Excommunication: Is it such a bad thing?

While my mother was watching "The Mormons," a woman was being interviewed about her excommunication. The documentary discussed, at length, excommunication, or the practice of removing an individual from membership. The slant in the documentary at this part is that excommunication is a horrid practice that splits families into fractures and that the LDS Church is awful for such a practice. This woman, Margaret Toscano, told the story of the Church Disciplinary Council that was held for her. After being told she was excommunicated, she related how the stake presidency and high priests offered to shake her hand: to quote directly, with niceness referring to the handshakes, she said, "the niceness covered over the violence of what was being done, because, in fact, excommunication is a violent action."

I watched momentarily as she spoke, and as my mother seemed relatively captured by the woman's words, I spoke up, saying, "If that's what she has to say about excommunication, she has no idea of it's purpose." My statement is truth. Fact.

The purpose of excommunication has nothing to do with shaming an individual, despite the fact that I guarantee more than one individual would argue this point with me. Just because you think it's about shaming, someone for doing something against the Church's doctrines, doesn't make it so. As much as I may want to float up to the stars, believing I'll suddenly be able to doesn't bring me any closer to those stars. For those who view it as shameful don't understand it's purpose.

It is viewed, undeniably, as a punishment for not keeping the commandments; no, for breaking the commandments to such an extent that simple repentance can't answer the ends of the law. When we break a law, there is a due that must be paid: justice demands it. However, I will argue with any who contend with me, that it's both a punishment and a blessing. And you'll see how and why by the end of this post.

When Jesus Christ was ministering to the peoples on the American continent after he showed himself to his disciples in Jerusalem and then ascended into heaven, he taught the doctrine of the sacrament. After administering the sacrament to the people, he turned to the disciples he had chosen there, and said this: "And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it; For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him." Whoa! That's some harsh doctrine, no? We can get into semantics about what it means to be unworthy, but I'll just point out one of the footnotes on "unworthily," and that says, "Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I will receive you."

OK, so if we're unworthy, we don't want to be taking the sacrament, 'cause that's where the whole "eateth and drinketh damnation to [our souls]" comes in, and that just isn't something we want to be doing. So the Lord explained that "Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood." All right then, to be able to partake of the sacrament and not damn our souls, we need to repent, because that's the only way we can return to our Heavenly Father (to clarify for any Episcopalians who may be reading and think that last statement was blasphemous, I'll reword it: "we need to repent, utilizing the great Atonement performed by Jesus Christ, because that's the only way we can return to our Heavenly Father.")

On that note, have you ever noticed how often Heavenly Father is recorded as speaking to man? Not very often at all. Given this scarcity, one can assume that whenever God does speak, it's important and we 'ought to be listening, we 'ought to be doing what He tells us. In a vision, received by a prophet in the Book of Mormon, we're told that "...the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son." So it's important we do whatever it is God tells us. Now, how important would something be if He repeats it? He said, "Repent ye, repent ye," think about that.

All right, let's say we're unworthy to take the sacrament, and we've decided for whatever reason, not to repent. What do the scriptures say about that? Well, Jesus Christ continued, saying, "But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered." What does it mean to not be numbered among the people of Christ? The aforementioned scripture completely explains it. Christ said, "I know my sheep, and they are numbered," and therefore, those who are not Christ's are not numbered, and those who reject Christ after knowing him "shall not be numbered."

In an article by M. Russell Ballard, we're told in the first few lines that "When members need to have certain blessings withheld, the Lord’s object is to teach as well as to discipline. So probation, disfellowshipment, and excommunication, when they become necessary, are ideally accompanied by eventual reinstatement and restoration of blessings" (italics added). Justice demands the dues be paid, but if we repent and turn back to Christ, he will pay those dues for us: he's promised he will, and he's bound by those promises. Elder Ballard speaks of excommunication (probation, and disfellowship) as a way to start over, indeed, the main part of the title of his article is "A Chance to Start Over," and so to again quote Elder Ballard, "[The Lord] is pleased to extend the chance [to us] to start over."

Excommunication is a form of protection. If I break one of God's laws after having made the most sacred of covenants with Him that I wouldn't, I come under grievous condemnation. If I continue on with breaking those laws and don't repent, I have guaranteed my condemnation. However, if I'm called to sit before a Church Disciplinary Council, I should have much gratitude for those men! Let's say they excommunicate me - what does that mean? It means the consequences for the laws I break after excommunication will not be as severe as they would be had I remained a member of the Church. That's what it means, period, despite any emotions I may have at losing my membership because of poor decisions I made, and sins I committed.

