. An LDS lifestyle offers such opportunities on many occasions. I would have loved to have you stay involved and I believe that with more time you would have received answers to many of your questions.

The personal improvement I get from living the gospel is only one aspect of my testimony. There are many layers and dimensions to what I know and am a witness to and I continue to learn spiritual truths with time. The knowledge that matters is the first-hand knowledge we receive from God. The constant invitation in the Church is to ask God and get your own witness. There is no compartmentalization in my gospel understanding. There are things I know and things I believe, things I hope for, and some things I don’t have answers for yet; it is a connected continuum. We worship with both knowledge and faith.

I hope in the past that I expressed understanding and compassion for your struggles. I perhaps did not do the back half of “…then [seek] to be understood” very well. I trust that these comments settle any guessing that you or others have about why I am an active member of the Church. I do know the gospel is what it claims to be. I cannot comprehend the idea that anyone would believe that a stake president would keep serving if he did not believe the gospel to be true. There is no reason anyone would give this service if he didn’t believe this is, literally, the Church of Jesus Christ. This gospel gives me a fuller life, my involvement in it feeds my soul, and it provides the way for me to worship God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

This, Tal, is my position and reality. I trust that you will now afford me the courtesy that I afforded you—to be understood.

Your brother,

Randy Keyes

Open Letter to Tal Bachman from Julie Keyes

April 27, 2008

Tal,

I feel very frustrated that you have misquoted my husband so grossly. I know that you have misquoted him because I know my husband intimately and I know he would not make the statements you attribute to him. In your message board post you insinuated that Randy may not have been truthful with me about his feelings about Joseph Smith. You couldn’t be farther from the truth. The most important thing we have learned in our 28 years together is to be honest with each other. His only thoughts and feelings about Joseph Smith have been admiration and respect and a belief that Joseph Smith was honest and forthright with great integrity and courage.

Repeatedly, over the years, I have turned to Randy for clarification of doctrine and understanding of the scriptures and the deeper things of the gospel. He has always given me amazingly clear, insightful feedback. His understanding of the restored gospel is incredibly sound. He has shared with me several very sacred witnesses that he has received. I believe him because I know he is an honest man. We have been through too much together not to know this. We have cried together, laughed together, struggled and triumphed together. Through it all he has repeatedly, unceasingly, unflinchingly expressed his awe, respect, and reverence for the gospel of Jesus Christ, for Joseph Smith, and for the restoration. He has expressed these things in quiet ways; he does not grandstand.

As a convert to the Church at age 21 (I joined the Church a year before I met Randy) I am an independent thinker and have had some very powerful witnesses myself. I have the perspective of living my first 20 years without the gospel. The difference is quite profound. When I compare the difference between my life before joining the Church and after, it is like night and day. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ fosters deeper thinking; a broader perspective; a richer, more satisfying life; and ongoing, multiple spiritual events and experiences.

Unfortunately, in our attempts to be understood, semantics will never be enough; human language is too limited. Knowing Randy, he was just trying to empathize with your feelings. I am disappointed in you for misrepresenting my husband. You misunderstood him. I believe you have assumed too much and taken liberties with what my husband said.

Your sister,

Julie Keyes

A simple polygamous example involves 6 people:
one man has 3 wives
two men have none

In this model, one man’s gain is another man’s loss. I would like to explore, through some preliminary statistical analysis, why this isn’t an adequate model for 19th century Mormonism, but it may be relevant to contemporary FLDS. I say “may” because I do not have enough data about the FLDS to make a judgment. I can, however, address whether the criticisms lobbied at them apply to 19th century Mormonism.

I can identify a number of modern sensibilities and assumptions underlying the above scenario.

1. A husband and wife marry close to the same age. On average, a husband is 2.3 years older than his wife.
2. If you form an age demographic pyramid by stacking blocks each with a length proportional to the population in each age range, then the US pyramid currently looks more like a column (see Table A-1).
3. Assuming that 1. and 2. persist for some time, it follows that the marriage pool has the same number of men as women, therefore one man’s gain is another’s loss.

