What is the unoriginal Mark 16 doing in the Book of Mormon?

I wrote a long piece about this a while back. The PDF with a detailed comparison is here.

The Book of Mormon (BoM) is a great book. I enjoy reading it. I know that applying the positive principles leads me to be a better person. The Alma 32 test shows the fruit is good.

Is that because it draws heavily from the King James Version of the Bible (KJV)?

Everyone knows that 2 Nephi is full of the Old Testament's Isaiah, it's supposed to given they quote from the same source.

But what is the KJV New Testament doing in an ancient Mesoamerican text?

Mark 16:15-18 has the final words of Jesus before his ascendancy. Mormon 9:22 then tells us that Jesus had told his disciples in the New World, in the hearing of the multitude, the same thing. Mormon‘s account has Jesus using identical wording to Mark 16:15-18. This isn't a problem per se. The 3 Nephi account of Christ‘s visit to the New World has multiple occasions of him using the very same wording to the Old World – the Sermon on the Mount is one such example. I see no problem in Jesus having a consistent message on both sides of the world.

It would also be reasonable to find a parallel in his last words to disciples on both sides of the world. There is however a challenge to this parallel.

There is compelling evidence (including an article from BYU) that Mark 16:9-20 was added much later (up to 200 years later) and is not Marcan. A detailed article can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

There are several reasons it might have been added later. As a foreshadow of what happens in Acts, a way of making Mark have a better ending. There's more info in my linked PDF. BYU's Lincoln H. Blumell concludes that Mark 16:9–20 is 'Likely Added (Unoriginal)' (p. 24 and p. 60).

Here are some of the Mark 16 verses that have been added around 200AD (and are not thought to be the actual, original words of Christ):

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

And here are the words that Moroni writes in around 400AD. He is adding what he thinks is a final chapter to his father's writings as a last message and quotes what Jesus said as a parting message to the Nephite disciples (he mentions the disciples who should tarry):

22 For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;
23 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned;
24 And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover

Some questions:

• If Mark 16 isn‘t an accurate record is it reasonable for Mormon to use an identical phrase?
• Why does the phrase "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" appear in Mark only (possibly interpolated in 2nd C or later) but no-where else in the Bible and then only in latter-day publications: Book of Mormon and multiple D&C references? (112:28-29, 68:8-10, 84:62-74)
• Why do we have no record of this promise anywhere else? Why is there no reference to this promise in the actual account in 3 Nephi?
• Where did the notion of the signs that follow believers come from? Are these signs and promises still valid today? There are some strong parallels to Acts with the speaking in tongues and particularly Acts 28, when Paul is bitten by a snake. This could be either seen as fulfillment of prophesy, or a source of inspiration for an interpolator's addition to Mark 16. What are these doing in the BoM?
• Supposing Jesus really did say both, what is the likelihood that: (a) He said it in the Old World, someone heard it and noted it down, Mark (or someone else) later added it at the back of Mark 16, it was copied and handed down through the ages before being translated from Greek/Latin/Hebrew into Jacobean English in 1611 and then (b) Jesus also said it in the New World, someone noted it down, Moroni later found it or knew about it and added it at the end of the BoM in Hebrew using Egyptian characters on gold plates which he later gave to Joseph Smith who translated them (without looking at them) in 1829 and dictated the exact same words as the KJV translators.

When I first wrote the PDF I was still trying to find a more balanced view. I'm struggling with that. I currently have the view that Mark 16 is not original and is not anything Jesus ever said. As such, it has no reasonable place in the Book of Mormon either.

Some might argue that Joseph was inspired to copy/parrot the words in the KJV. But why inspire someone to parrot words that would later be shown to be unoriginal? Seems like a pretty unhelpful stumbling block.

Mark 16/Mormon 9 is just one in many examples of the KJV New Testament being used, word-for-word in the BoM. There are some problems with that already, the last bullet in the list above shows how odd it is to have an identical rendition when both went through many human hands. Our canon states that the KJV Bible is not translated correctly due to the human involvement in it. If that's the case, why does the BoM rely so heavily on it? Often word-for-word?