In a Q&A in a Church distributed magazine for youth called the New Era, Elder Robert L. Simpson answered the question: "What are the reasons for and the process of excommunication?" In this article, he states, "It is usually those who are so far removed from the spirit of truth as to be imperceptive to the love of Christ and the need for proper priesthood reprimand who leave the Church court with belligerence and ill feeling toward their priesthood leaders. These people are seldom sorry for what they have done but only sorry they have been caught."

To relate this back to Ms Margaret Toscano, interviewed for The Mormons, I believe this statement applies, unquestionably to her. She questioned the divine nature of the church with regard to the First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith, contended that women should hold the Priesthood and that it was something Joseph Smith actually taught, and also that he even bestowed the Priesthood upon women during temple ordinances. She also taught about Heavenly Father and the concept of a Heavenly Mother, which isn't alien to most members of the church (see Hymn 292, verse 3); the only twist she added was that Heavenly Father was both man and woman, the Father and the Mother in one. She believed in the false doctrine she was spreading, and as the Saviour himself stated, "...if [s]he repent not [s]he shall not be numbered among my people, that [s]he may not destroy my people..." Although this statement is harsh, such is the nature of truth. And why do I feel it's acceptable for me to analyze her this way? Because she's the perfect example, she spreads false doctrine that could unhinge the faithful, and she went on national television and spoke against the truth.

Excommunication is a saving grace. It is not meant to split up families, although families may choose to distance themselves from those who have been excommunicated - this is their right, just as it's their right to disagree with the beliefs or actions of one of their family members. I understand the distancing of oneself from a family member who has been excommunicated and refuses to repent and work towards having their ordinances, sealing, or priesthood restored to them. It is a practice that places a greater distance between God and the excommunicated, for the protection of the sinner. There can, and should be a happy ending for excommunicated members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ": Part II

All right, feeling gross and ill has kept me away, so I apologize for that, but let's get back into it. This is a... Review, I suppose, for the film, "Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith," produced by "Search for the Truth." From what I can tell, this is meant to be an unbiased analysis of Mormonism and how it compares to Christianity. This I find funny. Are Christians not defined as people who believe in, and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Apparently not. Let's dive in, shall we?

In my post entitled, ""Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ": Poignant or Pointless?", I listed two flaws in the film. One was the use of a quote by Elder Orson Pratt, taken from the periodical known as The Seer, which in 1865, received this damning statement from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. With regard to Elder Pratt's teachings they said, "The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed." Now, the quote is a pretty good one, where Elder Pratt wrote, "Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information." Some context for this quote would have been nice, especially since someone searching for that quote would run across the fact that in that article, Elder Pratt was addressing his defenses of polygamy. Without knowing of the existence of the statement made by the leaders of the Church, that could perhaps cause some degree of damage someone's faith. Although, that's the job of the people at "Search for the Truth."

I haven't looked into any more of the video yet than I had watched as of Sunday, April 18th, so I can only presume that the way in which they quote scripture will continue throughout the rest of the video. What I'm referring to is the fact that they'll summarize the part of the scripture they aren't interested in, and then quote whatever part of the scripture they consider the focus. This is not only misleading but has a tendency to pervert the scriptures, and places on that scripture the restrictions of whatever interpretation they have made in their summary.

Let's continue. I'd say, "onward and upward," but something tells me that's not somewhere this DVD is heading, specifically in terms of how it's probably going to present the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So this is obviously where I think this DVD is headed, and after my analysis is done, I'll write a much shorter review of their DVD, just to sum things up.



OK, instantly, by their dividing of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ to "determine which one holds the truth," we're presented with a dichotomy, as though Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ cannot be accepted together. I feel somewhat deceived, because the form of Christianity we're being presented with is the version of it that is riddled with Catholic believes, such as the Trinity. We're asked, "did he become a god through the faithful keeping of his ordinances, or has he always been the only true God?" This we're told, despite references in the Bible to Jesus Christ and his Father, such as the statement made by Christ at Golgotha, recorded in Matthew and Mark (with slight differences), "...Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Why would Christ ask this? If he is God and Christ, could he really forsake himself? How do they explain this scripture? Food for thought, and no doubt something to keep in mind while we venture through this DVD.