We could find a solution to this dilemma using modern statistical numbers. Here is an example that models the current US marriage market that involves 100 men and 100 women selected at random between ages 40 through 44. In that sample you can expect to find 18 men and 13 women that have never married. Now suppose you had a time machine and the ability to arrange consensual plural marriages. You could arrange 7 two-wife arrangements and 3 three-wife arrangements before creating more “lost boys” than the 18 created without your interference. While this example is somewhat contrived, it illustrates a couple of points. First more men choose not to ever marry than do women in their age group. Second, the modern marriage market operates at nowhere near 100% efficiency for marrying off all its females.

The commenter cited above concludes her simple example with “I don’t want to live in a society where 2/3 of the men are unmarried and not invested in community life.” This is ironic because she already lives in a society that is 2/3 of the way there already with 44% of males aged 20-45 being menaces to society.

Of course 19th century Mormonism operated and the FLDS operates at much closer to that 100% efficiency. According to Kathryn Daynes in More Wives than One (p. 93-94), 99% of Manti Mormon women born mid 19th century eventually married while only 89 to 93% of their US peers did. Missionary work brought in a steady supply of converts and emigrants. Daynes showed that spikes in new marriages closely followed incoming waves of newly arriving emigrants. That is one advantage 19th century Mormons had over the FLDS who do not actively proselyte. The 19th century practice seemed to regulate itself after a rough, overzealous start during the Mormon Reformation in 1857. The percentage of polygamists declined with time to meet long term sustainable levels.

There were two other 19th century monogamous strategies (besides increasing efficiency) that were available to alleviate the zero-sum, simplistic example above. The first was to increase the age difference between husbands and wives from 2 to 5 years on average. That doesn’t help by itself; but if each mother raises an average of, say, 8 children (typical for 19th century) instead of less than 2 like they do now days, then the age demographic pyramid will truly be a pyramid instead of a column (or worse considering the baby boom retirees coming up). Let us see how this worked in Utah for marriage market broken down by age from the 1880 census from Ancestry.com.

Some valuable information can be extracted from this table. For one, it helps bust the myth that polygamy was needed to compensate for Utah having a higher women population than men. Men had higher life expectancies than women, especially on the frontier, and especially considering that many women died in child birth before the advent of modern medicine. Clearly men are not being invited to leave Utah to ease tension in the marriage market, outside of serving temporary missions, of course. The table also helps visualize what happens to unmarried pool for men who married on average 5 years younger than themselves. The most active age ranges for marrying off is the 15-19 range for women who had first pick of men moving into the age where they could comfortably support a wife between.the 20-24 age range for men.

According to L. L. Bean and G. P. Mineau in The Polygyny-Fertility Hypothesis: a Re-evaluation, the polygamists of the birth cohort (1840-1859) most relevant to the 1880 census married a second wife that was, on average.one year younger than a monogamist Mormon’s first wife. This suggest that single men had an advantage in the marriage market over their already married peers. Furthermore, the widening age difference between a polygamist male and his subsequent wives moved reality even further away from the zero-sum example above.

Now I am sure that some of those numbers add fuel to the fire of critics who decry the youth of some of these brides. I have also compared the 1880 census results for Utah and the rest of the nation. The national percentage for married 13-14 year old females was 3-4 times higher than it was for Utah. For age 15 the trend reversed as the nation’s 1.3% compared to Utah’s 2.0% For age 16, Utah was within 50% of the national rate and at age 17 Utah was still less than double the nation. Before anyone makes a big deal of this, the nation’s 1850 teenage marriage rates are higher (at least preliminarily) than Utah’s 1880 rates. Like Seth said (paraphrase), we will apologize for our ancestor’s polygamy when the critics apologize for their ancestor’s monogamy.

So where did the 19th century lost boys go? Perhaps they went to Neverland, as my research has failed to find any evidence of them. For males aged 20-35 leaving Mormonism would have made their prospects for marriage substantially worse.

[Mitt Romney's] faith was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith Jr., an itinerant treasure-seeker from upstate New York who used a set of magic glasses to translate a lost scripture from God. His personality was infectious, the religion very approachable.