What I find worse about the Mark/Mormon issue is the BoM is quoting a bible passage that many who have studied it (including LDS) do not even consider to be original. Is this simply more evidence for the BoM being modern, not ancient, scripture?

Continuing Revelation Sunday School lesson made no sense

I visited a relative's ward today and sat through a grueling Sunday School.

It was "Lesson 42: Continuing Revelation to Latter-day Prophets"

I tried to prepare myself as best possible. I selected a few quotes from my 'library.' I was ready with things like:

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourse 9:150)

BRIGHAM YOUNG, made in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, January 12, 1862
http://pt.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/9/27

And:

“[W]hile all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one’s logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within.”

President Hugh B. Brown, An Abundant Life:The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown

The lesson started and the teacher asked about modern revelation. "What are some recent revelation we've had?" The following came up:

- Lowering the mission age for men and women
- Joining the Relief Society and young women meetings into one
- The new program of "Hastening the work"

We're a church based on big-picture foundations such as the "weeping God of Enoch" found in the Book of Moses or the range of ideas in the "King Follet Discourse" or the strength of foundation available from a principle like Alma 32. And yet revelation today boils down to two administrative changes, likely instigated by a research team, and a marketing slogan.

It was ironic therefore that a member stuck up his hand and said, "We're so lucky to have revelation in our church. My friends in other churches don't have revelation. They seem so unfulfilled in their religion."

There were general nods of agreement from the classroom, but I couldn't let that comment go. I put up my hand and said:

"It's really important that we don't become arrogant as members of the church in believing that we're the only people in the world entitled to revelation. Our prophets and scriptures simply don't teach that leaders and members of other faiths do not receive revelation. Elder Uchtdorf once said the following:

"Latter-day Saints believe that all human beings are God’s children and that He loves all of us. He has inspired not only people of the Bible and the Book of Mormon but other people as well to carry out His purposes through all cultures and parts of the world. God inspires not only Latter-day Saints but also founders, teachers, philosophers, and reformers of other Christian and non-Christian religions."

Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf
http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/global-mormonism-21st-century/20-church-cross-cultural-world

My voice and hands shook a little as I read it. Nerves, emotion, frustration. Maybe just the welling emotion that I'd had enough. It's frustrating to be sat in a room full of people who don't even believe what their own leaders have taught them. Or maybe I just listen to the wrong leaders. Maybe I cling on to a small minority of 30 quotes, gleaned from combing through nearly 200 years of leadership perspectives, while the majority supports the complete opposite.

Maybe the emotion was the realisation that the Mormon middle-way that I find so appealing is simply not a viable option in a 21st Century world. We're becoming an increasing human family of certainties. I'm right. You're wrong. Shut up. I recognise that my one-in-7billion perspective is almost certainly wrong. It's a simple statistical probability. It's difficult being in a group of people who don't appear to have considered that possibility. Maybe they have. Perhaps deep down they are doubting their faith too. I can't imagine it's possible to be immune to it. But they speak in terms that makes it hard to see that.

Already feeling emotionally battered, the lesson then moved on to the topic of the priesthood being given to black members. I had to just bight my tongue. I didn't want to further embarrass my in-laws in their home-ward. Of all of the issues and problems in church history, the racism and ignorance that lead to the introduction and perpetuation of a ban on black members having the priesthood and attending the temple is one the worst. When an in-law said after the meeting how wonderful the restoration had been back in their day and how President McKay had been praying for it since the 1950s and was told that only a revelation would bring about the change, I replied "It's a shame that there were too many racist apostles back then who were unwilling to allow it to happen decades earlier." My relative looked a little shocked and the conversation topic quickly changed.

Blacks and the priesthood is perhaps the greatest contributor to my lack of confidence in leadership. I will not allow myself to have my thoughts and perspectives on life, humanity and deity shackled, like a lumbering cart, to the back end of a long line of trucks being pulled along a track by a steam engine. I simply don't believe that our leaders receive revelation and guidance in the way we teach our primary children, investigators and new members.