Another dichotomy is the presentation of scriptures: the Bible, or the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is claimed by the Latter-day Saints to be the most correct book on earth. Indeed, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 4:461) This does not mean that the Book of Mormon is without errors, nor does it mean that we disbelieve the Bible. Our 8th Article of Faith states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God" (italics added). We believe in, and revere the Bible, but believe it was a book for the people of old. The Book of Mormon is likewise believed in and revered, the difference being that we believe it has come forth by the gift and power of God for the generations of people on the earth right now.


OK, now around 2:30 minutes into it, we're presented with the claims, or dichotomies, of Mormonism and Christianity: "both claim Jesus is the Christ, both refer to the teachings of the Old Testament, both claim to be the truth." Am I the only one seeing a problem here? Then, "lets now examine these two men and their teachings." A 10 second backtrack will reveal something interesting. She says, "both claim Jesus is the Christ." A look through Merriam Webster's dictionary tells us that a Christian is " one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." So what's with this splitting of "Christianity," and "Mormonism," when Mormons are, in fact, and by definition, Christians?

Can you tell I'm having fun? Now, at just under 3 minutes into this, we're examining the person of Jesus according to "Search for the Truth." This is where I'm going to stop this post. And in explaining why, it's due to the fact that, although it may sound silly, or funny or ridiculous, I'm feeling too contentious. At this point I'd rather have a post that's as unbiased as it can possibly be, and when people become emotionally involved in their subject, bias is more prone.

Since the introduction has been covered though, I think it'll be relatively easy to go through the rest, especially since the groundwork has been set about which kind of Christianity is being compared here, and we've established that it's somewhat backwards in it's analysis of there being a dichotomy of either Christianity or Mormonism.

Anti-Mormon Drivel

While puttering around my documents I located one entitled, "Anti-Mormon Drivel." I've mentioned it before, but one of my siblings had made a post on their LiveJournal, which has since been taken down, about various fallacies regarding the Church. I think he was simply upset and trying to "educate" those in our family who had joined the Church, or was just venting, but the post wasn't kind at all. After reading it, many years ago, I resolved to look up each reference in the paper and refute it with the truth. Believing it to be lost, I worked hard to try and find the batch of lies again so I could address them, but to no avail. Having found it gives me great satisfaction. It's about three pages or so and I've refuted a couple points it brings up, but will be working hard at finishing my rebuttal. It was with great disappointment that in looking for it in a search engine, I was drawn to the supposed "original." I was just upset that my sibling hadn't actually looked up anything about the Church, but instead copied and pasted what someone else had put out there. So! The point of this post is to express my happiness in having found it, and to assure everyone that it'll be a good read once I have it posted - so check back!

"Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ": Poignant or Pointless?

So, I had the opportunity to go to the temple on Saturday with some out-of-country friends: a former Sister missionary and her husband, their daughter and mother-in-law. As soon as we got over the crest of the hill, I saw a lone protester and was instantly giddy. I don't know what it is, but ever since I went to Salt Lake for the October 2008 General Conference, I find protesters to be.. well, a form of entertainment I guess.

Here's a photo I took from atop the Conference Centre of the protesters along the Square. My favourite is the guy left of centre, yeah, the one in the Satan outfit.

When I first joined the Church I had never heard of the "Mormons," and a few months into the year 2004 I went online and began looking at anti-Mormon material. I got wound up in this particular LiveJournal that claimed to be a place for "recovering Mormons," meaning LDS members who had left the faith. I forget the subject matter, but something caught my attention and I experienced a trial of faith. I posted a few times on the LJ and although a few of the people there claimed I was a "troll," someone else seemed keen on helping me through my difficulty, no matter which direction I chose: to continue with the Church, or to leave it. They believed I was actually experiencing a trial of faith, and I'll always be grateful to that mystery person for not pushing their own agenda but for helping me figure out what I wanted and believed.

Anyway, since then I've always been drawn to anti-Mormons, and though I stayed away from it for a couple years after that, I've gone through two stages with regard to my reactions to them: first I felt anger towards them, and now I react with a bit of humour. Yes, I find anti-Mormons funny. Well, for the most part, that is until I actually meet one who knows what they're talking about and have done their own research - then my response is a kind of searching interest.