It would have been just another Christian faith had not Smith let his libido lead him into trouble. Before he died at the hands of a mob, he married at least 33 women and girls; the youngest was 14, and was told she had to become Smith’s bedmate or risk eternal damnation.

Smith was fortunate to find a religious cover for his desire. His polygamy “revelation” was put into The Doctrine and Covenants, one of three sacred texts of Mormonism. It’s still there – the word of God. And that’s why, to the people in the compound at Eldorado, [Texas,] the real heretics are in Salt Lake City.

As his biographer, Fawn Brodie, wrote, Joseph Smith “could not rest until he had redefined the nature of sin and erected a stupendous theological edifice to support his new theories on marriage.”

It is hard for me to imagine more factual errors and loaded language that could be squeezed into four short paragraphs.

It’s clear that Mr. Egan has done little research to prepare himself to opine on Latter-day Saint history. His two sources of information, by his own admission, are Fawn Brodie’s 1945 psychobiography of Joseph Smith and Jon Krakauer’s 2003 examination of the religious murders committed by the Lafferty brothers. As one observant commenter noted:

Having read Brodie and Krakauer [Mr. Egan] believes he knows what there is to know about Mormonism. If he had cited Mark Twain’s line about the Book of Mormon being “chloroform in print,” the piece would have then qualified as carbon copy to 10 or 12 others that have run during the last year.

Nothing seems to indicate that Mr. Egan is aware of scholarship that questions Brodie and Krakauer’s methodology and conclusions (for example, here and here). It’s also quite clear that Egan isn’t aware of the differences between the 19th-century LDS practice of polygamy and the 21st-century FLDS practice of polygamy. (To say nothing of the differences between the FLDS practice today and just 50 years ago.)

Mr. Egan’s use of Fawn Brodie to understand Joseph Smith speaks volumes. Ms. Brodie’s book, despite its enduring popularity, is seriously dated. An enormous amount of research into Joseph Smith’s life has been done in the last 62 years, and her book has long been superseded, especially by the recent biography by Richard Bushman.

But what I believe attracts Mr. Egan to Brodie is not so much her research, but her conclusions. Brodie, the thoroughgoing naturalist, simply dismissed any statements made by contemporary believers, chalking them up to delusions or Joseph Smith’s powers of hypnotism. Having eliminated faithful witnesses, she was able to substitute her own theory for the existence of Mormonism — lust, greed, and accidental chance. It is no wonder that Brodie remains so popular among sectarian and secular critics of Mormonism, for it provides the only possible explanation for the miracle of Joseph Smith, no matter how ham-handed. (I’m still trying to understand Mosiah 3, Alma 36, and D&C 88 as the products of mind solely fixated on bedding young girls.)

Unfortunately many otherwise intelligent readers will be exposed to Joseph Smith only through the eyes of Timothy Egan, and that is a tragedy.

Recently, Republican activist Bob Cunningham put Democrats up in arms by stating Senator Obama’s [D-IL] full name: Barack Hussein Obama. Senator John McCain [R-AZ] quickly apologised, and denounced Cunningham. Several right-wing personalities, such as Sean Hannity, defended Cunnungham, with words to the effect of, “Why get mad at the truth?”

Here’s why: As the New York Times indicates, Senator Obama’s middle name is Muslim in origin. Anybody remember the late Iraqi dictator from Gulf Wars I and II? Such pranks lead people to think that Senator Obama is a Muslim when he is a Christian (While Obama’s Church may be quite wacky–or worse, it is Christian nonetheless.). In short, using Senator Obama’s middle name is tantamount to using a true statement to give an untrue impression.

Anti-Mormons do the same thing when they point out that Satan and Jesus are brothers in LDS doctrine. Actually, they do more than that. While in LDS doctrine, ALL beings of spirit have God as a Father [Hebrews 12:9], and yes, that does include Jesus and Satan, anti-Mormons go on to at least imply that this true doctrine means that, in LDS doctrine, Satan is somehow Jesus’ equal–and Jesus’ ally. Indeed, more than one of my Evangelical acquaintences are at least honest enough in their hatred of all things LDS (Do you see why I cannot call them “friends”?) to tell me outright that our doctrine means exactly that.