I respect many of our leaders as good teachers. There were several helpful and moving talks in the most recent General Conference. I also appreciate a lot of what Joseph "revealed" or gathered/collated/amalgamated. I like the picture of God and the meaning of life painted by Joseph Smith. I find it satisfying and a good framework. I appreciate the principles of universalism that are buried away in hidden corners of Mormonism. But they are so obscured by the absolutism and fundamentalism of the majority of members that I often question whether there really is a place for me too.

I often use the analogy of the great Mormon ocean liner, that can only be expected to change course by small degrees. Today I feel crowded to the very edge of the ship, half-hanging over the railings. Do I look for the opportunity to jump to the welcome offer of other ships headed for the same port or do I try to wade my way back into the fellow-passenger melee? Can I continue trying to represent the inclusive big-picture messages of universalism, humanism and personalised curriculum that I believe the Mormon passengers need to hear?

Eugene England's Weeping God of Mormonism

I read an interesting essay published by Dialogue by Eugene England the other day.

Here are some key highlights and thoughts:

p.63
The weeping God of Mormon finitism whom I am trying to describe creates a world for soul-building, which can only succeed if it includes exposure of our souls to the effects of natural law, as well as maximum latitude for us to exercise our agency as we learn how the universe works. Evil is a natural condition of such a world, not because God creates evil for soul-building, but because evil inevitably results from agency freed to grapple with natural law in this mortal world. You can't have one without the other, not because God says so, but rather because the universe, which was not created ex nihilo and, thus, has its own intractable nature, says so. Thus, God is not omnipotent.
p.69-70 "...the "old absolutism"... has remained alive and well in Mormonism and now seems on the ascendant.

What I love about this essay is it perfectly illustrates a point I a gradually coming to terms with. The church leaders disagree. They campaign for one perspective or another. Hyrum Smith and Joseph Smith didn't always preach the same doctrine. Orson Pratt and Brigham Young were hammer and tongs against each other on the nature of God:

For example:

"Some men seem as if they could learn so much and no more. They appear to be bounded in their capacity for acquiring knowledge, as Brother Orson has, in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power, but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children; they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful."
Journal of Discourses 11 (Liverpool, England: B. Young, January 1867),286

By definition Orson Hyde, as an apostle, was also a "prophet, seer and revelator." That's what we sustain the 15 as. So if two "prophets" are creating warring factions then it simply illustrates how heavily a prophet is influence by his personal perspectives and paradigms. The essay also gives examples of different generations of prophets challenging and contradicting each other. Pulling the doctrine one way or another, like a big lump of play-dough.

This statement also rang true:

"...many absolutistic thinkers, including Mormons, in trying to exalt God by contrasting him to the mere human, instead begin to demean him as impersonal, passionless, even cruel. We tend to forget that all our attempts to understand and describe God are anthropomorphic, originating in our human notions and comparisons, and that using the more abstract, irrational, supposedly superhuman images may only make God appear more inhuman..."

In other words, we each create God in our own image, not the other way round. If God is actually inconceivable, Joseph Smith and several subsequent Mormon leaders painted a picture of God that is appealing. By making him seem more like us it allows us to be more able and willing to approach him.

On the other hand... others don't want a finite, limited, graduated human God. They want an omnipotent God that they can trust entirely. They can invest everything in him, safe in the knowledge that even if they don't understand, he does.

Truth is, I've absolutely no idea what God is really like. Is he the sub-god in the corner of a universe or the super-being that is bigger even than the universe itself? Does it matter?

Many times there are examples of God giving us metaphors and perspectives that stop us being crippled by the unknown "size" and "nature" of God. D&C 19:7 teaches us:

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.
6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

So for a while he was happy for his children to believe in a black and white, heaven or hell. Not because that was the reality, but because it was useful. I believe the three degrees teaching of Mormonism is a similarly simplified metaphor for a future that our human minds could never conceive. I had enough trouble scraping a 'B' in 11th grade Science. What hope would there be for me if God tried to teach me the actual reality of how he and all of the universe really works.

Perhaps it doesn't matter if what we are taught does not turn out to be the reality. It only matters if what we are taught turns out to be useful. If it can "work upon the hearts of (some of) the children of men" then it is useful. For those it doesn't work on, there are many other equally "express" perspectives available.