So when we were leaving the temple, we pulled out into the street and saw a man handing out newspapers and little DVDs. I was intrigued because there was a picture of the Saviour and a picture of Joseph Smith on the cover. It's called "Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith," and is produced (as far as I can tell) by an organization called "Search for the Truth." In other words, this wolf in sheep's clothing was handing out DVD's to let people visiting the temple know the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. I'll edit that I think: the differences between Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between the Christianity of today and the Christianity from Biblical times. A big difference.

So this is just an introduction to that video, which I'll watch within the week, and then post on. It's not looking good though; I'm only three and a half minutes in and I've found two errors. The first is within a quote by Orson Pratt, which is shown onscreen and states, "Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever gratefull for the information." As I'm an English major, I can't ignore the spelling mistake in the word "grateful." As for this quote, it's from a periodical Elder Pratt published in called The Seer (careful, that's a large PDF file), and that particular quote comes from an article he wrote defending polygamy. In 1865, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve released this statement with regard to Elder Pratt's teachings, "The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."

The next error seems to just be a part of what mainstream Christianity likes to do, that is, "simplify" the scriptures. On screen we're shown a supposed quote from the Book of Abraham, found within the LDS' Pearl of Great Price. Now, if you just read what it says, it seems like they're actually quoting the scripture, but instead they quote part of it and "simplify" the rest. Here's what they show: "Our Father said, 'Whom shall I send?' Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, 'Here am I, send me." The way I first read it made me think the way most people would, that they were quoting, word for word, from the scriptures. I picked up my scriptures and thumbed through it until I found Abraham 3:27, curious about what they "simplified." The scripture reads: "And the Lord said" Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first." Now, I understand that mainstream Christianity uses different terms for the Saviour and for God, but is it really so difficult to understand? My real upset comes from the way they format this, making it appear as a quote when it isn't. Format, people, format.

All right, so this has been, like I said, the introduction. Yes, three and a half minutes has been stretched into two large paragraphs. Using simple math, this hour and twenty minute long video will probably be turned into about 23 paragraphs. Not only am I working on this video now, but I've got a commentary/review on current Quorum of the Twelve President, Boyd K. Packer's "The Holy Temple," (synopsis found here) in the works, as well as the previously mentioned posts on excommunication, the documentary known as "The Mormons," prayer regarding the Book of Mormon, and one on the purpose of temples. In other words, make sure you check back weekly for new posts!

Why all the fuss?

When I first had contact with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it was from the missionaries - I had never heard any of the anti-Mormon arguments or discussion. Personally, I don't think it would have mattered. A persons religious worship should be between them and God, and when I prayed about the Book of Mormon I really began that relationship with God.
When I did start hearing the anti-Mormon banter, I didn't understand why so many people would be trying to "disprove," or "destroy" the Church! It just didn't make sense to me! It does now.
Those questions, "why are they always hating on us?" ("us" referring to other LDS), "what do they have against the Church?" are naive. Naivety isn't bad, and I'm not trying to insult people who wonder these things. It's all part of our progression. But it seems to me that those questions are not dissimilar from the "why me?" questions.

So why all the hate? Of course there are also other reasons, but it's really no wonder. If you claim to have the fullness of Christ's restored gospel, a claim which if true would mean that all other churches don't have the full gospel, you're gonna end up stepping on some toes. And toe-stepping typically isn't appreciated.

For now, I'm going to step on some toes and sum up every single reason anyone has ever had for leaving or "hating on" the Church. And, I'll do it in one word. So what's today's word of the day?
Pride.

Joseph Smith and false prophecies

All right, so my YouTube friend asked me "if Joseph Smith spoke a false prophecy in the name of the Lord, would you still uphold him as a true prophet?" I'm going to attempt to draw you into the process my thoughts went through as I worked with the question.

I didn't instantly jump to one answer or the other, and I think doing so, to either answer, would be wrong. I try my best to think through things, weigh the arguments on both sides and then work with what I know to come up with an answer.

I'm really big into criminology, and the brain and how people think fascinates me; working off the interest I listed first there, I drew a comparison to this guy's question: If a man told me, honestly, that he had killed someone, could I support him if he was pleading innocent? This may very well be an extreme example, but I think they're beneficial for really bringing out the true thoughts of a person. My answer, and yours, I hope, is no, I could not. Now, while Joseph Smith was no murderer, if I somehow was privy to information that proved - not through argument or such - that he was truly a false prophet, then no, of course I couldn't stand behind a statement to the contrary.