Where I come from, using true statements to convey falsehoods is false witness. Elder Marvin Ashton tells us that “A lie is any communication given to another with the intent to deceive.” Both Cunningham’s and “Finn’s” statements were designed to deceive people into thinking falsehoods, and hence, both statements are lies. Christians–including Latter-day Saints–are–or should be–better than that.

“Tumbleweed, NV, April 21st: Government officials raided an offshoot Baptist compound yesterday following an alleged 911 call from a 16-year-old girl claiming that her husband had beat her with a one-inch-thick stick. In all, 500 women and children were evacuated.

“Said Mustangranch County Sheriff Darius Dust, ‘We had to move. The founder was already convicted of statutory rape and incest. We just couldn’t afford to have any more abused kids.’

“Dust was referring to the founder/pastor of the First Redneck Baptist Church, Reverend Jerry Lee Lulu, convicted last month of marrying his 13-year-old first cousin. Lulu founded the Church because he was concerned that the Redneck traditions of the Old South in Appalachia was becoming lost in the rapidly-modernizing world. Lulu’s group fled their original settlement in Lorettalynn, WV, after local authorities announced a probe of illegal activities. In addition to allegations of statutory rape and spousal and child abuse, Coaldust County, WV District Attorney John B. Goode claimed that there were credible charges of “moonshining,” or making illegal alcohol. However, the group fled the jurisdiction before charges could be filed, and Goode declined to press the matter further. ‘I just figured that it was now Nevada’s problem,’ Goode explained.

“At the request of state authorities, the Tumbleweed Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints assisted in the evacuation by providing a caravan of busses and cars, and housing the evacuees in their Mustangranch Nevada Stake Center. Said Bishop Harry Dingy, of the Tumbleweed Ward, ‘What a wonderful opportunity to minister and show hospitality to our non-LDS neighbors!’”

If the details of the above story disturb you, maybe you can see why this article disturbs me.

UPDATE:

I see that I generated some good comments. Many of you saw exactly what I was driving at, others found that I was somewhat obscure, and still others thought I was offensive. So, let me explain some of the obscurities:

a. I changed names in order to not disparage anyindividual persons or religious group. It is the principle I wish to discuss; not to condemn anybody.

b. My use of some far-out names had two purposes:

1. It is a tool to avoid heavy-handedness in discussing those issues. I found in an earlier post that, in a matter so serious, it is easy to get “carried away,” and to “lay it on thick.” I want to avoid repeating that mistake.

2. I wanted to illustrate Point I, below.

These are some of what I’m driving at:

I. The media–and politicians–have an agenda, and use overstatement to cause people to believe that agenda. Fearmongering about global warming, for example, was designed to induce people to accept drastic political control to avert an alleged catastrophe when it would be smarter to take advantage of global warming’s good points (They DO exist!! Two benefits are fewer frostbite and hypothermia deaths, and a longer growing season.), while mitigating its bad ones.

II. I reversed roles, because most people are not LDS, and could more readily see potential church-state issues in a group that is less-than-popular than one that is in the mainstream. Perhaps that is why, in real life, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declined court offers to participate in Texas’ efforts.

III. Why did the State of Texas evacuate ALL of the women and children? True, there was a 911 call, allegedly from a 16-year-old girl who claimed to be abused and statutorily raped, but did that–and Warren Jeffs’ conviction mean that ALL of them were victimised in that manner?

IV. Is the fact that the target is an unpopular religion an “entering wedge” for an assault on more mainstream faiths? EVERY faith has aspects that seem bizarre to others.

V. What about members of the group that are innocent of wrongdoing? How are they going to clear their names? There ARE instances of false accusations.

VI. What about the psychic costs of separation from one parents–when neither did anything wrong?

VII. Finally, what happened to due process? The kids were innocent–by Texas authorities’ admission. Why weren’t they given legal representation?