Mormonism has found different ways of "express" definitions in order to "work upon the hearts." The essay (quoting Thomas Alexander) calls this "express" teachings: "the reconstruction of Mormon doctrine" away from its original radical adventuresomeness, as part of the twentieth-century accommodation to American culture."

I like this essay, even though I'm not sure I agree with his conclusions. I like it because he demonstrates I don't have to.

There are many questions that actually there is not a definitive answer to. The article shows that "prophets, seers and revelators" (whether presidents or apostles) have all had very different and sometimes conflicting perspectives on the nature of God.

As Hugh Nibley said:

There's no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We're to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit.
Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they'd better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things.

The long and winding road... with plenty more to go

3 years ago my wife stopped attending church. I continued attending with kids.
2 years ago I accepted a job in Asia and we moved out there at the start of 2012 (we've recently returned to UK).

Asia turned my LDS world upside down. We were in a big expat unit of around 200 members. It felt very different to what church had always been like. I guess the environment of being expats might have accentuated it, but it felt like a real "us and them" attitude. We're right, the world out there is wrong, shut up.

The "world out there" was certainly different. But I quickly discovered it was not wrong. Amazing, diverse people with fascinating beliefs and philosophies. Happy, fulfilled, progressing, "Christlike" people who had barely heard of Christianity, never mind Mormonism.

It puzzled me for a while. We visited several different countries/regions with a range of cultures and religions. How could these billions of brilliant people be living a life of second bests? How could Mormonism, this predominantly Western religion enhance these people's lives, loves and perspectives?

At the same time I was seeing my wife, still not attending church, find a fulfilling, enriching, happy way of life. Her new view of the world was still a positive one supporting personal progression.

One day, June 2012, something broke inside me. We were on holiday in Philippines. Sitting alone in sacrament meeting while my wife and kids were back at the hotel.

A chapel full of impoverished Filippinos, a couple of tourists and one white retired businessman stood at the pulpit, berating the congregation at not being good enough. His message seemed to boil down to: "You are not like me. So you are wrong and need to change"

It epitomised everything that was bothering me about Christianity and Mormonism's Western imposition. A complete insensitivity and lack of appreciation for other cultures and perspectives.

I know the speaker didn't represent the church. But that day he captured, in one talk, what had been bothering me for several months.

As the congregation sang "I have a family here on earth..." I stood up, walked out, and went back to the hotel, wondering if I'd ever feel the same about the church.

When the holiday finished I decided it was time to investigate the origins of Mormon attitudes and behaviours. My wife had wonderfully and generously never imposed anything on me. Had never pushed me to read the things that had bothered her and lead to her changed perspective. I love her all the more for the respect she had given me to walk my own path. My decision to start investigating our origins was entirely my own.

I studied history at University, I'm also a market researcher by profession. I understand the importance of looking at information from many angles. I appreciate the impact of subjectivity and the influence of analysing data with a conclusion already set.

If someone is convinced Joseph was a prophet, a study of history will probably unfold to confirm that.
Equally, if someone is certain he was a fraud, they are more likely to see the evidence that supports that.

I decided to give myself at least 1 year. I would study every key aspect of history and doctrine I could. I would read many sides of the same story. I would go to the original source, in context, where possible. I would, like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof, make myself say "On the other hand..."

I was aware that in starting the process, I had subjectivity just like everyone else. I didn't want to leave. I wanted to go through the study process and still stay at church. But I also wanted to understand what the church was. What it really taught and what part in played in my life.

Within a few weeks of digging and reading I was spiritually crushed.

I had never had any real interest in Mormon history and knew very little of it. I had visited FAIR a few times to try to answer questions a few friends and family had raised in the past. I was aware of the multiple first vision accounts and had squared that. I was vaguely aware of Joseph's polygamy but considered it to be more dynastic sealings. I knew the Sunday School church hostory manuals skipped the awkward bits but had felt no desire to find out what those awkward bits were. I knew very little about Mormon history and origins.

After the holiday I wrote a list of questions. I started reading the old FARMS archives, Nibley's "complete works" (by topic), FairMormon, Wikipedia and a few critical websites (which I won't list out of respect for the readers who prefer to avoid them).