When I read this question, I assumed (because I do that a lot) that this information I was being privy to was from the Lord, not from a man. This would require that I have some kind of intense authority, even over that which Joseph Smith claimed to possess, and which our Prophet, Thomas Monson holds claim to.

I think I'm getting a little bit too deep here, so let's back out for a bit. Three things come to mind when I think about people claiming Joseph Smith was a false prophet based on some of his prophecies which didn't "come true." First I think about how limited I am by my mortal mind, then about how limiting the human definition of the word "prophecy/prophesy" is, and finally I think of my understanding of how the human measurement of time is not God's time. Let's go through these three, then go on from there.

Firstly, the limitations of my brain. My siblings would love to see me write exclusively on this subject, so for now I'll humour them. To demonstrate this, I'm going to ask you to think about eternity. Do it. Now. How's that working for you? Can you actually imagine an infinite amount of time? Something that neither begins, nor ends? Can you imagine what the edge of space looks like? Does space have an edge? It doesn't actually take much until we feel like our brains are on the frying pan. I think sitting through an advanced physics class would push my brain to the edge. In that case I'd just be diving into the pool without testing the waters first, but the questions before that, about space and eternity, those questions are, thus far, unanswerable, inconceivable.

Next, to explain my second point. When I think of the word, "prophecy/prophesy," I think of it's definition. Some may think of various prophets (Adam, Abraham, Moses) but not me, and this is because I'm an English major. So what I think, is of how limited the definition of the word is, and how it's defined by the average person. To prophesy today is, some people think, equivocal to prediction. If someone is prophesying, then it's thought that they're predicting the future. I don't know about you, but I contend that this is a pathetic definition of that word. Prophesying is so much more than that, and because of my major, I looked up the origins of the word. Prophecy is the action of prophets, and "prophet" comes from the Greek word "prophetes," which means an interpreter or spokesperson, especially with the gods, or God. This in turn comes from "pro", meaning "before" and the root of "phanai," which is "to speak." I like it. One could turn around and say, "this shows that prophets are predictors, because they are 'before-speakers,' speaking before something happens." I'll still disagree. They're getting their "before-speak" from God, who knows and understands all, is the same before, now and forever, so I argue that "before" is a synonym for God. Under that context, prophets are God-speakers. The only definition of prophecy that I truly accept as being full, is "to speak as a mediator between God and humankind, or in God's stead." This includes any "predictions," as well as other guidance the Lord gives his people, without being so narrow as the typical definition as to exclude anything other than predictions of the future.

OK, and now to show that God's time is not our time. I think the best way this is illustrated is through the use of countless predictions of Christ's coming in the Old Testament, as well as in the Book of Mormon. How long did Jews wait for their Redeemer? I think a better question is how long did humanity wait for their Redeemer? Genesis 4 talks about Cain and Abel offering sacrifices to the Lord; Abraham was to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, and Moses even demanded of Pharaoh that he let them offer sacrifices - they're even commanded to and build a tabernacle, or temple, in the desert so they could perform those sacrifices! So, why all the sacrifices? Why did the Lord want all these burnt animals? There has to be a good reason, especially if Moses was commanded to build one. Scripture provided by the Latter-day Saints explains that because Jesus Christ hadn't come and performed the Atonement, the sins of the people had to be cleansed some other way. This other way was through burnt offerings, and in some cases through the use of a scapegoat, or Yom Kippur, as the ceremony is called. To answer my own question, how long has humanity waited for their Savior? Since the Creation, since the time of Adam. Moses and Adam, they knew a Savior would come, but they didn't know when. God had appointed a certain time for Jesus Christ to come to earth, despite the fact that I'm sure these prophets of old prayed mightily for the Savior to come, what was to them, soon. Another perfect example is the Second Coming. When is it? No one but God knows.

And to think, these were just some of the things that went through my mind, but this man asked me to take a full day, so instead I've turned it into a (so far...) three-part blog-posting blitz!

If I want to emphasize anything here, it's that in this hypothetical situation the information I was receiving of Joseph Smith being a false prophet was from the Lord, not from man.