It felt like one bit at a time, everything I thought I knew about the church was violently dismantled. It wasn't only the critical websites that hurt. They were the ones I used the least and the ones I treated with the most scepticism. I would always go and look up the original sources they quoted in context and recognise that often they were being selective and the big picture was a better picture than they were painting.

Despite this, I was in a full blown crisis of faith. I felt lied to. I felt like I'd suddenly been wrenched out of a bubble of ignorance. A bubble I'd been very happy in but now that it was popped, was never going to be an option.

There were several FARMS ad FAIR articles that confirmed the worst. In their well-intentioned attempts to answer the question or criticism they only compounded, for me, the severity of the problem.

I felt physically sick. One night, while reading a FARMS article ("A nation now extinct...") I genuinely thought I was going to vomit.

I felt angry, frustrated, duped, belittled. I lost confidence in church manuals, teachers and leaders.

I would sit in a lesson, or sacrament meeting and want to stand up and scream when I heard the simplistic, unfounded, whitewashed, misrepresentative nonsense that people were saying. Things that, until a few weeks and months earlier, I was also very happy saying. Nonsense is probably the polite word for it.

I seriously considered resigning my membership in the early days. I felt like I was losing every aspect of belief.

I walked right up to the face of Atheism and seriously considered it a possibility for about a week. As much as I think I wanted to, possibly as a way to ease the pain and confusion, I couldn't do it. Deep down, I knew I still firmly believed in a creator. A divine source of life and purpose.

Having stripped everything right back to that simple core I slowly started to rebuild my house of faith.

I decided I also still believed in Jesus Christ. In 2011, I had made an extensive study of the New Testament. I had developed a lasting love for the behaviour model of Jesus, as well as the personal conviction, through experience, of the healing, invigorating power of the atonement's principles of grace, change, restoration, forgiving and forgiveness.

We are rightly taught that Christ should be the cornerstone of our faith. When everything else crashed down, my foundation remained.

My confidence in Joseph Smith and with it the Book of Mormon, the keystone, had broken. With the central piece removed, the rest of my house of faith fell.

I decided to take time to try to rebuild my faith, one brick at a time. I reminded myself I had promised to give it a year.

As much as I wanted to throw away every brick that had a Mormon stamp on it, I recognised they had fallen, some had cracked but I hadn't properly tested each one. I didn't want to look back in 40 or 50 years time and regret making a life-changing decision in a matter of a few weeks or months.

So I started going back through it all a second time. If I was going to rebuild my house of faith I wanted to test each brick before adding it back in or discarding it.

I joined a few boards and blogs towards the end of 2012. MormonDialogue was a rough ride, but immensely useful for testing my conclusions. They keep you honest. It made me reference and back-up every conclusion I was reaching.

Staylds was another essential forum. It helped me realise I was not alone. That there were 1000s of Mormons who were just like me. Trying to work through the confusion while also staying active. I started a thread where we collected 100s of scriptures and quotes that showed a more universal, inclusive face of Mormonism.

There were a few other websites that were useful places to continue the exploration and debate from many angles.

And so... Here I am today. My house of faith is still a building project. I'm not sure it will ever be finished and it could still change in shape.

Some of the bricks of past perspectives can still be seen, intermingled with new ones I've added. It looks very different from what I had 2 years ago. But it suits me. It works. I like it.

I believe God is the greatest educator. I believe he designs, for each of his children, a personalised curriculum. We still have the agency to accept, adapt or entirely reject it.

I believe that my faith transition, or faith reconstruction has been guided and assisted by God. I believe I remain on the path to godliness.

I recognise that the mode of transport for travelling that path has changed. But I don't believe that matters. It is, for me, the direction of travel that is important.

I embrace and celebrate the diversity of perspectives available to the multi-faceted human race. With seven billion individuals it's not possible to have a "one size fits all" paradigm or framework. But I believe it is possible to have a "seven billion sizes fits each one of us."

Although there are many aspects of Mormon doctrine, origin and perspective that I didn't add back into my house of faith, I believe my personalised paradigm still fits in an LDS community.

I appreciate LDS leaders who, past and present, have preached the principles of diversity, independence and individual accountability.

I press forward, hoping to embrace and continue adding to that diversity.

American Elitism

I know I should be better at ignoring it. But sometimes there are attitudes of a minority of American members that really riles me. I shouldn't let it. But it does.

Recently, on a message board I participate in, one poster made the following comment:

15 Nov 2013 - 1:22 PM:

...I suppose all of this boils down to whether or not the present day United States is the promised latter-day promised land prophesied of in the Book of Mormon. I believe it is very likely that the US is that prophesied promised because it can be demonstrably shown it fits the scriptural description promised land, regardless of whether or the Nephites actually made their abode here or not . Among the many, many indicators that the US is most likely the Prophesied promised land, I've listed some below:

1 The first vision took place here.
2 The Book of Mormon was buried and discovered here.
3 The Book of Mormon was translated and published here.
4 The Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods were restored here.
5 This is the place where the Restored Church of Christ was established and organized.
6 This is the place where many angels of heaven came to restore the gospel and its keys.
7 This is the place where the Doctrine and Covenants was written.
8 This is the place where the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham were restored.
9 This is the place where the Lord commanded His latter-day servants to establish and build Zion.
10 This is the place where the first temples of the dispensation of the fullness of times were erected.
12 This is the place where the world headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is located.
13 This is the place where the center stake of latter-day Zion will be built.
14 This is the place where the New Jerusalem, and the great temple complex, planned by Joseph Smith, will be built.
15 This is the place where the religious pilgrims, who fled the captivity of the European nations of the Gentiles, came as their new promised land, just as described in the Book of Mormon.
16 This is the place where the divinely inspired Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States were produced.
17 This is the place, spoken of in the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon, that was prophesied to miraculously prevail in war against the oppressive Gentile mother lands of captivity in Europe.

My point? Though in some technical sense the United States may not be the Book of Mormon's latter-day land of promise, it may as well be because it fits the description so very well. Even so, like I said, I'm keeping and open mind on the matter; but the United States sure does seem to fit most, if not all, of all the descriptions of the latter-day promised land foreseen in the scriptures. And to top it all off, Apostle Perry, in a recent address, said the US is the latter-day promised land prophesied in the Book of Mormon.

I couldn't help myself and replied:

Wow. You really believe this don't you? You really believe that the United States of America is a divinely appointed, special country.

Genuine question, is this just the belief of Mormons or do lots of Americans also believe in the divine approval of your country?

I squirm at that attitude. That somehow the country and, by implication, the inhabitants, their policies, their expansion plans and global interference, are special, superior and receive divine approval. It's a worryingly scary attitude.

By the way, you missed the Garden of Eden and Adam's altar from your list. You might as well claim to be the origin of the species. The Neanderthals would be happy to give that crown up to the Americans. Once you don a helmet and throw an oval ball with pointy ends onto a field there's little discernible difference. Either that or put a gun in your hands.

And Taffy. Surely taffy is evidence of USA being the best in the world at everything?

I have to remind myself that people like this are not the church. They don't represent the church. They simply represent one perspective in Mormonisms big tent.

Denying the Holy Ghost

I was in a conversation recently which got me thinking.

What if I have denied the Holy Ghost? What if I'm a Son of Perdition? How would I know? One of my nagging fears, which I would imagine others also have, is what if...?

What if the God I believe in is not the God I will meet in the next life? What if orthodox, 'hardline' Mormonism is right and I'm throwing it away?

These quotes suggest that denying the holy ghost is actually an unwillingness to ever repent. That puts a whole new perspective on it. We can't be forgiven for the one thing that denies forgiveness - being unrepentant.

From Joseph Smith:

Quote
All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it ...

From Joseph F. Smith:

Quote
No man can possibly commit the unpardonable sin in ignorance. A man must be brought to a knowledge of Christ; he must receive a testimony of Christ in his heart, and possess light and power, knowledge and understanding, before he is capable of committing that sin. But when a man turns away from the truth, violates the knowledge that he has received, tramples it under his feet, puts Christ again to open shame, denies His atonement, denies the power of the resurrection, denies the miracles that He has wrought for the salvation of the human family, and says in his heart, “It is not true”, and abides in that denial of the truth, after having received the testimony of the Spirit, he commits the unpardonable sin.

From Spencer W. Kimball:

Quote
In the realms of perdition or the kingdom of darkness, where there is no light, Satan and the unembodied spirits of the pre-existence shall dwell together with those of mortality who retrogress to the level of perdition. These have lost the power of regeneration. They have sunk so low as to have lost the inclinations and ability to repent, consequently the gospel plan is useless to them as an agent of growth and development.

Universalism in Mormonism

I'll write more on this later, but just wanted to tag two worthwhile articles to come back to later:

Universalism and the Revelations of Joseph Smith

In order for Universalism to work, this article is important:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Where I'm at... one year on, two years on, three years on

3 years ago, several changes of circumstance and new opportunities lead me to evaluate what motivates me and consider what I believe.
2 years ago I started the process of working in a new part of the world that opened my eyes to the wonder and diversity of the great human family.
1 year ago I started participating in online LDS communities as a way of articulating my perspectives.

As a marker point 1, 2 and 3 years on here is what I believe:

1. I retain a belief that we are not alone, that the earth was created for us by a greater power. I call him God or Heavenly Father, but I respect those of other faiths who call the creator by many other names.
2. I believe "I was, I am, I will be." The eternal nature of who I am is, for me, the most important message Joseph Smith taught. With a belief that I am an eternal traveler I see earth as an important stage in my journey.
3. I believe that the purpose of our turn on earth is to learn how to become better people. I believe the essential measure of progress and goodness is the way we treat each other. To not only treat others the way I would want to be treated, but to learn and discover how to treat others the way they would want to be treated.
4. I believe this life to be an elevation and not a descent or step backwards. I believe this is a life to improve us not test us to breaking, I believe in a loving God, a God who weeps with us while respecting our independence.
5. I believe I am and will be personally accountable for the standards I adopt and set for myself. I believe this will be the case for each and every one of us. I believe we will firstly be accountable to ourselves. We will, and already do, recognise the times and ways we could have done better and need to do better in future.
6. I believe in a God who offers each of his children a personalised curriculum. I do not believe that one size fits all. As such I don't believe Mormonism is right for everyone. I consider it to be an important part of my life, but am very comfortable with other people following different faiths and standards.
7. I embrace the offer of Jesus Christ. I consider the atonement's teaching of mercy, grace and forgiveness to be essential to my ability to progress and grow through being able to try, try and try again.
8. I consider the example of Jesus and others through the ages or in scripture to be valuable behaviour models. I'm not certain of the historical reality of some of those people, but still find their lives and experiences inspiring and instructive.
9. I recognise that many religious and philosophical perspectives are able to embrace the principle of continued improvement and doing good to others without Christianity. I believe that their perspectives are equally valid and lead them to the same end, which is what ultimately matters.
10. I believe Joseph was sincere and not a fraud. I think the same of leaders since him. They have made plenty of mistakes but so have I. When the prophet speaks my thinking has only just started. I don't agree with them all the time. I don't think we're supposed to. I appreciate them as sages and leaders but I am not bound by every thing they say. I do not believe it was ever intended to be that way.
11. I do not believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint is the only true church and all others false. I believe the "church of the lamb" is best described as an attitude, a behaviour, a direction of travel. I believe in one path to godliness with many imperfect vehicles for travelling on the path. Mormonism is one of those vehicles. It's not a perfect vehicle but it works for me.
12. I consider the LDS ordinances and commandments to be important ways of making promises to do more good. I don't think they are essential to the whole human family, but I recognise the benefit in offering them through temple work as an act of service and as a way of teaching their importance to me.
13. I accept that some Mormons disagree with me. I consider their absolutist attitudes to be part of their personalised curriculum and the diversity of the great human family. If they need absolutes to persuade them to do good then I'm happy they have found them. I just hope they will accept and respect my participation without absolutes.
14. I continue to associate with  the LDS faith tradition because I appreciate the friendships I have, the community I'm a part of, many of the principles taught within it and, most especially, the big picture answers to who I am, why I'm here and where I'm going.
15. I am, ultimately, a Universalist.