All right! Whoo, we've come a long way! And this is where we'll stay for now. In my next post I think I'll go over some scriptures that "define" a prophet. One scripture I'll spend some time on is used by loads of anti-Mormons to "prove" that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. I'll also demonstrate that although God doesn't change, man does, and therefore the prophecies given by prophets can, and as we'll see, do change.

Are you a Mormon, or a Christian?

I have a way of drawing people to me that I can't explain, so I just embrace it. Since I love discussion and in particular, discussions on religious topics, I took up the opportunity when it was presented to me. Lemme explain, shall I?

I love YouTube. Why? Because of the sheer number of nutty people! Granted, there are some really cool people on there - in fact, many of them are cool, and just happen to be insane - but I tend to float towards the anti-Mormon material.

Now, the sleeves get rolled up, the eyebrows are raised and you ask, "But Katie! Are you as insane as the people you just mentioned?? Why would you go anywhere near that stuff!" In short: So I know what's out there and how to respond to it. There's a brilliant talk that Hugh Nibley gave called, "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book," and although we (referring to members of the LDS Church) can just repeat what he says and dismiss the arguments made by anti-Mormons as being old and ridiculous, we 'ought not to. Again, why? Because the sad truth is that these arguments aren't limited to the past, they're still being parroted today. Not everyone who repeats these arguments are doing so maliciously; a lot of people just repeat what they hear. A common example of this is the practice of polygamy. And although the Church stopped that practice in 1890, I'm still asked if I'm going to have to share my husband, what I think it'll be like to be wife #2, etc. In high school, there was even a rumour started that I had entered into an arranged and polygamous engagement!

This isn't the LDS Church playing victim - having to "defend" itself from these falsities - but this is evident in everyday life. I'll list a some of these myths from various facets of life...
One I like is the idea that gum (or some other food) takes 7 years to digest. I've heard this about gum and I've also heard it about Bits & Bites Snack Mix.
Another one, that giving kids sugar makes them nuts! Or rather, hyperactive. Have you ever heard that humans only use 10% of their brains? What a waste! Thankfully it's false. How about shaving your legs causes the hair to grow back thicker and darker? It doesn't, period. I could literally go on and on with these examples. My point? Not everything that's "common knowledge" is true, often thankfully.

OK, so let me get back on topic here. Why do I view anti-Mormon materials? So I know what silly arguments my friend's atheist boyfriend is going to pull up the next time I see him. Understanding what twisted things people are saying about my beliefs help me understand those beliefs better. Easy explanation: research has a tendency to make one learn, especially when it's focused research. Crazy, I know, but that's how it goes - a fact, I assure you.

So I had posted a response to this anti-Mormon video (which I won't link to because it can definitely be a stumbling block) on YouTube, and when I checked my e-mail the other day I had a message. The message went a little like this: Are you Mormon?
So I sent a message back saying that I was, and he responded with this, which I find intriguing in and of itself:
Being a Christian I'm finding it increasingly more difficult to determine if the person I'm speaking to is Christian or a Mormon.

He explained that he figured it was a new trend among members of the Church and said he was attempting to figure it out. You see, he likes to learn, so he does research. For that I can give him props. Our messages went back and forth and what seemed like a challenge to me was when he said if I wanted to have a conversation with him, I'd have to have thick skin. I'm a big fan of challenges (goes back to my investigator days), and when he said that I was reminded of that atheist boyfriend my friend has. This friend's boyfriend was saying how he was doing his best to really get under my skin. At this point one of the other guys we were with, who is a long-time friend of mine said, "Even I haven't been able to offend Katie yet." Instead of accepting defeat though, this spirited atheist just said something about re-doubling his efforts to get to me. Don't get me wrong though, I love spending time with these guys because they're fantastic people.

So that comment really peaked my interest, and I said I was open to a conversation if he was. He agreed, and then asked the question. I can only assume he thought it would trip me up.

The question is this: If Joseph Smith spoke a false prophecy in the name of the Lord, would you still uphold him as a true prophet?

I don't know what your answer would be, but inside of 5 minutes I had an answer, and within 20 minutes I had a coherent response to explain my position.

And my position will be explained in further detail on Sunday, because I'm exhausted! And with that, to tie my exhaustion into the scriptures, and for your reading pleasure:

D&C 88:124
"Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated."